John Binkley for Governor of Alaska

Conservation Comes First.

Conservation comes first. Without a healthy fishery resource, we can't have economically strong fisheries. Management has to be based on science.

Allocation Decisions Need to Involve the Affected Users, and Be Made in Public Through a Transparent Public Process. No Closed Door Deals.

All of our fisheries play an important role in our economy, our communities, and our way of life here in Alaska. It's important to recognize that most of the controversies over who gets how many fish involve neighbor fighting with neighbor. A good Governor doesn't pour gas on the fire, but instead tries to find solutions that everyone can live with.

The Board of Fish and the NPFMC are the place to solve allocation disputes. The process needs to fair, and out in the open. The affected public and the industry participants all need to have a role in the decision making process.

I will take a team approach to fisheries. The members of the Board of Fish and the Alaska NPFMC appointees, along with my ADFG Commissioner will be key players on my team. However, I know that at the end of the day, these people will have to make their best professional judgment about the issues before them.

Appointments Need to be Balanced. Look for Individuals that Are Qualified and Can Exercise Statesmanship.

Appointments to boards and commissions should not only be qualified to serve, they should be able to rise above parochial interests and exercise statesmanship and good judgment. I will appoint individuals that will be able to represent the interests of all Alaskans.

Past administrations have appointed partisan representatives of seafood industry interest groups, with the expectation that their differing points of view would somehow balance each other out, and the result would benefit the public. The record shows that this approach has given members an incentive to broker votes, and produced programs that award the benefit of our resources to the constituencies with the greatest political clout or strategic skill.

We need to take an entirely different approach. As Governor, I intend to appoint Council members who understand that their job is not to promote the interests of one sector or another of the seafood industry, but to promote the best interests of Alaska.

First and foremost, the members I appoint will be expected to promote excellent stewardship of our marine resources, to insure they will provide a good livelihood for generations to come. Second, the members I appoint will be expected to promote the long term social and economic health of Alaska's fishing communities. That means they will be expected to develop and support fishery management programs that maintain healthy and competitive harvesting and processing sectors, and protect the ability of future generations to participate in every aspect of our fishing community heritage, whether it be as crew members, skippers, vessel owners or seafood processors, without having to pay a fortune for the right to compete, or worse yet, finding themselves unable to compete at any price.

When vacancies arise, I will consult widely about appointments to get the best possible individuals.

Commissioners Need to be Professional and Highly Qualified. We Need Leadership that Has Vision and Integrity.

Commissioners need to be professional, highly qualified, have integrity and a vision. ADFG is a professional fish and wildlife management organization. The Commissioner needs to be an individual who can inspire and strengthen the professional staff to meet the challenges that face Alaska.

The ADFG Commissioner will need to have a strong grounding in the biological, social, and economic challenges of managing Alaska's fish and wildlife resources. The ADFG Commissioner will need to be able to work well with the Boards of Fish and Game, and share my vision for fisheries development that builds economic and social benefits to our communities into our management philosophy. I fully expect this philosophy to carry to federal arenas too, such as the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, where the Commissioner will be Alaska's chief representative.

Fisheries Rationalization Programs

If they are done right, fishery rationalization programs can provide solid benefits to our communities and our fisheries. They can improve conservation and safety. They can provide the tools needed to compete in a global seafood economy. They can improve communities and provide stable economic environments for communities to flourish.

These are complex and often controversial programs. Each program needs to fit the needs of the specific fisheries and communities involved. One size does not fit all.

Rationalization programs need to be developed through a very public process so all of the affected parties…..fishermen, processors, captains and crew, and most importantly the affected communities….can have a meaningful role in their development.

We need win-win programs that solve the challenges for our fisheries. We need to end the "class warfare" of harvester vs. harvester…harvester vs. processor…communities vs. communities.

Of course there are allocation impacts. But we need to minimize them and look for solutions that build cooperation among fishermen, processors, and communities. It's the only way to build a seafood industry that can compete in global markets, and sustains healthy fishing communities.

Some basic principles that any rationalization plans must meet include:

Conservation comes first. A healthy resource is the foundation of our coastal fisheries economy.
Any program must create a win-win solution for all sectors…harvesters, processors, communities, skippers and crew.
The economic health of our communities is essential. It is one of my top priorities after conservation.
There must be accommodation for Alaska small boat operators, to maintain a local small vessel fishery.
There must be provisions to allow for new entrants, and it must provide an opportunity for new Alaska small operators from our coastal towns and villages to get into the fisheries. Without this, we are slamming the door on our children's future.
There should be periodic reviews of rationalization programs. Any rationalization program should balance the needs of conservation, management, economic and community stability with the need for a periodic review to see if the plan is working as intended.
Principles for Gulf Rationalization

In addition to the above, the following principles apply specifically to the Gulf:
- NO processor quota shares. Processors need to be part of the solution, but Processor Quota Shares are not going to be part of the picture for the Gulf under my administration.
- Community stability and economic health will be a top priority for my administration
- Meaningful opportunity for new entrants and Alaska small vessel participation is a must.
- Participation should be voluntary. Potential participants should have the choice of being in or out.

Crab Rationalization

The crab rationalization program triggered a drastic fleet consolidation that sent a shock wave through Alaska's coastal communities. It is scheduled for initial review in early 2007 and full review in mid to late 2008. This means that the crab rationalization program is scheduled to come back before the Council twice during the next Governor's term of office. While I do not believe it is appropriate for the Governor to micro-manage fishery issues, I do believe the Governor should be actively involved in setting Alaska's fishery policy, and in that regard, I intend to take a strong personal interest in the Council's reviews of crab rationalization.

The Council members I select will be expected to closely scrutinize several aspects of the program. I am deeply skeptical of the processor share component of the program. It has been roundly criticized by the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division as fundamentally anticompetitive, and it has unnecessarily complicated the relationship between harvesters and processors, to the point that crab available for harvest this year ended up being left in the water for want of a processor share match, and harvesters had to pursue binding arbitration to receive a fair price for their Opilio deliveries. I have a very hard time believing that we can't find a better way to balance the interests of crab harvesters and crab processors, and I will challenge my Council appointees to find that better way as soon as reasonably possible.

I am also concerned by the dramatic shrinkage of the crab fleet, and the related effects on some of our coastal communities. It appears that the fleet may have been artificially inflated in the years prior to rationalization, as harvesters fished to preserve their quota eligibility, and banks that might have otherwise called loans decided to wait for quotas to be issued. Consequently, the dramatic shrinkage we experienced in the first year of rationalization may have been an overdue adjustment to a more appropriately sized fleet. If that is true, perhaps the best thing we can do is learn from this experience, and take steps avoid or mitigate this result when we consider future limited access programs.

There has also been a great deal of concern about the effects of quota leasing on the fundamental financial relationship between vessel owners and crew members. In the short term, quota leases can ease fleet consolidation and prevent bankruptcies in fisheries with excess harvesting capacity. However, over the long term, they can divert fishery revenues from the active participants who live and work in Alaskan fishing communities. Our fishery policies should encourage active fishery participation, as that is what keeps our fishing communities healthy, and I will challenge my Council appointees to pursue that goal.