2026 Bristol Bay Finfish Meeting (1/18/2026)

All right. Good morning, everybody. Thanks for your patience. The time is 9:29. It is January 18th.

We are back on the record. I have 6 of 7 members present. Mr. Swenson had to leave us. We, I think, added an extra day to this meeting thinking that we were going to meet it, and clearly we did. And he had another obligation that he, he needed to meet.

So he's not going to be with us for the remainder of the meeting. But we still have a party of 6. So let's go ahead and get into deliberations on Group 3. Group 3 is the sport fisheries group and includes 11 proposals. And it begins with proposal number 105.

Lee, take it away. Madam Chair, for the record, Lee Borden, Bristol Bay Area Manager for Division of Sport Fish. Proposal 105, 5AAC06, new section. Madam Chair. Oodoodah.

Second. Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, this proposal would establish a king salmon management plan for streams located in Bristol Bay that do not currently have management plans in place and have active sport, subsistence, or personal use fisheries associated with them. Such as the Kwijak, Alagnak, Naknek, Igushik, Yugashik, Sandy, and Meshik drainages. Currently, the only king salmon management plans in Bristol Bay are the Nushagak-Molchatna King Salmon Management Plan and the Nushagak District King Salmon Stock of Concern Management Plan.

If this proposal were adopted, management strategies would need to be established for the drainages mentioned above. A plan could be simple and outline bag possession and annual limits, as well as time and area and terminal tackle regulations. A plan could also include subsistence and commercial fisheries management actions and include escapement goals. This could require a combination of spawning surveys and weirs in conjunction with statistical analysis that could be used to establish sustainable escapement goals. There is little stock assessment data available for king salmon in these drainages.

There are long-standing sockeye salmon assessment projects in in place for these drainages, but in many cases king salmon spawn below assessment projects and are not well assessed via aerial survey. The department is unable to support a prescriptive management approach because current stock assessment monitoring tools and management capacity are insufficient to support— to inform such a plan. Creating new king salmon management plans for the rivers mentioned above would require the department and the board to comprehensively evaluate all fisheries and develop regulations bag possession and annual limits and possibly develop escapement goal ranges for these systems. Stock status analysis and population estimates may be need— or may need to be performed to inform the process. The department is neutral on the allocative aspects of this proposal.

Madam Chair. Thank you. More discussion?

Alrighty, I'll kick it off. Um, so there's, there's a couple of proposals like this in here that just says create management plans, but there is no guidance to what the proposer wants in a management plan. There is no components of a management plan. Furthermore, as noted, I think, in the Department of Law's memo, the board doesn't have any fiscal authority in this arena. We can't compel the department to spend money to create assessments and all the components that would be required to develop a management plan.

At this time, I am very sympathetic to what the proposer was attempting to do because I agree that I think we would all be served. Most importantly, the resource would be better served, the fish would be better served by having better assessments and management strategies to make sure that they're being, I guess, used sustainably, but We don't have that. And so it's kind of a chicken-egg scenario in my mind, is kind of how I'm looking at it. But I'm interested in other people's thoughts. Mr. Wood.

Yeah, thank you. I am looking at the, the proposals to follow. I wish there was a management plan to help with some guidance, actually. And when I was looking at this realizing that we have the management plan in the Nushagak, but it sounds like both the Naknek and potentially the Alagnik River could benefit from a plan in lieu of a management plan as it's described in 5 AAC 39.200. The primary goal of these management plans is to protect the sustained yield of the state's fishery resources while at the same time providing an equitable, equitable distribution of the available harvest between various users.

I think a plan would help the board be able to make decisions based on some really foundational numbers rather than especially some of these proposals that come in about one user group against the other, dot, dot, dot, and trying to make decisions that way.

So therefore, I really support a management plan. I would say for both of these rivers, especially because they have different run timings as well for coho and kings, which makes them a little bit more vulnerable. In lieu of them, we use bag possession and annual limits and hope that the department just remains really conservative, especially on kings at this point in time. So we want everything. There's just no money to pay for it.

I get it. But that's why I really do support the idea of this having a management plan on both the Naknek and potentially the Alagnak as well, but it's probably unrealistic at this time. Yeah, based on the figures or the numbers in Table 105, I would add Togiak to that list as well, since the sport catch harvest in those three rivers all exceed 1,000, so. Mr. Chamberlain. Yeah, I think Member Wood very— and Chair Carlson-Vandort hit the nail on the head.

The thing I'd like to add on that is, you know, I think one of the things we've heard from this board on this is that we need more information in these 9 river systems and the amount of information we're operating with in making some of our management decisions is woefully inadequate. I would love nothing more than to see a king salmon management plan like is envisioned here. But in— for a 5, 6-day meeting for us to put one in place, I see this as very aspirational without it. But we need— we need a reasonable mechanism to do that. And I do support the idea of this, but There's far too much work to be done for to put this in place at this point in time.

Mr. Irwin.

That's OK. Yeah, thank you to my fellow board members for their prior comments. It doesn't feel good to consider the, the conversation that's been had at this meeting and how obvious it is that we need escapement goals and we need enumeration and we need to understand what these other species are, what's happening with them in these other rivers, to not take some sort of action about kings and other rivers at this meeting. However, as was previously stated, we don't have enough information and data to establish any plan right now, and a plan also wouldn't provide us any additional information at this time. It would simply be putting in, you know, it would be up to the managers obviously, but it could do anything from different gear types, restrictions, and such. And so until we have a better idea of what's going on here and how to address, address it directly, um, I don't know that I could, I could support this at the time either.

But I'm— I really would love to be able to see some more enumeration and some more numbers on how these other species are doing, because it's an extremely mixed stock fishery and we need to be able to understand the other populations.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, I'd like to say I'm— I think this is where a board that comes in and has to look at all these proposals really needs to rely on the department's advice. So, you know, a lot of these are neutral, and when you're neutral, it doesn't totally help. It is good to talk to, uh, the.

Individuals within the department that have got a lifetime of experience on these rivers to really get a sense of, um, where they're really at. And thank God you're managing them with that experience. I gotta say, that speaks a lot to the department and the skill level that you put in these areas, as well as the user groups. So I wouldn't have understood as much as I did already about these rivers without talking to them or hearing from them directly. But I gotta say, in these cases, like, we need management plans, oh, that would be great, but you have your ability to conservatively execute the fishery.

And I guess our plan, our, our part in it all is to make sure, can it handle it? So, but thank you for, for being there to help make these decisions.

Mr. Payton. Thank you, Madam Chair. So although the, yeah, the board certainly doesn't have, you know, fiscal power to tell the, the department what to spend money You know, these board meetings are the time where the public and the board talks about data and what they need and, you know, whether to keep a fishery open or closed. If we don't have the data, we, we manage precautionary. But you do have our commitment here today to look into seeing what, you know, some starting up either aerial assessments or helicopter flights are.

I know maybe BBSRI and Reston doing that on the Nush too. And I'll talk to my commercial fish counterpart. But yeah, we're without assessments, you know, we are shooting in the dark a little bit. That's why we manage conservatively. But, you know, hearing feedback from the public and the board when they bring proposals like this highlights, you know, we should look into it and we are going to look into it.

I'm not going to promise that we'll do it at this time, but we are going to look into it and see what we could pull together. Thanks, Mr. Payton. I appreciate that. I mean, I think what definitely what I've heard at this meeting is just a desperate call for more information. And we don't know what's happening in the other rivers.

But if the Nushagak is any indication, I could probably make a relatively educated guess, I guess. So I, again, I'm very sympathetic to what the proposer is trying to do. And would encourage them to reach out also directly to the department and see if we can't get something off of High Center and some of the space.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, lastly, I'd just like to add that I think at this time of low king or king conservation, the way we're looking at it statewide, the state demonstrating that they believe that it is dire enough that we do need management plans, especially for stocks that are struggling, is really important at this point in time. Time, just if for optics, if nothing else. Because if things don't pull back, we're going to have to prove that we've done everything we can to manage the Kings conservatively. So that being said, I, I love this proposal.

I want it to pass. But, um, for now it doesn't seem like it's within the means to— well, I actually, I don't know. I'd like to make the point that it should pass, but And anyhow, I'll see what my other members think. Mr. Carpenter. I'll just make a brief statement.

Without assessment, in my opinion, and I believe we talked about this earlier in the meeting in the NUSCAGAC with the COHO plan, which we also don't have. I'm not in favor of creating regulatory language or direction to the department unless we have something to utilize like assessment information, et cetera, et cetera. To allow the department to implement that. So, I mean, for that reason alone, I like the idea. You know, I appreciate, you know, it is focused towards King conservation and I'm all for that.

But without assessment, you really can't at this time, you know, put something like this into place. So I'll go ahead and read cost approval. 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 would result in additional cost to the department. And if there's nothing further, I'd call the question.

Seeing, uh, no other comments, question has been called. Errors and omissions? Seeing none, Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 105. Carlson, VanDort.

No. Carpenter. No. Wood. No.

Godfrey. No. Simpson is absent. Chamberlain? No.

Irwin? No. That motion fails. 0-6. Madam Chair.

Proposal 185. Madam Chair, Proposal 185, 5AAC06, new section. Madam Chair. Mudo dog. Second.

Staff comments, please.

Madam Chair, this proposal would establish a king salmon management plan for the Naknek River drainage. There is currently no management plan for the Naknek River drainage king salmon. If adopted, a management plan would provide the department guidance on how fisheries that impact Naknek River king salmon would be managed. This plan may include indicators or triggers at which regulatory actions may occur. The board would need to establish management strategies for Naknek River king salmon that consider all fisheries in season.

Abundance-based management of Naknek River king salmon is not possible due to lack of assessment program. Historically, escapement of king salmon for the Naknek River was indexed by fixed-wing aerial surveys of the 4 primary spawning areas during the presumed peak of spawning in early to mid-August. Aerial counts were left unexpanded and were considered minimum estimates of escapement. These escapement surveys indicated the main stem of the Naknek River along with Big Creek composes approximately 90% of the observed spawning escapement. Surveys to estimate abundance for Naknek River king salmon ceased in 2009 due to budget shortfalls, and the escapement goal was dropped in 2014 2015 due to concerns over the ability to reliably estimate abundance via aerial surveys.

The department is unable to support a prescriptive management approach because current stock assessment monitoring tools and management capacity are insufficient, insufficient to inform such a plan. A management plan based on in-season estimates of Naknek River King Salmon abundance could not be implemented because the department does not have a reliable and scientifically sound Naknek River King Salmon stock assessment program. Prior king salmon assessment programs in the Naknek River were largely post-season. Developing a king salmon management plan for the Naknek River may require stock status analysis and a population estimate to be performed to inform the process. The department is neutral on the allocative aspects of this proposal.

Madam Chair. Thank you. The sidebar conversation is I was thinking, looking at 185, I was thinking that this was an ACR that we had accepted. Which would have been very strange because one, it would have been in cycle, and two, yeah, I was like, this is awkward, right? But this is one that we found, and then it went at the end of the— that was on time submitted and then went at the end of the numerical sort of numbering for proposals, because I was sitting here thinking, how did—.

What? Anyway, so. So that was the reason for this sort of odd numerical placement. I am going to reference a lot of my earlier comments, you know, on the last proposal, but I would just add to it that if people are particularly concerned about the status of stocks in the absence of assessment, there is nothing that is prohibiting somebody from acting as an individual and making sure that you're returning kings that are, you know, in good health, not taking hens out of the water, all the things that we've kind of talked about at other portions of this meeting. So you don't need a regulation to do the right thing necessarily if that's what you feel is the right thing to do.

Ms. Irwin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm feeling, I'm feeling slightly different about this. While many of the, my previous comments still stand because there's still such a lack of data, there's no enumeration that is currently going on in this portion of the river, um, for this population. However, we do have some historic data.

It's been, the department has shown to have interest in doing aerial surveys in the past, the department included quite a bit of commercial harvest information and statewide harvest data for this river. And I suppose, I suppose I'm wondering if we, if we start somewhere with our expectation of the department beginning to enumerate and thinking about maybe starting with one particular river system. But I'd love to hear what my fellow board members have to say. Thank you. Mr. Wood.

Yeah, thanks. I was actually having similar thoughts to this because this, the area that we're talking about is used by locals and lodges. And I think the lodges have demonstrated conservative techniques as Member VanDort was talking about. And perhaps the public, but just talking to lodge owners out there, I'd say that it's a pretty concentrated, condensed area as well.

That borders right up to a national park boundary. And, you know, everything that they're talking about— estimate abundance for Naga King Salmon ceased in 2009 due to budget shortfalls, and escapement goals was dropped in 2015 due to concerns about ability to reliably estimate abundance via aerial surveys. I mean, we know is that we need money to do this, but if we did it anywhere, the accessibility of this area in particular might make it a a little less expensive. I'm not sure. And we've got some history in this area.

Um, I don't know. I'd like to hear what other members have to say. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Um, referencing my comments from the proposal we just took up, very similar in this case.

I mean, we, we don't have any enumeration. I think the big thing about management plans and the ones that I've looked at, especially at this meeting, they're very complex and they are— they really cannot be done on the fly. I think that when a proposal comes before the board, if it's laid out and prescriptive and the public could see what the prescriptive nature of it is, that's a very different story. But I still get to the point that we cannot force the department to do assessments. We could suggest that they do that, but that's up to them.

And I'm just not going to support creating something that they have no way to actually implement.

I think this kind of starts to illustrate to me a little bit the problems with removing assessment programs and management plans and getting rid of them and then having to try and bring them back. Um, which is why I voted the way I did with respect to the Coho Management Plan. It's not quite the same exact thing, but this is kind of a— I know that there wasn't a previous management plan associated with this particularly that I'm aware of, but I think it kind of starts to illustrate what the concern is in that space. So, maybe this is something that the board considers the creation of a special committee around or something if there is truly a public call for more assessment and more hands-on management in the area. Mr. Bowers.

[Speaker:MR_BOWERS] Thanks, Madam Chair. So while there isn't a management plan in place for this river. There are, for king salmon on this river, there are regulations in place to conserve king salmon. I mean, in, you know, in the commercial fishery, we have mesh size restrictions.

We only open drift gillnet fishing periods between the 7-foot flood stage and 7-foot ebb stage. So that prevents fishing at low water where kings might be more vulnerable. So, so I just wanted to illustrate to the board that, you know, you can, you can have conservation measures in place without assessment or a management plan. And, you know, and, and that's, that's a common practice around the state. Thanks.

Yeah. Thank you for that, Mr. Bauer. Your points are very well taken. And it's not like this is a full-on free-for-all. So thank you for that.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, I'll reference my previous comments, but also, it's also very well demonstrated, I think, between the commercial and sport department here that you have taken commercial— you have taken really conservative measures. You've seen that at the mouth in the commercial industry, commercial fleet, especially after June 20th or June or July 17th in that 22nd area. We I know that they come in a little later, and, um, yeah, I feel comfortable that both, you know, both parts of the department managing it are doing it well and conservatively right now. Um, that being said, I'll just— I'll read the first part of 5 AAC 39.200.

The Board of Fisheries has implemented by regulation fishery management plans that provide the Department of Fish and Game with guidelines for the following when making management decisions regarding the state subsistence, commercial, and sport and personal use fisheries. The primary goal of these management plans is to protect the sustained yield of the state's fisheries resources while at the same time providing equitable distribution. I think you're doing that now, but nonetheless, time may come when a plan might be necessary. So that's it.

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

Errors and omissions? Seeing none, Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 185. Erwin? Yes.

Chamberlain? No. Godfrey? No. Svenson?

Oh, sorry, it's going to catch me all day. Wood? No. Carlson-Vandort? No.

Carpenter. No. Motion fails. 1 In favor, 5 against. Madam Chair.

Proposal 96. Madam Chair, Proposal 96, 5AAC 67.022, special provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and size limits and methods and means in the Bristol Bay area. Madam Chair. Move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, this proposal would prohibit the use of bait and multiple hooks in the Naknek River drainage year-round. The Naknek River drainage is open to sport fishing year-round, and in flowing waters of the drainage from March 1st through November 14th, sport fishing gear is restricted to unbaited artificial lures or flies. In the flowing waters upstream from an ADFNG marker located at half mile upstream of Rapids Camp to ADFNG markers at Trifon's Cabin, including all waters within a quarter mile of all lake inlet and outlet streams, has additional year-round sport fishing gear restrictions of unbaited single-hook artificial lures or flies. In drainage lakes, except for within a quarter mile of the lake inlet and outlet streams, bait, multiple hooks, artificial lures, or flies are allowed year-round.

From an ADFG marker located half mile above Rapids Camp to the ADFG marker at Trifon's Cabin at the outlet of Naknek Lake, sport fishing gear is limited to unbaited single-hook artificial lures or flies with a gap between the point and shank of a half inch or less. And in this section, for the remainder of the year, only unbaited single-hook artificial lures or flies may be used. If this proposal were adopted, it would result in decreased catch rates for anglers and would prohibit tackle commonly used by anglers targeting Arctic grayling, Dolly Varden, Arctic char, rainbow trout, northern pike, and all 5 species of salmon year-round. Bait is already prohibited in the Naknek River drainage from March 1st through November 14th, and prohibiting bait year-round would adversely affect local watershed residents that harvest rainbow trout in small numbers under sport regulations in the winter. This may reduce angling effort on the river if anglers who use bait and multiple hooks choose not to fish.

The department opposes this proposal. There is currently no biological or conservation concern related to the use of multiple hooks. The department has the authority to issue an emergency order prohibiting the use of bait to reduce catch rates for conservation when necessary. Madam Chair. Thank you.

More discussion? Ms. Irwin. Question for the department. When is the last time that you used that authority to prohibit the use of bait in that area, or have you had to recently?

Through the chair, Ms. Irwin, we have not done that recently. Thank you. Mr. Wood, then Mr. Godfrey. Yeah, I, I think year-round is asking a bit much, and we heard from other user groups that they use, they use bait in other times of the year to catch other species such as smelt. And I really appreciate the department's comments on this.

So I'll be no on this. Mr. Godfrey. In these types of proposals in particular about the methodology for anglers to utilize, I'm generally really deferential to the stakeholders during public testimony and their comments. And I often can go either way depending on what the deliberations and how I'm persuaded, because I'm pretty— if I haven't fished the river, I don't know, it's abstract to me. But on this one, because of the department's comments, that's persuasive enough that I'll be opposing this.

Thank you. I think it's my impression that the proposer's intention may have been geared towards salmon and may not have thought about the other species in the river. Maybe they did, I don't know. But my concern is that this would have an unintended consequence of negatively affecting subsistence. If people up there want to, you know, harvest different species year-round for food sources.

They're doing that and they should be allowed to do that unless there's a prescribed.

Conservation concern, which there is not. So if somebody wants to go catch a trout for the winter, in the winter, and, you know, consume it because they're hungry, you should be able to do that. Same with the smelt example that Mr. Wood referenced. Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think looking at what the board did on Proposal 61, where we limited bait and multiple hooks from May 1st to July 31st to prevent the harvest or bait use of bait and multiple hooks against king salmon. I think that's something I could support. But as Member Carlson VanDort stated, a lot of this is, you know, directed at the fisheries and towards a lot of species that are otherwise difficult to capture. I've, you know, I've fished for a lot of these other other species throughout the year growing up in Antioch. And so I don't want— and they are an important, important food source for a lot of people throughout the state, uh, not just in this region.

So with that, yeah, as, as this proposal's written, I can't support it. If there, if there were a more narrow temporal aspect to it, um, I, I would be supportive of it, but not in its current form.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Adoption of this proposal may result in additional costs, direct costs for anglers who need to purchase new tackle in order to participate in the fishery. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department. I'd call the question.

Question's been called. Errors and omissions? Seeing none. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 96.

Chamberlain? No. Carlson-Vandork? No. Irwin?

No. Godfrey? No. Carpenter? No.

Wood? No. Motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair. Proposal 97.

Madam Chair, Proposal 97, 5AAC 67.022, special provisions for seasons, bag possession and size limits, and methods and means in Bristol Bay area. Madam Chair. Move it up. Second. Staff comments, please.

Madam Chair, this proposal would prohibit barbed hooks, the use of bait, and the use of multiple hooks when sport fishing for rainbow trout and char in the Naknek River drainage. This proposal would also prohibit removing any fish from the water prior to release in the Naknek River drainage. Currently, there are no regulations requiring barbless hooks for finfish in Alaska. In flowing waters of the Naknek River from March 1st through November 14th, only unbaited artificial lures or flies may be used. In the flowing waters upstream of the Naknek— in flowing waters upstream of the Naknek River from ADFNG marker located half mile upstream of Rapids Camp, including all waters within quarter mile of all lake inlets and outlet streams, only unbaited single hook artificial lures or flies may be used year round.

Upstream from the ADFNG marker located half mile above Rapids Camp to the ADFNG marker at Trifon's Cabin at the outlet of Naknek Lake, it's currently closed year round to king salmon sport fishing. From June 8th to April 9th, it's open to sport fishing, and March 1st to April 9th and June 8th through July 31st, only unbaited single-hook artificial lures or flies with a gap between the point and shank of a half inch or less are allowed. For the remainder of the year, only unbaited single-hook artificial lures or flies may be used. If adopted, this proposal would likely reduce catch rates— or reduce catch and release mortality by a small but unknown amount, due in part to reduced air exposure of fish kept in the water before release. It would prohibit tackle commonly used by by anglers targeting Arctic char and rainbow trout year-round.

Bait is already prohibited in the Naknek River drainage from March 1st through November 14th, and prohibiting bait year-round would adversely affect local watershed residents that harvest rainbow trout in small waters and in small numbers in the winter under sport regulations. This would also result in decreased catch rates for anglers and increased regulatory complexity. The department opposes this proposal. There's currently no biological or conservation concern for Naknek River rainbow trout or char. Adoption of this proposal would deviate from area-wide regulations and increase regulatory complexity with no measurable conservation benefit.

In fisheries where harvest is allowed, barbless hooks would negatively affect anglers' ability to harvest fish. Barbless hook regulations may disproportionately affect inexperienced and youth anglers. Madam Chair. Thank you. Um, it's my impression that a lot of what 97 seeking to do is already being done.

I'll just leave it at that. Mr. Wood. Yeah. Are there— how many are there? Are there areas nearby that are barbless, like where this regulation would be in place?

Through the chair, Mr. Wood, there are currently no barbless regulations for finfish in the state. And if you're in the federal area, like the park Do they require barbless?

Mr. Wood, through the chair, there are certain areas where the Park Service has commercial use agreements with commercial operators that do require them to use barbless through the National Park Service regulations. But those regulations do not apply to private citizens that would go to those areas to fish. So as far as state regulation goes, there are currently no barbless regulations for finfish. Cool. Thank you.

Yeah, I see no need for this proposal. So I'll be a no. Mr. Chamberlain. Question for the department, and forgive my ignorance of local fishing practices in this, but is there any ice fishing effort in this river or in this drainage during the winter?

Through the chair, Mr. Chamberlain, there is some. Yes. Okay. So Having stuck my hand in an ice fishing hole in Fairbanks in the middle of the winter, I see this as being an entirely unpleasant experience. Prohibit removing any fish from the water.

Yeah, I think this one goes a little too far. I understand the desire to change that within these, but looking at the the type of fish we're targeting, I don't see a conservation concern. And I think there are a lot of unintended consequences. It would be absolutely miserable for the user group. So based on that, no, I can't support this.

I'm going to reference my comments from the previous one and think this could have some unintended negative effects on subsistence harvest. Mr. Godfrey. Yeah, and again, I probably could have gone either way on this, but the deliberations and board's comments on this and the fact that there's 4 ACs in opposition, no ACs in support, and the opposition list is about twice as long as the support list. I'll be opposed. Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. One quick comment in regards to taking fish out of the water. I think best practice in most fisheries, if at all possible, is to try and keep the fish in the water if you're going to release it. And so generally speaking, I support that idea. But in this particular case, I just— I think there's too many problems with the way the proposal was constructed.

So adoption of this proposal may result in additional costs for an angler to participate who would need to purchase new tackle in order to participate in the fishery. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct cost to the department. I call the question. Question's been called. You know, Seeing none, Director Nelson, please call the roll.

Final action on Proposal 97. Carpenter? No. Irwin? No.

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

No. Chamberlain? No. Motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair. 98, Please.

Madam Chair, Proposal 98, 5AAC 67.022, special provisions for seasons, bag possession and size limits, and methods and means in the Bristol Bay area. Madam Chair. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments.

Madam Chair, this proposal would lower the sport fish annual limit for king salmon over 28 inches in length from 3 fish to 1 fish in the Naknek River drainage. Currently, for sport harvested king salmon 20 inches in length or longer, there's 3 per day, 3 in possession, only 1 of which may be 28 inches in length or longer. There's an annual limit of 5 king salmon over 20 inches in length taken from the entire Naknek River drainage. Only 3 of which may be over 28 inches in length. All sport harvested king salmon 20 inches in length or longer must be recorded.

For king salmon less than 20 inches in length, there's 10 per day, 10 in possession, with no annual limit. If this proposal were adopted, there would be an unknown decrease in the annual sport harvest of king salmon over 28 inches in length in the Naknek River drainage, as well as an increase in the rate of catch and release of king salmon over 28 inches in length. Based on statewide harvest survey data, sport fishing effort in Naknek River drainage from 2020 to 2024 has ranged from 16,047 angler days in 2022 to a low of 7,850 in 2020, with an average of 12,712 angler days. King salmon harvest during this time period has ranged from a high of 723 in 2021 to a low of 102 in 2022, with an average harvest of 563 fish. At the 2022 Board of Fisheries meeting, the bag and possession limit for King Salmon was modified from a bag limit for fish 20 inches or greater in length of 3 fish per day, only 1 of which may be 28 inches or greater in length, with an annual limit of 5 fish 20 inches or greater in length, to a bag limit for fish 20 inches or greater in length of 3 fish per.

Day, only one of which may be 28 inches or greater in length, with an annual limit of 3 fish 20 inches or 28 inches or greater in length. The department is neutral on this proposal. This would create conservative sport fishing annual limits for king salmon in the face of statewide king salmon population declines. However, these sport fisheries are already managed conservatively under current regulations. The department is also neutral on the allocative aspects of this proposal.

Madam Chair. Thank you. I'd be interested in how the department is sort of assessing how conservatively it is that you're managing. 10 Per day, 10 in possession, no annual limit under 20. 3.

I'm just— there, there is, there is the ability in this river to keep large kings. We've had a lot of discussion about that. And so I'm wondering, what are the assessment mechanisms, if any, that you're using? So how would you sort of defend or justify that it's a conservative management measure that you're currently deploying or employing? Madam Chair, currently harvest is relatively low for king salmon on the Naknek River.

Through creel surveys, we have seen a large decrease in effort for king salmon. Majority of the effort on the Naknek River is targeting species other than king salmon. Currently, based on historical data for run size and the current harvest level, we believe that that is a fairly conservative harvest number. Madam Chair.

I love words like relatively low. It makes me want to kind of drill down into what does that mean. I'm going to spare you that exercise right now, but I hear you, but sometimes it starts to sound kind of subjective, especially when we're talking about king salmon, to me.

Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I like the idea of our management decisions being informed by data, and it's hard when there's not a survey going in here. As I've said before, if I were to manage based on a lack of information, I'd be forced to manage conservatively. So I'm leaning towards voting yes on this one. But I, I'm debating at this point in time, if we were going to lower the annual fish annual limit for king salmon for from 3 fish to 1, I would probably go towards lowering the limit for non-residents rather than everyone. I'd like to hear the other board members' thoughts on this before— if I were to make a motion, I don't want to do that without consensus of the board.

Mr. Wood. It's okay, I forget my name too.

I call her Mr. Wood. Mrs. Wood. It's my mom. Okay, um, what do I always say about this? All right, so we look at the commercial fishery, and these fish are a little late, later coming in.

So after July 17th through the 22nd, we're trying to manage on tides that are high enough to let these kings get through, um, so they can make it in the river. And then if they did make it in the river, they're allowed to get 10, and, you know, 10 in possession, uh, and 10 per day, 10 in possession. If, uh, if that was out in the, in the commercial fleet, that would be home pack for Naknek, not Nushagak. But that's those fish under 20 inches, that's quite a few. And I think the other thing, that's quite a lot.

And then the other thing is like this area is pretty accessible. So you have commercial or guide operations out there that have testified to being conservative and not wanting to target kings and actually targeting, put the kings in and keep sockeye instead to conserve the kings, which is one testimony I heard. But it's also so accessible to King Salmon and the Naknek Road system that, you know, then there's the personal use user.

I got to say that in a time of King Salmon conservation, the idea of keeping— when we're reducing limits on harvest of big Kings, You know, keeping 3 as opposed to 1 seems kind of unusual, especially for this river. So we make a lot of effort to get these fish in river and then all of a sudden, potentially, pshew, they're gone with this 10 and 10 thing and then 3 instead of 1. I don't know, I'd be leaning towards thinking that this actually is a more conservative way of conserving kings through this proposal than exists currently. Yeah, I— here, I could go either way on this. I'm leaning towards supporting it, but then at the same time I'm sitting here thinking like, okay, we're restricting the sport fishery.

We don't have any commensurate restrictions in the commercial fishery. We just had a big discussion around home pack that applies only to the Nush, not necessarily the Naknek. I hear Member Chamberlain's concerns about unintentionally, you know, restricting or not— it wouldn't be unintentionally, but having a disproportionate effect on resident users or something like that. But we also— that's— this is in a subsistence area, so you can subsistence harvest kings in this area. But if I'm correct, rod and reel is not a legal subsistence gear type in this area unless you're in the park.

So Um, hmm, but I think if this came with a little bit more of a consideration of a— God, I'm going to say it— a parish restriction, this might make a little bit more sense to me at this time. But I'm really interested in discussion. Mr. Payton, and then we'll go to Lee. Thank you, Chair. I just mentioned the The 10 fish under 20, that's a very common reg all over the state.

And, you know, I'm not going to say they don't matter in escapement, but the board and the public, by your regulations, has basically indicated they don't really matter. You know, a jack. So, you know, do what you want with it. But it's a common thing, not specific to this river, but many places of the state have that under 20. 10, And it's pretty uncommon to fill that bag limit anyway.

But, and the biologists might be able to elaborate. I think the NACNAC AC might have had an amendment to this, but, you know, on this proposal, Lee, Madam Chair, as Mr. Payton just indicated, that, that was what I was going to speak to, is there, there was a pretty healthy amount of debate at the NACNAC AC meeting about this proposal. Naknek AC is pretty well represented with having commercial fisheries and sport fisheries representatives on their AC. It's one of the more balanced ACs in our region, and they did bat this around amongst themselves, and what they landed on with the proposer also being on the AC was an amendment.

And so they supported this proposal, the AC did, but they amended it to 2 fish instead of 1. So just for the board's information, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Wood. And then Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, back to Director Payton's comments.

I mean, we say that 10 fish don't matter under 20, but we really made it clear that 10 fish does matter over under 20 on the Neusch. So I— and that's just a drainage away. So I'm not sure I'm supportive of that statement. And also when we're talking about, you know, the hens, these big females being allowed to have 3 instead of just 1 seems like, you know, we are trying to be conservative on kings right now. And, and it's almost contradictory to everything we've done here at this meeting to say you can still catch 3 of these big females a year.

Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you. Um, maybe a question for the department. You know, you obviously have limited information. You have the statewide harvest survey that goes out.

Can you tell me, is there— do you have any information, um, over the last 5 years, let's say, of what the breakdown might be of fish harvested over 28 inches that are reported? Or is it— or does it go that far on the statewide harvest survey? I'm getting at the resident versus non-resident. Do you have any information there? Mr. Carpenter, through the chair, currently I don't have that breakdown in front of me, but I can give you the recent overall harvest that would include large fish and fish under 20.

And for the past few years going back, so past 5 years or so, we're looking at an average annual harvest of about 500 fish, and that includes all size.

So the— I'm trying to, I'm trying to look at— I don't, I don't know exactly what detail there is, you know, in this particular area on the statewide harvest report. But I mean, I would be curious to see if it does break down between resident and non-resident. And it would be interesting to me of those 500 fish, if there was a way to even talk about how— what percentage of those fish are the big ones that are you know, being kept. So any additional comment there would be helpful.

Peyton. While Lee's gathering his thoughts there, I'd like to just highlight to the board that the Division of Sport Fish is modernizing their statewide harvest survey right now. We plan to roll it out in 2028. It's gonna go electronic. It's gonna go full census of all non-residents.

It's gonna have a much quicker response time, as in, say a non-resident license holder comes up and buys a 7-day license, they'll get an email within like 2 weeks of that license ending. So quicker response time. So we're— and also, we're able to differentiate on size. We can put some other information there. So I know you've probably heard it in the past that, you know, we, we need to improve it.

Uh, we, we're fully committed financially, uh, to improve it and revamp it. So just a little bit added information there. Yeah, thank you for that. And I mean, I'm glad to hear that sort of the increased granularity of information that we might be able to suss out from some of these harvests, I think, is nothing but a positive thing. Um, but I don't know that we have that level of granularity right now, um, in terms of how to break this out.

And we have a proposal before us today to take action on. Um, I've put on the record my concerns about restricting the sport fishery without some commensurate restriction in commercial harvest, or at least a conversation around that. That's not particularly what this proposal does. Personally, I would be in favor of entertaining the NACNIC AC's amendment to reduce or to increase the proposal number from 2 and decrease the current reg by 1 to 2 fish. I think that's reasonable.

And I also think it's— I think that there's a lot of merit in having a conversation at a in the next— at the next board cycle about what is being utilized in the commercial fishery for home pack and whatnot and having some data associated with that to help inform these types of restrictive actions. Mr. Payton. Thank you. I'd like to follow up to Member Chamberlain and some other comments I heard and comments in the TK testimony. We heard one of the elders say, you know, he used a tree branch and a line to harvest fish.

So, you know, managing the sport fisheries, you know, it's fishing, it's not just for sport. It's acknowledged that many residents get their consumptive use through selective angling techniques, rod and reel. I think I've heard it here, even the board members say, you know, rainbow trout subsistence needs. Technically it's not subsistence, it's under sport regs, but I would like to acknowledge in other parts of the state there are differential bag limits on residents and non-residents to acknowledge a consumptive use of a sport fishing resource for residents.

Thanks. Are you ready, Lee? Uh, yeah, Madam Chair. Um, so based on the data I'm looking at right here, approximately 74% of the effort for king salmon is non-resident. And the high count on our last creel that we did out there in 2022 was 29 anglers was our high count for the season.

So the biggest fishing day was, was 29 anglers. Madam Chair. Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. So based on the board's feedback, I'll go ahead and make a motion to amend this proposal from— to follow the local AC's recommendation to change it from 3 fish to 2 fish and make a further recommendation that the reduction will apply only to nonresidents.

Second.

Mr. Wood. To the amendment. Speak to the amendment. Okay.

Actually, I'll wait. I was going to speak to something else.

Okay, let me speak to this amendment for a second. So on the highest day, I don't think that this really has— I don't think applying it to resident, nonresident makes any difference to me. And I think for the number of people that we're talking about, Um, it just adds unnecessary regulatory complexity. Um, because if you're talking about the very highest day in 2022 being 29 anglers, we're talking about 20, 21 people that might be non-residents on the very highest day. That's on an average of 74% of 29 people.

Um, you know, that's— we're talking 21.46 individuals. I don't think that we're going to gain much from that. And so I am not in favor of the amendment to limit it to non-residents for Two Fish, just because I don't think we're gaining much out of that. I understand the message that's being sent with that, but I don't— I don't— I just— the numbers aren't big enough for me. I would much prefer just to see a straight Two Fish amendment.

But that's me. Mr. Wood. Yeah, I'd agree with that. I'd go— don't differentiate, just go straight to—. Mr. Chamberlain.

So with that, I'll drop the non-fish or non-resident differentiation and just go straight to fish.

I don't— I don't want to amend amendments. It gets messy. So you can either withdraw it or we can vote it down. I'll withdraw, Madam Chair. And what is the second withdraw?

Yes. Okay, thank you. Is there another amendment? Mr. Chamberlain? Yes, Madam Chair, I would move to change the reduction from 3 fish to 2 fish.

Second. All right, we have that amendment before us. I think I've made my thoughts on that relatively clear. Any additional board discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Nelson, will you please call the roll on the amendment? Just a clarification, I'm just looking at the proposal and it talks about— there's the 20 inches or greater or 28 inches or greater. Is this apply— which is this amendment applying? The bag limit, I believe, is 3 to 28 to— I mean, in the 28 inches or greater, so And I'll ask the amendment maker for clarification here, but is your clarifi— is your amendment specific to the 28 inches or greater? Yes, Madam Chair.

Yeah, thank you, Nelson.

You ready for the question on that? Okay, on the amendment. Godfrey? Yes. Wood?

Yes. Chamberlain? Yes. Irwin? Yes.

Carpenter? Yes. Carlson, VanDorp. Yes. Carries 6 in favor, 0 against.

Madam Chair. Okay, so we have the amended proposal before us and on the table for additional discussion. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. I, uh, when you mentioned the idea of paired restrictions or whatever, I do think if there was a management plan, we probably would ask through this as well.

But I think there's already been proposals before us that would, um, could potentially have better regulations in the commercial fishery at the time of year when these kings are returning, rather than just opening it up from 9 to 9, it could be opened using EO authority and tides. So I think there's definitely, not now but down the road, would be a way to make the changes commensurate to each user group. Thank you. Other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I call the question. Question has been called. Aye, no?

Seeing none. Director Nelson. Final action on Proposal 98 as amended. Carlson VanDort. Yes.

Carpenter? Yes. Wood? Yes. Godfrey?

Yes. Chamberlain? Yes. Irwin? Yes.

That motion carries 6-0, Madam Chair. Proposal 99. Madam Chair, Proposal 99, 5AAC 67.022, special provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means in the Bristol Bay area. Second. Uh, staff comments.

Madam Chair, this proposal would move the regulatory marker referred to in regulation as ADFNG marker located half mile above Rapids Camp on the Naknek River from river mile 24.25 to river mile 23. This would result in 1.25 miles downstream portion of the Naknek.

To be closed year-round to king salmon sport fishing. Upstream— currently upstream from ADF&G markers located half mile above Rapids Camp to ADF&G markers at Tree Fawn's Cabin at the outlet of Naknek Lake is closed year-round to king salmon sport fishing. June 8th through April 9th open to sport fishing. March 1st through April 9th and June 8th through July 31st only unbaited single hook artificial lures or flies with with a gap between the point and shank of 1/2 inch or less are allowed. For the remainder of the year, only unbaited single-hook artificial lures or flies may be used.

If adopted, this proposal would reduce the area open to sport fishing for king salmon by relocating the regulatory ADF&G marker located half mile above Rapids Camp downstream from approximately river mile 24.25 to river mile 23. So an additional 1.25-mile section of the Naknek River currently open to king salmon sport fishing would become closed. To king salmon sport fishing year-round. Closing this additional reach to king salmon fishing may reduce angler opportunity during peak run timing in July, but could enhance protection for staging and migrating king salmon prior to reaching active spawning areas. The proposal could shift angling effort downstream and may have implications for localized crowding, access, and fishery distribution depending on annual run strength.

The regulatory marker referenced in regulation as ADFNG marker located half mile above Rapids Camp on the Naknek River has been in place since sport fishing regulations dating back to at least 1972 and has served as a longstanding regulatory boundary within the drainage. The Upper Naknek River has historically supported king salmon spawning activity, and concerns regarding conservation and stock protection in this area have been raised periodically. At the 2018 Board of Fisheries meeting, the area upstream of this ADF&G marker was closed to king salmon sport fishing year-round and has remained to this day. The department is neutral on this proposal. Removing the boundary and closing an additional 1.25 river miles to sport fishing would likely have little effect on angling behavior because this stretch of river is not the most popular location to fish for king salmon, although a small amount of fishing does take place here.

Madam Chair, thank you for discussion. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Lee, could you touch this particular area. What, what amount of spawning may take place in that stretch of river?

Um, you know, because that's really where I think this is kind of trying to get at. So maybe if you could put something on the record there. Uh, yeah, Mr. Carpenter, through the chair, um, there would be some spawning taking place here, but it's not the primary spawning location. This is a location that there would be staging and holding as they're moving on to where they do intend to spawn. Primary spawning location for the River would be Big Creek and the upper section of the river that is already protected in regulation.

Thank you. I just want to say thanks for concluding the maps. It's super helpful. Other board discussion? I think I'm going to reference some of my comments on previous proposals on this one.

I— if there's not a ton of active spawning right here, and that's what I think I just heard you say. And they're staging. Well, of course that's where you want to fish.

I don't know. Other board discussion? Mr. Wood? Yeah, I just wrote down during public testimony that it was spoken— it was to— that residents fish there and they would lose that.

Other board discussion?

I'm just looking at my notes here, not affording King's protection at that time. Okay. Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, I think to Mr. Wood's point, I think there was public comment about this isn't— this is an area that residents particularly seem like they like to fish in there. And, you know, if this was a much bigger spawning area, if the department could demonstrate that there was, you know, more of a problem there, I could get behind something like that.

But I'm not. Necessarily willing to restrict this area, especially to residents, when that's not necessarily the case. So I won't be supporting it. And 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.

Thanks. Yeah, I just was just double-checking to make sure that we're still talking about the same area in Lake, and I thought we were from the previous proposal. I mean, we just made a restriction there also. So let's see how that plays out. The question's been called errors and omissions.

Seeing none, Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 99. Irwin. No. Chamberlain.

No. Godfrey. No. Wood. No.

Carlson-Vandork. No. Carpenter. No. That motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair.

Proposal 100. Madam Chair, Proposal 100, 5AAC 67.022, special provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and size limits and methods and means in Bristol Bay area. Madam Chair. Move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments. Madam Chair, staff comments for Proposal 100 are identical to Proposal 99 because they are essentially the same proposal. I could read them again if you would like, but they are the same staff comment. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, Madam Chair, in light of that from the Department, I move the Board take no action on Proposal 100 based on its action that it took on 99.

I would second that and ask unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 100. Proposal 101.

Madam Chair, Proposal 101, 5AAC 67.022, special provisions for seasons, bag possession and size limits, and methods and means in Bristol Bay area. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments. Madam Chair, this proposal would prohibit the use of bait and multiple hooks in the Egegik and Ugashik River drainages.

There are currently no area-specific regulations restricting terminal tackle for the Egegik and Ugashik River drainages. Terminal tackle regulations for these drainages are the default statewide regulations. A closely attended single line attached to not more than one plug, one spoon, one spinner, or series of spinners, two artificial flies, or two hooks may be used. All species other than rainbow trout and Arctic grayling are managed by Bristol Bay Area statewide regulations. If adopted, this proposal would result in decreased catch rates for anglers, increased regulatory complexity, and would prohibit a range of tackle commonly used by anglers targeting, targeting Arctic grayling, Dolly Varden, Arctic char, rainbow trout, northern pike, and all 5 species of Pacific salmon.

This may reduce catch and release mortality by an unknown amount. In 1992, the Board of Fisheries added conservation measures for Arctic grayling in the Egegik and Ugashik River drainages by closing the Ugashik River year-round ground to support fishing for Arctic grayling and establishing non-retention regulations at the outlet of Besharof Lake and in the Ugashik Narrows. The department opposes this proposal. There's currently no biological or conservation concern related to the use of multiple hooks. The department has the authority to issue emergency orders prohibiting the use of bait to reduce catch rates for conservation when necessary.

Adoption of this proposal would deviate from area-wide regulations, increase regulatory complexity and reduce the recreational benefit and economic potential of the fishery with no measurable conservation benefit. Madam Chair. Thank you. I am going to reference my comments on proposal number 96. And again, I'll just kind of reiterate to the department, it's, it's, it's a little tough to sort of— I don't want to say believe, but swallow that there's no conservation concerns and there's no assessment being done necessarily outside of the surveys.

And I don't know if there was a survey done in this one. So I'll just, you know, continue to hammer on that until my voice gets tired. But again, I think this has the unintended consequence of arbitrarily restricting, you know, potential subsistence uses in that area, whether they exist or not. And if the proposer's true intention, as he states in the proposal, was to address concerns that he had around silver and king salmon, then I think this proposal might have been better served to put sort of temporal limits, time limits, on when he wanted this regulation in effect so that it wasn't so blanketing and having some of those other potentially unintended consequences. Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Wood.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll also reference my, my comments regarding 96 I think they're especially relevant in here and in these lakes as well. Again, yeah, I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I think this can be done in a much more limited manner, limited way in which I would probably support. But as written, no, I can't go that far.

Mr. Wood. I'll also reference what I said in proposal 96. Also, public testimony said I heard that this is a silver salmon fishery and that bait can be nice. For the warm, warm water. So anyhow, for that, I, I don't think there's.

Need for this proposal. Sirwan. Yeah, thank you. Um, I am in alignment with concerns for that there might be, um, inconsequential limits or restrictions for subsistence users or make it more difficult. I will reference PC 2— I want to bring up PC 248 though, um, just in, in light of this, this proposed language looking to, um, kind of like bait and tackle selectivity, similar to how we have selective— try to have selective gear types for certain species.

Um, I, I like the idea of looking into what are the, the baits and the different forms of tackle that are, you know, are there more selective gears? And I've spoken a little bit with the Sport Fish staff about this as well, but, um, in PC 248 there's some language that is suggesting future ideas about the ban of things like cured salmon eggs and other selective bait fisheries. So at this time, I'm not going to support this proposal, but I'm interested in continuing that conversation in the future. Madam Chair.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. I'll just make a brief comment. It seems like everywhere we go around the state now, this is a topic. Bait, treble hooks.

So I'm not sure where, where, where all that's going to go in the future. But most of it is trying to get around the idea of mostly king conservation. But I think to the proposal, and I think in general proposals that are broadly written like this from the public that aren't prescriptive, trying to get it exactly what they want, it's, it's much harder for the board, at least in my opinion, to, to move those forward. So I hope that that's taken into account. Adoption of this proposal may result in additional cost for anglers that would need to purchase new tackle in order to participate in the fishery.

Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department. I call the question. Question's been called. Errors and omissions? Seeing none, Director Nelson, call the roll.

Final action on Proposal 101. Wood? No. Chamberlain? No.

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

Godfrey? No. Motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair. 102.

Madam Chair, proposal 102, 5AAC 67.022, special provisions for seasons, bag possession and size limits and methods and means in the Bristol Bay area. Madam Chair. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

Madam Chair, this proposal would change the dates the bait is allowed in the Togiak River drainage from July 15th through April 30th to July 11th through April 30th. It would also move the boundary for the area closed year-round to king salmon sport fishing from all waters above the confluence of the Togiak River and Gishoot Creek to all waters above the confluence of Togiak River and Punggukipuk River. Currently, unbaited single-hook artificial lures and flies may be used year-round from July 16th through April 30th, or for— from July 16th, April 30th, bait is allowed for king salmon 20 inches or longer. No sport retention is allowed. All sport-caught king salmon 20 inches or longer may not be removed from the water and must be released immediately.

For king salmon less than 20 inches, limit is 10 per day, 10 in possession. Waters upstream of the confluence of Geeshik Creek and the Togiak River are closed year-round to king salmon sport fishing. If this proposal were adopted, the use of bait on the Togiak River would be allowed 5 days sooner. The lower boundary for the area closed to sport fishing for king salmon would be moved upstream to the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge boundary at the mouth of the Pungo Kipuk River. The area open to king salmon sport fishing would increase to include approximately 5 miles of river that is currently closed to sport fishing.

Historically, most king salmon sport fishing takes place below the Pungo Kipuk River, and at the 2022 Bristol Bay Board of Fish meeting, new regulations were created prohibiting the use of bait, the sport retention of king salmon over 20 inches in length, and establishing all waters above the confluence of the Togiak River and Gishik Creek as closed to king salmon sport fishing. At the 2023 statewide Board of Fisheries meeting, an ACR was adopted that reinstituted the use of bait in the sport fishery from July 16th through April 30th. The department is neutral on this proposal. Additional proposed days of bait use overlap with the tail end of the king salmon run and may risk some king salmon being caught with bait. However, the regulations do not allow for sport retention of king salmon over 20 inches in length, So biological impact would likely be minimal.

Moving the boundary to the Pungo Kipuk River would be consistent with local patterns of sport use and would align the boundary of the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge boundary, providing for regulatory uniformity. Madam Chair.

Thank you. Board discussion. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you to the department. Could you explain a little bit what kind of, uh, riverbed and habitat there exists between these two boundaries?

Like, if it's, uh, Is it spawning beds, or is it good fish and bad fish?

Yeah, Member Wood, through the Chair. This area of river is obviously mainstem Togiak River. It is above the tidal area, but it is below the main spawning areas for this system. However, some spawning may take place here. The majority of spawning is taking place above this area.

Historically, the sport fisheries in the Togiak River have been below Punggokipuk River, and the current refuge boundary is at the Punggokipuk River, which brings with it additional stipulations for sport fishing users that would fish above that boundary.

Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. In speaking with the proposers of the authors of this proposal, I was wildly interested in how they were actually using bait to catch reds. That blew my mind because I've had zero luck with that throughout the entirety of my life. It's very intriguing.

It has a lot of— there's a lot of merit to what they're actually proposing. However, when I'm looking at this, I'm also seeing a compound proposal where you're making multiple asks and it's hard to break those down.

Referencing Member Carpenter's advisories to the public in drafting these proposals, I would also recommend breaking them apart into individual components. My hang-up here is is the lack of local support. The ACs, the local ACs don't, don't support this. And if we were to break this apart, I don't know that I'd be able to gather the public's input on this, given that these are jet boats in a, in a fast-moving stream where there is potential spawning beds. I don't know that I'm comfortable even breaking that part apart.

Expanding bait debate for this river is a hard ask for me. So I really commend the authors of this proposal. I want to find a way to make this work, but as drafted, I can't get there. And so, yeah, I'll be voting no on this one.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. I, yeah, I heard a bunch of different comments on this proposal about just the timing, the use of bait, or bait versus just eggs exclusively, what that does for the sockeye. That video was super cool. I've never seen such a carnivorous sockeye in my life, and maybe that's unique to the Togiak The other thing is that some of the local concerns about jet boats, if it would increase jet boat behavior in the river, that I'm unclear about if it would increase it or not.

And I would have to learn more about that. But I share the concerns of users about what jet boats can do, especially on spawning beds. I've had firsthand experience of that at my home on the, Talkeetna River, and it's awful. And anyhow, yeah, there's— I appreciate how tenacious the proposers are and patient, and I suspect we'll see you back here again. But as this is put forward to us now, and in light of the things that we've learned in the process of this proposal, I can't vote for it right now.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] I'll put a couple thoughts. I am particularly torn on this proposal for, um, a few different reasons.

Number one, um, I have absolutely no doubt around, um, the proposer's intention I think that they have demonstrated to me an admirable commitment to stewarding the resource.

And as the department stated, because there's non-retention of larger kings in that area, we're talking about 4 or 5 days, I don't think that there would be a huge potentially impact on it, but I do want to recognize that that is something.

Square in the King running time. It might be on the end of it, but it's still there. It's still happening. And certainly we want to kind of leave those guys alone as much as possible. So I struggle with the bait aspect of it for those, for those 4 or 5 days.

Speaking to the geographical sort of expansion, my question to the department at this time is we heard in committee that really this isn't a particularly productive spawning ground. Is that consistent with what you guys know about this area? I don't know how you assess that. Lee. Yeah, Madam Chair, based on previous studies done by the refuge and department with telemetry and aerial surveys, this area is not known to be a main spawning ground.

However, there could be some spawning that does take place here. This is main channel Togiak. It's still relatively deep water. You know, I know that the topic of jet boats has come up here, but being main stem and relatively deep, I don't think that that's a huge concern here. And like I said, there's not a large amount of spawning taking place here.

A vast majority of the king salmon spawning is above the Punggukipuk River. Okay, so you're not seeing a lot of, um, you referenced the mainstem Togiak, but you didn't talk about spawning in the Punggukipuk, which would be included in this proposal if the boundary were changed, correct?

Um, Madam Chair, I do not think it is the intent of the proposal proposers to open the Punggukipuk River itself. I think they are wanting just the mainstem section there. And yeah, that's correct. There's not a lot of king spawning in that section. There is some king spawning that does happen in the Pungo Key Puck a little bit higher up, but I don't think that would be affected if only the main stem section were to be open.

I'm sure. Okay, thank you for that. That— and what is the distance, the mileage between where the current, um, Geeshik Creek boundary is to the mouth of the Pongo Key Puk? Madam Chair, it's approximately 5 miles. It's not talking about a ton of space.

So this one, again, as written, is kind of struggling because I don't— again, to your point, I don't think it was the intention of the proposer to accidentally include the Punggukipuk River in the proposal. I'm also in— tend to be in favor of having relatively easy and consistent commensurate boundaries. So I like— I really like that aspect of it. I wish—. I mean, is it possible to amend I suppose the proposal to only include that section.

Although we did hear in public testimony that there was a lot of local concern about that. I know that the proposers are working on relationships with the community and the AC there. I'm struggling with this one hard. Mr. Wood, and then Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thanks.

It's oftentimes for me, it's really hard to visualize these things. Like, to actually see a USGS map or something really helps to get places and orient myself better. I feel like I'm really at a disadvantage. This map here on page 89, 102-1, is okay, but I should ask to look at one closer. I guess a couple questions I have are, are there other— I mean, besides guiding jet boats out there, are there any— is there any other boat conflict up this river from the mouth to where they're going?

Through the chair, Mr. Wood, I'm not exactly sure what you're asking there. Well, it is sport guiding boats, the only boats on the river, or personal use boats, or is there commercial boats, or—. Through the chair, Mr. Wood, there are local residents that do run the river. So there is some boat traffic from local Togiak River residents that run up, some of them all the way up to the lake, which is quite a long haul. Some of those boats are prop boats, some of them are jet boats from the local community, and then the only other traffic would be from sport fishing guide services.

There is some degree of fly-in fishing that takes place, that people fly in on float planes, but not a lot of that.

All right, thank you. I'll have another question, though. Let me formulate it. Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

There is no doubt in my mind the stewardship of the proposers and what that is, but when we take proposals like this into account, we can't— this regulation applies to everyone. And so the stewardship that you may present, you know, and I think the theme of this meeting, quite frankly, has been around King conservation. And, you know, even if it's a small amount of spawning ground, actually, I think, I think that's something that I always take into account when I try and broaden especially river access and [Speaker:CHAIRMAN BRYANT] So I'm going to stick to that theme. But the biggest thing is in the people of Togiak specifically that came to this meeting, I didn't hear anyone that supported that. And so I really think that the AC to buy in on something like this specifically in Togiak is very important.

And so I I would hope that the proposers would go and try and work some of this out. And if you could come back with support from the AC or whatever, I might have a very different opinion. So.

Mr. Irwin, then Mr. Godfrey. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm struggling with this proposal as well. I think that the first portion of it is— would be inconsistent for me to vote in support of, given the other decisions that have been made around this table this week for King Conservation.

So opening that up, those, those extra days, I'll reference Ms. VanDort's comments, who was speaking to the fact that it might— there, there's still— that timing is still in the King run. So I couldn't in good conscience, I think, in alignment with all of the other decisions that have been made around this table for King Conservation, support that. The boundary is is the portion that I'm— I too am struggling with. It seems to be clear for enforcement. I don't know how much effort is going on in this area.

But I will also agree with Member Carpenter in that we heard public comment during Committee of the Whole local comment against this proposal, um, as well as the two— the local AC, um, was not in support. Uh, and when I'm, when I'm looking at a proposal, especially in an area that I'm not as familiar with, um, I want to rely on the— some of that local knowledge. I will say that I have spent a good amount of time with the authors of this proposal working and seeing what could be worked out with this one. Um, and I, I commend their efforts and the time that they've spent here and thank them for also coming up to Committee of the Whole and addressing some of those issues. I think that there's good stewardship going on here.

But again, to Mr. Carpenter's comments as well, this— any of these changes would affect everyone else. And so I have all the faith that the, the authors are being good stewards. But I just at this time would hope to see something in the future come back across this table, maybe split up into multiple proposals, and take the time to meet with those local ACs and garner that relationship building. Thanks, Mr. Godfrey. Yeah, I've been vacillating on this one.

I could go either way coming into deliberations, but Board Member Carpenter's comments just a moment ago resonate with me, and his sentiment And I'm now persuaded to go ahead and oppose it for the reasons he cited.

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

Question has been called. Errors and omissions. Mr. Pappas. Madam Chair, I should have spoke up maybe a proposal or two before, but considering the recent discussion of several proposals, to clarify on record, just want to note that rod and reel is not a subsistence gear type for salmon or non-salmon in the state regulation for Bristol Bay. Now, that applies for the previous couple proposals.

You have heard from two directors, and there will be a third director now to clarify that subsistence.

Is not a rod and reel, is not under state regulations. You may want to talk to the federal subsistence about their regulations for rod and reel. I just want to make sure that's clear for this proposal and the next couple. Thank you, Madam Chair. I apologize for being a proposal late.

Thank you, Mr. Pappas. Any other errors and omissions? Director Nelson. Final action on Proposal 102. Wood?

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

Erwin? No. Chamberlain? No. Carpenter?

No. Motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair. Proposal number 103. Madam Chair, Proposal 103, 5AAC 67.022, Special Provisions for Seasons, Bag Possession and Size Limits and Methods and Means in Bristol Bay Area. Madam Chair?

Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, this proposal would prohibit placing in the water any substance for attracting fish by scent by guides and guided anglers within all Bristol Bay freshwaters. Currently, in any freshwater closed to the use of bait, sport fishing guides and guided anglers are prohibited from placing in the water any substance for the purpose of attracting fish by scent.

If this proposal were adopted, this would prohibit chumming by guides and guided anglers in all waters all freshwaters of Bristol Bay. Catch and harvest of targeted species may decrease by an unknown amount. In 2012, the Board of Fisheries adopted a regulation that modified the definition of bait in freshwaters of Bristol Bay to include any substance placed in freshwater by a person for the purpose of attracting fish by scent. The intent of this regulation was to prohibit anglers and sport fishing guides from placing fish parts in the water for the purpose of attracting fish in freshwaters where bait is prohibited. After the current regulation became effective in 2013, subsistence users in Nondalton and New Halen areas became concerned that it could result in citations for local residents who harvest non-salmon species under sport fishing regulations near traditional fish camps where salmon are harvested and processed under subsistence regulations.

It is common practice for subsistence users at traditional fish camps in the area to catch and harvest non-salmon species downstream of where subsistence-caught salmon are being processed and fish parts are properly disposed of in the water. This is why the current regulation affects guides and guided anglers only. The department opposes this proposal given little apparent biological benefit and increased regulatory complexity. Madam Chair. Ms. Erwin.

Thank you. Uh, to the staff, can I just— would like to clarify this, um, portion of the subsistence users. So the subsistence users, it's not a traditional way of— they don't have a traditional chumming practice. They are simply downstream from where this is happening, and so there's— can they have maybe concern that they could be ticketed or cited for that, assuming it's chumming? Am I understanding that correctly?

Through the chair, Mr. Irwin, that is correct.

I am not going to be in support of this proposal. I just don't It is just way too broad for my comfort level, and it is like, you know, using a hatchet to remove a fly from somebody's head.

Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, I concur with that, Madam Chair. Once again, broad proposals. Specify an area where you think there is an issue and specify the solution to that. And so for that reason alone and what the department said, I won't be supporting it.

Mr. Wood. Thank you. There was some public comment too that there could be unintended consequences from this, and it might be another one that would be hard to enforce as well. So I think for that, I'm definitely not in favor of this. Mr. Carpenter.

Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the Department, I'd call the question. Question's been called. Errors and omissions, seeing none. Director Nelson, call the roll. Final action on Proposal 103.

Godfrey? No. Wood? Nope. Chamberlain?

No. Irwin? No. Carpenter? No.

Carlson-Vandorp? No. Motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair. Proposal 104. Madam Chair, Proposal 104, 5AAC 67.022, special provisions for seasons, bag possession, and size limits and methods and means in Bristol Bay area.

Madam Chair. Moved to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, this proposal would prohibit the use of barbed hooks in Moraine Creek, Kulik River, American Creek, and Brooks River drainages from June 8th to October 31st.

Currently, there are no regulations requiring barbless hooks for finfish in the state of Alaska, but anglers may choose to crimp barbs if they prefer.

If adopted, this would result in decreased catch rates for anglers and increased regulatory complexity. In 1990, the board adopted regulations for conservative management of wild rainbow trout in the Bristol Bay area. The Statewide Management Standards for Rainbow Trout, 5 AAC 75.220, and the Policy for the Management of Sustainable Wild Trout Fisheries, 5 AAC 75.222, and the region's regulations contain policies and regulations that protect the biological integrity of wild trout stocks and maximize their recreational benefit and economic potential. The drainages in question are conservatively managed with no-bait, single-hook regulations, non-retention during peak season, conservative bag limits, and spawning season closures to maintain wild stocks. Additionally, an Idaho Fish and Game study by Shillen Scarpella reviewed extensive data across multiple fisheries and found no statistically significant difference in hooking mortality between barbed and barbless hooks, with mortality rates averaging 4.5 and 4.2%, respectively.

The authors concluded that barbed hooks do not pose a measurable biological disadvantage to fish populations. In more recent studies, barbless hooks have been shown to decrease tissue damage and reduce handling and unhooking time. However, the difference in catch and release mortality between barbed and barbless hooks is minimal. The department opposes this proposal. There's currently no biological or conservation concern related to the use of barbed hooks.

Adoption of this proposal would deviate from area-wide regulations and increase regulatory complexity with minimal, minimal conservation benefit. In fisheries where harvest is allowed, barbless hooks would negatively affect an angler's ability to harvest fish. Barbless hooks— barbless hook regulations may disproportionately affect inexperienced and youth anglers. Madam Chair, thanks, Lee. So I'm just looking at your tables, um, and the staff comments for this, and I'm noticing a pattern in the Kulik River, the Moraine Creek, to some extent in the American Creek, but not so much in the Brooks River, and that in the last couple years I see angler days being high, higher than the previous years that you have enumerated here.

And I also see the catch rates decreasing. So, so I find it interesting that angler days are higher and the catch is decreasing for those creeks. And so my question is, is that a biological problem? What's going on there? Because one would assume that if the angler days were less, then the catch would be less.

But that's not what I'm seeing. I'm seeing sort of an inverse relationship there. Can you talk to me about that a little bit? Yeah, Madam Chair, angler days are tough to get at in that it is for all species. So angler day trends may move you know, up or down, and not necessarily all of them are aimed at rainbow trout.

And that being said, we currently have no conservation concern with these trout populations. Resident species in Bristol Bay seem to be thriving throughout the bay, primarily in response to record sockeye numbers and food availability. So currently we have no conservation concern for rainbow trout stocks in this area, and there could be angler practices that come into play. Historically, anglers would try and catch as many fish as they could, hoping to get some big ones mixed in. More recently, anglers are focusing on trying to catch bigger fish and less volume of fish.

There is a quality over quantity aspect that has come into play in recent years that may also be part of what you're seeing there. I'm sure. Thanks. Um, I'm still going to drill down on the Kulik though, because you see 2020, 13,000+ caught, 15,700 caught in '21, '22, almost 20,000 caught, '23, it starts to dip again to 11,800-some-odd, and then in '24 there's a pretty dramatic decline to 5,169. Um, that's kind of like a— it's a red flag to me, but you have no conservation concerns associated with that.

Something's going on there. Uh, Madam Chair, yeah, I agree that there is definitely a decrease in catch, but like I said, angler days are not indicative of the effort that is directed at a specific species. So that could be a slight bit of a red herring there. Um, but currently there is no conservation concern. Anecdotal reports that we received from the river are that there are a lot of fish around.

And this is all catch and release, uh, Madam Chair? That is correct. There is no retention in any of these fisheries. I guess just kind of broadly, for these pure catch-and-release fisheries, I don't understand why it's particularly necessary to have a barb. I mean, it just makes the catch.

The release portion of that catch a lot more difficult. It might make the catch portion of that a little bit easier, but I don't know. I—. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me if it's pure catch and release. And I note in your staff comments that you say that the mortality rates between barbed and barbless hooks is typically minimal.

Again, that's one of those highly subjective phrases. What does typically minimal mean?

Yeah, Madam Chair. So in studies done We're looking at a 0.3% difference in mortality rate, so less than half of a percent difference. I would call that just minimal. Thank you, Mr. Wood, and then Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you.

I'd refer to my comments on Proposal 97, and I'm not into setting precedent right now of adding barbless to the state, and I'll be no on this. Mr. Carpenter, then Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you.

I do appreciate the chair bringing that trend or possible trend up. I just don't think that if there was some sort of a conservation concern, the barbed hooked aspect would necessarily be the way to solve this problem. But I do have one question about the American Creek. I'm reading through the current regulations. And it doesn't say in here, it's, you know, there's sport fishing closures to protect spawning rainbows and then the retention of rainbows are prohibited after that.

But in all the other rivers that we're talking about, it does— is there no prohibition of bait in this river?

Because the reason I ask that is if it's catch and release only, I, I, if that, if there's no bait restriction there, I would find that surprising.

Um, I'm just looking through the regulations here because I do not want to misspeak, so, uh, if I could just have one moment.

Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, uh, being that it is part of the Naknek River drainage and there is no bait allowed in the Naknek River drainage from March 1st through November 14th, and bait would not be allowed there as well. Okay. That satisfies my concern. Otherwise, I can't support the proposal as written. Mr. Chamberlain.

Thank you. I think we may have covered this earlier, but I'd like clarification from the department. Are there any other locations in the state where, where barbless hooks or where barbed hooks are prohibited?

Through the chair, Mr. Chamberlain. Currently, no. Okay. So, yeah, with, with that stated, I don't see a need to create regulatory complexity for a, for a minimal benefit like this. And my understanding is, you know, for a lot of fishing purists, barbless hooks have an appeal because it shows your talent or in my, in my case, demonstrates a lack of talent for keeping a fish on the hook.

I just don't see the need for it and I don't see the need for creating regulatory complexity. I know there's been a lot of discussion on how easy and how hard it is, you know, if you've crimped down a barb, whether there still is a barb there. So I just don't want to get into the weeds for a 0.3% improvement in mortality. So with that, I'll be opposing.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I— looking at the department's comments and recognizing that within the drainage of question, they're being conservatively managed with no bait, single hook regulations, non-retention, conservative bag limits, and spawning seasons, um, and that there hasn't been presented to us an extreme conservation concern at this time— while I still am interested in, in seeing more data and understanding more how what the purpose of a barbed hook in a catch-and-release fishery would be and what the mortality of our non-retained fish is, because I really don't like the idea of us returning fish to the water that aren't going to survive, because what's the point of catch and release then? So, um, I'd like to see more of that in the future, understand a little bit more of that, but at this time I think that we've done enough to also restrict this user group this, this time.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Adoption of this proposal may result in additional direct costs for anglers who would need to purchase new tackle or modify existing tackle to participate in the fishery. An approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs to the department. I'd call the question.

Question's been called. There's no omissions.

Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 104. Carlson, VanDort? No. Carpenter?

No. Wood? No. Godfrey? No.

Chamberlain? No. Irwin? No. Motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Let's take about a 15-minute break and then we'll come back and we'll get to work on Group 4.

All right, welcome back. Time is 11:35. Back on the record. We're going to begin deliberations on Group 4. Group 4 includes vessel specifications, gear specifications, and miscellaneous.

And considering how there's been a lot of conversation and substitute language that was offered for proposal number 85, we're going to take up proposal number 85 first and then work our way through the roadmap as it's published. So we'll begin with proposal number 85, please.

Madam Chair, for the record, my name is Stacy Vega, Igigiq Ugashek Management Biologist for the Division of Commercial Fisheries. Proposal 85, 5 AAC 06.341, Vessel Specifications and Operations. Mr. Madam Chair, move we adopt Proposal 85 with substitute language found in RC 137. I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board has before it the language in RC 137 in lieu of the original proposal. Staff comments, please.

Proposal 85, 5 AAC 06.341, Vessel Specifications and Operations. This proposal seeks to clarify vessel specifications when measuring the overall length of a fishing vessel. Commercial salmon fishing vessels are limited to an overall length of 32 feet with allowances for attachments not integral to the structure of the vessel, including fish dropout baskets, anchor rollers, gillnet rollers, trim tabs, outdrives, or outdrive guards. This proposal would allow for more equipment attached to a vessel beyond the 32-foot overall length limit, which could increase the capacity of vessels. This would not change how the department manages for escapement goals with fishing time and area.

The department is neutral on this proposal. Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Would you like to speak to your substitute language? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Akeem Johnson. First, I want to say that this is probably one of the bigger and more contentious issues in the state of Alaska, and it's probably been very contentious since statehood, quite frankly. So I understand the importance, and I try to take into account as many people and get as many voices that I could when adopting this. This is I started working on this a couple years ago, and we've kind of got to this point now. So this has not been something that has been rushed, I don't think.

I think it's been talked about.

When the letter came out from the Department of Public Safety 2 years ago, it was quite apparent that the board really needed to look at this. But there's many different thoughts.

Thoughts on this vessel length. I have no interest at all in changing the 32-foot limit in Bristol Bay. But when you look at the technical aspects of the exceptions that are in regulation, it's quite obvious that the ones that are currently in regulation have been— the limits have been pushed by everyone that owns a boat out there to a certain degree. And for enforcement purposes, it was almost impossible, number one, to deal with all these boats. It's hard to do it in the water.

You have to do it really preseason, quite frankly, for the most part. And the department's, you know, they're very short-staffed as it is, is having to pull people in from all over the state. So the reason I did this, now is because of what I said earlier. But— and there is a lot of technical things in here, but working with the Department of Public Safety and the legal department to make sure that everything that's incorporated into this particular RC will be— should be clearly understood by the public and the boat owners. It's— there's clear interpretation of what that is to the department.

And, you know, there's always going to be issues that arise. And this language, I'll be the first one to admit, it is not going to satisfy everybody. It's just not going to. But I don't know that any proposal that ever comes before the board ever does that. I think that I tried to encompass as many things from as many people as I possibly could that either called me, wrote me, emailed me, or talked to me at meetings.

And so I think this language does that. So I can go through each one individually, but I think, you know, I guess if the board has any questions, I mean, it might be better off if you ask about that. Probably also, you know, the Department of Public Safety probably has just as much to say on this as I do, especially around enforceability. So I'll kind of leave it there for now, and if anyone has questions, I'll try and answer it. If not, maybe Department of Public Safety can help.

Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that we get that on the record from the Department of Public Safety. I know that there's been a lot of engagement with the department on this language, and I think it's just good to touch on that and then also just ensure that you are comfortable with the language and that as written it is enforceable. [Speaker:MR. BOLL] Yes, Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity. I think we have spoken a lot in this board cycle and heard from the public about frustrations with existing regulations and the challenges with some of the interpretations. We have worked hard with stakeholders to try to figure out those things working with the law.

What would pass muster in court and what wouldn't. So that was part of our— the ambiguity in the existing regulations that brings the challenge, that why we're here today talking about it. In regards to the RC that's in front of us, we did sit down with stakeholders at this meeting, came up with language with a lot of input from those stakeholders. And in the end, the product that came out of it, the RC, we think is enforceable. We think it's much clearer Yeah, there might be a one-off, you know, creative thing that happens down the road that we might have to address or clarify.

But for the most part, this is significantly easier to understand from those that are operating boats, our enforcement, and then being able to prosecute cases that may come up going forward with Department of Law. So as it sits right now, we are very comfortable with the RC and the language that's in that and appreciate the efforts everybody's put in to help us try to solve this problem. Madam Chair. Thank you, Captain DeGraaff. And I just want to say on the record that I want to thank you especially, and also then-Captain, now Major Aaron Frenzel, who has spent a lot of time working through this issue.

And so I just wanted that on the record.

In reading the language, I, first of all, I understand the impact of changing the vessel length allowance in Bristol Bay from 32 feet to any number, frankly. My hope was that through this proposal and this, this meeting cycle, we would get some simplicity in the regulation. And while this doesn't appear to simplify the regulation, I think it goes a long way to clarifying the regulation. And ultimately, that's what we need. So I want to also thank Member Carpenter for undertaking and sort of running point with the stakeholders on this issue.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. I'd just like to point out, I just recognize that how everybody worked together for this. First of all, how the fishermen work together to end with the department and with the board to pull this together. I think those kind of somewhat consensus, even if it's only like 80%, is helpful to make this a more durable regulation down the road.

It's amazing to me when you look at RC60 how things have changed over time, just the size of the boats. And I think it's probably correlates to how this fishery has changed over time and how complex it is. Visiting Bristol Bay last year kind of blew my mind how it's not just a fishery that's managed by the department, but it's a whole spinning engine all the way from the people transporting the fish out of there and, you know, down to lower 48. So and, and the processors. It's, it's an insane clockwork that, that is orchestrated down there.

And for there to be something that makes it easier, some simplicity in this boat regulations, seems like a very welcome addition to this complicated fishery. Mr. Irwin. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Member Carpenter, for your work on this and for bringing forward the substitute language. I'm grateful that this substitute language was able to get into the public's hands before we started deliberating so that you all could have a chance to comment during Committee of the Whole.

I heard unwavering support for the language as written. I do just want to reference a few folks who had some concerns with the anchor roller, and there was one suggestion about needing to limit it to 12 inches by width. And to me, what I'm reading is it says 16, so I'm just You know, Member Carpenter, I just, you know, what is the purpose of the— where did the 16 inches of width or height come from? Just wanted to address the public's comments. Yeah, thank you, Ms. Irwin, for that.

When you look at this document and you look at the document that we have now, you— this has to be so finely tuned, quite frankly, to eliminate the unenforceability, because people are going to take advantage of everything that they think that they can take advantage of. And so, and Captain DeGraaff may be able to talk to this in regards to the, the actual number that's in the proposal better than me. But this is different, a little different than the language, you know, that we currently have.

And we tried to go through all the different scenarios of, okay, if we do— if we don't put a number in there, what are they going to— what advantages are people going to try and do? And I tried to focus on that almost with every one of these bullet points. And so, you know, I think to your point, there's going to have to be there is going to be a financial burden to some people. That's without question. And I took that into account, trust me, as much as I possibly could.

And, and I'm— and I really am sorry for that, but this needs to be in place. And in my opinion, it needs to be in place the way it's written in RC 137. And so I guess it Maybe if Captain DeGraaff would like to add something to the—. Yeah, let me just put a couple thoughts on the record and answer that question, then he can add to it. So the anchor roller that you can see in the RC, I think it was 60, where there's the juxtaposition of a larger jet boat versus some of the traditional fiberglass or wooden boats that were used in the fishery.

You can see that there's significantly more mass, and I don't think that an 8-foot anchor is necessarily going to provide the anchorage that would be necessary to hold that mass in place like you would— like, like you may have been able to previously. That's my interpretation.

Of, of the intention of extending beyond 8 inches. 8 Inches is not a very large anchor, so adding another 10 inches to that, I think, accommodates being able to get a larger anchor on the bow and, and an anchor winch that is appropriate for the size anchor that would be necessary to help mitigate some of the safety issues associated with that. So that's And it really, for me, in my mind, is a safety issue. Just because a small anchor is not going to be able to do much in the wind on some of those larger boats. It's just going to drag them around.

Would be my comment on that. And welcome Captain DeGraaff's comments. Yes, Member Erwin, through the Chair. We didn't come up with that number. The industry did.

So we asked, like, hey, what's What do you want and why? And the vast majority, that was the number that was landed upon. So that's what we put in there. And it's a measurement that we can measure with a tape measure. So that's where it came from, was from those dialogues, not from us.

We just want clear, definable measurements. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Yeah, thank you everyone for clarifying that.

I just wanted to make sure and address those public comments. So thanks for that.

So I went— I was invited down to NACNIC in June of this year, and I went down there early in that month to take a look at all of the transoms that we were going to be discussing or get some idea of what we were going to be discussing, visuals. And I want to thank also the folks who let me walk around, wander around boatyards, their boatyards on their property, the boats and the captains that invited me into their engine rooms to see how the configuration happened there on the internal portions of their propulsion systems particularly. And I came away with the impression that it was very, very bespoke. And I've mentioned this to a couple people. There is not one single configuration that I saw that looked just like another.

So everybody has been really tailored their— particularly their boats and their propulsion systems and their transoms to try and optimize their efficiency in the fleet. So I think that trying to encompass all of that individualism in language that is enforceable was a tremendous, tremendous feat. So I just kind of wanted to set that on the record. Opening up for additional conversation.

Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, I'd like to— I'd like to put this on the record, too. To your point, Madam Chair, the first thing that I've tried to do through this whole process is like, look at how simple could we make this and how simple could it be for somebody that owns one of these boats to read this. But still be enforceable. And there were some ideas that would have actually made this very simple.

But because of what has happened in Bristol Bay, because of all the advantages and all the things people have been trying, quite frankly, for the last 10 or 15, 20 years, it was just— it wasn't enforceable. And so this is the route that we had to go. We think that this is just the most enforceable way and the absolutely clearest way, quite frankly, that we could demonstrate that. So I'll just leave that. I have a question, and it was— it's respect to Section 9 of the substitute language and the outdrive grounding guard.

And we did hear in public testimony that there was concern and perhaps a feeling of a bit of alienation amongst some of the fleet about how the outdrive grounding guard language was included in this proposal. And I think it was with respect particularly to how the, quote, skeletal structure and the plate strips language came to be. And in speaking throughout that— through that conversation in Committee of the Whole, there was an individual who came forward and discussed that concern around particularly the strips and the 4-inch spacing that would be required for the grounding guard, and that that would be insufficient is how I'm I'm trying to wrap my head around this— be insufficient to accommodate the propulsion and the torque of the jet, and that consequently you would— that would result in buckling of that guard and the metal that's supporting it. And I'm not sure if I'm getting this— the technical aspects or the architectural aspects of this particularly clear, but I would I would appreciate it if either enforcement or Mr. Carpenter can kind of explain to me a little bit more about how that came to be. My understanding is that there is a pretty significant bunch of the fleet that has this single, I guess, non-perforated plate right there as their grounding guard for their jet.

Yeah, thank you for the question. I will try and provide the best explanation for this one as I can. The entire time, the last 2 years, this is the most contentious part of this, period, without exception. And it's the reason 2 years ago that we didn't do anything. And now we're sitting here trying to figure out how to do this.

And like I said earlier, this was something that there was never agreement upon, and I had to decide to do nothing here or to bring something forward for clarity. And I completely understand the public testimony that was presented. I've had lots of conversations about this particular thing, and quite frankly, um, it came down to the fact that the description in number 9 while it is going to— it's going to alienate people and there's going to have to be modifications made. And I do know that some people that have this particular problem have tried to modify it, tried to modify it to the best they can. And obviously there's going to be a little discretion that's probably going to be used when it comes to this.

But I don't want to speak for the Department of Public Safety on that one. But this seems— this was the easiest way for enforcement to deal with this particular category, I guess, if you want to call it. And so I'll leave it at that. If Captain DeGraaff has something else to add to that, but that's why I chose to put it in here.

Mr. Carpenter, through the chair. Sorry, my computer was locking up on me here, getting my notes up. But so Our understanding is that 4-inch language came from the previous board cycle when this had come up and the board was trying to wrestle through clarifying this because the grounding plate is currently illegal beyond that 18-inch mark extended past the 32-foot boat. And some of these outrights have grown past that. We're not boat builders.

We're not engineers. We're just trying to find something that the board wants to put into place that is enforceable. So we're in this conundrum of outdrives growing past the length and trying to come up with something that industry folks, uh, I guess you could frame it as there's kind of two camps to this, if you will, but, uh, we're neutral to both of, both of them. Um, if we were to, to tweak that language, there'd have to be some measurements put into place for us. But the, the current one that sits is enforceable, and We are neutral to that as well.

Thank you. [Speaker:COMMISSIONER ARKOOSH] Thanks. I just kind of wanted to make sure that we got that out there. And I want to also acknowledge that there is RC 145, which is amendment language for RC 137 that was submitted as an RC that does provide those measurements. So I think from an— I just want to clarify that from an enforcement perspective, the language in amendment— or I am sorry, in RC 145 wouldn't present a problem for enforcement, period.

But I understand to Member Carpenter's earlier comments that this really kind of boils down to an industry debate, and I just want to make sure that we have got a record built around it. Yes, Madam Chair. RC-137, having read through that, because that measurement is in there, I think that is enforceable. You meant 145, maybe? Excuse me, RC 145 for the language amendment to 137.

Thank you, Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. I just, you know, I'm sitting here looking at RC 47 and doing the math, and with 2 of them combined, you basically have a 5-foot by 10-foot boat bottom like that. That to me is a 5 by 10. And with as it's written in 9, it.

The serrated edges, cutting it up makes it less of a planing surface. And I— so I can understand why number 9 was written the way it was. I also recognize that cutting this up, it's integral to the structure of this jet. However, if it— inter— being integral to it also creates a 5-foot by 10-foot surface. And so I can understand why it seems like We need to go with the— as the language that is written in RC 137.

I think it would create a 31-inch by—. I doubled them, sorry, with two jets. Sorry, I just did the combined math. Okay, got it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. DeGraaff, I did want to clarify, it does not have a length on that RC, so that would have to be added onto it. The width is okay. We do need a length measurement, otherwise that could grow to whatever it wanted to be. Does it say 5 foot beyond the 32-foot overall length in the RC, the end of the first paragraph?

If the board wanted a 5-foot extension out the back there, they could put that in there. I guess I'm— based upon your comment there and what we had heard was that would be restricted to some sort of measurement that's not extended 5 feet.

I'm sorry, let me clarify, please. Oh, sorry, I wasn't recognized. Mr. Wood. All right, sorry. I'm looking at RC 47, which was the structural drawings that were presented to us, and I just did the math pulling two of those together.

So I wasn't referring to any other RC other than— and my math could be wrong, but I was just trying to give a, a rough understanding of the size that we're dealing with. Yeah, sorry. And I would, as I was referring to that other one, if there's that 5-foot measurement and if the board is okay with that, then we're we're good. I just want to make sure that's kind of deviates from the other one quite a bit. Thank you.

Um, I guess I, we, I just, I want to make sure that I understand this because I don't know what the deviation is. If we're talking about 2 jets and you're talking about, I was talking about the language is presented in the, in the RC 145, and in both the language in Section 9 of RC 137 and in the language that I'm thinking about here, there is no amendment. I'm just saying, I'm just talking, I want to talk about it. RC 145 is that both of that, both of those RCs and the language in there talk about No part of the outdrive grounding guard may extend more than 5 feet beyond the 32-foot overall length. So I don't understand why there's a question and language discrepancy around what the extension beyond the 32-foot length would be.

Yeah, Madam Chair, hence the confusion with these, these proposals. Case in point, my testimony.

Either of these are enforceable. I believe they're both clear, both have in different ways different width and length measurements that we can enforce.

Okay, thanks. For me, it's pretty clear about one has strips and one doesn't. Okay, Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thanks. Um, this is the debate.

This exact issue. And through all the meetings with people, you know, it's hard to, like, take a census of how many people want something, how many people don't. There's so many boats in Bristol Bay, right? And not everybody has obviously spoken to me. There was— there could never be anything agreed upon on this particular issue.

And so when I put this in here, I had to pick one. And at the time, I felt the language in RC-137 was the most enforceable. It had the most public support. It had the most— the more people in discussions that I had on and off the record, they preferred this alternative. And I brought this language forward.

If somebody wants to amend it, fine, we can debate that. But that's the reason that I did it. I just wanted to make sure that that was clear on the record. And I just wanted to, again, just sort of acknowledge the RC-145. Any other discussion?

Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Approval of this proposal will result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in this 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 or omissions?

Nope. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 85 as amended. Chamberlain? Yes.

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

Yes. Carpenter? Yes. Wood? Yes.

Motion carries 6-0, Madam Chair.

Proposal 82. Madam Chair, Proposal 82, 5AAC 06.341, Vessel Specifications and Operations. Madam Madam Chair? Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 82 based on its ac— action on 85. I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 82. Proposal 83. Madam Chair, Proposal 83: 5AAC06.341 Vessel Specifications and Operations. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 83 based on its action on 85. I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 83. Proposal 84. Madam Chair, proposal 84, 5AAC 06.341, vessel specifications and operations. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on proposal 84 based on action of 85. I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Proposal number 85.

Right, proposal 86. Yeah. Madam Chair, proposal 86, 5AAC 06.341, vessel specifications and operations. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 86 based on its action on 85. Second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 86. Proposal 87. Madam Chair, Proposal 87, 5AEC 06.341, Vessel Specifications and Operations. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 87 based on its action on 85. I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 87. Proposal 88. Madam Chair, Proposal 88, 5AAC 06.341, bezel specifications and operations. Madam Chair, move the board takes— take no action on Proposal 88 based on its action on 85. I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal number 88. Proposal number 89. Proposal 89, 5AAC 06.341, Vessel Specifications and Operations. Madam Chair, I move the board take no action on proposal 89 based on its action on 85. I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on proposal number 89. How about proposal number 90? Proposal 90, 5AAC 06.341, Vessel Specifications and Operations. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 90 based on its action on 85. I second that.

Ask unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 90. Proposal 91. Proposal 91, 5AAC 06.341, Vessel Specifications and Operations. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 91 based on its action of 85.

I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on proposal number 91. Proposal 75. Madam Chair, proposal 75, 5AAC06.333, requirements and specifications for use of 200 fathoms of drift gillnet in Bristol Bay. Madam Chair.

Move to adopt. Second. Boy, we get to talk about— Staff comments, please. Proposal 75, 5AC06.333. This proposal would allow the owner of 2 CFEC drift gillnet permits to operate 200 fathoms of drift gillnet gear from a single vessel, also known as permit stacking.

The current regulations limit the length of a commercial drift gillnet to no more than 150 fathoms per vessel unless 2 CFEC drift gillnet permit holders are on board a vessel at the same time. The vessel and permit holders have registered as a dual operation and the vessel is marked accordingly. Dual permit regulations require two separate CFEC permit holders to be present on a vessel to operate as a dual vessel with 200 fathoms of gear, and both signatures are required on fish tickets at the time of delivery. These propose— this proposal would have no effect on management for salmon escapement goals. It is not possible to determine if there will be a decrease in vessel— in vessels or a change to the total amount of gear fished.

Permit stocking would likely increase permit value and reduce permit availability to new fishery participants by an unknown amount. The department is neutral on this proposal, but notes that.

These— this proposal could make it more difficult for the new fishery participants to obtain a CFEC limited entry permit and enter the fishery. Madam Chair, thank you. For discussion, Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. Um, I've been pretty consistent on this over the last 2 years when I've heard these.

Um, I'm not— I'm not in favor of this. Um, I do see the necessity for the D boat. I think it really helps get people, people that buy a permit onto a boat learning the craft and then eventually moving on.

And but consolidating 2 permits into 1 boat is going a step too far for me. We hear so much public testimony about outmigration from villages. They can't enter the fishery. One thing after another. This just makes it more difficult.

I know it's been done in a few places and each one has their own circumstances for doing it. But I mean, as the boats get bigger and the nets get longer, all in one person's name, I just have a really hard time with that. And this fishery cannot become even more inaccessible to rural communities and the people that live in them. So for that reason, I'm going to remain consistent in my past votes. I do not support this.

And that's it. Other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. I generally concur with Mr. Wood.

I do think there's places in the state where the consideration for something like this may be very different, but I think I heard in public testimony yesterday there was a young lady that came up and talked about how having this permit got her a job on a D boat. And I don't think that that's probably the only example in Bristol Bay. And so I think that's very important to take into consideration.

We heard a lot of economic information from the borough. We heard about the outmigration, the number of permits now in Bristol Bay that are owned and operated by non-residents. And I, and I take a lot of, a lot of that into account when I, when I think about proposals like this. So at the time in Bristol Bay and everything else that's going on, I think the DBOAT system, the way it's set up right now, is appropriate. That could change down the road, but for now, I'm not going to be able to support this.

And this conversation that we had around this yesterday, I thought there was some really good testimony and a lot of really good additional information that was brought into the conversation around the concept of permit stacking.

There was a few things that really stood out to me in that conversation. Number one was the feeling largely that it created a class of— a new class of permit holders.

And that there was a sentiment that it really didn't provide a significant advantage to the watershed residents. I was also very interested in the testimony that was presented as sort of a self-imposed buyback and the reference to the CFEC. I guess optimal utilization study— I'm not quite sure if that's the exact correct term— about the number of permits in Bristol Bay. And so that seems to me to be almost two conflicting priorities, which are both really good ones.

Therein lies, I think, the tension and the need for the debate. I do have concerns about if a permit stacking program were adopted and allowed by this board. The effect on the current D permit holders. It seems problematic and kind of maybe unfair a little bit to me to create the D permit program or structure and then change it and what the disenfranchisement would be to those people that invested in that way. And what would happen to that?

I've heard testimony that folks thought that that the permits would sort of slowly go away. And then I also heard the testimony that people didn't think that it would have that great of an impact on them. I don't know if I completely subscribe to the latter. I think my knee-jerk or my sense is that it probably would have a negative effect on the existing permit program and their values. And their values to those people that hold those D permits.

I also really appreciated in that discussion the introduction of a lot of interesting social science. And, you know, I've spent a lot of time kind of looking at the permits in Bristol Bay and seeing the attrition over time where those permits undeniably are leaving not only the bay but Alaska.

I think what we heard was over 1,000 of those permits are held by non-residents. And when I was looking at this issue a decade or so ago, I recall the number being around 60%, maybe a little north of that. And there being, you know, a fair amount of permits, 40%, that were then held between Alaska residents and I think within that breakdown, less than 20% were held by folks in the watershed. And I don't know how current that information is, but my recollection, again, when I was looking at this several years ago, is that it was in those ballpark ranges. And that's concerning because the perp— you know, we want the value and the benefits from our fisheries to benefit our state and our residents the most.

We can't sort of buck market forces too much, but I thought that some of the social science that was introduced was really compelling to me, and I certainly wouldn't be supportive of anything that would accelerate.

That trend any more than it already is. So I don't think I can be supportive of permit stacking at this time. I do recognize that there are local exceptions to that, but I definitely don't want to accelerate that trend, like I said. And I would also just reference some information that was presented in RC143 this morning. That showed the 10-year average earnings of SO3T owners broken down by non-Alaska residents, other Alaskans, and watershed residents for a 10-year average and then also for 2022.

And there's a very marked trend there where those folks in the watershed, for whatever reasons, are creating less value, monetary economic value, with their permits than not only other Alaskans, but definitely non-Alaska residents who sort of sit at the top of those numbers. So I just wanted to build that into the record and acknowledge that RC143, and I found it helpful. Mr. Godfrey. Yeah, I wasn't necessarily inclined to support this in the first place, but I would agree with the comments the board members have made thus far. And if I was inclined, you'd have to be extremely compelling reason to do it because there are 9 ACs on the record in opposition and 0 ACs in support.

Other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Approval of these— of this proposal may result in additional direct costs for a person to participate in the fishery if CFE— CFEC permit values increase. Approval of these proposals are not expected to result in additional cost to the department, and I call the question.

Question's been called. Any errors and omissions? Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 75. Wood.

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

Irwin. No. Chamberlain. No. Carpenter.

No. Motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair.

Proposal 76. Madam Chair, Proposal 76, 5AAC06.333, requirements and specifications for use of 200 fathoms of drift gillnet in Bristol Bay. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 76 based on its action on 75. I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal Number 76. Proposal 77. Proposal 77, 5AAC 06.333, requirements and specifications for use of 200 fathoms of drift gillnet in Bristol Bay. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please.

This proposal would create a new permit category, E, to permanently combine two Bristol Bay Drift Gill.

Permits, also known as permit stacking, and limit the number of these E permits to 300. Adopting this proposal would have no effect on management for salmon escapement goals. If the maximum 300 E permits were in use, it would permanently remove 30,000 fathoms of gillnet gear in Bristol Bay and permanently decrease the number of drift gillnet permits available. Permit stacking would likely increase permit value and reduce permit availability to new fishery participants by an unknown amount. This proposal could make it more difficult for new fishery participants to obtain a CFEC limited entry permit and enter the fishery.

The department recommends the board take no action on this proposal. The board does not have authority to create a new limited entry permit type or cap the number of permits issued. Madam Chair.

Thank you. For discussion, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I mean, for the record, I appreciate the department position on this, but when I looked at this initially, the first thing that stuck out in my mind was limiting something to 300 permits in an area that's accessible to all CFEC permits currently. Is there anything right there on itself which just makes the board's ability to do this basically illegal?

Member Carpenter, through the chair, yes. So this does two things. First, this is outside of the board's authority. Explicitly a duty or an authority reserved for the CFEC. CFEC gets to determine who gets to commercial fish.

The board gets to decide all the other what, when, where, why, and how. Secondarily, this would also be allocating within the same fishery. It would be the same species, same gear type, in the same area. But these E permit cat— or these E permit holders would be allowed to have a higher allowance than those with the other permits currently on the books. I appreciate you putting out on the record, and for that reason alone, I can't support this.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. I'll just note that in the comments by the department, increase the— quoted as increased permit value and reduced permit availability to the new fishery participants. And I'll reference all the comments I made on the, on the last proposal that, um, for stacking. Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Approval of this proposal may result in additional cost for direct, direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery if CFC permit values increase. 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 77. Wood?

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

Irwin? No. Chamberlain? No. Carpenter?

No. Motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair. Proposal number 78. Madam Chair, Proposal 78, 5AAC 06.333, requirements and specifications for use of 200 fathoms of drift gillnet in Bristol Bay. Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 75 based on its action on— or excuse me, on Proposal 78 based on its action on 75. I second that and ask unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on proposal number 78. Proposal 79. Proposal 79, 5AAC 06.331, gillnet specifications and operations. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move we adopt proposal 79 with substitute language found in RC 74.

Second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board has before it the language in RC 74 in lieu of the original language. Staff comments, please. Proposal 79. This would increase the maximum offshore operation distance for commercial set gillnets in the Ugashik River to 1,000 feet from the current maximum of 800 feet.

This would apply only to waters within Ugashik Village section. This proposal could allow operators to effectively fish a larger portion of the tide when the fishing period encompasses the entire cycle. If adopted, this will not impact management of the fishery. This is a traditional fishing area for permit holders residing in the area, with 7 permits actively fished in 2025. Historically, set gillnets here were allowed to operate within 1,000 feet from the 18-foot high-water mark.

However, in July of 2011, the U.S. United States Coast Guard found the entire 1,000-foot distance allowed by state regulation blocked the river enough to constitute an obstruction to navigation at nearly every tidal stage. The distance was therefore adjusted to 600 feet at the 2012 board meeting and increased to 800 feet at the 2022 board meeting. Over the past several years, the shoreline along the village where the fishing sites are located has been filling in with sediment. This has reduced the fishable area to less than the 800 feet in regulation in some sites. With the changing river conditions, it's unclear if not having a maximum— sorry, if having a 1,000-foot maximum distance would comply with Coast Guard navigation regulations.

The department is neutral on this proposal, Madam Chair. Thank you. More discussion? Mr. Godfrey. Yeah, having the— having had the opportunity to go to this specific location and, and see the challenges with the reduction in fishing capabilities of the net— nets and the time, my only concern would have been the navigation issues and potential for, you know, cutting off access to transit between that location.

We heard that discussion a little bit during Committee of the Whole, but in fact, uh, we have an RC29 and RC10, both one from the Bristol Bay Operations Manager and one from a tender, both who support this proposal, and both said that would not create any impediment for transit for them if this was adopted.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. I, I think as Mr. Godfrey pointed out, that being there and seeing it for yourself really helps understand, you know, how the, how the sediment is building up along the beach, requiring the set nets to get out a little bit further, that the actual main river, the deepest part of the channel, has even been pushed further away, making it easier to get around that outside edge. And, um, and, and hearing that these RCs here say, uh, from the tender, are say this isn't a problem we— it's not going to inhibit our ability to get in and tender fish. Also, the support that we heard publicly and through BBDC, it makes me inclined to support this proposal very much.

Mr. Nguyen. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, this is a very small, localized fishery as well, and I don't, I don't foresee this giving any one of these individual users an enormous impact. In fact, because of the erosion that's that's occurring right now and because of the sediment, they're actually at an extreme disadvantage. I did want to reference the 2016 Board of Fish criteria on board deliberations on commercial set gillnet proposals impacted by coastal erosion.

And I do believe as was submitted in RC-11, this, I believe this does meet the criteria number 1, whether the proposal seeks to address issues related to land that has eroded or accrued through the natural or artificial causes. To the leasehold. My only concern when first reading this proposal, knowing what these fishermen are dealing with, really was just whether or not there was boats or tenders and inability for them to move up the river. But looking at RC-10, a letter from the local tender driver saying that repealing the maximum offshore operational distance will not affect a vessel's ability to motor up or down because the only vessel using the river during fishing seasons are the tenders. And so this comes from a tender driver.

And so I think, I think they've made their case pretty strong. Thank you.

This isn't kind of interesting to me because of it is a very small, localized fishery and the disparity between some of the local participants in that fishery was very black and white, one side or the other.

I did get a chance to go out to Ugaxik Village this, this summer, this last July, and take a look at what the river has been doing. And while in 2011, as the department notes in their comments, the U.S. Coast Guard found the entire 1,000-foot distance blocked the river enough to constitute an obstruction, I don't know that they would have that same assessment in 2026. What I saw was sedimentation of the point bar. And what I also saw was an erosion of the cut bank on the other side. And I would guess that that probably goes beyond that 1,000 feet.

And it really did, in my estimation, have an impact, that sedimentation, on not only the traditional setnet sites, but also on local infrastructure, particularly the dock. That was really interesting to me to see where the community had really fixed up and revitalized this infrastructure, and then it's only available to them now for, you know, very certain portions of the high tide. So being there was, was very helpful. I want to acknowledge the concerns that folks have that have talked to me about concerns about navigation, but I think that the, the river has.

Changed enough and expanded on the other side that that 1,000 feet has probably changed over time. But I would be interested in what a new sort of survey of that is right now after, you know, we've seen these changes to the river, pretty dramatic ones, I would suspect. So I'm inclined to support it, but I also wanted to acknowledge that there's, there's not local consensus on this and that both sides of the debate are very passionate, and I really appreciate them being here in person to help communicate their concerns to the board. Mr. Owen. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Member Godfrey, a question for you. Just to clarify on record, I'm sorry if I missed this. Did you speak with stakeholders with regard to the substitute language? Yes. In reality, it's just additional language because they failed to clarify what the new limits would be.

Thank you for clarifying.

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

Question's been called. Errors and omissions? Seeing none. Director Nelson. Final action on Proposal 79 as amended.

Irwin? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes. Godfrey?

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

Carpenter? Yes. Motion carries 6-0, Madam Chair. Proposal number 80. Madam Chair, I'm Travis Ellison, Naknek Kwijak District Area Management Biologist.

Proposal 80, 5AAC06.331, gillnet specifications and operations. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. This will allow two CFEC set gillnet permit holders to operate together as a joint venture in the Bristol Bay area under the conditions of a joint venture permit issued by the department.

Currently in the Bristol Bay area, each commercial set gillnet permit holder must operate the unit of gear authorized by that permit and board regulations and deliver the fish caught with that gear. If adopted with the proposed regulatory language, individual set gillnet permit holders would continue to be responsible for delivering fish caught in their own gear. The department is neutral on this proposal. In analyzing this proposal, the department determined that 5 AAC 39.130 reports required for fishermen, processors, buyers, exporters, and operators of certain commercial fishing vessels, transport— and transporting requirements should be amended to establish harvest reporting requirements for joint venture operations similar to those in place for dual operation for dual permit operations. 5 AAC 39130 is promulgated under the commissioner's authority and can be amended outside the Board of Fisheries process.

Madam Chair, thank you. More discussion, please.

Don't all jump at once. Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you.

When I first read this, I thought it was very interesting because we do have an example in Kodiak. Now there are some differences with what's been happening in Kodiak, you know, for a long time, quite frankly, especially when it comes to gear and things like that. But I heard public testimony from somebody that fishes there and said he has it. I just couldn't get over the idea of why aren't they just using a transporter's permit that you can just get online and basically do what they want to do. And there might be a little bit of inconvenience there, but, um, I don't really know that this is going to solve a problem that couldn't be satisfied that way.

I mean, I know it's the board's prerogative to do something like that, and I'll listen to other board members, but, um, that, that, that's my opinion right now at least.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. You know, I went back, familiarized myself with the, the situation in Kodiak, and, um, that has its pluses and minuses as well. I'm not sure it all totally applies to this area. And honestly, after hearing the testimony, I'm, I'm not at all convinced that the problem that is being addressed here just cannot be solved with a transporter permit that you can get online as easily, as easily as you can a hunting license every year.

And I really think that is a simple, easy solution for your problem and still would fit within the boundaries of what you're even putting forth here. You'll achieve the same goal in the end.

So I view the situation in Kodiak a little bit differently. To my mind, that seems to structure more like a D permit almost than what is, I think, intended to be contemplated here. In the Kodiak operations of the Setnetters and the, air quotes, JV that they utilize, it's really, really kind of a stacking of permits and then an allowance of additional gear. And I recognize that the additional gear component is not what's being requested with Proposal 80, but those are two Pretty different scenarios in my mind. So I just wanted to put that out there.

And I agree with Member Carpenter. I thought about this one a lot. But I agree with Member Carpenter that there is a mechanism to accomplish what I think the proposer is trying to do that is already available. And that is that transporter license. And I heard in committee that The problem with that was that it sort of— the math associated with that slows things down.

But as I was thinking about that and the way it was described, what's slowing it down is getting an accurate fish ticket. And this allows me an opportunity to get back on my soapbox for a second and talk about fish tickets. That's what everybody should be doing anyway. It might slow down your operation to produce an accurate fish ticket, but it should.

This trend of averaging weights and averaging mixed stocks is something that I have a lot of issue with personally, but it also, in my opinion, and I am no legal expert, kind of flouts the certification of an accurate fish ticket that you are signing as a CFEC permit holder. And a permit to fish in a fishery comes with responsibilities. It is not an ownership of the resource. It is a privilege to access it, exclusively in some cases. So it is the duty of the fish ticket holder or the person signing the fish ticket, the permit holder, to make sure that there's an accurate accounting of your catch.

And this— that discussion really highlighted that for me. But it's not specific to a setnet site and it's not specific to those operations. It's specific to every CFEC permit holder in the state of Alaska. And I'll stop there. Any other board discussion?

Mr. Erwin. Yeah, thank you for your comments, Member Vandort. I'm— you really made me consider and think a lot about that in terms of the accurate counting of these fish tickets. I'd been in conversation with the author of this proposal, and I understand the issue that they're facing, and I don't believe in any way this is a backdoor to— for permit stacking or for incorrect fish counting. However, those could be some of the outcomes of this.

You know, it's a small unique fleet with the— on that beach. And I see the— how this seems like it could be a good simple solution. My fear is that it might not work exactly like it does in Kodiak. That it could lead— now I'm considering how it could lead to incorrect fish ticket counting. I want to acknowledge that the majority that the, that the Nuxalgiak and local AAs from Lower Bristol Bay as well did support this.

A lot of the setnetter associations within the area did. And so it seems as something that has local support for this venture. I'll leave it there. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Owen.

I also just kind of want to say that I think there's a path forward for this. I'm not saying that this is a bad idea by any stretch. I think it needs some additional time for refinement and thought and discussion. Um, there, there it is not without merit. I'll just say it that way.

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. Approval of this proposal is expected to result in additional cost and administrative time for the Department to administer joint venture permits. And I'd call the question.

Question has been called. Arizona missions. Seeing none, Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on proposal 80. Chamberlain?

No. Carlson-Vandort? No. Irwin? Yes.

Godfrey? Yes. Carpenter? No. Wood?

No. That motion fails. 2 In favor, 4.

Madam Chair, proposal number 81.

Madam Chair, 5A— or sorry, proposal 81, 5AAC06.330, GEAR. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on proposal 81 as the proposer has withdrawn support found in RC146. I second that and ask unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 81. And with that, that concludes the deliberations for Group 4 and for the Bristol Bay Finfish meeting.

Mr. Nelson, do we have any miscellaneous business to attend to? Nothing that's been brought to my attention, Madam Chair. Okay. And before we get into comments, I'll kick it off with comments, and I just I want to make sure there wasn't any confusion around what the board's intent was in terms of how the management plans and the action plan related to 61 was passed.

Not on my part, Madam Chair. Okay. I just want to ensure that the department understands that, at least from my perspective, and I will let my other members comment if they would like, that The actions that were stipulated in the substitute language for Proposal 61 and the action plan associated with the stock of concern designation on the Nushkat King Salmon were meant to be the least of the restrictions, and that there was nothing in the actions that the board took that would preclude— and rather, it would be my expectation that the department used its knowledge and expertise to be further restrictive if the department felt it was warranted in any of the fisheries. Yeah, that was, that was my understanding, Madam Chair. So you don't feel your, your EO authority has been compromised or restricted in any way?

Certainly not in the commercial or subsistence fishery.

No, we are more than capable to use our authority to restrict as well. Okay. Just wanted to make sure that was very clear. At this time, I will kind of open it up for any board comments before we adjourn. Ms. Erwin?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to take a moment and really appreciate everyone who has traveled and taken the time, money, and effort to be here today. And not only to be here, but to put in the work for years and months to put forward things like a management plan, to bring forward proposals to this board. For many, many years, I sat sat in those seats, and, um, I, I understand and I empathize with the length of time and the energy that it takes to engage in these, in these processes. I also recognize and want to appreciate the frustration that oftentimes comes out of these.

These are very difficult decisions, and I'm really grateful for all of the individual users and fishermen who took the time to explain their proposals to us, to understand where we were coming from. And a lot of the work that went into two of the bigger proposals, such as the the 32-foot length and the NUSH plan, that took a lot of collaboration at this meeting. And so I just want to thank everybody in the room, those of you who have stuck around as well, and continue to encourage folks to participate in this public process. Just because a proposal of yours gets voted down doesn't mean there wasn't merit, and we'd love to see it again in the future. I also want to take time to thank all of our staff around the table, and especially those closer to the front of the table who have been supporting our interactions with the public.

Thank you to Law and Captain DeGraaff and all of our department heads, and thank you to my fellow board members.

Any other board comments at this time? Mr. Wood? Sure. I'd just like to say that one of the best parts about being up here is having access to learning so much about an area and dive into it. And I'm just overwhelmingly impressed with this Bristol Bay area and the people and how you have fought to preserve your habitat, your lifestyle, your fishery.

And it never lets up. And don't give up vigilance. And I really appreciate that. And that your efforts to conserve king salmon and maintain the life that you need in this rural area is is the most ultimate thing you can do. So from my perspective, thank you for sharing that with me.

And also, I'd like to just thank the department for also painting this picture for us, and then all the staff that has helped us be able to read this paperwork and see things with a clear perspective. Thank you.

Thank you. I'd like to open up for any department staff if you'd like to offer any comments. Mr. Bowers. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I have a unique opportunity today to recognize Tim Sands, as this will be his final Board of Fisheries meeting after 26 commercial salmon seasons serving as area management biologist in Dillingham.

Tim's path to this role reflects a lifelong commitment to fisheries, public service, and stewardship. His career with the Department of Fish and Game began in 1988, as a volunteer with the Homer office in the Fishery Rehabilitation Enhancement and Development Division. After earning his Bachelor of Science in Fishery Science from the University of Alaska Fairbanks in 1991, Tim returned to Alaska Fisheries and continued building his experience through ADF&G seasonal field camps beginning in 1999. He joined the Bristol Bay Region as a Fishery Biologist 1 in the Nushagak and Togiak Districts in 2001 and advanced to Fishery Biologist III in 2002, taking on increasingly— increasing responsibility in one of the most complex and closely watched fisheries in the world. For more than 2 decades, Tim was on the front lines of managing the Bristol Bay salmon fisheries, often under intense scrutiny, long days, and difficult decisions.

Those familiar with this fishery know the role— know that the role demands technical expertise, calm judgment, resilience, and deep respect for both the resource and the people who depend on it. Tim brought those qualities to the job season after season. He managed through strong and weak runs, contentious meetings, and challenging conditions, always focused on conservation first and providing opportunity consistent with that responsibility. His steady leadership and institutional knowledge helped guide the department and the board through many of Alaska's fish— Alaska's most challenging fishery management decisions. On behalf of the department, we thank Tim for sharing his thoughts, his dedication, professionalism, and decades of service.

His impact will be felt for years to come in the strength of the fishery and in the many biologists and managers who learned from working alongside him. Thank you, Tim. I might add— [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] I might also add he's a hell of a good cook and a talented brewer.

Mr. Godfrey. I just want to echo that. Great hospitality. And yeah, what a remarkable cook.

And my hope is in retirement you open up a restaurant, buddy.

Absolutely. Well, I will close it out here. I don't see any other comments around this table. Certainly want to thank all the agency staff that came from Department of Public Safety, from Law, from the Department of ADF&G. I also don't want to be remiss in forgetting our federal friend down at at the table there.

Thank you for being with us. And again, echoing other sentiments, it's really the public that makes this possible. Thank you for showing up. Thank you for advocating for your fisheries. Thank you for educating me and this board.

Appreciate you being here. It doesn't work without you. And if there's nothing else, we will adjourn at 12:46. PM.