Becoming a board veteran

The Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF) has been and continues to be an “interesting” experience. This is my second year out of a three-year appointment and things have definitely gotten spicier this year compared to last.

Last year’s biggest challenge was the Upper Cook Inlet meeting. I won a few and lost a few. I met some interesting people and learned some things about the Cook Inlet fisheries and how they operate and are managed. I made some friends and probably a few enemies, but I expected that. Any action the board takes regarding a fully allocated fishery, such as Cook Inlet salmon, will please some and disappoint others.

This year’s cycle got interesting from the first workshop held in Fairbanks last October. When I asked for acceptance of a board-generated proposal which, at the time, was addressing an apparent error in regulation, I was just-this-side of threatened by a member of the commercial fishing fleet. When I reported the statement to the proper people, I was told it wasn’t quite criminal but definitely warranted a visit from the legal folks. I think that visit happened because I heard no more from that individual the rest of the meeting.

At the Cordova meeting in December, the BOF voted not to take up changing the Chitna dipnet fishery from personal use to subsistence. The Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC) didn’t like that outcome and filed suit against the BOF to force a change.

I’m not going to explain or defend the board’s action about Chitna — that’s the job of the Department of Law attorneys who advise the board and make sure the board’s actions are defensible in court in the event somebody files a lawsuit. As the case makes its way through the legal system, I’m sure newspaper and broadcast media coverage will keep you abreast of what’s happening.

Also at the Fairbanks workshop, the board voted where to hold the next year’s cycle of meetings. The Bristol Bay fisheries will be coming up for discussion and action on proposals. The last Bristol Bay meeting was held in Dillingham and, for the coming cycle, the meeting should be held in the King Salmon area.

When the board discussed where to hold the Bristol Bay meeting, they were informed that the only hotel in King Salmon capable of hosting a BOF meeting had burned down. There was serious question if adequate support facilities were available elsewhere locally.

Now, adequate facilities mean more than a hotel room, a restaurant, and a meeting room. BOF meetings are digitally recorded and streamed out over the Internet to the world, so Internet access is vital. In addition, wireless e-mail, photocopying services capable of handling thousands of copies per day, office supplies, cellular and regular telephone services, including long-distance, are examples of the critical components necessary for a modern BOF meeting to properly operate.

Since the status of King Salmon’s ability to address these requirements was not known, the board voted to hold the Bristol Bay meeting in Anchorage this cycle with the hope of having the next meeting back in King Salmon. That would give the King Salmon area essentially four years to regroup, rebuild, and revisit hosting a BOF meeting. This discussion was brought up again at the Cordova meeting and the board reaffirmed their vote to hold the meeting in Anchorage.

Several Bristol Bay residents protested both board votes. However, more than half of all Bristol Bay commercial fishing permits belong to people who do not reside in Bristol Bay. They are scattered all over Alaska and the Lower 48. The board heard that these folks preferred the meeting be held in Anchorage.

The Bristol Bay locals were upset, to the point that their state representatives, with support from a couple of other area representatives, have introduced HB 117. This bill would require the BOF to hold meetings within a defined region if the proposals scheduled for that meeting only pertain to that region. The regions are spelled out in the bill.

This bill, sponsored by Representatives Edgmon, Thomas, Austerman, Joule, and Herron, is well-meaning but will cause some problems. First, I don’t recall a meeting where all the proposals, agenda change requests, petitions, and emergency actions only pertained to one region. For instance, we were just in Petersburg dealing with Southeast shellfish issues and had a petition from Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association pending.

Second, in my year-and-a-half on the board, I have participated in three regulatory teleconferences. Does this bill prohibit teleconferences? Talk about upping the cost of doing business – a one-hour teleconference verses tens of thousands of dollars and hundreds of man-hours to set up and attend a one-hour meeting with hotels, airfare, and all the related costs of a full board meeting.

The legislature has already been looking over the BOF’s shoulder with their Cook Inlet Salmon Task Force investigations, resulting from the last Upper Cook Inlet meeting. I hope the legislators involved with that assignment learned that fisheries issues are not as simple and straightforward as some would have them believe.

If HB 117 were to pass, the BOF meeting format will be significantly disrupted.

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.