Herring Fishery
Dear Editor: This letter is in regard to the upcoming Sitka herring fishery in 2019. There are a few intentions in taking the time to write this. I understand much of the wording involved here is best to include a bit of care so as not to be mistaken or misunderstood. Plainly,
I’d like to point out this: our chances of harvesting the allotted quota for 2019 is very slim. I see an importance in writing this letter to explain why.
Maybe it’s best to introduce myself. My name is Chuck Skeek. I’ve been a participant in the fishery for nearly 30 years. I grew up in the fishery under my father Leonard Skeek. When the fishery went limited entry in the early ’70s Leonard was among those to receive one of the original permits. He remained active in that fishery from that time, but since 2008 the permit has been in my possession. Our family has been involved in subsistence herring harvests in the Sitka area for quite some time, and many around Southeast may recall the generosity by my father as he provided subsistence roe throughout the years to those in various communities. I’d like to state that as a consumer of herring subsistence I am in support of subsistence and commercial harvesting. As a commercial fisherman, I’ve spent my time supporting both ways of life, and I would say to this day that I am thankful to have had the opportunity to benefit from both.
I’ve been fortunate to have grown up in a region of Alaska that justifiably takes pride in who they are and what they do. Having been raised in a family of fishermen, I was also fortunate enough to have had a family that sought to preserve some of our Tlingit culture. A look at the various fisheries around the state will reveal a substantial number of people like myself, and the sac roe fishery can be held in the same regard.
Past surveys have shown significant Native participation in the sac roe fishery, and perhaps it should be viewed positively that we’ve taken advantage of such opportunities.
I am a strong supporter of responsible management. I believe the fisheries around the state are only present because of this type of management, and the two should continue to go hand in hand. There are many statutes and laws involved with any fishery in this state, and Sitka’s herring fishery can be held in the same regard. These laws are in place for many reasons but I highlight their need to protect a resource. The guideline harvest level (GHL) is a result of those laws, Which brings me to the greater point of this letter.
Market conditions will inevitably change year after year. It’s been stated in various forums and news releases the reasons as to why the quota wasn’t harvested last year. I think those statements have been heard already, but for those that haven’t been informed I’ll reiterate that market demands and size restrictions prohibited the fishery from continued harvesting. So maybe history repeats itself, and maybe we see the same happen this year as market demands may not change. There is a GHL of 12,869 tons of a mature biomass of 64,000 tons. Some rough figuring can be applied for an expectation, and I see benefit in taking the time to consider this for proper expectations and maybe some early preparations.
The minimal average weight restrictions for herring last year seemed to vary from company to company but for this letter we’ll use the conservative number of 100 grams as that seemed more common among the companies. Anything less than a cutoff was simply not to be taken. If we take a moment to look at the age classes and their average weights for the upcoming year, we can safely include the 6- to 8-year-olds of the biomass in this marketable category. This age class will account for roughly 24 percent of the overall biomass, so that number is part of what we will count as being in. If we continue with this weight minimum in mind, we’ll notice the 5 yr olds fall at an average weight of just 1 gram above that 100 gram minimum. For a conservative approach to this age group, it may be best to count in half of them. That number is roughly 10 percent of that five-year class, thus bringing us to a rough figuring of only 34 percent of the overall biomass that can be considered marketable. That percentage is also representative of the GHL of 12,869 tons, so one can see we’re looking at a number that is considerably less than what is allowed.
There are other factors involved that may lower that figure to be harvested. If the fishery is conducted in a competitive style, then as traditionally done so we will see days lost to processing. Days will also be lost to poor sampling. Within any day of sampling or fishing, there are also state and federal waters closed to commercial fishing that will likely have their intended effect to limit availability. As stated, the minimum weights were not universal among companies and may have been higher. All these factors, among many others, still run the chance of lowering what we’ve been able to figure so far.
I feel compelled enough to take the time to make some of these points known in a public manner. Perhaps some misconception can be avoided, and a constructive approach can be taken for what appears to be a likely outcome. If an industry and the public can come out of the winter with these numbers in consideration, perhaps some surprise can be prevented and a picture of fleet activity having a lesser impact on a biomass can be imagined. The safety of a resource is always something I have in mind with the fisheries I find myself participating in around the state, and I expect this year in Sitka to be conducted with the same care. I would like to close this letter by adding that this information is provided with a respect to the resource we’re privileged to harvest from each spring. This letter is also provided with the same reverence to the community of Sitka and all those that have an interest in this resource.
Chuck Skeek, Petersburg
