Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: PWSAC draft proposal

  1. #1
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,360

    Default PWSAC draft proposal

    Ok, beat me up guys. I've roughed together a proposal based on the problems with PWSAC. So please, let me know if its one I should submit, or let it die on the vine, or change a smidge before submitting. Constructive comments are always welcome. Suggested changes are in bold, underlined.

    1. 5 AAC 40.005. General
     
    2. Problem: State is unable to enforce compliance with rules regarding hatchery operations. Reference the 2006 report “Alaska Department of Fish and Game Internal Review of Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corporation.” Appendix A-23, “Memo of noncompliance with action plan, January 2008” shows that instead of improving, the problems and violations listed in the report are still ongoing. The state needs to be able to enforce compliance with regulations that are in place to protect wild stocks.
    3. If the problem is not addressed, PWSAC will be able to continue violating their contracts with the state with no repercussions, which can endanger wild salmon stocks in the area.
    4. Solution: Add section (i) to 5 AAC 40.005. I would hope to also see a committee discussion that addresses the recurring problems at PWAC, and to set up a system by which hatcheries can be policed, that actually has teeth.
     
    5. 5 AAC 40.005. General
    (a) The harvest of salmon inhabiting the water of the state, regardless of whether the salmon are naturally or artificially propagated, may be conducted only pursuant to regulations adopted by the Board of Fisheries.

    (b) The harvest of salmon returning to a private nonprofit salmon hatchery will be governed by regulations adopted by the Board of Fisheries. The board will, in its discretion, develop harvesting regulations after review of the harvest plans or other materials, information, and testimony, if any, presented by the regional associations, hatchery operators, the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, the Department of Fish and Game, fishermen, and other interested parties.

    (c) Where hatchery returns enter a segregated location near the release site and can be harvested without significantly affecting wild stocks, a special harvest area may be designated by regulation adopted by the board, within the hatchery permit, or by emergency orders issued by the commissioner.

    (d) A private nonprofit hatchery permit holder and his agents, contractees, and employees may harvest salmon for the hatchery only in the applicable special harvest area. This does not prevent a special harvest area from being open to commercial, sport, or subsistence fishing or any combination thereof to the extent provided in regulations adopted and orders issued under this chapter. Harvesting of salmon within the special harvest area, whether by the hatchery operator or the common property fisheries, will be opened and closed by regulation or emergency order.

    (e) Special harvest area boundaries set out in 5 AAC 40, or in a private nonprofit hatchery permit issued by the commissioner, may be altered by emergency order if necessary for proper management of natural or hatchery stocks. Non compliance with these boundaries may result in fines, a probationary period or total loss of the hatchery’s permit, for repeated offenses.

    (f) Hatchery permit holders, their agents, contractees, and employees shall comply with all terms and conditions of the hatchery permit, applicable regulations and orders, and any additional requirements imposed by the commissioner to implement this chapter.

    (g) Agents, contractees, and employees of a hatchery permit holder may harvest salmon for the hatchery in the special harvest area only if they have in their possession a written authorization from the hatchery permit holder and only in accordance with its terms. The activities in the special harvest area of a person who is not a hatchery permit holder or an agent, contractee, or employee of the permit holder acting under the terms of a written authorization, are governed by regulations applicable to commercial, sport, personal use, and subsistence fishing.

    (h) Private nonprofit salmon hatchery operators shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that hatchery produced salmon harvested in their designated special harvest area are surplus fish produced at that facility.
    (i) Over harvest of wild stocks in the special harvest area, excessive straying of hatchery fish, and/or failure of a state run or private nonprofit hatchery permit holder or his agents, contractees, and employees to protect the integrity of wild salmon stocks and habitat surrounding their facility and in the special harvest area(s) may result in penalties to include any or all of the following: fines, reparation to the state and affected parties, restoration of damaged wild resources, and/or loss of hatchery permit privileges.
    6A. Who is likely to benefit? All users of wild salmon resources, as well as the resource itself will benefit from better regulation of state hatcheries.
    B. Who is likely to suffer? Those who fail to follow state guidelines regarding hatchery operation.
    7. Other solutions: Status quo. Rejected because that does nothing to address the issues at hand.

  2. #2
    Member TYNMON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    918

    Default Confused??

    What is the goal of you proposal? Private non profits are self regulating as long as they are in compliance w/ state permits// ADFG does keep a tight noose on their operations. If regulations become to restrictive you will only reduce their production, not like they are operating on high profit margins to begin with. Can you explain what your ultimate goal here is?

  3. #3
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    By statute, most of the authority over hatcheries and their permits lies with the Commissioner of F&G, not the BOF. The BOF does have authority over broodstock collection and the harvesting of wild and common property fish. For instance, take a look at the main statutes regarding hatchery permits (AS 16.10.375 thru 16.10.430)...it's pretty much all the Commissioner's authority.


    I think the Dept of Law put together a memo some time ago that talked about the respective authorities of the Board and the Commissioner as it relates to hatcheries. I don't have it, but I'll see if I can find it.

    Regardless of authorities, however, this seems like a "statwide finfish" proposal and might be deemed out-of-cycle.
    Last edited by MRFISH; 04-08-2010 at 08:00. Reason: added statute references

  4. #4
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,360

    Default

    Thanks, Mrfish. I understand the statewide nature of this proposal. I'm not sure this proposal is necessary or workable, either; but that would be for the board to decide if submitted. I should have posted this link: it is the 2006 report on PWSAC, and the 2008 followup is the last couple pages. That is what provided the impetus for this proposal. Tynmon, I'm just trying to address an apparent problem with enforcing state regulations regarding hatchery operations, as has been shown through the state's report on non compliance by this hatchery.

  5. #5
    Member TYNMON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    918

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    By statute, most of the authority over hatcheries and their permits lies with the Commissioner of F&G, not the BOF. The BOF does have authority over broodstock collection and the harvesting of wild and common property fish. For instance, take a look at the main statutes regarding hatchery permits (AS 16.10.375 thru 16.10.430)...it's pretty much all the Commissioner's authority.


    I think the Dept of Law put together a memo some time ago that talked about the respective authorities of the Board and the Commissioner as it relates to hatcheries. I don't have it, but I'll see if I can find it.

    Regardless of authorities, however, this seems like a "statwide finfish" proposal and might be deemed out-of-cycle.
    So I assume that you want to "limit" the production of PWSAC through BOF or public proposals?

  6. #6
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON View Post
    So I assume that you want to "limit" the production of PWSAC through BOF or public proposals?
    How in the world are you inferring that from my post? All I did was point out my understanding of legal authorities and proposal timing.

  7. #7
    Member TYNMON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    918

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    How in the world are you inferring that from my post? All I did was point out my understanding of legal authorities and proposal timing.
    Sorry my bad.. I was trying to get to the cause and effect of why this change is required?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •