OPINION: Chum salmon debate is a continuous disagreement among old friends

In response to the Dec. 21 op-ed, “What does science say about Yukon-Kuskokwim chum salmon declines?,” I find that many arguments from either stakeholder of Alaska chum salmon fisheries have been made decades ago, and these same arguments are merely resurfacing. Because fishermen, whether commercial or subsistence, rely on the same fisheries and especially Area M west and north of the Alaska Peninsula and the Aleutian Chain, both parties must agree to disagree and find constructive solutions rather than lay blame.

In 1991, the Alaska Supreme Court heard arguments between parties of the commercial fisheries industry using Area M, and Yukon and Kuskokwim River subsistence fishermen who harvest chum salmon arguably maturing in Area M, and terminating on either major river drainage to spawn. The argument was over a cap enforced by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game on chum salmon interception. The commercial side of the argument was that the cap was too high, thereby harming profitable commercial fisheries activities. The subsistence side of the argument was that the cap was too low, resulting in reduced subsistence harvesting on the Yukon and Kuskokwim and less food on the tables of those who rely on chum salmon fisheries.

What is funny about the Alaska Supreme Court case is that by the time the court heard the arguments brought forth by either side, the Alaska Board of Fisheries and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game had already raised the commercial fisheries intercept, or bycatch, cap from 500,000 chum to 600,000, making all arguments before the court moot. The court rendered no opinion on the cap or intercept amount, and all fisheries continued. So what was the point in arguing? What was the point in 1991 with commercial vs. subsistence in Area M? The same can be said for the point in arguing about the same exact issues during the 2020s?

I have very good friends who rely on Area M commercial fisheries, and I enjoy hearing about their lifestyle on the Alaska Peninsula and the Aleutian Chain. I am sure they enjoy hearing about the subsistence lifestyle on the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers. The time we all gather is during the Alaska Federation of Natives convention in October of every year. Is an argument over intercepted fish the first thing we start our conversations with? I would say, rather, we ask about how the latest fisheries season went, how loved ones are, and where we’re going to eat lunch or dinner later in the day and evening. Maybe even some customary trade happens and jars of fish are exchanged. Likely gifting with no expectation of any sort of return good happened.

Of course, there is a new stressor concerning the past three chum fisheries’ seasons crashing to almost zero. But still, what is the point in commercial versus subsistence in Area M? Interception or bycatch doesn’t only happen in Area M. Industrial-scale trawlers scoop up entire fisheries habitats in the deeper Bering Sea targeting pollock. These harmed habitats include chinook and chum salmon. Pollock is neither a commercial nor subsistence fishery at scale in Area M. Perhaps Bering Sea industrial trawlers are the party to blame, as many of the boat owners, captains, and crew come from the Lower 48 and have no long history in Alaska. Likely most parties in the trawler industry don’t set foot near the AFN convention and do not gift fish to anyone, because nobody eats subsistence pollock.

My point is that Area M is a relatively small fishery compared to the industrial scale pollock fleet, and that commercial fishermen of Area M and subsistence Yukon-Kuskokwim fishermen have more in common than we liked to admit before the Alaska Supreme Court in 1991, or in op-ed back and forths in the 2020s. Both parties are stewards of the salmon fisheries and have a significant stake in the health of salmon fisheries from time immemorial to the far unforeseeable future. So, in the meaning of timeless stewardship and in a brief time of major stress, what are the positive solutions we old friends can seek and agree upon?

Freddie R. Olin IV is Koyukon Athabascan, born and raised in Anchorage. He is currently employed by Gana-A’Yoo, Limited, an ANCSA village corporation based in Anchorage. His views and commentary do not reflect those of Gana-A’Yoo.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.