Local fishermen say several proposals up for discussion at the state Board of Fisheries' Alaska Peninsula, Aleutian Island and Chignik meeting this month could affect the sockeye that return to Bristol Bay.
The state Board of Fisheries will meet later this month to consider dozens of changes to Alaska Peninsula, Aleutian Island and Chignik fisheries. And while that’s beyond the bounds of Bristol Bay, local fishermen have been weighing in on proposed changes that they say could have an impact on the fish that make their way back here.
Fish caught in the Alaska Peninsula fishery, also known as Area M, are often on their way to other fisheries – including Bristol Bay. And the consensus among Bristol Bay-area advisory committees was largely that they want as many Bristol Bay fish as possible to make it back to the region’s five fishing districts, although they differed on precisely the best, or most fair, way to ensure that happens.
The Lake Iliamna Advisory Committee, a Nushagak Advisory Committee subcommittee and the Lower Bristol Bay Advisory Committee all supported Mitch Seybert’s proposal 155, which would close the Outer Port Heiden section. The Naknek-Kvichak AC is scheduled to discuss the Area M proposals February 10.
Outer Port Heiden is part of the Alaska Peninsula’s Northern District; a larger proportion of sockeye bound for Bristol Bay are caught there, compared to other parts of the region. The board re-opened up fishing there in the 2000s, and unlike other parts of Area M, it hasn’t been fished historically, a point made by someone in each of the committees.
Iliamna AC Chair Randy Alvarez told fellow committee members that he supported the closure in part because he had heard from residents of Port Heiden and others in the region who wanted the change made.
“I’m going to be in support of this proposal,” he said.
The advisory committees also discussed some proposals that would link Bristol Bay and Area M management, but support for those was split.
One such effort, proposal 151, would direct managers for the Alaska Peninsula’s northern district to consider the catch that comes from other areas.
The Lake Iliamna Advisory Committee ultimately voted 7 to 0 to support that, despite concerns that implementation wouldn’t be practical.
Committee Chair Randy Alvarez said it seemed like a good idea to consider other stocks, but the proposal’s call to look at specific percentages didn’t seem feasible.
“I would support the idea, but I don’t think it could be done,” Alvarez said.
But the Lower Bristol Bay Advisory Committee said those concerns about practicality kept them from supporting it. That committee took no action, and chair Mitch Seybert noted that with so many questions about how it might work, it likely couldn’t be passed by the board.
The Lower Bristol Bay AC then also voted against supporting a proposal that would direct managers from the two districts to work together in June and July.
Myra Olsen said she was concerned that such a proposal could increase management costs, although she supported the general idea of fostering communication between the different managers.
Other proposals that garnered discussion at the recent AC meetings were changes to better describe the Cinder River fishing area, which was supported by the Iliamna AC. The Nushagak AC also discussed a proposal to allow permit stacking in for Alaska Peninsula seiners, and generally opposed it.
The Area M meeting will also include deliberation on a handful of proposals that got a first round of testimony at the board’s Bristol Bay meeting in December. Those would change the boundary between Area M and Bristol Bay, moving it south so that Port Heiden-area fishermen were part of the Bristol Bay fishery. That has been proposed by folks from that region, who say they are more closely tied to Bristol Bay, but has been met with some concern from others in Area M who don’t want to lose the fish, or revenue from the fish, caught there.
Nushagak AC member Dan Dunaway said he support the change in part because the Outer Port Heiden fishery was created more recently, and the catch there consists of large numbers of Bristol Bay fish.
Also up for discussion at the board’s late-February meeting will be the proposed criteria for what the board should take into account when faced with possible regulatory changes in response to erosion. The Nushagak Advisory Committee members agreed that the list was a strong start, but there was little support for requiring all stakeholders to agree on any proposed solution, one of the criteria.
