A proposal the Board of Fish should seriously consider

Last week we discussed some of the behind-the-scenes situations with the Board of Fisheries membership. The final board make-up for next year’s 2016-2017 cycle, which includes the Upper Cook Inlet board meeting, is yet to be finalized. I’ll keep tabs and let you know the outcome.

Regardless of BOF membership, the board will still be acting on proposals submitted to regulate the Upper Cook Inlet fisheries. The deadline to submit any relevant proposals you might be contemplating is April 10. Proposal forms are available on line or you can ask for help at the Fish and Game office in Palmer if you’re unsure how the whole process works.

I’m working on one proposal that is not my original idea, but which needs attention. If you look in the “Alaska Fish and Game Laws and Regulations Annotated” publication (the big, thick regulations book with all the “lawyer-speak” regulations) under 5 AAC 39.222, “Policy for the management of sustainable salmon fisheries,” you will find a very well thought-out and written approach containing conditions which must, by regulation, be given consideration for protecting a salmon stock while developing salmon management regulations and allowable harvest amounts for that stock. This regulation is commonly referred to as the SSFP.

This regulation was developed by the BOF twenty-some years ago as a policy. It was later turned into a regulation which must be followed by both the BOF and Fish and Game. Within this regulation, some detailed steps are outlined on how a stock of salmon could qualify to be declared a Stock of Concern in the event of sustained poor returns of that stock of fish.

In a nutshell, the returns on a stock of salmon must be below the minimum escapement goal for at least four consecutive years before the stock could be considered for declaration as a SOC. Fish and Game usually makes the recommendation to the BOF and they, in turn, make the declaration.

Here’s the catch. There’s nothing in the regulation to guide when a stock has recovered sufficiently to be removed from the SOC list. For example, let’s say the Jim Creek coho run has missed minimum escapement numbers by a significant margin for five consecutive years and is declared a stock of concern. Over the next two years, the coho return meets the minimum goal, but by less than 50 fish each year. Does that mean the run has recovered and no longer needs a special management plan to return it to a healthy status? With no guidelines on what constitutes a recovery, a recommendation could be made to remove the stock from SOC listing.

What I’m thinking of proposing is that, since it takes a minimum of four to five consecutive years of poor returns to qualify a salmon stock for SOC status, then it should take at least as long for strong returns to happen before considering the delisting of the stock.

What am I calling a “strong return?”

My suggestion would be return numbers at least 25 percent above the minimum escapement goal for the stock for the same number of years it took for the stock to qualify for SOC status originally. In the example for Jim Creek coho, it would take at least five consecutive years of return numbers 25 percent or more above the minimum escapement goal for that system and species to be eligible for removal from SOC status.

This sounds fairly simple on the surface, but let me assure you it is a complex concern. Different species of salmon have different length life cycles: for instance, pinks are two years and kings can be eight years or more. The other species fall somewhere in between. Some runs have well developed escapement goals and many others don’t have any. For the stocks with an escapement goal, some returns are counted through weirs so a fairly exact count is possible while others are “best guessed” through an aerial survey index or a streamside walking count estimate.

Should a “one size fits all” approach be crafted or should a more detailed approach, by species or system, be constructed to address the issue? I’m thinking that the board members who originally developed the SSFP grappled with these same issues and arrived at their four to five year timeframe as a reasonable compromise for the policy.

Whatever is decided by the BOF, it’s a needed addition to the SSFP regulation. After all, the Northern District currently has 8 of the 14 statewide SOCs.

Howard Delo is a retired fisheries biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. This column is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman or its parent company, Wick Communications. You can leave Delo a message by emailing sports@frontiersman.com.