Board of Fish Meeting

We are asking not to act on any of these other proposals if their house taken, if their department or the closest for conservation is their reporting requirements or something over on the landscape problem. Please let us know, because in my mind, I say there will be the difference between the proposals and that will not be a piece of detail. Thank you, John, in this line. It is going to be to the proposals, however we didn't know it to any great depth, and I just want to talk to them. Most of the fishermen then delivered to the area of the period.

We had long lines of the water giving 40 boats. So, it's because of the essence for how long it's going to go on. We also have a lot of work with the drainage species. We need species. It's a cash fishery, so you've got your cash. You're going to do a skating catch that thing. We have to look at the child's support, the loss, and the measure of the fish was on the top. It just has one more, I wanted to make sure that our returns and runs are in the maintaination. If I see a tweet, even if I'm working, I'm working on our cash fishery report which I wanted this to make me too easy. The impact is also kind of a trickle-down effect. First of all, in the end, we're showing you points that we do that. It also gives us less opportunity to reach approximately a seven-year-old town. It's not acceptable to understand what you're talking about. You're talking about what you're talking about.

That's given the nature of the fishery from the forest, where it's a cash hook. Fish with the elasto is probably the most teacher we've had with the department. And what could be the groups there of trying to allocate and trying to figure out where we're going to have one of these and that's what we're talking about. Fish is what we're talking about. And lastly, we are not maximizing the shellfish here. The shells are talking about approximately a seven-year-old town. That would be a receiver. And that would be the number. The number. The number. The number. I think it's a number. What we can get in the fish. You kind of teams are very, very well-attached. It's highly prized in Japanese market. Japanese can order here to claw each other's eyes. I have to push more. And as a result, we saw the very, very high price.

And last few years in the front of the fish, reputation wise, there isn't. It finally puts up in the summertime. It's shared with extended family members from Tulek's active from Tulek. And also shared with us in turn. And by the way, let's, you know, Salona has made out of fish heads and informer state law and probably still there. They consider that as an inevitable portion of the fish. I'm currently the Director of Natural Resources Program for the Association of Village Council President. Secretary for the Western Regional Fish and Game Advisory Council and the work for several years in many different volunteer and professional capabilities, capacity is dealing with the management and regulation of our region's fish game and non-renewable resources at local states, federal and international levels. My speaker today for myself, however, I would like to endorse a statement made at the beginning of the testimony period by Mr. Sanders and expect you would all agree that the regional staff do an admirable and outstanding job of managing our fish region under some of the most difficult and adverse conditions imaginable in attempting to satisfy all the day versus sometimes controversial, conflicting needs for which they're responsible.

They're, of course, far from perfect as are we all. I feel the board is going to brave the service and by the expansion and the results there, the chum cap decision on the area on fishery and added another monstrous burden for them in already difficult load. You've reallocated and increased the harvest on Western Alaska chum stocks, which already fully utilized in both subsistence and commercial fisheries and direct violation of your own mixed stock intercept policy. You have allowed this increased harvest on stocks which are so badly depleted that all human uses at the terminal ends have been eliminated while escapements continue to fail, and you've done it through the use of semantic dances and selective mathematical acrobatics based on falsetoring and or incomplete information. And by the way, the board is yet to adopt its above-mentioned mixed stock intercept policy as a regulation and without this regulation mixed stock intercept fisheries can continue to grow regardless of their in-hand dangers to other users and sustained yield. I can only assume that the voting majority on this board will be applied the same false pass logic to Kodiak's request to expand its interceptions in the large telecast rates of the expense of the terminal cook-inlet sockeye fishermen. All of this is going on when the board is solicited

in North Pacific Council to end interceptions in federal waters, only to have the board ignore practicing their own advocacy at the council level when salmon intercept fisheries take place in state waters. It's no wonder that things are in such a mess. I'm a firm believer in the obligation for fairness, honesty, and integrity in the Atenon burden of responsibility which should not be a matter of question on a board such as this one, but rather than question the presence or lack of those values however, this time I would much prefer to think that at least some of the voting majority on this board are really not committed disciples to the apostles of greed regardless of appearances, but merely ignorant of the whole picture because of being misled through inaccurate and incomplete information. Each and every one of you to fulfill your obligation should be pursuing full knowledge of all information to solve this problem, perhaps through implementation of tunnel avoidance practices in Arem, not attempting to explain it away or taking such premature action as the tongue cap entails. So some later board down the line has to come back and say they're sorry years from now when it's too late. You should assume the worst when potential errors of such magnitude exist and be making any resulting error in your decisions with an eye-ports conservation and not over-exploitation. Concerning the question of a biologically significant link,

the question can be just as if not more justifiably asked and argued can the department assure us that the biologically significant link does not exist and the answer of course is a resounding no. The proper question you should be asking is if there is a biologically significant risk. It's far beyond any conceivable reasonable doubt there isn't established biological link between the harvest scenario and the resulting returns to western Alaska fisheries, the level of significance for this linkage yet unknown and its an entirety with the quote anaryum critic reference in my name stating that I was spreading half-truths. I agree with him to the extent that we've only been given half the truth concerning information, numbers and the intercepting places many western Alaska chums and codes and we already know about. There's not one biologist worth an ounce of dependability, respectability or credibility you could base such a broad reaching decision on one year's worth of data. The variability are just too great. In recent conversations with Dr. Ray Hillborn who is familiar with the 87 Titan study and did a preliminary review. He is from the fisheries institute of the University

of Washington who claims Dr. Rogers. We find that in any given year the level of impact for Mary M's mixed stock fishery on any one of western Alaska's terminal salmon stock may vary up to 70% or more. Given these glaring errors and concerns expressed from only a very preliminary peer review of Dr. Ray group study, along with the area M's demonstrated a huge intercept harvest capabilities in short periods. The concern for devastation of a spawning stream with a biological escapement requirement of 10 to 20,000 chums is frighteningly evident. Take this in a context with the villagers in Northern Northern South and see what is such an unavoidably dangerous danger to the squival of their fisheries. We have vigorously been pursuing this whole issue through several avenues since November decision and recently through administrative procedures act and freedom of information and have received from Senator Hoffman, a member of Interdepartment staff memos which validate many of our concerns. I submit one of these here for the record which questions Dr. Rager's methodology. What now is this regarding the 87 study as far back as 81? Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your time

and would like to express it. Also our appreciation for your holding of media in our area to hear our concerns and I believe you know now better than ever what the greatest one of those is. I thank you. I thank you. Board members' questions. All right, thank you Greg. John Starkey. Isn't they can't go to other areas to fish? Is the pattern of private land ownership along the river banks, which is something the board will need to look at if they decide that this is a factor. And you side point out that the native communities on those rivers picked out many of these lands

specifically to meet their subsistence uses and needs so that they'd have a place to put their fish camps and await a memorialize in our system their pattern of kinship and rights to certain areas. I guess that's the material substance of my testimony. I'd like to digress a little bit to the philosophical battle that I see going on here, which was pointed out to me more than anything by a comment that the chair made when Dr. Cruzie was testifying. Dr. Medicine, with the report in his hand, one of the board members asked him to answer some questions about the health of the region. The chair immediately jumped and said, we realize that your information to us is going to be a limited use and value because it's speculative.

Yeah, if I'm not mistaken, this board made a decision which is impacted this region drastically, nor in sound drastically, has raised the ire of this entire state based on a study which I believe in all fairness, everyone would have to say is speculative. That's not fair. That's not fair play. That's not level playing field. To give anyone the oppression here that the board is acting on, information which is solid, especially when we all know that the study is under internal review, is under external review, has been criticized, has been adjusted. And now, it's my impression that when board members or members of the public to bring those issues before the board,

the board has made a decision that it's not going to open him back up. Despite the fact that subsistence fisheries are being closed, and all the evidence that's been presented here shows that at least 17,000 fish in Orange Sound are being intercepted. It's hard for me to figure that out. How anybody can make a reason decision that's not arbitrary without looking back to area am and seeing the impact it's having on these fisheries? And the other point that I would make, I've heard board members say that people subsistence users, is anybody starving? That's an insulting question. The subsistence priority isn't to keep you from starving. It's a way of life. It's to keep people healthy.

That priority doesn't kick in because people are hungry or starving. It's a priority in law. That's not even a relevant question. The relevant question is, are your subsistence needs being met? The people don't have to come up here and beg you for food. That was never the intent. And I guess I would conclude my testimony. Thank you. Board members, questions? Thank you. Mr. Smith, the Brown, this is Village Corporation land, the Brown and Pink College. As you can see, many of the rivers are all village corporation land selections. That would mean that they would own all the land that's from the high of Mean Watermark up.

And so people are going to go there and set up fish camps and process their fish. They're going to have to get permission from those village corporation lands. And the reason that people that the village corporations chose, these white mountain shows, all these lands along the river, was just because that was the important subsistence area. I mean, people didn't look for where the gold was or where the regional corporations may have done that, but the village corporations picked these lands because they were important for subsistence. And now I've been told by Jonathan, you usually use these areas, but I guess the other point is that it's, you know, someone asked about someone asked that the elderly woman from gnome, if she, if anybody had shared fish from her, and she said she'd gotten a box. Nobody in gnome is getting that area

scared any fish. And that's going off the question that I asked. So, yeah, I thank you for that. All right, that did help me understand what you were saying there. Thank you. Thank you. All right, members, any other questions? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..