The Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF) will be Meeting in Anchorage at the Hilton Hotel 500 W 3rd Avenue on March 16-21. Saturday the 20th and Sunday the 21st have been reserved to hear public testimony and deliberate over proposals 200 and 201 dealing with the Chitina Dipnet Fishery. (Full text for proposals 200 and 201 available here) These proposals were generated by the BOF as a result of Superior Court Judge’s ruling in the subsistence lawsuit filed by the Alaska Fish and Wildlife Conservation Fund (AFWCF) and the Chitina Dipnetters Association (CDA). Public comment from dipnetters to the BOF on these two proposals is urgently needed and must be received by March 12 to be included in the BOF meeting workbook.
Public comment from dipnetters to the BOF on these two proposals is urgently needed and must be received by March 12 to be included in the BOF meeting workbook. Comments received after that date will still be accepted but not given as much scrutiny by the BOF. Comments should state the proposal #, whether you support or oppose, and a brief explanation why you support or oppose. Comments on both proposals can be written on the same or multiple 81/2 x 11 pages. Comments must be mailed or faxed. E-mails are not accepted. Mail comments to:
Attn: BOF COMMENTS
Boards Support Section
Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 115526
Juneau, Ak. 99811-5526Fax comments to (907)465-6094
If you can attend the Board of Fish meeting in Anchorage, the deadline to sign-up for testifying before the Board is 10 AM Saturday, March 20. We need as many people to testify as possible.
Proposal 200
The CDA strongly opposes proposal 200. As written, this language defines a "subsistence way of life" means a way of life that is based on consistent, long-term reliance upon the fish and game resources for the basic necessities of life. This sets an unobtainably high bar for any subsistence user to meet, assuring the elimination of the Chitina Dipnet Fishery from subsistence classification because of its bare meaning. As we interpret the definition, without this harvest the user would starve. We support amended wording “a subsistence way of life” means a way of life that is consistent with the long term use of fish & game resources, when available, to supplement the basic necessities of life. In your comments you can support this amended language for Proposition 200. We also believe redefining a "subsistence way of life" should involve the Board of Game, since it was the Joint Boards that developed the eight subsistence criteria and both Boards would be answerable to any change in language.
Proposal 201
The CDA supports proposal 201 to give a positive "Customary and Traditional" finding (subsistence) for the Chitina sub-district dipnet fishery. In your comments stress the importance of the dipnet fishery to supply food for you and your family and how you count on harvesting these fish every year; that you are passing down the knowledge of dipnetting to your children; that, for you, no other area offers the quality of Copper River salmon; that, if you hunt, fish and berry pick, you and or your family consume a wide variety of Alaska’s edible resources (what’s in your freezer).
To get a better feeling for Chitina Dipnet Fishery subsistence history and the Court's order leading up to proposal 200 please click here.
Please take the time to write a comment now and submit it to the BOF and forward this to all your dipnetting friends. We need as many people as possible to testify in writing and in person at the meeting.
Thanks,
The Chitina Dipnetters Association
Judge Michael A. MacDonald has made his decision regarding the Chitina Dipnetter Association and Alaska Fish and Wildlife Conservation Funds' lawsuit to have Chitina dipnet fishery classified as a subsistence fishery. The PDF file of his decision is linked below for everyone's review.
Mike Kramer, the attorney arguing our case in front of the judge, commented on the ruling:
A mixed opinion, but overall a win. The 2003 bof decision was reversed. Therefore the 1999 subsistence finding is the law unless and until the board comes up with an objective definition of the subsistence way of life, gives us a chance to admit whatever evidence we want on that new objective definition, and then produces 4 votes to reverse the 1999 decision using the new definition of "the subsistence way of life" without considering the per capita harvest of wild foods in any community.
So dipping in Chitina must be managed as subsistence use until the board says otherwise, after we have an opportunity to supplement the record with any evidence we want to show that dipping use in Chitina is part of the objectively defined "subsistence way of life".
In short, this looks like a qualified win. Further analysis of the opinion will no doubt be forthcoming. A big "Thank You" goes out to the men and women who pushed this lawsuit through and to everyone who made monetary donations in support of it.
Jan 6, 2009
