Opinion by Matt Marinkovich                                                            (414 words)

At the January 24-25 BBRSDA meeting the board approved the expenditure of $140,000 to contract three boats to collect samples for the Area-Wide Genetic Sampling project.  The project’s goal is to collect samples from fish caught June 22-28, 2011 (dates approximate), from areas outside of the regular fishing districts. Last year the cost was $120,000.

The broader goal is to attain three years worth of samples; another $140,000 sample-colleting project must be funded for 2012.  This total three-year estimated expenditure of $400,000 is only for sample collection.  To be useful these samples must be run through the genetics-testing lab, at an estimated price tag of $125,000 per year, for a total estimated cost of $375,000 just for the sample processing. 

When I asked Paul Salomone (Egegik and Ugashik Area Management Biologist) and Slim Morstad (Naknek/Kvichack Area Management Biologist), they both said they see no effective in-season use of the data, even if there was a time-saving genetics lab in the watershed, because it takes a full 24-hours to process the samples once they are received in the lab.  They also said that looking at the data from an overview perspective in attempt to analyze run patters or fish behavior would take more than just three years’ data to draw any firm conclusions about anything.

I voted no on funding this project because I cannot justify spending this much money on a project with such an uncertain result.  At the meeting I stated my reasons quite clearly, yet I was the only one on the board who voted no; all six other board members voted yes and are in support of this project.

Instead of spending this money on these genetic projects, I feel the BBRSDA board could direct it’s spending in areas they have not yet considered.  The proposal of an in-depth retail market analysis proposed by AIFMA, which had a high price tag as well, was turned down.  I see such knowledge as valuable information that could point the board in new directions of marketing, product branding, assistance in developing new product forms… and other ideas not hatched because they lay in areas not yet explored.

If you think these ideas are good, or have your own ideas on how the BBRSDA should be spending your 1%, an email to the board goes a long way.  You can find email me (Matt Marinkovich) directly using my contact form, or use the contact form on the official BBRSDA.com website or email board@bbrsda.com (this email goes to the general mailbox for the board).

Opinion by Matt Marinkovich, BBRSDA board member (444 words).  (For a link to the source of photo click here.)

The BBRSDA board recently failed to renew the ice barge “owner” contract with the BBEDC.  Ice has been a contentious issue; the board received many letters by its members against the ice barges, which I believe played into the board’s decision.

I personally feel the argument ‘I have RSW so why should I have to subsidized ice?’ is short-sighted, self-centered, and weak.  Ice availability raises the quality standard for the entire fleet, and is extremely important to those fishermen who choose to not gear up for the volume of production needed to pay for an RSW (after fuel and maintenance, the break even point is around 80,000-pounds). 

What remains is two ice barges owned by the BBEDC (who represents watershed residences), but since they have no contract in place with the BBRSDA (who represents the entire drift fleet), the majority of ice-dependant fishermen could be left without ice for the 2011 season.

If you depend on the ice barges for ice, or simply realize the fleet-wide benefit of having ice available to those who would otherwise not chill their fish through an RSW system, I suggest you write a letter to the BBRSDA board and let them know your feelings.

WHERE ICE COULD BE SOON…

I do not blindly support ice.  I realize the current system is flawed because there is no ice in Naknek and it’s a hassle making another stop at the ice barge.  These are major roadblocks from making this program pay for itself through ice sales—the intended goal from the beginning. 

An Ice Utility, which would fund itself through ice sales, would solve these issues.  This project would produce up to 600 tons of ice per day on three barges, with ice distributed by the tenders when fishermen deliver their fish. The price would be around $175 per ton, instead of around $250 per ton like it will be this season (if it’s available).

With ice availability and distribution like this a fisherman would have no excuse to not ice their fish, no matter how modest their catch.  Under this program it would be cheaper for RSW boats to use ice because the break-even point is lower, and I personally would love to chill my fish with ice, rather than my noisy, engine-burdening RSW unit.

Reaching this point will take cooperation by the fishermen, the processing companies, the Ice Utility operators, and the BBRSDA and BBEDC.  But right now it takes individuals speaking up to let these organizations know ice is needed and valued in Bristol Bay.

You can view the Ice Utility project outline at BBRSDAinfo.com