Friday, February 17, 2023

Getting an edge in Bristol Bay

One of the best-known fishing rules in Alaska is the 32-foot length limit on drift gillnet boats operating in the Bristol Bay sockeye salmon fishery.

The rule is a great leveler for the highly competitive harvest.

But make no mistake, the bay's 32-foot boats are not equal. The more aggressive fishermen have found ways to pack more and more fishing power into their boats, making them wider, faster, brawnier and better equipped than other vessels.

It's all about outcompeting other captains for the sockeye that pour into the bay by the millions each summer.

But this coming season, Bristol Bay gilletters are expected to come under extra scrutiny from the Alaska Wildlife Troopers, who issued this letter to driftnet permit holders warning against add-ons or other modifications that could violate the 32-foot vessel length limit.

"In an effort to ensure a fair and equitable fishery, AWT will be measuring vessels for possible enforcement action during the 2023 fishing season," the letter says.

Could be a lot of Bristol Bay fishermen will be scrambling to bring their boats into compliance.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

WTF... a 32' x 18' x 1,200hp boat is not 'equitable' or 'fair' when compared to a 32' x 10' x 200hp boat.

Stop this nonsense and repeal the length limit now.

The State should be sued for continuing to perpetuate such an archaic regulation. The fishery is more dangerous and much less valuable (deckloads) with the limit in place.

Anonymous said...

Just follow the rules like the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

The States still trying to figure out the limit went in during the territorial days when there were no biologists in Alaska, and the 1951 rule was to insure no big outside power boats would show up to over harvest a unmanaged fishery, with periods ran out of Washington D.C political offices. There was no length limit before 1951, it came with engines, and was adopted at Statehood like all the then current regulations, like the new 1959, 58 foot limit for seiners statewide. Any boat longer that '58 was grandfathered into the regs. Next thing ya know, in 1972 the voters passed the Limited Entry Act by a vote of 4 to 1. If one was thinking correctly, one would have dumped the limit in 1972. It was then limited by the entry permit system. Open Access was closed. Look at the quality that came out of this place in 2023, with a boat designed for a can line, designed in 1889. I notice every single farmed fish is a No. 1? Don't overwork those 32 braincells in Alaska!

Anonymous said...

Make no mistake this is simply a revenue making venture for the troopers. If they are so concerned with an equitable fishery are they going to distribute the fines to the fleet? No, they are going to keep the money to pay for their bloated agency.

DC said...

The 32 foot rule is a joke. Having to build 32 foot million dollar boats that cant be used anywhere else. What difference does it make if we go to a longer length. Get rid of this stupid law.

Anonymous said...

The only people complaining are the ones who obviously can't read the rules or are too arrogant to think they will get caught. We all know the quality will not improve if we don't change the way we harvest. Most fishermen only care about themselves especially the north marker clowns.

Anonymous said...

Freon is heavier than air, it sinks, but don't tell that to any Alaska State Trooper, save that one for the magistrate, they'll love it!

Anonymous said...

Shove it up your stern 2/18/23, 14:30.

We can read the regulations and it's not about arrogance. It's about ignorance, which you appear to have an abundance of. This ancient idea of vessel 'equity' came from the cannery owned, engine powered, sailboat era. Talk about a different time.The fishermen were basically company slaves, boats were wood, the nets were cotton, the corks were cedar, they pulled by hand, the hot, dry, squished fish all went into cans. Sure, you draped burlap sheets (which the new shackles came sewn-up in) over the fish and threw a brailer of water over to use evaporation as a crude cooling effect. Now we have advanced technology in order to provide the top quality fish needed to compete in the highly competitive current marketplace (top quality/top dollar), and yet 70+ years later we are still limited by length. Limited by length but not by width, heighth, power, hydraulics, equipment, crew, etc... a modern boat is NOT equitable to a Rawson no matter how accurate your 32' tape measure is. The limit is now officially asinine in it's attempt to create a "...fair and equitable..." fishery. It was never intended for such a time as this, it is decades outdated and desperately needs to conform with the rest of the state regulations regarding gillnet drift boat length limits.

Net lengths are limited, Entry Permits are limited, modern boats are highly advanced equipment, the length limit is ineffective, outdated, and now more litigious than ever.

Historians need to insert the death of the 32' regulation(s) right next to the ending of the sailboats, exactly where it belongs.

Anonymous said...

I think bristol bay needs to have a 5000 pound delivery limit for the goodness of market conditions. Any deliveries over 5000 pounds, overage will get donated to foodbanks.

Anonymous said...

That's right, a 5,000 lb. limit, 30' wood plank sailboats, no engines, no independent fishermen ownership, and the only legal processing methods are canning or better yet salted in barrels. If we lobby real hard, we could revert back to only clubbing the fish up in the spawning beds.

Anonymous said...

Puff puff pass!! Why would we do that when there are boats capable of delivering 20+ thousand pounds of premium chilled fish!! You must be from Dillingham!

Anonymous said...

By far, the most sensible way to manage this fishery is to get rid of all the boats - even set net skiffs. This is a nonsense, wasteful way to harvest salmon that funnel by the millions into major river systems.

In the future, fish traps at the mouths of the major river systems will catch all the fish we need, under precise control for escapements and genetic diversity. The traps will feed directly to processors, where high quality will be unprecedented. The harvest rights by the processor/trappers will be bid upon, and royalties will flow to the state of Alaska, instead of being spent in Washington, Hawaii, and gosh knows where else.

The fishermen will find something more meaningful to do, other than to participate in a socialist make-work enterprise on silly little boats that belch diesel fuel and swarm like yellow jackets on a honey bun. Ninety-two point three percent of the ridiculous regulations now in the fishery will also go away - the 32-foot, deliberately inefficient regulation among them.

People will wonder why it took so long to get here, from sail boats, to 32-foot power boats, to finally a more effective way to produce high-quality, affordable seafood that can blow away any fish farm enterprise. Mother Nature does all we need; now we just need to re-think how we make use it.

Anonymous said...

Fish traps hahahaha

Anonymous said...

But you gotta admit in bidens f***ed up green new deal world his idea makes perfect sensešŸ¤·‍♂️

Anonymous said...

This is a magic trick folks. Don't pay attention to the other hand. Meanwhile the other hand is trying to deflect the fact that they have decimated fisheries in BB with factory trawlers. They want to make the issue the aggressive fisherman (outsiders) who have jet boats. Nice try BBEDC. Nice try!

Anonymous said...

Yes fish traps would be best for quality and management, but then the fish trap comment went right for the royalties belonging to Alaska(ns). Those fish aren't residents Bubba. They leave the state for more than 180 days. In fact they leave the state for usually 2 to 3 years.

Speaking of which, if I remember correctly, 90 days used to be the allowable absence in order to maintain residency. Seems like the -mighty Alaskan- has been watered down quite a bit. Ever since big oil royalties rolled into town the state has contracted entitlement cancer.

The simplest and most legally sound solution is to immediately repeal the length limit. It's not as though there's going to be some wave of super boats showing up, they're already there. The 21st century arrived awhile back. It's time that the regs are brought up to date.

Anonymous said...

It’s funny listening to ya’ll bitch. You deliver the poorest quality sockeye to the plants, get paid too much for it, and then cry about wanting more.

Anonymous said...

Who's bitchin, I love deckloads, and broke every previous personal record I ever had for consecutive deck loaded days in a row in 2023. When my crew made the comment that we had deck loaded 10 days in a row, I told em, how's it feel to ride on the short bus? We only made about $80,000 in RSW and Bleed money, just think how much we could have made in QC bonuses had we got em all wet and cold. That short bus requirement in that Dillingham School District also need to be repealed. I rode my bike to school until I got my car, and then drove my Monte Carlo to school. If one was to pay attention to the local Bay school districts there having a hell of a time keeping both school teachers and administrators in town, and nobody can figure out why?

Anonymous said...

True