BOF has full plate at meeting

The Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF) met in Anchorage Dec. 1-8 to consider action on about 50 proposals dealing with the Bristol Bay area and its fisheries. The proposals could be divided into several categories, but only a select few were universally controversial among the folks attending the meeting.

One controversial proposal asked for the removal of the 32-foot length limit for the drift gill net boats participating in the sockeye fishery in Bristol Bay. The side favoring the removal of the length limit argued that a larger boat is safer and it gives more work room on board, allowing a better quality fish to be delivered to the processor. This results in more money to the fisherman. It would improve the efficiency of the vessel’s operation. In addition, it would allow the boat to be used in other fisheries, like herring seine or long-lining, which occurs in the region. Allowing the fisherman to choose the size vessel he wants would make the fishery more competitive in the world market.

The side arguing against removing the length limit presented counter arguments for all the previously stated issues, plus argued that the current infrastructure in Bristol Bay was designed to deal with 32-foot or shorter boats. Longer boats would require new docks, lifts, etc. Another counter argument was that only the drift permit holders who lived outside Bristol Bay had ready access to the facilities and funding necessary to either lengthen an existing boat or have a new one built. They felt that if the limit were removed, the locals would automatically find themselves at a competitive disadvantage in the drift net fishery.

Regarding the proposals dealing directly with issues in the prosecution of the Bristol Bay fisheries, this length limit proposal was arguably the most contentious. One board member was conflicted out during deliberations because he owns and fishes a Bristol Bay drift gill net permit. The final vote was 3-3. A total of four votes are required for any regulatory proposal to pass. The length limit stays in place.

The issue of “permit stacking” was another hot topic. Alaska law allows one person to own more than one commercial fishing permit in a fishery; however, in Bristol Bay, a person can only fish one permit at a time. There were several proposals asking that one person be allowed to fish two drift permits at the same time or two set net permits at the same time. There were also proposals asking that all permit stacking that currently exists be eliminated.

Currently in Bristol Bay, two drift permit holders are allowed to fish together off the same boat at the same time; however, they are limited to only 25 percent more gear than a single permit holder can fish (200 fathoms verses 150 fathoms). This regulation was passed by a previous board to allow those permit holders whose boats were no longer functional to continue fishing without the necessity of investing money they didn’t have into an old and possibly unsafe boat in order to make a living.

There were many arguments presented both for and against these proposals. The bottom line was that the locals who opposed permit stacking felt that allowing it would only make the non-local permit holders who had access to funding to buy additional permits more competitive. The locals felt they would eventually be pushed out of the fishery altogether if this practice were allowed. However, many wanted the existing permit stacking regulations to remain because they saw that some locals were helped by those regulations.

The final vote, again with one member conflicted out, saw the drift permit stacking proposals fail. The set net permit stacking proposal passed because it was felt this practice would not harm the fishery nor disadvantage the local permit holders. In fact, many local set netters argued for allowing permit stacking because it would allow a family business to continue when kids were gone to college or when other circumstances arose that otherwise would preclude fishing all the permits being held in the family. The existing stacking regulations were maintained.

Last, but not least, one proposal asked the BOF to recommend to the Alaska State Legislature that a refuge be created encompassing the areas where the Pebble Mine operation is currently exploring for mineral deposits. An entire day during the meeting was set aside to hear presentations from the state permitting agencies involved and to take testimony from the public both in favor of and opposed to the creation of this refuge.

Those favoring a refuge basically don’t trust the state permitting process to adequately protect the fisheries habitat from the effects of a large mining operation. Those opposing a refuge are concerned about future economic development on private property within a refuge and some felt the permitting process was adequate to deal with the Pebble Mine project.

The BOF only has the authority to make a recommendation to the Legislature on this issue. The Legislature will ultimately decide the fate of this refuge. The BOF is working on a letter to the Legislature that will include its recommendations and copies of all the testimony heard and state agency presentations given to the BOF.

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.