Alaska Board of Fisheries work session

I attended the Alaska Board of Fisheries Work Session on Tuesday October 29 and Wednesday October 30 for the full session both days. Pete Probasco joined me in representing the Matanuska - Susitna Borough Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC) positions including supporting Agenda Change Request (ACR) 2 that we had submitted and supporting ACR 3 submitted by the Mat-Su Legislative delegation.

ACR 2 requested the board designate Susitna River Chinook Salmon as a stock of yield concern with the development of an action plan to rebuild the stock. While ACR 3 requested the board designate Little Susitna River coho salmon as a stock of yield concern with the development of an action plan to rebuild the stock.

Before the work session Pete, FWC member Larry Engel, and I had collected additional documentation on how a couple previous Stock of Yield concerns had been designated by the board, on the regulatory language definition for yield concern listed in 5 AAC 39. 222 Policy for the management of sustainable salmon fisheries(SSFP), and on the use of the term chronic inability, as defined in the SSFP, and also as used in the previous stock of yield concern designations — which differed. Since there was no public testimony to participate in during the work session, we wrote up our research on the subjects to be submitted as a record copy (RC). We then submitted one RC in support of each ACR as soon as possible —after the start of the work session. There was a bit of time spacing between the submission of the two RCs — RC 8 in support of ACR 2 and RC 16 in support of ACR3.

All of the ACRs submitted for consideration by the BOF at the work session, along with Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) consideration of if the ACRS met any or all of the possible 3 criteria for an agenda change request can be viewed by visiting the BOF work session webpage.

After arriving at the meeting and submitting RC 8, I looked around and saw a board member out amongst the public hearing their concerns, so I approached, and when there was an opportunity to converse without interrupting anyone else, introduced myself and talked a bit about both ACR 2 and ACR 3. We had a good conversation and the board member heard FWC concerns firsthand with the opportunity to questions me question about the ACRs. The board member told me, upfront, that the department (ADF&G) was pushing back pretty hard against the BOF scheduling either ACR 2 or ACR 3 for a meeting, and also told me of intent to follow another board member’s lead on ACR 2 and ACR 3.

At a work session or regular BOF meeting there are often many people circulating and attempting to express their concerns to board members, so there may be a limited opportunity to speak directly with board members and especially with more experienced BOF members more familiar with the process. Through the remainder of the first day I managed to have a couple conversations with Doug Vincent-Lang (Commission of Fish and Game), several additional ADF&G staff, a couple additional board members, and several members of other organizations, and interested public members attending for their own reasons. These conversations only took place, however when the board was taking breaks from their recorded meeting. FWC member Pete Probasco had similar conversations during the first day.

During ethics disclosures Board member Mike Woods opted out of participating in actions on ACR 2 and ACR 3, as he had a commercial fishing venture that presented a conflict of interest where he could possible gain or lose financially from what was decided on these issues. Chair Carlson-Van Dort ruled to accept that decision, but allow him to participate in all other actions.

Specific board actions at the meeting of particular interest to me were the election of Marit Carlson-Van Dort as the chair (I like the way she runs a public meeting and she is also very well-spoken). There was a tie vote for the vice chair position, with one board member absent from the entire two-day work session, so vice chair from the previous term, Tom Carpenter, (who is also very well-spoken) remained in that position at present.

The board set a scheduled time and place for some upcoming BOF meetings, including the next Upper Cook Inlet Meeting to be held in 2026 / 2027 with member Carpenter making a motion to have the meeting in Anchorage, but member Mike Wood (from Talkeetna) voicing objection and requesting having the next Upper Cook Inlet meeting on the Kenai Peninsula and explaining that he liked going to different communities and hearing their viewpoints — he also suggested the following meeting could be in a Mat-Su location. Other BOF members mentioned that approached had been tried in the past, but the next board could opt out of such an arrangement — and had in the past. Anchorage was home to the largest population of people in the area, and also more of a neutral location than the Mat-Su or Kenai. The Anchorage location passed 5-1.

Also of note during the first day, Executive Director Art Nelson mentioned to board members next year’s call for proposals / ACRs could include a phrase specifically stating that nonregulatory proposals would not be accepted. Chair Carlson- Van Dort had questions as to how the public might possibly provide input on stock of concern designations if that were done — noting that the State of Alaska BOF process was often mentioned as one of the best public participation processes for regulation making — and not wanting to lose opportunity for public participation. After a bit of back and forth conversation, the board took a meeting break and worked out a position with ADF&G Commissioner Vincent-Lang. When the board came back in session the Chair / Commissioner put on record that ADF&G’s stock of concern recommendations would be made public with adequate time for the public to provide written comments before the next work session — and that the public could also contact BOF members with their concerns about ADF&G stock of concern recommendations (or lack of recommendations?) at the annual work session. At the work session the board would make designations — giving ADF&G time to develop an action plan before a regularly scheduled BOF meeting dealing with the stock of concern designations in that specific area of the state. There was an implied or stated message that stock of concern designations would not be heard or considered out of their regular cycle.

Nothing was specifically stated on-the-record about ACR 2 and ACR 3 during the first day of the work session, but both Pete and I had a strong feeling that could be the end of on-the-record consideration of both ACRs.

Day 2 — ACR 2 and ACR 3 — Not Accepted

The next day when ACRs were considered, both ACR 2 and ACR 3 were voted down with hardly any additional on-the-record discourse. Two board members mentioned that they concurred with ADF&G that ACR 2 did not fit the criteria of 1. Conservation purpose, 2. Correcting an error in regulation, or 3. New Information. ACR 2 was then rejected 0-6. The board discourse on ACR 3 was even briefer with the same two BOF members referencing their comments on ACR 2, followed by a similar 0-6 rejection.

Of the fifteen ACRs considered by the BOF, four were considered to have met the criteria for new information by ADF&G, and with four or more BOF members conjuring with ADF&G’s assessment, accepted, and scheduled to be considered at the March state-wide shellfish meeting, including ACR 4, ACR 8, ACR 11, and ACR 14.

While neither ACR 2 nor ACR 3 were scheduled to be heard this cycle, I was given considerable helpful suggestions about ACRs by Commissioner Vincent-Lang and one particular BOF member. After the work session I asked Alaska Outdoor Council representative, Rod Arno, what he had learned from the meeting. “You can’t get an ACR accepted by the BOF— without an ADF&G position that it meets an ACR criteria,” was his quick assessment.

Mat-Su Borough Fish and Wildlife Commission News

Two long-time commissioners, Howard Delo and Larry Engel will be stepping down from the commission following completion of their current terms in December. If you know Howard or Larry —or both individuals, please join me in giving them a Huge Thank You! for their many years of volunteer service.

Individuals interested in a position on the advisory commission are encouraged to fill out and submit a Mat-Su Borough Boards and Commissions application. For more information contact Maija DiSalvo at 907- 861-7865

Fish On!