Assess the Impacts of Options to Restructure the Bristol Bay Salmon

Fishery

Town Meetings to Obtain Public Input Naknek and Dillingham

June 2002

2

Format of Today’s Meeting

Introduce and describe the study

Questions and answers about the study

Your input on the design of the study

You provide ideas and concerns about changing the fishery

3

Landed Value of Bristol Bay Sockeye

050

100150200250300350400

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002Land

ed V

alue

, Millio

ns $

(Yr 2

000)

4

The Issue to Address?

Find ways of making the fishery economical

1. Decrease the cost of getting salmon from the water to the customer

2. Increase the price paid for fish

3. Increase the harvest?

5

Possible ways to Decrease Costs

Reduce number of vessels * Modify regulations that hinder efficiency Allow more efficient fishing gear Allow permit holders and others to work

together Invest in infrastructure to decrease

costs of transportation, fuel and other inputs to fishing and processing

6

Increase Revenue (fish price)

Modify the fishery to improve fish quality

Investments in processing

Investments to expand markets

7

Why this Study? There is a wide array of restructuring options

available.

These options vary in their ability to improve the economics of the fishery and their impacts on the region.

These impacts have not yet been evaluated and quantified

8

Why this Study?

Identify impacts and tradeoffs among restructuring options

Help people and organizations in the region to justify and seek support for specific restructuring actions

9

What this Study Will Not Do?

Identify and recommend a single “best option”

10

Overview of the Study

Will Require 11 months to complete (March-Jan 2003)

Public input and assemble ideas 31 July Distill ideas to options 31 Aug Analyze impacts and implications 1 Nov Write draft report 1 Dec Peer review of report 31 Dec Final report 31 Jan 03

11

Study Team Michael Link – Project Manager

fisheries management & science Bob Waldrop

processing, marketing, economics Marcus Hartley, Scott Miller

fisheries economics Jim Barnett

legal & constitutional issues Jim Wilen

fisheries economics

12

Public Input

1. Meetings in Naknek and Dillingham

2. Mail-in questionnaire from the brochure

3. Website: www.bbsalmon.com

4. Electronic bulletin board at website

5. Email study team: bbsalmon@lgl.com

6. One-on-one discussions

13

Collate, Review and Distill Ideas

With Advisory Panel, review ideas for suitability to have reasonable chance of improving economics of the fishery at a reasonable “cost”

Distillation of ideas down to 6 to 8 “options” that include the status quo

14

Advisory Panel to the Study Hattie Albecker Ted Angasan Robert Heyano Moses Kritz Hazel Nelson Robin Samuelsen Moses Toyukak

Gunnar Knapp Jeff Regnart Bruce Twomley Norm Van Vactor

15

Analyze Options

1. Use an economic model of the region to quantify effects of different options on the region’s economy

2. Examine the biological, legal, social, and political limitations/implications of each option

16

Analyze Option - Example

1. First Define the Option (e.g. buyback)

• How many permits• Who pays for permits (fishermen, gov’t)• How much is paid for permits and how

are they sold• Permanent or temporary• Discuss pros and cons of different

combinations of these features

17

Analyze Option - Example

2. Examine Economic Impacts• How much does the change affect:

• fishermen’s incomes• regional tax base• supply industry• number of jobs in the fishery• etc.

18

Analyze Option - Example

3. Examine Other Impacts and Implications• Biology

• Does it affect long-term sustainability?• Management

• Can the management system adapt?• Legal

• Is it legal, if not, what needs to be done?• Social

• How might it change the social fabric of the region?

19

Prepare Final Report

Document the impacts and tradeoffs among the different options, including status quo

Provide information to fishermen, decision makers, legislators, policy makers, and others

Use as a stepping stone toward seeking implementation of a potential solution

20

Purpose of Today

We are in the Public Input stage

We need your ideas and input on:

– Whether the fishery should be left alone– What options you would like to see examined?– Are there options you do NOT want to see

examined?

21

More Questions for Today

What criteria or impacts matter most (or least) to you?

– net income from the fishery?– local participation in the fishery?– number of jobs?– stability of communities?– tax revenues to local governments?

22

More Questions…

What do you see happening if nothing is changed?

Will you continue to participate in the fishery if nothing is changed?

Are there any questions about the study

23

A Reminder CFEC optimum numbers study

– Survey of driftnet permit holders

440 driftnetters were sent a questionnaire

65% have responded, more needed

Call Kurt Schelle, CFEC, Juneau, if you got a questionnaire but have questions

907-790-6937

24