Protect resources first, then bicker

The personal use (PU) salmon fisheries in Alaska are important to tens of thousands of Alaskan residents who use these harvest opportunities to put salmon in their freezers. These PU fisheries are also a very controversial issue in the fisheries management world.

Residents of the Mat-Su use the Kenai and Kasilof PU salmon dipnet fisheries and the Kasilof PU salmon gill net fishery on the Kenai Peninsula. They also go to the Chitna PU salmon dipnet fishery, over on the Copper River south and east of Glennallen. For the past two years, the sockeye runs have been strong enough to allow a PU salmon dipnet fishery on Fish Creek here in the Mat-Su. These PU openings were the first since the early 1990s because of generally weak sockeye returns into Fish Creek in that period.

During the upcoming Upper Cook Inlet Board of Fisheries (BOF) meeting, scheduled to start in late February, 28 proposals asking for changes in the Cook Inlet PU fisheries will be acted upon. Some of these proposals ask to relax regulations and some ask to tighten control by reducing bag limits or shortening PU fishing times. Generally, the proposals asking to loosen regulations are submitted by persons interested in getting more fish to the PU users. The proposals to restrict the PU fisheries generally come from commercial fishing interests looking to put more fish in their own nets while allowing fewer into the river and the PU nets. These proposals will trigger some lively debate at the BOF meeting.

The Fish Creek PU fishery has already sparked some local debate because of the trampling of the river banks and trespassing which occurred during the fishery. At the recent Mat-Su Salmon Symposium held in Wasilla, a work group was formed to discuss possible solutions to the habitat damage and trespassing concerns, and to explore funding options to correct or mitigate the damage while allowing the fishery to continue.

The Chitna PU dipnet fishery was a contentious issue at the March BOF meeting in Anchorage. I was a BOF member then. I’ve discussed the details of this situation in previous columns, but the nutshell version was that the Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC) was backing a move to designate the fishery as a subsistence fishery rather than a PU fishery. The only significant difference between the two fishery types is that a subsistence fishery has priority over all other fisheries in times of resource shortage.

The board adopted a definition of “the subsistence way of life” and then applied that definition to the Chitna fishery. By a unanimous vote, the board decided to keep the Chitna fishery a PU fishery. The AOC was unhappy with the outcome and blamed me for the result. They lobbied against my nomination to a second term on the BOF. Being an election year, they got their way. See what I mean about controversial?

The Kenai PU fishery went through some growing pains during its early years in getting the infrastructure necessary to deal with the tens of thousands of folks participating in that fishery and continues to be a controversial fishery in the allocation arena of management. If memory serves, almost 400,000 fish were harvested in that PU fishery in a recent year. That is a very significant number of fish to accommodate in what is already a fully allocated fishery.

The Kasilof PU fishery is currently undergoing its own set of growing pains. A public meeting was held yesterday in Wasilla to receive public comment on a plan to establish a Kasilof River Special Use Area (SUA) at the mouth of the water body. This plan evolved out of discussions and work by folks involved with the fishery to protect some of the sensitive habitat around the river mouth that has been damaged by dipnet fishers. If adopted, this SUA would eventually provide developed parking with toilet facilities, dumpsters and a boat launch. It would also address public access and trespassing issues, camping concerns, shooting in the area, and fish waste concerns.

You are reading this after the meeting, but I am writing the column before the meeting occurred. My understanding is that virtually all the local area stakeholders involved in developing this plan have agreed that it is a reasonable way to address the concerns that have developed from the Kasilof PU fishery. Frankly, I’m amazed commercial fishermen and in-river users actually agreed, for a change, to put the resource first. If that was done more often, Cook Inlet wouldn’t have some of its current problems — but I digress.

All the public meetings regarding this SUA have been held on the Kenai Peninsula and most of the input gathered has come from there as well. A request was made from the Mat-Su area to hold a public meeting up here to better inform the PU users from this area about what is developing. That was the purpose of last night’s meeting. However, my understanding is that the Kasilof PU gill net folks feel somewhat disenfranchised by the plan as it currently is being proposed.

I hope any differences or misunderstandings were worked out. Putting some of this controversy behind us and getting on with protecting the resource is the higher road here!

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.