Fisheries debate continues

In late March, the Senate Resources Committee, chaired by Sen. Cathy Giessel of Anchorage, held an Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Dialogue where various stakeholders were invited to make a short presentation about their perceptions of the status of management of the Cook Inlet salmon fisheries. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough Fish and Wildlife Commission was one of the groups invited to make a presentation.

Altogether, there were 10 different groups giving presentations. Of that number only two, the MSBFWC and the Kenai River Sportfishing Association were entirely sport fishing oriented and unaffiliated with any commercial fishing group. Two other groups, the city of Kenai and the Kenai Watershed Forum represented perspectives from groups directly affected by the management or having an effect on the biology of Cook Inlet salmon but which were not directly involved with either the sport or commercial fishing industries.

I was not able to listen to any of the presentations, but I heard that our representative, MSBFWC chairman Bruce Knowles, made a good presentation using a version of a PowerPoint slide show the commission had developed to educate legislators and the public on the problems and concerns in getting enough salmon into the river systems of the Northern District of Cook Inlet.

The Upper Cook Inlet Drift Association is the organization representing the commercial drift fleet in the Central District. The drifters are the commercial fishing group which has the greatest impact on intercepting salmon bound for the Northern District. At this past Upper Cook Inlet Board of Fisheries meeting, the board rewrote the drift management plan in an effort to conserve and pass northern bound salmon through the Central District drift fishery while still allowing the drifters to concentrate their efforts on catching the surplus Kenai and Kasilof sockeye they have argued for years were being “overescaped” into the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers.

Of course, the drifters did not like the management plan rewrite. They might have to work a little harder, but recent catch figures have shown they will still catch millions of fish under this rewritten plan. They claim their approximately 70-80 percent interception rate of all salmon in Cook Inlet has no affect whatsoever on returns to the Northern District.

Anyway, in UCIDA’s presentation to the Senate Resources Committee, rather than explain why they feel board actions were incorrect based on the science Fish and Game presented at the meeting, they took cheap shots at the MSBFWC presentation saying the science that was presented there was all wrong and that the board process itself was broken and major legislative steps were needed to correct this terrible injustice.

Interestingly, the science used in the MSBFWC presentation was the same information Fish and Game developed and has made available to the public involved in Cook Inlet fisheries decision making. The data was the same UCIDA has based a number of their ideas on. When they can put their “twist” on it, it’s good science. If somebody else interprets the science differently, suddenly it becomes bad science. Funny how that works!

I also find it interesting that, for years, when this same board process gave the drifters the advantage in pursuing their fishery the way they wanted without regard to other user groups or even the health of the resource itself, everything was fine and the board process was functioning properly.

Now that the current board has chosen to place the conservation and health of the Cook Inlet fishery resource as their primary goal rather than cater to any one user group, suddenly the process is broken!

The MSBFWC went to the UCI board meeting asking for conservation-based changes to reverse a trend of declining salmon returns to the Northern District. These requested changes were based on Fish and Game information. The asked for remedies were also based on a Fish and Game management model used in another area of the state. Granted the methodology is untried in Cook Inlet but should work very well if properly used. The drifters came to the board meeting asking only for relaxed or total removal of restrictions on their fishing efforts and that more restrictions be placed on the competing user groups.

Now, rather than use existing science to refute what they believe is misguided management, UCIDA chooses to attack the group making the conservation presentation and the regulatory body for using a “flawed” process. I guess when you can’t argue using facts, the only avenue left is finger-pointing and name-calling.