Cook Inlet Fisheries Disaster Money Meeting???

[yukon]

Does anyone have an update on how that money will be spend? I think there are meetings going on now. Is any one attending those meetings?

[Nerka]

Nothing decided from what I heard. NOAA said commercial fisherman were harmed and they estimated 4.5 million in damages. The rest of the money is to go to projects that meet the two NOAA criteria for projects. Guides are not getting money since they did not meet the 90% loss of income criteria. I guess to qualify a guide must show tax returns for the last three years and show a significant loss. When one guide who is leader in the anti-set net vote was told this he said he made more money in 2012 than in 2011 - does not qualify. I got this information second hand so cannot confirm on my own but the source is usually right.

KRSA is pushing for research along with the Mat/Su directed at commercial fisherman. The chief of staff of KPB is charged with trying to get groups to agree on process and areas money should be spent.

In my opinion this federal money should not be decided by user group representatives. The salmon resources are owned by the public and how money is spent is up to the public not selected user groups or their representatives. Personally, I think all the money should be given back. I do not see how one year requires this. Commercial fisherman have good and bad years. They should plan on that and thus one year should be balanced with their good years. Same for the guides. Unfortunately, I think everyone knows that part of the problem is that the loss of fishing was due to poor counting by ADF&G so lets not deal with that but just pay some money out and hope it goes away.

[yukon]

Thanks Nerka.
From my experience with 2012 is that the majority of people that use guides services are booked for that year, plane tickets are bought, reservations made etc... and it isn't easy (or cheap) to cancel. I do know some guides that were down significantly for 2012 as they got cancelled or moved people to the ocean for fishing, others such as who you spoke of, worked extra to keep clients and got creative in helping fishermen have an excellent experience. The major money loss comes in the following years when repeat clients don't come back and other just don't book due to the restrictions that they heard about.

Maybe some of the money could go to better counting by F&G.

Is that $4.5 million a percentage of the commercial fishermen's losses or all of it based on historic numbers? Is that money just for the setnetters or does the drift fleet get in on that? It seems the drifters had a banner year that year due to the set net restrictions.

[Nerka]

Thanks Nerka.
From my experience with 2012 is that the majority of people that use guides services are booked for that year, plane tickets are bought, reservations made etc... and it isn't easy (or cheap) to cancel. I do know some guides that were down significantly for 2012 as they got cancelled or moved people to the ocean for fishing, others such as who you spoke of, worked extra to keep clients and got creative in helping fishermen have an excellent experience. The major money loss comes in the following years when repeat clients don't come back and other just don't book due to the restrictions that they heard about.

Maybe some of the money could go to better counting by F&G.

Is that $4.5 million a percentage of the commercial fishermen's losses or all of it based on historic numbers? Is that money just for the setnetters or does the drift fleet get in on that? It seems the drifters had a banner year that year due to the set net restrictions.

Drift fisherman did not suffer any loss so they are not included. Not sure what the calculation is for the set netters. NOAA should have that on their web site but have not looked.

[MGH55]

I don't know about that. The restrictions cost me between 10,000lbs and 15,000lbs of reds in 2012. To me that is a loss of $30,000. With that said I did have a better year than the set netters.

[Bfish]

I don't know about that. The restrictions cost me between 10,000lbs and 15,000lbs of reds in 2012. To me that is a loss of $30,000. With that said I did have a better year than the set netters.

I'm curious MGH how you arrived at these numbers. In 2012, the drift net fishery harvested almost 3 million sockeye which was their second largest catch in the last 20 years and approaching double the 20 year average. Pink and chum catches were also well above average although coho was below average. Prices were strong and ex-vessel values very high.

[MGH55]

Checking my fish tickets from 2010 and 2011. I took the days we were restricted out of the larger fishing areas in 2012. I took 50% to 75% of the pounds that I had on those days above what I landed in 2012.

[Nerka]

I'm curious MGH how you arrived at these numbers. In 2012, the drift net fishery harvested almost 3 million sockeye which was their second largest catch in the last 20 years and approaching double the 20 year average. Pink and chum catches were also well above average although coho was below average. Prices were strong and ex-vessel values very high.

Bfish, I know MgH55 is looking at his individual catch and that may not be correct from one viewpoint and not another. When fisherman fish inlet wide the difference between good fisherman and those not so good is greater. When forced to the corridor that inlet wide experience is significantly reduced. So MGH55 is looking at the restrictions for the upper inlet not the chinook restrictions. The money we are talking about are for the chinook restrictions so the drift fleet does not qualify.

Also, the question is not how they compare year to year but what is available for harvest in 2012 and was it harvested? Your comment about the second largest catch is not how one would measure loss. It would be how many sockeye were available for harvest and what restriction kept them from being harvested.

[Cohoangler]

It would be how many sockeye were available for harvest and what restriction kept them from being harvested.

Not sure I agree. If restrictions kept them from being harvested, they were NOT available for harvest. Those restrictions could be from whatever source, and for whatever reason. Indeed, that's how the rest of the world works. If restrictions are in place that prevents those fish from being harvested, those fish are not available for harvest. Very simple.

But I'm sure that's not how the folks on the KP would see it........

[Nerka]

Not sure I agree. If restrictions kept them from being harvested, they were NOT available for harvest. Those restrictions could be from whatever source, and for whatever reason. Indeed, that's how the rest of the world works. If restrictions are in place that prevents those fish from being harvested, those fish are not available for harvest. Very simple.

But I'm sure that's not how the folks on the KP would see it........

No cohoangler because the restrictions were not for sockeye so those fish were available harvest. Remember in 2012 the set net restrictions on chinook were based on escapement estimates that were around 18,000. Turns out that the actual escapement was 28,000 and no restrictions were really needed - this is due to counting error. However, the money from NOAA recognizes that for whatever reason the set net fisherman lost 90% of their revenue.

In constrast the drift gill net fleet could have fish in the whole inlet and taken a higher portion of sockeye but were not allowed to do this because of allocation regulations and ADF&G failure to give timely periods (read political decisions). So MGH55 is saying ADF&G failed in harvesting the surplus when in fact they could have done so and still met the allocation objectives in the plans. Remember the allocation objective in the management plans for coho is not having wide spread closures which did not take place.

[Bfish]

... Remember in 2012 the set net restrictions on chinook were based on escapement estimates that were around 18,000. Turns out that the actual escapement was 28,000 and no restrictions were really needed - this is due to counting error. ...

This is revisionist history - hindsight as they say is always 20:20. Fishery restrictions were absolutely appropriate in 2012 based on the information available in-season from a suite of indicators which showed record low numbers. Then, an unforeseeable late influx of kings pushed up numbers in August after the season. And finally, changes in stock assessment methodology post-season resulted in the 28,000 number.

[Nerka]

This is revisionist history - hindsight as they say is always 20:20. Fishery restrictions were absolutely appropriate in 2012 based on the information available in-season from a suite of indicators which showed record low numbers. Then, an unforeseeable late influx of kings pushed up numbers in August after the season. And finally, changes in stock assessment methodology post-season resulted in the 28,000 number.

Totally wrong by the KRSA consultant. In early July harvest patterns and run timing indicated a late run. ADF&G used average run timing. As the season progressed and counts continued to show a late run ADF&G refused to use anything but average run timing. I personally wrote to the Commissioner that the run was late and stronger than what ADF&G was saying (July 8th and 11th). Also, Bfish the first estimates were for a run strength of less than 15,000 which was really wrong. Using average run timing models is not the way to estimate a return. You can never be right with an average. Fitting the return year to the each historical year is much better and the way commercial fishery does it with the offshore test fish program. So 2012 was bad data, poor decision making, and the inability of the State to listen which caused the issue. Revision history is being written by KRSA and the State to justify a significant harm to people in the community who did not deserve it.

In 2013 ADF&G is sill sticking with 2000 early run escapement when the tributaries are indicating a return of 5,000 or more.

Also, in 2012 the using of the early run to late run regression was not correct given how the numbers were generated.

[yukon]

Fish and game did the right thing in 2012 with the data they had, same is true for 2011. It would be irresponsible management to "assume" the run is late and let the fisheries go. If the run isn't late and doesn't show F&G gets hammered, more than hammered. With data they had they made the right decisions.
Nerka, what information did you have on July 8th and 11th that the actual managers didn't have?

[MGH55]

The best use of this disaster money would be to buy out as many set net permits as can be gotten. Offer up 5 years of income for each permit and see what shakes out.

[Bfish]

In early July harvest patterns and run timing indicated a late run. ADF&G used average run timing. As the season progressed and counts continued to show a late run ADF&G refused to use anything but average run timing. I personally wrote to the Commissioner that the run was late and stronger than what ADF&G was saying (July 8th and 11th).

In early July there were practically no kings. At that point there was no way to tell whether the run was really late, really weak or both. At that point, the fishery could have continued in the unlikely hope that later fish might bail it out or the fishery could have been limited in order to ensure that established escapement goals were met. The umbrella management for Cook Inlet directs that achieving established escapement goals is the primary objective. So the fisheries were restricted and subsequently closed. I get that if all you care about is maximizing commercial values as your primary goal, you would not have restricted or closed and lived with the king escapement consequences. Luckily for the fish, you were no longer in a position to influence that call.