An existential warning is being issued by the DIPAC Macaulay Salmon Hatchery about a proposed 25% cut in egg allowance for pink and chum salmon at Southeast hatcheries, which DIPAC states could result in the facility’s closure in a decade and many fishing industry workers leaving Juneau, even though the person behind the proposal says he doubts it will pass.
The proposal scheduled to be heard by the state Board of Fisheries at a meeting in Ketchikan starting Jan. 28 was introduced by Virgil Umphenour, a former commercial fisherman and seafood processor who served three terms on the board ending in 2002, and now lives in Fairbanks. Public comments on the item formally known as Proposal 156 are being accepted by the board until Jan. 14.
Umphenour said in an interview Monday the proposal is a continuation of similar efforts for more than two decades based on a proliferation of hatchery fish overwhelming the “ocean carrying capacity” and thus decimating chinook salmon populations throughout the state. He said so far the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has refused to consider expert research from outside the agency that contradicts the department’s position that proof is lacking for Umphenour’s claims and that state lawmakers so far have been slow to grasp the situation.
A similar proposal for Southeast Alaska was rejected in 2018 by the fisheries board. Another for hatcheries in Prince William Sound was rejected earlier this month during a board meeting in Cordova.
“I don’t think it is going to go any different, but I do know one thing: this is a political issue,” he said about the current proposal. “All the hatcheries are is blue-collar welfare with dignity for very few people, which are mostly seiners and about half of them don’t even live in this state. That’s all it is — and to the detriment of the wild salmon.”
But DIPAC and some other Southeast officials with interests in the fishing industry are taking the proposal quite seriously. The Juneau Chamber of Commerce on Monday circulated an email reiterating the hatchery’s request for people and stakeholders to express their opposition to the fisheries board due to the widespread perceived impacts of the proposed restriction.
“If this Board of Fisheries proposal were to pass, DIPAC would be facing the potential of closing its doors in the next 10-15 years, potential loss of fishing opportunity and income to the commercial fisheries users, sport charter programs, marine and shoreside sport users and the personal use fishermen,” the chamber’s email states. “If this proposal were to pass, and DIPAC is unable to support itself into the future, Juneau would see a substantial number of Gillnetters, Sport Charter Operators, and DIPAC employees leave town to seek employment elsewhere.”
Sitka’s Assembly unanimously passed a resolution earlier this month opposing the proposal. Scott Wagner, manager of the Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association hatchery in Sitka, said opposition from municipal governments in the region is important because the fisheries board has no representatives from Southeast and only one living in a coastal community, according to the Daily Sitka Sentinel.
A similar resolution is being drafted for presentation to the Juneau Assembly at its Jan. 6 meeting, Deputy City Manager Robert Barr stated in an email Monday.
The wording of Proposal 156 seeks to “reduce the permitted egg take of pink and chum salmon of each applicable Southeast hatchery for pink and chum salmon by 25%.” The proposal states Asian as well as Alaskan hatchery fish are a threat to chinook salmon populations statewide.
“Sadly, the situation with Chinook on the Yukon River is now becoming a statewide problem; the Nushugak, the Kenai and many other Alaskan rivers have conservation plans in action because of declines,” the proposal states. “Emergency Orders to close Chinook sports fishing entirely in many of Alaska’s most iconic river systems have already been implemented. While hatcheries are not the only factor in salmon decline, they are among the top five, including climate change, bycatch, intercept, disease, hatcheries.”
The fisheries board rejected a similarly worded proposal presented during the meeting in Cordova this month by a 5-1 vote.
“To say that this is based on pseudoscience implies that it’s at least semi-based on science but this is not, it’s crap,” said Gerad Godfrey, a fisheries board member, according to The Cordova Times. “This approach, while it’s a different attack on the hatchery program … the idea that you’re just going to strife with all the user groups in Alaska just because your returns aren’t showing up … this is not the answer.”
Some recently published studies support Umphenour’s assertions about harmful effects on wild salmon populations due to hatcheries.
A study published by the University of Alaska Fairbanks earlier this year states “the ability of salmon hatcheries to increase wild salmon abundance may come at the cost of reduced diversity among wild salmon,” according to the science news site Phys.org. Similar findings were reported last year in an evaluation of 200 studies on hatcheries programs globally.
“An analysis of more than 200 studies on hatcheries programs meant to boost salmonid numbers across the globe – including salmon, trout and whitefish – shows that nearly all have had negative impacts on the wild populations of those fish,” noted a story published by the Alaska Beacon on Dec. 26, 2023. “Most commonly, hatchery fish reduced the genetic diversity of wild fish, leading to poor health and reproductive outcomes.”
DIPAC, in counterarguments to Proposal 156 published on its website, states average annual revenue during the next five years would likely drop from about $5.5 million under current egg allowance rules to $4.1 million with the 25% reduction, with impacts going beyond merely a lower production of pink and chum salmon.
“As the Chum program covers the shortfalls of all other programs, cuts to the smaller programs would be necessary,” the website notes. One example cited is “DIPAC being no longer able to operate the State owned Snettisham hatchery. This has treaty implications, implications to US personal use fisheries, and implications and commercial gillnet implications.”
“DIPAC has no intention of increasing chum production and is maxed out on water and land use,” the website states. “If proposal 156 were to pass, there is no evidence to support that there would be any benefit to wild salmon, but it would significantly harm all the users of the resource.”
Umphenour said if the proposal limiting Southeast hatcheries is unsuccessful he will continue trying to persuade state legislators, using information such as the recent University of Alaska research, who will also be meeting next month as the session begins at the Alaska State Capitol.
“Most of their legislators do not understand about the competition of the marine environment,” he said. “There’s a whole bunch of good science out there, but it takes time to read that stuff.”
• Contact Mark Sabbatini at mark.sabbatini@juneauempire.com or (907) 957-2306.
