Alaska Board of Fisheries: Supplemental Proposals 189-192 (5/1/2026)

All right. Recording in progress. This meeting is being recorded. Excellent. I don't think The stream— has the stream started?

Annie, can—. That was going to be my next question. It doesn't look like it. Okay, I'll wait for confirmation from Annie. Kyle, you can start moving attendees.

Oh, there we go. Now it looks like the stream has started. Okay, great. Well, welcome everybody. Good afternoon.

My name is—.

Recording in progress. I believe, looking here, that I've got 7 of 7 board members present. Um, so before proceeding any further, I just like my fellow board members to introduce themselves, and then we'll follow by staff. So, um, I suppose we can do this as sort of our normal— this is very confusing because I see law, I see all kinds of people except for my board members. That's great.

Um, how about starting with Vice Chair Carpenter, please? Morning, everyone. Tom Carpenter from Cordova. Okay, let's go to Mr. Wood. Hello, everyone.

Mike Wood here calling in from Chase. Great. Mr. Svensson. Good morning, everyone. Greg Svensson calling in from Anchorage.

Great. And we've got Mr. Chamberlain. I'm going to start with good afternoon, everyone. Timberland from Wasilla. All right, and Ms. Erwin.

Zandazun everyone, good afternoon. Olivia Henahi Erwin from Nenana, Alaska. And Mr. Godfrey. Good afternoon, Jared Godfrey calling in from Eagle River. Excellent, thank you.

Let's go ahead and do introduction of staff to see who's online. I'll start with you, Mr. Commissioner. Yeah, Doug Vincent-Lang, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. I got 4 directors with me and I'll let them introduce their staff. So I got Forrest Bauer, Israel Payton, and Amy Widda.

Great, thank you. Mr. Bowers. Thanks, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Forrest Bowers, Acting Director of the Division of Commercial Fisheries, and here from the Division of Commercial Fisheries to assist you today, we have Shaleen Hutter, Regulations Program Coordinator, Erin Tiernan, who's the AYK Regional Management Coordinator, Zach Liller, AYK Regional Research Coordinator, and Colton Lipka, Cook Inlet Management Coordinator.

Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate you all being with us today. Mr. Payton. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Israel Payton, Director of Sport Fish. With me here today, I got Jason Dye, Deputy Director, Patrick Fowler, Cook Inlet Management Coordinator, Lisa Stube, Yukon River Area Manager, Jeff Essason, AYK Interior Regional Supervisor, and Nick Djokovic, Research Coordinator for the Cook Inlet area. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Ms. Whitta.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, everyone, board members, members of the public, and staff. I'm Dr. Amy Rueda. I am the Acting Director of the Division of Subsistence for the Week, and with me today and us is Caroline Brown, our Statewide Research Director. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Director Nelson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Art Nelson. I'm Executive Director for the Board of Fisheries, and board staff we have with us here today is Annie Bartholomew. She's our Publication Specialist, and she's handling the live stream. Kyle Campbell, our Interior Region Advisory Committee Coordinator, is doing most of the Zoom wrangling behind the scenes.

We also have Layla Williams, our South Central Regional Advisory Committee Coordinator, and she's going to be handling record copies today. Madam Chair, thank you. Very good. Thank you very much. And from the Department of Law.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Assistant Attorney General Edward Lee. I'm here in Anchorage. Thank you. And Alaska Wildlife Troopers.

Good morning. Derek DeGraff, Alaska Wildlife Troopers here in Anchorage. Welcome. Thank you all for being with us. Is there anybody from the federal government with us today?

Good afternoon. Ah, there you go. Members of the board, Jared Stone. Good afternoon. I am the state subsistence liaison with the Office of Subsistence Management.

Thank you for having me. Thank you for being with us today. Have I missed anyone?

All right, moving right along. We'll go ahead and get into just a little bit of Zoom details. So board members, since this is a meeting on Zoom, please turn on and keep your cameras on unless we're on a break. Please remember to keep yourself muted if you're not speaking, and please use the raise hand features if you would like to talk or ask a question, because I don't have everybody on my screen here, and instead of having to toggle through them, I'm going to try and keep, keep my eye open for that raised hand function on Zoom. If I'm not calling you, wave or unmute yourself and get my attention, please.

So with that, we'll go ahead and do ethics disclosures. We'll do them in roughly the same order that we did introductions, except Mr. Carpenter, I'll leave you save you for the end. Let's go ahead and begin with Mr. Godfrey, or maybe we'll mix it up here. Mr. Godfrey.

I got to get off the mute. Can you hear me okay? Yep.

My name is Gerard Godfrey. I'm a lifelong Alaskan. I was born in Juneau. My family's originally from the Kodiak Islands. I'm a shareholder of Koniag Regional Corporation, of Fognac Native Corporation, and Yuzinki Native Corporation.

I'm an elected Tribal Council member of the Native Village of Port Lyons. I live in Eagle River. I have two adult children, 22 years old and 19 years old. Professionally, I'm a consultant with various clients, primarily in the broadband space and economic development, but nothing pertaining to fisheries. I work professionally on candidate Shelly Hughes' campaign for governor.

My son participated in commercial fisheries of Bristol Bay and Kodiak last year as a deckhand. I have no conflicts to declare regarding any matters in front of the Board of Fisheries during this meeting. Neither I nor any member of my family is a party directly or indirectly to a lawsuit with the State of Alaska or any agencies of the state. These statements are factual and true to the best of my knowledge. Thank you, Mr. Godfrey.

Um, quick question for you, as per usual. Um, any statements made by the candidate that you are employed by and, um, working for, uh, that we should be aware of that might affect any of the proposals or any fundraising acceptance of, um, checks, fundraising checks or anything like that towards the campaign? Nothing to declare in that regard. And real quick, I'm looking for the hand-raising feature. I have to use my phone because my camera's not working on my laptop right now.

I haven't found it yet, so I'm going to keep looking while everybody else is going through their statements, but I haven't gotten it to come up on my phone app. Good luck to you. I can never find it on my phone either, so just chime in if you need my attention or wave your hand because I actually can see you. Okay, well then I'll wave my hand. Great, thank you very much.

Um, Miss Erwin.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, good afternoon everyone. Thank you to the members of the public who are online. My name is Olivia Henahi Erwin. I live in Ninana, Alaska.

I am a Doyon Corporation shareholder and receive a dividend each year. I am also an Evansville Native Corporation shareholder and receive a dividend each year, both formed by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. I received an honorarium from the University of Alaska Fairbanks this year for guest lecturing and a small contract for graphic design and marketing. I will receive a stipend for my service on the Alaska Board of Fisheries. Prior to my time on the board, I operated an Alaska business license for High Impact LLC that is no longer active.

My business license has been inactive since December of 2025, and I have not taken on a client since 2024. I have a resident hunt, fish, and trapping license. My immediate family consists of my 4 siblings, only one of whom resides in Alaska, along with 2 aunts and 4 uncles who also reside in Alaska, none of whom are currently involved in fisheries business. My Aunt Marie Monroe retains 2 commercial fishing permits for the Tanana River, net and fish wheel. However, she has not fished the permit or financially benefited since 1993.

At this— for this meeting, my Aunt Marie Monroe did submit public comment number 10 in response to Proposal 189. I was unaware that she intended on commenting. I did not ask her to, advise, or coach her on submitting the comment, and upon seeing her public comment, I immediately contacted my ethics chair to disclose. While passing— while the passing of this proposal will not have any direct benefit on my aunt, financial or otherwise, as she has not fished the permit since 1993 and has never participated in providing a traditional knowledge report, and while I am fully capable of evaluating Proposal 189 independently and without influence from my aunt's comments, I am going to choose to recuse myself from voting on Proposal 189 to avoid any appearance of conflict and to maintain public trust. Madam Chair, neither I nor any member of my immediate family have any affiliation or business with Fish and Wildlife organizations that may be affected by the proposals before us.

No member of my immediate family, myself, or my employer are involved in any lawsuits against the state, department, or board of fisheries. I certify this disclosure statement is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ms. Erwin. And before we get into it, I realized you threw me, Mr. Godfrey, Um, so I want to ask at this time if the board has any questions for Mr. Godfrey and his ethics disclosure before we proceed.

Hearing none, Mr. Godfrey, I rule you can fully participate today. I forgot to do that part. Miss Irwin, um, so just a follow-up question for you. Um, your aunt who weighed in on one of the proposals, was it just 189? Did she make comments on any others?

He did not make comments on any others. It was only related to 189. Okay.

Are there questions for Ms. Irwin?

All right, Mr. Nelson. Madam Chair, not a question for Ms. Irwin, but it might be good for Mr. Lee to speak. I believe the new conflict of interest rule that the legislature passed—. I was just about to mention that. Thank you.

—Is in effect, so— Yes. Thank you for that. I was just about to put that on the record. Appreciate it.

Yes, so HB 33, I believe, is the number, passed and was signed by the governor with an immediate effective date. And my understanding of what that bill did was to remove the, I guess, prohibitions for conflicted members to deliberate. Um, and so, Miss Irwin, you will be allowed to deliberate, but you will not be allowed to vote. Thank you, Madam Chair. Any questions?

All right, thank you. Um, moving on to, uh, Mr. Wood.

Unmuted. You got me. Gotcha. All right, cool. All right, so my name is Mike Wood.

My first year in Alaska was 1989. I came to Alaska as an outdoor educator for the National Outdoor Leadership School, NOLS, based in Palmer, and also worked as a Denali climbing guide for the Alaska Denali Guiding based in Talkeetna. I work as a carpenter and fisherman during the off-season and eventually transitioned from guide work to full-time self-employed builder, fisherman, and occasional guiding. I live with my wife Molly in a house we built up on the Susitna on a remote property in Chase. Which is about 5 miles north of Talkeetna.

Molly is an independent consultant and works remotely from home. I'm a founding member of the Susitna River Coalition, which I continue to play a significant role in protecting the river and advocating for all that the watershed offers to support healthy communities, fisheries, and wildlife. Through this role, I became active in the Matsu Habitat— Matsu Habitat Issues, and in 2013, I was appointed to the Matsu Fish and Wildlife Commission for 9 years. 6 Of which I chaired. I was the only commercial fishing rep in the diversified board, and I was able to bring balance and objectivity to the commission, especially on habitat and conservation issues.

In 2017, my wife and I purchased a piece of property at the mouth of the Sioux, 105 miles below our home. We purchased a Cook Inlet setnet and leased a fishing site from DNR at the mouth of the Sioux in the area of Sioux Flats Game Refuge, Each year we register to fish in the Northern District of Cook Inlet and get our catcher, seller, and direct marketer license. Our business is modeled to sell high-quality fresh fish to a local market. Our business mission is to educate people on the value of the Susitna River through their stomach. We believe that by increasing awareness of the valuable source of sustainable local food, we can help create a stronger connection to the Susitna River and the resources it offers to our community.

We have created a sustainable low-volume fishing business by targeting local customers in the Matsu Anchorage and catching only what is ordered. We have about 120 regular customers, typically fish at the top of the incoming tide during two 12-week openers— two 12-hour openers per week. Regulations impacting the west side setnetters of the Northern District have a direct impact on our business, our ability to fill our orders, and our finances. Regulations regarding fisheries on the east side of Cook Inlet have never had an impact on our business. This is a very niche market that brings modest gains.

In the last 10 years, it's been under $5,000 a year. We own several properties now and all are in the Susitna Watershed. We hunt and collect our food from the Susitna Watershed. My history, my identity, and my commitment is first to the Susitna Valley. My fishing business is tied explicitly to the Susitna Valley.

I do not have any intention to move my permit elsewhere in Cook Inlet or anywhere else in the state. To be conservative, I'll just leave it at that. Additional details on my current work. I work for the Alaska Mountain School. I'm a contract employee guide and do training for special forces when I have the opportunity in winter.

I work for— in Antarctica for Antarctic Logistics Expeditions, and I'm a contract builder for projects. My wife and I both receive permanent fund dividend. Neither my wife or I have any— ever been involved in a lawsuit, including the State of Alaska, ADF&G, or the Board of Fisheries. The information is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge. Thank you.

Thank you, Member Wood. Questions for Member Wood?

I have a couple for you, just to pull it out of the mic, on the record mic, and appreciate your detailed disclosure there. I don't know if I've ever asked you this before, but what's the nature of your wife's consulting business?

Um, well, currently it is retired. The business went under about a year ago, so she is, is still kind of tying up some loose ends, but it's mostly international work. Perfect. So there's no, there's no fisheries-related consulting contracts or anything like that? Uh, not in this state, no.

Okay. Actually, not even in the country now, I believe. Thank you. And you mentioned that, that you do have an active SO4H permit. You operate that primarily in the Susitna area, and it's roughly under $5,000, I think, in income per year that you've mentioned.

Yep. Yep. And the value of your permit?

15,000 Bucks and going down. It's remained steady over the, like, last 50 years. Okay. And do you believe that any openings or closures on the east side would have the potential to have any fish from that area make its way into your area?

It would be a very, like, minimal, like, no impact on me and my area up here. And, you know, it would be insignificant impact at very best. I mean, it's unmeasurable. Okay, so you don't think fish would be able to move and move around, swing up, come back down? Well, I'm sure they do, but in the amount that they would move to increase the value of my business within a certain year is insignificant.

Okay, um, well, for the sake of consistency, I appreciate, you know, all of your, all of your disclosures. Um, however, you know, in my view, you do have an actively fished SO4H permit which is under consideration, um, and so I will rule a financial conflict of interest. Um, however, uh, that would not preclude you from deliberating, only voting at this time. Um, Is there any questions or discussion?

I have a question. Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Wood, have you ever, since you've owned your permit, fished in an area other than the lease site that you have on the northwest side of Cook Inlet? Not really, no. I mean, when it was possible, like I every year I have to register in the Northern District.

That's a regulation that, that you have to do as a setnetter in Cook Inlet. So every year I register in the Northern District because that's where I own the property and the DNR shore lease, and I have no interest or no desire to go anywhere else. In fact, I can't even make it to Anchorage without dying half the time, so I don't really want to go anywhere. I know how to fish this site, and I've moved around my area a little bit locally, like south of Tyonek, just to visit friends and see how they set net down there, and help them, but I know I only fish in the mud, uh, right in front of my house. And then maybe just to follow up, Madam Chair, um, I don't remember who was last year, the year before, but prior chair, uh, John Wood had an opinion from the Attorney General's Office specific to Mr. Wood.

Are you taking that into consideration when making your decision right now on his recusal? I am. Go ahead. Are you— I don't know if you're asking me that or— I was asking you. Yes.

Yeah. Okay. I am taking that into consideration, and, and the, the, uh, Attorney General's opinions that I've seen primarily of late, and I think that the bulk of what, um, was was communicated in Mr. Wood's ethics, or the Attorney General's opinion, was that was a board determination. And so the board has— the board gets to determine what essentially is meaningful, significant, and that would constitute a financial or personal conflict. So that, that is my recollection, that is that's kind of, you know, the gist of the opinion.

If Mr. Wood, you'd like to add anything to that, please, please feel free.

Yeah, I guess the only thing I'd like to add to it is I think you mentioned often the sake of consistency, and, and I appreciate that. I think the problem with this system of having the chair be the ethics advisor without involving the Attorney General makes it more up to grabs whether the personality of the ethics advisor— and I hopefully down the road this could change so that this determination is only made potentially through the Attorney General and not just the Chair— would be helpful, especially since during this last period of time that I was able to rule on this, I was the primary author of the Kenai River late run Salmon Stock of Concern Management Plan that is currently in existence along with Colton Lipka and Matt Miller. So I'm really very familiar with this topic. I think I could add value to it, so that's why I appreciate House Bill 33, but I also think there's— that my ability to vote on it or not would not significantly impact my business whatsoever. So for now, I'll go with whatever you say.

Okay, any other questions? In terms of the financial interest, since we're going to be specific around that, I think you mentioned, and I put on the record in past conflict of interest discussions related to your permit in Cook Inlet, that roughly $15,000 permit value and roughly $5,000 income totals approximately $20,000. I consider that to be a significant financial interest. The legislature can decide whether that is the case or not. I don't have that guidance, and the fact that you also have an active permit in the fishery under consideration is the other, really the driving reason why I'm going to maintain the conflict.

And again, you are, have the ability to participate fully up to the voting stage.

We got an objection. Mr. Carpenter, would you like to speak to your objection specifically? I would like to speak to it. I think that to be fair to Mr. Wood and anyone else, quite frankly, that were be— were to be the owner of a permit in this state, I think that the last year is the first year that I can recall in the 35 years that I've been participating in Board of Fish meetings that the value of a permit was included in the financial aspect of a person's recusal. The income that's derived from the permit has typically been the threshold.

And I know we've discussed this before, and I won't belabor this, but I'm not— I don't really believe that adding the value of a permit is necessarily the threshold that we ought to be looking at. And so for those reasons, I object. Okay, I will respond to that, then I'll open it up. The value of a permit goes up and down based on the success of the fishery. So if presumably fish, more fish are able to be caught and a greater income is able to be derived from the permit use, then that value can go up or go down.

So if you're The way I'm looking at it, if you have, are able to make decisions on whether fish or more fish or less fish are able to, you know, swim into your net or whatever else, I think it's appropriate that the value of the permit be consideration since it is an asset, it is a financial asset, and I will take Ms. Erwin and then Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. With regards to Mr. Carpenter's question, Madam Chair, I just had a clarifying question. Am I correct in understanding that it's up to you as the Ethics Chair to determine whether or not that permit value and/or income be included in your determination? I believe so, because I don't— aside from minimal guidance related to ethics disclosure requirements for gifts, $250, I think that there is a threshold for corporate interests.

I think that's around $5,000, but I could be— I need to review that specifically. That's not the case here necessarily, but it is around the same number.

So yes, it is up to the chair. And then as we're going through that process, you see that there's an objection, and it's really up to the board to determine whether or not they'd like to agree or disagree with the chair's ruling. Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chair. This one's just really quick and easy.

Point of clarification, when you ruled that Member Wood was conflicted, were you referring to Proposal 192 specifically or in general? I just wanted to—. Yes, thank you for that clarification. Yes, it was specific to 192. I'm off my game on a Zoom.

It's kind of weird. Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain. Mr. Svenson.

Well, I'll put my two cents in, but I think that what Mr. Wood said about having an AG make these decisions would make a lot more sense because I think this puts the chair in a kind of a crappy position all the time, and then it has to be discussed and on and on. If this was all decided, you know, before the season, you know, before the meetings start, the decisions were made by the AG on any of this kind of stuff, then you wouldn't be in that, or any other chair that we have in the future wouldn't be put on the spot. That's my two cents. Thank you. Um, any other comments?

Mr. Wood, can I—. I'd just like to add that it was appropriate for me to to not participate in the last decision made on the Central District of Cook Inlet because I couldn't say without a straight face that more fish would come to me because it was essential to the inlet. And I worked at the Mass Fish and Wildlife Commission and even advocated to really be careful of the amount of fishing we had— we did out there, conservation. So for those reasons, I realized that's why I recused myself, and I think that was the right thing to do. In this case, I'm not recusing myself because I think the impact is so insignificant that it doesn't matter.

And those are my personal ethics. So I just feel like I wish that would be taken into account here when these decisions are being made. I also agree, I don't buy my permit every year, and the Cook Inlet setnet permit is the lowest one out there besides maybe hand trolling somewhere in Southeast. So, and the permit's done nothing but go down in value for the last 50 years. So for what it's worth.

Thanks, Mr. Wood. Ms. Erwin. Can I ask Mr. Wood a question? Yes. Mr. Wood, my question for you is, in your statement you mentioned that this would make minimal impact or change to your fishery within the next year.

However, is it my understanding that you're planning to keep your setnet permit longer than 1 year, or do you intend to—. Yes, I mean, yep, no, I've, I've had it for 10 years. I filed an intent to transfer recently, trying to consider whether it was worth it or not being recused on these Cook and Lit issues, to be honest. But I have not transferred my permit, and my intention is to keep it. Okay, thank you.

Any other board questions? Is the objection maintained?

Yes, it is. All right, um, Mr. Nelson, will you call the roll on the, uh, whether to maintain the chair's ruling on the conflict of interest?

And just for clarification, if Mr. Lee agrees with me, I, I don't believe Mr. Wood will vote on this. That is correct, Mr. Nelson. Okay. Thank you. So the vote here will be, should the Chair's ruling be upheld?

So a yes vote maintains the conflict. A no vote overturns the Chair's ruling. Everyone clear on that? Okay. Irwin?

Yes. Chamberlain? Yes. Godfrey?

No.

Svenson? Yes. Carlson-Vandort? Yes. Carpenter?

Yes. Uh, the chair's ruling is sustained. 4 In favor, 2 against, Madam Chair. Thank you. Uh, let's see, where were we at in the ethics process?

Mr. Chamberlain?

Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Curt Chamberlain. I was raised on the Kuskokwim River. I'm currently employed as Deputy General Counsel for— with Chulista Corporation, an Alaska regional Native corporation. I oversee corporate governance, litigation, regulatory compliance, and general business law on behalf of the corporation.

I'm a shareholder of the Kuskokwim Corporation and a shareholder descendant of Chalista Corporations and receive distributions from the Kuskokwim Corporation each year. In the past year, I've received residual income from the sale of a law firm and rental properties. I currently own a controlling interest in Neon Law Group Incorporated, which is currently winding down and not conducting business. I will receive a stipend for my service on this board. I currently hold an Alaska fishing and hunting, fishing and trapping license.

Neither I, my family, nor my employer have a financial interest in fisheries. I have no interest in any business or Fish and Wildlife organization that may be affected by any of the proposals or an agenda or discussed in this meeting. My father owns a commercial drift net permit in the Middle Kuskokwim that hasn't been used since 1996. Neither I, any member of my immediate family, nor my employer are involved in any lawsuit where the state, the board, or the department is a party to the lawsuit. Uh, this information is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge.

Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain. Question for you: you mentioned you have a hunting, fishing, and trapping license. Is that a sport fishing license, or is that a— what kind of license, fishing license, is that? Uh, it's the one where I paid for all, uh, hunting, fishing, and, and trapping. So sport fishing would be included in that, uh, although I, I intend to fill my freezer with it all.

Okay, questions?

Seeing none, um, I rule that you can fully participate in the matters before us today. Um, that takes us to Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Tom Carpenter. I reside in Cordova.

I'm currently retired. I've divested myself completely of all businesses, including limited entry permits and IFQs. I receive the Alaska Permanent Fund dividend, as does my daughter, and I receive a stipend for serving on this this board. I purchase an Alaska sport fish hunt trap license each year and hold an annual Copper River subsistence permit. Neither I nor anyone in my immediate family have any financial interest in any business which relates to Fish and Wildlife resources or belong to organizations which have any financial gain that can be attributed.

There are no proposals before the board that will benefit myself or anyone in my immediate family. No member of my family is involved in any lawsuits against the State of Alaska or the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and I believe this statement to be true, correct, and complete.

Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Any questions for Member Carpenter? Seeing none, I rule that you can fully participate in today's agenda, and I will turn it over to you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Would you please put your ethics statement on the record?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, my name is Marit Carlson Van Dohrt. I was born and raised in Alaska, currently reside in Anchorage. I'm employed as the President and CEO of Far West Incorporated, which is the village corporation for Chignik Bay formed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

I am I'm also a shareholder in Bristol Bay Native Corporation and in Koniag Native Corporation. I receive State of Alaska Permanent Fund dividends, and I purchase a resident sport fish license annually. I will receive a stipend for my service on this board. Mr. Chair, neither I, members of my immediate family, nor my employer have a financial interest in fisheries.

Similarly, neither I, members of my immediate family, nor my employer are involved with any lawsuits with the State of Alaska, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, or the Board of Fisheries. And this information is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge. Thank you very much. Any board questions for Madam Van Dort? Seeing none, I rule that you do not have a conflict and you can fully participate in the matters before us, and I will turn the chair back to you.

Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Okay, moving on. We always talk a moment about respectful workplace. The Alaska Board of Fisheries and ADF&G are united in support of fostering that respectful workplace and are committed to ensuring that we Our workplace is free from negative, aggressive, and inappropriate behaviors. Of course, harassment of any type won't— is not acceptable and won't be tolerated.

And appreciate everyone's cooperation in joining us in this effort. In accordance with the Open Meetings Act, the board staff published a notice in the Alaska Online Public Notice System and in a statewide newspaper, posted the notice on the board's website as our designated posting place, and also distributed it to our list of email recipients. I'm not going to take the time to read it here, but copies of the notice are posted on the board's webpage for this meeting or available from the executive director for those who are interested in the complete text. And I believe that goes the same for the supplemental notice that went through the exact same process. The public notices and proposals are all posted online and were sent by email to interested organizations and individuals.

Public comments were solicited, and the board members have received copies of all on-time public written comments. The timely public comments and timely advisory committee comments are available for the Board's use and are posted on the Board's webpage for this meeting. And I will note that the normal on-time public comments were accepted until 5:00 PM yesterday. Copies of the tentative agenda for this meeting can also be found on the Board's webpage for this meeting. The agenda is subject to change throughout the meeting, but attempt It will generally be made to stay on the agenda.

It's a relatively short agenda. Um, so I'm not anticipating any deviations from it. With respect to record copies during this meeting, the board is accepting short written comments referred to as record copies or RCs submitted electronically as a Word document or a PDF through the board's website. A link to the submission portal is prominently featured on the board's meeting page of our website where all of the materials for this meeting are posted. Please note that this online meeting is not expected to last more than a few hours, God willing, and we will be going right into deliberation.

So because of this, the page limit on RCs is no more than 5 single-sided pages total per person or organization. Board staff, board support staff will be processing and posting RCs to the meeting page as they are received. So if you're watching the meeting page for these documents, refresh your browser regularly to see the update. With no exception, all materials which are to be submitted to the board for its consideration must be uploaded through our website. Please do not send documents to board members directly.

And again, while you have the right to submit up to 5 pages, please keep in mind that this is a short meeting with limited opportunities for board members to read the RCs. So as usual, the fewer pages it takes to say what you need, the better opportunity we're going to have to have to read the material in a timely manner. And I will be taking breaks RC breaks throughout this meeting just so that we can check the website to see if any RCs are coming up and give members an opportunity to read those RCs. So I'll probably take a short break when we get through this just to check on RCs before we get into deliberations, and I will likely take a very short break after each proposal is deliberated so that again we can refresh and check and see if there's new RCs that have come in that we can read. If anybody has any concerns with that approach or suggestions on how we can make sure that we have an opportunity to check the RCs as they're coming in, I'm open to suggestions or thoughts on that.

And the other thing I would note that right now I had considered sort of timing out RCs and not accepting them past a certain time. I don't know how long this is going to take. I don't want to, you know, inadvertently set an arbitrary timeframe. So, my plan is to accept RCs throughout the meeting and again, just try and take frequent breaks in between deliberations of proposals to check on them. Any questions, thoughts, comments, insults?

Mr. Svenson.

I know I'm last but not least, and you forgot me. I'm hurt. I didn't give my ethics statements, if you'd like it. Mr. Svenson, I am sorry, I had you on my list here and I just went right past you.

Apologize for that. It would be my pleasure to invite you to give your ethics statement.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll make it short and sweet. Uh, my name is Greg Swenson. Good afternoon. My name is Greg Swenson.

I was born and raised in Anchorage. I'm married with one daughter and grandson. My wife and I are retired school teachers. My daughter is a retired principal and grandson is graduating from high school. I am also a retired licensed contractor.

We derive income from teacher retirement, residential rentals, CDs, and I receive a stipend for being on the board. I also hold a hunting and fishing license and a private pilot's license. We do not have any suits against the State of Alaska Fish and Game or Board of Fish. This is true to the best of my abilities. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions for Member Swenson? Thank you for keeping me on my toes. Member Swenson, seeing no questions, I rule that you can fully participate on today's agenda. Any questions about the RC process from board members?

Okay.

Similarly, for testimony at this meeting, we are not going to be doing public testimony or committee of the whole, although that is typically part of the board process. It's not required regulatorily, and the logistics for conducting a short meeting with those aspects, as Board Support has intimated to me, would be very difficult, if not impossible. So we're going to roll, you know, through deliberations once we get through kind of the opening business here. At that time, at this time, I'll pause. We're about ready to begin deliberations on 4 proposals.

After we deliberate on these proposals, we do have an emergency petition to consider, and we'll do that under miscellaneous business before we adjourn. Any questions from board members or staff at this time?

Okay, I'd like to take our first about 5-minute, let's come, 8-minute break. We'll come back at 1:50. I want to check our seas and see if anything has come in. And if nothing has come in, I'll call us back to order a little bit earlier than that. So we'll pause right now to check the website for RCs.

All right, thank you.

On the record. Annie, can you let us know when we're going live again?

Maybe, maybe she's muted, folks. For Annie, nope, you are live. Okay, all right. So we're back from the break. The time is 1:52.

We're back on the record, and I just want everybody to confirm that they had an opportunity to check on the RCs that have come on this thus far.

Okay, so I guess at this time we'll begin deliberations. We'll begin deliberations with Proposal 189. Proposal 189, please. Proposal 189, 5 AAC 96.6 new section and 5 AAC 01.249.

Madam Chair, move to adopt Proposal 189 with substitute language found in RC3. I second and ask for unanimous consent. Is there any objection?

Seeing none, the board has before it, um, uh, Proposal Number 189 with substitute language found in RC3 in lieu of the original proposal. Staff comments, please.

Proposal 189 would establish a traditional knowledge policy and regulation to provide guidance on how the Board will incorporate traditional knowledge, or TK, into its process. The proposal also establishes definitions for the terms traditional knowledge and local knowledge. In November 2023, the Board's Process Committee discussed ways to incorporate different knowledge types, including traditional knowledge and local knowledge, into the Board's decision-making process. In March 2024, the Board adopted Board Policy 2024-305-FB to recognize the value and importance of both local and traditional knowledge in their decision-making. Since that time, traditional knowledge holders have provided TK information during time allocated for reports scheduled after staff reports and before public testimony.

Through this process, the Board recognized TK reports are meant to be different from public testimony, where members of the public have the opportunity to provide information, either written or verbal, relevant to specific proposals. The policy also recognized that TK reports are meant to provide board members with information that is deeper in breadth and scope, that describes a worldview that encompasses cultural norms such as reciprocity, respect, and relationality. It is not meant to speak to speak to specific proposals. Finally, during the November 2025 AYK meeting, the board adopted Proposal 15, which added the term traditional knowledge to the Yukon River Fallchum Management Plan. However, at that time, there was no codified definition of traditional knowledge, and as a result, the board did not have the authority to add this terminology to the regulation.

This proposal defines traditional knowledge, and so the term would be restored to that plan at 5 AAC01- or sorry,.249. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Brown. Appreciate the comments and sort of the refresher on why we're even visiting this at this time. It really was meant to be offered as a bit of a housekeeping proposal because of the issue that we ran into with the regulation lawyers and there not being a definition and regulation of traditional knowledge. You'll notice that I did offer substitute language in RC3, and the reason, um, to doing so and the terms that you find in here is that I wanted to focus the regulations on definitions rather than on implementation. The policy defines how the board is implementing it now.

The policy is not binding, um, it is meant as a guidance document, at least that's how I see it. So this actually creates some definitions so that they can be referenced in other not only in the management plan that we considered at the meeting, but also in future meetings. There's, there's a definition of what this is. Again, these definitions were derived from directly from the policy, which borrowed heavily from the protocol at the NPFMC. So again, there's a lot of the implementation piece was struck, and the reason I did so is to not hamstring or restrict future boards from deciding how they would— and chairs from deciding how they would like to implement the traditional knowledge portion.

And to wit, for example, we are going to be holding a process committee meeting here in the relatively near future, perhaps as early as next month. And one of the things that I wanted to discuss at the process committee, which will be on the agenda, is the implementation of TK and how it's been going for this past cycle. So I wanted to be able to make adjustments based on public comments, and if we had kept the original language, I don't think that we would have been able to do that without having to go back through the proposal process and amend regulation. So this was offered in the interest of flexibility. And not being, um, not wedding future boards and chairs to a specific, um, a specific implementation, and allowing that flexibility for refinement with public input in the future.

And I'll open it up for questions or comments at this point. Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple questions. I guess first off, so this substitute language, when I look at the staff comments, it's specifically towards Proposal 189. This is a little bit different.

And, you know, as Ms. Brown stated earlier, there was kind of a technical reason why at the end of RC3 in 5A CO1249, there was some language that was added. Um, I guess my question is, is do the department's comments now when they look at RC3, um, are they different than they were to Proposal 189? And then I guess my second part of that question would be, if this is implemented, Does the department feel like including the language in 5A CO1249, um, kind of forces their hand a little bit, um, while I guess enforcing this management I guess that's the best way I could ask it. So look for that, look for that answer. Ms. Brown or Dr. Widder?

Through the chair, Member Carpenter, to your first question, as I recall it, it's whether or not there's enough similarity between RC3, the substitute language, and the proposal itself.

So based on what Madam Chair just said, I guess I would answer that question by saying that the substitute language at this point provides some definitional structure that's needed, but that I believe she mentioned that the Process Committee will be taking up the— this issue at a later date. She also mentioned that at the statewide meeting. In March and to maybe address some of the more process-oriented questions. So in terms of the substitute language and the definitions, I think the core of the definitions are represented in the substitute language.

I'm going to ask In terms of the management plan, I think I would prefer the Division of Commercial Fisheries to speak to that.

Mr. Bowers? Thanks, Madam Chair.

So looking at the substitute language in RC3 that deals with 5AAC WAC 01.249, you know, that paragraph describes types of information that the department shall use when managing the subsistence fishery, and it adds traditional knowledge to that list of information sources. And so from my perspective, I mean, we The department has broad discretion in the types of information that we use, and, you know, I don't view this list as being inclusive or limiting to the types of information that we would use. I mean, this certainly encompasses the type of information that we use in managing fisheries, but there might be other types of information that come available in the future, and you know, we'd want to use those as well. If I could just follow up, Madam Chair, for Mr. Bowers. I guess specific to the chum salmon management plan incorporating, you know, these three words into that, you know, the word shall is in this paragraph, and I guess when I see the word shall, and the board giving direction to the department in regulatory language, I, I guess I'm trying to figure out if that puts you in a situation where it becomes mandatory that you consider this information.

And how do you go about collecting that? And how is it analyzed? You know, those are just some of the questions that come to my mind. So if you could just touch on that.

Yeah, that's, that's a good question, Mr. Carpenter, and it, you know, raises questions in my mind, you know, to when do we know that we've, um, fully utilized these types of information, right? You know, a person could argue that, well, you didn't have all of the traditional knowledge or you hadn't considered all of it or maybe some other information, you know, you didn't utilize all that or you didn't have it. So, um, you know, I think we would have to think about internal processes that we would use to ensure that We are considering those types of information given that shall language that is fairly prescriptive. I think Commissioner Vincent Lang has his hand up as well. He may have more to add on this.

Commissioner? Yeah, if I could, Madam Chair. Sorry, after you, Commissioner, we'll go to Mike Wood, Greg Sunson, and Miss Erwin. Sorry, thank you. You want me to wait then?

No, no, feel free to answer. Okay, um, the way I read the language there is the department shall use the best available information, comma, including. So there's a whole list of things there that are, are possibly the best source of information. We may at some point not have a preseason projection. That doesn't mean that we can't do it.

It's just that'll be one of the types of information that we would use that all incorporates, um, the best available information. So So I don't see this as limiting our ability to not use scientific information. It's just how we're going to use this information in combination. Any single time we may not have any one of those single points of estimate, that doesn't mean we can't do anything. The only other question I have on this one is I was thinking back to that board meeting and the regulation now defines traditional knowledge and local knowledge, but we're not incorporating the best available information to include both traditional and local local knowledge.

And I can't remember if that was a discussion the board had to just limit it to traditional knowledge or to incorporate, in terms of how we're making decisions, to include both traditional and local knowledge in the actual UConn plan.

Thank you. I don't know if, um, Miss Irwin would like to speak to that. I have my thoughts, um, since it was your substitute language in that plan. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for the opportunity to respond.

Thanks for the question, Mr. Commissioner. I think that's a good one. Um, at this time, I believe that the, the wording, um, of simply being just traditional knowledge being incorporated into the Yukon management plan, um, was simply, um, uh, potentially my, uh, my lack of understanding of, of knowing exactly what that term traditional local knowledge was that the board used in their policy at that time as a new board member. So I believe that my intent would follow along with the policy of potentially being traditional and local. However, I'm open to a conversation, a discussion about that, because I hadn't considered that at the time.

My thoughts on that, Commissioner, is that certainly local knowledge is included, and that's the advisory committee process that is, you know, has been informing board and management decisions for many, many years. Um, and I think that that in the policy is articulated well, um, in subsequent discussions on the record that the board has had in the adoption of the policy. I don't know if that's helpful for you at all.

Okay, um, Mr. Wood and then Mr. Sunset. Okay, um, so I really appreciate having been on the process committee when this whole thing started and it was, uh, Member VanDort, uh, Swenson, and I, and John Wood stepped in to take Greg Swenson's spot. So, um, having been a part of this process from the whole time, I've been really encouraged at how it's gone, um, because I think it should be a valuable part of the decision-making process, the technical, the, uh, traditional knowledge. And, uh, I think, I think it gives us a better understanding especially of very localized areas. And so when that traditional knowledge is brought to us on specific areas where people have gained this knowledge, I think it's super important, especially if it applies to their area, to the area which they live, they gain that knowledge.

When we started this, I understood it to be originally a way of just being able to publicly hear them in meetings. So, such as 5AEC 96.6XX. And that's what I thought this proposal was all about, was applying to this and how to incorporate a space to acknowledge traditional knowledge in the meeting process and, and hearing from that to better educate the board members. Then, so I, I guess my question is But if that was the original intent of, of the land, of this proposal, and then this amendment gets used, this amendment starts actually utilizing traditional knowledge in a different way than what I thought Proposal 189 was all about. And I'm just wondering, why is that?

Like, all of a sudden we added something different here.

Or did I miss something? I'm not sure what we're adding. I think most of— well, there was a little bit of a rewrite done by Law just to sort of make it conform more to a regulation versus the policy. But the intent here is in the policy, the board formally recognized traditional knowledge as being an important aspect of best available science, full stop. The board did that already.

And as part of that, um, the way that we tried to implement the introduction and the, the access that the board has to that traditional knowledge was through the process that we have been utilizing and refining over time, right? So I think what this is doing is defining exactly what that is for the regulatory purposes, for the legal, you know, nuts and bolts of it. But it also takes that step in also codifying the fact that traditional knowledge is a part of best available science, as I read it. And that's already been acknowledged by the board. Mr. Lee might have some additional thoughts in that space.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to offer some thoughts on what RC3 does compared to what the original Proposal 189 did. Um, all the language in RC3 is taken directly from the original proposal language. Um, there's nothing new that RC3 does when compared to the original proposal.

Another major change here is that it omits the procedure aspects of Proposal 189. It does just provide the definitions of these concepts. It will codify it and therefore allow for the introduction of the TK into the 5AAC 1249. So I don't know if there's any follow-up questions to that, but that's essentially what this does. There's nothing new that this accomplishes.

Mr. Wood. Okay. Yeah, thanks. So, but I guess What I was thinking was that what it did was it, it got the first part of this, which is 96.6XX, and now it's being applied down in 5 AAC 01.249.1. And was the intent of, of this definition of traditional knowledge to be put beside other areas of science in a separate, you know, management plan already because of this amendment.

And now we're— now we shall utilize it in relation to, you know, sonar escapement, test fisheries, and commercial fisheries reports, like Was, was that, was that the intent originally of Proposal 189? Um, I'll let Eddie supplement my answer to that. I think in that, that piece is to add traditional knowledge back into the regulation that we passed at AYK that created the legal snafu. Okay. And Eddie, I don't know if you'd Add anything to that?

Not much, Madam Chair. I think you actually, you covered it all. This was previously passed. It was rejected at the point where it was ready to be submitted to the Lieutenant Governor for codification. Now it's just back on the table to kind of cure the defects from the previous time the board passed it.

Thank you. Mr. Svenson.

Well, yeah, that's— this is what I had the question about when I really put my hand up. I guess I'm just a little— does this tradition— does this apply just to the AYK, or will this then apply to all areas?

Um, it's explicitly in that second section applies to the AYK management plan, but it is a definition, so it is defining what it is so that it may or may not be used in other regulations. And I don't know if Mr. Lee would add on to that. Yes, Madam Chair. So for the, the amendment to 5AAC 96.6, What that would do, that would affect the board's incorporation of this type of knowledge as an aspect of available science.

It wouldn't affect any other management plans in the way that the amendment to the UConn plan does in the same language.

So it's defining it, but it's only defined in the terms of, I mean, it's only being applied at this point in, in the Yukon, in the— with respect to proposal, I think it was 15 or RC 15.

Do you have any follow-up questions?

Okay, I guess, I guess, okay, it just applies to this because I can see that, you know, you don't want to have, as Mr. Bowers brought out, you don't want to be waiting on traditional knowledge in some of these other areas to before you make your decisions about, you know, how openings and so on and so forth. I'm assuming that this traditional knowledge in the AYK would be after the run has started, but I may be wrong. I mean, I guess, well, that would have to be after the run has started because that's the only way traditional knowledge which, you know, they don't have the ability to, you know, looking— they're not looking at the other, you know, the other sonars and so on and so forth. So I guess that you would use their knowledge after the— I can see where their knowledge would be useful after the run had started and in different, maybe different parts of the river, they can, you know, look and add their two cents in as to what kind of a run that is. Yeah, I think it could be considered in conjunction with other best available science, including sonar counts, weir counts, and the other pre— and forecasting tools and metrics that the department currently uses.

So it's not an either-or proposition. And I guess, you know, it says— yeah, well, anyway, that's, that's fine. I don't want to belabor this. Thank you. Commissioner?

Yeah, I just want to add real quick, because it says including, that means based on the interpretation we had this discussion earlier, I could still use local knowledge in addition to traditional knowledge because I'm not limited to that list of things because it just includes— it could be other things other than those. Yes, this is not meant to be exclusive. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Miss Irwin, and then Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a couple thoughts, but first I have a question for the department. I have a question for an Yukon area manager or somebody who can speak to it. My question is with regards to Mr. Carpenter's question on the Yukon River for fall chum. In the last year or two, have commercial fishing reports been used for management decisions?

To your question, so, Ms. Hurwen, your question was on the, for Fall Chum, have commercial fishing reports been used for management decisions? In the last year or two. Last year or two, I don't believe so because we haven't been commercial fishing. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you, Mr.

Bowers. Yeah, that speaks to my point that You know, also some of these questions that are coming up, it's curious because they didn't come up at AYK. So this was passed, the traditional knowledge portion being included in the best available science was passed by a 7-0 unanimous vote at AYK, and none of these questions were being brought up. So I think that's curious. I think that there's the conversation around issues with the definition itself and the wording can be appropriate in this conversation.

Um, but the issue with including it into the best available science is curious to me since we already made that determination. Um, some areas that I, um, have seen this taking place in true management decisions, uh, which is what we've been asked of— we had a testifier come at AYK and said that she wanted more meaningful incorporation of traditional knowledge, and, uh, Member Carlson-Vandore asked how. And I think that this is what it looks like to meaningfully integrate traditional knowledge into our fisheries management decisions and practices, building upon the policy that was already implemented.

In the Yukon area, last fishing season, the managers were looking to provide additional opportunity, and some locals came with suggestions on non-salmon spawning tributaries throughout the Yukon where whitefish could be harvested using 6-inch nets. And so using the Anadrus Water Catalog along with traditional knowledge, Yukon area managers were able to open those areas, those tributaries, for whitefish opportunities. So I see that as a direct incorporation of it. I also just want to make a comment on the fact that we are being asked to define traditional knowledge. So The process of incorporating traditional knowledge into our management decisions has been a board acknowledgement and then a board policy, and now it's a codification of a definition, and then it's going to be able to be inserted into regulation.

And my question for Department of Law is, as I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, there's no codified definition within the regulatory handbook of preseason projections, main river sonar passage estimates, or any of the other aspects that are listed as best available data. So my question is, why was the Department of Law's determination that we needed to define this and codify this definition when none of the other aspects of best available science are defined or codified within ADF&G's reg book?

Thank you for the question.

[Speaker:JASON] I think the key distinction here is traditional knowledge is a term of art. The other things mentioned in the management plan—test fisheries indices, subsistence and commercial fishing reports—those have a plain meaning, whereas traditional knowledge, it's not necessarily clear what that means if you just heard it out of context. I think that was probably the primary basis for that. I'm also not necessarily familiar of, you know, where these other terms would be defined. You mentioned a— was it a code book, something like that?

But that's the primary reason. It's a term of art.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Lee, for that clarification. I think those are all my comments for now. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

I think first of all, I'd like to give a little context to maybe the comment that I made earlier in regards to 5A(C)(1)(2)(4)(9). You know, we're creating two definitions here, one for local knowledge and one for traditional knowledge. But the reason that I brought the question up earlier was it only asks to add traditional local knowledge to 5 AAC 01249, and I couldn't figure out why local knowledge was not being incorporated. If that's the intent of the board, great. And if that satisfies the legal hurdle, then, then I'm okay with that.

That, that just seemed like a pretty obvious thing that to me, if we're going to do this, then, then we should add both of them, I think. So secondly, I guess, you know, this is something that the board has taken on, you know, through a couple process committee hearings, and we've incorporated traditional knowledge into our meetings. And I think that slowly but surely people have appreciated the fact and enjoyed the fact that they could participate in our meetings.

Under this format, and quite frankly, I'm, I'm, I'm in favor of that.

I guess the question I really have is— it's really more of a process question. You know, this is fairly new. This is not used in any other format. I don't believe the Board of Game uses this, but that's their determination to make. Is, is this better in a different format than on an online Zoom meeting.

I've just tried to think about, is there a reason that we need to rush to put these definitions in place without more public engagement? Because I think that's a big part of what traditional knowledge is. It's public engagement. And we're having a meeting right now to enact regulatory language and definitions where the public isn't engaged. And I really don't have a problem with this, but I do have a problem with that part of it.

So I'll listen to what other board members have to say. I think, you know, as the chair stated, we're going to have a process committee sometime this summer, and I'm not sure that us putting this in regulation right now is going to change necessarily anything that is going to happen this summer. I think we could have very easily done this in October at our work session, and and, um, you know, to, to Miss Irwin, who, you know, is recused from this because, you know, her, you know, and she chose to recuse her, recuse herself, and I respect that. But I also think that it's— this is something that is probably, if it was to be taken up in October and there was more public engagement, I think that she should absolutely have the right to vote on on something like this. So, I mean, those are my positions right now.

I'm not going to stand in the way of this going through, but I just want to make sure that it's clear that I believe local knowledge ought to be added there. And if Mr. Lee and the board's intent is that that be included, then, you know, I'm fine with that. I just, I really struggle with the idea of the public engagement part because that is what traditional and local knowledge is.

Mr. Simpson. No, Mr. Godfrey.

Yeah, Greg, you're muted. How's that? Okay. It seems to me if you have traditional knowledge, you have to be local. How else are you going to have traditional knowledge in an area if you're not local?

I don't know. I think it would get And things kind of— maybe I'm missing something here, but that's my comment on this. Mr. Godfrey. Yeah, um, I'm listening to the discussion. I have a little bit of technical issues and dropped off, but came back on.

I'd like to make an amendment to strike the 'and traditional knowledge' language from that.

Okay, we have an amendment. Is there a second?

I would second that.

Okay, so I'm going to— is there any questions?

Madam Chair, just for clarification, that is to strike it from the 5AAC01249, the lower section? That's correct. Yeah. And I can speak to that, Madam Chair, why I made that. Is there an objection to the motion?

I'm going to object to the motion for the purposes of discussion at least. Mr. Godfrey. I just think that it would change the way Alaska assesses salmon runs, and I just feel like it goes far beyond this proposal. And that's not to say there won't be a time, and even if it's confined to one fishery, You know, once it is, that's the camel's nose intent. You know, what Svensson was discussing earlier, once there's a precedent for it, who's to say how expansive that gets?

And again, that's not to say I'm opposed to that, but it's more along the lines of what Board Member Carpenter said, because I think the RC was introduced, you know, after the public comment period closed. So there's no public testimony at this meeting. There's no committee of the whole. And it would be a pretty significant amendment to the regulations without public input, which I'm not comfortable with. And yeah, I think we all agree fisheries should be managed based on science and hard data, not something as subjective as historical observations, but I think there's a balance to be had there, and I think certainly historical observations have a place.

The shall language I find a little bit problematic, but Essentially, my reason for it is along the lines of what Board Member Carpenter said. I think that this could be dealt with, um, in a subsequent meeting where there is full transparency and public input. I'm going to speak to my objection. First of all, as I've mentioned before, these terms, these definitions are nothing new. There have been multiple opportunities for the public to weigh in on that.

That's another reason why we have the RCs open also so that we can continue to take information from the public on this. The difference is that it's going from something that is a policy, it's just defining what it is so that it can be utilized if and when the board wants to in regulation. I would further echo Miss Irwin's comments earlier that this, with respect to the objection AAC-01249-1, that was passed unanimously by the board at the AYK. So all of a sudden the board has an issue with that language in here. That strikes me as very strange.

So, and with respect to the local knowledge aspect, nobody is discounting the local knowledge aspect of it. We're just defining it also so that it is more clear how it differs from the board's definitions of traditional knowledge. Local knowledge has always been an aspect of the management decisions. Again, I would note through not only the advisory committee processes, but also through the public testimony processes. I don't see this as curtailing or cutting off public comment at all.

There's nothing that would, um, that would prevent somebody from, um, creating a proposal, uh, to adjust or change the definitions of this at any point in the future, whether that's at a statewide meeting or or something to be considered as an ACR or something at a work session. We don't create regulations at the work session. That would have to be taken up either at a special meeting such as this one that the board voted to, to address. I don't remember what the, what the board's vote was on accepting the BGP, but I'm pretty sure it was unanimous. Wasn't it?

Perhaps not. I will stand corrected on this, but, you know, the board did accept the BGP.

Let's see, Miss Brown.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And again, for the record, I'm Caroline Brown, the research director for the Division of Subsistence. I just wanted to clarify a few points that were made on the record in both questions. And comment.

It is true that local knowledge is local, and traditional knowledge also tends to be quite localized. That is something they have in common, but there are other aspects of those two knowledge types that are quite different. And I also just wanted to clarify that I think both local knowledge and traditional knowledge, but especially traditional knowledge as a knowledge type, far exceeds historical observation. That's all. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Brown. Mr. Chamberlain or Mr. Wood and then Mr. Chamberlain.

Mike, you're muted.

Okay. Process again. It's taken 2 years and lots of meetings through the Process Committee to come up with the definitions, and the point was to have that adopted into 96.6xx. I was 100% supportive of this, have been since day one for that reason. All of a sudden now we have an amendment to this all to then add it to a whole different 5AAC With, and we're being asked to accept this right now without any debate on it.

To me, this should have been part of like why we added the extra— we took the time to add more time for fish wheels in the stock and management concern. So I just feel like this amendment, if it weren't for this amendment, 100%, just pass it. I support it. Completely. But now that it's being applied in separate language that the public hadn't had a chance to, to weigh in on, I'm less supportive of it.

Wait a second, timeout. So this language in 5AAC was passed by the board at the AYK meeting and included the and traditional knowledge language. This piece that's in this proposal was exactly what was passed by the board at the AYK meeting. With the—. And traditional knowledge was passed.

That was passed unanimously by the board at the AYK meeting. The issue arose when it got to the legal review of the regulation before it went to the Lieutenant Governor's office to be finalized, that there was no definition of traditional knowledge, and so therefore caused a problem to have it included in the language that the board unanimously passed. So that was the reason— that is the reason why we created definitions and why the BGP was created. So not only to— was to cure the issue that arose because there was no formal definition of traditional knowledge. This has been through the full AYK process.

Okay, well, I'm sorry for—. I stand corrected. I— no problem. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify it, Mike. Okay, let's see, we had Mr. Chamberlain, then Mr. Owen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I, yeah, I can't support this motion. And the big thing I think we're getting here is we're kind of putting process before practice. This is, you know, what we look at this in, you know, when we're dealing with minutes and with a lot of these things, these are Scrivener's errors. These are things that we're looking to go and make the language relatively clean on this.

And then if you tie it up in process every, every time, you're just going to create a bog where doing anything administratively becomes so bureaucratic and unwieldy that we can't get anything done. I think, I think there should be a faster way, if anything, to get things like these through without going through, you know, something more, more, you know, for something like this where we're just creating consistency among regulatory language. There should be a faster way of doing this, so I can't really support the object or the motion on this because it just— we're adding another administrative burden on something that is just clarifying something that, that the board already approved. So So with that, yeah, I'm— I, I can't support the motion. Thank you.

Okay, Mr. Wood, did you have another comment? Oh, nope, sorry. Oh, Mr. Carpenter, on the amendment, you're muted, Tom.

I guess I can't, um, support the amendment. So I guess I'll leave it at that. But I do have an interesting question once we vote on this, and it has something to do with a comment that the chair made in regards to maybe a technical question. So I'll leave it for later. Okay.

Any other discussion on the amendment?

My objection is maintained. Mr. Nelson, please call the roll on the amendment.

Yes, on the amendment, and I guess just a clarification, even though Mr. G, Madam Chair, if I could, I'm fine withdrawing the amendment if the board is. It's not going to pass. We can just forego the vote.

Are you withdrawing your amendment? I will if nobody objects. There's a second withdraw? Yes. Okay.

All right, so we have the proposal, our C-3 language in front of us and continue the discussion. Mr. Carpenter, still muted.

I guess just a question. If it's already passed and I, and I don't disagree with that, it did, why do we need to include that in this language? Language? Why don't we just need to pass the regulate— the definitions? My understanding was, is that it was an issue that the— because there was no definition of traditional knowledge, the legal review rejected the, the, the proposal, or what the regulation that was passed.

And so in order to accept it as the board passed it, we would need to define the traditional knowledge piece and then re-adopt. I think it was really an issue with the Administrative Procedures Act, um, requirements. But Eddie, please expand.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so yes, the board did previously pass this exact amendment back at the AYK meeting. In addition to this adding traditional knowledge to this plan, there other amendments within that proposal. Um, there are other modifications to it. When it gets to the point of review, once it's been passed and it gets to law for the final review before submission to the Lieutenant Governor, they can go line by line to each amendment through a proposal and basically line item them.

Everything else as part of that proposal was approved and sent over to the Lieutenant Governor. This is the only amendment that wasn't approved. And more importantly is, even though it was previously adopted by the board, once it's rejected, you cannot resurrect it without taking additional board action. This is that additional board action here at this meeting. Okay, that clarifies it then.

So the, the, this part was struck, it wasn't put into regulation. We are creating definitions and we are now reincorporating that in because that part was left out. Is that, is that basically the, the nuts and bolts? Yes, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

Okay, any other board discussion?

All right, um, cost.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for private person to participate in the fishery and approval of this proposal will not result in any additional cost to the department. I'd call the question. The question has been called. Any errors or omissions?

Israel, I can't see you on my board, so if, if you don't have one, stay silent. If you do, speak up now. All right, question's been called. Um, Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 189 as amended.

Chamberlain. Yes. Godfrey. Yes. Svenson.

Yes. Wood. Yes. Carlson-Vandort. Yes.

Carpenter. Yes. Motion carries, 6 in favor, 0 against. Madam Chair. Thank you.

Moving on to proposal number 190. Proposal number 190, please. Proposal 190, 5A305XXX, new section. Move to adopt. Second.

Okay. Great, staff comments please. Oh, sorry, for the record, Aaron Tiernan, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, AYK Regional Management Coordinator. This proposal, construction specifications for fish wheels used in the subsistence fishery would be established while the Yukon River King Salmon are listed as a stock of concern. Also, components of the Yukon River King Salmon action plan would be placed in the regulation as a stock Arctic Concern Management Plan, which includes delisting criteria and references to multiple existing regulations and policies such as the Yukon River King Salmon Management Plan, Yukon Management Area Educational Fishing Permit, Customary and Traditional Harvest of Salmon, and the Sustainable Salmon Fisheries Policy.

Management of shared fishery stocks on the Yukon River mainstem is conducted on a collaborative basis as described in the Yukon River Salmon Agreement, Chapter 8 of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, which includes Canadian origin king salmon. Additionally, the 7-year agreement between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the department was adopted in 2024 and specifies further management guidance of the mainstem Yukon River king salmon fisheries through 2030. Currently, there is not a stock of concern management plan for Yukon River King Salmon regulation. However, there are the— there is the Yukon River King Salmon Management Plan, which provides the department with guidelines for management of the King Salmon subsistence and commercial fisheries. Additionally, the gear and gear specification regulations found in 5 AAC 01-220 provide numerous tools for the department to implement within the subsistence fishery.

The newly established Yukon Management Area Educational Fishing Permit for customary and traditional harvest of salmon provides limited harvest opportunity during times when specific salmon species harvest cannot be reasonably accommodated.

If adopted, fish wheels being used in the subsistence fishery would need to be constructed in a fish-friendly manner consistent with specifications found in 5AC05.362(j)(1)(2).

This includes basket sides and bottoms consisting of soft mesh material similar to that of same web and with a slider chute with a smooth bottom and with closed-cell foam-lined sides. The King Salmon Management Plan and other gear regulations have been developed and refined over the last 2 decades while the stock has been listed as a stock yield concern. The commissioner may take additional actions using emergency order authority to limit time and area based on preseason and in-season indicators of abundance. As stated earlier, in 2024, Canada and Alaska implemented a rebuilding target, 71,000 Canadian-origin king salmon in the 7-year agreement. This states that the directed king salmon commercial sport, personal use fisheries will be closed regardless of run size in the directed king salmon subistence fishery in the mainstem Yukon River will be closed unless target is projected to be met.

Directed king salmon fishing in the subsistence fishery has been closed since midway through the 2020 season. There has not been a directed king salmon commercial fishery since 2008, and the sport fishery has been closed preseason since 2019. Despite the closures in all fisheries, sustainable goals have not been achieved since 2019. The department supports the addition of fish-friendly fish wheel gearbox specifications because they would help minimize injury and stress to king salmon that must be released alive, which could facilitate additional subsistence harvest opportunity for surplus chum salmon. The department opposes the remainder of this proposal because management, the management components are currently found in either the assistance regulations, the Yukon River King Salmon Management Plan, the Yukon Management Area Educational Fishing Permit for customary and traditional harvest of salmon, or exercise through the department's authority.

Placing the delisting criteria into regulations is complicated by the Yukon River Salmon Treaty and the 7-year agreement, which potentially trump state regulations. Adoption of this proposal as written may also conflict with Administrative Order No. 360 Because much of the plan duplicates existing regulations. Madam Chair. Okay, Mr. Tiernan or Mr. Bowers, um, would you please remind the board and the public why this has come before us in this form and sort of the history of the machinations of what brought us to this point considering it in a special meeting?

Um, I could take a stab at that, and then, yeah, if there's something to be added, maybe Mr. Bowers can step in. But, um, so going back, you know, excuse me, October at the work session, we brought the, uh, recommendation for stock of concern, um, and because of the timeline between that meeting and the November AYK meeting, the decision was to kind of put a pause on the Stalking Concern Action Plan and bring that forward to the board in the March statewide meeting. And so that, that's what was done. And then we worked with Member Erwin on some substitute language, which is primarily what is found in the proposal here. And I am not completely certain on all the specifics on why that couldn't be passed at that meeting.

And so it was kind of put a pause, and then here we are today. Thank you, Commissioner. Or, um, Mr. Bowers, can you please, um, sort of expand on that? I think if I remember, Madam Chair, I think there was an issue with public notice. That we couldn't take this up as final action at that board meeting, but maybe Eddie can, can confirm that that's the case.

Mr. Lee. Madam Chair, if I recall, and again, this is just my memory, uh, that there was an intent or, you know, a plan to codify changes here in this non-regulatory plan that wasn't provided in the notice of the last meeting. The board was free to amend the stock of concern management plan insofar as it was non-regulatory, but codifying it at that point was not appropriate. Okay. I just want to make sure everybody remembers—.

Refreshing everybody's memories, including my own, about why we're considering this now. So we did discuss the stock of concern action plan during the statewide meeting. However, it wasn't noticed for regulatory action, which is why the BGP came forward, because the member— Member Irwin wanted to make sure that aspects of the action plan were in reg, and I'll let Member Irwin speak to it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The intent behind bringing forward language that would be codified as a stock of concern management plan, um, i.e., an action plan, um, is really getting to the heart of the intent behind the stock of concern designation, which is to truly rebuild our stocks, rebuild depleting stocks that are no longer meeting escapement goals. And by codifying the intent that the board has and the management measures that our managers are going to take. I believe that it provides a much clearer direction, not only to existing staff but to— and the public— but to new staff, new commissioners, new board members, to be able to look at this one single plan and say, what is our direction while these are in a stock of concern designation? So that's really the, the point as to why my— there was my desire to codify this plan.

Um, it was mentioned, um, Erin mentioned that there's some reiterative language in here.

I believe it's incredibly important for us to recognize the vast nature of our regulatory handbook. When I was working on the substitute language with a couple of staff members, there were staff members who had to flip back and forth to multiple chapters in order to figure out all of the references within this plan. And I think that really highlights the difficulty that the public must face in trying to understand what the board and management is doing in these times of a stock of concern designation. So while there might be pieces within this plan that are reiterative, i.e., mentioning and citing the subsistence priority, citing the 7-year agreement, reaffirming that the subsistence— subsistence is a priority and that cultural education will be taken up. It is important that we continue to integrate these into our management plans and our strategies because I really feel like some of these start to get left out to the wayside.

Now, much of this plan wasn't— isn't all that original. The, the first portion of the plan, portion number 1, simply states that subsistence management measures could be relaxed if updated stock composition run assessment data indicates that there's opportunity that can be provided. This has happened in years past. This happened last year, actually. It's happened with the whitefish.

There's been additional opportunity provided to coho, for coho when they've come in stronger. So that is just ensuring that if our managers see in real time in season that there's an opportunity that could be provided, that there could be.

The fish wheel definition already exists within the commercial portion of this chapter, and as Erin read it out loud, that was a suggestion from the department That was one of the department's two suggest— three suggestions for this plan. And the second suggestion that I added in was that the majority of the lower bound of the BEG and SEG are met or exceeded for 5 years. That was one of their criteria. Something original that I put into this was a step-down approach to ensure that we don't simply go from a stock of management concern out of a stock of designation concern altogether after just having a few good years. The goal is to rebuild these stocks.

And so number 2 states that if annual leads or harvest surpluses are below the historic range, the department may recommend changing the stock of concern designation to a stock of yield concern. So even if they meet criteria number 1 but criteria number 2 isn't met, it's a suggestion for the step-down approach to go into stock of yield concern instead of management concern. I don't know if this plan does enough. I'm not sure what else the state of Alaska can do for our Yukon River salmon. There is— those salmon are migrating through multiple jurisdictions, multiple authorities, and there is a cumulative impacts on these stocks.

This plan is not a one-fix-all. It's not going to be a wand that fixes everything. Um, but I do think that it could provide more guidelines for when opportunities are opened up. Um, so I'll go ahead and leave it at that and see what other members have to say. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Wood.

Thank you, Member Irwin. Um, on both Proposal 190, 191, um, is it says, what would this proposal do Both of them say construction-specific specifications for fish wheels used in the subsistence fishery would be established while the plan, while this plan is in existence. Is the wheel itself the reason why we're looking at this now? Otherwise, we could have just voted for Option A or B back at the statewide meeting. Yeah, thanks for the question, Member Wood.

I believe The, the difference is if we had voted A or B or both at the, at the statewide meeting, we would have adopted an action plan that guides the, the staff. If we adopt this plan, which codifies the fish wheel and the, uh, uh, the delisting criteria that the department suggested, it will be codified in regulation and it will be its own stock of concern plan. If we had simply voted A or B, it would have just been kind of like a department directive as far as I understand it, and I'm happy for anyone to clarify or correct me.

Any follow-up? Yeah, okay. Go ahead. So I guess my follow-up will be what my original concern was back when these fish wheels were discussed. So since then, and then we came up both— I'll reference 190 and 1991, I called Stan Zarey and asked him what he thought of these, and both he and Charlie Campbell and Ruth, who from Rapids Research Camp, read through this, and Stan, prior to even being on the board, had worked extensively trying to come up with a definition of fish-friendly fish wheels, and if you look at his website, it's pages and pages of of what fish wheels need to be like to be fish-friendly.

And because my brain likes these things and works at it, I think one of the things about the language in 5AC, which one is it? 5.362, Where it talks about the fish wheels is this doesn't go far enough to be fish friendly. So I'm just going to say that the time doesn't exist at this meeting to change any of that. But Stan, Ruth, Charlie, they were all kind of horrified that this was still considered fish friendly when we're talking about seine web and the fact that people are barely building these things anymore, maybe don't even know how to. Even Stan's and Charlie's, they needed to all be engineered professionally to not kill fish.

Stan talked a lot about just the damage to the fish's head and the nose and the webbing sliding down that seine web. I guess I'm all for both of these, but in time to come, I think Stan is extremely disappointed with this definition in the book, I can understand why, because fish wheels are brutal, and unless designed totally specifically to not hurt fish, they can easily hurt fish. And the best thing that this, that this has going for it, and is the fact that these wheels are, have no live boxes, and that they must be maintained 24/7. That's the most fish-friendly thing about So I look, I'm okay, I'm having a hard time with the fish-friendly fish pot, fish wheel thing here because I think it really runs the gamut and but maybe in time to come we can work together in the department to better understand what that looks like.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

Couple questions about the department comments. The first one regards to the delisting criteria. Could you please speak to the, maybe the complications that could exist by putting this in regulation when it comes to the, the 7-year agreement with Canada?

Maybe Commissioner Ditsapang might be able to speak to that one. Aaron, we can't hear you very well. You might need to get a little closer to the mic. Yeah, sure, maybe I'll answer this one. So the way I read this is that the opening paragraph basically says that the purpose of this management plan is to provide management tools and guidelines to the department for the management of Yukon River salmon and consistent with a series of Alaska statutes and regulations, the Pacific Salmon Treaty, and the 7-year agreement.

So if we were to operate fish wheels in the mainstem river, we would need to be consistent with the 7-year agreement. And if we found out that those fish wheels were operating in such a manner that they were causing mortality of Canadian-origin Snooksum, we would probably not allow them because it would be inconsistent with the 7-year agreement. So we would probably work with you to come back and try to find language that would reduce the mortality rate associated with them from some of the language we heard in the discussions around this table this morning and try to find a way to make those fish reels more friendly so we could approve them. But we would not approve them if we determined that there was a high rate of mortality of Canadian origin fish.

Okay, then maybe—. Oh, go ahead, Mr. Bowers. Yeah, I think Mr. Carpenter Specifically to your question about the delisting criteria, I suppose you could be in a situation maybe where we delisted under the State Stock of Concern Action Plan, but the 7-year agreement was still in effect. So, you know, I think that's kind of what we were getting at with the potential conflict between those two.

Provisions. Okay, and then one other question, um, and we've heard this a few times before about Administrative Order 360, and that's also included in the department's comments. And I don't know if the Department of Law would like to provide the board guidance here, but when it comes to Administrative Order 360, and I look at the department comments about some duplicative type language. Is this— I mean, what got— what, what is the guidance to the board about how they can proceed when it's specific to something like this?

Uh, through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, um, so AO-360 was an executive, uh, order issued by the governor about regulations and redundancy, um, in reducing that with the, uh, I can't remember the exact benchmark that it aims to achieve, but a reduction in regulations and other type of guidance documents. Here, for the context that the Board of Fisheries, typically regulations receive waivers as part of the regulations package. And to be frank with you, Mr. Carpenter, I'm not sure whether or not the redundancy in a new promulgated regulation would necessarily be contemplated, um, in the legal review prior to submission to the Lieutenant Governor. So I can look into that and how AO-360 would affect this particular regulation or this particular proposal. Um, just something that's, uh, I need just a minute to, to review.

Thank you.

Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to speak to a couple of the issues and, uh, depart— and the department's objections within this proposal regarding, you know, Mr. Zarey's opinions on this. And I, like Member Wood, I like— I very much respect Mr. Zarey's thoughts on fish wheels. I don't think there's anyone who knows them better than he does.

My thought on this is that One of the things we're looking at in the Yukon River is you're looking at a food crisis. When we look at the department's reports at AYK around food insecurity, granted, you know, when you're looking at Alakanak and Nunamikwa, where you're having massive food insecurity, granted, those are in tidal zones where fish wheels aren't necessarily aren't going to be effective. You're having that within the middle and upper Yukon areas. I don't think the perfect should be the enemy of the good. I think, you know, it's the worst thing you can do when you're doing these is nothing.

You know, a lot of times you need to act as fast as you can and do what you can as well as you can, and then you can course correct as you go on later. With regard to, you know, best practices for the fish wheels, I would very much welcome an ACR saying, okay, here's better language for reduced mortality of a fish wheel, but I don't want that— I don't want to stop that from, you know, people from being able to eat because we're tied up in administrative procedure and getting the perfect, perfect language. So I, yeah, I'm surprised supportive of this. As to the duplicative language, I certainly see the state's, the state's concerns on this one. The having duplicative language, you know, when you want to correct the record on one thing, sometimes you have to correct it in two places, and it's easy to miss that as we're going along.

That's something we should very much pay attention to as a board, and that comes down to making a clean administrative record. And I think I said that in the, in the last proposal too. That said, I don't know that that's enough for me to, to want to take a woodcutter to this. I think that can be changed through, you know, future proposals, and we can whittle down on this when we look at creating efficiency within this proposal. So with this, yeah, I'm firmly and support.

Thank you.

Uh, Miss Wood, you're muted, Mike.

You're still muted. Okay, okay, it's good because you're not hearing me swear. Um, so it's a litany, believe me. Um, I— these fingers are too fat for this. Um, the, the problem— I just want to be fair to Stan and Charlie and Ruth.

They all wanted to say they appreciate what the department's trying to do to them, what this— what these proposals are doing. And, and, um, and they did say all of this can help. Um, so they just had concerns about what these wheels could potentially do. But I just want to say that, um, they, they were— they could see the good, the good nature in which they were intended. So that's all.

Mr. Irwin.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you very much for board discussion. I appreciate all the questions and the thoughtful, uh, considerations. Um, I just want to put a couple of thoughts on the record. This, as mentioned by the staff, this was a proposal that was created, co-created between staff and, and myself as a board member, and it's quite different from the original language that I had been drafting. So there's a few things with this proposal I think that, that we need to put into regulation, this, this action that we're going to do during the stock of concern, and we need to have a delisting criteria and we need to have an action with the stock in the status that it is.

With that being said, I will say that I don't know that an action or management plan or an action or stock of concern management plan for a stock that's no longer being commercially harvested should be in the commercial chapter. So that's just, you know, something for future consideration potentially is identifying, recognizing where and what chapters we're putting these these plans into place. Um, and, uh, the other feature and piece of this is I'm leaning on and trusting the staff's recommendation for the delisting criteria. However, I do think that it's, uh, and would encourage managers and the board members to continue to think about what is true rebuilding and what, um, whether or not these measures that we're putting into place are truly aiming for that, that striving for that rebuilding. So those are just a few comments in regards to, you know, future management plans as well, and as we to have these stock of concern conversations.

But thank you.

Other board discussion? Mr. Krapner? Yeah, I guess maybe to Miss Erwin, um, are there— do you— are there things within this proposal, this board-generated proposal that are so vital to management, to subsistence users, et cetera, that need to take place right now that the opportunity that the public usually has through Committee of the Whole, through public testimony, through traditional knowledge, that it needs to happen right now? It— if so, could you please explain the components that are so important that that's the reason why we should vote yes on this right now?

Yeah, thank you very much for the question, Mr. Carpenter. So in regards to the public, public's process, um, and public's ability to comment on this, um, the department was supposed— was, was potentially supposed to bring forward action steps at the AYK meeting in November, which would have been the ideal time for this to come up and for the public to be able to comment on this in the region that this is taking place in. Um, that wasn't able to happen due to the quick turnaround time, um, yet there was still opportunity at that public session for the public to participate. Um, furthermore, at the, at the statewide meeting, there was public notice given that there were going to be actions taken in regard to the stock of concern. It just didn't say that they were going to be codified.

And so the public was aware that staff was going to be presenting the options for the board to take up at the statewide meeting. So with regards to your public process comment, I think there was plenty. And even when I submitted these RCs in late in the evening, the evening before, when finding out we weren't going to be able to do this, I was going to have to codify— or sorry, put substitute language if I wanted what I wanted. You'll go back and look at the record. I— we still have multiple RCs from, from people, individuals, and organizations supporting and commenting on these plans.

So I— to your point of public process, I truly believe that they've been given plenty of time for public process in addition to written comments at this meeting. To your second point of whether or not it is completely 100% necessary at this moment, I believe so. Now, do any of these measures or management plans, do I think, are they specifically going to bring back more salmon before the October meeting? No, but this starts to put in place the delisting criteria. As I understand it, we would use we would lose a year, or we would have to start over on some different timeline of when we're starting to count these years of whether or not they're meeting escapement goals.

So this being October 2025 being the year that the time whenever the designation was put into place, it would— I think a year later putting in an action plan is, is a little too late, and I Do I think that, like I said, do I think there's any tools in here that are going to bring back more salmon this summer right this moment? I don't know that that's the case, but this is setting an important precedent that we care about Yukon River fish, we're taking action within the board's authority to do something, and then we can start to get— see this time frame of how many times are we meeting escapement goals and not. So I hope that answers your question. Commissioner? Yeah, I just want to add one thing just real quick.

Treaties are kind of the law of the land, and I'm not big— I'm not big in favor of putting recovery goals or these things into regulation when there's treaties. And the reason I say that is it leaves the public with the impression if the board changes the designation and thinks that they've met recovery standards, and under the treaty we haven't met those recovery standards, it leads them to think that, okay, now we can go fishing, and that may not be the case. I'm always— but I think it's— I want to just go on the record to say that for treaty fisheries, it's a little bit different when you may meet these requirements, these requirement goals, or these recovery standards in regulation, but that may not end up resulting a recovered stock under the terms of the treaty. So that's why I've expressed concern about putting these recovery goals, these recovery standards into regulation for treaty fisheries. Mr. Tiernan.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to kind of take a second and touch on some of Olivia's comments with regards to like the DOC criteria whatnot. But just because it's not regulation, we wouldn't lose a year of that kind of benchmark. When we go through our analysis every board cycle, we look at all of the years of whether they met goals, met harvest objectives, and whatnot. So just because it's not passed or it's not codified doesn't mean we're just going to completely throw out 2026 and not use it in the analysis.

Um, typically what we do, uh, with these action plans is we bring them forth, the various options and whatnot are either voted on or approved by the board. Um, then we finalize, uh, a report, an action plan, and it gets publicly distributed so everybody understands what we're working on while the stock is listed in the stock concerned. So I just wanted to kind of bring that forward so you all understand where kind of we're coming from in the department. We're not going to miss that year or miss an opportunity, per se. Thank you.

Ms. Erwin? Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Commissioner, I have a question just to clarify your previous statement. So I'm wondering, is having a recovery goal in a management plan that involves a species that has a treaty, is that a policy and procedural issue or is that a public education issue? That, that there just needs to be more public education and sharing that, hey, just because we met this recovery goal doesn't mean that people can start fishing.

Is that a public education aspect or is that a policy and procedural issue? It's not policy and procedure, through chair. Rather, it's, it's when people read regulations, they get, they don't, some, some people may not know there's a treaty. So they read the regulation, we have to meet the goals, let's go fishing. And then we get under this pressure to go fishing.

We say, well, no, because we haven't met the Canadian goals, which may be different than the goals that you've established for, for the treaty fishery, for the fisheries in your jurisdiction. So I'm not going to stand in the way of this, but I just wanted to make sure that the record was built that just because we put these goals into regulation doesn't mean that it may not impact, it may not release the fisheries from the constraints under the recovery plan until we meet the treaty obligations in addition. So, but I'm not going to stand in the way of moving this forward. It's not a policy or anything, but I just want to make sure that people understand that. Yeah, follow-up.

Thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner, for clarifying that. And I will just note that's one of the reasons why I included the 7-year agreement in the Pacific Salmon Treaty in the— in Part A, and I think that's where the potentially duplicitous nature that we're concerned about might actually come in handy sometimes to reference those. So thank you.

Thank you. A couple of comments that I'm going to put on the record regarding some of the things I've heard during the discussion. With respect to putting the delisting criteria in reg and the potential concern that the Commissioner just talked about with respect to the 7-year treaty requirements. I appreciate where he's coming from, but just because the requirements have been met doesn't mean that the stock is necessarily delisted. There's another step in that process where the board— or the, the department comes back before the board with a recommendation to delist, and the board may or may not accept that recommendation.

And if the department communicated to to the board and to the public that one of the reasons that you would be recommending a non-delisting, for example, is because if not delisting, even if the regular— the criteria in reg had been met, I think that the board, subsequent boards, would take that, you know, under, under real consideration and may— and would, I think, would likely agree not to delist in an effort to get crosswise as with the treaty. With respect to Administrative Order 360 and some of those issues about duplicative language in the regulations, I am— I appreciate that. I spent a lot of time on this board trying to clean up regulations, make them more succinct, make them conform and be consistent across boards. That is not always the case, but certainly that's been a theme of the efforts on my— during my tenure on this board. However, I have also encountered issues where there has been inconsistencies with how that language is interpreted or what the directives were, and that has led to issues and angst, I should say.

So I don't see— particularly when it comes to these action plans, I think that making them as clear as possible and incorporating all the elements that are important to the board is worthy. And it is sometimes difficult to go back and suss out intent if it's not written clearly in the action plan or the regulation. So while I think that AO-360 is good and important, I do I think context matters. And then with regard to the public process, there has been an uptick in interest in the board's process that I want to acknowledge. And I think that this is a really good example of where we run into problems and that I want to dispel rumors or, um, or concerns that this is— that this meeting or the things that we're taking up under consideration, particularly with this one, um, is not an effort to preempt or to subvert the process.

I think that this is another example of where the existing process doesn't serve either the board, the department, or the public very well. And this is an agenda item on an upcoming process committee meeting agenda with respect to— now that we're seeing an uptick or an increase in some of these stock of concern designations, we have to create these action plans associated with them. And this is at least the second or third example that I can think of where the time between the designation and when that meeting is going to occur, the full in-cycle meeting, um, has not been sufficient, right? I remember it happened with Bristol Bay, um, and that's a problem, right? So I think the board and the department and the public need to think about what that looks like.

If there's concern about taking up these issues out of cycle, then, um, we need to talk about what the process looks like for the department to generate responses to the stock of concern designations and the action plan options that are presented to the board. Commissioner, you and I have had many discussions on this. It's a point of frustration for, for you and for me. And so I'm very interested in talking about how we can rectify this and actually have these conversations about designations and action plans. At the appropriate end cycle meeting.

And how do we do that? Making sure that we are not running afoul of the Administrative Procedures Act and that we're giving the department the time it needs to consider the implications of the designation. So this was a little bit muddied, I think, because the statewide meeting may or may not have been properly noticed to include a regulatory component of the AYK action plans. You know, I'm not going to scribe any blame anywhere. I think it was, I think it was more or less an oversight, and this isn't— this meeting and having these before us now was an attempt to, to cure that.

So I just wanted to state that on the record about the process and why, why these are being considered now. And I don't know if you have anything to add to that or not, but.

All right, any other discussion on proposal number 190? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll go through the subsistence review real quick. Is this stock in a non-subsistence area?

Small portions of the salmon stocks in the Yukon drainage occur within the Fairbanks non-subsistence area. Is this a customary and traditionally used stock? The Board of Fisheries has found king, summer chum, fall chum, coho, pink are customary and traditionally taken in the Yukon area. Can a portion of the stock be harvested consistent with sustained yield under the 7-year agreement directed? King salmon fishery in the mainstem of the Yukon will be closed unless border passage is predicted to be 71,000 king salmon.

The amount necessary for subsistence, king salmon necessary for subsistence is found to be 45,500 to 66,704 fish. Does this provide reasonable opportunity for subsistence? Subsistence is currently being curtailed on the Yukon due to low abundance. Is this necessary to reduce or eliminate other uses or other opportunities? I believe that most opportunities in this particular area have been reduced.

Adoption of this proposal will result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery because users would need to update their fish wheels to meet new specifications. And I would call the question. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Question's been called. Any errors or omissions?

Mr. Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I just wanted to correct something I said earlier. AO-360 is an administrative order, not an executive order.

There are potentially other considerations where this is to pass from law's perspective about duplicative language. I do not believe they would apply here, but I just wanted the board to be aware of that. And with that, that's nothing further. Thank you. Question's been called.

Director Nelson, will you please call the roll? Final action on Proposal 190. Chamberlain.

Yes.

Carlson VanDort. Yes. Irwin.

Yes. Svensson.

Yes. Godfrey.

Sorry, Jared, was that a yes? Yeah, yeah. Thank you. Carpenter? Yes.

Wood? Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Thank you. Um, let's go ahead and take a quick break.

Let's come back on the record at about quarter to 4, um, and we'll continue with deliberations, uh, proposal number 191, I think is what we're at.

And, uh, and we'll check our seats also. So back on at, uh, 3:45.

You're muted, Marit.

I knew it was going to get me eventually. Um, welcome back. I want to make sure that we have all the members back online. I don't see Olivia yet. Um, I see Greg.

I don't see Jared yet unless I'm missing him.

Did he drop off?

I don't see him.

I don't either.

Maybe he'll be coming back on. We'll give them a couple seconds to get going. Um, sounds like a doorbell. Yeah, who is it? Um, okay, so there's Mike.

Mike's back. Libby is back. Greg, Tom, Curtis. Jared. Yeah, looks like everybody.

Curtis here.

Oh, there you are. Perfect. And Jared. Awesome. Let's get going.

All right. Well, I think we completed deliberations on 190. The one we have up next is proposal number 191. 91. Staff, please read 191 into the record, please.

Yeah, I think Madam Chair, again, for the record, Aaron Tiernan, US Department of Fish and Game, OYK Regional Management Coordinator, proposal 915AAC05.XXX, new section. Move to adopt.

Need a second, please. Second. Second. Got it. Thank you.

Staff comments. Yeah, with this proposal, construction specifications for the fishery bills used in subsistence fishery would be established while the Yukon River Fall Chum Salmon are listed as a stock of concern. Also, components of the Yukon River Fall Chum Salmon action plan would be placed in the regulation as a stock of concern management plan, which includes delisting criteria and references to multiple existing regulations such as the Yukon River Drainage Fall Chum Salmon Management Plan, Yukon Management Area Educational Fishing Permit for customary and traditional harvest of salmon, and a sustainable salmon fisheries policy. Management of the shared fishery stocks on the Yukon River mainstem is conducted on a collaborative basis as described in Yukon River Salmon Agreement, Chapter 8 of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, which includes Canadian large and chum salmon. Currently, there is not a stocked and conserved management plan for Yukon River Fall Chum Salmon in regulation.

However, the Yukon River Drainage Fall Chum Salmon Management Plan and the Tanana River Salmon Management Plan provides the department with guidelines for management of the Fall Chum Salmon subsistence, personal use, and commercial fisheries. Additionally, the gear and gear specifications regulations found in 5AC01.220 provide numerous tools for the department to implement within the subsistence fishery. The newly established Yukon Management Area Educational Fishing Permit for customary and traditional harvest of salmon provides limited harvest opportunity during times when specific salmon species harvest cannot be reasonably accommodated. If adopted, fish wheels being used in subsistence fishery would need to be constructed fish-friendly manner, then survival of live released ball chum salmon will increase. This includes basket sides and bottoms consisting of soft mesh material similar to that of same web and with a slider chute and smooth bottom and with closed-cell foam line sides.

The current regulations and management plans have been developed and refined over the past few decades. The Commissioner may take additional action by emergency order to limit time and area based on preseason and in-season indicators of abundance. Due to the recent historically low abundances, directed fall chum salmon fishing in the subsistence fishery has been closed since midway through the 2020 fall season. There has not been a directed fall chum salmon commercial fishery since 2019, and the sport fishery has been closed. Despite the closures in all fisheries, the drainage-wide goal of 300,000 to 600,000 fall chum salmon has not been achieved since 2019.

Border passage for the Canadian Main Stem and the Fishing Branch River that's established by the Yukon River Salmon Agreement, Yukon River Panel Process, have not been achieved since 2019.

The department supports the addition of fish-friendly fish wheel gear specifications because it would help minimize injury and stress the fall chum salmon that must be released alive, which could facilitate additional subsistence harvest opportunity for surplus Coho salmon. The department opposes the remainder of this proposal because management components are currently found in either subsistence regulations, Yukon River Drainage Fall Chum Salmon Management Plan, Yukon Management Area educational fishing permit for customary and traditional harvest of salmon or exercise through the department's authority. Placing the delisting criteria in regulation is complicated by the Yukon River Salmon Treaty, which potentially trumps state regulations. Adoption of this proposal as written may also conflict with Administrative Order 360, as much of the plan duplicates existing regulations. Madam Chair.

Thank you. Board discussion, please.

Miss Erwin, do you want to kick it off? I believe this was part of your language. Yes, thank you. I was looking for the raised hand feature. So yes, this was developed also at the statewide meeting in response to the department's recommendations for the Stock of Concern Action Plan for Yukon River Balkchum.

The department's initial recommendations were to establish the fish-friendly fish wheel definition along with the Stock of Concern delisting criteria 1. Stock of Concern delisting criteria 2 is the same as it was in Proposal 190 that we just passed. If the annual leads or harvestable surplus are below historic range, the department may recommend changing the stock of concern designation to a stock of yield concern.

As noted by the department, there is some duplicative language that is outlined and meant to really highlight and stress the importance of us utilizing and following the subsistence priority when we are managing this river.

Referencing— it references as well as see through E, pretty much outline that priority. It also provides an option in F for the harvestable surplus to, if it's exceeding 300,000 that fishing opportunities can be provided with the desire to achieve the drainage-wide or tributary-specific escapement goals. So, like I said, the criteria is— number 2 is the same. The first, the department had recommended that all 5 consecutive years be met, and that's the criteria that was included in and stayed within the the proposed regulation.

Thank you. Mr. Wood.

Uh, mute.

Mike, you're muted.

Oh, sorry, I wasn't sure if you were talking to—. There we go. I— yes, I'm in a quiet house, I might just leave it off. Um, I, I just want to reference all the other comments I had about 190, especially about fish wheel stuff. I do look forward down the road potentially to work on fish wheels specifications if possible, and I think it'll be even more important with fall chum for the monitoring, like to be there in person because of the overlap between summer and fall below Tanana.

But nonetheless, Um, I, I like that as it's written, and, and I'll be supportive.

Thank you, Mr. Wood. Other discussion? I'm going to reference my, uh, comments from the previous proposal as well. Mr. Chamberlain.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also would like to reference my comments from Proposal 190. Um, I also wanted to make a reference to some of the villages on the lower Yukon River were expressing some concern, and I certainly want to continue the conversation with them. I've had a few phone calls with them, and yeah, to those groups, I absolutely would like to look at, you know, what alternatives are available to them, to those people who don't have fish wheels available. There's And I, I certainly encourage the use of Commissioner's permits to look at experimental gear types for the lower Yukon and other ways to fulfill their subsistence needs.

But yeah, that said, I'm all in support. Ms. Erwin. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I'd just like to reference, during our break, I noticed that RC9, which is the Mentonee Nana AC, and RC10 came in from Tana Rampart Manly. Both of those, those ACs support, support this language, so I just wanted to make sure that the record reflected that.

Thank you. Thanks. Other board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter, will you do cost, please, and reference subsistence regs? Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll reference my subsistence review from the prior proposal. Adoption of this This proposal will result in additional direct costs for a private person who participate in the fishery because users will need to update their fish wheels to meet new specifications. And I call the question.

Question's been called. Any errors or omissions? Mr. Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to point out the language in 191 differs a bit from 190.

There's more allocative language in this proposal. Board could acknowledge the allocation criteria. The board's done a good job of discussing a lot of the findings and the factors related to allocation, but I think just an acknowledgment would be prudent.

Okay, um, Ms. Irwin, any comments on the allocation aspects?

Um, thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, so with regards to the allocative, any allocative aspects of this proposal, I suppose they would predominantly come from the run size of the commercial fishery closures. However, as I'm not sure that that differs from the current management plan, if Erin could comment on C for me or speak to anything that I'm missing in terms of the allocation.

Yeah, anything that's allocated within 191 is already existing current regulation.

Is, is what? I'm having a hard time. Sorry, it already occurs in current regulation. Okay, so I guess my question, Mr. Lee, it's the allocative aspect that you're talking about relative to sort of upper and lower Yukon subsistence opportunity?

More so the language, just as the different fisheries, commercial, sport, personal use, have different opportunities provided in this proposal for harvest. As it relates to subsistence, I think just an acknowledgment of the allocation criteria, the findings that the board has made, I think that's sufficient, and I think the board's done enough at this At this point. Okay, appreciate that. Thank you.

Any other errors or omissions? Looking for Mr. Payton here. Standing in for Mr. Payton, Madam Chair, Patrick Fowler, Co-Committee Management Coordinator.

No errors or omissions. Gotcha. Thank you. I was toggling between the two screens. All right, question's been called.

Director Nelson. Call the roll. Final action on Proposal 191. Carpenter? Yes.

Irwin? Yes. Godfrey? Yes. Carlson-Vandort?

Yes. Wood? Yep. Svensson?

Yes. Chamberlain? Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Moving on to Proposal Number 192. Proposal 192, please.

Madam Chair, we may take a minute. We might have to pull staff out of the attendee room, so just one moment. Okay, we'll stand by.

Okay, I believe we have everybody. Is somebody going to— someone able to read 192? Introduce 192, please. Yep. For the record, Colton Lipka, Upper Cook Inlet Commercial Fisheries Regional Management Coordinator.

Proposal 192, 5AAC21-382, Kenai River late-run king salmon stock of concern plan. Madam Chair, Move to approve proposal 192 with the substitute language found in RC4. I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board has before it the language in RC4 in lieu of the original proposal. Staff comments, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, it's here, RC4. This would remove commercial set gillnet fishing opportunity from the Eastside Set Gillnet Fishery and replace it with provisions for Set Beach Stain Nets under the Kenai River Late Run King Salmon Stock of Concern Management Plan.

The commercial Set Beach Stain Net Fishery would occur only when the preseason forecast of large 75-centimeter mid-eye to tail fork or longer king salmon is greater than 14,250 fish. Currently, set beach seine is not a defined gear type nor an allowable gear type in the Upper Subdistrict commercial fishery. Under the provisions of this management plan, the commercial dipnet fishery is prosecuted based on sockeye salmon abundance, while commercial set gillnet opportunity is only provided when the Kenai River late-run King Salmon recovery goal of 14,250 large fish is is projected to be met.

If this proposal were adopted, set beach seine would replace set gillnet as legal commercial fishing gear in the Upper Subdistrict. The commercial harvest of salmon during open periods would likely be reduced by an unknown amount. Removal of set gillnet gear would reduce the number of permits that could participate in the East Side Setnet Fishery due to not all permit holders having onshore DNR lease sites. Beach seines are likely an effective alternative method for harvesting target species while releasing non-target species, although there are unknown aspects of how effective the gear would be across the subdistrict and the fate of the fish that are released. Adding beach seine as an alternative gear type to SO4H permits would require action by the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission prior to the department implementing the fishery for the 2026 season.

The beach sand gear type is sensitive to weather, stage of tide, and water conditions that limit the duration and length of gear that can be fished. Site bathymic profiles along with beach may also greatly influence the availability of this gear type for use across the fishery. For example, the presence of obstructions, steeper shallow beaches, and the extended shallow tidal metal flats may all determine the viability of this gear for individual operators. The department encourages the development of methods and additional gear types that would allow the harvest of more abundant species during times of conservation for weak stocks. The department is neutral on this allocated proposal.

Additionally, the proposal does not address how the department should adapt management to in-season run information. The department recommends board clarify these issues if the proposal is adopted. Madam Chair. Thank you. Um, board discussion.

Before we get into that, um, I would ask— so I, uh, Mr. Chamberlain, I believe, offered the BGP language. I worked with the Department of Law, um, Eddie, to sort of clear up some of the issues associated with the lease site requirements since the board has no authority over the lease sites. Those are controlled by the Department of Natural Resources and ideally either the borough or the municipality. Mr. Lee, could you speak to the revisions? Yes, Madam Chair.

So, RC 4, it removes what was subsection B and I believe E from the original proposal. Again, for the reasons you stated, the board doesn't have authority necessarily to regulate lease sites. You do not need to have a lease site to engage in a shore fishery in Alaska. That is something that management of the lease sites is reserved to DNR. And this also ties the gear type, the complement of gear, to the actual CFEC permit as opposed to the lease site.

So it does clear those issues related to lease sites. Thank you. Um, for discussion, Mr. Chamberlain, do you want to kick it off? Or sure, I'll take a start on this one.

Um, and I'll just give kind of a brief discussion of why, why I, I thought this was unnecessary to, to come forward. And there's been a lot of discussion over process, and I certainly expect that to take place here.

I supported 192 and introduction of this, or well, I moved to introduce this language because last year there was, for all intents and purposes, very limited to no test fishery or Commissioner permits issued for the beach seine fishery in East Side or in the East Side Setnet area. And when we looked at that, you know, I really wanted that data and I think the board was very enthusiastic on this data when it came up in 2025, but we weren't able to pass that proposal and as a result, no Commissioner's permits were issued last year. And so what I didn't want to happen was I didn't want to go into Upper Cook Inlet next year without the data on the beach seine fishery, because I think that is one of the most transformative, potentially, and effective methods in which to prosecute a discriminatory fishery. One of the big things I see is, you know, When you look at the lawsuit over the Wild Fish Conservancy, they're citing, along with the Karluk and Ayukuluk, but they're citing the Kenai River Returns. And so this river is a poster child for the salmon crashes that a lot of the rivers are seeing in there.

And that's something we very much have to pay attention to, because one of the things we're looking at, and you're seeing this in the Yukon and other areas, certainly, as you're looking at, you know, people that are looking to make ESA listings, or, you know, or arguing, say, you know, you're looking at potential extirpation of certain fisheries. And so we need to— the board, I think, needs to take a very proactive approach on this. And so So if we're going into Upper Cook Inlet next year and we've got very limited data from one year and two fishermen, for all intents and purposes, give or take, we're going to be going in with no data and we're looking at a three-year management plan that just, that we don't have enough data to do. And so one of the things I wanted to look to was find a way to get these commissioner's permits going. And, um, and I guess I'd start with a question to the commissioner.

Uh, if 192 is passed, will the commissioner— will you be issuing, uh, commissioner's permits, uh, for further study out in Beach Sands?

So, Madam Chair, um, no, because what 192 does is that eliminates setnet gear and it authorizes beach sand gear, but then immediately closes beach sand gear because you're not reaching 14.250. So you would be asking me to experiment with a fishery for— and a gear type that you've taken a direct vote on establishing and then closing under regulation. And that would not be— I would not do that under my commissioner Commissioner's permit authority take action on an experimental fishery that you took very definitive action on in closing. Okay, and so I, yeah, and I think there's room for discussion on this one then, but yeah, but ultimately what I wanted to do is I wanted to fill the data on this because we had an equivalent number of people applying for Commissioner's permits in 2025 is as the number of people that actually fished these, that actually fished them, and what I didn't want to see was once we hit the 14,250 everything just go whole hog on that, and I wanted to look for a way to fish with a more discriminatory gear and have more information on that. And so with that, I would encourage, you know, the look for ways for more, more commissioner's permits to, to take place.

So with that, I'll, I'll, I'll leave it for other, other board members to speak to. And then, and then I have more comments as we go. Madam Chair, real quick. The, the problem I found myself in last year is the board had a very similar proposal to this in front of them, and they voted that proposal down, which meant that the board made a definitive decision to not allow beach seine gear as a, as a legal gear type in that fishery to make money off of the— for commercial sale of fish. So I found myself in a position where after that board meeting, I was getting applications for experimental permits to fish experimentally with the intent of making money on, on those operations.

So I determined after the time, I— that would be again going directly contrary to what the board had, had made a vote on, not to authorize that gear type for commercial use, and then me authorizing it for commercial use and, and for potential profit. So I landed in the middle ground. I said, I'll do it, but I'll only do it if you can't make a profit. Thus, the number of people that, that came back and wanted to participate was much reduced from the, you know, 30 or 40 applications we had when they thought they could make a profit. So even if you don't take any action on this proposal, I'm going to be in the same position this year where I'm not going to authorize— I'm not going to authorize experimental permits for profit, but I would authorize experimental permits for not to make a profit for cost recovery to collect that data.

The other problem I'm facing is that the board, in their deliberations, when you were talking, taking it, making this a board-generated proposal, there was specific information requests that you were trying to make. One is you wanted to have observers to make sure the data was collected good. That we can do. But there was also questions regarding the survival of released king salmon, and there's going to be very difficult to put that kind of study design together this summer to inform board deliberations next year. We know that the gear type works in the North Cape Beach area.

We don't know how well it works across other districts, you know, subdistricts in that Kenai River District that we're looking at, the Eastside Setnet Fishery District. And again, we've had very few applications from some of those other subdistricts districts to authorize experimental permits in those areas. So I'm not really sure what additional information we're going to be able to collect that will inform board decisions versus what we have this year, since I think we'll probably end up with 3 or 4 applications for, if we make it not-for-profit, experimental fisheries this year. Mr. Carpenter, then Mr. Wood, then Mr. Swenson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I guess I got quite a bit to say on this. Um, first of all, while the process that we've talked about on the prior 3 proposals may not have fallen to the level of we don't need to do anything right now, this one is a very different animal.

I was shocked at the conversation at the last meeting when this proposal was brought to us in miscellaneous business.

There are so many nuances with this fishery, and it was brought to us— when you consider the board-generated criteria, it was far-fetched for me to believe that we're even sitting here talking about this now, because I still don't believe it even came close to rising to the level to meet that criteria. But having said that, and we are here now, one of the things that we came to this— we are sitting here now because of this lack of information and the lack of losing a year so that the board could be better informed during the next Cook Inlet meeting, which is next March.

This is a problem with me with the public process. We're talking about hundreds, hundreds, not 10, not 20, hundreds of people that own permits in Cook Inlet that have had zero say in this with the exception of written public comment. I, I can't tell you the amount of people that have called me on the phone in the last month complaining about the process and the process alone, much less the merits of this whole thing. Now, the language found in RC-4 is different than the original board-generated proposal. Well, one of the things that I guess this is maybe a question for the commissioner.

There was a case in the state of Alaska back to 1995, Kodiak Seafood Producers Association versus State of Alaska, where the commissioner issued a conditional permit for exploratory scallop fishing. That went to the state Supreme Court. The state Supreme Court ruled that the commissioner had broad authority to issue that permit, and he also had broad authority to allow them to sell those scallops. And I guess my question is, if this proposal fails— and I understand what you just said about kind of the tough spot that you're in— considering the merits of that case, don't you feel that you have the ability to issue the commissioner's permits like you did the first 2 years to try and gain whatever knowledge you feel you might need as the commissioner, and that may better inform the board's decisions next March to allow this to take place? Yeah, if I could, through the chair, I, I don't think in that case the board made a definitive vote to dis— to disallow that gear type.

I do have broad authorities underneath that, my experimental permits. I have reviewed those with Law. I do have broad discretion, but that discretion, in my opinion, is somewhat boxed in by the fact when the board makes a very deliberative decision on that gear type for commercial use within a fishery. And I like it. For instance, the board just took decisions in Area M to, to not allow seine gear during certain periods of time for windows.

Well, I wouldn't— I don't think you'd appreciate it very much if I started authorizing experimental permits for commercial sale of salmon in those closed windows with seine gear. So once the board kind of makes that deliberative decision, I think there's some sideboards that I need to consider when collecting experimental permits. And now we're in this unique situation where you've made a decision to not allow this cure type for commercial use, and I'm trying to find the middle ground. Yeah, I'll allow it. I'll allow you to collect more information, but you're not going to make a profit on it based on your decision.

Okay, and then maybe just another follow-up question if I can, Madam Chair, specific to the language where it talks about, um, In the substitute language, it says from July 20th to July 31st when the preseason forecast of king salmon 75 centimeters mid-eye to fork. What does the department currently use, or what did the department use last year in accordance with the action plan to open the commercial setnet fishery? Was it a sonar number? We, we did our projections, Madam Chair, we did our projections using the sonar numbers and then we basically watched it over time and as that projection kept dropping, once we were convinced that we could get 14,250 at the end of the season, we opened that fishery up. Now this language in the current proposal you have in front of you is on a preseason projection, there is no mid-season projection.

So if I can, Madam Chair, where a preseason forecast, and I know that projecting king salmon specifically or coho specifically are very difficult to do, you know, in comparison to like sockeye, for example, there's a fairly high error rate there. And I guess my question is, is that if the language in RC-4 were to pass, and it says that it's based on a preseason forecast. If for whatever reason, which is probably not going to happen, but a large number of king salmon showed up, would you have the ability to open the fishery if the preseason forecast that's included in this language said that it had to be over 14,250?

My read of this language is that if I, if the preseason projection is less than 14,250, and that's what the case is this year, I would not be able to open that fishery. Thank you.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. That, I mean, this ties together. It was my question was for Mr. Chamberlain, but this, this board-generated proposal is so extremely ill-conceived and for such a highly allocated proposal that when it came out that, that the wording preseason was put in it, which I might question for the department, is where is preseason used anywhere else in the state? But did you realize that the preseason means this wouldn't have even opened next year when you wanted to collect this data?

Through the chair, we use preseason projections routinely across the state. You know, we're closing the Yukon River based on a preseason projection this year, you know, to fishing. So the use of preseason projections isn't necessarily a bad thing, but we typically adjust those pre— our management actions based on what we're seeing in season, especially in river systems like the Kenai River where we have a lot of information coming in from sonars. There's no— in, in the current provision to how we open up the setnet fishery, it's closed by the action plan based on the preseason projection, but then it allows us mid-season to do some checks, and as soon as we're convinced that we're going to meet the 14,250, we can open up a setnet, a limited setnet fishery. None of that language is incorporated into our C4, so Great.

I mean, so I understand it's good to be cautious and, and work with an in-season projection, but this in-season projection, preseason forecast, shuts it down. And it doesn't open it up after, you know, you're quarter or halfway through it, and then all of a sudden you see that there's fish on deck and they're going through the weirs, that you can open it up and let there be a fishery. This flat out just says it's closed. So how does that help collect data next year, Member Chamberlain?

So yeah, um, am I on mute? Nope, I hear you. Yeah, all right, go. So, uh, well, if I'm looking at this, this can be a fairly simple cure, and I guess the— we'll throw the question to the department. If we deleted the word preseason from G1, that, that makes it the forecast, and so that makes it adaptable for in-season management.

So I guess to the Commissioner, would removing the word preseason from G1 of 5AAC 21382 cure that problem for you?

So through the chair, what that would do is that would open up beach seine gear for commercial use as an alternative gear type to setnet fishing when we can forecast 14,250 including, what is it, including harvest and forecast error. It would be very operative like we're doing the setnet fishery, but I think there are other issues you may hear from CFEC and law with respect to being able to legalize this gear in time for this year's fishery. So, so again, the only tool that I have to collect the information that you want, in my eyes, is to use an experimental permit that is cost neutral, that isn't for profit, and try to collect that information in the fishery. And I'm going to tell you that the information that we're going to basically be able to collect is very similar to the information that we've collected the last 2 years at a couple sites there, that, and we'll collect another year of that information, but we're not going to collect the information that Mr. Chamberlain put on the record when you're, when he introduced this board-generated proposal, like what is the survival of these king salmon that are released and what is their contribution back into the Kenai River escapement. That information is going to be nearly impossible to collect this year.

And you may, again, you may want to hear from CFEC and Department of Law, if you authorize this by changing that, would that legalize this gear type in Cook Inlet, Eastside SatNet fishery this year? Because I've heard some, at least thoughts that it may not be possible to get there in the time frame necessary to legalize the gear.

You know, this is a frustrating thing for me. Uh, you opened the king salmon fishery. I think with, with what Kurt is saying is that if you eliminated that, or I mean eliminated that one, that wording in there, then now I don't see why you couldn't open up the, the fishery with, with saying if it's going to be over 14, 2050. And secondly, in terms of this money thing, I don't get it. I think in talking to those guys that did this, it cost them $40,000, and that's why it cost them that to set this up.

Up. So allow them $50,000, let them— as a setup and getting the information, they're not going to make a bunch of money, they're just going to cover their costs. I think they're willing to do that. It just— this isn't that— this isn't rocket science. I mean, I just don't quite understand why this can't happen.

And if you, you know, You can put out, Commissioner, as many permits, you know, that you want. You could put out 10 permits and then you say, well, which 10 do I do? Well, put them in a hat and draw them out.

You know, if you had 40 guys— anyway, go ahead. If I could, through the chair, that's what we did last year. We basically said we're going to offer experimental permits that are cost neutral, that are not for profit, and we ended up with 2 or 3 applications, and that's what we ended up permitting out there. We collected some information. So I know the Gabrielles ran a site, and I think the Hollyers ran a site.

So, um, we did do that, um, but we didn't authorize it for the for-profit. That's where we had 30 or 40 applications come in when they thought they could make it for profit. But once we went down to saying it has to be cost-neutral, the number of applications went down considerably. We'll see what happens if you offer them $50 grand to make their expenses, not profit, just make their expenses. Now you're going to get this information.

They're not making money, they just want to put— they want to be able to catch some fish. So why don't do that?

I, I think what I told the— through the chair, what I, what I told the board here is that we would be open to authorizing raising experimental permits again this year that are not-for-profit to collect the information. However, the, the information that would be collected under those permits is not going to be the information that I heard the board was looking for in terms of informing board deliberations next year. But you haven't answered my question. Why won't you okay $50,000 to let them just make Again, through the chair, I said I would be willing to offer commissioners permits that are making expenses, but I, I don't know if that's $50,000, I don't know if that's $30,000 or what. And my biologists aren't economists to figure out what cost neutrality is.

We're looking at that right now, but we're kind of waiting for the board to take an action here so we can get to that next decision. All I'm saying is that I will not authorized commissioner's permits based on previous board action in this fishery using beach stains for profit. Well, I don't— I agree with you, but figure out— I'm telling you that those guys have told me it cost them about $40 grand. So, well, again, right through the chair, you just offered $40 grand and you offered $50 grand. Those are, those are big difference.

So no, I offered $50 grand and I told you that before I said $50 grand. I said $40,000 is what they told me it costs them to set up. So I said give them $50 grand. Maybe they're off a little bit, you know, or, you know, if you're more comfortable, you know, they say $40 grand, give them $40 grand or give them $50 grand, whatever you think, but give them something to cover their costs or you're not going to get any information. This is what—.

Again, through the chair, we offered that opportunity last year and we had 2 or 3 applicants. You didn't offer them any kind of cost recovery? Yes, we did. We offered them to be cost neutral.

So you offered to allow them to—. Gabriel's operated cost neutral. Does that mean that they got to take some, some of the fish for expenses? For expenses. Oh, well, I guess I didn't understand what you meant by cost neutral.

Yeah, yeah, that's inconsistent with what I recall, but that's it. If that's what you're saying it is, so be it. Mr. Wood.

Okay, thank you. I'm— what I would like to ask the commissioner is if RC-072 that got voted down on March 825 had passed, if it had, if, if the original RC that just asked for beach scenes was put forward and didn't have no set netting attached, like get rid of set net sites attached, and that had passed, would you, would have been able to allow beach scenes?

Is that correct? Through the chair, I gotta think back to that proposal. I think if you would have that none of— I think you would've authorized that and you would've basically made yet a third gear type. Now you have set nets, you would've had dip nets, and you would've had beach scenes that would've all opened under the action plan. So yes, that would've happened under the action plan.

Okay. Thank you. Oh, wait, after pending CBC action. That's not what happened. Yeah.

That's, that's not what happened. We had an ACR that happened last year. As, as my recollection anyways. We had an ACR that we received that brought it up. We heard it, and at that time, the literal language that was in the proposal that was originally submitted for this meeting was the language that the board had before it and did not approve.

The original ACR allowed for beach stains outside of the 14250, outside of the action plan that That was the original request, and the board was not comfortable. At least I wasn't. And there was 3 other names on the top of that substitute language— that subs— or 2 other names, I should say. That substitute language was literally what was just put forth for consideration at this meeting. Okay, so that did not add an alternative gear type.

It was again a gear switch between beach scenes and gillnets in the action plan. Okay, the, the language that we had before us before RC4 was identical. It was the actual, it was the actual substitute language from last year. I think you're correct. I, I'm trying to think back to last year, but, and that's part of, I'm, you know, reading through the public comments, reading through the RCs that we've seen so far.

That's what I am seeing is that people are not necessarily opposed to beach seines in and of themselves or the, the use of them or the experiment of them. What they want is that to be an alternative gear type in addition to dip nets and gill nets, and also some are requesting for that gear type to be allowed below 14.250. Let me talk about the reason why I offered this language and why I'm going to be supportive of it. It. I have been, um, also frustrated by the board's inability, for a variety of different reasons, to try and provide more opportunity on Sakai in the Kenai area, especially the Eastside Setnet fleet.

Okay, um, I and other board members threw that out there and asked for people to come up, especially the fishermen themselves, to come up with ideas, alternatives. How can we get there? I had many, many, many conversations with East Side Setnetters on their sites, you know, on the phone, you know, in their workplaces, because I have long been looking for an opportunity to try, you know, a way to create opportunity on abundant sockeye when we have low king numbers.

That's what I am looking to try and advance with this language, right? This is not a wholesale change of the fishery. In the underlying management plan, gillnets are still allowed. This is, only within the confines of the action plan. And I was very appreciative of the Commissioner's Permit program a couple of years ago.

I was extremely appreciative of the folks who stepped up and started to experiment with the gear, had fully observed sites, and produced excellent reports that they came to the board with in, you know, in conjunction with that agenda change request. Proposal. I'm looking for an opportunity to try and advance that a little bit more. The department, I feel respectfully, Commissioner, that I'm getting a little bit of mixed messaging out of you because initially, you know, that permit program wasn't advanced much last year because you didn't think that you had the authority to do so. I understand the nuances of what you're saying now, but I may have misunderstood previous conversations that we've had.

The intent here is to try and incentivize people to start experimenting with beach scenes. If you have an opportunity at 14-250 or wherever to have all 3 gear types, where is the incentive for people to start experimenting and utilizing these and actually creating the fishery that they need while kings are in low abundance? That is, that, that's what I'm trying to get at here. There's no incentive if you can use all these gear types. So I want people to really start looking at that, and quite frankly, I see the next iteration and the next step of this as informed by the ability to continue to look at the use of commissioner's permits on different geographical sites under different tide conditions all the things that are unique to certain operations.

And if we are able to create some data that informs and defends what I suspect is the case, that beach seine gear is something that can be utilized on abundant sockeye, and reduce king mortality when they're encountered. I am very much in favor of looking for opportunity for this beach seine gear type to be utilized outside of the action plan. That— we're not there yet, and, but I think we can get there. And the reason I'm supportive of this language is I think that this is the first step up and being able to do so. We need the cooperation of the department, we need the cooperation of the commissioner, and frankly, I'm willing to give you all my thoughts on how you could do a successful, um, commissioner's permit program.

I think Mr. Svenson's idea of setting a ceiling is reasonable. We have some data. I understand that the, the department has already reached out to some of the stakeholders and collected some financial information about cost recovery amounts. I think if you set a ceiling on that, give or take a little bit, 5%, 10%, whatever, I think that's more than reasonable. I think that if you extended, you know, up to 8 to 10 commissioner's permits to encompass various geographical sites on the East Forelands, on Salamanta, on North K Beach, on South K Beach, in Kasilof, in Nakiski, couple permits per site, I think you could get a really good, at least start on what those encounters are and what the mortality associated with them are.

Now, I don't think that you're going to have enough kings, you know, in the, in it for a mortality study for years to at least inform a good one. But we have some information about what the encounters are and what the mortalities are on them, and I know that they've been relatively low very low actually for the East Side setnet fleet when they were allowed to harvest last year. Here's my other concern about creating this fishery within the confines of the action plan. I was not necessarily surprised, but I will say I was a little bit disappointed, and I spoke to this at the statewide meeting, that the department allowed at 14.250 for the gillnets to operate. And I know that they're reduced in length and time and all the things, But on a year like we had last year, where there were more Kings returning than I've seen in a while around the state, there was, there was sort of a glimmer of hope, I would say, that the department made no effort to reach that SMSY goal.

I also recognize that the SMSY goal would not have been achieved last year, but it seems to me that putting as many fish on the grounds to increase the recruitment might help in getting us to that SMSY goal sooner than later, rather than sitting in these Stock of Concern designations for decades.

So people can ascribe all the motive that they want to my intentions with respect to this proposal. My My goal, my motivation is to try and figure out a path forward to provide opportunity on abundant sockeye in times of low king.

And, and this is a way to do it. It's a baby step way to do that. Now, I don't care if it's based on a preseason forecast. I don't understand why you can have a preseason forecast and once you count or observe or whatever, a calculate that you have reached the 14,250 threshold, why you would be precluded from opening a fishery? That makes zero sense to me.

But it is what it is. I think you can do it. If you reach 14,250, why wouldn't you, whether it's based on a forecast or not, why wouldn't you be able to open the fishery?

So those are, those are some of my thoughts This is meant to be an evolution. It is meant to incentivize and encourage folks to experiment with the gear. And I recognize that right now, as it's currently written, that may not be possible for every single member of the East Side SedNet fleet to be able to participate in. Some don't have connections to lease. But I want to get people thinking about how do they propose to be able to use a net, not a gill net, but a net, if they aren't connected to a shore lease site.

There are ways to do it. I mean, I— are setnetters have to be connected to shore in Area M? I thought that there was like anchors required, but I think that there's ways that we can get at this. And I want people to be thinking about that and incentivized to think about that. There is also an alternative gear type that is also available, and that is a dip net.

People can choose to utilize that or not to utilize that. People can choose to utilize a beach seine or not, or they can sit on the beach. That is their choice. But the intent here is to try and figure out a way to create opportunity on Sakai.

That is my— that, that's— that is my intent, and this is the first step in getting us there. Is it perfect? No. But in terms of process, knowing that this meeting was coming, um, on May 1st, I extended the upper cook and lit proposal deadline by a week so that people have the opportunity to respond to whatever action the board takes here with proposals. So I just wanted to put that clearly on the record as well, that this is not meant to cut out public opportunity.

This is not meant to cut out dialogue. And frankly, if we remove the word preseason, I don't have a problem with that. Frankly, reading some of the, um, the RCs that have come in, if we extend that timeframe from June 20th to August 15th, fine.

To make it commensurate with, you know, the current opportunities that were afforded in the action plan. So those are my thoughts, and I am not quite sure what order these came in. So I think, I think maybe it was Mike, then Tom, then Curt, then Greg. We'll go with that. Sorry.

Okay. If I'm out of— Take a breath. Take a breath. I'm out of order. So, um, I'll take a breath.

RC-4—. Before RC-4 was put out there, um, we were getting rid of setnets. So I appreciate RC-4 because getting rid of setnets would have been really messy, uh, politically. I think I agree with you, Member Van Doren. I mean, there is a lot of unanswered questions here.

A ton, all the way from CFC, all the commercial fishing entry commission, all the way to the shore leases. I just don't know. And, and as it's written now, we can't even fish and collect this data. We don't— we can't get a commissioner's permit. So I'm at— I'm just trying to ask myself right now, why are we in such a hurry to get this wrong?

Like, this really to me seems like something that needs the deliberation necessary next fall to come up with some of these answers, and maybe by then CFEC will even be able to have a beach stain permit out there for Cook Inlet.

I mean, there's— we're— there are so many unanswered questions here, and like you, we're all trying to come to a solution, but there's— we keep coming up with dead ends, including the fact that they can't even fish this year to collect the data, which is the original original proposal was all about.

The original proposal was based on 14250.

I, I guess, I guess I don't agree with your statement, but that's okay. Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, well, there's a lot here. I mean, there's a lot here to digest. Um, I appreciate the commissioner's, uh, response to, um, what his potential actions would be or wouldn't be depending on what the board does with this proposal. I think that was very clear to me.

I think, um, a few things that we haven't talked about. I think, you know, I'm quite shocked actually that We haven't heard from CFEC because, you know, one of the things that the board needs to consider is that if the board passes this, CFE still needs to react. And so if CFE— CFEC would like to make comments, I didn't see any written comments from CFEC. FEC, which I was kind of surprised about as well. We also have, you know, an opinion from the Department of Law which talks about a couple of things that are, you know, a little bit concerning to me.

And but the big, the big one for me is the process and the public participation. I mean, this is not a small issue. I, I agree with the chair, and I do believe that she does want to figure out a way to provide opportunity to harvest these sockeye. I don't think there's any question about that. I think that I also am in favor of trying to figure that out.

But there's hundreds of permit holders. There's some people that have lease sites. Less than 50. And I think that it would be— this could be problematic when it comes to the Limited Entry Act. I think these are all the things that I think gets— that get— that gets brought out in public testimony and Committee of the Whole and being able to be in a room with people to where you can have sidebar conversations We are not, we do not have the ability to do that right now.

I think that we are going to be making, this is a, these are fundamental changes to a very, very important area of Alaska, not only to commercial fishermen, to sport fishermen as well. It's a huge economic driver of the state. And for one, I am not willing to take action on this right right now, especially based on what the commissioner has said. I've said earlier that I think we're at this point for a really bad reason. And I mean, I guess I'll just leave it at that.

Now, Madam Chair, you're probably not going to like this, but I'm going to— I'm going to move to postpone action on Proposal 192 RC4 till March 2027, upper cooking limit.

I'll second that. Second that.

Object. Object. Object. We've got an objection to the motion to post postpone. Um, what— I think you've made your points clear, Mr. Carpenter, about why you want to postpone, but I'll give you the opportunity to add anything else if you'd like.

You're muted. Oh, this is a very big issue. I think that the public deserves the right to have access to board members when big issues like this are made, and I just don't think think that this is the right format to do it, and I'll just leave it at that. Okay, other board discussion?

Madam Chair, on the motion, Mr. Chamberlain, then Mr. Swenson, and then Mr. Godfrey. Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, just speaking on the motion, um, I'm— I can't support this. Uh, one of the things, you know, that I've kind of express frustration is this process is being used to delay action on a lot of things. And we're seeing this, you know, um, that, you know, here it is, we're waiting a year before we can make a motion on something we were trying to do last year.

And yeah, we failed, but at the same time, what that's going to do is that's going to cost a year of data. Um, there's nothing stopping the CFEC, you know, and if the board waits for ideal times for the CFEC board to, to take action, and you wait for other bodies to take action, nothing ever gets done, and you just end up tied up in process forever. I've seen this, you know, it— that's the epitome of fisheries management, and especially in the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, you get so tied up in process, by the time you're done doing something, that is protective of fish, the damage is already done and the proposed action is so outdated you can't do anything. So yeah, I don't want to get tied up in process here. And so with that, no, I'm absolutely for moving forward with this one because the worst thing we can do is nothing.

Second worst thing we can do is delay. So yeah, I support Member Erwin's objection. Mr. Swenson and then Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. White, I, I had my hand up because I wanted to talk. I have several questions before this objection, but on the motion right now, we have the motion before us. Okay, I just want to make sure you talk because I'm next in line when we get back to the other thing, if it— if this doesn't pass. Thank you.

Right, Mr. Godfrey? Yeah, so point of order. Um, I was trying to intervene before there was a discussion. What I believe I seconded was a motion to table or laid on the table, but that was not the terminology that Board Member Carpenter used. But in effect, that's what he's saying.

If in fact I just seconded a motion to table, there's no discussion. You would go directly to a vote as soon as that happens. That may be the case, but that was the motion to postpone was what, um, and I'm taking it, I'm taking, taking discussion on it. That's a problem. We can, so Um, okay, well then, uh, I've had, uh, then I'll speak on the motion.

I've had technical challenges on my phone this whole time and haven't spoke much, but I agree with the concerns Mike Wood has expressed, and particularly I think everything that Board Member Carpenter said, or virtually the same things I would be saying. I'm not delving into the merit of this because I have a problem with the process. And so I believe this circumvented the process to the extent that on such a provocative proposal as this is, and as many stakeholders are involved, this is— this doesn't compare to the prior two, '90 and '91, when it comes to the process issue at all. This is much more pressing and important, in my opinion, and there's there should be Committee of the Whole, there should be public testimony, and there should be a long run-up to that meeting, which next March would provide that. And it's not like it's in cycle 2 or 3 years later, it's next year.

So, okay, Mr. Wood. Okay, I have a question for the Commissioner, but I—. On the motion right now, it's not— we're not— we're not questioning. Speak to the motion, please. Okay, then I'll just leave it with I totally support the motion before us.

Okay, any other—. All right, on the motion, Director— oh, Miss Irwin. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Really quick, I just wanted to add that we have already postponed and taken no action on multiple trawl proposal-related proposals and multiple hatchery proposals this cycle, and I think it's imperative that we begin to dive in and actually begin begin to take some action on these proposals that are being put before us. Thank you.

On the motion, Director Nelson, please call the roll.

Madam Chair, I just have a question about— since Member Wood is recused and not able to vote on this, I guess I'd look for Mr. Lee's input on whether Mr. Wood should be voting on the motion to postpone.

Through the Chair, Director Nelson, at this point, um, I believe that HB 33 prevents voting on matters. He can participate in other ways but not votes. Yeah, okay, thank you.

On the motion to postpone, uh, to, uh, the 26-27 Upper Cook Inlet meeting. Godfrey?

Yes.

Wood?

He's recusing. Oh, sorry, my— my— gotta cross that out. Chamberlain? No. Irwin?

No. Carpenter? Yeah. Svensson? No.

Carlson Van Dort. No. Motion fails, 2 in favor, 4 against, Madam Chair. Thank you. So back to the proposal and the substitute language for us, Mr. Swenson, and then Mr. Wood.

Thank you. Well, the first thing I want to speak to is that this public process that, uh, Member Carpenter has, has brought up We had all this public process last year when the vote on this went down. So I don't see why all of a sudden all this public process is going to completely change here. We've had all this public process on this same thing. Secondly, I think if— I think those setnetters, or the guys that were going to practice beach seining, didn't understand cost neutral.

Cost neutral, because I didn't understand cost neutral. Now, if we just said profit neutral, I would have clearly understood that. But I know a couple of those guys said, well, we're not going to do this. We, we, we're not going to put out $40,000 and then, you know, to get this information. It's all on us, all on us.

I also think that if we pass this to where we can, you know, delete that language, bring this, the saner, this, the beach seining in when it's forecasted to be 14,250, whenever that happens during the, during the fishing. I think CFC would approve this on an emergency because I think it's really important and I think they would do that. That. Now I'm just guessing, but that's, that's my take. So thank you, Mr.

Wood. Okay, if our— for the commissioner, if RC4 passed as it's written right now, would you be able to issue any beach sand permits next year?

Okay, so I, I just had my hand up for a while. I found out from staff that we did not allow the sale of fish on permits last year. I think that's probably why we did have a little bit low participation, but we— I found out after discussions with staff right now we could be looking at cost-neutral fisheries and making them not-for-profit under these regulations. So that's what we're looking at right now. I know I directed Colton to reach out to a couple staff, the Gabriels and other people, as to what they would have for cost-neutral fisheries.

If you vote for RC4, you would be opening a commercial beach seine fishery pending CFEC action, you know, when you get 14,250 in the river. So I guess I'm a little confused. If you vote it down, what I'm telling you is that I will probably issue the permits, but if you vote it up, I'm not I'm in kind of this quandary because you could have a commercial fishery prescribed by the regulation, but that would not be an experimental fishery at that point in time. So it would be a commercial fishery that you're operating, and I would not be issuing probably commissioner's permits because you're authorizing a commercial fishery pending CFEC action. Commissioner, you sat at the table at the statewide meeting, and you said that You did not issue commissioner's permits because it was a disallowed gear type based on the action that the board had taken the year before.

Yes, I, I'm, I'm confused. You're— I respectfully, it seems like I'm not following you because you seem to be all over the map on your answer. Okay, what, what I— let me try, try this again. What I said last year is I did not authorize CFEC— I did not authorize experimental permits because you had taken a deliberative action to not allow that, that gear type for commercial sale in the East Icetnet fishery. So I did not feel comfortable issuing experimental permits for profit like I did the year before because people were making significant profit off those.

You as a board decided to not allow that gear type. So the next year I went into it and said, I'm not going to authorize it for commercial profit. We decided to not allow the sale of fish because we we're not economists to figure out what a profit margin is on a fishery. So, but we got one or two permit people that wanted to collect information. We got that information.

They weren't able to sell fish. This year, I was saying I'm open to the concept of making them cost neutral. But again, we're not, my biologists are not economists. They don't know what a cost neutral fishery is. It's probably going to be, each fishery is going to be each experimental permit is probably going to have a different cost neutrality associated with it.

So we're in the same place we were last year. The definitive action the board has taken is to not authorize Beatsane gear for commercial use. You've made that decision. You have another per— you have another app, a proposal in front of you that would authorize this gear type, and now you're talking about authorizing it as a commercial gear type pending CFEC action. Based on a trigger identified in that proposal.

And what I'm telling you is that if you authorize that fishery and pass this proposal, I don't see the need to authorize an experimental permit because you're authorizing that gear type for commercial use. So I, I guess I'm confused as to why the board is confused over what I'm saying. Well, if we authorize it in the action plan at 14.250, And the board explicitly tells you, as I think you're hearing around the table here, from several members anyway, that they want you to continue the commissioner's permit. And the board explicitly tells you and gives you that guidance that they want you to issue an experimental permit if the 14,250 threshold is not met to open a full-blown fishery, but to continue the use of the Commissioner's Permit program under 14-250 with significant sideboards on it, i.e., not-for-profit, i.e., limited numbers of permits, i.e., specific geographic locations and conditions. I don't understand why you couldn't do that with your broad authority.

And through the Chair, I think what I'm saying is that if you, if you do the fishery under— what you have here is you're opening the fishery, you're allowing that gear type, and you're specifying in your regulation that at 14.250 that fishery doesn't operate, and you're asking me then to operate experimental permits for the very fishery that you closed. Yep.

Limited permits. I'm not asking you to go open 30, 40, 50 of them. Lottery style 8 to 10 permits to continue to gather data. There's nothing inconsistent about that.

Um, Mr. Godfrey.

Yeah, I just wanted to clarify for the record that, um, Board Member Svenson said we went through the process on this, um, and that in reality we didn't, because that was out of cycle last March, and, and the board had taken the proposal, and we generated that and considered on the last day of the meeting. So in fact, we didn't go through regular order, and I just want that on the record. Well, I think that's incorrect, Member Godfrey, because it was an ACR that was accepted at the work session. It was noticed for the last meeting of the year, um, and, uh, we took public comment We took committee of the whole during that time.

It was an ACR that was accepted and turned into a permit, an ACR that was accepted at the work session and noticed for a few months.

Member Chamberlain. Can I speak? Oh, never mind. Yeah, Curt and then Greg.

So I can let Greg go first. Thank you. And to Mr. Godfrey, I wasn't referring to March, I was referring to the previous year when we— this— we voted on this and it went down 4 to 3, or I mean it went down. That was when Stan Jure had the one— he was on the board. We had all this public process over this same issue then, not last— not this year, last year when he was still on the board.

So yes, I understand that, and whether we took it out of cycle and then we modified the original proposal into something different, which there was no public process, and essentially did the same thing again bringing it here now. It was modified and had Committee of the Whole.

It was modified after Committee of the Whole. Okay, Mr. Chamberlain, you're muted. Madam Chair, was a little fast on that trigger. Um, so I just want— let's just, let's just clear all of this up.

I'm going to make a motion for, uh, two amendments to this. The first one is to, uh, get rid of the word season in G1, and then to add a Section F that authorizes the Commissioner to issue up to 10 cost recovery experimental permits below, when the fishery is below 14,250.

And I guess for the As I do that, I'd like to ask the Commissioner and the Department of Law if they have any— if they'd like more clarification to those before we do that, and then I'll make the motion official and ask for a second.

Madam Chair, Mr. Chamberlain, could you read those two changes again for me, please? So the first one is to remove the word preseason from Section G-1, so it's just the forecast. And then the second is to authorize the commissioner to issue up to 10 cost recovery experimental permits when the forecast is below 14,250 sockeye. Cost neutral. Yeah, well, I hope that's implied in cost recovery, but if there's better language, I'll defer to the commissioner or department.

And was that second amendment to a particular portion of it or just to add? I think we're adding it, so it would be Section I or Subsection I, but I'll leave it to I'll leave it to the department to letter and number it as they see fit. Okay, Shaleen, are you— you're comfortable with those changes as well? You got those noted?

Yes, uh, yes, I have them all. I'm sorry, I'm writing them down. I was—. I, I was trying to unmute it and everything, but yeah, I got everything written down and and it's very clear. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. I have, I have a motion. I need a second.

I second it. Okay, is there an objection?

Hearing no objection, I'll object. Okay, Mr. Carpenter, want to speak to it, or—. Well, I, I, I don't object to the first part of Mr. Chamberlain's amendment. But the second part, to where we're telling or authorizing the commissioner to do something that he already has the authority to do, I think is far-fetched and probably beyond the board's authority. So I can't support the amendment.

So to that, I, I, I'd like to respond that I agree the commissioner has the authority to do that, but when he was saying he's not incline to do so, I wanted to make it clear on the record that we do. If now, if the commissioner would prefer that we just, we give the verbal go-ahead, I'm fine with that, and I can withdraw that portion of, of the motion, and we can just go, go under that agreement, or we can put it in regulation, uh, whichever is necessary to get it done is where I st— where I'm on, on that.

Well, having And having said that, Mr. Chamberlain, we can put anything we want in regulation. The commissioner doesn't have to do this because I think that this is a real stretch, a real stretch. And I guess I'll leave it at that. I think that this particular amendment is exactly the problem why we shouldn't be doing this at a later time, because we're doing this on the fly, and this is just absolutely absurd. Mr. Lee, on the amendment comments.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think now is probably just a good time to, uh, remind the board that it doesn't have the administrative budgeting or fiscal powers. The board's aware of that, um, and so any language directing the commissioner to do something such as authorize an experimental experimental permit scheme wouldn't necessarily need to be enforced by the commissioner. I also want to take this opportunity just to provide the board the actual authorizing statute for the commissioner related to his experimental permit issuing authority. It's at 16-5-050, Section A-9.

To authorize the holder of an interim use permit under 1643 to engage on an experimental basis in commercial taking of a fishery resource with vessel, gear, and techniques not presently qualifying for licensing under this chapter in conformity with standards established by the CFEC.

Were CFEC to take subsequent action or this to be adopted, incorporating beach sands into a gear code in 20AAC, that potentially would implicate this authority and prevent the commissioner from being able to issue experimental permits outside of the plan because beach sands would be a permitted gear type. Those are legal considerations for, for him to consider. But so far as this amendment is concerned, I think the important thing here is that the board, depending on the language that would be put into the amended language, cannot direct the commissioner to implement an experimental permit scheme.

I think that's— Mr. Chamberlain. Yeah, I think, uh, Consistent with Mr. Lee's advice, my intent on this is for it to be permissive, not directive.

And okay, we have a motion before us. Could I ask a quick question? So I'm just confused where the motion is now. The motion would leave RC4 and you're considering taking the language away and putting in a regulation directing me to do something with federal permits. But what's the first part of that motion again?

No, the amendment would be to strike the word preseason. Okay. Um, in G1. Okay. And then to add a subsection, if I understand Member Chamberlain correctly, to permit or to, you know, encourage— I'm not quite sure what the correct word is— the commissioner to issue permits, experimental permits that are cost neutral in, you know, the amount of 10, I think is what I heard him say.

And if I'm wrong, Chamberlain, roll in here. No, you're wrong. And Commissioner, if you'd like more or less, I'm open to suggest. The question I'm having, it gets back to what the Department of Law just said. The first part of it is it would still authorize CFC— it would still authorize beach sand gear pending CFC action.

So I'm just trying to figure out the timing of my, my authorities. If you authorize this and CFC doesn't finish their rulemaking in time for the fishery to begin, what that does in terms of me issuing experimental permits versus where I am right now with— without this, I, I believe that I can issue experimental permits that are cost neutral this year. So I'm just trying to figure out if this legalizes it, does it further then confine my hands based on what I heard from Department of Law in issuing experimental permits? So my intent on this motion is for for a liberal interpretation that experimental permits are issued as soon as legally possible.

If you would prefer more—. No, no, I just want to get a clarification from Department of Law because I think I heard him say I can't experiment with gear type that CFEC then legally utilizes.

Madam Chair, if I may. Please. Were this to be adopted as is, that would prompt CFEC to amend 20 AAC to allow this as a legitimate gear type within this fishery. Once that happens, I think the Commissioner's authority to issue experimental permits evaporates. That's what I thought I heard.

Right. And Commissioner, you had some substitute language at some point that created some sideboards around what an experimental commissioner's permit would look like. So I don't understand why that's an issue all of a sudden. Well, because I just heard it. I did from— so, okay.

Yeah, so now, you know, can't issue it before July, you still have the ability to issue permits? I would be able to issue permits until the, the CFEC authorized it, is my understanding. I don't know that, I guess that's another question of law. Would the intent of the board to do this authorization prevent me from issuing experimental permits between the time when they take this action and CFEC acts? I don't know the answer to that question.

My intent is no, I don't want to prevent you from taking any action. I, I know that. I'm just trying to figure out legally if I can do that. So if the CFEC has not authorized it, even if this language passes, does that preclude the commissioner from being able to implement or authorize permits?

I don't believe so until 20 AC were amended to incorporate this gear type into the licensing scheme. To answer Mr. Chamberlain's comment from— or to address a comment he just made, what's the soonest time that the commissioner could issue experimental permits? I think— I mean, right now the commissioner could be issuing those permits. I don't think anything precludes them at this time from doing that.

Subject to the, the legal considerations that he's brought up here on record.

So I guess what I'm hearing then is that that additional language may or may not be necessary, but we still have the— we still have a motion to amend. I'm supportive of the motion to amend as it was made.

And any other comments?

Seeing none, Director Nelson, please call the roll on the amendment.

On the amendment: Carlson, Van Dort, yes. Carpenter, no. Godfrey, no. Svenson, yes. Chamberlain, Yes.

Erwin? Yes. Amendment carries, 4 in favor, 2 against, Madam Chair. Okay, so we have the amended language before us. Any additional discussion?

Mr. Wood? Yeah, thanks. So I wonder, maybe for either for, um, Colton or for the Commissioner, where does this leave us now with these dates as written? Going from June 20th to June 30th, where does this leave the setnet fishery? Last year it was able to open at the very end.

Where under this proposal right now, RC4, where does that leave the setnet fishery?

Through the Chair, the way I read this is all the information regarding the setnet fishery is bracketed out so it disappears. So this only allows Beach St operations through July 31st right now as written. Yes.

Is that my— is that your reading?

Go ahead, Mike. I think you froze for a second. No, I'm just, I'm just trying to understand where this leaves us. Saturday looks like Colton has his hand up. Mr.

Lippke, through the chair to the commissioner and Mike, um, so yes, what the commissioner said, this under RC4 has amended, um, the dates outlined, June July 31st, but what the commissioner said for the bracketed areas, this does also remove that last time period from July 28th to August 15th. So this would remove Set Eel Netting as a whole from the Stock of Concern plan.

And if we wanted to make commensurate with the existing SetNet site, I'm Um, then there could be an amendment to extend July 31st to August 15th. Is that correct, Colton? It—. So the way it would be now, the, the beach standing would, would stop the 31st, but if you wanted to allow that opportunity into August, then yes, you would amend— you would need to amend that end date out. Okay, thank you.

Mr. Carpenter, then Mr. Wood. I, I'll let, let Mr. Wood go. Mr. Wood, thank you. Yeah, I was— I had a follow-up, but so I was just trying to figure like, so it sounds like it, it sounds like now that it will only be beach sanding, no set net, uh, up until that date under the stock of concern plan.

So what happened last year where they got Two Openers would not exist this year and that beach seining would be replaced and that would accommodate only about 35 to 45 lease sites in the future?

Is that only beach seining and then we, we get rid of 300 and some setnets? That won't be allowed to set?

Through the chair, either Colton or Commissioner. May I, Mr. Lipka? Um, yep, so I'll try to break that down, Mike. So if this date stays where it is, or whichever day it would be amended to, this replaces set gillnet with beach beach sand. So your other question, what happened last year?

No, that would not happen because setnets are gone, but it would be replaced with beach sand. So if we had a similar projection scenario where we felt confident to make the 14,250, then it would be beach sand instead of setnet.

Okay, so—. Dib nets are also allowed though, correct? Yes, Madam Chair. Dib nets are allowed, but there's 450-some setnet permits out there that currently exist and then all of a sudden you add just beach sanding to it, DNR shore leases that can permit beach sanding are only about 35 between the Kenai and the Kasilof River. So allocatively you're just basically giving beach sands to about 35 or 45 fishermen and leaving 300 and some out there not even able to fish with 1/8 of the amount of gear that they used to have.

And I might add that DNR gives leases to people based on their permit, SO4H permit, they issue a lease. There is no permit to beach seine yet, so eventually all of those SedNet permits out there that extend way out are no longer legal or can be used, and only the ones on the beach, which are still just a lease, leased by the person that leases them for $300 a month— a year, sorry, $300 a year.

I don't know, I mean, there, there is so much to this that, that is allocating 90% away. 90% Of a set of fisheries being allocated away for 10% of people that currently own a beach site lease. For $300 a year. Now I wonder how those prices are going to go up. Mr. Carpenter.

So this is a question for Mr. Lee. Listening to this conversation, we have— the date has not changed to August 15th. That's something that's being contemplated, obviously. So right now it's to the 31st because beach sanding would be the only applicable gear outside of dipnetting, I guess. Because setnetting, which is currently the card right now, is for set— it's a setnet card.

Would this be considered a new fishery?

Through the chair, so I want to start by saying that the board does have undisputed authority to regulate the means and methods of the fishery. Also within 1605, the board does have the authority to designate more than one gear type for a fishery. And so that's what this does. I think the distinguishing thing here for the purpose of, you know, the East Side Setnet is that this restrict— this substitute gear type is limited to the stock of management concern. The fishery includes multiple management plans, so only under certain circumstances is this in effect.

There's still theoretically the opportunity for setnets to re-engage in the fishery. Okay, and then to the allocation question, because I believe Mr. Wood is right about this. I believe there's less than 50 lease sites and 400 and some. Is it, is it, is it within the board's authority to allocate or outtake allocation away within a specific gear group? Because that's ultimately what what we're doing here.

We are taking somebody that has a legally purchased CFBEC card, SO4, and we are saying that in, in crux, that basically only these few people are going to be able to participate effectively. Does the board have the authority to actually do that within a Does it run afalovruner? Yeah, yeah. Through the chair, so the interallocation issue as it relates to lease sites is the primary reason that this RC was recommended so strongly because it removes the lease component of what would essentially be allocating within the fishery because that would represent a subgroup within similarly situated permit holders. Now, you know, in, in practice, I'm not entirely aware of how this would look, but in theory, every SOH-4 permit holder would have the same opportunity to engage in beach staining regardless of whether they have a lease site.

They might be limited by that just based on the available fishing space down in the administrative area, but on paper, legally, everyone has, is on the same footing and can engage in beach seining under Times of King Conservation. Even if your lease, even if your site is offshore?

I would think so, through the chair. I would think so because again, it's no longer tied to a lease site. And again, you do not have to have a lease site to engage in a shore fishery in Alaska. So theoretically, you could go to any beach within the administrative area and deploy a beach seine. You do not need to have a lease.

So in theory, 20 people could go to Salamantoff Beach where there's a current lease site and they, they could all deploy their beach sands? Through the chair, that would depend on the nature of the DNR lease issued to them, to the, I think it's the Kenai, no, the borough, their lease site and their framework there. The other restriction that is contained in this RC language is that everything has to be 600 feet apart from one another. So you're still—. Which is kind of the, which is kind of the crux of my question is, is if DNR lease sites have specific, you know, controls over them to where only certain individuals that own these SetNet cards have access to be able to follow through, how does that give access to these other people equally?

You know, through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, I, I can't answer that with, you know, a high degree of confidence one way or the other. I think for the board's purpose, how this proposal is currently proposed in RC4 complies with the board's authority, though I do understand that this may, could, um, you know, it gives rise to interallocation. Considerations, which I think the board is properly discussing here. Well, I sure hope the board, if they're going to pass this, discuss the interallocative aspects of this, because I've never seen anything quite like this in any other part of the state that I've ever been involved with. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Bowers. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, maybe I could help out a little bit in answering Mr. Carpenter's question regarding beach sites.

So the substitute language references a set, the use of a set beach seine, which is defined in 5 AAC 39.105(d)(6), and that definition reads a beach seine is a floating net designed to surround fish which is set from and hauled to the beach. So I think, I think Mr. Carpenter's question inherently was, can any leaseholder, SO4H leaseholder, fish a beach seine? There's lease sites that aren't on the beach, and when I read the definition, it's clearly associated with the beach. So that's, that was exactly my point, and I believe that that's a real problem here. Are there—.

But the alternative gear types are still in effect, correct? So anybody can go still use the alternative gear type that is still allowed, is that correct, Mr. Bowers? Yeah, the alternative gear type being dip net, yes. Okay, Mr. Wood, then Mr. Lipke.

Yeah, thanks. There's— there is— I, I have a beach, uh, I have a shore lease They're $300 a year. All it does is give you the right to fish there. If somebody else is there, they should leave without conflict. Otherwise, anybody can use your spot.

In this case, there's running lines that people put out, but then so what? They don't actually own it unless they're leasing it legally for that year. And the areas that you can actually beach-sane between the Kenai I can see off is about 35, roughly, maybe 45 or 50 for that entire beach. All those other leases out to sea are not leaseable to beach stain as it's defined in this. So nobody is going to change their SO4H permit to our beach stain permit if they don't have a piece of ground to use it on.

That's the allocated— I mean, this is— and nobody's going to give it up. I mean, now if you've got a shore lease and the opportunity to beach I mean, the value of that has just gone up exponentially because you've got them both. God forbid you don't get your lease back because then you've got a permit that's worth nothing. Mr. Lipka.

Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, if it helps this discussion, we did provide a Figure 192-2 in the staff comments that showed a representation of the current lease site layout for North and South K Beach. This is a pretty well-populated area. Some of what I would draw to your attention as well is that with the alternative gear type of dip net that was allowed, as part of when that was implemented, DNR did not deem that gear type type as retaining that priority use to those existing Set-Net lease sites. So I, from what I'm hearing so far, some of this would come down to DNR's determination of whether or not beach sands were going to be an honored gear type for the existing lease sites.

Mr. Chamberlain.

Sorry, I was muted. The— so yeah, I remember Carpenter and remember Wood's comments aren't falling on deaf ears. I think those are very important considerations and a lot of people are going to be, you know, if you've got an offshore lease site, that's going to be an issue. Issue. You're still going to have access to the fishery, but it's not going to be, but it will be limited.

I, this is where I would, you know, I would encourage, you know, alternative methods. If you can find a way to do a seine within your offshore beachside, if we could work up regulations for that, and that's one of the reasons we wanted to get this in place so quickly is there's a lot of room to course correct on this. I don't imagine that this is going to be great because when you're waiting for something perfect, you're going to be too late. So I very much would like to see course corrections and look for ways that we can harvest through more selective gear types for offshore lease sites. I think there's a lot of opportunity for growth, necessity Necessity is the mother of invention.

I think this provides a lot of opportunity, but yeah, there's a headache in the in-between. I certainly acknowledge that, and I'm not dismissing it. But yeah, I want everyone to be in the public to know that we do recognize that, and I take that seriously. So thank you. Appreciate those comments, Mr.

Chamberlain. What immediately comes to my mind is, I think it was the roe on kelp pound fishery in Southeast. Where the tennis game between the board and the CFEC has gone on for a really, really, really long time. Um, like, if the board acts, does CFEC need to act first? And I felt like, you know, what was potentially a good idea, um, was getting caught in, you know, bureaucratic purgatory.

Um, there are questions that need to be continued to be worked out. Um, but I think unless there's some action by the board they're going to continue to languish. And I go back to the word I use, incentive. Mr. Lee and then Mr. Wood.

Madam Chair, just to— thank you, Madam Chair. Just to address a comment from Mr. Chamberlain, just real quickly. Obviously, beach sanding offshore at a lease site that's not on the beach, that would, from a legal perspective, to resemble just regular purse seining. That's a separate limited fishery within Cook Inlet. Secondarily, in this, I do think I need to bring this to the board's attention.

Regardless of what actually hap— well, you know, if whatever the legal conclusion is or analysis that would say that how this proposal is drafted and being considered right now, regardless of even my own advice, if someone were to challenge this, a court would need more time to really dig into the merits of it. And so I just want the board to be aware that something like this could be subject to a preliminary injunction, something like, uh, some kind of court action that would prevent it from this or from being implemented this year. I'm not saying that's going to happen. I think the merits speak speak for themselves. I've provided an analysis to the board.

It's confidential. I'm not going to go deep into it aside from what's already been asked me here on record, but I just— the board should be aware of that, that there are considerations here that could prevent this from being implemented this summer. Mr. Wood, then Mr. Owen. Okay, last year they were allowed to set net. They did it, they caught 6 kings.

To Mr. Chamberlain's point, uh, it's, it's good to do something, especially to harvest sockeye. If you don't even allow those set nets, which currently under this plan is just less than one— it's 1/8 of what their permit that they bought years ago even allows. The nets are cut in half, they're shallower. I mean, to me it's insane that you're saying that this needs to be eliminated and you're disenfranchising 350-some permit holders for the sake of these beach seiners because they caught 6 kings after they'd met their escapement, the goal last year. I mean, this just so doesn't make any sense to me.

I mean, you're totally reallocating— I mean, 90% of the people in this fishery are going to be able to lose— they're going to lose their ability to fish.

And then at the very least, you think about these beach seines. What happens if you hit 14,250? Are you going to just allow everybody to beach seine? Like, how is that going to work?

Mr. Wood? Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate the board discussion, and I just kind of wanted to bring us back to why we're having this discussion in the first place. So 2025 was the first time since 2019 that the Kenai River late-run king salmon met either their escapement goal, their OEG, or their recovery goal. And in 2024 was the lowest year on record that we've seen since 1998.

That's as far back as the table goes. That I'm looking at, but I'm sure it goes back further. So in 26 years, we had the lowest run in 2024, and then 2025, we had that surge that Madam, uh, Chair was, was referring to. What I don't want to see is us looking at this 2025 number that technically met the recovery goal and immediately start to go back on all the progress that's been made. And when we're talking about this species needing true recovery, it's speaking to the desire for the board to see fruitions commercial fishing within this area.

There's no way for us to have a viable commercial fishery or viable income if we don't have a sustainable run. If we have— continue to have these low runs of kings that keep preventing us from allowing harvest on the sockeye. We need to take time now to ensure that these runs are sustainable into generations.

It doesn't make any sense for us to continue to harvest at the rate that we're going if we really truly want the Upper Cook Inlet to continue to be an economic benefit to the state of Alaska. We need to take cuts now in order to ensure that we can continue to harvest from these populations. I'll also remind the board yet again, this is only within the Stock of Concern plan.

As soon as we start reaching these recovery goals and we get out of a Stock of Concern designation, this doesn't eliminate set— the commercial setnet fishery forever. It's just within this plan. So from coming from somebody who also, you know, has seen different regions have to take huge cuts in order to see returns and recovery and rebuilding, I think that it is worth it in the long run for this fishery overall for us to take some action on this at this meeting. And I want to thank my fellow board members for bringing forward the, the questions and the concerns that they have, because I think that we've given this a really good conversation and built some really good record on the questions that we're asking and these areas that we need to make sure we're— we have— we're having our questions answered. So I'll just leave it at that.

Thank you.

Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, I don't know who can answer this question, but in regards to access as an alternative gear type with a dip net in this particular fishery.

And maybe this is probably for Colton, I would assume. Can people that have these permits that choose to access the fishery using dip nets, can they fish anywhere they want?

Almost. So within the areas that we open— sorry, through the chair— within the statistical areas, yes, for all of the state-controlled lease areas. Now I know I said earlier that the DNR did not honor dip nets under the leases, but with on South Mattock Beach, there's a short section of beach that is controlled by City of Kenai, which did honor that. So that portion, no, they cannot. Those are exclusive to those leaseholders.

But outside of that, yes, within the realm of keeping their interference with each other to a minimum, I guess.

Okay, well, thank you for that. I just wanted to clarify that for myself. So look, I don't need to say much more. I'm obviously opposed to this for many, many reasons. I think that, um, the biggest one is I don't think we're going to get any new information.

I think that, um, the information that we got from these couple of, couple of people that participated in this under the commissioner's permits for a couple years provided good information. Um, I don't think that we're going to get anything new this year that's going to change necessarily deliberations that the board might have. But the thing that I do think would change is next year, if we were dealing with this in the normal cycle— I, I don't know, it, there, it's a, it, it just seems to me that there is not a consistent pattern here on this board board with being able to allow the public to engage with board members. Myself personally, I think that's the biggest thing, that that's one of the most important things, is for the public to be able to engage. You cannot engage with somebody on a computer when you're fundamentally changing the way this fishery is managed.

Secondly, to the Commissioner, I believe the Commissioner laid his position out very clearly. I think there's real questions to whether this is a, a new or existing fishery. I think there's real questions that haven't been answered specific to the allocation criteria and the board's ability to basically pull 90% of the allocation away from 90% of the permit holders and basically put it in the hands of 40 people. I think there's some real questions under the Limited Entry Act, there's some real questions there. I'm just not willing to make this decision now.

Am I willing to try and look at alternative ways to harvest sockeye in Cook Inlet and to keep the king salmon flowing into the river? I am. I absolutely am. And I think that's why I voted last time to include, you know, other opportunities. But when you look at the amount of the, the kings that are harvested in the commercial fishery, and then you look at the mortality rate associated with sport fishing, incidental mortality and release in the dip net fishery and the PU fishery, none of these things seem to be one talked about right now.

We're only talking about one gear group. It seems a little bit far-fetched. But I think that all these different gear groups need to have the ability to approach the board, bring proposals, and engage with the board before they make a decision on the fly. And that is exactly what we're doing. And I can almost without hesitation know where this is going to end up.

It's going to end up in court. And then guess what? We're either going to have to deal with this all over again because we didn't take a couple of extra months to allow the public to engage, or we're going to end up with a regulation that we have to continually modify. I just do not think this is the solution to this problem. The solution to this problem probably would be much better suited if we were to have as many user groups as we possibly could at a board meeting in Anchorage to where we we could come up with some sort of substitute language that tries to satisfy the masses instead of 30 people.

Mr. Wood. All right, I'm going to read the allocation criteria. Somebody should on this, so I might as well since I can't vote. So here we go. One, the history of each personal use of sport-guided Sport and Commercial Fishery.

The history of this is so deep, well, probably well over 150 years these people have been fishing, setnetting commercially, probably were even beach seining prior to the set drift gillnet and setnet fleet. The number of residents and non-residents who participate in each fishery in the past and the number of residents and non-residents that participate in this fishery. This is 100% on the backs of local Alaskan fishermen that bought this permit years ago that will no longer be able to fish, and a gear type that's not even, uh, noticed by CFEC yet. And then we'll see what happens. The importance of each fishery for providing residents the opportunity to obtain fish for personal use and family use.

These commercial fisheries also provide the people around them, their neighbors, fish that they need to live with and survive throughout the winter as well. At the same time, the regulations here have been created to allow more opportunity in river dipnetting and sport fishing for basically an entire south-central Alaska, and we're still trying to manage that and give the commercial fishery some fish to catch to support the processors there. The availability of alternative fisheries, well, we're apparently trying to create an alternative fishery right here, even though one perfectly decent one has been made, adjusted over time to prevent the— for the conservation of kings, and has been done well, not had a chance to be implemented. And then the importance of each fishery to the economy of the state and the region, We're killing these guys down there. Processors don't even come up anywhere in the inlet anymore to get fish.

I mean, we'll be lucky to see a processor even continue to exist in Akeenai.

And I guess last, the importance of each fishery for providing recreational opportunity to residents and non-residents. Well, that's exactly what's happening here. By killing this fishery, I guess we're We're providing more opportunity for in-river users. We'll see how that works. Okay, um, couple things and then I think we'll wrap it up.

Number one, um, this isn't being done on the fly in a community room meeting, in my opinion. This has been noticed for 6 weeks. We've taken public comment on it. At any point in time, I've taken the opportunity to talk with stakeholders. Over the course of the last 6 weeks.

Is it the usual, you know, board process? No, but I think the record has been built as to why it's being considered.

And to the last commenter's thoughts, I appreciate them. I don't think it's killing a fishery. The fishery is already damn near dead. They haven't had that opportunity to fish except for were very limited last year in the action plan. And I think that's going to be more the exception than the norm.

And so the intent, as I said before, is to try and provide opportunity sooner than later. And I think that I want to force the conversation about beach stains and whether or not that is a viable alternative. If it's not, the underlying management plan, when we come out of a stock of concern designation, allows for gill nets and it allows for dip nets. It does not, I don't think, you know, allow for beach sands at this point. So those are my thoughts on it.

I will entertain any other discussion points. Mr. Godfrey, Mr. Sensen, and Mike, is your hand still up or did you put it up again? It is not up. Okay, thank you. Mr. Godfrey, Mr.

Sensen. I think this short, um, I agree with the comments of Board Member Wood and Carpenter. One thing I have not heard raised during this discussion is the over-escape of sockeye and the record returns, and that at what point are we— at what point is the ecosystem going to correct itself, and what's that going to look like? Because that's— we're in uncharted waters there as well.

Thank you, Mr. Sensen.

I just have one quick last comment to make, and I'll make it short and sweet. Economically, as Mr. Wood is talking about, you get 500,000 people now living in South Central Alaska. Sport caught fish in Cook Inlet is worth far more than— 10 times more, they say, than a commercial caught fish. So the economics to this really is slided to the sports side of things and the commercial fishermen in Cook Inlet. It's a dying deal.

They have— they're not fishing much, so I don't know what to say about that. It's just the way it is. Thank you.

Any other discussion? Mr. Carpenter, will you do cost, please? Approval of this proposal is expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery requiring the acquisition of beach sand gear. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in the additional cost to the department. I call the question.

Thank you. The question has been called. Are there any errors or omissions?

See none from Comfish and from law— Eddie? Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to check in with Miss Hutter to make sure that we had the amendment language correct before we go to the vote.

So I do have, uh, the Second Amendment on there. Um, yes, and the other word is just to strike preseason and Uh, there, it's clear and we're good to go. Thank you. Any other errors or omissions, Sport Fish Division?

No, Madam Chair. Thank you. Um, question's been called. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 192.

Irwin.

Yes. I should have said 192 is amended. Pardon me, Madam Chair. Chamberlain? Yes.

Godfrey? No. Svenson? Yes. Carlson-Vandort?

Yes. Carpenter? No. Motion carries, 4 in favor, 2 against, Madam Chair. Thank you.

I think that concludes the deliberations. We have miscellaneous business, uh, to attend to, and, um, there's one emergency petition with respect to proposal number 186. And I don't know, Mr. Nelson or the department, somebody like to speak to that, please?

Madam Chair, procedurally, you know, the board would need to make a finding of an emergency. So that would probably be the appropriate motion to get the ball rolling on the discussion, and then you could turn to Mr. Lipka, perhaps, for the staff comments on the issues raised in the petition. Okay, and just for our reference points, do you know what page in the emergency I mean, in the frequently used policies, the emergency petition is— or, oh wait, I just found it. Nope, that's standing delegation.

I love being online. This is awesome.

Um, anyways, I would just, uh, encourage the boards to—. Board members to find the emergency petition criteria. Um, so, uh, at this time we need a motion to bring forth to discuss the emergency petition, or I guess to approve the emergency petition.

I, I've got a question.

Go ahead, Mike. Um, uh, this emergency petition is based on the decision you made in Cook Inlet at the last meeting that I did not deliberate in. Yes, we— what do you want me to do about that with this right now? I think since you recused yourself, or you were recused from that, and thank you for the question, um, I think it's probably prudent for you to recuse yourself from the vote on this as well for the reasons that you articulated at the beginning of the meeting.

Katie, what do you think?

Through the chair, I, I think that's the prudent thing. You can participate in the discussion, deliberation, but the actual vote, to sit out. All right, I agree with both of you. Thanks. Thank you, Mike.

Appreciate it. Um, okay, so, uh, if, if anybody is interested, um, now is the time to make a motion to accept the emergency petition.

I would make a motion that we accept. No, I'm sorry, I'm, I'm sorry, I'm off on that. Nothing, I have nothing to say. Mr. Lee.

Madam Chair, I think it just might be helpful to kind of explain the procedure. The board received a petition regarding Proposal 186 adopted at the last meeting. Meeting. Within 30 days of that, the board either needs to deny in writing or set an additional meeting 30 days out to readdress the petition and what it seeks. There is a standing delegation to the department for them to handle these types of petitions and issue the denials or set it back on for the board to take action on it.

In this case, we had the opportunity for the board to address it directly. Um, and so, um, at this point, the decision is whether or not— whether to deny it or set this on— or set up an additional special meeting to consider the merits of the petition.

Okay. Uh, Mr. Carpenter.

Mr. Lee, does lack of a motion— is that voice enough for the board, or do we need to take it up? Through the chair, um, I quite frankly, this type of procedure is rare. Um, I think there needs to— best practice is to make an affirmative decision, either to deny it or to schedule it on for a special meeting. Very good. Move to adopt the emergency petition um, that came from board action on Proposal 186 or RC161.

Second. Okay, all right. So, um, would any member of the department like to speak to their, uh, memorandum, please, regarding the petition and the finding— department finding?

Madam Chair, um, I can go over essentially what, uh, what we were able to see in the petition and kind of what it would do. Um, so, um, and, and the department's finding, please, that's in the memorandum. In, in this situation, we did not make the finding since the board was going taking this up, so I can just go over what it does and outline the basics, Madam Chair. Thank you. So for the subject of this petition, it's requesting Alaska Board of Fisheries repeal the regulations adopted under RC 161 for the Central District Drift Gillnet Fishery Management Plan in Upper Cook Inlet.

This would repeal the adopted regulations and put to put back in place the former drift gillnet management plan that was amended at the statewide meeting.

The action requested in the petition would result in more liberal commercial drift gillnet fishing opportunity and increase the harvest of salmon, primarily sockeye salmon, but also coho salmon bound for northern Cook Inlet streams. And that is in relation to what you guys adopted, be more restrictive, so if you went back, it would be more liberal. The department maintains concerns about being able to consistently achieve the Deschka and Little Susitna River Coho Salmon Escamot goals and has managed all Cook Inlet fisheries conservatively to allow for the passage of Coho Salmon to these and other northern Cook Inlet drainages.

So for the context of the petition, so in this petition, The petitioner notes several concerns with board process and evaluation of information reviewed by the board during the March 2026 board meeting as follows, and we have a few bullet points. Um, one, ACR-5 was materially allocative request and could result in economic harm. Two, that RC-161 was introduced too late for meaningful public participation with substantial substantially different than ACR-5 and bypassed public process. 3, The Coho Salmon Conservation Record was incomplete, uneven, and internally inconsistent. 4, The conservation rationale was inconsistent with sockeye salmon management needs.

And 5, the board imposed a disproportionate burden on one user group. So the petition primarily argues against board process policy procedure and the substance of the record built during the deliberative process. Actions taken by the board to restrict fisheries for conservation needs can result in a loss of economic opportunity and create a burden for fisheries that are affected. These are anticipated results of restrictive regulation and are not unforeseen. And that pretty much wraps up our evaluation of petition, Madam Chair.

Okay, thank you. More discussion?

Well, I'll put a couple thoughts on the record, I guess, um, since we have a motion before us. Um, you know, it was— the ACR 5 was, uh, contemplated and approved by the board in October of 2025, um, at our work session, and it was noticed for, um, deliberation, I believe, for statewide, and that was mentioned during the work session in October. So that was— had plenty of time. I think the, the umbrage that the petitioner is taking with the RC process, too late for meaningful public participation, and that there was a difference in the ACR5 language, is true. There were, in my review of not only the record, but also— I mean, I'm sorry, the deliberative record— but there are several RCs that reference all of the aspects of what was contemplated in RC161.

So I think that there was a sufficient record built, and that was also referenced during the Committee of the Whole process. The Committee of the Whole process seems to be— and, and the department and correct me on this, specific to the Board of Fisheries, I don't believe that the Board of Game has a Committee of the Whole process. It's not required. I think that the requirement is for to take public input, and so that Committee of the Whole is certainly intended, but it's not a requirement as I understand it, and I can, I will happily be corrected by law or the department if I'm wrong on that. So I, I believe that the process was honored.

It is, it is not ideal for, in my opinion, for the substitute language to come after Committee of the Whole. I am on record multiple meetings trying to encourage people to work with members and to work with staff and for staff to stay to make sure that language is being brought forth and introduced prior to Committee of the Whole. That is best practice. It is not always possible. So I just kind of wanted to throw that out there.

So I don't disagree that, that having substitute language introduced, you know, after Committee of the Whole is ideal. There are still RCs that are accepted after that. So we are still taking input from the public. After the Committee of the Whole process deliberations. Um, but I think that it would be potentially interesting for the board to consider, um, you know, a cap or a, a deadline for substitute language to try and avoid some of these issues going forward.

But that's not what we're discussing right now. So I agree with the department's finding. I don't think that there's anything that was unforeseen, um, in the, um, in the proposal or the RFP that the board deliberated and, and accepted and passed. So, um, I, I, I can't, um, can't go along with the finding of emergency. Mr. Chamberlain.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I, I agree. Um, yeah, there— everything I'm seeing here, it's, it's like when we're passing law or when you're litigating, it's a motion for reconsideration. You have to point to a process issue or a manifest error of fact or law or something there that really bites into here. It just can't be that I disagree with your decision.

I understand this is a very, very passionate issue. For a lot of people, but I also want to recognize that this issue was very heavily deliberated there. Everybody in, in the effects of this were brought very clearly on the record. So on this one, I think we're fairly clear that it doesn't meet the criteria for finding of an emergency on this one. And I guess I have a question question for a process on this one.

Does a no vote on the motion to adopt result in a declination, a declination letter, or do we need to have a motion to, to say no on this one? I'm just— a process question. I think the motion is to accept an emergency finding, so a yes vote would be to accept the emergency petition. And, um, and a no vote would be to not. Okay, well then I, I'm leaning no and I'll, I'll leave it at that.

I don't think it need much— needs much more discussion. Other board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter? Yeah, I— while, while I understand the frustration, I don't think that this really, when I look at the criteria, falls under the guise of an emergency. I think a board decision was made and, you know, I guess the process moves forward and somebody has the ability to come back and ask for that to be overturned through the regulatory process. How we got to that point, the ACR process, that's a different different question. I think that was a very flawed process, but as for the emergency, I don't believe one exists.

Any other board discussion? Question. Question's been called. Uh, Director Nelson, on the motion to accept the petition.

Chamberlain? No. Carlson-Vandort? No. Irwin?

No. Svenson? No. Godfrey? No.

Carpenter? No. Wood?

He was reduced. Pardon me. Yeah, uh, motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair. Okay, is there any other business to come before the board?

Madam Chair, not that I have.

Okay, I, I did want to reiterate, I know you mentioned it earlier, that we, we will be reopening, uh, the proposal, uh, window for Upper Cook Inlet only. Uh, we should be able to get it opened this evening, but it will be open through 11:59 on the 7th. May 7th, yes. Okay. And that's good for Upper Cook Inlet, right, Art?

Yes, Upper Cook Inlet only. We will not— yeah, as she explained, because the action taken here changed kind of the lay of the land regulation-wise. So yeah, we will reject anything that's Lower Cook Inlet or Kodiak.

Okay, any other board comments before we adjourn?

I will just say, um, thank you for making yourselves available, uh, to take up the business in the special meeting. Um, goodbye to Mr. Spencer again, and, um, hopefully we won't have to put you through another one of these, um, before July 1st. So thanks, thanks for your service and thank you for being with us. Any other discussions? And congratulations to Member Wood also for your reappointment.

Miss Erwin. And thank you to Jared Godfrey for his service. Oh yes, Jared. I'll be seeing you guys around. I see you enough that.

Yeah, exactly. Thank you, Olivia. I'd just like to say—. Yeah, I'd just like to say again, it's been a— it's been a pleasure and an honor to serve with you people for the last 3 years, and I will miss you all and miss the process. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Svenson. Anything else? Seeing none, we are adjourned at 6:06 PM. PM. Thank you.