Current weather

  • Overcast
  • 57°
  • Comment

Group behind setnet ban initiative files appeal

Posted: January 22, 2014 - 11:37pm  |  Updated: January 22, 2014 - 11:42pm

The Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance will appeal the state’s decision to reject its proposed ballot initiative that would ban setnetters in Cook Inlet.

In November, AFCA submitted signatures asking for voters to consider banning setnetting in the urban, nonsubsistence, areas of the state — such as the Anchorage area, much of the Kenai Peninsula, Valdez and Juneau. It would eliminate Cook Inlet setnetters and not have an immediate affect on anyone else, although fishermen in other communities would lose the right to setnet if Alaska’s Board of Fisheries and Board of Game removed a region’s rural, subsistence, designation in the future.

Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell announced Jan. 6 that the proposed ban on setnetting did not meet legal standards to appear on a ballot.

Treadwell used an Alaska Department of Law opinion, that the initiative was a prohibited appropriation of state assets, in striking it down.

AFCA announced the decision to appeal Jan. 22 during a press conference in Anchorage, and maintained that the initiative was about conservation, not appropriation.

AFCA Executive Director Clark Penney said the appeal had been filed that morning in Alaska Superior Court.

AFCA will seek expedited consideration so that a decision is made in the next few months, said Matt Singer, legal counsel for the group.

Either party could choose to appeal the Superior Court’s decision to the Alaska Supreme Court, Singer said, so it is likely the decision will be made by that body. AFCA was targeting the August 2016 primary ballot for the initiative; that could still happen if the decision is overturned, and enough signatures are gathered.

Singer said the legal opinion on which the state’s decision was based was incorrect, and could set a dangerous legal precedent.

“They’re wrong on the law,” Singer said.

Instead, Singer said that voters have a constitutional right to go to the ballot box, with very few limits on what they can do, although appropriations are one of the prohibited initiatives.

Eliminating setnetters in Cook Inlet would likely result in increased catch for in-river sport fishermen, personal use fishermen, and for the fleet of drift boats targeting sockeye.

That state’s legal opinion was based largely on a 1996 Alaska Supreme Court decision in Pullen v. Ulmer that maintained that salmon are assets that cannot be appropriated by initiative, and that preferential treatment of certain fisheries may constitute a prohibited appropriation.

In the Pullen case, a ballot initiative would have allocated a preferential portion of salmon to subsistence, personal use and sport fisheries, and limited them to about 5 percent of the projected statewide harvest. After it was initially certified, the state Supreme Court ruled that was an unconstitutional appropriation, and the initiative was not allowed on the ballot.

But Singer said that AFCA initiative did not address that appropriation issue. It eliminated a gear type, and left it to the Board of Fisheries to determine what happens to the resulting abundance.

AFCA board member Bill MacKay said he got involved in the effort because he believed the group was focused on conservation.

“We expect to win this case,” MacKay said.

That’s not how the state has characterized it.

“Prohibiting shore gill nets and set nets in nonsubsistence areas effectuates an actual, measureable allocation of Chinook salmon from the East Side Set Net commercial salmon fishery in Cook Inlet to the Kenai River in-river sport fishery and to the Kenai and Kasilof personal use fisheries,” wrote Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Bakalar, in the Attorney General and Department of Law opinion on the case.

When asked why the group would advocate for shutting down both sport and commercial catches of kings, if the goal was king salmon conservation, AFCA President Joe Connors said sport fishermen don’t oppose restrictions, and have accepted them in recent years.

However, “a lot” of king salmon are caught by the setnet fleet, he said.

“I think the numbers (of fish caught by each group) were significantly different,” he said.

According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, in 2013 an estimated 2,256 late-run Kenai River king salmon were harvested in the Upper Subdistrict setnet fishery. In-river harvest and mortality, according to ADFG, was 1,620 late-run kings in 2013.

AFCA founder Bob Penney said that the state more closely regulates sport fishermen.

“They know what’s taking place in the river,” Penney said.

Later, Penney and Connors also responded to a question about other protections, such as preventing fishing on spawning grounds.

Connors said the Board of Fisheries has taken “drastic” action to reduce sport catches in the last 20 years.

Members, however, would not specifically say whether the Board of Fisheries has been deficient in limiting setnetters or protecting kings, instead they referred to the idea that voters have the right to weigh in on conservation needs regardless of what the board does.

Cook Inlet setnetters participated in the press conference or teleconference, and asked why the organization was trying to take away their jobs and livelihood.

MacKay said the loss of jobs was a legitimate concern, and one of the reasons residents of the state would have a long time to discuss the initiative before voting on it if it were cleared for the 2016 ballot.

When asked about mitigating the impacts to fishermen, AFCA members said they thought that was something for the state to discuss.

MacKay said it wasn’t appropriate for AFCA to weigh-in on whether or not conversion to a cleaner gear type, such as fish traps, would work.

Penney also said that he supported commercial fishing around the state, and recognized its importance in providing jobs and food for Alaskans, however, he referenced setnets as having the “highest bycatch” of any fishing in state waters, making it a gear type that was not appropriate when king salmon were dwindling in numbers.

Bycatch, however, is not the correct term. Setnetters target sockeye salmon, but have a legal right to retain and sell all five species of Pacific salmon, including king salmon.

And, while setnetters catch more kings than the drift boats fishing in Cook Inlet, they do not have the highest catch of kings in the state.

Earlier in January, Alaska’s Board of Fisheries approved a new regulation for seiners in Kodiak’s Alitak District that requires them to toss kings larger than 28 inches back when they are caught incidentally before July 6. That came after the seiners in the area caught 29,921 kings in 2013 while mostly targeting sockeyes and pinks.

Other fisheries groups have opposed the initiative, including the Alaska Salmon Alliance, Kenai Area Fisherman’s Coalition, the United Cook Inlet Drift Association, the Kenai Peninsula Fishermen’s Association, and the United Fishermen of Alaska. The City of Kenai and the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly also officially opposed the initiative.

Alaska Salmon Alliance’s Executive Director Arni Thomson said he was disappointed in the decision to appeal.

“We agree with the attorney general’s well reasoned legal advice not to certify the Set Netter Ban because it is unconstitutional, and it’s shameful to see a special interest group now force innocent Alaskans to fight for their jobs in court. If passed, the Set Netter Ban will instantly destroy the jobs of more than 500 Alaskan families,” Thomson wrote in a statement provided after the appeal was announced.

Dwight Kramer, from the Kenai Area Fishermen’s Coalition, agreed.

“KAFC is very disappointed that AFCA has taken this course of action,” Kramer wrote in an email. “This initiative process crosses a line in our community when you are proposing to end the livelihoods of some of our neighbors and friends. It also makes it much more difficult to foster the level of cooperation and respect that is necessary to bring the various user groups together to resolve our fishery issues. Law suit or no law suit, this is still all about greed for an allocation advantage and a transfer of wealth for one commercial entity (guided sport) at the expense of another.”

In Treadwell’s announcement about the decision not to certify the initiative, he suggested that all the users work together on solutions to the declining king numbers, and use the Board of Fisheries process.

Shortly after the Jan. 22 press conference, most user groups attended a Cook Inlet Fisheries panel luncheon at the Kenai Visitor Center.

The Alaska Salmon Alliance, Kenai Area Fishermen’s Coalition, Kenai River Sportfishing Association, Kenai Peninsula Fisherman’s Association, City of Kenai and Kenai River Professional Guide Association were all represented.

AFCA was invited to participate, but chose not to attend.

“We were all here,” Connors said, of the group at the Anchorage press conference.

Connors said there was no specific reason for the conflicting timing, and that AFCA’s filing and announcement had been delayed already.


Molly Dischner can be reached at

  • Comment

Comments (33) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Suss 01/28/14 - 11:32 am
Very well put together

The maker of this video should be commended. The official ADFG position had been that taking big fish did not matter. Genetics of fish were not like animals where the parent size made up the DNA for size of offspring. Now it appears size does matter.

profishguide 01/28/14 - 11:51 am
The Real Kenai River Problem

Maybe your right, since gillnets are nothing more than a filter
catching the large fish and letting the jacks go threw, then they get filtered again by sports fishermen. Again its not one single thing that decimates a run, but many factors including the user groups, the ocean etc.

kenai123 01/29/14 - 11:42 am
FrozenNorth, common sense fisheies and smoke & mirrors math

I have used plain common sense to arrive at a general Cook Inlet, East Side Set Net exploitation rate of Kenai River king salmon. I have deliberately NOT used "smoke and mirror fisheries calculation techniques" to confuse the reader into believing what I am claiming. This information results in a general Cook Inlet, gill net resultant which ultimately projects that MOST of what is swimming along the coast and trying to enter the Kenai River, WILL DIE IN THE PROCESS within set gill nets. This is the opposite of what these set netters claim within their 17% Kenai River king catch claim. Logic therefore claims that a MAJORITY of what is trying to enter the Kenai is killed in set nets, while set netters claim to be only catching a MINORITY of it. I am specifically NOT using "complex smoke & mirrors exploitation rate math" within this logic.

I took THE ACTUAL 2011 commercial gill net sockeye harvest of 5.4 million and simply subtracted it from the projected 6.5 million total. 5.4 million were caught and 1.1 million got away, thus resulting in a simple 83% catch rate. (5.4 is 83% of 6.5). I understand that these numbers may be difficult for some to believe since other sources claim that we escaped a million sockeyes into the Kenai River... this is another issue. My issue right now is that these are the ADF&G numbers which are given to us, they may not add up ultimately but neither does the 17% set net catch rate on set net kings. Maybe none of these numbers and methods add up and that fact is directly involved within the reason our herring, crab and kings are missing.

An exploitation rate can be calculated using an estimate of the initial fish population and the number of fish that were caught. Smoke & Mirrors are not necessary and this is not rocket science. 5.4 million sockeyes were actually harvested in 2011, 5.4 million is 83% of 6.5 million. (90% claim - 83% actual harvest = 7% difference) These numbers and this issue are the reason people desire the subject of this story, "the banning of set gill nets in Cook Inlet". Also it may be possible that OFFICIAL "ADF&G exploitation calculation rates" are a part of the reason our herring, crab and king salmon are missing. It may be time for our ADF&G to just try using a little common sense instead of smoke & mirrors.

Regarding presenting the "set net banning issue" to the Alaska Board of Fisheries? The Board is not going to even address the banning of set-nets anywhere. If God Himself came down and told the Board that they were destroying our Kenai River, king salmon with set nets, THEY WOULD NOT BAN SET NETS. This Board is why we currently still have some fish and why we will ALL be closed down in the future. This Board does not function to promote and manage our fisheries, it functions within politics to manage fisheries users. This management malfunction will eventually result in total fisheries failure in our future if we do not change it. I will not attempt to convince the Board of a common sense truth, which they would not believe regardless as to who presented it. Take a look at all the hours of work these people are producing chasing their "fisheries tails" and then take a good look at the destruction within our herring, crab and king salmon. Do you really believe that a wild and natural ocean would get things so out of wrack within our marine food web? We have huge marine food chain blocks which are missing but does our Board address that issue? No the Board will not address "IF WE SHOULD HARVEST?", they will address "HOW MUCH AND WHO WILL HARVEST?". This is why our herring, crab and kings are gone and "magic smoke & mirror exploitation calculations" are not going to bring them back. You may bring up whatever issue you like to the Board but the destruction of our marine resources will be resolved at the ballot box, regardless as to the where, when or how.

Back to Top


Please Note: You may have disabled JavaScript and/or CSS. Although this news content will be accessible, certain functionality is unavailable.

Skip to News

« back

next »

  • title
  • title
  • title
My Gallery


  • 150 Trading Bay Rd, Kenai, AK 99611
  • Switchboard: 907-283-7551
  • Circulation and Delivery: 907-283-3584
  • Newsroom Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Business Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Accounts Receivable: 907-335-1257
  • View the Staff Directory
  • or Send feedback