Board of Fisheries socked with questions

I heard an interesting theory a while ago from a good friend who is also very active in trying to convince the state to do more to protect and rebuild our Northern District salmon runs. I’ll need to give you some background so you’ll see how his theory might apply. The first background point is that neither he nor I have a law degree.

The Northern District Salmon Management Plan (5 AAC 21.358) specifically states, “(b) The department shall manage the Northern District commercial salmon fisheries based on the abundance of Yentna River sockeye salmon, the Yentna River escapement goal, or other salmon abundance indices as the department deems appropriate. Achievement of the lower end of the Yentna river escapement goal shall take priority over not exceeding the upper end of the Kenai River inriver run goal.”

Earlier in the plan, under (a), the following is stated: “The department shall also manage the chum, pink and sockeye salmon stocks to minimize the harvest of Northern District coho salmon, to provide sport and guided sport fishermen a reasonable opportunity to harvest these salmon resources over the entire run, as measured by the frequency of inriver restrictions, or as specified in this section or other regulations.”

At the 2008 Upper Cook Inlet Board of Fisheries (BOF) meeting, the board designated the Yentna/Susitna sockeye stocks as Stocks of Yield Concern because of the failure to make minimum escapements in five of the previous seven years’ returns. Prior to the 2009 fishing season, Fish and Game adopted a new methodology for enumerating the Yentna/Susitna sockeye returns. This new methodology had no specific escapement goals designated and the actual estimated escapement is only complied after the season is over. Management of the Kenai return is done in season, as the fish are showing up, not after the fact.

In numerous of the 38 emergency orders issued for the 2010 Cook Inlet commercial fishery, mention is made of the need for extra commercial fishing time because of the potential overescapement of the Kenai and/or Kasilof sockeye stocks. I think the Yentna returns were mentioned once.

The active management of Cook Inlet sockeye returns is based on the strength of the Kenai/Kasilof sockeye returns. As I read and understand things, the Yentna returns are basically an afterthought to the overall management scenario, in direct conflict with the quoted (b) section above.

With all of the extra commercial fishing time granted toward the end of the sockeye run this year, Northern District coho were intercepted in large numbers, often interfering with the ability of local residents “… to harvest these salmon resources over the entire run.”

Again, the concern appears to be controlling sockeye escapements into the Kenai/Kasilof at the expense of intercepting Northern District bound coho salmon. This is in direct conflict with the portion of (a) quoted above.

Senator Kookesh of Angoon and three others were cited this past summer for being over limit when checked while subsistence salmon fishing. When the case went to court, the defendants argued that the subsistence limit of fish was arbitrarily set by Fish and Game without the benefit of public comment, as required by law in the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The BOF had not set a specific bag limit for this fishery.

The Superior Court judge, David George, issued a finding in open court on Sept. 2 that agreed with the defendants’ arguments and dismissed the case. The state has since filed a motion asking the court to reinstate the citation because the state maintains the court failed to consider other statutes and regulations Fish and Game says gives the agency the authority to set the particular bag limit in question. This case is not over yet.

OK, so what’s this theory I mentioned at the beginning? It goes like this. The change in enumeration methodology of the Yentna/Susitna sockeye stocks was announced prior to the 2009 season, outside the normal Cook Inlet BOF regulatory cycle, with no public comment or input into the development of the methodology. The BOF was not consulted or informed of this change in how a Stock of Yield Concern (SYC) would be enumerated or in how the change might affect the SYC status. Does this lack of public comment in changing a major enumeration methodology constitute a violation of the APA similar to the Kookesh case?

The new enumeration methodology does not give priority to making an unspecified minimum escapement goal number for the Yentna/Susitna over an overescapement of Kenai sockeye, as required by a management plan. Does this mean the manner in which the Northern District sockeye stocks are enumerated violates a BOF management plan developed in conformity to the APA?

Does allowing extra commercial fishing time from late July through mid-August to control the number of sockeye escaping into the Kenai and/or Kasilof drainages, knowing that many commercial drifters target coho during that time, constitute a failure to comply with a management plan which specifically states that commercial catches of coho salmon are to be “minimized” in favor of the sports fishing interests?

These are interesting questions being raised. I, for one, hope the BOF asks these questions of Fish and Game during the upcoming Upper Cook Inlet meeting and demands an actual understandable answer, not some political double-speak. If the department can’t answer these questions coherently, perhaps it’s time for major revisions in the management of Cook Inlet salmon runs.

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.