In celebration of our 20th year as an organization, we are reprinting the front page article from the 1st newsletter produced by USAG.

After more than a year of on again off again discussions, the gillnet fishermen of Southeast Alaska are united at last!

The United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters is the first organization to represent all gillnet fishermen from Puget Sound to Yakutat.

It is the first gillnet organization to have a hired Executive Secretary to help with the organization of the local chapters and to handle the business affairs of the group.

This new organization of professional gillnet fishermen plunged into issues vital to the future of the gillnet fishery even before the ink was dry on the Articles of Incorporation.

Elected Board members have fought and argued late into the night to create a professional group with one goal in mind. That goal is to unify the gillnet fishermen before it is too late, before the gillnet fishery is carved up by other interests along the Northwest coast, and before the forces of regulatory agencies and politicians make gillnetting either impossible or totally uneconomical.

Says Bill Byford, Wrangell Board member, "The gillnetters have been giving and giving, accommodating here and there, and now it’s time to say ‘enough’; the gillnet fishermen are on the march and mean to get results. Anybody who doesn’t believe that can just stand back and watch us go by."

Petersburg Board member Dennis Heymdahl echoes Byford’s sentiments. "Obviously we have nothing personal against our brother fishermen. We have no intention of declaring war on anybody. But many gillnetters have had it. They have had it with being forced to give up areas we have always fished. They are fed up with being chased off fishing grounds that are suddenly closed because another group of fishermen overharvest."

It has taken just a little more than one year for the United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters to become an operating entity. First discussions started in late summer of 1977 when it became clear to many in the fleet that something had to be done; that the gillnetters were being left behind when it came to having a voice in political circles and before the regulatory Boards and the operating arms of state and federal government agencies. In all honesty it must be said that USAG is an organization formed in anger, but not as a result of unreasoned anger or immature reactions. If anything, the anger was directed inwards - at fellow gillnetters - who were watching the world pass them be without making any effort to do anything about it.

The grumbling in the fleet on the grounds, in the harbors, at individual homes began to grow. More and more, gillnetters began to voice out loud what they were feeling until at

last, inevitably, action resulted.

Seven local chapters were formed. Each chapter elected a representative who would serve as a director on the board of directors for the new organization. At that point no one was sure what the name of the organization would be.

The Board members got together. Most of them knew one another either by personal contact or by reputation. Those first sessions were difficult because in the past the gillnetters have been fragmented. Local issues were all that mattered and the Board members were not attuned to thinking in terms of the needs of a gillnetter hundreds of miles up or down the coast.

In the early fall of 1978 five of the Board members were able to travel to Juneau where they locked themselves into a motel room and went to work. There was no partying . . . no wasted time. They worked from morning until after midnight some nights putting the bare bones of a strong united gillnet organization together. Incorporation documents were filed. An Executive Secretary was hired. By-laws were approved. A bank account was opened. Tempers flared, but reason always prevailed.

Jerry Germain, President of the Board of Directors of USAG says, "We really worked at putting this thing together. It’s now or never for the gillnetters. Without this group we have no political clout, no united front to present to the Fisheries Board, no forceful way to get through to the Department of Fish and Game or to the federal agencies."

"It’s about time," Germain continues, "that gillnet fishermen wake up to the fact that the other gear types are taking over. We have to be able to talk the politician’s language; that language made up of numbers. In a very real sense we are not fighting with other fishermen; we are fighting with regulators and politicians who are reacting to the other fishing interests. This organization was put together to make sure that when the decisions are made we have our views right out front for all to see. We aren’t angry with the politicians or the regulators ... they respond to what they hear. We just want them to hear us ... loud and clear."

United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters is made up, at present, of seven local chapters. They are located at Haines, Juneau, Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, Tacoma and at Ferndale, Washington. Each chapter, upon organization, automatically receives a seat on the Board of Directors. It takes 10 paid up members to form a Local. Obviously, members must be gillnetters. Membership is $200 per year and 10% of that money can flow back to the Locals if it is requested to handle any incidental expenses that the local chapter might incur. To date, there has been no need for this refunding and most Board members don’t think there will be in the near future. The money is always there though, in case it is needed.

At its December meeting the Board approved a budget for the coming year. USAG’s fiscal year begins in September and the first year’s budget is covered with money left to continue slightly beyond that date.

"We need those memberships now," says Haines Board member Ed Maki. "Membership is the key to making this organization grow. If we don’t get that, we’re dead in the water before we start. Sure, I know it’s tough to come up with the bucks this time of the year ... but we had better get it up and get it up now before it’s too late."

The article ended with a list of the board members at the time and information on how to join.

Pacific Salmon Treaty by Arnold Enge

DEC established a new regulation effective 12/18/97 for cleaning and sanitizing a direct market fishing vessel.

USAG would like to wish Don Amend a happy and joyful retirement. His leadership and involvement in SSRAA will be missed by the fishermen.

The Gillnet Task Force met on Jan. 5th in Juneau. We had 11 gillnetters, 1 processor, 1 hatchery representative, 6 ADF&G Area Biologists, and Doug Mecum SE Regional Manager. The meeting was a little rushed as there were several of the attendees who needed to attend the Board of Fish meeting in Anchorage the following day.

The meeting started with a general summary of the past season with a forecast for the 1998 season by each of the area biologists. See related article "1998 ADF&G Season Outlook".

Part of the task force discussion revolved around the Chilkat sockeyes and ways that the fishermen can intercept more sockeyes. ADF&G is currently working on reviving the Lynn Canal management planning process that was conducted several years ago. A public meeting is scheduled for March 18 in Haines and March 19th in Juneau.

The fishermen at the meeting discussed whether split openings would improve the quality of fish and if it was a possible scenario. No consensus or recommendation came out of this discussion but it was left open as a possible topic in the future.

The task force discussed the management in District 8, the poor 1998 Tahltan return to the Stikine; it’s effect on the fishery. The fishermen should not expect any mid-week openings or extensions in District 8 or District 6. The department has established plans for obtaining stock separation samples to ensure data on wild vs. enhanced stock performance. The department will work with the Canadians on developing mutually agreeable harvest plans.

Doug Mecum recommended that the Gillnet Task force meet at least once a year, with possible rotations in location of the meeting.

USAG would like to thank all the fishermen who took the time and returned the survey from the last newsletter. We received 106 responses and 58% were USAG members.

We asked if the fishermen should support the legislation to renew the 1% marketing tax for ASMI. We received 102 answers to this question, 65 supported ASMI and 37 did not wish to support the 1% tax.

The second question asked if DIPAC could not release the chum salmon in Gastineau Channel would you prefer to release 18 million in Boat Harbor or release 9 million in Boat Harbor and destroy 9 million smolts. 65 answered that they would like to release 18 million in Boat Harbor, 26 wanted 9 million in Boat Harbor and 9 million destroyed and we had 14 with other alternatives, most of these wanted all the fish destroyed.

We would like to thank all the fishermen who took the time to write additional comments on their surveys.

By Brian Fadely, NMFS Protected Resources

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) had planned to implement a low coverage level marine mammal observation program of Alaskan drift gillnet, purse seine, and set gillnet fisheries this summer beginning in Southeast Alaska. However it appears that the funds needed to carry out the program will not be forthcoming this year. At this point it is most likely to begin in 1999.

NMFS is mandated under the Marine Mammal Protection Act to measure the impact of commercial fisheries on marine mammal stocks, and to categorize fisheries accordingly. Many of these categorizations are currently based on the old logbook reporting program, occasional reports by fishermen or on findings of stranded marine mammals entangled in gear. Thus, much of this data is out of date or inadequately reflects current fishing effort and techniques. The way to gather this information that is fair to the industry and useful for wildlife managers is to incorporate an observer program within the fishery. An observer program is designed to gather data representative of fishing techniques, vessel sizes, gear type, techniques and effort.

NMFS designs and operates observer programs under the principle of having the least impact on vessel owners and the fishery as possible. NMFS provides observers with all safety gear, and requires the contractor running the program to provide food, housing, and health and liability insurance for the observers. However, there are very practical and real concerns related to the design and implementation of such a program, particularly with respect to inconvenience, safety concerns/regulations and their enforcement by the Coast Guard, insurance liability issues, and a perception of a potential for lost fishing time. USAG has been instrumental in presenting many of these concerns, and in proposing solutions.

NMFS is also working with the Coast Guard to resolve safety regulation issues, and resolve how observers will be classified while aboard a fishing vessel. We are also seeking to identify where liabilities begin and end for all groups. These and other concerns will be addressed at a joint US/Canada observer program workshop, and we will continue to notify USAG of these developments. Some logistic issues will be addressed when the contract for an observer company is awarded, and all groups can contribute to the success of the program.

Data collected will be used by NMFS to gain a better understanding of the interactions between marine mammals and these fisheries and the potential to recategorize fisheries relative to incidental take. Depending on the results, this data could identify areas of concern, but might also show other interest groups that these fisheries are conducted in a benign manner. During the next year, NMFS will strive to work with all parties to ensure success of the program with the minimum possible impact to the fishery.

When President Clinton proposed his 1999 federal budget, he included a 1% user fee on the ex-vessel value of seafood harvested. The purpose of this fee was to cover the costs involved for management and enforcement efforts on the part of NMFS and NOAA.

It was estimated that this 1% user fee would raise 20 million dollars and approx. 12 million would come from the State of Alaska’s seafood industry.

Alaska State’s Congressional Delegation stated that they would not allow legislation to pass that would institute such a user fee.

Senator Loren Leman has introduced a resolution in the Alaska State Legislature to oppose the federal user fee.

• That the State and ADF&G should maintain the management of fisheries. Let the State know how much fish should be allowed to reach what river for subsistence but the State has to maintain the control and make the management decisions.
• How does the Pacific Salmon Treaty and its obligations fit in with the proposed federal subsistence rules.
• During the public hearings on the proposed rules the Federal government officials claimed that they would be using the States regulations to start with. In comparing the regulations published to the current state subsistence regulations there are some major differences. The federal government has not taken into account any of the recent Board of Fish actions on subsistence regulations. The other major difference is that of 25 definitions listed in the proposed rules only 2 of the definitions are exactly the same. Some of the definitions listed could be of major consequence to the commercial fishing industry such as "Customary and Trade definition".
• During the public hearing on these proposed rules the federal officials stated that inland navigable waters is defined as those waters located landward of the mean high tide (freshwater) and not marine waters.
• If marine waters is not included under federal management, why is shellfish subsistence regulations listed in the proposed rules under Southeast Alaska’s rules section.
• The federal government needs to define exactly the waters and lands that they will be managing subsistence on. Presently on the proposed rules they define Southeast Alaska as the area which includes all waters between a line projecting southwest from the westernmost tip of Cape Fairweather and Dixon Entrance. Yet on the maps the federal government has used during the public hearing there are several areas in SE AK that will be controlled by the State as they do not fall in an area of federal management. An example is the Chilkoot and Chilkat, Upper Lynn Canal area. Yet, they have listed several regulations dealing with subsistence for these areas. Also, not listing the exact waters where they are going to manage will make it difficult for a subsistence user to know if they are in State of Federal managed subsistence area.
• If the federal government is not going to manage subsistence on marine waters (saltwater) why are so many of the Southeast Alaska regulations concerned with saltwater fisheries.
• Different agencies within the federal government have chosen which lands will be managed under federal subsistence differently. An example is Glacier Bay which the Park Service has closed to subsistence uses but is open for sport fishing.
• The federal rules do not make any mention of personal use fisheries and if or how they will manage these fisheries.
• Under federal subsistence regulations you can use rod and reel. How does an enforcement officer know whether that person is subsistence or sport fishing.

The legislature has been primarily working on the budget and subsistence issues so this year.

HB 73 which extends the 1% ASMI marketing tax has passed the house this year and is now in the senate. Any bills that reach senate resources committee get held hostage because the fishing industry is not allowing SB 40 (Discrete stock bill) to move from committee. This will make passing any bill through the Legislature that has to do with fishing extremely difficult.

USAG is still tracking bills submitted last year. These include HB 51, the dirty water bill; HB 149, sport priority or fish initiative; SB 40, discrete stock; HB 285, point system for commercial fishing violations; SB 16, use of F&G fund/commissioner’s powers; HB 28, repeal of coastal zone management; and HB 128, water science board.

New legislation that has been introduced in 1998 includes the following: HB 310, utilization of groundfish; HB 318, wanton waste of salmon; HB 370, appropriation/1997 fishery disaster; HB 373, forest resources; HB 392, Reports/fish tax and salmon products; HB 394, DEC license fee for direct market vessels; HB 423, Reduction of Cook Inlet set gillnet fishery; HJR 48, Support American Fisheries Act; CSSSHJR 49, National forest road-building moratorium and SJR 40, fisheries management fee.

The list of bills USAG is tracking from last year and the legislation they will look at during their Board of Directors meeting does not contain any of the legislation to do with Subsistence.

If you have any questions regarding any of the legislation listed please call the USAG office at 907-586-5860 or you may look up the bills on the internet at

http://www.legis.state.ak.us/BASIS20.HTM

or through the USAG legislation page on the internet at

http://www.alaska.net/~usag/

Representative Williams introduced HB 394 after receiving a copy of a letter sent to DEC from USAG. The letter to DEC requested that they reconsider basing the processing permit fee on a sliding scale based on poundage as suggested during the public comment period.

The first draft of legislation had the DEC permit fee based on poundage. At this point, Rep. Williams is going to introduce a sponsor substitute that lists a DEC permit fee at $100 for a direct market fishing vessel. Please write Rep. Williams or USAG your comments on this legislation.

ATA is working with USAG on this legislation.

The legislation that the Governor introduced following the task force has gotten shelved in House resources. Rep. Scott Ogan has introduced HB 406 which provides dependent fish and game users first opportunity during times of shortage. Rep. Ogan’s legislation does not require a State constitutional amendment but does need changes made to Federal laws in order for the state to maintain jurisdiction over navigable waters and the fisheries.

Rep. Beverly Masek wrote in a letter to the editor in the Juneau Empire that, "I believe that Alaskans can resolve this issue if they are given the chance. In order for that to happen, they must also be given realistic options that deal openly with the complexities of this issue. Defining subsistence in catchy sound bites and motherhood-and-apple pie rhetoric cannot give Alaskans the proper information with which to make an informed decision. Leaders on either end of the spectrum

dealing with this issue owe it to the public to clearly state their reasons for supporting one solution or another. "

USAG will continue to monitor all subsistence proposals and try to improve all legislation so that commercial fishing is protected. Subsistence will be discussed at the USAG Board of Directors meeting this month.

The National Marine Fisheries Service is proposing to list 13 salmon and steelhead runs on the West Coast as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

In streams where they spawn, protection of the salmon and steelhead could mean restrictions on building and other activities.

Senator Slade Gorton said, "For the first time the communities and industries of the Puget sound region are going to have their lives disrupted by the Endangered Species Act. With two-thirds of the state’s population impacted, we must work together to find a solution or such a listing could cripple our current robust economy throughout the state."

The 13 salmon and steelhead listings are as follows: Ozette Lake (WA) sockeye, Hood Canal summer chum, Puget Sound chinook, upper Columbia spring chinook, middle Columbia steelhead, lower Columbia chum, lower Columbia chinook, Snake River fall chinook, upper Willamette chinook, upper Willamette steelhead, southern Oregon-California coast chinook, Central Valley (CA) spring chinook and Central Valley fall chinook.