Assembly on Record Against Hatchery Cuts

Details

Category: News

Created on Monday, 23 December 2024 15:37

Hits: 824

By SHANNON HAUGLAND
Sentinel Staff Writer
    The Assembly passed a resolution last week opposing a state Board of Fisheries proposal to cut the allowable hatchery take of pink and chum salmon eggs.
    Kevin Mosher and Thor Christianson co-sponsored the resolution, which passed 6-0 at the Tuesday meeting. Chris Ystad recused himself, since he is on the board of two hatchery organizations.
    Proposal 156, which calls for a 25 percent cutback in the allowance of chum and pink salmon eggs for hatcheries, will go before the Board at its Southeast Region meeting in Ketchikan starting January 28. If it passes, the Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association hatcheries in Sitka, and hatcheries througout Southeast, would see their production of pink and chum salmon reduced by 25 percent.
    The Department of Fish and Game issues permits to hatcheries to operate programs to produce and release fish, based on a certain number of eggs.
    Scott Wagner, manager of the NSRAA hatchery in Sitka says passage of the proposal would have a “severe economic impact on the Sitka community.”
    “Cutting 25 percent of our program would affect commercial, sport and subsistence fishing in Southeast Alaska,” he told the Sentinel.
    Wagner said a similar proposal was put before the board in 2018, and the board turned it down following resolutions against it from the Sitka Assembly and other local governments in Southeast.
    At present the Board of Fish has only one member from a coastal community, Cordova, and no representatives from Southeast, Wagner said. He spoke to the Assembly Tuesday, stressing the importance of Southeast governments opposing this extreme proposal because of the wide-sweeping negative effects on Southeast hatcheries, processors and fishermen.
    Petersburg, Wrangell and Ketchikan all have passed similar resolutions against Proposal 156, he said.
    A Fairbanks resident and former Board of Fisheries member, Virgil Umphenour, has put similar proposals before the board 10 times in 20 years, he said.
    Umphenour has written that his efforts are based on “significant evidence that there is an ocean carrying capacity that is exacerbated by the proliferation of Alaskan and Asian hatchery releases into the North Pacific. This is particularly important to Chinook salmon (on the Yukon) as stocks have declined dramatically all over Alaska. Chinook decline is so critical that the Yukon River may lose discrete stocks.”
    Wagner said there is no evidence to support these claims, and emphasized that hatcheries have become increasingly important in Southeast, particularly in years of low wild abundance. In 2024 hatchery catches comprised 40 percent of the total value of all commercial catches, for all species.
    Wagner said today he appreciates the Assembly’s support in passing the resolution, and its statements in favor of the hatchery program.
    Mosher at the meeting stressed that the hatchery program is important not only for commercial, but subsistence users, and that there is no solid science to back up the claims for Proposal 156.
    “The Alaska Department of Fish and Game does a lot of work, and has a lot of scientists who manage this very well,” he said at the Assembly meeting.
    Christianson said, “The hatchery in some years is what keeps our fishermen afloat, which I’m sure certain fishermen would agree with me on. It’s been a few years, but I’ve been out trolling for chums by Deep Inlet, and that’s a great fishery that we just wouldn’t have (without the hatchery). ... Fisheries are one of the pillars of our community.”
    From the public, NSRAA board president Justin Peeler said the proposer of 156 is using the Board of Fisheries proposal system to get around the established Regional Planning Team system in place for hatchery permits.
    “I’ve been on that roughly 12 years now, and not once has one of these proposers that are anti-hatchery come to one of those meetings and asked questions,” he said. “It’s important to note that, because what it is, is they’re not trying to participate in what’s going on, they’re not trying to learn about what we do, They’re just throwing rocks at the highest level without any thought in place to the people that they affect.”
    The “be it resolved” section of the resolution states the city’s opposition to Proposal 156, particularly to prevent detrimental economic and social impacts of the cuts. The resolution also state’s the city’s support of hatcheries and the city’s support of “science-based” assessments and decisions.
    Voting in favor of the resolution were Mosher, Christianson, Tim Pike, Scott Saline, JJ Carlson and Mayor Steven Eisenbeisz. Ystad abstained from the vote, but spoke in favor of the resolution during public testimony.