Some shady deals

I’m glad these Board of Fish (BOF) meetings only involve our area once every three years. A 14-day meeting gets to be grueling. This year, on top of the daily grind to present proposals and work on acceptable compromises, ADF&G added two new twists that I would not have anticipated. And sorry twists they were!

Early in the meeting, Dr. David Welch, a Canadian fisheries researcher, made a presentation to the BOF showing the results of a preliminary study conducted on king and sockeye salmon in Cook Inlet using acoustic tagging. This methodology allowed researchers to track salmon movements and, with the use of special tags, also monitor the depths of the water the two species of salmon tended to use while moving in the inlet. The results, while preliminary, hold great promise to answer many questions about salmon movements in the inlet.

The study found that sockeye move out near the middle of the inlet and travel near the surface, on average, about six feet deep. The sockeye also tend to move into their natal streams fairly quickly after entering the inlet, often within a day or two of nearing the mouth of their home stream. King salmon, on the other hand, tend to migrate closer to the beaches and in deeper water, averaging 10 feet deeper than sockeye. Kings also tend to mill out in the saltwater, moving up and down the beaches for several days before entering their natal stream systems.

Seven of the tagged king salmon eventually entered the Kenai River and swam upstream to spawn. Genetic samples were taken from these fish when tagged and given to the state genetics lab for identification. Of the seven fish, only two could be positively identified as having originated in the Kenai River. Rather than state just that fact in their commentary on the study, an ADF&G genetics biologist chose to trash the entire project, saying results were invalid and described how “proper protocols” had been violated regarding the genetics samples. This was done on the official meeting record. I was appalled at the unprofessional approach the department used.

In subsequent meetings I was involved in with Dr. Welch, I learned that the samples were collected following every procedure ADF&G had specified be used. In other words, the genetics protocols were not suited to the sample size collected. This failing of the genetics results would seem to indicate deficiencies in the genetics protocol, not problems with the acoustics research.

The second sorry twist involved data being used to influence a major BOF decision. The group representing the drift gillnet fishers presented a genetics report that seemed to indicate the expanded terminal harvest zone we were advocating for was “conservation neutral” regarding sockeye. That means the commercial fleet was catching as many northern-bound sockeye in the harvest zone as they were when allowed to fish in the middle of the inlet. There was no net saving of northern-bound sockeye by restricting the fleet to the harvest zone.

We had been requesting that same genetics report for weeks and heard nothing from ADF&G, yet the drifters had the report in time to write and prepare material for use by the BOF at this meeting. ADF&G finally reluctantly released the report to the public the evening before board deliberations were beginning — too late for any public comment or rebuttal of the material in front of the board. Interestingly, this drifter group and ADF&G have offices in the same building in Soldotna. Hmm! Here’s another big surprise (wink, wink), both of these twists came from the Commercial Fisheries Division of ADF&G.

The BOF ended up using the documented difference in the depth at which the sockeye and kings migrated to craft changes in a management plan affecting the eastside setnetters that should allow a reduced harvest of king salmon in the commercial fishery. This would allow potentially more fishing time for the commercial fleet while protecting the weak king returns currently being experienced. This has the potential of being a major win-win for both sides on the Kenai.

The conservation neutral genetics data was offset by some very positive data showing major passage of northern-bound coho by restricting the drift fleet into the terminal harvest zone.

These unprofessional and outright deceptive practices by the Commercial Fisheries Division were noted by BOF members. ADF&G’s credibility took a real hit as a result.

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.