] Sf,

ke

Bulk Ra'eUS Postage

PAIDAnf'hor IRe AI ska

p, "mil If 9,

805 West Third AvenueAnchorage, Alaska 99501

(907) 277-5845Published By

Bering Sea Fishermen's Association

(

C;'ozx/ c. CA- t-fz c (:c J' z:n ~';f! (er~ -r;S' h(VL

ishermen ask an on orei n

October 1980Volume 1, Number 6

be r ~ today frum four r resentalIv s of Western Alask"k d for hAse b ar gs order to demonstrate 8 sen us pro­

fl er es manal(em n n Ala ka A a bit of badgro -u hall e re we t 11<:10 8 out IS ell flhe western loe t

o J\.i l:: nd the aJor 'r on de en 011 fl lOth

nds 0 e dromC'",,,, "

ubcommittee Testimony

fESTIMONY OF THE HO aRABLE DO YOUNG

Mr ChaIrman Members f the SubcommIttee, i w:mt to thank you fort"e opportw:: y to bring thIs very il:lport t problem t" the attenllon of theCongress.

Yeu WI

They havt t ep

Alu,.:a

The following tesllmony was presented to the Subcommittee onFisheries and WildlIfe Conservation and the Environment, House ofRepresentallves, September 16. 1960, in Washington, D.C., by the followingmdividuals representing Western Alaskan fishermen.

Mark Roye herring fishing aboard the Magus in Security Cove.

harve hng theIr allocation ofgroundfish. allotted to them underthe 20o-mll hmlt law, Leltzell add­er!.

Rep Don Young. R-Ahska,lsputed lohnson secourt of the

I,panese efforts a.1l1 remind d hImof the flve ures t,: Japanese sf':.psm a 3U-ci" "r C'd thIS summer

Step hn on "eattle a't me j"r tel" n Dee <'c·

wi r 1\SSI re I

L< I zell hat x ""ont~ rwoull h n dv t

p

h

h

A

10 eSlde tk the Be

t

r

t rQUlinha:

salr! overnme tt t In lq

n te" p tt Ber 'oj

hmgton· F shormen from"'. sk· ,ppealed to Con­.r day to ban 'hi mtercepk n Imo b lapanr It n t hI h seas

t

rh v M

t

Wwe t

ss11 n offl '

But ferry Leitzeli tl sistant admmis"'rat"r for fishenc.. , said nodecision on the Alaskan's petition isexpected in the near future

"'1\/ "VB not made a decision.Leltzell saId. 10 response to ques­tions from subcommIttee chairmanJohn Breaux. D-La. 'I feel we needsome publu comment and more in­ternal anaiysls of the data.'

f nallves who followedL€ltze11 t the w,loess stand rebuk dthe f('deral g ,yernmenl for i loll!­

slow pproac sa s the e m-rr di· re before he 11f op Intrwk

\

,

Alaskans are now embroiled in economic policy debates of un­precedented intensity as the full magnitude of our oil wealth is reveal­ed. An opportunity exists for Alaskans to creatively use some of the"excess revenues" to broaden the state's economic base and, at thesame time, return some of the resource wealth to individuals throughthe suspension of the state income tax and through permanent funddividends,

While the above industries may well be the heart of the Alaskaneconomy in the future, small industries using appropriate technologywill be the soul,

The approach to these major projects is multi-faceted and com­plex, The stete is promoting development of these major industries bycreating the necessary infrastructure such as transportation links andcommunication facilities along with market research and development.However. as we work toward these major objectives, we cannot affordto ignore another important aspect of economic development,

On the economic front the administration and legislature haveforged initiatives that will accelerate development of the bottomfish in­dustry, expand the state's agricultural base and apply the value-addedconcept to in-state processing of petrochemicals. The bottomfishingproject capitalizes on fish protein now available but awaiting thetechnology. The Delta Barley Project attempts to demonstrate theviability of vast amounts of arable land in the Interior and thepetrochemical studies attempt to promote in-state primary processingof gas liquids.

hAA

'lO "

Appropriate Technology

On September 18th a group of individuals representing WesternAlaskan fishermen testified before the Subcommittee on Fisheries,Wildlife and the Environment of the United States House of Represen­tatives concerning the ever-increasing numbers of Western Alaskansalmon intercepted by the foreign trawl fishery in the Bering Sea,Their message was loud and clear - the interception problems had notbeen adequately addressed by those responsible for the managementand regulation of the Bering Sea ground fish fishery

~ Currently, the regulations of the Bering Sea ground fish fishery areIi contained within the Preliminary Fishery Management Plan proposedby the Secretary of Commerce. In order to affect any immediate relief.it was necessary for Western Alaskan fishermen to petition the Na­tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to amend the PMPand ask that regulations be adopted closing statistical areas I and II fora period of six months. This closure would effectively end the intercep­tion of Western Alaska salmon by the foreign trawl fishery.

Well, the response of the NOAA bureaucracy to the petitioner canbe characterized as "let's wait and see." Terry Leitzell, Assistant Ad­ministrator for Fisheries, NOAA, testified before the Subcommittee onFisheries that under NOAA procedures they had 120 days from thereceipt of the petition to notify the petitioner whether or not his agencywould proceed with the rulemaking suggested.

Working under this kind of time frame, it will be yet another yearof an unmitigated interception of Western Alaskan salmon by theforeign trawl fishery in the Bering Sea,

The serious nature of the interception problem was welldocumented by the Western Alaskan fishermen testifying before theSubcommittee. Unfortunately, the Subcommittee can do littlelegislatively to help us with our problem immediately, Hopefully, con­gressional interest and support will insure that the NOAAbureaucracy will be more responsive to the problems of this magnitudein the future,

Could we have ameaningful response?

EDITORIALPage 2/ Bering Sea Fisherman, October 1~9:.:8:.:0 ,

Revolving loan fund to beavailable for WesternAlaska fishermen soon

•

Small loans will soon beavailable from the Alaska NativeFoundation to Western Alaskanfishermen for the purchase of boats,motors and other fishing gear. Thepurpose of this revolving loan fund[RLF) is to provide loan monies topersons in Western Alaska who,though otherwise capable andqualified for commercial fishing. areunable to secure investment capitalthrough conventional means.

While the loan application pro­cedures are still being finalized,ANF hopes to begin receiving andprocessing loan applirations by mid­t" late-November. Approximately 45nays will be required to process aloan application. ANF staff willreview all a,:>plications, but the finalauthority for making loans will restw:th a five-member Loan Ad­ministration Board. Once a loan hasbeen made by ANF. a commerCIalbank will provide loan servicingfunctions. ANF hopes to make itsfirst loan by January 15, 1981

The following general criteriawill be used for screening loan ap­plicants:1 Loans will be mede only to

residents of Western Alaska.2, People fishing for herring and

other underdeveloped specieswill receive preference over peo­ple fishing for developedspecies, such as salmon,

3. The loan program will targetnew entrants to the f.sb in·dustry.

4. Both individual fishermen andco-ops [or other broadly ownedcorporate structures) will beable to apply for monies.

5. All loan recipients will be re­quired to make a minimum downpayment of ten percent of thetotal capital requirement.

The maximum loan obtainablefrom the fund will be $25,000 perfisherman. It is anticipated that mostloans will be for less, The initial RLFhas a total of $300.000 that can beloaned this year.

Loan terms for boat purchaseswill be between five and ten years.Net and motor loans will not exceedthree years, Interest rates will be setat 10 percent per annum,

Additional information aboutthe loan program is available fromyour regional BSFA representativeand from the Alaska Native Founda­tion.

Fishermen interested in obtain­ing a loan from the RLF should sendletters of interest to: Fisheries Pro­gram, Alaska Native Foundation,411 West 4th Avenue, Suite 314, An­chorage, Alaska 99501, 274-2451

The RLF for western Alaskanfishermen was established withfunds from the Economic Develop­ment Administration, U.S, Depart­ment of Commerce, Funds for ad­ministering the loan program wereprovided by the Alaska Departm "Itof Commerce and Economic Develop-

t

•

Within the framework of fisheries development we should also at­tempt to foster the growth of production-oriented small industry. Smok­ed fish plants or fish pickling facilities can serve local or regionalareas and. if successful, expand to markets outside of Alaska, Similar­ly, as the state helps private industry promote Alaska tourism. weshould also encourage the development of cottage industriesthroughout the state to provide the curios and handicrafts that will besold to the tourists.

It is proper to think "big" as we discuss methods of diversifyingour economy with one-time oil wealth. but we cannot afford to not think"small" also. Some of our wealth should be used in innovative pro­grams that will stimulate private development of small enterprises aswell as the much publicized petrochemical and bottomfishing pro­grams,

The Alaska Renewable Resources Corporation is one vehiclerecently created by the state to promote small enterprises. This cor­poration, along with other state programs, will help Alaskans who haveideas and drive, to develop small industries. As the state moves for­ward with major initiatives that will provide the economic frameworkfor Alaska, we must be careful not to eclipse programs that will foster

) growth of smaller businesses. These small businesses will provide theaccouterments that make the framework functional,

The impetus of economic change in Alaska is unstoppable. As thediscussions of public policy. technology and finance continue we can­not overlook the small industries using appropriate technology that cannourish in conjunction with the major extractive industries. A broad­based economy demands that there be room for the small. en­trepreneurial enterprises that coexist with the large seafood,petrochemical and agricultural businesses.

BERI"(1 SEAFISHERMA"

Published monthly by Bering Sea Fishermen's Association. 805 West Third Avenue,Anchorage, Alaska 99501, Phone: (907) 277·5845,

EDITOR AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Henry MItchell

BOARD OF DIRECTORS:NANA Region: Calvin Moto, Gideon Barr and Charlie SoursBering Straits Region: John JemewQuk and Weaver IvanoffCalista Region: Harry Wilde, John Paul Jones and Mark RoyeBristol BIY Region: Ted Angasan and Dan Nanalook, SrAleut Region: David Osterback, Martin Gunderson and Ricky Koso

October 1980 I BerIng sea F1ahennan I Page 3

Outside prices are looking to be m the $4.00 to 5.00llb. range. Themarket will be picking up for the holiday season. so let us know soonwhat volumes you have.

-------------------------------------------------------I II II Bering sea Fishermen's Association II MEMBERSHIP FORM II Send this form and $10.00 annual dues to: II Bering Sea Fishermen's Association II 805 West Third Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 II II II NAME 5. The thing that I want from the B.S.F.A. is: II ADDRESS a) information on fisheries such as a II newsletter II 1. I fish for: b) someone to express my opinions In II a) herring Juneau and Washington, D.C. II b) salmon c) someone to express my opinions to II c) other the Fisheries Board II d) In what places d) someone to work In my region to help II people learn more about lisherles II 1. I have limited entry permits for: e) help In getting the Russian and Japan- II a) gear type ese fishing boats out of Alaskan waters II b) area f) other II II 3. I am) ::,o~t Interested in fishing: 6. I would like the State legislature to: II a err ng a) change the limited entry system II b) salmon b) set up a boat loan program especially II c) other for small fishermen II 4. My major concerns with fisheries are: c) build small boat harbors II a) the limited entry system d) build fish meal plants so that the roe II b) the Department of Fish and Game - can be taken out of herring in my home- II what? town and sold separately II c) poor regulations - what? e) Improve my town's runway so it will be II easier to fly fish out II d) I need better equipment f) other II e) I would like better or more fish buyers I1_____________________________________________ -J

Market News

••

new area of emphasis. (Hawaii andCalifornia along with direct sales toJapan, are prime areas for saltsalmon, and herring roe on kelp forexample.)

With our emphasis on establish­ing direct links to Asian and Euro­pean markets for our rural Alaskancustomers, we plan to participate intwo major international trade showsto display products and establishbuying contacts for products onhand and the following seasons. Thefirst food show is in Paris inNovember - the largest food showin Europe. The second major effortwill be in early March in Japan atthe International Food Fair. We justfinished parhcipaling in theJapanese Buymg Mission whichcame to Seattle in early September.At all of these shows. plus one nextMay in Chicago, we displayed andpromoted a variety of salmonspecies and roe, herring, herring roeon kelp, Lamprey eels, shrimp andsmoked salmon. In doing this we em­phasize both the established speciesand introduce local or regional fishproducts not yet caught on a com­mercial basis.

We will have one additional tripto Korea and Japan this fall to ac­celerate the negotiation processwith fish companies interested indirect sales in both countries. Thiswill lay the groundwork for theSpring visit for both contract bidsand the trade fair.

Due to the frequent requests tomarket smoked salmon and smallvolume species, we will also concen­trate this winter on establishing adistribution system Wlthin Alaskathat should allow us to respond tosmall volume sales and spot itemsthat are not always anticipated mon­ths ahead of time.

Arctic Sea welcomes your in­quiries and requests for marketingassistance on any fish products,and information as to the means ofcatching them.

•by Terry Reeve

Though brokering of 1980salmon will continue through the falland the Japanese are still harvestingtheir huge Hokkaido chum run,September signals the beginning ofconcentrated marketing efforts onnext year's spring herring sack roefishery and salmon.

Because of the large volume ofchums still being harvested in Japanand domestically with PIlget Soundand Johnston Straits in Canada stillto come - sales of chums are veryslow at present as everyone waits tosee how prices will develop. In addi­tion. there is still a fair volume ofcohoes in cold storage due to thelateness of that run in several areas.Ganerally speaking however, thesalmon market has rebounded to aconsiderable degree from itsdepressive state of early last spring,and both herring and salmon pricesare looking more upbeat than theywere in May and June.

In addition, A.N.F.. Arctic Seaand C.E.D.C. fisheries orchestratedthe collection of food herringsamples in the Nome and Kotzebueareas this fall and marketing ofthese to further the use of herring asa food source in addition to its pre­sent emphasis on sack roe will bepushed in the following months.

Arctic Sea will also be involvedin the production for sample pur­poses at least, of Lamprey eels, in­itially in the Lowar Yukon area thisfall - in response to several villagerequests in that area to develop thisproduct on a commercial basis.

In the general area of develop­ing markets for the 1981 salmon andherring seasons, we will be in con­tact on a continuing basis through­out the winter with buyers in theSeattle area primarily on a weeklybasis by telephone, and every five tosix weeks with visits to that area.We will also continua our contactswith California and Hawaiianmarkets and this winter to em­phasize the mid-western U.S. as a

Marketing

2.25Ib.2.10 lb.

average3.50

errs

and

$3.20 to 3.25$2.00 (up from 1.40 mid-season)

1.40 to 1.50 (6 to 9lbs. add .45)1.90 to 2.00 (6 to 9lbs. add .45)

1.00 to 1.10

BSFAOnce in July and again in

August. B.S.F.A. let an article get inthe newspaper without giving pro­per credit to the authors We wouldlika to correct that now

July issue - "Bristol Bey RedHarvest: 17 million less than hoped"was written by Michael Aronson.

August issue - "The StateWe're In" was written by Lt. Gov.Terry Miller.

We are sorry for the omissionsand would like to thank the authorsfor their patience.

1011 East Tudor Road, Suite 210Anchorage, Alaska 99503 279-4551

Herring roe on kelpAnchorage - #1 qual. good egg vol. and no imbedded

FROZEN SALMON - SeptemberF.o.b. Seattle - averages - Dr. hlo, g.n.

Kings 11 to 181bsReds - B B. 4 to 6lbs.Chums - 4 to 6 lbs.Cohos - 4 to 6lbs.Pinks - 3 to 5lbs.

SALTED SALMON - current quotesIn paIls or tierces. hard saltF.o.b. Seattle - #1 qualIty

RedsCohos

by Terry Reeve

VoteNovember

4th!

ARCTICSEAINC.

Adelheid HerrmannP.O. Box 63Naknek, AK 99633268-4471Larry ChaseBox 267Bethel, AK 99559543-2956Tim TowarakBox 89Unalakleet, AK 99684624-3722Tim will not be working until the

1st of November. We expect to haveall three field representatives intown the first part of November fortraining in the loan programs of thevarious agencies and commercialbanks.

Adelheid Herrmann of NaknekLarry Chase of Bethel and TimTowerak of Unalakleet are the Ber­ing Sea Fishermen's Association'sfield representatives in their respec­tive areas. They are available to youfor help and information regardingproblems and informational needsour fishermen are in need of. Theycan be reached at the following ad­dreseas and phone numbers and ifthey cannot help you they can directyou to the correct agency or pro­gram that can.

BSFA appointsthree fieldrepresentatives

Page 4/ Bering sea Fisherman I October 1980

It's not more money that's at stake in marketing • • •

Market your own fish a new age?

Poor bottom/ish marketm~rns cutbacks at plant

Contact Edna Maynard at (907) 277-5845or write to us at:

Bering Sea Fisherman

But where do you put that manypounds of fish? How do you handlethem? Not only is a cold storageneeded, but trucks, scales, totes,forklifts and all this assuming theairlines can - and will - handlethe product in large quantities,

Where one fisherman cannot af­ford a cold storage facility, severalmight be able to manage it, especial­ly with the state of Alaska dedicatedpresumably to assisting such ven­tures, Other resources might beshared. The main thing, according tothose already involved, is to keep theoverhead down; deal with fresh fish,not frozen; and stay small.

For some fishermen, it's notmore money that's at stake inmarketing their own fish, but sur­vival. When established processorswill not buy a product. or offer aprice so low that you cannot affordto fish, the choice is either hustle upa market or starve at the dock,Marketing your own fish is a risky,complicated business when you getinto it, and "everything rides on adime difference," as one fishermanobserved. But the rewards are great.As one "uccessful fisherman­marketer put it: "The name of thegame is independence."

-The Journal, 9/BO

vanguard of do"t-yourself marketinghave to pass on. Fly-by-night opera­tions rely too much on luck [theweather, space available, etc,). InAlaska the airlines have coldstorage facilities, but they are pro­vided, if at all, on a limited basis.

and these facilities are not availablein Seattle,

Thus. it is the lack of coldstorage facilities that is the stumbl­ing block to alternative marketing,For example, jim Burris in Sitka hasdeveloped an efficient method fortaking bottomfish and landing it on

the same day. Four other vesselshave committed themselves to hisoperation, pending a market. Accor­ding to Burris, the market has nowcome through: his buyer on the EastCoast, after receiving an initial ship­men t, says he is ready to buy up to40,000 Ibs, per shipment at $.60f1b,(and he will pay the freight costs), Ifthis is the case, it is a dream cometrue.

is interested in finding advertisersinterested in buying space

in our next issue.

preciated by the airlmes. lf wetiocksdre used, itlS possible to cut costs bymaking them up yourself: I am toldthis can be done for as little as $3.00per box. In any case, wetlocksshould be purchased directly fromthe manufacturer. The rub here isthat it's difficult to buy le3s than acar load. A minimum order from abox manufacturer in Seattle,Washington, for example, is 1,100 at$1.75 per box (not including freightand storage).

As for homemade containers,it's a hassle for the airlines,especially if they're wood - or inany way difficult to slide. It is well tostay on the good side of the airlines.

Another obstacle is the red tapeinvolved in flying fish out of state: infact a fisherman who gets involvedin processing and marketing his ownfish could face up to 40 different per­mits, according to Bob Smatbers ofthe Department of Labor - not tomention bonds. The Department ofCommerce and Economic Develop­ment bas recently publisbed a pam­phlet entitled "Help to EliminateLaborious Permitting" whichoutlines what the public is upagainst. For information, write theAlaska Permit Information andReferral Center, Mail Pouch 0,juneau, AK 99811 (or call907-465-2615).

The State of Alaska requires amethod of collecting the raw fishtax, income tax, and a record onlanded fish. This is done throughpermits.

As for bonds, a $10,000 bond isrequired by the Alaska Departmentof Labor for fish flown out of state,This can be in the form of a savingscertificate or lienable property, ac­cording to Smathers. A $50,000 bondmay also be required by the Depart­ment of Revenue.

If you can survive air rates, per­mits and bonds, you're problems arejust beginning, While it is a fairlysimple proposition to fly fish out onoccasion, and even to make a profitdoing it, it is much more difficult toestablish a truly alternativemarketing network. For this, youmust have a cold storage facility,

This is the wisdom those in the

Bering Sea Fishermen's Association805 West Third Avenue

Anchorage, Alaska 99501

- Doily News, 9/26/BO

However, Edenso warned, manyshore-based plants in those areasare owned or controlled largely byjapanese interests not likely inclinedto diverting bottomfish catches fromtheir floating processors.

Icicle, owned by PetersburgFisheries, Inc., is the largest plantowned by Alaska residents in thestate. About 40 workers, half ofthem from the Petersburg area, willbe affected by the end of pollock andflounder buys, the Pilot estimated.Equipment used in processing is nowup for sale.

Enge said large-volume produc­tion of bottomfish will take 20 yearsor more to develop in Alaska. "Weknow the product is available. Weknow we can catch it, but we can'tmake money at it," he said. "Even­tually, I think it will be a viable in­dustry. ,but it'll be a slowprocess,"

Enge and jim Edenso, the state'sbottomfish coordinator, agreed thatIcicle's decision meant the emphasison bottomfish development in Alaskanow would shift to the Bering Seaand the central Gulf of Alaska.

If you're flying fish to japan, itis probably better to leave your totesthere, since you are charged not onlyby weight but for the space the totesoccupy. Northwest Orient and FlyingTigers, incidentally, have directflights to japan almost daily fromSeattle, and there are at least twodirect flights from Anchorage. Thecargo rate for fish is about $.81Ilb.depending on the amount. For con­trast, the rate is $.43Ilb. from Seattledirect to New York on EasternAirlines and $.951lb, to Honolulu,Hawaii, on United Airlines.

There are at least three types ofcontainers currently being used byfishermen to fly out their own fish:Agri-tainers, wetlocks, andhomemade. All are expensive,

Agri-tainers, made of plastic,are extremely tough, are relativelylight, have locking tops and are pro­vided with drains, Drains are veryimportant if you are carrying ice: ex­cess water costs money, Actually, itis probably better to use gel-pack[blue ice) which is available in Seat­tle from Tempress, Inc.

Wetlocks cost up to $4.00 for abox that holds 100 pounds; in addi­tion, they leak if they are the leastbit overloaded or mishandled by theairlines. Leaking boxes are not ap-

Federal Government. change fre­quently - as often as every month,

A hitch to keep in mind is tha trates are more than twice as highfrom Seattle back to Alaska: thus thereturn of totes will have to bededucted from any profits. It ispossible, however, says one fish­erman-marketer to get a break onreturn rates if you're a goodcustomer, especially on competitiveroutes.

juneau - One of Alaska's big­gest processi:lg plants is cuttingback its purchase of bottomfish thisyear because marketing problemsare too great, a company officialsays,

"We've been at this for four orfive years on a trial basis, but theeconomic situation is impossible,"says john Enge, bottomfish coor­dinator at Icicle Seafoods inPetersburg.

Enge told the Petersburg Pilotlast week long-line caught speciessuch as black c'ld and red snapperstill " ,u1d be processed at the ~:~nt

but high-volume trawl catches suchas pollock and flounder no longerwould be accepted,

Since 1976, about 7 millionpounds of pollock and flounder havebeen caught in Southeast Alaskawaters and processed at the IcicleSeafoods plant.

But, Enge noted, most of thepollock has been too small - lessthan 14 inches - for the plant'smachinery to handle economically.That problem, plus rapidlyescalating transportation costs,have kept Icicle from finding reliablemarkets in the U.S. and Europe, hesaid,

Two halibut fishermen,frustrated by a dock price of$,90f1b., decided to market their owncdtches at the end of the secondhalibut opening. The first one flew12,000 Ibs. to a buyer in Seattle, andc'eared an extra $4,000 on the deal.The second fisherman flew 13,000Ibs, to Seattle, picked the shipmentup in a truck and headed forSacramento where he had a hotmarket. Along the way in a blazingCalifornia sun his ice melted and thefish spoiled,

Oddly enough, finding marketshasn't been the biggest problem forfishermen dealing in fresh products,as most of them are. The problemsare in the logistics of getting the pro­ducts to market with a minimum ofexpense and loss of fishing time, Thebiggest problem is doing this on aregular basis, without having to setup a new deal with each shipment offish.

The first obstacle to be con­s,dered is the cost of air-freight.Rates differ widely depending on theroute, For example, Alaska Airlines,as of August, charges about $.15Ilb.[with a 3,000 lb. minimum) fromjuneau to Seattle, but charges$,221lb, from Sitka to Seattle, FromAnchorage to Seattle costs about$.251lb, on Wien Airlines and a littlemore on Alaska, Freight rates, whichhave now been deregulated by the

Whatever the pitfalls, a newage of market-your-own-fish appearsto be at hand. Inquiries fromfishermen for processing permitsand business licenses have increas­ed dramatically this year, says BobSmathers of the Alaska Departmentof Labor, and both Wien Air Alaskaand Alaska Airlines report in­creases in air freighted fish.

I

- Nels Anderson. Jr.Manager, The Bay Advertiser

minimum prices for fish could headopted to insure that our fish arenot sold below market levels. Thestate could also adopt a policy of im­posing a time limit on price disputes,thus guaranteeing harvest ofAlaska's salmon in a timely fashion.

The state could tie the time limitto price settlements by adopting aprice that would have to be paidbefore fishing commences if the timelimit goes by. The time limit wouldprecede the traditional fishingseason, thus avoiding the pressureof settling on or about the peak ofsalmon runs.

The objections to having theState interfere are valid, but anecessity if Alaska's salmon are go­ing to be harvested in a responsiblemanner. Alaskans lose revenue if allthe fish that can be harvested arenot harvested to their optimumbeyond escapement requirements.

What does all this mean tofishermen in Bristol Bay, the con­sumers of Alaska salmon, the na­tional and international user of oursalmon? It means that the state ofAlaska has to involve itself inestablishing policy on increasing thesale and consumption of Alaskasalmon products in domestic and in­ternational markets. It means thatfishermen in Bristol Bay must in­volve themselves in promotingsalmon consumption, marketingresearch. and product development.It means that the consumer in theState of Alaska must be educated tothe variety of ways that salmon canbe prepared for their tables. Itmeans that the national and interna­tional consumer must be exposed toour salmon product and be told thatwe have a product that is healthy,nutritious and protein rich.

Salmon is, and will be, themainstay of Bristol Bay's economyfar into the future. There is nothingelse that will replace the salmon in­dustry as the primary source of in­come for this area. Because of thisfact. all facets of salmon biology,production, processing, marketingand product development must baconcentrated in Alaska.

All of us, including this paper,depend on fishing as our primarysource of revenue. In order for us tocontrol our destiny in salmon pro­duction. we must train ourselves andour children to the tasks ahead.Unless there is full commitment fromaach of us, there will not be pro­fitable fishing seasons in the future.

The critical element of marketconditions stepped into the sceneand exerted its force by extractingsettlements under 1979 prices for allspeCIes.

Most processors placed limitson their fishermen thus reducing theability of fishermen to increase theirincome potential while increasingthe processor's ability to processfish. Limits proved to be inadequateand many processors suspendedbuying altogether.

The combination of a late startin the season. low fish prices. limitson production. suspension of buying- all contributed to a season farbelow all expectations. What was tobe a banner year has turned out tobe a disappointment 1<., manyfishermen.

Fish prices are determined by aworld market which is controlled toa large degree by foreign interests.In Alaska. the dominant owner ofprocessing capacity and marketingand distribution of salmon productslies in the hands of the japanese.This control is being masterfullymanipulated to buy low and sellhigh.

Furthermore. the japanese arenot only the only game in town, butthey must protect their interests byany means at their disposal. Theymust keep prices up to maintain aprofit margin by producing onlywhat is needed in existing markets.

An oversupply of salmon wouldbring prices down, thereby reducingtheir profits. The japanese also mustkeep in mind that they need to pro­duce fish at the lowest price that themarket they control will bear. Theymust always keep supply below de­mand in order to maintain a pro­fitable business profile.

Bristol Bay salmon is one sourceof japan's protein requirements. Thejapanese catch salmon and otherfish on the high seas as well as pro­duce their own in hatcheries. Theyhave also negotiated harvests insidethe Soviet Union's waters.

The fishing picture is bleak ifour reliance on one market con­tinues to dominate our economics inBristol Bay.

The United States. the State ofAlaska and international marketsmust be told that we produce" pro­duct that they can use on theirtables. The development of othermarkets is the only way to break thestranglehold of a one-market situa­tion.

There are other optionsavailable to Bristol Bay as answersare sought to the present economicsituation. Legislativelv imposed

October 1980 I Bering Sea Fisherman I Page 5

The big question runningthrough the rivers of Bristol Bay is."What went wrong?" This questionwill go unanswered until we knowanswers to othar questions posedbefore the 1960 fishing season.

Would the fish prices be settledat an early date? Would the salmonrun be early or late? Would pro­jected salmon returns of the Depart­ment of Fish and Game materiaiiza?

The answer to the first questionis no. The settlement between pro­cessors and fishermen did not occuruntil july 3. 1980. The settlementdate came at or near tha red salmonpeak.

As a result. most processorsplaced fishermen on a limit in orderto keep pace with the production ofsalmon.

Despite the limit. fishermen ex­ceeded processing capacity of theshore-based canneries and cashbuyers. This situation caused can­neries to suspend buying. leavingfishermen without a market.

The state allowed foreigntenders to come in to transportsalmon in order to allow processorsto catch up with excess fish. Ar­rangements were made to allowfishermen to sell their fish throughdomestic processors. The state thenwaived the need to go through pro­cessors and allowed fishermen to br­ing their fish directly to foreigntenders.

The salmon came back at closeto the traditional july 4th run. Largenumbers of salmon had escaped bythe time price disputes were settledand river systems were very close tothe department's desired escape­ment levels. Consequently thedepartment could allow unlimitedharvesting because there was littledanger of falling short of escape­ment goals.

Pre-season production goalsand planning of individual fishbuyers placed their processingcapacity at 35.4 million fish on a37.1 million fish available forharvest. Actual processing perfor­mance at this writing is 22.921.709.

The total run looked as though itmight meet the lower range of thedepartment's estimated returns.However. as time went by. the upperrange of total run size came withinhailing distance. All the elements ofa good season seemed to he fallinginto place.

Although all the elements for aprofitable season were in place. thefinal picture was a disappointmentto a lot of fishermen. We now canbegin to answer the first question:"What went wrong?"

Bristol Bay gillnetters at tender during peak of 19BO salmon season.

Calista, CIRIto explorebottomfishinginvestmentpossibilities

Calista Corporation and CookInlet Region. Inc. [CIRl). two AlaskaNative regional business corpora­tions. have formed a joint venturefor the purpose of gathering infor­mation to explore the possibility ofinvesting in the bottomfishing in­dustry. The joint venture documentswere signed on August 7 by Roy M.Huhndorf. president of Calista Cor­poration. The joint venture is openfor participation by other Nativecorporations.

The CIRl representative to thejoint venture is Pat Marrs ofSeward. ClRl treasurer and chair­man of the ClRl Fisheries Committee.Representing Calista Corporation isboard chairman Nelson Angapak.Matthew Nicolai. Calista vice presi­dent of operations and CharlesRoehl. CIRl board member. are alter­nates.

Since 1976. when the 20o-milelimit was established. the UnitedStates fishlng industry has beenslow in entering the bottomfish in­dustry. One of the primary reasonsfor this has been the lack of suitableinformation to justify the substantialinvestments required. However.there has been growing interest toinvest in the bottomfish industryamong large corporate investors andparticularly among the Native cor­porations. The purpose of the jointventure is to develop an informationbase needed to make the necessarydecisions about future investmentsin the Alaska bottomfish industry.

Both Calista and ClRl reflect ac­tive interest in the bottomfish in­dustry potential. Roy M. Huhndorf.president of CIRl. recently com­mented about the projact: "The bot­tomfish demonstration project whichis a part of this study program willprovide necessary data whlch wouldotherwise be unobtainable. Hopeful­ly. it will provide some of thanecessary information to encouragelarge-scale investments in thedevelopment of the bottomfish in­dustry."

Oscar Kawagley. prasident ofCalista Corporation. stated: "We arevery happy about our joint venturewith CIRL This is a project we allhave been anticipating - one whlchwe fully expect to benefit ourshareholdars and all Alaskans alikein the future. As a region whosecoastline borders much of the primebottomfishing waters in westernAlaska. we have an extreme interestin seeing this industry flourish."

The venture partners aredeveloping a bottomfishingdemonstration project involving atleast two foreign flag catcher­processor vessels fishing for bottom­fish in the Bering Sea and the Aleu­tian Islands areas. Negotiations arecurrently under way with foreignpartners.

This demonstration project willprovide an integrated approach tobottomfishing through the multiplecombinations of fishing technology.harvesting gear. processing equip­ment and marketing systems. It ishoped that this demonstration willprovide sufficient information for aninvestment by the Native corpora­tions in the bottomfish industry.

P8g4I 8/Berlng Sea Fla.,man / OCtober 1980

Testim0 ny.......::::CO:::.;NI~INll:::::E:::.:1IPII:.:::0=M~PA=GE::..:.1 _

CONTINUED ON PAGE 7

TESTIMONY OF HAROLD SPARCK

fIShermen would benefit, and indeed they have as catches appear to have in­creased. However, recent data acquired from the National Marine FisheriesService has shown that a new problem is occurring: Al~intercepted by foreign trawl f1eets,,Erimarily the Japanese, in the Bering

The best way to solve this problem would. of course, be to work throughthe regional fishery management council set up by the FCMA. Unfortunate­ly, jgn trawl fishery is still bein& regulated by the Department ofCommerce un er a Preliminar}' MiIll.lli!!ment Plan. Thus, the concernedl1sIlermen liave been forced to petition the Department of Commerce forrelief. Their requests is that two areas of the Bering Sea be closed to foreigntrawling from October 1st to March 31st. This is the time pariod when mostsalmon are intercepted. A similar proposal is pending before the NorthPacific Counil as an amendmant to the proposed Fishery Management Planfor this fishery.

At this point. let me indicate that the use of time/area closures, whilespecifically allowed under the FCMA, may not be the best way to solve theproblem. I have been contacted by US fishermen mterested in fishing for bot­tomfish in the Bering Sea who are worried that such a closure would affecttheir operations, I want to make It clear that, as an interim m ure to solvethe interception problem. a time area closure would probab y work best.However, I feel that in the long run the solution should best be left up to theregional council.

This, then, brings me to the reason for requesting this hearing. Thefishery is being managed by the federal government, and not by the ragionalcouncil at this time. Some urgent immediate relief is necessary. If theDepartment of Commarce refuses to provide this relief. then it will be up tothe Congress to address the matter. Further, tha lack of a complete database on this fishary will provide good evidence to this Subcommittee of theneed for increased observer coverage on our Fishery Conservation Zone, amatter that the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member have dealtwith m other legislation pending before the Congress. Finally, given the re­cent discussion we have had with the Department of State about the use ofTALFF allocations, it will give us an opportunity to determine what mightbest be done if this unacceptably high level of interceptions continues.

Again, I want to thank the Subcommittee for giving my fellow Alaskansa chance to bring this matter to our attention. I urge you to listen closely to·tha testimony and see for yourselves how bad this problem is.

Thank you.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration did not feel any necassi­ty to even respond to the merits of our request until mid-December.

Such a lack of interest on tha part of the agency specifically charged bythe Congress with responsibility for the regulation of foreign fishing withinthe fishery conservation zone comes as no surprise to the residents ofwestern Alaska long accustomed to agency preoccupation with thesafeguarding of the interests of the foreign fishing fleets at the expense ofdomestic fishermen, and to United Stetes fishery regulators looking forescape rather than confrontation With the Japanese fishing empire in situa­tions in which United States fishery resources and domestic Fishermen havebeen compromised by foreign fishing.

However, the Agency's refusal to take aggressive action to protect Unit­ed States fishing interests here IS even more perplexing than normal. Theleading Fishery Biologists for the Federal Fisheries Service familiar with thesalmon interception issue have repeatedly indicated that the foreignfishing fleets can easily obtain their full allocation outside the proposad mid­wintar closure area, and within the closure area during the summer months.Tha biologists have also indicated that the other side of the equation is evenmo e ompellmg Fully nmety percent of the salmon mterceptJons would beelimmated the tune area closure proposed by the residents of westernAlaska wa dop1ed. A recently as eptember 3, 1980, the Scientific andStatlsli Conunittee of the North Pacific Flsberles Management Councilwas inform by Dr. Loh Lee Low, one of the leading scientists on this impor­tant Issue, that the time area closure proposed by western Aleskans woulddo "a pretty good job" of eliminating salmon interceptions while enablingthe foreign fishery to obtain its full allocation.

But the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration still refusesto even publish the proposed time/erea closure for public review and com­ment. Obviously, something is seriously wrong with either the regulatoryscheme esteblished by Congress to protect United States fishermen or withthe commitment of Agency officials to regulate the foreign fishery in a man­ner consistent with the intent of the Congress.

The present situation is unacceptable to the residants of the Yukon­Kuskokwim River Delta. The western Alaska chinook salmon is one of themost important subsistence resources for the villages of our area. It also isimportant to our people as a major source of cash income. During hearingsin 1977 and 1979 on the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act,we reported to the Committee on the subsistence way of life in our region ofAlaska and on the few opportunities for cash income in our villages otherthan the commercial salmon fishery.

Seventy-seven percent of our total subsistence harvest is fisheries pro­tein, and chinook salmon comprise approximately thirty percent of that wet

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Harold Sparck.1 weight figure. And the intrusion of western culture into our villages has im-am the director of Nunam Kitlut· . . --.l!I&."nizatio-,:,n_ posed significant cash demands on our way of life. The Committee is well~sen the residents 0 the fif -sev Yu 'il: Eskimo villages the aware of the poverty in our communities.Yukon-Kusko WIlD ver ta in sou western Alaska. am 0 e direc- By reducing the chinook salmon biomass through interception by thetor 0 t e IS erles as Force of the Association of Village Council foreign fishery on the high seas, the residents of Yukon-Kuskokwim RiverPresidents (AVCP). 'I'1llU'.ia.heries Task Force was formed by the Association Delta villages must make a choice each year between harvesting chinooksof Village Council Presidents to participate in llle development, planning, for their sustenance or harvesting chinooks as a money fish. Choosing theand financing of the freshwater and salt water fisheries of the Yukon- former results in a reduction of the ability of the fishermen to generateKuskokwim River Delta. significant income to meet the non-negotiable demands of the cash economy

I am testifying today on behalf of both organizations. on village life. Choosing the latter results in a reduction in the protein intakeToday's oversight hearing is particularly significant. Although the of the fishermen and their families and the destruction of an age~ldculture.

Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA) was enacted by Con-gress to protect United States fishery resources for United States fishermen For this reason salmon have been designated a "prohibited species" byand to facilitate the development of domestic fisheries within the fishery the Secretary of Commerce, an administrative action which has been viewedconservation zone, the virtually unrestrained interception of western by the Federal regulators as the only tool available to protect westernAlaska Chinook (king) salmon by the foreign trawl fisheries in the Bering Sea Alaska fishermen, who have the capacity to harvest the resource, but whoseis dramatic evidence of the inability of the FCMA, and the administrative failure is now apparent.agencies responsible for its implementation, to regulate the foreign high It also should be emphasized that the interception issue is not simply an rseas fishery in a manner consistent with the original intent of the Congress. allocation issue between domestic fishermen and the foreign fleet which the

The subsistence and commercial chinook fishermen of the Yukon- Congress has indicated be resolved in favor of the domestic fishermen.Kuskokwim River Delta and their families are being adversely affected by Significant conservation problems also are attendant in the unacceptablythe level of foreign interception of western Alaska chinook stocks during the high level of interception. The Yukon River is over two thousand miles longwinter groundfish fishery. In lar e measure the . h interce tion lallJI1B and has over one hundred and sixty known chinook spawning streams. But

"t have gone unnoticed b er8I re 0 ow observer there is only one solar counting tower in the entire watershed. TheIU;p;""''\I em e ee a situation which we have documen ed.Bnd. Kuskokwim River is over seven hundred miles long and has over one hun-~t;j;:p 5 view in datail in prior testimon ore e Committee.. ince 1977, dred and thirty~ne known locations where chinook spawning occurs. ButC!,~\t"" rv cover e in e a as ·t~tr.Y-5.5 to2Jler- there is only one counting tower, one test net site, and two sonar stations in

qc '~Of)lu:~t,~vingtheb ancao e oreignbol!!UmetD.bottomtrBWI.. the entire watershed. And only thirteen streams are the subject of aarial

~~ f roc~tJj Iffile concern for chinook stocks in- surveys annually in each river system.

termixed wi ~::-:-S(\ Aowever, in 1979 the aggressiveness of tha foreign flaet finally resulted But most importantly, both the subsistance and cpmmercial chinook

~{y S'~1l1 observer statistics which for the first lime revealed interception levels fisherias peak on both rivers before tha Alaska Depertment of Fish andt" ~ 'lJIlore in line with the reality of a long ignored situation. According to those Game can count chinook escapement in the silt laden waters of both major\"1 statistics actual interception of western Alaska chinook stocks increased river systems. In recognition of this fact, in 1978, the Congress included\' • from the proposed 40,000 plus range to over 100,000. And as a result of the proposal offared by Congressman Forsy1ha which amanded the North

failure of the National Marine Fisheries Service to respond to this dramatic Pacific Fisheries Act of 1954 to authorize the expenditure of $500,000 for1979 increase, the 1979 interception level has continued unabated into the sonar research in western Alaska's river systems. Regrettably, this impor-first three months of 1980. tant research still has not been undertaken. As a result Alaska's fishery

Inexplicably, even in the face of the 1980 interception data the National managers have been compelled to manage the in-river chinook harvest on aMarine Fisheries Service still has not undertaken agency initiated action to "best guess" basis in lieu of a sound data base, and restricted commercialdiscourage similar interception levels in the future, even though section 201 effort on the chinook stocks.(g)(4)(C) specifically authorizes the agency to amand the preliminary fishery The continued health of westarn Alaska's chinook stocks is dependantmanagement plan regulating the Bering Sea groundfish fishery to include upon an appropriate aga class and sex ratio within each run, not the rawtime and area closures to prevent adverse and irrevlll'llible effects upon tha number of fish which have returned to the spawning ground. Because of the

estern Alaska chinook stocks and the fishermen of Yukon-Kuskokwim high levels of interception of females by the Japanese, the male dpminance inRiver Delta from overflShing of such stocks by the foreign fleet. the Kuskokwim River chinook run has baen intensified. Four and five year

In response to the disinterest of the Netional Marine Fisheries Service, old males dominate the fIShery and six year old females are virtually absent.on August 20, 1980, tIfteen Yukon-Kuskokwim Riv-r Delta villages and six Six year old females have three times the amount of eggs of five year oldorganizations representing all of the residents of that region of Alaska tIled females, and are assential for successful spawning.a petition with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for- Some biologists believe that the larger and more aggressive females aremally requesting the agency to initiate appropriate time and area closures selectively harvested out of the chinook stocks in the drift and trawl nets ofwhich would virtually eliminate the interception of western Alaska the Japanese fleet during their fourth year of life, but funding for researchchinooks. In response to our petition, on September 3,1980, we w"." inform- on this issue has not been available.ed by Terry L. Leitzell, the Assistant Administrator for FisheT'~, b,at the

•

,

October 1980 J Bering Sea Fisherman J Page 7

T estim0 nY---,,-CO:.:..:NTIN=UED:.=..::F.::.:RO:.:..:'d:..:.P:.:..:AG;::.E.::....6 _

I

CONTINUED OS PAGE 8

TESTIMONY OF JESSE FOSTER

J /

Mr. Chairman, members of this Committee, my name is jesse Foster.am 39 years old, and a lifelong resident of the fishing village of Quinhagathat borders the Bering Sea near the mouth of the Kuskokwim River. I am thPresident Pro-tern of the Bering Sea Fishermen's Association, a commerci!fishermen in Bristol Bay, a subsistence fishermen in the KuskokwiIdrainage. I also represent my area as an advisor to the International NortPacific Fisheries Commission, and the North Pacific FiSlleries Managemereouncil.l am representing Doth the commercial anifSuIisistence fishermeOT1J1el(uskokwim and Bristol Bay in my testimony.

I will concentrate my statements today on the impact of the foreigfisheries on the commercial and subsistence fishermen of Western Alaskwho depend on the returning chinook (king] salmon for a major portion (their livelihood. To avoid any misunderstandings, I will be talking abotchinook salmon, not sockeye, chums or pinks. The reasons for my last stallment is that last year in my testimony before this Subcommittee concerninthe very same issue of foreign interceptions of Western Alaskan chinoosalmon. a representative of the foreign fisheries. a public relations maltwisted my statements and claimed them untrue in a national fishermen'newspaper. I want no misunderstandings this year,

In the Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim area of Western Alaska, we have onof the highest cost of living and lowest average income per capita. I preserto you now the cost of living in Western Alaska as a villager without full timwork, and how much the immediate catch of 100.000 plus king salmon meanto families who depend on that salmon resource as their principle source ( 1income and subsistence food.

The yearly cost of living for a typical fishing family of 5 are:1. Food $25.00 day $9.0252. Energy costs 37'/KWH 9603. Heating Fuel $1.50/gallon 2,250 [1500 gallons]4. Gasoline $2.00/gallon 1,000 (500 gallons)5. Clothing [for ell seasons) 1.5006. Winter gear and equipment (sub­sistenc'e] 3,500

$23.535This is a very conservative figure and does not include home repairs,

healtn expenses, purchase of large investments like boats, snowmachines,or air transportation which is our only way of distance travel, and otherneeds. The average income atpresent is .$6,000, This figure is higher thenlast year's average of $4,000. As you can see, other mODey is needed tn sup­port a family, and that m0llll¥ comes frron America 'uaxpayers iliroughrBITef p.!Qllrams. A lot of taxlLayers money could v wingWestern Alaskans = own income by reducing the intercePtions~(1orki~moD on...1he.-hi8h SSSS, This is a waste lliJhe resourceJ for.J!leforeigners throw them back into the ocean dead. If that fish could grow \I, t ~2 more years in the ocean, it picks up a lot of weight, from 6 pounds to 24pounds in those years, and when caught, can be used by my people who de­pend principally on them for their living.

not going out into the ocean seeking their livelihood. They will be unable Itdo that for a long time, They are local people fishing a local resource, antthat local resource is being intercepted at sea with the support of ougovernment. My fishermen and the State of Alaska's biologists. with I

prayer and a guess, sets limits for our harvest. They set limits fully aware 0the economics of my people, mowing that reduced king salmon fis~

means extended welfare for the vilages of western Alaska. My people mo.the same thing. We are attempting to diversify our fisheries, to work towa"quality control of salmon, and to expand into new fisheries like herringsmelt and nearshore bottomfishing. That is the reason for the establishmenof the Bering Sea Fishermen's Association. However. diversification is manyears away. We cannot wait any longer for our government to protect UE

We are petitioning Congress through this oversight hearing to help us no\\and significantly reduce these interceptions this November.

Next, I would like to make a point similar to those raised by jesse Fosteand Harold Sparck, except from the Norton Sound perspective. Oueconomy is just as limited as the more southern regions. We depend upO'subsistence for the bulk of our families' food. The hng salmon is integraparticnlarly in southern Norton Sound to our subsistence diet. We oftehave to make a conscious choice of whether to feed ourselves with suisistence caught kings or to pay for our light and fuel bills with commerciallcaught kings. When the king salmon populations dipped in recent years, ouliving expenses increased, this is the choice we have been forced to make. Isome years, we do not even have that choice for the king salmon ere so fe'that commercial fishing is severely restricted and we are lucky to gEenough for our subsistence harvest. Without the money to finance othefisheries. we are locked into this present problem, and as jesse stated, thtaxpayers of America have been asked to help us out when it is the foreigfleets that have cut into our fisheries. Our worst problem is not nature, wcan live with high seas deaths of king salmon. My people have existed fothousands of years on that system. It is just now when the foreign fleets COltinue to interfere with nature that our problems have gotten serious.

One last point is that this Subcommittee may have recently been inforrred that Native Regional Corporations. established under the Alaska NativClaims Settlement Act of 1971, are wishing to joint venture in bOttOIIfisheries in the Bering Sea. The news announcement. put together with thassistance of a Seattle consultant with ties to the foreign fishing fleets wavague about potential conflicts with onshore western Alaskan fishermeconcerned with high seas interceptions of migrating salmon and herring.wish to inform this Subcommittee that both Regional Corporations havstated that their interests in bottomfisheries will be restricted as to periodof the year and gear techniques which do not involve interceptions (western Alaskan stocks of salmon and herring. Thank you, Mr. Chairma.cand I will answer any questions you may have.

When the males dominate the Kuskokwim chinook fishery the AlaskaDepartment of Fish and Game reduces the fishing periods to enable morefish, and in the process more females, to escape, Unlike the Bristol Baywatershed wbere salmon are found in abundance, every chinook counts inthe Kuskokwim River drainage to contribute to the income of our villages,communities recognized as some of the most poverty stricken in the nation.

Mr, Chairman, in conclusion I would like to again stress that the foreignfishing fleet has treated the western Alaska chinook as a "prohibitedspecies" in name only, that the agency charged by the Congress with respon­sibility to regulate foreign fishing of this important fish resource in a mannerconsistent with tha intent of Congress has failed to act in a timely or ag­gressive manner to prevent irreversible and irreparable damage to boththe resource itself and the fishermen of western Alaska who are dependentupon the resource for their substance, culture, and primary involvement inthe cash economy.

The Fishery Conservation and Management Act should be amended torequire one hundred percent observer coverage and for the mandatory im­plementation of appropriate regulatory options such as time and areaclosures in situations such as the interception of Chinook stocks on the highseas in which the designation of a "prohibited species" is not in and of itselfsufficient motivation for the foreign fishing fleet to conduct its fishing ac­tivitif'S within the fishery conservation zone in a menDer consistent with theintent of Congress embodied in the Act. In addition, the residents of thevillages of western Alaska respectfully request that oversight activities ofthe Committee be focused on the mechanisms, procedures, and capacity ofappropriate regulatory agencies to respond to changing conditions to ensurethat timely action can be initiated to ensure that foreign fishing activitiesare conducted in a manner consistent with the Act.

Thank you.

TESTIMONY OF WEAVER IVANOFF

Mr, Chairman and members of this Subcommittee, my name is WeaverIvanoff, and I am the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Bering SeaFishermen's Association, an organization of fishermen from the AleutianIslands to Kotzebue Sound. All member fishermen are residents of westernAlaska. I am also a member of the Advisory Panel of the North PacificFishery Management Council and Vice President of the UnalakleetFishermen's Cooperative.

For your information, the Bering Sea Fishermen's Association has beenvery active in promoting fisheries development on salmon, herring and bot­tomfish nearshore by our member fishermen. securing edequate financing,processing and assisting in the development of regulations that governAmerican participation in western Alaska and Bering Sea fisheries.

I will limit my remarks to four major areas: the harm being done thechinook [hng] salmon resource of western Alaska hy the foreign fall andwinter trawl operations in the eastern Bering Sea; the impact of these in­terceptions on western Alaska's king salmon populations, escapement andin-river fisheries management; the restrictions brought on western Alaskanfishermen by the State of Alaska's Division of Commercial Fisheries to pre­vent overharvest: and how these foreign trawl interceptions affect the peo­ple of the Norton Sound region, villagers who fish a limited but consistentking salmon run,

First, the foreign fishery has apparently increased its efforts in the mid-, winter months, rather than decrease them since we first alerted this sub­

committee to the interception problem in 1978. The king salmon intercep­tions have actually increased in spite of our repeated requests to ourgovernment to protect our fisheries under the 200 mile law. How are we asAmerican citizens to understand our government's continuing support forthe foreign fleets' fall and winter trawl operations that seriously damageour king salmon populations, and the limited economy of the villagefishermen I represent. This Subcommittee's current bill contains one provi­sion on mandatory 100 percent observer coverage that would go a long waytowards stopping the under-reporting and inaccurate loggings that lead tothe continual mismanagement of the Bering Sea's fisheries. Since june, fiveforeign trawlers have been cited for improper logs. As it is now, our govern­ment limps long with the 5.5 to 7 percent observer figure since 1977, andfunds only minimal Coast Guard surveillance. It is almost as if the foreignnations recognized our area of protest concerning king salmon. They ap­parently increased their fleet effort to make an economic argument to re­main free to fish the fall and winter months, hoping to continue the govern­ment's policy that the economics of the foreign fleet are more important thanthe small inconvenience to a limited number of American fishermen. Theforeign fleets have a convenient arrangement with our government, and asthe example of the observers and Coast Guard surveillance proves, no effortto upgrade either has been made since 1977. In our opinion, our governmentbelieves that the Bering Sea belongs to the foreign nations and it is westernAlaska which is causing the problem of having its king salmon interfere withthe fisheries of the foreign fleets.

We are now being told that 100,000 king salmon were taken in 1979 andthat during the first three months of 1980 observer data revealed the samelevel of interceptions. If this Subcommittee is unable to stop the next roundof king salmon interceptions that will start up in the fall fishery in October,1980, we will have witnessed another 100,000 plus hng salmon removedwithout a protest or any action of government, which is now well informedon the subject. Please try to understand the significance of king salmon toour villages. both as a commercial fishery and for subsistence..The kin&­salmon is.llJl!' money fish..,.We are very fortunate, given our poor economicpicture, to be blessed with natural king salmon streams. Without significantheavy front-.md investment, we can gather king salmon locally, and pay forthe majority of our expenses in that run alone. That is the reality of hngsalmon fishing. The remainder of the commercial salmon runs allow us aprofit to pay for our living expenses which jesse Foster discussed in hisstatement, and those expenses are the highest in the nation. My people are

I

\

,

I

r"illt

r

) fl~

Ipally5 f,

II

e

r

of monies from the Saltonstall­Kennedy fund - whIch is financedby duties on imported fish products- to be dedicated to industrydevelopment projects.

- Provides that 10 percent tototal obligation authority beavailable to guarantee loans on 75percent U.S.-owned fishing vesselsin traditional and under-utilizedfisheries.

- Phases out foreign fishing inthe 20o-mile zone, with the timetablebased on the ability of U.S,fishermen to increase their catch.

- Increases fees on foreignfishing in the U.S. zone to beef up theloan fund and to offset costs in ad­ministering the 20o-mile limIt law

- Requires foreign fleets to paylOu percent of the cost of stationinlll S. observ s abmml vessel,mom tor the lch.

Alloeat s ~ urfore .,n hor ba ed prl

fevdm htaxrort

r ppx

, IIn f thl n IOn

o I thut e e te th of theU.s b e ill payme ts deflc,tlayear was lOth.

Rep. Don Young. R-Aloska. a co­sponsor of the legislation, was notpresent for the debate.

Anchorll~eTime'~, ..-

bid system would produce enoughmoney to pr0perl~ administer the20o-mile zone

Gruening also called for a shIftill defense rl!' osophy "My posihoron defens~ spendmg 's that thel; ,ty of t return IS illore Impor­tant than t dol r 1U tI'v srenthe s d.

;eren ell rs al 0 hould bannel I' I t h g~er" v I betnefl r erv (el"""cn and -n

If h 1m r t,t (,s! piose1

e

rank

,

"i. Se\\eAn

H.y Wi;' k r

t b

t

n

Washington - The House\ldopted major legislation Tuesday tophase out foreign fishing within the20o-mile limit and increase federalaid to U.S. fishermen.

Under the bill, approved 300 to97, foreign fishermen will be appor­tioned smaller shares of the catchwithin the 200-mile zone asAmerican fishermen develop theability to take more. The ban wouldbecome total when U.S. fishermenare able to take 100 percent of thecatch.

House Fish and Wildlife Sub­committee Chairman John Breaux.D-La .. said he hoped the bill wouldbe accepted by the Senate and sentto the White House before Congressadjourns. The Senate passed asimdar fishery development b, I latelast y r md t me s runmnll ou tthis yt::: Ir or C'J] er°';)ce cOf""mi tteeto rc nole dlffcrcIi. ,8S III n f lWO

o UfO

lr x bm t~wh .sae

takm h e trllffi n r-I r t

Gruening offers fishing bid planDemocrat aark Gruening Fri­

day proposed amending the 20o-milelimit law to allow foreigners 10 bidon fish not harvested by domestIcfishermen

Under the plan. Alaskafishermen would get frst crack atthe fIsh. Then fore,gn nat ons wouldbid "on allo.wable G_ot'lS of fIsh nottaken by dom tIc fishermen SU(­cessf lid ers w '"-.1' alsc pay anun clf d am to "ffs tar ffsor ~ ort 1U tas

I '-0 dmhd "k t. f r tli

A fVIi

I

House votes to phase-outforeign fishing, increaseaid to U.S. fishermen

n th rtI 0 , te rgu I t a

h or IS nee d (orreso ou r.rub.e w,thlD theAmerican fishing industry that haveevolved since passage of the2Cf'mile limit law in 1976,

-11" The bill does the following:- Requires at least 50 percent

I

w

h tItI •

mrr n Bay and

laden with herring, causing them tohave to cut net, dump fish or take onto their skiffs more weight in fishthan is safe.

Both of these proposals will besubmitted to the Alaska Board ofFisheries for consideration at itsnext meeting in December. Beforethat time, proposals from all of thestate-wide FIsh and Game AdvisoryBoards "ill be published andreviewed.

The Central Bering Sea Board ismade up of representatives from allthe coasta v,lleges from Platinum tTununak. mcludinll Nunivak Island.

At a meet --8 m A ka-, It at theb gmnmg of t e ,,",ont.. the ..ow •Y Kon fls ( ""e AdVIsoryBo rd m 1 a r. ,-posal -ndarte t' th t of th tr El< m"i B, a u "h - m the ( peHo rz v h rmg fls er wou d b

to n xc u v re tr

hh

o ts hat.

to wh

r PI)S

educho

L

draan etw hn•

Two proposals which would sig­nificantly affect the herring fisheryin Security Cove and Goodnews Bayhighlighted the agenda at last Satur­day's Central Bering Sea Fish andGame Advisory Board meeting inMekoryuk.

The first proposal adoptedwould change the status of both areafisheries from "open" to "exclusiveregistration" fisheries. That is. ifyou fish herring in any other sectionof Western Alaska, you may not fishm eltlter Security Cove or GoodnewsBay, and if you fish in those twCiplaces, you l'lay not fish in an) othercoastal herring fishery.

Ken HalIlI:' of h!lam KILus, "xr d that the reasomng behm 1

h, m v w eon m,c - t p evn f r • en fr''''1 expln ngthe s e rmg fishery t J

to aXlmum prof t toas lla fI h r'llen.

n I, pr p s ould.n· r qwr m'ie~,erm u.'.:'~

•

F & G advisory boardsadopt herring proposals

Page 8/ Bering Sea Fisherman / October 1980

Testim0 ny CONTINUED FROM PAGE 7

I call it a waste for a dead king salmon caught as a incidental by-<:atchin the trawl fishery is a prohibited species, and must be thrown overboard.Once dead for this senseless reason, it cannot help our fisheries in any way.

I We fish commercially 12 hours a day. 2-3 times a week in Bristol Bey toallow escapement for better returns in effort to build up our king salmon

\ stocks. We have followed this practice for a long time now at the advice of6 5our biologist who knew that e lot of fish were disappeering in the ocean

fishing and hoping to get as many king salmon as possible to the spawning)~ () grounds in spite of the foreigners.

;;,.\~ _ \ But this is not going to work as long as foreign fishing continues without.... \l '(Vv,J: any control on the king salmon. . ..

~o- ,-" ~ The 100,000 plus king salmon caught and wasted by for81gn f,shingc,\J-"- would have meant a return of 2,400,000 pounds of king salmon at $l/pound

" with an average weight of 24 pounds per king. I figure that as a $2,400,000\l- <"oj loss to the local commercial fishermen of my regions. You may heve alreadyAt,\) \IV. heard statements from the State of Alaska's Department of Fish and Game

'\ '\\. \ d National Marine Fisheries Service about how many would heve. retu.rn-<;j.. '), d, and spawned if they were not caught offshore, Also, the maturmg king

\.0 . salmon are food for other ocean creatures like marine mammals, and we eath. . ~ them also for our subsistence food, We don't waste king salmon in Western\. \~~ aska in any sense.

\ Now, to give you better understanding of how that trewl interception af-6" I ects the smell village fishermen, take a conservative figure of onlywy 1.000.000 pounds being caught commerciall~.That is equal to $1.000,000~ \ ' dollars, which alone could pay for the hght bIlls of 1.000 homes ill Western

A: ska Less then I, of the potential 2,400.000 POlillds caught in trawl in­'~",e eption. If kings could have paid for 17 percent of the total income for1 00 l Western Alaskan fishermen. To clarify that last statement, that$1 0000 liv :i d by 1 000 fish ""len could have added '0 freir average in­

o $6 00 another I 000, raismg their earnmgs to $ 7.000, a 17 pera The v ~~ f this was' e t e can, d is being replaced by

AU."u t",~ ~yer the l te 'lta'es U, v u of lang salmon not re'urnp wn hat • be u g It s m f 11 t t) repla for

.~j;leterl runs ak 5 tOy ,to ave Kmg m n recov - ro highfh po e t v r v n h r fro IUS' mv v; e

almo or th Ir own f od. for ommerclal tanger Mr Ch rma me er 0 tins c mmlt,~".

ur p W e a ,f s Manag mIi n er es M (;oun t

n Mar eent th

s prob:n dt broUR t t

e