Last week I discussed the Alaska Board of Fisheries teleconference, held last week, which addressed two proposals — one to raise sportsfishing daily bag limits on black cod and the second addressing the northern pike problem in the Alexander Lake/Creek system.

I stated that the teleconference would be interesting to listen to.

I think it was! I’ll refer you back to my April 28 column for more specific details on the two proposals. I want to address the teleconference outcomes and a timely editorial today.

The black cod proposal didn’t generate much controversy between board members. There was discussion why sportsfishing limits had been placed on the species to begin with and why the board found itself in the situation of addressing black cod bag limits for the third time in a little over two months.

One member argued that the daily bag limit should remain low because of the declining black cod stock status in Southeast Alaska and the corresponding annual reduction in allocated catch to the black cod commercial fishery. Other members stated that the original proposal for a limit on the sports fishery came from a board member, not the users who were now so concerned about the level of the sportsfish harvest, so accusations of a “fully allocated” fishery being damaged didn’t carry much weight.

After some good exchanges, discussion of data as it existed (or not), and record building by the board members, a final vote was taken. The proposal passed unamended. The new daily bag limit for black cod is four fish per day. The annual limit was also removed for residents, since no meaningful data existed to indicate the harvest was significant.

Charter guides were further required to keep records of their clients’ harvest of black cod and these figures reported weekly to ADF&G. There weren’t any meaningful catch records from the sports fishery for black cod prior to this requirement being imposed.

The second proposal regarding size limits and icefishing methods for northern pike in the Alexander system was a “slam dunk” from the beginning. The BOF was unanimous in its support for the need to remove as many pike as quickly as possible from the Alexander system to aid the nearly extinct Alexander Creek king salmon stock.

The only item that generated some discussion regarding pike was the possibility of easing the wanton waste regulations for the Alexander system. I don’t think any board member actually supported allowing wanton waste of the pike but, for purposes of discussion and record building, the topic was discussed.

Allowing wanton waste is contrary to every sports fishery tradition in the state. Allowing it on only one system would create an enforcement nightmare. However, if the ADF&G and/or the BOF eventually develop a “predator control” program for pike somewhat analogous to the programs for wolves and bears, this topic might surface again.

The controversial part of the teleconference came next when a member introduced an emergency regulation to restrict the first two periods of the Northern District set gillnet king salmon fishery to 6 hours, from the current 12-hour periods.

After discussion of the limited data on recent king salmon returns, commercial catch, the recent history of how the commercial fishery has been expanded, and a discussion of how the in-river users have already been significantly restricted, the board voted that an emergency existed and further voted to support this emergency regulation.

The issue is not done yet, but I’ll go into more of that detail in a future column.

In light of this teleconference and its results, the following editorial comments were very timely. I refer you to the opinion page from this past Sunday, May 3, in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner (http://www.newsminer.com/news/2009/may/03/good-fish-science-essential/?opinion).

Bonnie Williams, a BOF member, wrote the editorial and explained some of the problems faced by board members as they grapple with decisions like I just described. Mrs. Williams cites several examples of issues the board has been asked to decide with little, incomplete, or nonexistent scientific data on the topic.

She also raised an issue every board member, over time, has experienced and which causes a tremendous amount of “soul-searching” by members listening to data presentations: who can be trusted to present unbiased data?

Every stakeholder at a BOF meeting has an agenda, including ADF&G. However, ADF&G usually has the best data available and the board has come to rely on ADF&G for the “best available data.”

Williams states, “Some staff, unfortunately, tailor things, attempting to engineer outcomes rather than to fully inform. Once alerted, I found myself in a constant dilemma, in which I wondered, each time this individual gave a report to us, whether I should believe a single word I was hearing.”

Continuing, “When the information we are provided has been selected to predetermine our decisions, we cannot fulfill our responsibility. It is critical that the board receive only truth, and the full truth. Most staff make a best effort to give us that.”

Williams concludes her editorial with, “We must work harder to address major problems. An increase in research funding would improve the quality of decisions. Better supervision might ensure that not just most but all staff reports provide complete and factual data. With these tools, future boards can maintain this great (fisheries) resource.”

Howard Delo is a retired fisheries biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. You can leave him a message by e-mailing sports@frontiersman.com.