Saving Seafood

ALASKA: For Cook Inlet gillnetters, life’s not easy in the EEZ

August 8, 2024 — As Cook Inlet drift gillnetters finished their first sockeye salmon season under the joint state-federal management regime, the harvest came in at about half of what they had hoped it would be. The fish were there, they say, but scant openings in federal waters prevented their rightful share of the harvest.

The cumulative Inlet catch as of July 31 shot past the 1.7 million mark, which was ahead of the 10-year average but lagging behind the 20-year average of 3.1 million. With some fish expected to return in early August, the final harvest could hit 2 million.

Of that total, 1,319,965 sockeyes were caught in state-managed waters within three miles of the shoreline, but only 310,340 fish came from the federally-managed U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which encapsulates the majority of Cook Inlet waters beyond three miles from shore.

In the advent of the season, the industry braced for complications within the entwined management systems. For the first time in the history of the fishery, drift netters needed to procure a federal permit in addition to their state-issued, limited entry permits, and comply with federal mandates, but the bigger concern was that limited openingsinfederal waters would leave too many uncaught salmon.

Read the full article at National Fisherman

 

 

 

Karl Johnstone: Alaska needs to update fisheries management

February 15, 2017 — The Alaska of today is not the Alaska of statehood. The 49th state has grown and changed radically.  The economy of the state is wholly different, and yet Alaska salmon management continues to be treated as if we just became a state.

Almost all major fisheries in the state have, for decades, been managed on the premise that commercial catches are always the highest and best use of Alaska salmon resources. This is especially true in upper Cook Inlet.

This premise ignores the changes that have occurred. In 1976, 191,000 sportfishing licenses of all types — resident and nonresident — were sold in Alaska. Nonresidents accounted for only 47,000 of them. By 2015, nonresident license sales alone had topped 278,000 — a six-fold increase.

Read the full opinion piece at the Alaska Dispatch News

Cook Inlet Salmon is a Prime Example of a Fishery Magnuson Has Not Been Able to Help

April 20, 2016 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The Magnuson Act 40 Years Later – Promises not kept for all fisheries

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act turned 40 last week and Federal and State fishery managers marked that event with an opinion piece (ADN, April 12) extolling the successes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its implementation in Alaska as a “global model of sustainability.”  As the authors point out, the Magnuson-Stevens Act sets up a “transparent governing process” intended to ensure that “science is behind every fishery management decision” in Alaska.  Indeed, the Magnuson-Stevens Act sets up national standards ensuring that all fisheries are managed to achieve “optimum yield from each fishery” with management decisions “based on the best scientific information available,” and guided by carefully considered fishery management plans.

We can all find common ground in recognizing the benefits associated with management under the Act, as well as many of the successes of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (the Council) and NOAA Fisheries in ensuring the long-term stewardship of Alaska’s fisheries.

The problem is that many important fisheries have been left out of the fold of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  The Cook Inlet salmon fishery is a prime example.  Every year, some 10 to 30 million salmon pass through Federal waters in Cook Inlet, in route to their native streams.  These are some of the largest wild salmon runs in the world, and they go largely unharvested.

But the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and NOAA Fisheries plainly don’t want anything to do with Cook Inlet salmon fisheries, despite their obligation under federal law.  The Council never took an active role in managing the fishery, and in 2012, with approval from NOAA Fisheries, removed Cook Inlet from the Council’s Fishery Management Plan, despite the objections of the commercial fishing industry.

The result is that the benefits of Magnuson-Stevens Act have never come to pass in Cook Inlet.  Cook Inlet does not get the benefit of “drawing on NOAA’s environmental intelligence to improve stock assessments and assess the impact of climate change on fish population.”  Cook Inlet does not get to draw upon the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s “transparent governing process” or the robust “public-private management process founded under MSA.”  Cook Inlet does not get to draw on the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s promises of optimum yield for each fishery, or the promise that “science is behind every fishery management decision” in Alaska.

Instead, Cook Inlet is left with the Board of Fisheries.  Regardless of whether you believe those who claim the Board of Fish “isn’t broken” (ADN commentary March 16, 2016) or others who believe it certainly is broken (ADN commentary March 30, 2016), no one can reasonably argue that the Board of Fish process can match the transparency of the Council, or claim that “science is behind every fishery management decision” made by the Board of Fish.

There should not be any real doubt, of course, why the Council doesn’t want to deal with salmon management in Cook Inlet.  The resource disputes between user groups are contentious and longstanding.  But the need for the scientific rigor and transparency that the Council can provide has never been greater.  The Board of Fish has made no real effort to find solutions to managing Cook Inlet salmon fisheries in light of poor returns of some stocks, the identification of several “stocks of concern,” impacts from invasive species, and growing habitat problems from both urbanization and climate change.  The result in recent years has been sport and commercial fishery closures and restrictions, the loss of millions of un-harvested salmon, the loss of tens of millions of dollars to the regional economy and the loss of millions of dollars to the State treasury.

All Cook Inlet salmon fisheries would plainly benefit from coordinating the State’s long-standing salmon management experience with the Council’s transparent, science-based process.  This is precisely what the Magnuson-Stevens Act contemplates.  Hopefully, the sport and commercial fishermen and the coastal communities in Cook Inlet won’t have to wait another 40 years for the promises of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to be fulfilled.

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.