BOF too liberal with wiggle room

In my March 25 column, I mentioned that I didn’t think the Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF) would make any changes to either of the Prince William Sound (PWS) shrimp management plans — commercial or noncommercial. I was wrong, as I learned from a department press release explaining the changes made.

The BOF selected Proposal 358 as the driver in its consideration of possible actions to take in regard to the PWS commercial shrimp plan. That proposal wanted to shut down the commercial shrimp pot fishery in the sound. Board member Vince Webster introduced substitute language to the original proposal that would allow the commercial fisheries managers to spread the commercial harvest throughout the area in PWS being fished that season under the plan.

That’s a reasonable adjustment to the commercial management plan based on three seasons worth of data. This action should lessen tensions between commercial and noncommercial harvesters when the two groups are fishing the same area. However, rather than stopping there, Webster also proposed expanding the commercial harvest into an area which had previously been closed to commercial shrimp pot fishing.

Webster also included in his substitute language the repeal of two major sections of the noncommercial shrimp management plan. Those two provisions specifically granted Fish and Game the authority to adjust the noncommercial shrimp quota either higher or lower based on data and calculations from the previous year’s noncommercial harvest and the projected noncommercial harvest of the upcoming season. This ability to adjust the quota higher or lower is done by changing the number of pots a vessel can fish or time and area of allowed fishing.

When I was on the BOF, we were told we could do a lot of things with the regulations if a proposal was introduced addressing those regulations, but we could not pass a regulation that achieved the opposite purpose of the original proposal’s intentions. I’m no lawyer, but I see some problems with Webster’s substitute language and the BOF vote supporting that language.

First, the original proposal asked for the closure of the commercial shrimp pot fishery in PWS. By passing Webster’s substitute language, the board actually increased and expanded the commercial fishery into a previously closed area. That’s in direct opposition to the proposer asking that the commercial fishery be closed.

Also, by passing the substitute language, the BOF tied the hands of Fish and Game in making adjustments to the noncommercial fishery. The original proposal was clearly written by a noncommercial user who wanted the noncommercial fishery protected. I’m told that during proposal deliberations, at no time were the changes to the noncommercial management plan discussed by board members and some were not even aware these noncommercial plan changes were part of the substitute language.

Better legal minds than mine need to look at this and determine whether the BOF exceeded its authority by passing substitute language in direct opposition to the original proposal’s intent and also made regulation changes to a management plan without board deliberation.

Generally, Fish and Game has the authority to increase or decrease bag or possession limits in various sports fisheries to protect the resource and/or improve harvest capabilities. There are a few fisheries where this authority does not exist for whatever reason. That lack of authority often caused a problem for the specific fishery manager, especially in above- or below-average return or harvest years. During my time on the BOF, we usually tried to make sure the department had that specific authority in any regulation changes we made. That’s why those provisions were included in the original PWS noncommercial shrimp management plan.

With the repeal of these two provisions in the noncommercial shrimp management plan, the department cannot make any quota adjustments and only specific BOF action can change the regulation, a situation the BOF was trying to avoid during my time there.

I know several people have voiced concerns about proper board process to the attorneys who advise the board, to the governor and Fish and Game commissioner about this action.

I hope these authority figures take these concerns seriously and that a public explanation of why this board action is either proper or must be corrected by future board action is given. That explanation would go a long way in clarifying exactly how much wiggle room the board has in passing regulations differing from the original proposals.

Howard Delo is a retired fisheries biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. You can leave him a message by emailing sports@frontiersman.com.