By Mike Mickelson
The Alaska Board of Fisheries faces a crucial decision that could fundamentally alter the way we manage our precious salmon resources. Proposal 78, currently under consideration, poses significant risks by potentially setting a new precedent where Board decisions could supersede the established science-based management and regulatory processes of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). This is a dangerous path, likely undermining decades of fisheries science and conservation success.
The Board of Fisheries (BOF) plays a vital role in shaping fisheries policy. It represents a necessary component of our state’s resource management and provides a platform for public input that ensures fisheries regulations reflect the diverse interests and concerns of Alaskans. However, the Board is not a scientific body, it is tasked with making allocative decisions of our state waters fisheries. Board of Fisheries members, while knowledgeable and committed, are not selected on their scientific expertise, but rather represent a cross-section of user groups, including commercial, sport, personal use and subsistence stakeholders.
This distinction highlights why the Board must defer to the scientific research and data provided by the biologists and data experts at ADF&G. When ADF&G evaluates BOF proposals before the decision making actually takes place by the Board of Fisheries, they are very careful to provide relevant background information and science relating to each proposal. ADF&G is tasked with maintaining objectivity in regard to the allocative nature of proposals, but will indicate whether they support or oppose proposals in their comments when appropriate. Frequently BOF members evaluate ADF&G’s comments when they make decisions, and will ask for clarification during the meeting. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game are professionals and spend their careers studying fish populations, ecosystems, and the myriad factors that affect their health and sustainability. Their work is rigorous, peer-reviewed, and based on the best available science, which forms the backbone of our state’s fisheries management practices.
Proposal 78 challenges this foundational principle by suggesting substantial cuts to pink and chum salmon hatchery production based on assumptions that lack robust scientific validation. The proposal ostensibly aims to address concerns about the impact of hatchery fish on wild stocks. However, it does so without presenting conclusive scientific evidence to justify such significant reductions. In fact, recent studies, including those presented in the latest fisheries meetings, have shown that environmental factors like climate change and ocean temperature have far greater impacts on salmon populations than hatchery releases.
If the Board were to approve Proposal 78, it would not only disrupt the livelihoods of thousands of Alaskans who depend on these fisheries but also set a concerning precedent where Board decisions could override detailed scientific assessments. Such a move would shift us away from the evidence-based management approach that has made Alaska’s fisheries a model of sustainability.
Therefore, it is imperative that the Alaska Board of Fisheries recognizes its role and respects the scientific expertise of ADF&G biologists. While public input and stakeholder perspectives are essential, they must not be the sole drivers of decisions that have profound ecological, economic, and social implications. The Board’s actions should complement the scientific data, not contradict it.
As we face increasing environmental uncertainties, maintaining a science-based approach in fisheries management is more critical than ever. It ensures that our decisions are grounded in fact and that we are acting in the best long-term interests of both our fish populations and the communities that depend on them.
As a fisherman, a lifelong Alaskan, and a believer in science-based management and sound decision making, I urge the Alaska Board of Fisheries to consider these points deeply. Breaking from science and established precedent would not only threaten the health of our fisheries but could also undermine public trust in the management processes that have served us well for decades. Let’s stay the course and continue to lead with science.
Mike Mickelson is life-long Cordova area resident, subsistence fisherman, sport fisherman, PWS drift gillnetter, tender man, and seiner. He is a board member of United Fishermen of Alaska, Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corporation, and Seine Vessels Reserve.
