Statewide Finfish and Supplemental Issues (3/21/2026)

Alright, good morning everybody. The day is March 21st. Today is a Saturday. The time is 9:32 AM and we are going to do deliberations today on Group 2, hatcheries, followed by Group 3, subsistence and sport fisheries and gear. We're going to begin with Group 2.

There are 3 proposals in this group, beginning with proposal number 170, please.

Madam Chair, members of the board, I'm Phillip Pryor. I'm the Aquaculture Section Chief for Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Proposal 170, 5AAC40, new regulation. Move to adopt.

May I get a second, please? Second. Thank you. Staff comments, please. All right.

This would reduce the number of pink and chum salmon eggs on each hatchery permit of the state by 25%. There are currently 11 hatcheries. Producing pink salmon eggs with a capacity of 1.39 billion eggs. There are 15 hatcheries with a permitted capacity of 939 chum salmon eggs. A 25% reduction of permitted egg take levels could result in a similar percentage reduction in the annual ex-vessel value of the commercial salmon fishery and could have negative effects on the local economy.

The department opposes this proposal. The department will continue to closely monitor the hatchery program and take steps to address concerns if there is compelling reason to amend terms of a hatchery permit based on data that provides clear evidence the amendment will have a reasonable probability of measurably reducing identified adverse effects on wild salmon.

Thank you. More discussion? Mr. Wood? Yeah, thanks. Since I'm so on the ball, I'll just kick us off.

Okay, so with this whole conversation, originally I was gonna say so much has been said about this over the last 3 years that I've been on the board. I was just gonna reference my previous comments 'cause I think this has been in front of us for maybe 5 times. But then when I realized reference my previous comments, I wanna actually refer to my very first comments when I got on the board here 3 years ago. And that was, I came in swinging about why do we have hatcheries and not just let wild fish do what they do. And as with many things on this board, having the opportunity to learn from fishermen and staff, I really had an opportunity to see the importance and the wisdom in this hatchery program.

And understand why it exists. And to put it into perspective, when it was created back in the day, I always had a lot of respect for Jay Hammond and Clem Tillian. And, um, and then understanding that back when it was put into place, three, the three major things happened that year. It was the hatcheries, the limited entry, and stopping fishing outside of the 200-mile limit. Those are really big deals.

The stopping fishing outside of 200 miles has helped a lot. The CFEC program, the limited entry, could have some looking into still, I think. But then most importantly, I think the hatchery program always deserves to be looked into continuously and have the oversight of the public and the staff.

But the board, I'm not sure about the place the board plays in this, honestly. It seems really contentious and potentially unnecessary.

I think as long as there continues to be rigorous oversight and analysis of what's going on, especially for strain, it's really important. But irregular wild fish stray, like I'm very familiar with that. And so, and they're straying now, they're straying way up north. They're recolonizing places up there we've never seen. It's kind of, that's what fish do, they blow our mind.

We probably know more about the surface of the moon than we do about our oceans. And there's a lot going on out there right now. And I think in time, we'll be able to better answer what's happening in terms of the food web out there. So remaining cautious is super necessary. The public process being wide open and always being open to criticism is super necessary in this process.

But one thing that blows me away more than anything about this hatchery program is how Alaska has been able to sustain it, and more importantly, the number of young fishermen that are.

Buying into this business today because they have the opportunity to pay for their boats. And I really feel that, okay, maybe there is a huge global issue with, with the oceans, I'm not sure, but by cutting 25% of hatchery production in the, in, in areas like Prince William Sound or Southeast, is that really gonna— is the juice— is the squeeze worth the juice with the impacts that it would have on, on these small boat fishermen, on an industry that we we really need to rely on in this state.

Anyhow, that being said, I'll just apply this, what I'm saying now, into all of the 3 proposals. And I just want to say, I'm— after 3 years of being here, I appreciate the opportunity to learn and be able to change my mind about the hatchery program. Other board discussion?

Mr. Irwin. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I have a couple questions for the, for the department. Um, my first, uh, my first question is, I've been hearing, um, quite a bit of conversation about this, but I really want to nail down and make sure, does the department have a policy written or unwritten about the acceptable stray rates?

Through the chair, Board Member Irwin.

Sorry.

There are a couple of places where stray rates have been written into either some plans like a comprehensive salmon plan or into a review. But there are no, no policies that I know of that have a specific stray rate for the state for salmon or for hatchery salmon. Okay, thank you, Mr. Templin. And could you tell me generally maybe what those ranges are in? I understand each of those might be slightly different, but could you give me like a slight range of what those acceptable stray rates look like?

Through the chair, the most common one that you'll hear is 2%. There's a story behind that, but really it was a number that was thrown out by one of the previous principal geneticists at a meeting.

He had read that in a paper somewhere.

2% Is probably on the low end in some reviews that have happened. It's— I've seen it as high as 15 in some places, in places where you know that you're already going to be having an interaction. That was in a review, not in a policy or anything.

So there is no range really. It's just a few instances of stray rates. Thank you. And then my next question, I guess, is why has the department not established an acceptable stray rate? As I'm understanding it, that's part of the legal requirements is for us to establish an acceptable stray rate.

So why have we at this point not accepted a stray, a standard stray rate? Commissioner. So this is, this is an interesting discussion, one I'm giving a great deal of thought to over the last year or two. Do we set a single stray rate for every hatchery, for every stock, and in every individual case that's a maximum? Probably not.

We don't have a single— we don't have a single exploitation rate for every salmon stock that we set as a standard across the state. I think we want a stray rate that's founded on not impacting our wild stock management and not impacting the genetic integrity. Is that a single number for every species and every system? Probably not. It's probably based on what we know about that, that release site, and we know how much— what we know about its stray rates in terms of how it affects our management and how it affects the genetic integrity.

So I don't think a single stray rate set for the state for— is probably appropriate. It probably needs to be thought out a little bit more. And but certainly we do not want to have stray rates higher than those that affect our ability to, to conserve our wild stocks or that affect the genetic integrity of our wild stocks.

Thank you. Follow-up. So I guess my question is then, when, when can we expect to have a standard stray rate? As I understand it, it's a part of the legal requirement for us to establish is to ensure that we are not adversely impacting wild stocks. And so I can understand and empathize with the sentiment that there maybe needs to be some more detailed look at what those stray rates look like in individual stream systems and what those effects might be.

But for me, it seems as though it would be most responsible for us to establish this, and we've had these hatcheries within the state system for quite a while. And so I'm just wondering, when can the board— when can the board reasonably expect the department to have something set that we can look at and compare and see whether or not these stream stray rates are within a level of acceptability from the department?

Through the chair, I don't think we have a legal requirement to set a stray rate. I think we have a legal requirement again to protect the management of wild stocks through our hatchery program and protecting the genetic integrity. I don't think we have an obligation to set a statewide stray rate standard unless I'm wrong, because I kind of looked into my legal authorities and, and that's why we have an RPT process to kind of look at those fundamental questions on a regional by regional basis rather than having a statewide basis. So—.

Mr. Chamberlain. Apologies. So looking at the genetic policy and forgive me, my computer I normally use is locked up so I'm having issues. But I believe if I'm correct there's genetic stock policy actually addresses the 2% stray rate as in— and I believe it's tied to how many life cycles it takes for that salmon population to be replaced, does it not?

Again, through the chair, Member Chamberlain, Yes, that theoretical number, the 2%, is based on theory of how long it would take for an integration to occur and to achieve sufficient levels to be harmful. And that we're talking over multiple decades, over a long period of time. I'm going off memory, it's about 15 life cycles, correct? About 15 life cycles. So for PINKS, 30 years.

PINKS, 30 years, multiple decades. Okay. So I guess I want to just kind of cut to the chase on this one. There have been discussions about how imprecise and how inconclusive or up in the air a lot of the data is, and I just want to ask the department a very direct question. Can the department conclusively state that the current release levels of hatchery salmon in Alaska has no adverse effect on the wild stocks in the following 3 respective areas?

First is density-dependent competition between limited marine food resources, stringing of wild fish into wild— er, of hatchery fish into wild streams, and incidental mortality of wild salmon in marine fisheries targeting enhanced hatchery stocks.

Through the chair, a member of Chamberlain, could you repeat those three again? There was, there was kind of an overlap. Of course, we'll start, we'll take them on one at a time. The first is density-dependent competition for limited marine food resources between hatchery and wild stocks.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] My best understanding, speaking for me as the Chief Fishery Scientist and the lead of looking into these papers on this evidence, is that there is not sufficient information to have a good sense that hatchery production of salmon in Alaska is having a negative effect on fish in the salmon in the ocean.

I want to reassert the question. It was not whether there's sufficient information to establish that they do, but is it because earlier when we came at this last year, the department said there's not conclusive information that they are causing harm. What I'm saying is is— and I'm applying the precautionary principle here— is there conclusive information that they are not causing harm?

Through the Chair, Member Chamberlain, that is a— you're right, you are correct, that is a very different question and it's asking the department to prove a negative, which is also a very.

Difficult thing to do. I would say that there is— I can't prove that negative, so I cannot say that the department has sufficient evidence or conclusive evidence, sorry, to say that it's not having a an effect. Okay, but there are— there are places where the effect has been positive. In other words, the paper that's highly touted as having proof of evidence of the effect of hatchery fish on other species of salmon in Prince William Sound— most people neglect to state include in their, when they talk about it, the fact that there was a positive, a significant positive effect of hatchery salmon releases on Copper River Chinook salmon. So that's just an example of why there are places where the evidence indicates that there's a potential positive effect of higher numbers of pink salmon.

Example. It's difficult to tease all of this apart. Okay. And so let's address the next one. Straying of wild fish, or of hatchery fish, into wild streams.

That's an easy one. We've found stray fish in wild streams. And is there a negative effect of stray hatchery fish in wild streams? We have evidence of a mechanism that could be— that could indicate that. Okay, but we have not yet completed our work on understanding what that means.

And the last is incidental mortality of wild salmon in marine fisheries targeting enhanced hatchery stocks. I believe that we have very good evidence from this very AHRP project It's the only time that there's been a full-run reconstruction for 3 years for the pink salmon and chum salmon runs into Prince William Sound. And it indicates that the department is surprisingly— not surprisingly compared to other places— capable of separating the harvest on the hatchery stocks from the wild stocks. So we're able to maintain in those 3 years harvest rates on hatchery fish that are between 96 and 99%, at the same time of maintaining harvest rates on wild chum salmon at 20% or below and on pink salmon at 50% or below. So that's— you can't get much more efficient than that.

So if we're looking at a harvest rate on wild chum, and let's use the Aleutian Peninsula as an example.

And I think we're seeing that in 2021 and 2022, or those— that genetic information, we're hitting harvest rates around 20%. Is that about right?

Through the chair, Member Chamberlain, I would not hazard to estimate a harvest rate on populations from, from those. We have the numbers, but we don't have all the other harvests, neither do we have the escapements. And so, well, I'll use the Aleutian Peninsula because we have two— we have two datasets. You have the WASP dataset from 2006 to 2009, and then you've got the most recent genetic information. And there, that was— there is, there's a mixture of hatchery stocks and wild stocks in those, in that, in that marine fishery.

And in the 2006 to 2008 area, we had over 70% wild stocks that were— and the rest were hatchery. Or I believe they were 58%. I'm sorry, I think I was targeting— referencing specific areas. It was about 58% wild stocks. And looking at Asian hatchery production over that same period of time, those numbers have not gone up significantly.

Japan, and I want to reference some comments yesterday that were made about Japanese, you know, hatchery production, where when I was in Tokyo the other year, the head of the Sasakawa Foundation said, "We may have over-engineered the ocean. We're now dependent on hatchery fish." And they've actually scaled back, although Russia has scaled up to make up for that difference. But over that period of time, now we're looking at wild stocks of around 20% as opposed to close to 80% hatchery stocks. And in that, my concern is the, the targeting of primarily hatchery stocks may be masking the overfishing of wild stocks because you're having the same fishing pressure over a prolonged period of time over a hatchery stock that's able to replenish itself much faster. And wouldn't that be indicative of of a negative impact of targeting hatchery stocks and the targeting of hatchery stocks masking the adverse effects on wild stocks?

It's a very simple, easy, not hard question. Through the chair, I'll take your word for it. First of all, I— you I began to get lost because I was trying to figure out what are you pointing towards in terms of hatchery stocks? Is this the Asian fish that we— it could be, especially from Japan mostly. In this instance, yes, it would be Asian hatchery fish.

And again, this goes to— and I'm using this as an example. We have it in Southeast where a lot of the BC and Northwest Chinook stocks are being targeted, but there's also incidental harvest of wild and in some cases ESA listed. Now if we go into Prince William Sound, you've got other fish, you've got Copper River that's targeting, you know, pink and chum that are primarily hatchery, but there's incidental harvest of Chinook and Copper River bound and other other, other non-target, non-primary target species. So it's more of an example. And, and I, I'm going, so I'll— yeah, Madam Chair, maybe I could help out here.

So, you know, when we— many of the hatchery, the opportunities to harvest hatchery fish are based around terminal areas. And so when you have the fleet concentrated in terminal areas harvesting hatchery fish, that actually reduces harvest pressure on wild stocks. So that's an important point that I haven't really heard talked about here during this meeting. And regarding your mixed stock fishery questions, I mean, we, we still have an obligation to manage all the stocks that are encountered in a fishery. So You know, we have the ability to, through authority, to manage for those other stocks that are encountered in mixed stock fisheries.

And, you know, we do that through monitoring escapement and catch rates.

Yeah, thanks for that, Forrest. I was just going to kind of chime in that in this discussion that, you know, as managers, the department and the board is sort the policy setters around some of that. We struggle with management implementation the farther you get away from the terminal areas, right? That's— we struggled with that last month, we continue to and will continue to. With respect to harvest on wild stocks, I appreciate your comments on that because yeah, we do have wild stocks that are struggling.

We also have wild stocks that are not. And when I think about primarily in the pink and chum area in In the hatchery production areas, we have nothing to— we have no jurisdiction or say over what's happening in Asia or in Russia, Japan, whatever other producing country. But what we do have is to focus the conversation on what's happening in Alaska. And in the areas where we have hatchery production in Alaska, to date, you know, I'm thinking Southeast and I'm thinking Prince William Sound, I don't know that we have an overwhelming sense that there are struggling stocks that could— wild stocks that are being harvested as part of, you know, along with the hatchery harvest. You're assessing those, you're monitoring those, you have escapement goals indexed or otherwise for those.

So I don't always— I don't necessarily think that that's a a bad thing. To Mr. Chamberlain's point, though, it is very complex, and we struggled with that and will continue to struggle with that in western Alaska where there is no localized or Alaska state hatchery production, really. And I think the question is, is, you know, is there any influence on those? I think from what we've heard thus far, probably not. But the question is, is what is.

What is occurring in state waters near where we have the production. And I think that the closer you get to the harvest areas, the easier that is to manage. So those are my thoughts on that. Mr. Irwin, then Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Bowers, I guess my question is going to be, how can you definitively say that it's reducing harvest pressure on wild stock? Simply, is that just an assumption based on the volume of hatchery stocks that are going in? Are they coming in in different run timings? I mean, if, if our wild stocks and our hatchery stocks are coming in at similar times, I recognize there might be some, some assumptions that can be made if there's more hatchery fish, right, than our wild stocks. But are we recording whether or not it's a hatchery-caught fish or wild-caught fish?

Like, how can we know? How can the department say that definitively, that it's reducing the pressure on wild stocks? Through the chair, Mr. Irwin. So yes, we are sampling Fish hatchery pink and chum are otolith marked. So we sample the catch so we know the proportion of hatchery and wild fish in the catch.

And how can I say that fishing pressure on hatchery stocks reduces pressure on wild stocks? I'll give you an example. So in the Kodiak management area, the Kachoi Bay Hatchery is about 4 hours from the city of Kodiak, which is the major port where the fleet is based. There are other wild stocks in the Kodiak management area, 4 hours travel time by an insane vessel. There are other wild stocks throughout the Kodiak management area, some of which are as much as 18 hours away from the city of Kodiak.

So when we have openings in the Kotoy Bay area to target hatchery fish, you know, we often see half of the seine fleet or more concentrated in that area. They're not fishing on these other more remote stocks. Some people are. But if that hatchery opportunity wasn't there, you would have the other 60% or half of the fleet that would be at Katoy Bay spread out fishing wild stocks. The same thing happens in Prince William Sound in the terminal harvest areas and in Southeast Area— Southeast Alaska in the terminal harvest areas.

Okay, thank you for that answer. That makes sense. I just say that's also, you know, kind of goes to fishermen's choice on where to fish. So even in areas that we don't have hatchery stocks, it's a, you know, choice of where, where to go fishing. But thanks for that context, Mr. Bowers.

Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Very interesting discussion this morning.

I guess before I talk about the arbitrary number 25% that's included in this proposal. I think, I think this is a perfect example, quite frankly, of the position that I've taken at this meeting where statewide proposals just don't work.

The discussion around how does the department manage hatchery and wild stock interactions while a commercial fishery takes place is It appears to be that there's very little understanding of that. And I'll give you a perfect example of it because I do have a clear understanding of it. And I think the understanding that I have is not only from the fact that I participated, but I think the RPT process speaks very high, very directly to this point. Hatchery fish that are released are thermally marked, and that is what allows the department to sample fish each day, each opener, each tender load, so they understand the interaction between hatchery and wild fish, so they can use time and area based on the sampling that's done to execute that fishery. And I think Prince William Sound is a perfect example of that.

If these fish were not thermally marked, this would not be able to happen. And I think throughout the entire process, when hatcheries are in place and commercial fisheries existed, The idea of thermally marked fish, that, that original idea moved through the RPT, and that is what the department uses to be able to execute these fisheries.

It would not be possible otherwise. And so I think the department has a very good handle on how to manage these pink and chum fisheries specifically.

I guess I'll touch a little bit. You know, my opinion on this particular proposal and this idea or this concept between— surrounding an arbitrary number is kind of hard to swallow. You know, there's been opinions not only by past board members, board chairs, the Attorney General's Office, that this board reducing the hatchery's ability to exist and to provide the opportunity that was expressly given to the state to allow for this sort of thing, activity to take place, to basically render them ineffective would most likely be looked in a court of law as not legal. And so when we take a number like 25%, 5%, 50%, whatever number you want to use, You have to look at the— we have not looked at any of the cost analysis. We have not looked at any— anything that would point to, will this have an effect financially on the hatcheries?

Will they have to close programs? Will they have to close facilities? The other aspect of this is, is a lot of these facilities, and this hasn't been mentioned much, these are state-owned facilities. That the P&Ps have taken on over the years to operate. So I think the board should take that into consideration.

I guess, I guess the only other thing that I have to say about it, I guess for now, and I'll let, I'll let other board members comment on this, is that I've heard a lot about rehabilitation, economic drivers, things like that. I think when you look at the legislative intent, I think it clearly expresses not only was this supposed to be a real rehabilitative thing, and this was done in the '70s, right? Because there was a real reason for it then. And it's kind of built up over time. But over time, it's also demonstrated that it has had a massive economic contribution to the state of Alaska.

And I think legislative intent throughout the last 40 years has been clearly demonstrated this is an important function of the state. So please take all that into account when considering something as arbitrary as 25%. Um, I'm going to call on you just a second. I see you, Mr. Svenson. A couple things I'd like to state.

First of all, I think we are all frustrated by this process. You hear that frustration around this table. You hear it, I think, from the department level. You hear it from the hatchery productions. You hear it you hear from the stakeholders that are actually fishing.

And this was attempted to take— be taken up regionally at Prince William Sound. It was requested and said this should be taken up statewide. So here we are. OK, and statewide proposals have some criteria that they have to apply to statewide. And like I said, here we are.

With regard to comments around the table that I heard earlier about wild straying, wild straying isn't the issue that we're concerned about. Concerned with here. We're, we're worried about hatchery straying and whether or not that has a deleterious effect either immediately or over time on wild stocks. We've heard that there may be some indication that there is. Now, how long that negative impact pervades or persists, we don't know.

But I think that that's important to acknowledge, at least for me. With regards to the 25%, and I do think that there should be some guidance. I don't think it needs to be a precise 5%, but we don't manage salmon for precise numbers. We ran— manage for ranges. And I think that it is reasonable to consider a range of straying that is acceptable to provide some guidance for future boards, and that can be done by species-specific specific.

And it can be done region-specific. But I do think that there needs to be some kind of criteria by which the public and future boards and the operators, quite frankly, should be evaluating the impacts and sort of an indicator of when we might need to take some action. I think that's reasonable. With regards to the arbitrariness of the 25% number, It is relatively arbitrary, but the reason I think we are dealing with this number is because there has been past non-binding agreements that folks have believed in. And that 25% may have been an agreeable number in the '90s, but clearly The fisheries have changed in the economics of the fisheries have changed also.

I would wager a guess, but I don't know because I haven't definitely spoken with the, with the proposers that that 25% may also slightly be built around the number that the department requested of the reduction in Southeast around crawfish.

I don't know how arbitrary that number was.

Make that decision. I could ask the commissioner now whether or not that was just an arbitrary number. How did you, how did you come to that 25%? Was it a kind of a guess?

Well, we saw that we were having effects on wild stock management, so we reduced it. And I have a report on my desk that I haven't had time to dig down into, but obviously we're probably going to take some further steps down to address that stock-specific release site that we have for hatchery fish. Thank you. But I guess my point is, is it kind of gets to Mr. Chamberlain's line of questioning as well. Like, we don't necessarily have science to prove that it is having a harmful effect, but we don't have science to prove that there isn't.

And so we're walking a fine line in guessing. And so is a guess arbitrary? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on, you know, individual's opinion, I guess.

But the bottom line for me is that the RPT process, for whatever reason, appears to be broken. We heard that in testimony. For whatever reason, the public is not feeling like they're getting the opportunity to comment. Now, that could be for a variety of different reasons, and we've spoken to the frequency of the permit review process. I don't know when permit alteration requests come in through, you know, or what the frequency of that is.

But there seems to be the perception of at least a past very cozy relationship with the department. And I don't think either the P&Ps nor the department were particularly good at getting information out to the public on production. That being said, the more that I've had the opportunity to speak with the P&Ps and the department, I think that there's some really good work being done. And I think that that feeds into whether or not it's appropriate to take this kind of cut. Not— I mean, setting just the straight economics aside of what that provides through, through the cost recovery and also the supplementation or enhancement of the wild stock fisheries that have persisted for decades and decades in these areas.

There are, I think, really important and excellent community programs and supplemental or secondary and tertiary benefits that come from the hatcheries. And that being, you know, king production, coho production, educational opportunities, public engagement opportunities. Those are all very positive things in being able to teach not only Alaskans but visitors to our state about the importance of our fisheries. So I am not supportive of a 25% cut. I'm not supportive of any cut at this point because I don't— I believe that we don't have a really good idea on what the benefit of that cut will be.

But I am skeptical of how the science that is being reviewed and produced right now is going to be utilized to alleviate this consternation. And we'll get into it in subsequent proposals here, but I'm going to try and keep it to this proposal. For the most part, I am not supportive of a 25% cut. I'm not supportive of any cut. I won't be supportive of this proposal.

But I think that there are conversations to come in subsequent proposals about how we hold the department's feet to the fire, and we hold the producers' feet to the fire to hopefully rebuild public confidence in what these programs are doing. Mr. Svenson.

Wow, I don't know how to follow all this, but I think there's been a lot— I'm just going to keep it short and sweet. There's been a lot of good things put out here by board members, by the Fish and Game. And I, I would agree with the perception that, you know, we can't be asking Fish and Game to make decisions about when they don't have all the information that, you know, we have the ability now to get a lot more information about these things.

I obviously am not in support of this 25% cut. I'm not in support of any cut, but I think that to Fish and Game have the expertise. They have a lot more ability to get to this information now than the board does. And I just wonder how much the board needs to have their fingers in this pie. It's great.

I mean, that's all debated too. So I'm just going to cut and say that it's a difficult situation. And I think we need to wait and let more of this information come out on what's being done and to find all— find the answers to this thing before we'd make any cuts one way or the other on this. And I'll leave it at that. Mr. Godfrey.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is my 6th year serving on this board.

Not a year has gone by where this wasn't an issue in some capacity or another. And so I'm not going to repeat a lot of what I've said in the past regarding hatcheries and hatchery production and my opinion on that. I'll open up by saying I'll supplement what Director Bowers had said about the reduction of pressure on wild stocks that hatcheries sometimes present. Having grown up commercial fishing the Kodiak Island fishery, I'll further elaborate on that. Um, I would argue most of the time when there's an opener there, the majority of the fleet's there, and you're lucky if you can get a quarter of your net in the water with a round haul because it's so congested with boats and it's a very small bay.

So that is definitely a benefit, and I appreciate you adding that to the record, Mr. Bowers. I struggle with this because every year there's new arguments based on new data or pseudodata. And it's a very small data set that ends up getting used to color a gigantic area and be superimposed as if it's the end-all be-all and the gospel and it's conclusive. But it's not conclusive. Quite frankly, I don't think— I think this is unknowable.

What our biologist was saying earlier, there are certain questions you can't say conclusively. This is always going to be speculative, highly speculative, because the variable inputs are are innumerable. You can't even account— you don't even know what all the variable inputs are in the ocean and the atmosphere and everything in between. So at best, you're hoping you've captured and controlled for those variable inputs to come up with a model that gives you something that's speculative but maybe likely. And I don't see with current technology and practices how we're going to get there anytime soon.

So with that, I like to look at things sometimes conceptually, that are analogized metaphorically. And I had it shared with me by someone, and, and I wish it would have been shared during Committee of the Whole or public testimony. I didn't hear it during public testimony. But if you look at a football field, forget the end zones, just end zone line to end zone line, 100 yards, that's 3,600 inches. If that 3,600 inches represents all the nekton biomass in the North Pacific, the Alaska hatchery production represents 1.44 inches of that— the pink production, I should qualify that.

If we were going to reduce that by 25%, that would be the equivalent of that 100-yard football field of a reduction of 1/3 of an inch. And to do that and expect an observable difference by science or scientists. Um, it, it's— I mean, it seems like a fool's errand to me. But I know what would be an observable impact is the cascading effects to all the user groups that engage in the benefit from the hatchery program, whether it's commercial, sport, personal use, or subsistence. That would be observable.

And so The other way I heard it analogized is a 200-pound man, if that is the— all of the nekton biomass in the North Pacific, you ask him to remove 2 nickels from his pocket and again expect to see an observable difference. So I think the negative impacts on something like this far outweigh the speculative benefits which I think are probably immaterial and highly conjectural. So I won't be supporting this.

Mr. Chamberlain. So with respect to the biomass, I'd like to refer the board to RC-122, which the department very graciously put forward that breaks down more specifically the adult biomass within Prince William Sound. And there you'll see it's— the ratios are substantially higher than 2 nickels.

To the point where the hatchery runs dwarf the wild runs in there. I also would like to refer to the last graph on there is Figure 10, which breaks down the commercial harvest in the state of Alaska by species. And what you'll see there, and it's hard to see, because the chummer are blue, but a lot of, er, is a lot of the wild biomass is distributed.

Is diminishing, or the, the harvest on the wild biomass. And that's indicative of what we've been seeing over the last 30 years, is you're seeing a lot of the in-river fisheries have been declining steadily time over time, and to the point now where we are starting to hit treaty implications. And you're having a 7-year moratorium on the Yukon. The Copper River is the one system where king are, are barely holding on. Cook Inlet is struggling when it comes to kings.

And this chart doesn't touch on coho kings. We just took substantial action within Cook Inlet for declining coho numbers. And when we're looking at the density-dependent issues, this matter has been raised since, you know, the inception of hatcheries. There were people saying, We need to pay attention to the carrying capacity and all of these things. And so one of the things that really alarms me is that we have— we don't even have a projected timeline on when we're going to have an answer to this question.

It's going to be a never-ending one, and it's one that, well, we're still looking into it. And we've heard testimony that, yes, we've, we've been given timelines for an answer on this in the past, and those timelines have long since passed. Um, but what we're looking at and what I'm observing in, in this is hatchery fish are making up a larger and larger percentage of the, of, of the commercial fishing harvest and the entire run size throughout the state. And one thing we're seeing is that the coast, you know, the last, for the last the state of Alaska has experienced some of the largest runs on record. But all of those runs, the size of those runs have come exclusively on the coast.

While the rivers, Yukon River and the Kuskokwim River have been shut down commercially for over a decade. And we're looking at more terminal areas like Cook Inlet. The— aside from sockeye species, Bristol Bay is struggling.

Where all of these river systems are contracting and contracting, but we're still having massive runs. At the same time, we're seeing smaller age-at-weights to the point where a lot of the, the pink that are being harvested can't be filleted. They're either turned into canned food or dog food. And so what we're doing is I'm seeing a replacement of our runs, of our wild runs, you know, where it used to be king salmon focused, you know, and there's a large-scale shifting in what we're known for. You know, when I was a kid, we would routinely catch 30, 40-pound kings on the Kuskokwim River.

Now we're lucky to get one that's 20 pounds. Um, there are large-scale shifts we have to be aware of and we have to be looking. And I think one of the things we have to look at within the precautionary principle is make sure that we're not replacing our prized species with a, a fish that is not struggling. Pink salmon are not struggling. Chum within Southeast are not struggling.

And those are becoming the predominant species within Alaska. And, you know, it, it's hurting the sport fishing community. It's having massive effects on the, on the subsistence community. And so one of the things I feel we as a board have to do is pay attention to that precautionary principle. And we have to fight for what traditionally was our fishery and what made up the fishery in Alaska.

And for that, and based solely on that, I will be supporting this. Thank you. Mr. Godfrey. I just want to ask Director Bowers, just in response to Board Member Chamberlain's comments as far as wild stocks diminishing in the returns, in contrast to the hatchery returns, could you speak to Prince Wimsan?

Thanks for that question, Mr. Godfrey. So, you know, in Prince William Sound, we haven't had any trouble meeting wild pink salmon escapement goals there. You know, we're seeing strong pink salmon production from wild stocks on odd-numbered years. That's a pattern we're seeing across the state. We've this even an odd year cycle for pink salmon is really apparent in the last decade or so.

There's one chum salmon index area in Prince William Sound that, you know, we've, we've had some difficulty meeting escapement goals there. But, you know, it's not a stock of concern.

Otherwise, we haven't had any issues meeting chum salmon escapement goals there. So, you know, across the state, we're consistently meeting pink salmon escapement goals. Thanks, Mr. Carpenter.

Excuse me. Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I read costs, I just want to put something on the record, and I think this is important for the board and the public when they consider hatchery proposals is that the Alaska Constitution combined with numerous statutes including those creating the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the Limited Entry Act, Private Nonprofit Hatcheries Act, and Fisheries Revolving Loan Fund together demonstrate a strong, longstanding state policy in Alaska promoting hatchery development for the purpose of enhancing and ensuring long-term viability of Alaska fisheries. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I'd call the question.

Question's been called. Errors and omissions? Seeing none, Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 170. Carpenter?

No. Irwin? No. Godfrey? No.

Carlson-Vandort? No. Wood? No. Svenson?

No. Chamberlain? Yes. Motion fails, 1 in favor, 6 against. Madam Chair.

Thank you. Proposal number 171. Proposal 171, 5AAC40, new regulation. We'll do the second. Staff comments, please.

This would reduce the number of pink salmon eggs allowed in the Prince William Sound hatchery permits to a level sufficient to reduce straying into lower Cook Inlet streams below 2% and an estimated escapement over long term. There are currently 4 hatcheries permitted to take 795 million eggs. Reducing the hatchery egg take levels is expected to have a negative effect on local economy. Significance of that impact depends on the size of the cut. The department opposes this proposal.

The department will continue to closely monitor hatchery program and take steps to address concerns. If there is compelling reason to amend the terms of a hatchery permit that is based on analysis of data that provides clear evidence the amendment will have a reasonable probability of measurably reducing identified adverse effects on wild stocks. Madam Chair, thank you. I'm going to reference my comments on the previous proposal and not be supportive of this. Mr. Owen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And question to the staff. I apologize if I missed this in my very large number of RCs, um, but do you have any of the common stray rates that we're seeing in Prince William Sound specifically in some of those systems? Any of them that are concerning, you know, above the maybe 2% more commonly accepted rate?

For the record, this is Bill Templin, Chief Fishery Scientist for Alaska Department of Fish and Game. I forgot to put my name on the record earlier. Through the chair, Member Erwin, I do have some numbers. The best— you said recently— the ones that I have are from 2013 to 2015, and I have— I can give you a range rather than a long list of all the streams that were looked at, if I can relocate that on my screen here. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] While you're looking, Mr.

Bowers. Thanks, Madam Chair. So I've got some information I can share with you on this.

So we, we sampled a handful of streams in Prince William Sound examining pink salmon for hatchery marks, and over a 5-year period there were 382 fish that were from the AFK hatchery in Prince William Sound. There were 173 fish from the Wally Nirenberg Hatchery in Prince William Sound. 217 Fish from Cannery Creek, 186 from Solomon Gulch, which is in Valdez, and then 7 from Kotoy Bay on Kodiak.

Follow-up. Follow-up would be great. Yeah, Mr. Tinseland. So I apologize for the delay. For pink salmon during those 3 years, the stray rates were between 5% and 15%.

Across the sound. Of course, for each individual stream, they could be between zero and in one case, on a very small stream, it was about 90%.

The— for chum salmon, it was again across.

The entire sound, it was about 3 to 9% annually. Um, and, uh, and again, the, the individual stream range was between 0 and, and again, there was an 80% in a place right next to a release site. So, okay, thank you, Mr. Templin. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thanks.

Either to Mr. Templin or Mr. Bowers. Just historically, we often hear about enhancement. What would the rehabilitation effort have been like for both wild and hatchery after the Exxon Valdez disaster had the hatcheries not come in to help rebuild?

Through the chair, Member Wood, it'd be very difficult to speculate on that.

There were a lot of studies. There were places where oil was found in streams, et cetera. But we don't— it would be very difficult to estimate the actual change in productivity of the wild population, which would have been necessary to understand, I believe, answer to your question. Sorry, man, but thank you. I'll try.

Mr. Swenson.

How many— I don't know if you can answer this— how many streams do you have been built up with a run that never had a wild fish run by these— by the hatcheries?

Again, through the chair, that's a very interesting question. Because we— but it's one that would be very difficult to quantify because it would require continual monitoring of hatchery and wild proportions in those streams to see. However, we do see places where hatchery fish tend to go or have been observed in large percentages, maybe not large numbers, but large percentages that are areas that as far as we know, are not productive for, for wild pink salmon. So we know that it's a possibility, but to actually quantify the number of those places, I could give you some specific answers in locations, but—. Mr. Bowers.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Mr. Swenson, I'll give you a good example. On Kodiak Island, there's a place called Fraser Lake, which is a large lake on the south end of the island. And about a mile below the lake, there's a 30-foot falls that blocks anadromous salmon passage. And in the 1950s, there was an effort where sockeye salmon were stocked into Fraser Lake.

And as adults began to return, continual stocking efforts happened, and a fish pass was built so that salmon could migrate over the falls. And that actually became one of the largest sockeye salmon runs on Kodiak Island. So that was completely an aquaculture hatchery type effort. And it remains a really important run today. So that's actually probably the most successful introduction of sockeye salmon anywhere in the world.

So I just thought I'd provide that. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Myers. It would be nice if there were more areas like that, that the fish couldn't get back to, and you stocked the lakes and then made them a way to get back, because that way there's no argument about hatchery fish versus wild fish. There were never any wild fish in there.

Thank you. Mr. Owen, and then Mr. Chamberlain. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to put some thoughts on the record. So if anyone's been paying attention this cycle, I really like to look at the Sustainable Salmon Policy when it comes to a lot of these issues and make sure that we're following that.

And specifically, I like to refer to the precautionary approach to management because I think that it's an integral piece of that policy, which, um, which allows the board to, you know, make decisions based on precautionary approaches to management and conservation. There's a lot that, um, There's a lot of data out there, and you know, one thing I will say is simply because the department hasn't given us a presentation or hasn't done all of the— or the RPT process hasn't done all the due diligence to create all of the reports necessary, it's integral that we do look at existing literature out there and peer-reviewed science that does, you know, like Rugeron says, we have found consistent negative correlations between pink salmon abundance and reduced sockeye survival delayed maturation. I know that many of these pieces, even some of like the literature review, people have mentioned that, you know, these are from outside of Alaska or they're different species and populations. I think it's integral that we look at it maybe with a critical lens, but we still look at those studies. So I don't like the notion that there's not enough information for us to be making decisions about this in terms of the actual evidence, scientific-based evidence that's been proven.

Is there more to go? Absolutely. There's a lot further to go on this issue. And I think that the commissioner's reduction in the egg take in West Crawfish Inlet is a really important thing to be— us recognizing is the acknowledgment that there is potentially some sort of correlation. It might not be definitive yet or determined by the department, but we're also required to have reasonable segregation.

And that's not something that's been determined by the department. We also need to figure out an appropriate straying rate. That's also not something that's been determined by the department. Now, with all that being said, I do not know what a 25% reduction would do for our PNP hatcheries. It's a big cut.

And I, I'm balancing that with the, the knowledge and the information that's in front of me right now. And so I am, I am struggling to be able to commit to a 25% reduction right now. But that does not mean that I don't think that there are adverse effects of hatchery straying, us not having proper segregation, reasonable segregation established. We need to clean up this process and maybe we— I'm not sure exactly what that, that answer looks like, but I believe that we need more information on the marine habitat, what the carrying capacity is. And I think that these questions need to be answered sooner rather than later, because if there are adverse effects on these depressed stocks, we have King Salmon stocks that are looking at extrapation in this state.

And so this— there needs to be a prioritization of some of these things, especially defining pieces as listed in the legislative act of the program shall be operated without adversely affecting natural stocks of fish in the state under the policy of management which allows reasonable segregation of returning hatchery-reared salmon. So I think it is integral that the department in the future be able to answer Mr. Chamberlain's questions of definitive proof that there is not adverse effects happening on wild fish. So again, I will not be supporting this proposal, but those are my thoughts. Thank you, Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you.

I, I'd like to address that idea a little bit just in terms of regionalization. When you go around the state and you talk to the places where hatcheries are operating and people are using them for the fishery, and then you look at, you look at the wild versus hatchery production in these areas and you ask yourself, is it suffering? And you look at the opinion of hatcheries and you say, is it suffering in these areas? And just contrary to that, then it's not suffering, it's actually thriving. You go to other regions of the state that aren't thriving and you've got much different attitudes.

And, and the reasons for why their fishery isn't thriving is very different. There you're often looking at the excuse of it's intercept fishing or it's trawling or it's hatcheries are the reason why our fishery isn't doing well. When in fact, if you were to look inward more closely at why these rivers are— and when aren't producing the way they should be, it It could very well be some strong factors that indicate why these areas are not working. And I think that down to educating yourself and the public perception is so important because you can take on yourself doing field trips to hatcheries. You can call Rogeroni and speak to him on the phone.

You can seek out this information. It's out there. You can attend RPG, our regional planning teams, if you'd like. The board has done diligence presenting this information to us over the years actually in defense of what this staff has done. I think a lot of it is just public perception and where you're from and how you look at things.

And so with that, I'll just leave it.

Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't want to belabor this point, and so I'll reference my comments from the prior proposal, but I do want to speak to the abundance of wild pinks in Prince William Sound. We've heard just today that it was 5 to 15% was the stray rate for pinks in Prince William Sound. When you're releasing over a billion, or about a billion pinks, that's 50 to 150 million hatchery pinks that are straying into wild streams.

So even with, even if with reduced productivity rates, I should expect those.

Those wild numbers to be increasing dramatically. The second and third generation after the strays don't get the otolith marks, so I know the department counts all of those as wild salmon. And so if we're looking at the explosion of pinks within the Gulf of Alaska, I should think, I should expect there should be a wild explosion of the wild stocks in there. So with that, I, yeah, I I'll not belabor further. I'm just going to put a couple very— again, referencing my previous comments, but specific to this proposal, I will note in the staff comments what would be the effect of this proposal would be adopted.

It would require the department to annually assess the extent of the Prince William Sound hatchery-produced pink salmon present in Cook Inlet streams. And then it notes, as we often see, the board does not have the fiscal or administrative authority to require the department to conduct an assessment program. Maybe not, but you have a current assessment program. So that's kind of a weird statement to, I think, to insert in here. And again, I think it behooves the department and the P&Ps and the RPTs and, you know, to consider a consistent review process of the permits, whether that's 5 years, 10 years, whatever it is.

That sort of comprehensively looks at the permits as they have changed over a period of time. I don't know what's appropriate, but I'm just going to throw that out there. Mr. Godfrey. I just want to respond to Board Member Chamberlain's comment. I'll take the numbers at face value, 5 to 10%, or 5 to 15% stray rate when he's referencing the sound releasing a billion pinks.

And then doing the math off that number would presuppose that a billion pinkies return, which clearly they don't. So that number is highly sensationalized. Commissioner? Yeah, so I've been listening and sitting here, and I've listened to all public testimony that I could. I listened back on some of it when I was traveling.

Um, we've been arguing that we want a regional approach. I think that's something we do need. Um, in Crawfish Inlet, we took a proactive engagement. We're going to put probably take some more engagement because what I read in the draft report probably needs some additional engagement. In this case, I'm looking at Prince William Sound.

I'm seeing fish straying into Lower Cook Inlet. That's outside the management area. I'll probably be taking a good close look at this after this meeting because what I've, what I've seen now in terms of stray rates is that they may be high. I don't know whether or not they're having significant impacts, but it's time to take a good close look and work with the RPT group that we did in the the Crawfish Inlet area and try to figure out whether we need to do something now about the stray rates that are occurring at one or two hatcheries. I don't think all hatcheries are having similar impacts with Prince William Sound.

That's why I'm having trouble with having a broad brush approach at a moratorium on all hatcheries in Prince William Sound. But I think there may be one or two hatcheries that we need to take a good close look at and find out whether we're having unacceptable stray rates. And you have my commitment doing that moving forward. Thanks. And just, I'll also note that I just kind of leaned over and asked Director Nelson to add regional versus statewide, where and how the board should be accepting hatchery proposals, or if we should be accepting hatchery proposals, because I think we're going to see more of this unless we clarify what— how the board wants to engage in this space and with what frequency.

So I just asked him to add that to the miscellaneous business agenda. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will reference my comments from the prior proposal, but I do want to have a little input in regards to the way the proposal is written specifically. I think the department has demonstrated when you talk about the 2% stray rate that that, that may be not equitable across the state.

There may be very different stray weights that are acceptable in very different locations specific to the proximity of hatcheries or major river systems, etc. Etc. So I think asking the department to figure out what that number of reduction in egg take capacity or hatchery production would be to fall below that, I think, is a difficult question to answer. I think just, just for the record, I think, you know, I've heard a lot about Prince William Sound, and it is a major producer of hatchery fish without question, has been for over 50 years. And when you talk about life cycles and the impact, Mr. Chamberlain referenced 15 life cycles.

It's been well over that in Prince William Sound. And I'm going to use the Copper River as an example. It's the closest river to— in proximity— major river in the state that is— not only does it have very robust sockeye returns, the coho returns to the delta and the copper are very robust. We've heard from the department that managing commercial fisheries based around wild and hatchery interactions is very doable for the reasons that I stated earlier. And of all the major rivers in the state, does the Copper River have— is it a perfect example of meeting its escapement goals every year for king salmon?

No. But it's the most consistent in the state for the size of the river. That's the closest proximity to the most major pink salmon production in the state. So I think those are important things to consider. And so I won't belabor it anymore.

I think there's been good discussion, but I do agree with the commissioner and Ms. Carlson-Vandort. I do think that the RPT process that there should be a more— there should be a review of some of these regional issues more often. And I think that— I think the commissioner has the ability to direct the RPTs to do that, and I would be very supportive of that. Because I do think that that demonstrates to the public that maybe some of this review process outside of the commissioner's authority, there is the availability of the public to participate in those planning processes, and I think it's very reasonable to ask that. I'll leave it at that, and I'll go ahead and read cost.

Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery. Approval of this proposal will result in a significant additional cost for the department to annually address the level of Prince William Sound hatchery-produced pink present in Cook Inlet. And there's nothing further. I'd call the question. Commissioner, I just want to build on, um, Representative the— his comments there.

One thing I've also asked, we've hired a new publication specialist and an information officer, and I've asked them to look at ways to make the RPT process more public so that we can get out on our Facebook pages and other things to get people engaged in those meetings outside the hatchery operators and just the department staff, because that's been a very closed meeting. But now that we have more interest, I think we need to get more people involved in that. So Thank you, Commissioner. Question's been called. Errors and omissions?

Seeing none, Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 171. Stinson? No. Wood?

No. Chamberlain? Yes. Carpenter? No.

Carlson-Vandort? No. Irwin? No. Godfrey?

No. Motion fails, 1 in favor, 6 against. Madam Chair, Proposal Number 172.

Proposal 172, 5AAC40, new regulation. We'll do that. Second. Staff comments, please. This would create a moratorium on new pink and chum salmon hatchery production above the level permitted in 2025.

There are currently 11 hatcheries permitted to take 1.39 billion pink salmon eggs and 15 hatcheries that are permitted to take 939 million chum salmon eggs. This cap— this would cap the hatchery pink and chum egg take level statewide to the capacity of 2025. The department opposes this proposal. The department will continue to closely monitor the hatchery program and take steps to address concerns. If there is compelling reason to amend the terms of a permit that is based on analysis of data and provides clear evidence the amendment will have a reasonable probability of measuring reduced or measurably reducing identified adverse effects on wild stocks.

Madam Chair, thank you. And just to be clear, this proposal is specific to pink and chum egg takes specifically, correct? That is correct. It doesn't deal with coho or king or any other species.

No, it's specifically to pink and chum. Okay, just wanted to make that abundantly clear. Okay, board discussion, Ms. Erwin. Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. So as I stated before, that it's difficult to consider the, a quarter, for me, a quarter cut in production, not knowing what that could mean for our P&Ps and for folks that depend on those stocks from all user groups, right?

We've got user groups from commercial sport, personal use, and subsistence who rely on those species. With that being said, in bringing up my prior comments that we need to take a precautionary approach to management, one that I don't think swings the pendulum too far the other way without knowing what the unintended consequences are, this is something that I believe we have heard.

Throughout this entire deliberation process and throughout our time at this meeting, that there is an unknown effect on our wild hatchery fish, right, or our wild stocks from hatchery fish. There is no definitive proof that our wild stocks are not being adversely affected or impacted by hatchery fish as required in the legislative act from 1974. So when I look at the Sustainable Salmon Policy and I look beyond simply the precautionary approach to management, I see a couple of, a couple of subsections that I'd like to bring to the attention of the board. So C5(a) is in the face of uncertainty, salmon stocks, fisheries, artificial propagation, and essential habitats shall be managed conservatively. C3(k) is plans and proposals for development or new expanding salmon fisheries and enhancement programs should effectively document resource assessments, potential impacts, and other information needed to assure sustainable management of wild stocks.

C1D is effects and interactions of introduced or enhanced stocks on wild salmon should be assessed. Wild salmon stocks and fisheries on those stocks should be protected from adverse impacts from artificial propagation and enhancement effects. And finally, C1G, depleted salmon stocks should be allowed to recover or, where appropriate, should be actively restored. Diversity should be maintained to the maximum extent possible and at the genetic population, species, and ecosystem level. Now, I don't I don't think that we have any definitive proof to say that we are succeeding in any of those at this time.

And so for me, I believe that this, from what I continue to hear, is that we need time to do research, analysis, assessment. I believe this is going to provide the department the time that's needed in order to carry out some of these assessments without us continuing to add to a potential problem, right? Now we need to do analysis to figure out what that looks what that looks like. We have also heard that there is no established acceptable stray rates. Now the department has said they are willing to establish those regionally, maybe even species-wise, but those are not in place yet.

Neither is what constitutes reasonable segregation. And so for me, I would be remiss if I left this board table with status quo, having no pressure on the department to establish these very integral pieces of these plans. We also have lack of information on the competition for food in marine habitats and the ocean carrying capacity. You know, our wild— our hatchery stocks are not the only ones, um, care— adding to the, uh, the biomass, um, of, of the ocean. We heard a testifier yesterday speak to the amount of pollock, um, that is, that is in the ocean.

And so it isn't solely our wild hatchery stocks. However, that is what we're at the table right now deciding today, is whether or not that level of production is appropriate. And I cannot definitively say that this level of production is appropriate or any additional level of production is appropriate. So at this time, this seems like the best path forward for me, for us to focus on simply two of the species, right? We're just looking at pinks and chums, and provide ourselves some breathing room, the department some time to analyze and assess so that we can move forward in a way that is in alignment with law, statute, and regulation.

Thank you. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I think that was interesting what Ms. Irwin said.

I think there's some validity to that. You know, when you talk about the sustainable salmon policy and you talk about the precautionary approach, I think a perfect example of the precautionary approach is exactly what the commissioner did in Crawfish Inlet. I think that is why the legislature provided him the authority to do that.

I do not believe the legislature intended to give the Board of Fisheries power to put a moratorium in place to basically usurp the commissioner's power at our request, because that is really what a moratorium is doing here. I think the commissioner has demonstrated and the department has demonstrated already there is a moratorium in place for pink and chum production. And in my opinion, that production is never going to increase at any point in time in the near future. First of all, it would be a politically foolish decision to allow that. But secondly, I don't even hear the producers of these hatcheries, these PMPs, even asking for that.

I think that they all realize that the current levels of protection are probably fine. Do I think the board needs to put this in regulation? No, I don't, because I think it overrides the power of the commissioner and his ability to follow legislative intent. Now, having said that, I do also think that similarly to what we did with some of the trawl proposals, moving it to a more appropriate venue like the Joint Protocol Committee, we don't actually have that opportunity here necessarily. But we do have this regional planning team, and they're all around the state, and they're very regionally oriented for a specific reason.

And that is the way it was set up many, many years ago. That process was a very different process the first 35 years than it has been the last 10. And I know that because I participated in those processes for a long time. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] And so one thing that I think is an interesting concept is that the idea behind a moratorium is that I think that this board could show intent and direction to the commissioner to push the RPT at the different regions around the state to specifically look at the moratorium he has in place and possibly adding time to that moratorium, because I don't necessarily disagree that that's inappropriate. I just think that the venue in which this proposal is trying to do it is very challenging.

I'm not sure, quite frankly, it meets the board's— you know, I think it overrides the board's authority to a certain degree. And so I guess I have a question for the commissioner then. So if the board were to show that we would like you to direct the RPTs regionally to look at the production of pink and chum salmon production and to enter into some sort of an agreement or understanding with you that they are willing to and they would give you direction along with the board to extend the moratorium that's currently in place.

Is that something that's possible to do?

Well, certainly since I developed the first moratorium, I could have a new one. For the first time this meeting, I've heard interest in the RPT— I mean, the hatchery operators— to have an extended moratorium given the uncertainty that some of the questions we have regarding all these different science questions, everything else. Yeah, I'd be interested in if they're willing to have that conversation and extend the moratorium. I think it's a proper precautionary measure until we get some better answers and some of the science that we're addressing. So I'm open to that idea.

Well, thank you for that. I appreciate you. And I guess the final question is we've heard, you know, I've heard from board members there's a concern about you. You aren't going to be the commissioner forever. And I understand that.

And there will be new people appointed to that position. And I've heard that from the public as well. And that's kind of the driving factor behind putting this in regulatory language. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] But if you were to reach an agreement before your term is up, or however you want to call it, as being commissioner, if you put this moratorium in place to extend it from the current 4 years, let's say out to 15 years, something like that, which would give adequate time for all of this science to be developed, and future ports could surely take that science when it's available and react to it. But could a new commissioner come in without going back to the RPTs and just tear up that moratorium and enact something independently?

Through the chair, yes, I guess that could happen, but I could also say that you could adopt as a board a moratorium and you could have 3 new board members next year and you could have a revote on a moratorium too. So I think having a commitment between the industry and the commissioners probably just as strong as anything the board may do given changes in membership either way. So, okay, well, I appreciate that. I'm not, I'm not in favor of the way this proposal is direct, the direction of this. I am interested in the concept, and that's why I brought this idea up.

And I'd really be interested to see what other board members have to say about that idea. A question, and then I'll open it up. To Member Carpenter's question about the moratorium, I just want to get specific here a little bit. That's specific to Sarah, is that correct? Southern Southeast?

Yes. Okay. So great. That's— there's concerns around that. My question is, if we.

No, it is— it's Prince William Sound and Southeast Alaska, the moratorium that I sat down and discussed with originally. Okay, so that being said, we've got other hatcheries, and the question would be conceptually, as, as Member Carpenter presented it, would that moratorium extend only to those particular hatcheries, or would that be extended and expanded to all of the state hatcheries?

It would— it would cover all the pink and chum salmon production hatcheries that we have. Yeah, that would be my intent. That's what I was getting at. Thank you. Okay, I'll open it up.

Member Godfrey and then Member Wood.

First thing I'd like to do is, is thank the staff for the background and staff comments on this as far as the board's perceived authority on a proposal such as this. I think that I would echo much of what Board Member Carpenter has already said. I think it's maybe an open question right now whether or not the board has the authority to do something in effect that might make operation of a hatchery impractical and by a de facto, you know, eliminating something that doesn't have the authority to do. But I'd like to ask the commissioner regarding this proposal and Administrative Order 360 that the the governor signed last year for streamlining, eliminating, reducing, eliminating redundancy, streamlining permitting processes and such. And since you already have the authority to place a moratorium on pink and chump production, do you believe if this proposal was adopted it would conflict with AO, Administrative Order 360?

I don't know if it would conflict, it would add regulatory language that would be duplicative. Thank you.

Mr. Wood. Great, thank you. I'd just like to revisit this, uh, the RPTs. I think the— and how they could play into having say into regional hatcheries. I've heard from people that, you know, maybe in some areas we should dial it back a little bit more, like in in Southeast and the chum.

And I think a great example of that was what happened, what you did, the actions taken in Crawfish.

Perhaps it's down the road something that we can do to— RPTs could be as accessible as ACs are region to region so we can learn what's going on. Maybe the board can access RPTs more than they should. Once there was the Kuskwim River Salmon Management Working Group that was designed for the board to go and sit in and listen to. I attended that last year and it was really good, super informative about the Kuskwim. I think, you know, again, just due diligence of the board, we could attend some of these and understand how they work and see what's happening there and inform ourselves.

Maybe we do ask RPTs to present at certain times or on different issues. Just a thought.

Mr. Owen. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to read some things into the record as we're having this discussion on board authority. So the board authority for regulations related to released fish is in Alaska Statute 16-10-440. Section B reads, the Board of Fisheries may, after the issuance of a permit by the commissioner, amend the regulations adopted in accordance with AS 44.62, the terms of the permit relating to the source and number of salmon eggs, harvest of fish by hatchery operators, and the specific locations designated by the department for harvest.

Now, if we look at the staff comments under what would be the effect of the proposal were adopted, this would not prohibit the commissioner from issuing new permits that would increase pink and chum salmon hatchery production. Rather, it would cap existing permits at the 2025 level. So It's an already issued permit by the Commissioner that would then cap the existing permit. Further down in background, the opinion was noted the Board action that effectively revokes or prevents the issue of a permit is probably not authorized. That's not what we're discussing.

We are discussing the capping of the existing permits, if I am understanding the Board's— the staff comments along with the statutes correctly. So I just wanted to put some of that on the record for discussion. Thanks. And as I would interpret that, the moratorium would sort of essentially be the board removing the eggs or not disallowing the removal of the eggs for a period of time.

Additional eggs, I should say. Not eggs, period, but additional eggs. To what is currently authorized.

So a couple of thoughts that I have on this one. I am very intrigued by what Member Carpenter has put forward.

My reluctance to just say sounds great, let's go, is born out of the ambiguity that I see in the questions that I asked of you, Mr. Prior, during your presentation, which were on the last couple bullets on the last slide of our C-124. And those were essentially related to when will the study be completed, and that phrase where the AHRP work will not be done until context is provided for the set of answers to the questions and the department has reached policy conclusions, and then also when will the department act. And that will be the department will form policy conclusions once full technical results are available, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And here is my issue with that, is that there is nothing in here that is really binding.

There is nothing in here that is sort of forcing The outcome. And again, I've mentioned on the record, I think there are, there are constituents, folks, stakeholders, whatever we want to call them, not to mention myself, that are kind of impatient. These hatcheries have been in place for 50 years. And 50 years later, we're starting to do the work that was required in some of the founding statutory and regulatory language because this has been brought to the board repeatedly for years. So I, I hear what the commissioner is saying.

I appreciate his commitment, but I'm asking, where is the incentive for keeping our foot on the gas? That this just doesn't become a loop that we languish in, and these studies aren't really put to use and what the mechanism for doing that is. So I see it as a bit of a carrot and stick approach. So I'll leave it at that. Mr. Bowers.

Thanks, Madam Chair. So one thing that I, I don't, I don't believe we have informed the board of is that the, the technology regarding the, the genetics work that we did in AHRP, that is new technology. So, so the work that we're doing in AHRP couldn't have been done decades ago because it— that the ability to genotype these individual fish, that just didn't exist. So, so the timing is driven by the technology, and I think I think you can have some assurance that we will take these results seriously and act on them from the commitment that we have put into this project. I mean, it's $14 million somewhere, maybe more, Bill saying more, you know, a decade of work.

And as resource managers that are, entrusted with the public's resources, I mean, we just, we have a tremendous obligation to act on a body of work like this. So, yeah, and unfortunately, you know, the answers we provided yesterday, you know, are somewhat open-ended because, you know, we haven't, as policymakers, you know, we haven't, we don't have the information yet to form a policy conclusion that we we can act on, but we, we will have that information. Now, I appreciate that, and, and thank you for that. Um, you know, the other aspect of here— this is, of course, the economics. And I asked almost most, most of the, the hatchery, the PNP representatives that came before us, whether they were at, you know, operating at current capacity for primarily pink and chum.

Um, and Most of them, if not all of them, indicated that they were. I'm also looking at RCs 105 through 107 that show the tax returns for, I think, Sarah Prince William Sound and Insura. That shows sort of a mixed bag of revenues to expenses on an annual basis. And I would, just looking at it, I'm sort of disregarding the assets because that, that's sort of different in terms of.

Operating expenses and operating revenue.

But it looks like by and large you are kind of operating in the red. Not always, but sometimes. If I am looking at those— and so my concern is, number one, is that sustainable without asking for more production? And how would that be handled through this conceptual process that we're talking about here. Mr. Carpenter.

Yeah, thank you. Um, I think that's a valuable question, and, you know, I can't speak specific to that, but I've had a fair amount of involvement with discussions in my prior life, and I can tell you that, you know, part of the reason I believe that at current production levels that a lot of these PMPs are experiencing, you know, less than, I guess, wanted revenue levels and savings is because most of these facilities are owned by the state. And when these facilities were given to the PMPs to operate, there was legislative appropriations specific to maintenance and upkeep and capital projects. That really no longer exists. And so I think that at— you can see at the levels that they're currently producing, I think it's depending on the year and depending on the fluctuating value of the species that they're harvesting for cost recovery, you know, that's an important thing to consider.

So I have never heard in the last 5 years anyone at these PMPs even knowing that that situation is in place is asking for more chum and pinks. And so that's why I'm comfortable going this route. And I don't know the actual avenue for this idea that I have. I haven't really heard of many people saying that this is a horrible idea. In my opinion, we could take no action on this proposal, but give clear instruction to the commissioner that what we would like him to do is task the RPT specific on pink and chum on a regional level to agree to cap the production at current levels for X amount of years, and all that information compiled to him, he could extend the moratorium that's currently in place.

Now, having said that, I do agree with Ms. Carlson-Vandort that— and I also agree with Mr. Bowers— that this is a huge project that's cost a tremendous amount of money. I'm not sure in our lifetimes we will ever know truly the carrying capacity of the North Pacific. Maybe with technology at some point we will, but that is not going to be in probably my lifetime for sure. And do I think it's important that the information that is derived from these studies that can be presented to a body like the Board of Fisheries to make educated decisions on policy? I think it's valuable.

I think it's also valuable that, you know, information as it's gathered Some of that should be presented to the board, even if it's not in its finality. Do I think the board should act solely based on that? No. But do I think it's possible that a board would? Possibly.

But I think it's probably more informative to the public that there's a little bit more transparency there. So that would be my intention with this proposal. It's on the table. You know, that's an idea, so I guess I really want to see where the board's at on this.

Thanks, Mr. Carpenter. I guess I'll just kind of continue my thoughts a little bit and then open it back up. I sincerely appreciate where you're headed with this. I think there's a lot of merit to it, but I wish that that was something that had been presented at the beginning of this meeting, not at the end of it. And we have this proposal before us.

And lacking the specificity of how this would work, I don't know how much time that would take. And again, at what point do we say we need to act? So I am unsure of how I feel about this, but I think that unless we have sort of an articulated path forward, it's not necessarily inappropriate for the board to act on this proposal. And if once a program or process is articulated and presented and agreed upon, that might be a very good reason, whether in cycle or out of cycle, to, to revisit you know, the contents of this proposal depending upon which way the board chooses to act. Mr. Swenson.

This question is for the commissioner. If this is enacted, Commissioner, does this in any way, shape, or form hurt your ability to make these decisions?

Was I not clear enough? I'm just trying to figure out how—. Okay. We each have our authorities. I think you have heard loud and clear what my intent is moving forward here.

I've heard the board's intent here to put some kind— extend the moratorium. I will work with the industry to extend that moratorium. I have my own beliefs, as I've said on the record, that, that I believe that the moratorium that we currently have in place is the right thing to do. So I'm not opposed to extending it. But again, I'm kind of reluctant to say, does this impair my ability to work with industry to extend this moratorium?

I don't think it does one way or the other, because I'm going to use my authorities to, to address the issues that I'm hearing of concern to the board.

Okay. Because I just wanted to know if that was going to make your decision, you know, to, to make a decision on these hatcheries and in this amount difficult. And it doesn't sound like that it is. Thank you, Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you.

I'd like to reference 5A C 39.222.

And go to O. And says research and data collection should be undertaken to improve scientific and technical knowledge of salmon fisheries, including ecosystem interactions, status of salmon populations, and condition of salmon habitats. I think the department is doing due diligence on their providing information and studies of interactions with, with hatchery versus wild salmon. I feel confident in that. I continue to wish time and time again that the condition of salmon habitats was also part of the evaluation to understand what's going on with these salmon populations that are not doing well.

And there's more to it than just blaming it on hatcheries, trawling, or intercept. And I, and I guess because I'm a habitat guy, conditions of salmon habitats, I think really we could use more information on that and how they interact and how they interact rather than finding other reasons to blame things on.

Mr. Owen. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd just like to speak really quickly to Mr. Svenson's question to the commissioner and recognize that I fully, I fully believe that you're speaking to your intent, Mr. Commissioner. I believe your intent. You've shown by your actions that you're interested in continuing this moratorium and being responsible for the hatchery production.

With that being said, intent isn't guaranteed to pass on to a predecessor or to anybody else. What is guaranteed to continue on through administrative changes is codified regulations. Now, yes, another board could come in here and vote in and overturn it. However, that would have to go through the entire public process. It would have to have a legal notice.

There would have to be members of the public come in and weigh in, and there would be a whole other board discussion. So I have full faith that what the commissioner is saying is his honest truth and has shown to prove that. But just speaking to that intent does not automatically follow administrative changes. And so for me, I think if, you know, if this is something that we really believe should be codified and that the board believes strongly about, I don't think there's any harm in codifying it into regulation, especially after what we just heard from the commissioner that it's not going to necessarily tie his hands within his authority. So thank you.

Let me ask the question a different way, speaking to Mr. Swenson's question. Commissioner, if the board were to adopt this, would there be anything that would disincentivize you to continue to work with the RPTs in this space? I don't—. I've been thinking about my answer to Mr. Swenson. So I think industry would probably be less reluctant to work with me because now the board— they're working with the board on the moratorium rather than with me on the moratorium.

So I think wouldn't reduce my incentive to work with them, but it might work— have them be less incentivized to work with me now that you've engaged in that issue.

Yeah, I guess speculatively, would they be more incentivized to engage, period, because of the moratorium. That's— who knows? But thank you for your answer. Any other board discussion? Mr. Chamberlain.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Believe it or not, this one I struggled with. There are a few holes in here and there are workarounds that can make this complicated. I think Member Erwin has spoken to those fairly well.

But I can't think of a better way at this point in time. And Member Carpenter's points are not lost on me. And this is one I've struggled with and I didn't know where I was voting until now. But when I look at this, I see there's a path forward and the worst thing to do here is nothing. I'm very much open to amending this in the future or cleaning it up.

But I think at this point in time, I think the best path forward is to go forward with this and try to clean it up, you know, course correct as we find need, as we find a need. I think this is a little bit of a new area for the board. But, you know, sometimes the best way to learn is by doing. And so I'll, I'll be supporting this, although I was very much on the fence to begin with. Mr. Carpenter.

Yeah, thank you. I really do appreciate this conversation because I think this is an important one. But— and I've listened to comments of the board staff, listened to the public regarding this. And so I'm going to move that the board take no action on Proposal 172. If I get a second, I'd be glad to speak to that.

Second. If I may, Madam Chair. I understand board members' concerns, you know, trying to hold the department's feet to the fire to move this conversation along. Do I think it should move along quicker? Of course it is.

Of course I do. Unfortunately, we, you know, have limited money and there's only so many hours in the day and this is a very This detailed process is far above the level of my expertise. I know that. And so I'm relying on the scientific community to be able to provide me with evidence to make informed decisions. So what I would like to see happen is that— at least my intent would be to direct the commissioner to engage with the RPT process.

The topic would be a 10-year extension of his current moratorium. There would be public engagement notice and that the RPT shall inform of a report with the understanding of that is the topic, a 10-year extension of his moratorium. Once the commissioner receives the input from the RPT, and I'm not talking about— I'm talking about in an expedited fashion if possible. I would prefer that this happen before the October work session next year if possible, so that that report could be brought to the board's attention, because I think it's important, and I think it's important for the public. And that if the RPT process and the public through engagement thinks that this is a good idea, then I think the commissioner, with the intent that at least I'm providing, will extend that moratorium.

And that would be my reason for taking no action at this time.

Discussion on the motion. Ms. Irwin. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Member Carpenter, for the motion.

I stated this yesterday when we were talking about the— the day before when we were discussing the joint protocol meeting, which I agreed with. I voted in favor of. But it is not unreasonable for the public to expect us to be able to make decisions on this, on these topics. Now, there are nuances to the topics that are going to be brought up at the joint protocol meeting, which is involving meeting with North Pacific Fishery Management Council, an outside authority that is also engaging in actions regarding the exact same stocks and similar waters as us. And so I agreed that that was the best path forward.

I believe that we have as much information in front of us as possible. I don't know what else, what other information would be brought forward in the next 6 months that would help us make any more of these decisions outside of increased public input, which I think is always, always a valuable process. However, this proposal has been on the table and given public notice for what, 10, 9, 10 months now. And so there's been it's been understood that we were going to discuss it at this meeting. And so personal board research needed to be done.

The department needed to put together all the research possible, and we needed to do our due diligence in order to make these decisions. And the RPTs also understood that this was going to be coming at this time. And so I— while I respect, um, Member Carpenter for being open also about the limited knowledge on different topics, I very much respect that acknowledgement and a desire to find a pathway moving forward that might involve a a better understanding. Um, at this time, I can't support continuously pushing these issues simply because we didn't take the time to educate ourselves before. Member Irwin, is that an objection to the motion?

I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Yes, that's an objection to the motion. Any other board discussion on the motion? Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, yeah, since the inception of the Hatchery Act, we've been having questions about carrying capacity. So how much longer could it be? We should be there any minute. I think what that, that goes to show is, you know, there are always going to be questions and answers. We can't count on answers being forthcoming because they haven't been.

I think at this point, as imperfect as this is, I [Speaker:DR. MICHAEL] Yeah, I think the best path here is to go forward. As I said earlier, the worst we can do is nothing. There is a lot of room to course correct and to refine our processes as we go. But if we need information and we need to, to provide an impetus for the department and the industry and the scientific community to provide information, Action in the absence of information is probably the best way to do that. And I'm not saying there's, there's no information, but the information, the questions we've been asking have not been getting answered.

And so I think that should provide an impetus for those answers. Thank you. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Before I call the question on the motion, The motion is to take no action and it's to direct the commissioner with the statement that I made, the intent of the board.

And so a yes vote would be to take no action and direct the commissioner to engage with the RPT. So I just want to make that clear. And now I'll call the question. [Speaker:COMMISSIONER ARKOOSH] Put a thought on the record. Um, it's very compelling.

What I like about the motion is that there's more specificity than what is in the proposal. The proposal lacks some specificity about what the process would be surrounding a moratorium and for the length of time that we would consider it.

Man, I'm torn on this one because I think they both— they both have merits, and I agree with a lot of the comments that Member Erwin stated that there is an expectation from the public that the board take action. And there has been plenty of notice and there has been plenty of time to have these discussions. So I appreciate, appreciate both aspects of where we're at right now. And I don't know which way I'm going to go. Member Wood.

Yeah, thank you. I mean, the way I understand it now is that there is a moratorium on pink and chum already. And that the department is going to work with the hatcheries and RPT groups and all to keep doing this. So to me, to pass this and say— or to pat— not to— so to the motion, if yes means no action, then what will continue to happen is a moratorium. So—.

And it's more specific. It's a 10-year timeframe. And the motion gives guidance on what that means. So, I mean, part of me just wants to vote this up and down, Proposal 172, yes or no. But by voting yes on Mr. Carpenter's proposal before us would be we will get action out of this.

We will continue a moratorium. And we will continue to have the commissioner engage. So I'm supportive of Mr. Carpenter's proposal. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] And then Mr. Carpenter.

I guess I'd put this to the commissioner. I don't know. How long would you have an— I mean, what I don't like about it is, does this just run on and on to where the entities talk to you? When are the RPT— when are they going to talk to you? Can we put a time they have to talk to you?

Or— that's what I don't like about just running it that way, too. Well, through the chair, I think what I heard is you gave me an October deadline by the work session. So we will work to get meetings scheduled between now and then to have something to report back to you in October. And, and to me, that would be hopefully a signed MOU to extend that moratorium for some period of time. Getting back to Mr. Chamberlain's questions, I can't guarantee that we're going to have an answer to the North Pacific carrying capacity in 10 years, but— or by October.

But, you know, those questions are— science is going to continue to tackle those questions. But in the meantime, I think until we get more pertinent information on what are acceptable stray rates, which I think we do need to define, I think having a moratorium in place is the right thing to do. So you have my commitment to work towards that end by October.

Mr. Carpenter and then Mr. Wood. Yeah, I, I did call the question and that's fine. The chair hasn't recognized it. I just want to know, Commissioner, if what I said in my statement of intent is, is clear enough and directive enough enough to you to be able to execute what we are asking you to do? Yes.

Thank you. Mr. Wood.

No, I was just trying to clarify. I mean, this October deadline to report to us seems very appropriate. If we were to just pass the proposal as it was, would there be any reporting to us in October? Is there any guidance for that?

There's nothing that precludes the department if this is voted up or down to not doing what you said you just committed to doing.

I guess my commitment is to come back in October and report what progress we've made towards that end. And I hope to have a signed MOU in October. Great. That's all I needed to hear. Again, Mr.

Godfrey, uh, speaking to the motion here, I— we could very well take action and do an up or down vote on this and follow that up with a directive to the department without not taking action, because us allegedly not taking action catalyzes the language that Board Member Carpenter just gave as a directive to the commissioner. So I I'm inclined to take an up or down vote, and then we can go ahead and take the action that's on the table right now.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Member Godfrey, for that point. That's what I was just going to bring up, is that there's— as far as I'm— there's not specific regulatory language that is written out for us before on this topic. And so as long as we are speaking to what we wish the department to be writing into the regulation in terms of this, we can also codify some of this language that we are discussing. Mr. Carpenter, and then—.

To Mr. Godfrey and Ms. Erwin, yes. I mean, this is a philosophical thing, I guess, more than anything. In my opinion, this oversteps the board's authority to a certain degree. This supersedes legislative intent. Do I think this needs to happen?

Yes, I do. Do I think that moving forward outside of the motion that I've made currently has a chance to pass? Yes, I do. And I don't want it to pass that way. That's why I made the motion.

I'll just be very transparent about that. I do think this is very clear direction to the commissioner, and I do believe that the outcome that the proponent is asking for in this proposal is very similar in nature and actually engages with the public more during that process. So that's my final comment, and I just wanted to put that on the record. Okay, on the motion to take no action, question has been called. Director Nelson, please call the roll.

On the motion to take no action on Proposal 172, Godfrey. No. Wood. Yes. Chamberlain.

No. Erwin. No. Carpenter. Yes.

Svensson.

Yes. Carlson-Vandort. Yes. Motion carries, 4 in favor, 3 against, Madam Chair.

Go ahead and take about a 15-minute break and then come back and resume deliberations on Group 3.

Hey, welcome back. The time is 11:52. We are on the record beginning deliberations of Group 3, subsistence and sport fisheries and gear. There are 10 proposals in this group, beginning with proposal number 162, please. Thank you, Madam Chair.

For the record, Colton Lipka, Regional Management Coordinator for Cook Inlet. Proposal 162, 5AAC01-010, mean methods, means, and general provisions. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Proposal 162. This would prohibit the use of commercial transport services in all subsistence fisheries. Current regulations, subsistence fishing guide services are prohibited in the Glenallen Subdistrict. There are no other regulations related to the use of commercial services in subsistence fisheries.

The effects of this proposal, this would make it more difficult for a person who currently relies on commercial transport services to access subsistence fishery resources. The department is neutral on this proposal. Current regulations are presumed to provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses and access to commercial transport services may provide access to fisheries and increase participation for some subsistence users. To meet the board's statutory responsibility to the subsistence law, it should consider whether subsistence regulations continue to provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses if the proposal is adopted. Madam Chair.

Thank you. Board discussion, please. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Thank you, Colton.

I'm going to stick with the same principle I've tried to stick with as much as I can at this meeting. This is a statewide issue. This has been dealt with regionally on the Copper River, and I think that's the appropriate venue. And for those reasons, I'm not going to support it the way it's written. Mr. Chamberlain.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I— yeah, I'm finding myself agreeing with Member Carpenter more and more.

[Speaker:KARL] Yeah, this one, particularly given in Western Alaska, a lot of the things, particularly with culture camps and travel out to the remote regions. I hate to say it, but you don't get to Western Alaska without commercial transport. And so I think what the issue we're running here is, as written, this is going to be so broad to be effectively meaningless. And may interfere with large, large swaths of people who are looking to subsistence fish throughout the state. Because, you know, in the event subsistence fishing ever hits the Yukon, the Yukon again, this would be very— would have a very deleterious effect on them.

The, uh, using my, my day job, uh, Chalista, uh, one of the nonprofits affiliated with us, does a large-scale culture camp focused on subsistence fishing and processing, and they utilize charter operators to get people out to remote regions. This would potentially adversely affect them in a big way. I wasn't aware of this until that, but we're seeing other people speaking to similar effects. So I think this may be so overly broad to Yeah, there will be a whole lot of unintended consequences. So yeah, I'm going to join Team Carpenter on this.

Ms. Irwin. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to speak to the, you know, the kind of discrepancy maybe there that might be in on some of these conversations on whether or not, you know, commercial transport and subsistence, you know, kind of go together because, right, inherently subsistence is noncommercial in its inheritance. And I guess I'm really looking through— I've been really looking through the book trying to make sure and find some more clarity within the regulatory framework on how exactly to approach this. And I am having a difficult time.

But when I do look at Chapter 99 of the subsistence uses and the subsistence procedures, when I'm reading these, it's really recognizing, you know, the long-term pattern of take, the use of game, the use of knowledge, and the passing down of traditions and knowledge and from what I'm gathering, it's, you know, subsistence is inherently non-commercial in that you don't sell your take or your catch. Whatever you are harvesting is non-commercial in and of itself. I don't see a correlation between commercial transport being inherently.

You know, not melding with the subsistence definitions and priorities. I think that there's a difference in subsistence harvest being inherently for food purposes versus not selling your catch. And so that's— I'd love to hear some more board discussion and opinions on this, but I— this to me does not undermine the subsistence priority or inherently change what subsistence means and is. It is simply providing additional opportunity for folks who don't have their own measures and means to get to their opportunity to take advantage of those subsistence opportunities. But I would be happy to hear some other board discussion.

Mr. Wood, then Mr. Godfrey. Yeah, thank you. I mean, at face value, I just recognize how much more expensive it is to potentially own the means and the mechanism for getting to to where you're going to participate in your subsistence activity, whether that be a boat or a plane. So I, I'm a no on this for sure, and that's the reason why I'll never be a pilot, or because I run out of gas, don't crash.

Mr. Godfrey.

So, um, I, I've spoken on this in the past when these types of proposals been in front of us, but they were in particular to utilizing guide or charter services for subsistence, which I've said on the record, I think there's generally two rationales that are accepted for subsistence. You subsist because that's tradition that's handed down to you from your parents, grandparents, et cetera. Or you subsist to offset the cost of protein, particularly in rural Alaska. Well, that argument ceases to make sense if you're paying a guide for— guide professional services to put you on the fish and take you to the game clean and take care of your catch. That's— so that dog doesn't hunt for me.

But the other is I don't really think anybody who engages in subsistence had a way that was handed down from their parents that you hire a professional who's better at doing it to help you do it. So neither of those arguments are on point here. I draw a distinction like Chamberlain did and Board Member Erwin did here. That it's one thing to have a professional transport, commercial transport, and then you still ply the craft of harvesting your subsistence game or fish. That to me makes sense.

But all that said, I'm just going to go ahead and punt the reason that Board Member Carpenter said, and I think this is not necessarily appropriate for statewide. So I have, you know, and have expressed on the record, especially in I think the Prince William Sound meeting, Pretty strong feelings about guiding services for subsistence. I don't agree with that. I've consistently voted against that. However, this is different.

This is providing transport to a place where you would then do all of your own fishing and whatnot and harvesting. And I see that as being a very different thing. And I think the effect of, you know, The proposal would be to continue to widen the gap between the have and the have-nots. Those that have access to transport, boats, you know, whatever that they need to be able to harvest. I don't think that's fair.

And I also, you know, heard in public testimony folks that were in favor of this saying, well, part of our subsistence is to share. And that's great. And that's true.

A lot of people want to have that experience themselves, and that's part, I think, also of maintaining some of those connections to the resources and the waters and the lands, having the ability to harvest for yourself. And I think it's not unreasonable to be— to use whatever means you can to get there. If you have to pay somebody for a ride, I think that's reasonable. And so I don't want to arbitrarily restrict access, particularly if there is— if there are abundant resources to be able to harvest. So those are my thoughts on it.

Any other additional board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I do subsistence and cost, I would just put on— would like to put on the record that there were some concerns specific to Alaska Wildlife Troopers, and I just think that's important to put on the record that this particular language in this would prevent them not necessarily from enforcing it, but it, but it does— it would— there would be a lot of calls and it would be very unclear to the public. And so for those reasons, but to subsistence review, I'll reference my assistance review for other statewide finfish proposals, and I'll just touch on a couple of them.

Is this stock customary and traditionally taken? The board has many positive customary and traditional use findings for fish stocks outside non-subsistence areas throughout the state. Can these proportions be harvested consistent with sustained yield? Yes. There are many ANSs around the state outside of non-subsistence areas.

And I'll just leave it at that, and I'll go ahead and Due cost approval. This proposal is not expected to result in additional cost for a private person to participate in a fishery. And approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department. I call the question. I will just note that amongst the folks that weighed in on this proposal, I would say it's pretty darn split.

We had the Central Peninsula AC, Copper Basin AC, Copper River Prince William Sound AC, Kodiak AC, Petersburg Sittna Valley, Tok Cut-Off, ACs all in favor of it, and Anchorage, Cooper Landing, Craig, Delta, Fairbanks, Mat-Valley, and Northern Norton Sound, and Prince William Sound, Valdez against it. And then I would say a pretty fairly even number, probably a little bit more on the support side of individuals that weighed in on this. With that, the question has been called. Any errors or omissions? Seeing none, Director Nelson, call the roll, please.

Final action on Proposal 162. Carlson, Van Dort. No. Carpenter. No.

Wood. No. Godfrey. No. Svenson.

No. Chamberlain. No. Irwin. No.

Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair. Proposal 176. Madam Chair, for the record, Patrick Fowler. I'm the Sport Fish Management Coordinator for Cook Inlet for the Division of Sport Fish. Proposal 176, 5AAC, new section.

I'm sure—. Moved to adopt. Second. Staff comments. This proposal would allow anglers sport fishing from a vessel in saltwater to pool their cumulative bag and possession limits with other anglers fishing on that vessel, effectively creating a vessel limit.

Any harvest by the captain or crew of the charter vessel would not be allowed to be pooled with clients into the vessel limit, but would be required to be identified as crew harvest. The captain and crew of the charter vessel would be prohibited from giving any part of their harvest to any passenger of their vessel during or after their trip. Utilizing a vessel limit allows anglers to more efficiently achieve their maximum sport harvest, and more anglers are expected to achieve their maximum bag limit. In fisheries within state of Alaska waters where preferential bag and possession limits have been established for resident anglers, those preferential limits would be pooled with those of non-residents as part of the vessel limit. Vessel limits would not be applied to freshwater boat fisheries, personal use or subsistence fisheries, and would create a complex regulatory environment where overlap between these fisheries exists.

This proposal would not impact harvest rules for halibut, which are established by federal regulation. The department opposes this proposal. Individual bag possession and annual limits are used as management tool to control harvest in the sport fishery. If adopted, establishing a vessel limit reduces the effectiveness of the current management tools and is expected to increase sport harvest potentially resulting in more restrictive regulations in saltwater sport fisheries across the state. Madam Chair, thank you.

Ms. Irwin and Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Question for the department. I, I heard you mention it, but could you go in a little bit more detail on how this might affect the resident versus non-resident bag limits or, or harvest or ability to participate in the, in the fishery? Yes, through the chair, Member Irwin, uh, the— in some cases we have the board's given, uh, specific bag and possession limits for residents, which are often higher in opportunity than non-residents.

So in those areas where we do have those regulations in place, if we had a situation where both residents were fishing on the boat with non-residents, but they were, you know, the— essentially this vessel limit was applied they'd be limited to just the total cumulative bag limit for all people on the vessel. So in essence, you know, residents might— or sorry, the non-residents who would otherwise be a little bit more restricted would benefit from being pooled with residents. And in those areas where there's a difference in resident and non-resident bag limits, I'm not sure, maybe this might be a question for a prior board, but what is the general consensus on why there's a difference in bag limits? Is it generally there's a conservation concern so we We want to ensure, or ensuring residents additional opportunities. What's generally been the.

Purpose behind those. Yeah, through the chair, in many of those cases, while we have some, some differences between residents and non-residents, I'd say that's most common in Southeast Alaska marine fisheries. And if I had to generalize, not to put words in the prior board's mouths, but they've chosen to provide increased opportunity for Alaska residents, recognizing the, you know, the visitor industry is strong in Southeast Alaska. And when there is choices that had to be made to restrict the sport fishery. It's been a determination of the board to allocate higher opportunity for residents and more restrictive regulations for non-residents.

Okay, thank you very much. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Um, this is for Captain DeGraaf. Um, the wildlife troopers have comments in here, and I'll let you speak to that, but I have a question.

So I'll just give you a hypothetical. There's 6 people on a boat. There's a— in the area they're fishing, there's a 1 yelloweye per person rockfish limit. And you pull upon the boat and there's 7 rockfish there. Who gets the ticket?

Good question. Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, that's, that's the issue that we have with these is who— if there's a violation in a scenario like that, king salmon stamp Licensing issues, angler limits, recording of species, size limitations. Who does that ticket go to? This will create a lot of enforcement challenges for us to suss that out while we're at a boat side, you know, looking at somebody's catch, looking at licenses, that sort of thing. It also brings challenges because of how it's the structure and the regime, I think was the word we had come up with, that's been in place for decades and how we've established by person rather than by party or by vessel.

It would change that significantly. I thought, I believe it would cause a lot of confusion.

And yeah, I think it would cause us prosecution challenges if we tried to figure out who wasn't issued a ticket. That person being afforded the right of a trial if they wanted to, and us trying to figure out who we cite. I'm sure there could be some scenarios where we can figure that out alongside the boat, but there's going to be a lot that we won't be able to, just depending on what people are willing to tell us. I thank you for that. I appreciate that.

I mean, for those reasons alone, I'm not going to support this proposal. And I guess the only other comment I'd have is we've heard through public testimony that many other states have regulatory language like that. But that doesn't necessarily mean that Alaska absolutely has to follow that protocol. I think there's a long history of Alaskan and Alaskan fishing regulations, and I think this steps way outside that bounds. And so I'm a no.

Mr. Spence and then Mr. Wood. This is the staff in the state. Can the captain and the crew fish also? I mean, I thought we'd pretty much gone through that once. Yeah, that's a good question.

Through the chair, so it depends on the fishery. In some cases, the board has given the department the direction to prohibit the captain and crew from participating in the fishery. And it's a case-by-case basis. There are some fisheries that is the case in other, uh, both species and fisheries where the captain crew can participate at the same time they're guiding clients. Just one quick follow-up: if they can fish, are they allowed to give their fish to their clients?

Yes.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. Um, the part of this that made me consider that it was a good idea was just the kind of conservation aspect of it. That there'd potentially be more fish, um, would not be susceptible to catch-and-release mortality.

But then, as the department states in their comments, that it could allow for more harvest. Um, I'm not a big fan of, um, community harvest or deck loading. I think I'm much more believe in individual bag limit. And I think the conservation part of this, it doesn't, doesn't speak to me enough to support this proposal.

Mr. Owen. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to mention I've had been able to have quite a few conversations with the proposer of this and, and of the next, the next proposal, which are similar. And I just want to speak to— I don't— I don't think that the intention of this proposal is to have a loophole for additional harvest. I don't believe this is, you know, the charter industry trying to get additional, you know, a loophole into this and get additional harvest.

I heard some of the comments yesterday on some of the specific circumstances, and so what I wanted to do is ask Captain DeGraaff to describe the current, the current way that this— oh, I'm sorry, I'm speaking to a different proposal. I'm gonna just leave, leave it at that for now.

Mr. Wood? Yeah, I, I had a— maybe this question for the department or Captain DeGraaff, but if the boat boat had a resident and non-resident on it and they caught a species that they were not allowed to retain but could pass it on to somebody else, would, would that be complicated with this proposal? How would this proposal address that?

Through the chair, yeah, if under this proposal, uh, the bag limit would be cumulative of all the people on board the vessel, so until the cumulative limit had been reached, all anglers could continue to fish. Thank you. That brings up an interesting question. What about proxies?

Well, that's a good question, Madam Chair. Um, I, I think, and I'll, I'll look to our other staff there at the table here, I think how we interpret that is, you know, when you're fishing for proxy, uh, that would be considered part of the cumulative bag limit. So that would potentially add to the harvest potential of the vessel.

Madam Chair, that's my read too. It would be added to the cumulative bag limit for the, for the boat. Interesting. I think that also complicates enforcement considerably, potentially. And, you know, for the reasons that Captain DeGraaff has stated, I can't be supportive of the proposal.

But, you know, one of the things that is concerning, you know, with the conservation argument is that there's there's so much dead release, in which case I think that the department should probably pay attention to that, and that should be a part of future bag limit discussions. Member Payton, or sorry, Director Payton. Thank you, Madam Chair. Reverting back. Yes.

So I'll, I'll touch on rockfish. And from the studies we've known and invested in and what the board has put in regulation with deepwater release devices on rockfish, it's almost up to 95% survivability on rockfish.

Thank you for that. Any other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional costs to the department.

I call the question.

Just note that there was probably about twice as many folks that weighed in against this than there were in support, and the question has been called errors and omissions. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 176. Irwin, no. Chamberlain, no.

Godfrey, no. Svenson, no. Wood, no. Carlson-Vandork, no. Carpenter, no.

Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair. Proposal 177. Madam Chair, Proposal 177, new 5AAC, new section. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 177 as The proponent withdrew support during Committee of the Whole, and also an RC has been submitted to reflect that. We just don't currently have it.

I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 177. Proposal 178. Madam Chair, Proposal 178, 5AAC 75.995 definitions. Madam Chair, move the board adopt Proposal 178 with substitute language found in our RC 178.

I second that and ask unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board has before it the language in RC 178 in lieu of the original proposal. Staff comments, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. With the— as amended by RC 178, uh, this— the amendment changes the language, uh, the definition of bag limit, uh, rather than being part of the bag limit of the person hooking the fish, it's part of the bag limit of the person landing the fish.

Uh, currently bag limit is defined in 5 AC 75-99-5 and includes the direction that a fish becomes part of the bag limit of the person originally hooking it. Uh, currently anglers may commonly assist other anglers by baiting hooks, reeling in an especially large fish, operating a landing net, and other tasks such as assisting youth anglers with casting a lure. In sport fishing regulations, it's been a long-standing regulation that the catch is applied to the bag limit of the individual originally hooking the fish. The department opposes this.

Proposal, allowing one angler to assist another angler by hooking the fish complicates enforcement, may encourage pooling of bag limits.

And similar to Proposal 176 and 177, this proposal is expected to increase efficiency in the sport fishery, which may require more restrictive action in some sport fisheries. Madam Chair, thank you. Board discussion? Miss Irwin? Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll just— I brought forward the language, I'll just speak to it a little bit. I was in conversations with the the authors, and they had suggested some language that they think might clarify their initial intent on this. So I'll just read number 5. Landing means A, fighting and removing from the water for retention of fish hooked on rod and reel, and B, does not include assistance by others with a net, gaff, harpoon, or other landing devices. The authors believe that there is a potential for a decrease in release mortality if we— if the definition is shifted in this manner.

I'll just leave it at that and see what the board discussion is. Mr. Carpenter, thank you. Um, I guess maybe this is for Department of Public Safety again. I'm just thinking through different scenarios in my head because that typically is what this always comes down to— hypotheticals. But a person that has a bag limit, let's say it's king salmon downrigger fishing, he's already landed 2 fish, he or she And another fish is hooked, the person continues to fight that fish all the way to the boat and then hands the rod off and they lift it on the boat.

That to me is an additional bag limit to the person that has already filled theirs. I mean, I think this goes really far to stretch it, and I'm just curious how that would complicate enforcement of this regulation if it's Mr. Carpenter, through the chair, we've got essentially this very similar concerns to this proposal as we did the previous two. In the language that I saw there, that I think the primary problem to that was trying to be solved was how do you, you have a, and maybe perhaps to your question that you were, you were hinting at, if you have a youth or disabled person on the boat, And how can you help that person catch a fish when you're trolling? Not trawling, but trolling.

And for decades, we've held to the opinion that if you've got a rod and a rod holder and fish strikes and indicates, an adult charter captain, their help, friend or family can grab that pole and hand that to that younger person or disabled person, let them set the hook by that furtive jerk or crank on the reel and bring that fish in just fine. That's what we've been telling the public for many years. Haven't seen any significant issues with that. And so that was the problem, based upon my understanding, that was trying to be solved with this proposal. This would still cause ambiguity.

I think it would still cause us some concern. It would be hard to prosecute. It's a little cleaner than the previous two, I believe. But we'd still have, I think, issues trying to figure out whose fish it belongs to if there is a violation or appears to be a violation. Thank you for that.

And then I guess maybe to the department, this specific language does not address the youth or disabled people. This, this regulation applies to everyone, and I'm worried about gamesmanship. Not—. I do think that those two instances there should be some assistance that should be provided for in regulation if it isn't already. So, A, is there anything that in regulation that prescribes that?

And two, this is for everyone, correct? Through the chair, that is correct. This is for everyone who would apply in all sport fisheries, both fresh and saltwater, and there are no specific mention of youth anglers or special provisions there. Thank you. Mr. Svenson.

This would be a real mistake to change this because it's always been he who hooks the fish, it's his fish. Some people are a lot better at hooking fish, so if you're sitting on a boat with 4 people and you change this, you know, I could be sitting there hooking these fish and handing the pole off right and left. So I think that it's It needs to— I'll be a definite no on this because you can already help, you know, help the kids and the handicapped. So thank you. Mr. Wood.

Yeah, thank you. I agree with the last sentiments. You hook it, you own it. Oftentimes I think about hunting. You pull the trigger.

What's harder, pulling the trigger or packing it out? And I think, I think some people are lucky, some people are not. You sell an experience, not a bag limit on a fishing trip like this. And so I'm a no.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery. And approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department. I'd call the question.

Question's been called. Errors or omissions? Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 178 as amended. Svenson?

No. Wood? No. Chamberlain? No.

Carpenter? No. Carlson-Vandork. No. Irwin?

No. Godfrey? No. Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair. Proposal 179.

Madam Chair, for the record, my name is Jay Baumer. I'm the Regional Management Fisheries Biologist. Proposal 179, 5 AAC 75, new section. Move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please. Proposal 179. This would establish a statewide sport fishing annual limit for— of 10 king salmon 20 inches or greater in length. All king salmon retained would have to be recorded on the back of the angler's license or on an annual harvest record card for individuals who do not have a paper license. Currently, there is no statewide sport fishing annual limit for king salmon.

Annual limits have been established for king salmon in specific areas of the state. Anglers are required to purchase a king salmon stamp to retain king salmon and follow area or drainage-specific sport fishing regulations. A harvest record is required for all anglers when have— when harvesting a species with an annual limit. It is unknown how many individuals harvest more than 10 king salmon 20 inches or greater in length, but it may reduce overall harvest of king salmon areas where annual limits do not already exist. This may reduce harvest opportunity when surplus is available.

Likely the largest impact will be for residents of Southeast Alaska, where the Southeast Alaska King Salmon Management Plan directs the department to establish annual limits for non-resident anglers. But resident anglers do not have an annual limit. Currently, king salmon are managed by drainage or management area, and the purchase of a king salmon stamp is required. The Board of Fisheries has established king salmon annual limits in sport fishing regulations throughout the state, and those limits can vary between resident and non-resident anglers. Additionally, there, there can be a combined annual limit and recording requirement.

For instance, in Cook Inlet salt waters and fresh waters of western Cook Inlet. Susitna River drainage, Knik Arm, Anchorage Bowl, and Kenai Peninsula. And the combined annual limit is 5 king salmon 20 inches or longer in that area. The department opposes this proposal. King salmon are currently managed by area and drainage using existing management tools.

Department uses emergency order authority to restrict and liberalize king salmon sport fisheries at the drainage and/or area level when appropriate. The additional division of state— of a statewide annual limit would add additional complexity and may unnecessarily limit harvest opportunity in some instances. All anglers across the state would now need to record their harvest of king salmon over 20 inches. There may be confusion about how the proposed statewide annual limit interacts with various existing management plans existing annual limits and may require additional board direction. Department is neutral on the allocative aspect of this proposal.

Madam Chair. Thank you. Board discussion? Ms. Erwin. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

So question for the department then is, is part of this outcome that— so let me just get this clear. Non-residents in Southeast currently have limits. And residents have— don't have limits for the most part when sport fishing for kings. Is that correct?

Through the chair, for the record, Patrick Fowler. Um, that is correct. So in Southeast Alaska, we manage the fishery with both bag and possession limits and annual limits. And non-residents do have an annual limit that changes according to available sport harvest for the allocation. Residents never have an annual limit.

Okay, and then my next question is, if there is a localized management plan that specifies less than 10 kings and this passes, would that supersede.

The 10 king annual bag limit statewide regulation. Ma'am Chair, through the record, for the record, Jay Baumberg again. Yeah, I think that adds to some of the complexity and the confusion on what, how we would need the additional guidance on what annual limit they should be following, because there would be multiple annual limits. Okay. And my last question is, in these areas that have like no bag limits for residents, are we— these are in Southeast, these are a lot of hatchery kings.

Right? Am I, am I correct in assuming that? Through the chair, you are correct. There are significant hatchery harvest as part of the sport harvest of king salmon in Southeast Alaska. If I had to put a number to it, approximately 20 to 25%.

20 To 25% is hatchery? Uh, yeah, 20 to 25% of the sport harvest of king salmon in Southeast Alaska is of hatchery origin. Okay, thank you. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you.

The, the sentiment of the proposer, as he passed on to me, was he was concerned about the idea that predominantly in the Homer area, that you could go down there and potentially catch more than 10, and that in his mind, people are saying it didn't matter because they were hatchery fish, they weren't Alaska fish. I think so. To his point, he was trying to have more of a conservation take on this and it was kind of localized. I think because of the complexity that we've heard about, that this would be difficult, difficult one to pass given the different bag limits throughout the state.

Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I like the sentiment under which this is brought, you know, Even with a large number of hatchery salmon, King Chinook, in the, in the marine waters, there still is incidental take of wild salmon going in. And, and I very much appreciate the intention under which this proposal was brought. Southeast does give me a lot of concern, though, because there is no subsistence allocation for Chinook salmon in Southeast.

And, and the— and for those fishermen, you know, the sport fishery is their subsistence. And to arbitrarily limit a resident's take of king salmon to 25. While it may be necessary and appropriate for certain parts of the state, I think applying this statewide when a significant portion of the population out there relies on the sport harvest for their subsistence, I'm just not comfortable making that jump, and I'd rather address this on a regional basis. Mr. Svenson. Well, the way I read this, you could catch all 10 of your fish in one day.

It doesn't say that you can only keep— in that needs, I mean, specific. When we say residents have no limit, they can catch a fish in southeast, you know, out in the saltwater. They can catch a fish, only one a day, they can come home, freeze it, and go back out and catch another fish. That's, that's how they have unlimited, but they only have one fish a day. Now, unless I'm reading this wrong, it's, it's like they could put 10 fish on the back of their license in one day.

Through the chair, no, I don't believe that is our interpretation. I think this has only to do with annual limits, and so the bag and possession limits wouldn't, wouldn't be changing. So it would be the annual limit would be the number in the season or the year.

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Godfrey.

Looking at the comment roster, I see 2 ACs in support of it and 8 times as many in opposition. I'll be voting no. I'll echo the comments of other folks around this table in that I really do think that this needs to be dealt with on a regional basis. Having been through, you know, you know, the allocation exercises for king salmon in Southeast Alaska a couple of times. Those are carefully regulated almost down to the fish.

And this would really, I think, throw a huge and unnecessary monkey wrench into that. I can appreciate where the, where the proposer is coming from and the spirit and conservation which it's been submitted, but I, as written, I can't get behind it. And that's my thoughts on that. Any other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for private persons to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal would not result in additional costs to the department. I call the question. Questions have been called. Errors or omissions?

Director Nelson. Final action on Proposal 179. Wood? No. Godfrey?

No. Carlson-Vandort? No. Erwin? No.

Chamberlain? No. Carpenter? No. Svensson?

No. Motion fails 0-7. Madam Chair. Proposal number 180. Madam Chair, Proposal 180, 5AAC75, new section.

Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments. Ma'am Chair, Proposal 180. This would establish a statewide sport fish annual limit of 5 fish— 5 king salmon, 20 inches or greater in length.

All retained king salmon would be required to be electronically recorded or annually reported to the department. This proposal is nearly identical to Proposal 179 but distinguished by specifying that the annual limit must be recorded electronically or annually reported to the department and requesting an annual limit of 5 fish rather than 10 fish, 20 inches or greater in length. Additional background, I would just reference my comments and background from the previous proposal, 179. The department opposes this proposal. King salmon are currently managed by area or drainage using existing management tools.

Madam Chair. Thank you. Board discussion.

Mr. Carpenter, then Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. I think the comments from the prior proposal are very reflective and have similar problems with this proposal also. So maintain my position on that.

Mr. Wood. Yep, I will also reference my past comments and also say that, you know, because it's electronically done, I mean, there are some places where you still can't do electronically submitted in a reasonable amount of time.

So I will note the on-time public comments, and I think this is really interesting when I compare them to the previous proposal. The previous proposal, when I was looking at it, there was a handful of folks in support and quite a lot that weighed in proportionally in opposition to it. Now, for 180, it is It's almost the opposite of that, where there's much more people in support of this one, but not so much in support, and less that are opposed to it. So that's telling me that people think that 10 kingfish or king salmon per year is too many and 5 is sufficient, which I find really interesting.

And, and it's from all over the state, these, these folks that weighed in in support of it. So I think that I would just take a moment to recognize that the public sentiment here is clearly indicating concern. That's how I read this anyways. That being said, I will stand by my comments on the previous proposal that I think that these are better dealt with on a regional level and specific to regional management plans and even statistical area plans and, you know, and how those are managed. I just— I wanted to note that because I thought that was interesting.

Mr. Payton.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And one of the reasons maybe this proposal had a different element with the electronic reporting, and I'd like to weigh in a little bit on that. So when I first came in as director, my boss, the commissioner, asked me to do a few very specific things, and one was to get better harvest reporting. And I'll lay out 3 things we're currently working on to improve that, because in times of low king salmon abundance, it's very important and critical to do better harvest accounting. So one of the first things we're going to do is, you know, do more creels on specific locations.

Another thing we're looking at exploring this year and potentially doing is implementing an individual king salmon recording permit, much like, you know, your PU or subsistence permits in areas for individual sport fishery on the Copper River. And the third, which will be the biggest fundamental change, is we're totally revamping the statewide harvest survey program, which has had a huge decline in response rates in recent years. And we're going to change that into basically the Alaska Sport Fish Reporting Program, and it'll be electronic and based on an app. And we're Gonna— our goal is to roll that out and beginning.

2028. So Sport Fish is committed to get better harvest accounting on king salmon. Those are 3 specific things we're in the works doing right now, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Payton.

I am— my off-the-record comment was hallelujah, certainly with respect to the statewide harvest survey. I appreciate the work that's being done in that space. Thank you to both of you. I think that that's going to be helpful. And I do think that you're right, that that probably has a lot to do with how these public comments shook out and presented themselves.

Mr. Godfrey, I'll point out on the AC opposition, and there is even more AC opposition to this one than the last one. I'll be voting no again.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal would result in additional cost to the department. I'd call a question. Question's been called.

Errors or omissions? Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 180. Godfrey? No.

Wood? Nope. Chamberlain? No. Irwin?

No. Carpenter? No. Svensson? No.

Carlson-Vandork? No. Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair. Proposal 181.

Madam Chair, Proposal 181, 5AAC 75.020, sport fishing gear. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. All right, Proposal 181.

This proposal would align regulations and statutory language by specifying that sport fishing gear must be held in hand or attached to a fishing pole or rod. Current language in Regulation 5AC75.020(a) does not align with the statutory definition of sport fishing found in Alaska Statute 16.05940(a).

31. This has caused confusion when asked to define legal sport fishing gear. And so the department has submitted this proposal and supports this, supports it. This would add clarity and align regulations. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Um, question. So I think in public comment relative to this one, there was questions about ice fishing specifically, and how are the— how does— is that concern addressed in this language, or isn't it? Does it remain an issue in your opinion? Thank you, Madam Chair, for bringing up the question.

Regarding ice fishing, that is in a separate section in the regulations, and this, this proposal is not our intent, or in this proposal will not change the current method and means for ice fishing. Okay, so 2 separate things. This isn't affecting how ice fishing is currently prosecuted whatsoever. That is correct, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Any other additional board discussion? Mr. Wood? Yeah, but ice fishing— so you say it won't affect it in any way, whether it's just a tip-up or if you just jam the rod in the, in the snow? That is correct. It's in a— the regulatory— in the regular— through the chair, I apologize.

Um, yes, it is in a separate regulation in the a separate section. And so all that, nothing will change in current— under sport or for the ice fishing regulations. Great, thanks. Yes, sir. Sorry, I just want to make sure this is super clear.

So we're looking at— there is a sport fishing definition found in statute though, so that statutory definition does not apply to the ice fishing definition. I just want to make sure I'm really clear on this. Through the chair. So the statute is broader and then it's narrowed down into separate regulations in the regulatory booklet, and there is a separate section specifically addressing ice fishing. And so it doesn't change anything for that.

Okay, thank you very much for clarifying. Any other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct cost for a private person to participate in.

Approval of this proposal would not result in additional cost to the department. I call the question.

Question has been called. Errors or omissions? Seeing none, Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 181. Carlson, VanDort.

Yes. Carpenter. Yes. Wood. Yes.

Godfrey. Yes. Svenson. Yes. Chamberlain.

Yes. Erwin. Yes. That motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Proposal 182.

Madam Chair, Proposal 182, 5A(C), 75. New section. Moved to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

Madam Chair, Proposal 182. This proposal would establish bow and arrow as a legal sportfishing gear for species without bag and possession limits. There are no statewide regulations allowing sportfishing with a bow and arrow. Um, the bow fishing is not legal sportfishing gear type in all areas of the state. Area-specific regulation provides season dates and the addition of bow and arrow as gear type for specific species.

This would allow harvest on many species that are traditionally not considered sport fish species and may increase harvest and mortality by an unknown but likely small amount. Bow and arrow fishing may result in unintentional incidental harvest of non-target species and may increase mortality of targeted species if the fish is injured but not landed. And this harvest method does not allow for live release. The department opposes this proposal because of the potential for increased harvest with limiting— limited monitoring and increase in regulatory complexity. Although likely small, the biological impact of the harvest of a variety of species that have no bag and possession limit is unknown.

Madam Chair, thank you. Board discussion?

Miss Irwin, then Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Well, as the Department just mentioned, sounds like there's a lot of unknowns, unknowns with this potential fishery. And, and just the thing that really stuck out to me is the harvest method does not allow for live release. And so as a statewide proposal, it's concerning for me in that regard with other species and mixed stock fisheries that are in depressed stocks.

If this is something that local regions and fishermen are very interested in and it's a fishery that they want to continue, I would look at this at a regional level, but I think this is a little too broad and there's a lot of unknowns based on the department comments for me. Mr. Carpenter, thank you. Uh, consistent with my position that I've taken, I think this is, this is a very broad proposal, and I think if there's a region in the state that wants to bring this before the board, then by all means. I think the other thing to consider is, because it's not currently utilized, I think the potential for this lethal type of activity, quite frankly, in regards to fish. And there could be a lot of loss there and non-recovered fish.

And I'm just not necessarily in favor of creating a proposal that does that. So I'll be opposed. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. I think this is specific to the region, especially considering like pike in the Matsu.

I get it. But to Member Erwin's point, the ability to live release is not an option with this one. So for that reason as well, I'll also be opposing this. Thanks. I'm going to oppose it as well.

I think that it is way too broadly written. It should be not only regionally specific, but species-specific. I mean, we do allow spearfishing. I guess this is kind of like above-the-ground spearfishing, but that's not how this is written. And I will be opposed to the proposal.

Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. Bow and arrow traditionally was used in my region for fishing and meandering around the Pacific Northwest. I've seen bow fishing used efficiently and it is insane how efficient they can be or how good they can be. On this.

I think there's a lot of potential to this. I think— but I do think a lot more work needs to be put in, and this would probably be more appropriate on a regional level. But I very much do like this idea. I'm not, you know, I think bow and arrow fishing would be very appropriate on some streams where you're not running the risk of incidental mortality or misidentifying fish. If you're going after pike, they're easy to spot.

Shot and they hold still for you. So for a bow and arrow, that would be absolutely amazing. So I'm very much interested in this and I would like to see this proposal come back in, in at the regional level, not necessarily on statewide. I'll be voting no, but I'm— I do want to express my support for the concept. Is bow and arrow a legal subsistence gear type?

I have to double-check that. I'm just curious. I, yeah, I was actually just pulling up the C&T worksheets. I feel like I have some recollection of that, but I don't know. It could have been related to another bow and arrow fishing proposal I've seen.

Ma'am Chair, I think you did as a board approve bow and arrow hunting as a customary practice in some areas of the state. Yeah, it's ringing about. You also have adopted bow and arrow hunting for— I mean, bow and arrow fishing for.

For some species like invasive species in the state. So you've done this area specifically. Mr. Payton. Yeah. So to kind of address some of Member Chamberlain's thoughts on this.

So this, this proposal too is specific to species without bag and possession limits. So I don't know what that would be up in the region you're from, but, you know, it'd be like stickleback, lampreys, suckers, blackfish. So it wouldn't apply to salmon and things like that with that whitefish, burbot, pike that currently have a bag and possession limit. For some clarity. Thank you.

Okay. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Approval of this proposal is expected to result in additional costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal would not result in additional costs to the department. I call the question.

Question's been called. Any errors or omissions? Seeing none. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 182.

Erwin? No. Chamberlain? No. Godfrey?

No. Svensson? No. Wood? Nope.

Carlson-Vandort? No. Carpenter? No. Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair.

Proposal 183. Madam Chair, Proposal 183, 5 AAC 75, new section. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move to adopt Proposal 183 with substitute language found in RC 129. Second that and ask unanimous consent.

Hearing no objections, the board has before it RC129 in lieu of the original proposal. Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, uh, Proposal 183, um, this would require anglers to maintain their harvest in a condition that allows Department or enforcement officer to verify species and length. And with the new amended language, it provides a little additional clarity and specifies Some questions that, you know, we've heard from the ACs and public. So it narrows the scope to specific species of rockfish, lingcod, and king salmon, as well as it specifies timeframe and hopefully alleviates the concerns about filleting and consuming and preserving a catch-as-you-see.

And the department submitted this proposal and supports it. This would aid enforcement efforts and standardize the requirements for anglers across the state. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Member Carpenter, would you like to speak to your substitute language?

Yeah, Madam Chair, thank you. I think Mr. Bommer kind of addressed it. I mean, the original proposal, there were concerns. We heard it in public testimony committee, the whole from the public, that there was maybe a little ambiguity there and maybe a little bit too restrictive nature. And I think the department And from me to the department, I just wanted to clarify that.

And maybe Mr. Balmer can talk to, you know, the people that did have concerns. Did you have a chance to talk to those— any of those individuals? And was— is this language more appropriate in their opinion?

Through the chair to Mr. Carpenter, we weren't able to talk to all the concerned individuals. There were discussions that occurred with users. And as well as enforcement. And we feel like this is a— this does accomplish or alleviate their concerns. Okay, thank you.

And then I guess to Captain DeGraaff, is this the way that the substitute language is written, is this enforceable? Mr. Carpenter, to the chair, yes. Okay, I'll just leave it at that for now. Mr. Irwin, then Mr. Wood. Thank you.

My question is just a clarifying one. When I fillet a king salmon, I cut the head off and then and proceed. So is this going to still allow the final sentence, like, anglers may fillet their catch but must retain enough of the fish carcass? So can they cut the head off the fish, and then would the measurement be from the cutoff portion if it's filleted, or would it be they would have to keep the head and/or additional materials? Do you understand where I'm going with my question?

Okay, thanks. Through the chair to, um, Member Irwin, yes, you would have to keep the carcass whole so that they could measure the carcass. For the overall length with this, with this language.

Mr. Wood.

So you would have to keep the carcass whole even, even though you could fillet it, but you'd have to leave the head on and spine and tail? Is that what you're saying? That's correct, through the chair. Um, you could, you could still fillet the fish, um, but you'd have to keep— you, you could You just have to keep the head attached so that the enforcement officer could measure the entire fish.

So we heard about discarding a lot of the remnants once you've returned either to town or the dock or whatever. How does— how does that solve that problem, or does it increase the problem? So, Chair, thank you for the question. In the language, it specifically says until the fish are brought to shore or offloaded from the vessel. Or when an angler fishing from the shoreline has finished fishing for that day.

So it specifically addresses that in the language now.

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Fowler.

Thanks, Madam Chair, and to Member Wood. Um, in regards to, you know, the current practice where an angler might be able to dump the carcass at sea while they're out fishing, Now we're asking them to bring that carcass with them all the way back to the dock. A good example of how this might play out is in the Southeast Alaska fisheries. The department has emergency order authority to prohibit anglers from filleting their catch at sea so we can do things like look for coded wire tags for king salmon, measure rockfish, things like that. So in those instances where we've had fisheries in the water where we've required that, what ends up happening is folks will bring their carcasses back to the dock.

And then either, you know, retain those cargoes to the next day. For charter operators, what they typically do is just throw those in a bucket, and the next morning when they go out, they dump those at sea. In other cases, some of the harbors— the unanticipated problem with this is if folks bring their waste back to the dock and then throw that in the harbor, then we run into marine mammal interactions that that get accustomed to that food source. So a lot of the harbors will either grind waste or work with the local processors to grind waste, or in some cases actually load those into like a floating fish barge and barge it out and then dump it as a public service. So there's— the disposal of the waste is a consideration, but it tends to there's ways to resolve it.

Okay, thanks, because that was— I mean, initially I'm like, this is kind of a bear problem, you know, not just marine mammals, but, you know, in dumpsters and whatnot. So I, I don't—. Anyhow, all I have to say is y'all are missing out on some good meat in those cheeks and collars. I'll leave it at that. Mr.

Swenson, so did I misunderstand you when you said you could bring it to shore. When you meant shore, did you mean where you came from, or could I go out there and fish, catch a king salmon that's supposed to be a certain length, go to shore, cut it up, throw it all away, and I'd still be good? I mean, I hope that's not the case, but I mean, that's a little confusing. And when you just say they just take it to shore, you meant back to where they came from, I guess, or—. Yeah, I'd be happy to address that through the chair.

And when I was just speaking there, I was really referencing the marine fisheries. Looking at the species that we have on this list, you know, with our king salmon fisheries current in their current state, we've prohibited harvest. Mostly we're talking about the marine fisheries here. But yes, for these species, you would have to retain that carcass until you return to port, you know, or shore. So you're coming back into a harbor or boat launch.

For freshwater fisheries, if the, you know, king salmon fishery was open in freshwater, it would be until the angler that's fishing on the shoreline has finished fishing for that day. So they could, you know, once they have the stringer of fish, at the moment that they're done fishing for the day, they could flay those and dispose the carcass back into the river. Even if it was king salmon, it had to be a certain length? Correct. Once they were finished fishing for the day, then before they go home for the day, they could fillet it on the, you know, at their vehicle, you know, put it in the cooler and then dispose of the carcass.

Okay, thanks.

Carpenter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Approve this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal would not result in any additional cost to the department. I call the question. Question has been called. Errors or omissions?

Seeing none, Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 183 as amended. Carpenter? Yes. Erwin?

Yes. Godfrey? Yes. Carlson-Vandorp? Yes.

Wood? Yes. Svenson? Yes. Chamberlain?

Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Proposal 184. Madam Chair, Proposal 184, 5AAC 75.995 definitions. Move to adopt.

Second. Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, Proposal 184. This would modify the sport fish.

Statewide definition of rockfish, subdividing the non-pelagic species assemblage into demersal shelf and slope species assemblages, aligning with the definitions used in commercial fisheries. As the sport fishery for rockfish has evolved over time, there is recognition that differential management measures for pelagic shelf, slope, and demersal shelf rockfish species may be appropriate in some areas to maximize opportunity while protecting the most vulnerable rockfish species. Historically, the department has managed rockfish as a single species group in the sport fishery, and in some cases with differential regulations for pelagic and non-pelagic rockfish. In Southeast Alaska, rockfish fisheries now utilize regulations for pelagic shelf, slope, and demersal shelf rockfish species assemblage. The department submitted and supports this proposal, and this proposal aligns the definitions of rockfish species assemblages across all fisheries.

Madam Chair. Thank you. Board discussion. Let's say thank you for the alignment. I will be in support of the proposal.

Mr. Carpenter, thank you. I'll also be in support. I think this is an appropriate use of a statewide proposal, and I appreciate the department for bringing this forward.

Yeah, thanks for the clarification. Just when I was getting used to pelagic versus non-pelagic, but I appreciate it. Now they like to continue to challenge our brains, you know. Um, Miss Irwin. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

I would just like to note that there was quite a bit of overwhelming support from both ACs and the public on this issue. And I would just like to address— I'm looking at, um, Kenai Soldotna AC's comments, and I guess I'll just pose this really quickly to the department while we're on the topic. There was a concern that a change could lead to overharvesting, as fishermen might attempt to target different species under multiple limits. Limits. Is that of a concern at all from the department's perspective?

Uh, through the chair, so this proposal wouldn't change any current management practices or change bag possession limits, you know, in any fishery. So in this proposal, no, I don't see that as a potential. Okay, great. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure and address the AC's concerns.

So I'll also be supporting this. Thank you for bringing the proposal forward. Mr. Carpenter, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is to result in any additional cost to the department, I'd call the question. Question has been called. Errors or omissions?

Seeing none, Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on your final proposal, number 184. Svenson? Yes. Wood?

Yes. Chamberlain? Yes. Carpenter? Yes.

Carlson-Vandort? Yes. Erwin? Yes. Godfrey?

Yes. That carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Thank you. That concludes deliberations on Group 3. We're going to take about a 15-minute break, and then we'll come back and do miscellaneous business and conclude our meeting.

So a short, short break to get the agenda distributed, and we'll come back on the record about 1:15.

All right, we are back on the record to go over, go through our miscellaneous business agenda and round out this meeting. The miscellaneous business agenda is reflected in RC 181. There are 6 items on the agenda beginning with the department's request for road non-use authorization. In RC-150 and RC-151. And I would ask the department to come forth and just kind of tell us what you're asking for and why, please.

Okay. Through the chair, board members, my name is Christine Dunker and I am the Sport Fish Division Regional Supervisor for Southcentral Alaska. Um, per Alaska Statute 16.35.200, we request consent from the board to use rotenone to suppress invasive northern pike from the Sucker Lake complex. This is within the Alexander Creek drainage in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. Very recently, we were awarded a grant through the Alaska Sustainable Salmon Fund, and this grant will allow us to increase our northern pike suppression efforts in the Alexander Creek drainage.

As part of this, we are looking to reduce the northern pike population in the Sucker Lake complex. This has not been included in any of our previous suppression efforts within the drainage. Sucker Creek, which flows out of Sucker Lake and into Alexander Creek, is the last remaining holdout for Chinook salmon within the Alexander Creek drainage as a whole.

The Sucker Lake complex is comprised basically of 3 smaller lakes, or you can kind of consider them like lobes of the system. There's Sucker North, Sucker West, and both of these flow into Sucker South, then the outlet of Sucker Creek into Alexander. To jumpstart our suppression efforts in this lake complex, we propose to apply rotenone to Sucker North and West. This would remove all age classes of northern pike within this complex. And that includes age zeros, which we typically are not able to get to recruit to our gillnetting gear.

Sucker Lake South will not be treated as part of this, and it will serve as a dilution buffer to prevent rotenone from flowing downstream into Sucker Creek. After the rotenone treatment, Sucker South will be gillnetted to reduce northern pike in that section. And in addition to not treating Sucker South to reduce further the, the rotenone downstream, we'll be doing doing this treatment in mid-August so that it degrades within about 2 weeks, thus not allowing the rotenone to travel outside of the treatment zone. This rotenone treatment is scheduled for this coming August, so this year, and then in future years we'll employ intense gill netting in these lakes then to keep the pike population density low. All permits for this project are pretty much in place.

The last authorization we need is authorization by this board to conduct this treatment, and so we therefore respectfully request your consideration of our proposal. Thank you. Any board questions? Mr. Carpenter, then Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you.

Um, is the language, uh, found in RC 151— does— would a motion to include that language suffice what you're looking for? It would. Okay, thank you. Mr. Wood. All right, sorry.

Um, Okay, so I know Chrissy Dunker is the invasives queen because for 15 years she's been up there saying, coming to the Massachusetts Fish and Wildlife Commission asking for this very thing for different lakes. And it's always done very well, very thorough, and very effectively. So I'm, I am very supportive of this.

Mr. Irwin. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple of questions. This is a new concept for me, so please bear with me. So my first question is how,.

How long does that— does the rotenone stay around? Like, how long does it last or live in the water system? Sure, through the chair, Ms. Erwin, thank you. That's a great question, and it's variable. So rotenone, the chemical itself, is broken down through exposure to sunlight and warmer water temperatures.

So depending on our goals of a project kind of depends on how long it may persist. So in a lot of our cases in the past, we've actually treated in mid to late October, right before ice-up, because we wanted to ensure that the rotenone would persist for many months and ensure a complete eradication or a complete kill. And to date, rotenone has been our eradication tool. In this use for this coming summer and in this drainage, we're actually looking at it to be a very significant suppression tool. So as opposed to eradication, we're really trying to drop density tremendously.

So therefore, this time we're suggesting or proposing to treat in the summer, in August, so that it's exposed to warmer water and more light conditions. And under these conditions, we expect it to dissipate fully in 2 weeks. Okay, thank you. And then my next question is, what are the effects on the ecosystem, non-fish species, like the plant life, the, the environment around it? What are, what are those?

Does it have any effect on the, on the habitat? Sure. Through the chair again, Miss Irwin, thank you. Um, roenone does not persist in the environment, and it does not have impacts on organisms without gills. So basically, the way it works is it very quickly passes through the gills gilled animals into the bloodstream, where it essentially affects an animal's ability to metabolize oxygen.

Mammals, birds, other organisms where there'd be skin contact, the chemical's broken down by enzymes. It does not ever make it into their bloodstream, and so those effects don't happen. So it's the gilled organisms, and we do our best to try to mitigate that through timing, often in the late season.

Invertebrates and whatnot are senescing. So we try to, you know, minimize non-targets to other gilled organisms. Okay, and then this is a practice that's, that's been taking place elsewhere as well, you said? Through the chair, Ms. Erwin, yes, rotenone treatments are a very common fisheries management tool used throughout the lower 48, used throughout the world really, and it has a long history even much beyond that as a, as a traditional fishing method in tropical Oceania. Okay, and my last question is just why is this the route that the department is choosing to take instead of just like allowing additional opportunities?

You know, I come— Minto Flats has a huge pike population, so when it kind of starts to get out of hand, the department usually increases pike bag limits there. So why is this the route that's best to take and not, um, not just allowing additional harvest? Sure, um, to the chair, Ms. Irwin. Uh, so up in Minto— I should preface— up in the interior, northern pike are a native species. Also out west of Bristol Bay, south-central Alaska.

So basically, if you consider the Alaska Mountain Range as the geologic boundary. When we talk about invasive northern pike, we're just talking about Southcentral. And here there are no limits on northern pike. In fact, it's a requirement now to dispatch any pike that are caught. So all of those regulations already are in effect.

In this particular drainage, we have a very, very significant amount of northern pike habitat. It's just a kind of a perfect storm, you know, set of conditions. And the amount of netting we've done in the past hasn't been sufficient to drop the density. And So we need to kind of step it up a bit, and that's what we're proposing. Okay, thank you so much for providing some more context.

Mr. Wood? Yeah, I'd also just last— the Alexander Creek and Sucker Creek area are basically an excellent spawning ground for king salmon, and these pike have really knocked the back out of them over a period of time. So suppressing the pike in that area will really help the kings.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would move that the board adopt the language found in RC 151, which would authorize the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Sport Fish to use roatone to suppress invasive species northern pike from Sucker Lake in the Matsuhsisitna Valley. I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

All right, we have had a second. Did you ask for unanimous consent? I can't remember. Okay, is there any objection? Hearing no objection, so moved.

Um, that leads us to item number 2, a board-generated proposal on traditional knowledge, and I'll speak to that. And I would draw members' attention to— and I'm going to also call on Department of Law here, but I will call members' attention to RC 182. And it was brought to my attention, I think earlier this month, I can't remember exactly, but fairly recently, that there was a legal snafu just with the regulatory process for the enactment of I think what was Proposal 15 that was passed by the board in November at the AYK meeting, and the at issue was the addition of the term traditional knowledge to 5AAC01.249.1. Because there was no formal definition of traditional knowledge in reg, it exists only in policy, board policy right now. That was problematic, and I would just turn to the Department of Law to expand on that if necessary.

Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity. I think you kind of nailed it. It was a legal snafu incorporating that language into the adopted proposal at the meeting, left some room for ambiguity for the term traditional knowledge. The board, as well as the public, is probably well aware the board has an adopted policy on traditional and local knowledge that it commonly refers to, especially at meetings, for receiving those reports. However, to kind of perfect the board's ability to keep that regulation and codify it, that kind of was the, the genesis of why this board-generated proposal got started and the motivation for it.

Thank you. Um, so that was— that's where it came from, that's why it's before us, and I will speak to sort of the criteria for the development of a board-generated proposal. So one, is it in the public's best interest? And I believe it is because this was acted upon. And again, this is sort of a legal issue that was not— that we were unaware of at the time.

Is there urgency in considering this issue? It is holding up the reg So I do think that there is some level of urgency in getting this completed. It's—. The language isn't substantively different than, than the policy, although it has been drafted by the Department of Law representative and will receive additional review before it comes before us in the formal BGP. If so passed, our current process is insufficient to bring it to the subject— to the board's attention.

I.e., reconsideration, normal board cycle, submittal, ACR petitions. Yeah, I mean, I think that this is an instance that could warrant— that should warrant a BGP. Again, in the interest of time and being able to move forward with the approval of the regulations that the board passed during its regular cycle that was properly noticed. And will there be reasonable and adequate opportunity for the public to comment? And the answer to that is yes.

If this is accepted as a BGP by the board, then the process would be that it would be publicly noticed and given an adequate public comment period so that the board can take public comments on, on the language and then consider it potentially at a special meeting that's called by the board.

Questions or discussion? Miss Irwin. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to make sure and clarify because within proposal 15 was not just the addition of traditional knowledge, but it was also a date change. Change to July 13th as the start date for the fall season.

So my question is, if we do not have a meeting to codify the definition of traditional knowledge before July 13th, does that mean that our actions taken on Proposal 15 will not be codified for this summer's management measures, meaning that the start date would go back to and stay July 16th as it is currently in regulation before we voted on Proposal 15?

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] That's a good question. How would it work? Based on my understanding, it's just the portion of the proposal using traditional knowledge would be struck. The rest of the adopted amendments in that would go forward, and that would probably lead to a potentially require the board to submit another proposal to amend that traditional knowledge part of the original proposal. Does that make sense?

Yes, it does. Thank you for clarifying. I appreciate that. Yeah, thank you very much for clarifying that. And I do believe that, that as Member Carlson-Vandort went through the criteria, I do think.

Meets the criteria. And it is important we're starting to utilize this in our processes and refer to this, this traditional knowledge, local knowledge as a reference. And so I think it's important that we make sure and clarify this. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

I just want to make sure we get the public notice here correct. So there would be two public notices. One would be for the board of— for this board-generated proposal. The second one would be to re-adopt the regulation that—. If we accept this as a BGP and it is approved after public notice and public comment, it will be unnecessary to readopt a revised regulation is how I understand it.

That is not what I heard. So I am just making sure that I understand this correctly. Because I want to get the public notice correct so that—. Right. Through the Chair, I understand your concerns, Commissioner.

So this BGP is for a separate regulation, this is separate from what was adopted at the AYK meeting. Now, it would— there would have to be additional action to ensure that the traditional knowledge was inserted into that AYK regulation. And so we can, you know, issue a notice for that, and if the board, you know, would have to take that action on the original proposal. So to your point then, so thank you for that clarification because I missed that. So even though the board took action with the included TK, that's already in the existing sort of— it's been hung up, as I understand.

It has passed. It's already gone through. Speak up, Shalene, because I don't know what you're saying. I think what I'm saying, Madam Chair, is you didn't have the regulation in place to adopt traditional knowledge. So, part of the law said you didn't have that authority, so they're stripping that language out of the reg package.

Now that you will, with the board-generated proposal, you'll give yourself that authority, so you probably have to readopt that. Got it. Okay. Well, we can make that notice. Correct.

Right. Yes, Madam Chair. Okay. Thank you for the clarification, Commissioner. It's been a long week.

Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Wood? Yeah. Thank you.

So this— what we're doing here is just adopting a definition of the traditional knowledge so that it can be used in the future legitimately. Okay. Copy that. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move that the board adopt the language found in RC 182, which would become a board-generated proposal for traditional knowledge policy. I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objections, so moved. That brings us to agenda item number 3, board-generated proposals for the Yukon action plans. In RC 162 and RC 163. Ms. Erwin. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

So as the board already has recognized, we went through RC 162 and 163 yesterday. It became apparent that this board did not— there was not significant notice put out to the public in order for us to take regulatory action and implement those action plans and codify them. So we shared with the department what our intentions are. However, I would like to see these action plans codified. I believe that this board-generated proposal process is a good way to continue allowing for the public to engage after the fact.

They can submit RCs, public comments, and substitute language for the proposal if it gets into a board-generated proposal status. And I believe that, you know, there was a lot of interest from the commissioner and from this board on exploring how do we, you know, take these action plans and then keep some of the management tools, and when we're getting out of those stock statuses. So I think that this is a great opportunity for the board to do some work on these action plans and look at what that, you know, downstep might look like, what those criteria might be, and utilize these. So I'll go through the criteria as well. Is this in the public's best interest?

I do believe this is in the best— the public's best interest. There was an RC-176 also that came from the Yukon River Intertribal Fish Commission supporting this codification within the regulations of these plans. I believe there is urgency. There's lack of escapement goals being met. Management and conservation of this stock is, is in an urgent need, and I do think that it requires board action.

Are the current processes sufficient to bring the subject to the board's attention? This would be the process. As was mentioned, there was not proper public notice put out for this meeting. So without public members from the Yukon and other affected areas here, I believe that the board just board-generated proposal route will be the best, and there will be a reasonable and adequate opportunity for public comment if this passes through the board-generated proposal process. Thank you.

Board discussion?

I think we made mention of this and had some discussion on the record when we talked through the action plans. Mr. Wood? Yeah, thank you. I'm supportive of that, um, as long as it's also been vetted through the department as well. But I believe, like, after my experience on the, on the MATSU with, uh, removing the stock of yield concern for Saukay years ago.

A, what I like about that, this idea here, is it allows us to have more of a step down. So rather than just removing a stock of concern and some criteria for that step down, which in my mind is a conservative way to kind of unwind from the stock of concern status down to yield and onward until we're comfortable that It with the direction it's going.

Any additional discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Move the board adopt the language found in RC 162 and RC 163 specific to the Yukon Chinook Action Plan and the Yukon Fall Chum Action Plan. For a— to create a board-generated proposal. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objections, so moved. That brings us to item number 4, clarify board intent on South Alaska Pen Dune management plan.

And I am going to ask Department of Law to speak to this, please. Yes, Madam Chair. So this is again, um, after the area meeting, the board adopted a proposal making amendments to the South Unimak and Shumagin Islands Human Management Plan. Based on the discussions that happened at that meeting with staff as well as generating the RC language, there was a slight miscalculation regarding the final closure for the setnet, uh, gillnetters.

That mistake was discovered after the meeting. It was, from the Department of Law's perspective, purely a— essentially a clerical error in the calculation. I brought that to the board's attention, and this can be fixed prior to that proposal and that regulation being submitted for the final legal review process.

Okay. Ms. Roman, do you want to speak to that since you were directly involved? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. So this was my original substitute language that was brought. When I had discussions with the area manager and we— I discussed the reduction in hours that I wanted to see, I came with 64 hours.

That was my goal, was that 64-hour windows were going to be the openers. Now, whenever he put them into the calendar based on the start date and the end date, it looked like we had to have one 40-hour period at the end of the month instead of it being a 64-hour period. And so that's why it was written in this way. However, my intention was to provide 64-hour openers. And so when this recalculation happened, it became apparent that there was going to be allowance for a 64-hour opener in the end.

And so this correction does align with my original intent of the substitute language.

Mr. Carpenter. Thanks. Just before I make the motion, I just want the clear understanding from the Department of Law is that the intent in the conversation that we took at area M, the correction that's being made here is generally the intent that the board had. Am I correct? Through the chair, Member Carpenter, to the best of my knowledge, yes.

And it's been clarified here by Member Erwin. Thank you. So, Madam Chair, I move the board adopt the correction found in RC 183, found in number 1 for Setnet Gill Gear, Section B to— Section B to read: Notwithstanding A of this paragraph, the final commercial fishing period will be 40 hours and end at 10 p.m. on June 28th. I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Mr. Lee. Madam Chair, Member Carpenter, so the RC language that's currently available right now, that's the original language.

Language that was adopted. So the 40 hours would need to be amended to 64, or just strike it.

Okay, I'm going to withdraw my motion for the minute because I'm trying to figure out what you said. Withdraw the second, please. Second. Withdrawn.

Second withdrawn.

Can you please be very specific about where on this piece of paper in RC 183 that we have in front of us that we need to amend or accept? Yes, ma'am.

Forest? They have to change it. Thanks, Madam Chair. So the way this happened was We were working with these calendars that are found in RC 183. That's a common way we look at the fishing periods in the June plan.

And so when the staff were drafting these regulations, they started their calendar one day off, 24 hours off from what the board intended. So that resulted in the language that was adopted for Proposal 127, the substitute language being 40 hours, but it was intended to be 64 hours. So, and that's reflective of that 24-hour shift on the calendar. So if the board was, if the board's intent was to have a 64-hour period, then I believe The motion would be to strike 40 here and substitute it with 64 or just express that intent that 64 is the correct hours.

So I guess maybe for us, in Section A under set gill net in RC 183, it is highlighted at 64 replacing 88 hours and then the next line it's highlighted 2 replacing 3 for days. Was that highlighted in the original language that was adopted at the area meeting? Yes, yes, this is the original language, and we're really just talking about B here. So that which talks about the final commercial fishing period, that was supposed to be 64, not 40.

That's the number that needs to change. 40. Yeah, 264. Gotcha.

I still don't understand. Let's take a couple minutes because I want to make sure that this is very clear.

All right, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Now that we have some clarity of the situation, um, My motion would be to adopt the language found in RC 183 specific to under set gillnet gear number 1, Section B, that the hours of 40 be changed to 64. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objections, so moved.

Moving on. That brings us to beach seining in Upper Cook Inlet. Member Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. So for the other board members' reference, I'll be referencing RC-177 and RC-179.

And this is discussing beach sanding in the Upper Cook Inlet. And, and so last year, the, the lower, the lower end of the escapement goal for Chinook was hit. And as soon as that happened, the setnet opened up right away. The run didn't hit the SMSY or the midpoint, and given the board's discussion on recovery criteria and how we want to find ways to get these stocks out of the action plans, and I wanted to continue to push that and also to, in reference to RC177, the email from Chris Every, One of the things we found is there was a lack of participation in the commissioner's permit and a consequent loss of data from the last year due to the lack of participation in the commissioner's permit, particularly due to the inability for cost recovery in this. And my big concern on this is I don't want to lose another season of data.

And if we look at RC 179, that is a letter from the Kenai Peninsula legislators requesting— requesting a disaster declaration for this— for this river or for this fishery. So my objective here is to request a board-generated— board-generated proposal to reintroduce language from last year, which was in statewide. It was RC 170. Or let's see, the substitute language for Proposal 313, which is on pages 2 through 5 of RC 177. The two emails were combined into one RC.

But ultimately what this is, is to to encourage continued beach seining and then to make sure we, we permit conservative measures as we get out of the king salmon management, the action plan, and allow these and allow for conservative measures that will still allow king to Chinook to pass through. When we, you know, we barely hit the lower end of the escapement goal. And the last thing I want to see is this opening up for full speed like it did last year. And to encourage this type of selective beach, selective gear methods that we saw and avoid the economic disincentive of having to fund your own operation for this gear. So with that, my— yeah, I do— and I'll touch on the criteria for the board-generated proposal.

Is this in the public's best interest? I firmly believe it is. We're finding a statewide reduction in Chinook recovery throughout in all river systems. And the Kenai River is practically the poster child of this difficult recovery. And so one of the things I would like to do is, there are so many user groups on this.

I think the faster we can get out of this recovery plan, the better it would be. And I firmly believe that's in the best interest. With regard to the urgency considering the issue, we've lost a year of data on this one. I think one of the things that was overwhelmingly— that we overwhelmingly agreed on last year, despite the fact that we didn't, you know, that issue didn't pass, was that we wanted to see this selective gear method and the commissioner's permit continue. Now, that wasn't able to happen.

I would like to see that continue. And what this also does is it also opens, opens up a selective gear method even below, below the lower end of the escapement goal.

Are the current processes insufficient to bring, bring the subject to the board's attention? I think one, one important thing is we're looking at Upper Cook Inlet next year and we have an incomplete data set. The resounding information message from the board at statewide last year is we would love to see this, but we need to see more data and we run the risk of going into a cycle in the Upper Cook Inlet with insufficient data on which to make this determination. So with that, I think time is absolutely of the essence, and having this summer's data available to board members to examine this and look at the viability of this gear type would be of absolute importance to— for management decisions in Upper Cook Inlet. Will there be reasonable and adequate opportunity for public comment?

I believe there will. And so with that, I do move— I'd like to move for the generation of a board-generated proposal matching pages 2 through 5 of RC-177. Second and ask for unanimous consent.

I'm going to object just Just for a point of clarification, that doesn't mean I'm going to object completely.

I guess I just have a question. So I guess I'd like to know from the commissioner, when this language— was the fact that the board at the last Upper Cook Inlet meeting when this was adopted did not include beach sand gear as a legal method for harvesting. Was that the reason that there was a lack of participation with the, um, commissioner's permits, because the cost associated with that couldn't be recouped? You couldn't allow them to sell the fish? Yeah, so what happened was, before you guys entertained a discussion on beach scenes, whether it should be legal gear or not legal gear, I was issuing commissioner's permits because the we were experimenting with that gear type.

Then you— and, and we were allowing some recovery of costs associated with that, a variety of other things. Then you guys had a proposal in front of you which basically said, should we authorize beach sands as commercial gear type, as gear type in commercial fisheries? You chose not to do that. But then there was this kind of expectation that you're going to come to me and ask me for issuing commissioner's permits for the sale of fish with a gear type that you chose not to allow for the sale of fish. So we proceeded with the commissioner's permits without the sale of fish, which only resulted in one person, I think, at the end of the day going out and doing that, that work.

Many people wanted to do that work. I think we, we were receiving applications of up over 30 people to participate, and they wanted to basically be able to sell fish and, and Then they didn't want to make a profit necessarily, but they were definitely going to sell the fish commercially, which triggered— when I asked Law, that's commercial sale of fish. So that's where we are right now. So now the question is, is how do you guys want to handle that? You can go back and you can legalize that gear type and then people can fish that gear type.

I think that's what you're trying to do here.

I think it would be— the question that I have is, will that require a CFEC action? Because when you guys legalized dip nets in this fishery, CFEC— the CFEC permits tied to a gear type, and now that gear type is tied to either dip nets or gillnet gear. So if you want to now legalize beach seine gear, probably a two-step process. You'd have to do this board-generated proposal, and CFEC would have to go back and find that that was an acceptable gear type for that permit. Okay, I think I understand.

I think, I think that's where we're at right now. Okay, I guess so much— so my question is, is the, the language that's found in RC 177, 2 through 5, if this were adopted by the board as a generated proposal to come back up, that this would give you the ability, if this were adopted in a board-generated proposal, to allow the sale of fish? I would not be issuing commissioner's permits because my understanding of this is beach seines would be allowed in this fishery, not under a commissioner's permit. And it would be— they'd be allowed gear type and set gillnet gear would not be under during the period you're in the recovery plan or the action plan. Okay, thank you.

So let me see if I can follow this. So with the language that's before us, and what we discussed last year was to allow for set beach seining gear in the action plan, right, within the action plan. And what also is sort of, sort of the new information that's come into this was the fact that we— well, I guess not necessarily new information, but it was interesting to see how the department chose to open that fishery within the action plan with the use of, use of gillnets. Now, that was allowed, but, you know, again, to the conversation that's been continuing over the last couple years about what does recovery look like and all these things, I think it's— that was part of the discussion, part of the things that I would like to clarify if this goes forward. Now, this language is restrictive to the action plan, but it also gets the gear type in the management plan.

So I don't disagree with the commissioner that it would require a CFEC action, and that's something that we that would be requested if this passed as a BGP at a subsequent date that would be publicly noticed and public comment would be solicited from.

So this is not what is necessarily— we are not taking action on this language right now. What we are doing is creating a BGP to allow for that gear type. Now, sort of supplementary to that, and I think to some of Mr. Chamberlain's comments, if I'm hearing him correctly, is that when we had this discussion, and unfortunately this didn't pass, but part of that, um, there was a lot of talk about the commissioner's permit. So if this language gets the beach seine gear type into the management plan, then I— my question to you is, would that be sufficient in order for you to prosecute a commissioner's permit to try and elicit additional information about how successful the beach sand gear is for the exclusion of kings. Now, the reason why I think it's appropriate to put it within the action plan is because I think that there's a generalized understanding based on the year of data that we had and the presentations, the extensive sort of long presentations that the, the part that the board had about that one year of experiment was that there was promising, there was promising results that they were able to successfully harvest sockeye and exclude king salmon with that gear type better than a gillnet.

And so that's, that's my, that's my question. So if this language were considered and ultimately adopted, now maybe it won't be, but if it is, would that be sufficient for you to be able to allow a permitted, a commissioner's permit program that would incentivize participation to a limited degree by being able to cost recuperate costs on the gear and the experiment. The way I'm reading this proposed regulation or generated proposal is that when we are above 14,250 right now, we have the ability to operate setnets for some very limited time. This would say that fishermen could choose that are permanent in that area to fish beach scenes. I wouldn't have to issue a commercial, uh, uh, uh, Commissioner's permit.

This would just allow them— whoever owns a set-net permit would be able to go fish beach, same gear. So the question comes down to, then you legalize that gear type, then I could probably authorize experimental permits outside of that period of time because now it's a legal gear type. And that's precisely what I'm getting at. And what I'm working towards, hopefully, And this is again just to try to keep the momentum building. What I'm hoping will be the outcome of this eventually is that we'll see successful demonstration that they— that a beach seine works in this area based on the experiment and that we could then really consider whether or not it's appropriate to allow harvest time outside of the action plan using a gillnet.

So— or I'm sorry, using a beach seine. So I mean, that's kind of— we're looking to try and maintain momentum to provide opportunity for this fishery on abundant sockeye while conserving kings. That's the intent that I see in this in terms of the trajectory. Yeah, and I understand that better now. So once you— if you adopted the sport generator proposal in a subsequent public meeting, then you would be— we would have a discussion about what you would like to see as Commissioner of Permits moving forward.

Okay, thank you. Correct. Mr. Svenson, then Mr. Godfrey. So we're, uh, in the beach sanding, as I read it, they'll still be having to release cohos as well as kings. Isn't that not correct?

Through the chair, that's, that's the way I read it, Mr.

Mr. Wood. All right, so for clarification here, when this originally came up a year ago, the request from the proposer was to permit beach sanding as an additional gear type option. That morphed into what we put forward as a board-generated proposal. Um, yeah, not only can you, you must. And you're not allowed to set net anymore.

This doesn't do that.

It's a question. It does. When you are above 14,250, the only— and you're in the action plan— the only option you'll have to fish will be beach seines. According to this board-generated proposal, the way I read it.

I guess then I would ask, I would ask the proposer, Mr. Chamberlain, how is this materially different than what we voted down a year ago? Or if it is? Oh, it's not. But it largely reflects the level of effort that we've had. And when we voted it down, it effectively killed the beach staining effort.

And when we look at, you know, the Kenai Peninsula legislative delegation's letter, they had 37 setnet deliveries in 2025, which is the equivalent of the, the roughly the equivalent of the number of people who are seeking to beach seine. So what we're, what I'm looking at this is, is a trade-off. Do we, would we rather have them beach seining or setnetting? And beach seining can happen at an earlier point than with setnetting, and so we can see increased effort in a more selective gear type. I think the other thing that I would add to that, Member Godfrey, is that, you know, not only are we seeing what hopefully is not going to be a pattern of disaster relief requests, but also the request from somebody who fishes that area and has been a longtime participant in that seeking the ability to do that.

And unless we approve that gear type, And this is, I think, one way to do it, then they can't— he can't issue a commissioner's permit program to continue it. That's how I see it. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. As I recall, this was an ACR and then it was— it was— it was not voted.

It did not pass because it eliminated the use of a set net in lieu of the drift. Or in, in lieu of the beach seine. And then two, currently if you do this and you still aren't allowed to use setnet, then you exclude anyone who's a setnetter that doesn't have a beach site to have a beach seine. So this is a bigger problem. This would solve the problem for people on the beach, but not for people who own a set net permit and don't have a lease site.

I think the original ACR was to request beach staining outside of the action plan, and this, this language that's before us was developed to include it within the action plan because we didn't have enough data about what the effects of beach sanding would be on king release and survivability potential. Mr. Wood. Yeah, I, I think it's, I think it's great to have to be able to get a commissioner's permit to do the beach sanding. There's no doubt in my mind that that was the, that was the right thing to do. And by the action that was taken, it made beach sanding illegal to sell your fish.

So he didn't— it wasn't issued. I do understand that, and I, and I regret the fact that there is no beach sanding being able to be studied.

But if you adopt what you had originally proposed, then people get to beach sand, but you don't use a set net, and that doesn't— that only affects a small portion of the permit holders, right? And that's, that's why we're not voting on whether or not it merits of the proposal. The language here right now, we are voting on whether or not to accept it as a BGP, in which case it would be noticed, public comments would be solicited, and the board would have an opportunity to review it as we would any other proposal where substitute language could potentially be generated. Or not. In cycle.

Either in cycle or through a special meeting. And the reason I think that the urgency, to Mr. Chamberlain's point, is that, I mean, I don't know whether or not we would be able to act quickly enough and, you know, with making sure that we're giving adequate notice and opportunity for the public to comment on this. But I would like for the commissioner to be able to issue commissioner's permits for beach sand this summer so that we don't lose another potential season of data. And I don't know if that's something you can do or not, but that's part of the urgency.

I'm just thinking through this now, and there might be a different ways to skin this onion. For instance, you, you could potentially allow an individual fisherman to fish during the action plan, either a set gillnet or beach seine, and then you get to the same, same area. So there may be different ways to skin this cat as we move forward. So we still need to get the gear type in the management plan. Okay.

Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, I think this is very clear to me now. Um, the real question is, if we adopt this, the idea or the concept of moving this forward into a board-generated proposal, to get to Mr. Chamberlain's point about losing information, we would have to have a special meeting prior to the Cook Inlet season opening so that, in effect, what Mr. Chamberlain is seeking through this is to allow this to take place. Recalling what happened at the meeting where this was voted down, the original ACR had substitute language that was put into it at an out-of-cycle Cook Inlet meeting, I believe. And it was voted down mostly due to process.

At least from my opinion, it was process.

I'm all in favor for allowing people to try different gear types under a commissioner's permit and to sell their fish to recoup the cost to do that, because I do think that information to the department is valuable.

But I also think that by bringing this forward now in the form of a board-generated proposal through a commission, or to have a special meeting prior to the season, is a little bit of a stretch. And I also kind of think that it's a way to circumvent the normal process. And I also think that the next— this next fall, there is a normal Cook Inlet meeting, and I'm not sure that the information that we're going to lose this summer is necessarily going to have a big enough impact to circumvent the, the actual process and allow for people on a, on a more noticeable schedule, which this Cook Inlet meeting has been scheduled for a few years to be able to participate. So I'm not going to remove my objection and I'm not going to remove it for those reasons. Mr. Wood and then Mr. Chamberlain.

Yeah, thanks. I also— I mean, that was going to be my last statement. We're doing Cook Inlet next year. This proposal can come before the board. Then I mean, the bummer is if there's any way to get that information through a commissioner's permit this year, it would be great.

But I think to create a whole proposal that gets put out there, it's like an abbreviated ACR process. And so I'm not in— I'm not in favor of that. Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. And to this one, I want to respond that Without incomplete data, what we're running the risk of is denial of beach seines as an allowable gear type at the next due to incomplete information.

One of the big things we had with a lot of board members, myself included, is we don't know the post-release mortality of these Chinook from the beach seines. You know, you can be harming gills or scales all of that. And, and a lot of the, the science we saw at the Aleutian Peninsula showed there's post-release mortality that you need to look at from 3 to days 3 to 5, and we simply don't know that. I— and, and so what this is, is this is a short-term fix. Absolutely, the public will be noticed on this one, but we also have the ability to course correct based on information at— in the regular in-cycle meeting.

Next year, I anticipate if this goes forward, we will have more information and we will have the ability to course correct if need be. So I don't see the downside in this other than we actually get the year of information we lost last year. So with that, yeah, I'll finish. Okay, I don't see any more board discussion. Um,.

Double-checking again on, on the motion. Director Nelson, will you please call the roll? On the motion to create a board-generated proposal. Chamberlain. Yes.

Carlson-Vandort. Yes. Erwin. Yes. Svenson.

Yes. Godfrey. No. Carpenter. No.

Wood. No. Motion carries. 4 In favor, 3 against. Madam Chair.

OK, that brings us to item— the last item on here, guidance on board solicitation consideration of proposals regarding hatchery production. And this just kind of came to mind during the deliberation process on Group 2 at this meeting. And sort of there's mixed messages, I think, coming from this board a little bit. And I just wanted to discuss it. And maybe there's a venue that's better to have this this discussion at, but I kind of wanted to throw it out there to at least get some initial thoughts from board members.

Perhaps it's a discussion for a hatchery committee. Maybe it's a process committee. Maybe— I don't know, but I kind of wanted to talk about this because we heard a lot of frustration, and I'll reiterate about sort of how these, how these proposals are coming to the board and through this process. We've seen for several cycles now that they were coming in in a regional capacity. So they were done in cycle, region by region.

There was a discussion at Prince William Sound that perhaps Member Carpenter could speak to better since I was absent about having these discussions once in a cycle at the statewide meeting. And if I'm, if I'm incorrect, please correct me. So that's kind of set up the process that we just went through this week. But I also heard during this meeting that this Again, there's sort of this regional push me, pull you, and whether or not these sort of blanket hatchery proposals are appropriate for statewide since they have statewide implications and aren't bespoke or tailored towards the hatchery or the region that they're concerning specifically. So I just kind of wanted to have that conversation a little bit, and maybe it's not necessary to have another meeting.

Maybe we can sort it out here, but I just kind of wanted to get some some, again, some members' initial thoughts on that. And Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I mean, I think yes, at the meeting in December in Cordova where a motion was made to only accept hatchery proposals every 3 years at a statewide meeting, that was the motion and that did pass.

There was a statewide meeting this year, and so this is kind of the way it's played out. I agree that regional proposals in general are a good idea. The problem was, and I think that there's people on this board that will probably agree with this part of the conversation, was that it was almost like it was turning into, we would see the exact same proposal irregardless of what region, at every single meeting. It was almost becoming kind of almost an abuse of the process to a certain degree. And of course the public has the right to put proposals in, but the board also has the ability to set standards in which those proposals can be taken up.

My opinion is, is that I am more than willing to listen to this But I think every 3 years, I think, is kind of the appropriate timeline. And whether that be done in the form of a hatchery meeting every 3 years, that, that's up to this board. Hatchery meetings are non-regulatory though, and unless there's a way to, through legislation, or I'm not sure what the practical function is to make the hatchery meeting regulatory, that would actually be the best way to handle it, quite frankly, if it was a regulatory meeting. And I think you could to do that every 3 years, but I don't know how we get to that point.

Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, yeah, last year in, in Cordova— I, I, sorry, last year in Cordova, I, I expressed a willingness to go and have these discussions. Um, when we did it in Cordova and when we did it in Southeast, it was a very homogeneous room where my position was very much in the minority, but I felt that it was important to go and have these discussions in the communities where they were being affected very, in a very real way. I understand the board members' desires to have these less frequently.

I also acknowledge that the discussion in this room was more, more two-sided and you had a very even discussion between theirs, whereas in Southeast and in Cordova, it was a fairly homogenous atmosphere in the room. But I'm not adverse to facing headwinds. I'm perfectly happy to hold that— to hold these discussions in those communities. But that said, I very much agree with Member Carpenter's sentiment. This seems to be an odd theme of this, is we're agreeing on more and more things.

But I agree. I would love to see more Hatchery Committee meetings and see this take place regularly within this. So yeah, I What's going on? Mr. Wood and then Mr. Godfrey, Mr. One. Yeah, thank you.

I think every 3 years at statewide is more appropriate. And by the next time that this will come up, hopefully we'll have more information from the hatchery research project. I agree. And the way that Board Member Carpenter recounted the Cordova meeting and the discussion on that is exactly the same way. That I recall it, and the sentiment is the same.

And the reality is, if we did it every 3 years, if there was some pressing crisis and we wanted to entertain an ACR, we still could, right? So it doesn't lock it into just every 3 years. But it's an extraordinary amount of time for the department, staff comments, and stakeholders that have to show up again and again and again for a lot of proposals that are not materially different or substantially different.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I, I tend to agree. I think from my limited experience on this board, I think that a 3-year cycle would be an appropriate, appropriate place, especially hearing from my fellow board members some of the history leading up to this point. We do have a Hatchery Committee, which every board member is on. And so I would like to see that space utilized more, especially with our discussion that we have limited information and where some of us are wondering whether or not how equipped we are to make these decisions with the knowledge we have.

So I would love to see that committee be utilized more. And I just, I would really like for us to figure out a path forward that's gonna be consistent so that the, public can rely on a clear, concise public process. They can expect— they know when to expect what, and that there's, there's no public perception that there are default delay tactics going on. We want to move forward in a good way that works best for this board and the public. So those will be my comments for now.

I have a question. Maybe it's for legal or for the department, but the Hatchery Committee is great, but it's non-regulatory. We can't take action on it. The constraint that we think we've realized with the statewide meeting is that the statewide meeting proposals have to deal with things statewide. And so you don't have the flexibility to have those sort of individual area specific to hatchery only discussions.

And so my question would be, is it possible and what would it take to, for example, add hatcheries to a regulatory meeting such as the statewide shellfish or something, the one that's relatively light, but in the Prince William Sound Southeast cycle where a lot of the hatcheries are being dealt with, this wouldn't preclude Kodiak, of course. But is that something where we could— if there are proposals that are continuing to come up, instead of having them in cycle and then at statewide, could we sort of find a way to deal just regulatorily with hatchery proposals in one place? In one cycle, once a cycle. And I don't know if that's possible or what that would take, but I'm just kind of throwing that out there. I think it's an interesting idea to pursue.

I'm kind of reluctant to just say yes, which one it is, but no, I think that's worth exploring. I don't know. I don't know what it would take to create, but maybe that's the subject of a Hatchery Committee meeting. I don't know. Or the process.

Maybe we can put that in the board process, Process Committee. We are getting quite a lengthy agenda for that one. It is becoming quite the grab bag. Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, I appreciate that question, Madam Chair.

I don't think we have clarity on that right now, but I do think there has been pretty clear sentiment from the board right here that something in that form would be more appropriate than maybe even the way that we are doing it now. So I am not sure that the board needs to act right now. I do think that we could make it clear to the executive director that the current fashion in which we are accepting proposals right now at least would still take place at the statewide meeting and that if there could be some clarity this summer that might clear some.

This up, the board could surely act at the October work session to create some sort of a policy regarding that. And that, that would be my suggestion for right now. Thank you, Member Carpenter. I think that makes a lot of sense. And again, this was just meant to be a topic of discussion.

So, um, is there anything else on this subject? Um, not on, not on that in particular.

That concludes the miscellaneous business agenda. Mr. Nelson? Well, I Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted, since we—. Just real quick, do we have to schedule the meeting or do we—.

Yeah, okay. That's exactly where I was going, Commissioner, thank you.

So the comment period, you know, it will take us a couple days probably to get a notice out. We can only publish it in the paper twice a week and it's also got to go out in the mail. Kind of looking at the timing of things, I think probably what looks like it works the best for timing and gives us a little bit of room to get this out there. Also, we need a little bit of time to compile comments and get them to you guys to read. So I'm going to suggest Friday, May 1st, as a possible meeting date for this.

It would be based on some of the discussions we've had leading up to these BGP getting adopted was that This would be a written comment only meeting. We would not accept oral testimony during the meeting, and it would be, you know, online via Zoom. So I think that's possible. Take member comments on that. And I don't know what individual calendars look like.

I'm trying to find mine right now.

But I think that the first week of May or May— Friday, May 1st last week of April would be fine, unless anybody objects. Miss Irwin?

I'm— I want to hear what other members have to say, but I— looking at what we have as board-generated proposals that would be on the docket, is that— if I understand correctly, that those would be on the docket for that meeting. There's a— there would be a considerable amount of material and from multiple regional— people of regional interests of multiple areas, I guess I'm just wondering if we're giving the public enough time to really not only read these things, but if they want to add comments, they want to produce substitute language and really consider that work with department staff on engaging. I don't know. Your mic is on. Just trying to gather that.

Mr. Nelson, I think there's a—. It would— public comment would be open for a month, would be open for 30 days. And if, if we, for instance, if we close public comments a week prior to the meeting starting, then the notice needs to be out 30 days plus a week to cover that. And so that's, that's kind of why I targeted May 1st as probably the earliest possible window for us to draft the notice, get it published in the newspaper based on the only 2 days a week available, and get the get the mailing out as well, and then to close comments probably a week prior to the meeting. We've got a little room to fudge there if we need to, and time to compile them and you guys to review them prior to the meeting.

That, that's kind of why I targeted May 1st as probably the likely the earliest we could pull this off. Is this a virtual meeting, Mr. Godfrey? I'm not going to be able to confirm precisely my availability for that day. I can get back with Art by Monday and confirm specific availability.

That week I can make it work, but I'm not positive on May 1st.

We can certainly, you know, if that date doesn't work with people, let us know quickly so that we can adjust the notice and make sure it works for other members. And so, like I say, May 1st is kind of our tentative plan, but when the notice goes out, it will have the date. Have the adequate time for the public notice and the public comment and hopefully work with all 7 board members. So if you have members able to confirm their availability by Monday, that would allow for adequate notice for a May 1st meeting potentially, or thereabouts? Yeah, we can start drafting the notice now, and then, I mean, it's just a simple date change in a draft of the notice.

So yeah. Okay. Mr. Commissioner. Mr. Wood. Thank you.

I mean, my head is spinning here a little bit. We just created a board. We just voted on a board-generated proposal that failed that we're now going to make time to listen to again. It possibly may not have public testimony to it. We have 3 board members here currently that were familiar with that, that are up for reappointment.

Well, 2 aren't coming back, 1 for reappointment. And then May, I've already got a commitment to work for a month remotely. I guess my head's spinning on how this process works.

We accepted the board-generated proposals. Some of them are time sensitive. All of them are, I think, time sensitive. We can create a special meeting virtually. We will.

Get public comment. We will get written public comment as is required by law, and we can meet remotely to, to discuss them and vote them up or down.

Mr. Commissioner, I just want to now get law's advice. So you guys will make a proposal, but vote on a proposal sometime May 1st. Then I think it has to go to Department of Law for review, and then after they clear it, it has to go for 30-day public notice in the Alaska Administrative Procedure under the Lieutenant Governor's signature. So that places the proposal potentially being on the books sometime the first or second week of June. I'm just letting you guys do the math.

I'm not gonna be able to issue commissioner's permits probably for same year. Before July 1st. So I just, I just want to make this aware to you guys. This really, this timeframe is pretty tight on us. It is, it is very tight and I recognize that.

But we also recognize that really that peak time of the sockeye run happens around July, starts to ramp up around July 4th. So I think it could allow you to issue some permits, maybe not for the entire season, but for some some period of time during the peak of the sockeye. That helps. And I just want people to know that, or maybe listening online here because they're not in the room, is that we will not be issuing commissioner's permits until after your action. I don't want people applying for commissioner's permits now for something that might happen.

Thank you. Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thanks. I mean, honestly, my only big concern is this. I participated in a virtual board meeting before.

Unfortunately, it was from a hospital bed, and I swore I would never do it again. I understand that it's costly to have these meetings, but considering the board-generated proposal that just got adopted, there is going to be a massive amount of people that want to testify to that, specifically on the Cook Inlet issue. And so I just want to put that on the record. I'm not sure if a virtual meeting is actually a great idea for that particular one, considering the amount of traffic that might want to participate. But, you know, that's really up to the commissioner and Director Nelson, I suppose, at this time.

Other than that, I'm fine with it. Okay.

Any closing comments since we've reached the end of our agenda? Ms. Irwin. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to make some closing comments. I'm just finishing my first, my first cycle on this board, and I just really want to take some time to acknowledge all the hard work from all the staff around the table and my fellow board members.

I really want to thank all of the members of the public who have taken time to educate me, taken time to educate our board members and get to know us. I had an enormous amount of experience with respectful cooperative engagement this year, and I want to really, really thank all of the fishermen, scientists, researchers, staff members who took the time to ensure that this public process is, is just that. It's still very public. Your engagement and time is, is of great, great value, and I thank you for taking time out of your fishing schedules, your lives, and your businesses to ensure that this board is as well educated and well versed on the information that we're taking decisions on. None of these decisions come lightly, I think, to any of us.

I don't want to speak for my other board members, but we recognize these are big decisions that change people's lives. And so thank you for all of your time and consideration being here, all of everyone who put in proposals, long nights, early mornings. I came from an AC, I was an AC chair for a few years before this, so I recognize also the frustrations that come out when your outcome is not what you wish. So I just encourage, additional and continuous engagement in the public process and feedback. Um, it's always good to hear how we can be doing things better.

Um, and I would like to thank all of my fellow board members for welcoming me with open arms and, um, supporting me and helping me along.

Way. And for our 3 board members who may or may not be returning to us next year, I just want to wish you all the best of luck and thank you very much for all of your efforts in continuing to educate me on your given regions and fisheries. And just say I hope everyone has a good summer.

Thank you. Mr. Spencer. I would like to echo Ms. Irwin's, uh, exposé there. I, uh, This will be my last meeting as I'm not gonna re-up on the board. I'll have to say I've enjoyed my time immensely.

And I am gonna miss the people, all the staff and people I meet in the audience and all the people that I've been associated with. So I'm a bit older than everybody else on the board, about 20 years and 50 over Miss Irwin. And so I just want to spend the rest of my time, you know, not having to work around meetings and that sort of stuff. But I really appreciated the opportunity, and I'll miss you all. Thanks.

Mr. Godfrey. I also had no intention of re-upping. So other than the special meeting, This is my last normal meeting. That having been said, I won't say I'll never be back here again. I took a year off once and I came back.

I might take 2 or 3 off and come back again or try anyways. But I respect everybody that does consecutive terms. It's a huge commitment. I respect all of my fellow board members. I enjoy our collegiality and also our vigorous debate.

I respect the stakeholders on all sides of the issues and the fact that we can agree to disagree at times. But I do believe that the process is probably, you know, as good of a process there is anywhere in the country when it comes to fisheries management. And while there's ways it can be improved here and there, I do appreciate the stakeholder engagement with this board and the fact that we can, you know, work on things together and sometimes find compromises. And as usual, I appreciate the staff. They do a phenomenal job and they make things look very seamless from my perspective sitting here, all of them.

Every one of you and all the RCs. Man, that just never gets old, does it? So other than a special meeting, so long until I might come back again. Director Nelson. And with that, following the last two member statements and acknowledgments that this is their last regular meeting during their term on the board, we do have some plaques for you guys.

Mike, you got to— you don't get one yet since you're— since you got your name in the hat still. But We have some plaques here.

Thank you, guys. It's been real, right? Mr. Wood? Yeah, I'd like to say something because I may not end up coming back either, even though I threw my name in the hat. Um, I, uh, I've learned so much from this opportunity talking to fishermen.

It's a privilege to be on this board because You get access to people that ordinarily would not give you the time of day because you're a vote. And I really respect the fact that you take the time to educate us on your fishery because most of us come here not knowing anything.

The other thing that I appreciate is the staff who are amazing. And also educate us in a huge way. Um, not only do I enjoy their commitment to the state and the fishery, but also the process. And I really suck at Robert's Rules. I'm not gonna get very good at that, I think.

But I also need to rely on the process. And one of the things I've really committed myself to in thinking, getting into this board, I always had some preconceived notions on things like hatcheries, trawling, and the democratic process that exists at the Board of Fish. And I've learned a lot here, and my opinions on things have had to change. And I still hope that the integrity of— that we continue to uphold that integrity of this board and this process, because this department and the fishermen deserve it. So thank you for the opportunity to sit at this table.

Any other comments? All right. Well, this has been, as always, I think, a challenging cycle. It's long. There's a lot of public involvement.

There's a lot of contentious issues, particularly. And so I just wanted to say thank you to everybody around this table, especially again to the staff, board support staff, most importantly the public. And congratulations to Member Svenson and to Member Godfrey for getting through it with us. And again, we wish you luck on all of your future endeavors. I hope we see you around, maybe not necessarily in this forum, but maybe so, you never know.

And Mr. Wood, we hope to see you back at the table with us and wish you luck in your appointment. All right. I think that—. Annie and Sam, thank you. Yes, always, especially those two.

They keep us, keep us going. They are our engine. So as always, thank you guys so much for all of your hard work and professionalism and keeping us, keeping the public informed since you are truly the front lines there. So with that, I think I will go ahead and adjourn. The time is 2:54 PM.