Alaska Board of Fisheries Rejects ACRs on Hatchery Issues

The Alaska Board of Fisheries has rejected agenda change requests (ACR) to review sooner the matter of limiting the egg take capacity of salmon hatcheries.

During a lengthy work session in Anchorage, Alaska on Tuesday, Oct. 16, the board rejected by a vote of 1–6 an ACR from the Kenai River Sportfishing Association related to the increase in egg take capacity permitted in 2018 for the Valdez Fisheries Development Association’s Solomon Gulch Hatchery. The board also rejected by a 2–5 vote a second ACR from former board member Virgil Umphenour urging for a statewide cap on private non-profit salmon hatchery egg take capacity at 75 percent of the level permitted in 2000. Several hundred fish harvesters packed the work session meeting to hear reports from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game on both ACRs.

Prior to the meeting, the board received dozens of related comments from harvesters, processors and non-profit entities, mostly in support of current hatchery production, and opposed to reduction of the currently allowed egg take.

During oral comments, most of those at the meeting urged rejection of the ACRs.

“Don’t monkey with something that works,” said retired commercial fisherman and former Alaska legislator Clem Tillion, a past chairman of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council who has served on numerous fisheries committees. “The hatcheries are a success. Handle it with care. Leave a system that works alone.”

Jerry McCune, president of Cordova District Fishermen United, also opposed the ACRs. “I think what we need to be doing here is base everything on science, and not on emotion.” McCune said he felt that more science was needed, because nobody can say for certain what is going on in the ocean. He urged for more research by NOAA.

State law lists three requirements to be considered before the board can approve agenda change requests. They are whether there is a fishery conservation purpose, whether the ACR would correct an error in regulation, and whether the ACR addresses an effect of a regulation on a fishery that was unforeseen when the regulation was adopted. In both cases the board felt both ACRs did not meet those criteria.