Decision sparks questions

Every once in a while, somebody you’d think would know better pulls a stunt and all you can do is stand back and shake your head in wonder at the thoughtlessness. I’ve been shaking my head for a week or so now.

Last week, I commented on how the Commercial Fisheries Division (CFD) finally made a proactive management decision that was not spelled out in a management plan, required by a Board of Fisheries (BOF) emergency regulation or forced by legislative pressure. They had reduced the fishing time of a commercial set gillnet opening in the Northern District in response to a shortage of king salmon and the fact that the Sport Fish Division (SFD) had eliminated bait in the Deshka River.

I applauded their action, but questioned their motives as to why they did so. An action of this nature was totally out of character for the management style the CFD has used in managing the Northern District salmon stocks for the past decade or more. While wondering why, I still was encouraged that maybe they were beginning a management approach which was more in tune with the needs of the Northern District. I guess I’m the “eternal optimist.”

After making this Northern District management decision in a rational and prudent manner, the CFD turns around and proverbially shoots themselves in the foot credibility wise with a decision made down on the Kenai. They decided to move ahead with a “cost recovery” fishery to offset the cost of managing the sockeye salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet. That’s the cause of my head shaking.

Now, the CFD has the legal authority to “cost recover” their expenses in the management of various fisheries they are responsible for. For instance, the CFD contracts with a commercial drift net boat to run test fisheries in Cook Inlet to aid the commercial managers in announcing opening times and areas for the commercial gillnet fisheries. This test fishery is looking for the quantity and species of fish present and generally where they are in the inlet. This contract has a cost and the fish caught in this test fishery are sold and the funds used to help offset this cost.

This test fishery cost recovery technique has historically been used in a commercial fishery either during or just slightly before that fishery is set to open by regulation. The scenario previously mentioned falls squarely in that realm.

However, the CFD managers and supervisors have decided to stretch the sideboards of the definition of what a test fishery is and when it can occur. The CFD had announced a fundraising fishery which was held at the mouths of the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers during this past week to raise funds needed to manage the July sockeye runs in Cook Inlet.

There are several problems with this particular fund-raising fishery: first, the stocks targeted were the Russian River sockeye and the Kenai early run king salmon, both considered to be stocks to be managed for the sports fisheries; and, second, there was no commercial fishery either ongoing or set to start when this fund-raiser was held.

Both the Russian River sockeye and the early run Kenai king returns were late this year and management concerns led to the closure of the Kenai king salmon sport fishing season until a slug of fish finally showed up. The Russian River reds are not fairing as well to date. Less than 1,900 fish have been counted the last time I checked the numbers where tens of thousands have been counted by this same time last year.

Because of protests to the governor’s office and the Fish and Game Commissioner, the CFD in Soldotna was “instructed” to end the fund-raiser fishery sooner than planned. In light of the dismal preseason department predictions of sockeye returns in Cook Inlet and the fact that so few Russian River fish have been counted into the system so far, why did the CFD managers have to be instructed to end the fishery? Where was the concern for the health of the resource, as required by the sustainable salmon fisheries policy regulation which mandates the department manage conservatively in times of uncertainty? Or was there a stronger concern about raising some money to pay a bill or two?

Kevin Delaney, a retired former director of the Sport Fish Division and currently a consultant to the Kenai River Sportsfishing Association (KRSA), was quoted in a recent newspaper article saying, “They’ve (the CFD) stretched the definitions here (of a test fishery and a cost recovery program).

They’re not testing anything. They’re simply harvesting fish and selling them. We don’t have a problem with them doing it during the commercial fish season. The problem is they’re outside the dates of the commercial fish season. There’s a tension for sure between the statute the way it’s written and the way it’s been expanded (by the CFD).”

I think that pretty much describes the situation.

In a recent discussion with Larry Engel, a retired Sport Fish biologist and former BOF member and chairman, he said that until we get past the antiquated management philosophy that the commercial fisheries industry has priority in management decisions in Cook Inlet, we will continue to see these poorly thought-out management scenarios continue to the detriment of both the resource and other user groups involved.

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.