Performance Details
Mission
To protect, maintain, and improve the fish, game, and aquatic plant resources of the state, and manage their use and development in the best interest of the economy and the well-being of the people of the state, consistent with the sustained yield principle. Alaska Constitution Article 8, Sec. 4; AS 16.05.020(2)
Core Services
- Harvest Management
- Stock Assessment
- Customer Service
- Public Involvement
- State Sovereignty
- Habitat Protection
 Results
|
Core Services
|
| A: Optimal public participation in fish and wildlife pursuits and optimal economic benefits from fish and wildlife resources. Details > |
|
|
| A1: Ensure the conservation of natural stocks of fish, shellfish and aquatic plants based on scientifically sound assessments. Details > | |
| A2: Sustain fisheries on stocks of fish, shellfish and aquatic plants based upon the control and regulation of harvests through responsive management systems. Details > |
| A3: Maintain recreational fishing opportunities via supplemental hatchery production. Details > |
| A4: Collect scientifically sound information on wildlife populations in Alaska. Details > | |
| A5: Compile and analyze existing data; conduct research to gather information on the role of hunting and fishing by Alaskans for customary and traditional uses. Details > | |
| A6: Ensure state authority to manage fish, wildlife, and water on all lands within its boundaries, public rights to access on public waters, and other access rights except as specifically diminished by acts of Congress. Details > | |
|
Performance Detail
| A:
Result - Optimal public participation in fish and wildlife pursuits and optimal economic benefits from fish and wildlife resources. |
| |
Target #1: Maintain total annual value of commercial harvests and mariculture production at over $1 billion annually.
Methodology: Exvessel values are calculated using a combination of aggregated price point per species derived from the Commercial Operators Annual Report, fish ticket databases and annual fishery harvest summary reports.
|
Exvessel Value of Commercial Harvests and Mariculture Production in Alaska
| Year |
Total Value |
Target |
| 2011 |
$2,228
|
$1,000
|
| 2010 |
$1,764
|
$1,000
|
| 2009 |
$1,501
|
$1,000
|
| 2008 |
$1,967
|
$1,000
|
| 2007 |
$1,789
|
$1,000
|
| 2006 |
$1,426
|
$1,000
|
| 2005 |
$1,353
|
$1,000
|
| 2004 |
$1,233
|
$1,000
|
| 2003 |
$1,100
|
$1,000
|
| 2002 |
$1,074
|
$1,000
|
| 2001 |
$1,040
|
$1,000
|
Analysis of results and challenges: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) contributes to the success of the seafood industry through its scientific management of the various fisheries resources. Scientific management practices allow for the largest harvests that can be biologically sustained over time. ADF&G also plays a vital role by the adoption of regulations and fisheries management plans, in conjunction with the Alaska Board of Fisheries, fishermen, and processors, that provide orderly fisheries producing high quality products in a cost effective manner for utilization by the seafood industry.
|
| |
Target #2: Annual number of sport fishing licenses sold.
Methodology: Number of licenses sold was obtained from the Licensing section of the Division of Administrative Services, Department of Fish and Game. Link also provided below. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=license.statistics
|
Sport Fishing Licenses Sold
| Year |
Resident |
Nonresident |
Total |
| 2011 |
190,148
|
258,840
|
448,988
|
| 2010 |
186,777
|
255,432
|
442,209
|
| 2009 |
194,658
|
252,427
|
447,085
|
| 2008 |
186,311
|
300,094
|
486,405
|
| 2007 |
183,089
|
320,058
|
503,147
|
Analysis of results and challenges: Although resident license sales have been relatively stable (5% increase in 2009, 4% decline in 2010, 1% decline in 2011), non-resident license sales declined by 16% in 2009 and rebounded only 1% annually in 2010 and 2011. The five-year (2007-2011) average is 464,673, 3% above the target. The 2009 decrease in non-resident license sales is consistent with national license sale trends and the decline of people visiting Alaska. It could also be attributed to federal fishery management decisions and the status of our national economy.
Related links:
|
| |
Target #3: 100% of resource developers meet agency requirements for protection of fish, wildlife, and their habitats.
Methodology: Total numbers of permits in compliance compared to total number of permits.
|
Analysis of results and challenges: In FY2012, 99.71% of all developers were in compliance with Fish Habitat and Special Area permits (Note: Habitat assumed responsibility for Special Area permits in FY2009; prior years reflect Fish Habitat permits only). The above percentage reflects projects where permits have been successfully issued and the developer is in compliance with their approved permit conditions. This percentage is an indication of Habitat's success in protecting fish, wildlife, and their habitats, while allowing approvable development activities to proceed. The number of permit applications reviewed has remained high. Trend-wise, these data indicate that Division of Habitat continues to consistently achieve a high level of habitat protection simultaneous with a high level of permit activity.
|
| |
Target #4: Increase sales of hunting and trapping licenses to the three-year average.
Methodology: Source: License statistics.
|
Hunting and Trapping License Sales
| Year |
License Sales |
Three year running avg |
| 2011 |
114,655
+0.65%
|
114,802
+9.43%
|
| 2010 |
113,910
-3.93%
|
104,907
+12.06%
|
| 2009 |
118,573
+5.94%
|
93,614
+10.03%
|
| 2008 |
111,922
+32.88%
|
85,077
|
| 2007 |
84,227
-0.55%
|
|
| 2006 |
84,694
-1.87%
|
|
| 2005 |
86,312
|
|
Analysis of results and challenges: These totals include resident, nonresident and military hunting and trapping licenses. Tag fees paid primarily by nonresidents are not included.
2011 sales of hunting and trapping licenses were high (114,655). The number of resident hunting licenses increased 2% and nonresident hunting licenses increased 6%. Resident trapping licenses was high (16,750) and non-resident trapping licenses increased 28%.
Non-resident licenses bring in substantially more revenue. There was a 4% decrease from 2010 in net sales ($1,062,977 in 2011). Net resident license revenue also increased 4% from 2010 ($1,923,873 in 2011).
One incentive for hunters and trappers to buy licenses is confidence that game populations are abundant and that there are good opportunities to hunt and harvest game. The increased number of resident hunters may be a direct result of our Hunter Education program activities. Non-resident numbers likely reflect the state of the economy, as well as increased energy and airfare costs.
Related links:
|
| |
Target #5: Increase sales of hunting and trapping licenses to the three-year average.
Methodology: Source: License statistics.
|
Hunting and Trapping License Sales
| Year |
License Sales |
Three year running avg |
| 2011 |
114,655
+0.65%
|
114,802
+9.43%
|
| 2010 |
113,910
-3.93%
|
104,907
+12.06%
|
| 2009 |
118,573
+5.94%
|
93,614
+10.03%
|
| 2008 |
111,922
+32.88%
|
85,077
|
| 2007 |
84,227
-0.55%
|
|
| 2006 |
84,694
-1.87%
|
|
| 2005 |
86,312
|
|
Analysis of results and challenges: These totals include resident, nonresident and military hunting and trapping licenses. Tag fees paid primarily by nonresidents are not included.
2011 sales of hunting and trapping licenses were high (114,655). The number of resident hunting licenses increased 2% and nonresident hunting licenses increased 6%. Resident trapping licenses was high (16,750) and non-resident trapping licenses increased 28%.
Non-resident licenses bring in substantially more revenue. There was a 4% decrease from 2010 in net sales ($1,062,977 in 2011). Net resident license revenue also increased 4% from 2010 ($1,923,873 in 2011).
One incentive for hunters and trappers to buy licenses is confidence that game populations are abundant and that there are good opportunities to hunt and harvest game. The increased number of resident hunters may be a direct result of our Hunter Education program activities. Non-resident numbers likely reflect the state of the economy, as well as increased energy and airfare costs.
Related links:
|
| A1:
Core Service - Ensure the conservation of natural stocks of fish, shellfish and aquatic plants based on scientifically sound assessments. |
| |
Target #1: Achieve salmon escapement goals in 80% of monitored systems.
Methodology: Regional tabulation of the monitored systems that are within or above the goal range.
|
Escapement Goals Achieved
| Year |
Goals Achieved |
Target |
| 2011 |
77%
|
80%
|
| 2010 |
76%
|
80%
|
| 2009 |
71%
|
80%
|
| 2008 |
74%
|
80%
|
| 2007 |
90%
|
80%
|
| 2006 |
90%
|
80%
|
| 2005 |
87%
|
80%
|
| 2004 |
85%
|
80%
|
| 2003 |
86%
|
80%
|
| 2002 |
86%
|
80%
|
| 2001 |
85%
|
80%
|
Analysis of results and challenges: Managing commercial, subsistence, and personal use harvests in ways that protect the reproductive potential of fish stocks is the most basic responsibility of the Division of Commercial Fisheries (Division). The Division's success in performing this function is the most direct indicator of program success, as well as the best indicator of continued healthy fish stocks. Success in achieving salmon escapement goals is probably the most common measure of success that salmon managers and research staff apply to their own performance.
The division annually deploys and operates numerous weirs, counting towers, and sonar sites to conduct escapement counts. Aerial and foot surveys are also used extensively in the absence of other means of counting escapement.
Chinook salmon abundance has declined across the entire state reflecting in lower escapements relative to goals. Chum salmon returns have also declined, but pink and sockeye returns have been fairly stable during the last three years. While fisheries have been restricted in the face of lower abundance, in some cases, the goals were still not achieved.
The level of 2011 performance is about the same as in 2010; both are below the target level of 80 percent by a few points.
|
| A2:
Core Service - Sustain fisheries on stocks of fish, shellfish and aquatic plants based upon the control and regulation of harvests through responsive management systems. |
| A3:
Core Service - Maintain recreational fishing opportunities via supplemental hatchery production. |
| A4:
Core Service - Collect scientifically sound information on wildlife populations in Alaska. |
| |
Target #1: Maintain the number of active research projects at 95% or more of the previous year's totals.
Methodology: Source: Both Federal Assistance (Wildlife Restoration (WR), State Wildlife Grant (SWG) and Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund-Endangered Species Act-sec. 6 grants) and non-federal assistance projects. Studies during the fiscal year are tallied. The 95% target is based on the previous fiscal year number of studies.
|
Research Projects Conducted
| Fiscal Year |
# Projects |
95% Target |
| FY 2011 |
96
-3.03%
|
94
-4.08%
|
| FY 2010 |
99
-3.88%
|
98
-2.97%
|
| FY 2009 |
103
-3.74%
|
101
-10.62%
|
| FY 2008 |
107
-10.08%
|
113
+29.89%
|
| FY 2007 |
119
+29.35%
|
87
+11.54%
|
| FY 2006 |
92
+12.2%
|
78
+47.17%
|
| FY 2005 |
82
+46.43%
|
53
+12.77%
|
| FY 2004 |
56
+12%
|
47
-6%
|
| FY 2003 |
50
|
50
|
Analysis of results and challenges: During FY2011, 41 big game research projects, 17 marine mammal program research projects, 22 waterfowl/game bird, five non-game research projects, and 11 "other" projects were conducted for a total of 96 Division of Wildlife Conservation research projects. Of the 34 wildlife diversity projects, nine projects were conducted by partners with the division using State Wildlife Grant (SWG) funds. These totals are slightly decreased from FY2010 (99 total). The total number of research projects peaked in 2007 and has slightly decreased each year; however, they have continued to exceed the target.
Related links:
|
| |
Target #2: Complete 90% of planned surveys on the population status and harvest of big game species, furbearers, migratory birds and marine mammals (not including any stopped by adverse weather conditions or nonavailability of suitable aircraft).
Methodology: Source: Division regional management coordinators. Proposed and completed surveys are tallied; 90% of the total proposed is the target.
|
Wildlife Surveys Completed
| Fiscal Year |
Completed Surveys |
90% target |
% Completed |
| FY 2011 |
185
+4.52%
|
205
0%
|
81
+3.85%
|
| FY 2010 |
177
+1.72%
|
205
-8.07%
|
78
+11.43%
|
| FY 2009 |
174
+0.58%
|
223
+19.89%
|
70
-16.67%
|
| FY 2008 |
173
-5.98%
|
186
-5.58%
|
84
0%
|
| FY 2007 |
184
-5.15%
|
197
+7.65%
|
84
-11.58%
|
| FY 2006 |
194
+33.79%
|
183
+26.21%
|
95
+5.56%
|
| FY 2005 |
145
-33.49%
|
145
-27.86%
|
90
-8.16%
|
| FY 2004 |
218
|
201
|
98
|
Analysis of results and challenges: FY2011 continues to increase from the lowest percent of completed surveys in 2008.
Regions must prioritize which management units and species are highest priority to the extent that personnel are available to conduct surveys. Also, cost increases, both for personnel and for aviation fuel, have increased the costs of charter flights and operating department aircraft having an effect on the number of surveys conducted annually. Weather conditions also play a part in whether planned surveys are completed for the year.
Related links:
|
| |
Target #3: Increase by 5% per year, the collection of population, harvest, and other biological information on species of concern and/or key species about which little information exists.
Methodology: The number of active studies on key species are tallied for the state fiscal year from all projects. Projects include all funding sources; however, the majority are funded by State Wildlife Grants. Key species are listed as Nominee Species in Appendix 7 of the Division of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) 2006 Wildlife Action Plan. Source: DWC Federal Assistance Coordinator and Wildlife Diversity Lead.
|
Key Species Studies
| Fiscal Year |
# Studies |
5% Increase Target |
| FY 2012 |
59
+5.36%
|
35.7
+5%
|
| FY 2011 |
56
+7.69%
|
34.0
+4.94%
|
| FY 2010 |
52
-8.77%
|
32.4
+5.19%
|
| FY 2009 |
57
+7.55%
|
30.8
+4.76%
|
| FY 2008 |
53
-7.02%
|
29.4
+5%
|
| FY 2007 |
57
+42.5%
|
28.0
+5.26%
|
| FY 2006 |
40
+2.56%
|
26.6
+4.72%
|
| FY 2005 |
39
+44.44%
|
25.4
+4.96%
|
| FY 2004 |
27
+17.39%
|
24.2
+5.22%
|
| FY 2003 |
23
|
23.0
|
Analysis of results and challenges: As of 2011 the methodology was changed to include non-federal aid projects as well. Previous years only included key species studies that were supported with State Wildlife Grant (SWG) and Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF) grants. Division of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) has held a steady incline in number of studies since 2006. DWC's number of key species studies has fluctuated since 2003 along with oscillating Alaska SWG allocations.
Related links:
|
| A5:
Core Service - Compile and analyze existing data; conduct research to gather information on the role of hunting and fishing by Alaskans for customary and traditional uses. |
| |
Target #1: Conduct a minimum of five studies of customary and traditional uses of fish and wildlife and harvests in at least three of the six regions each year.
Methodology: Comprehensive community surveys, by region, conducted each year by the Division of Subsistence.
|
Community Survey Projects, by Region
| Fiscal Year |
Southeast |
Southcentral |
Southwest |
Interior |
Western, Arctic |
Total |
| FY 2012 |
0
0%
|
5
-16.67%
|
10
+233.33%
|
8
+300%
|
24
+14.29%
|
47
+46.88%
|
| FY 2011 |
0
0%
|
6
0%
|
3
+200%
|
2
-75%
|
21
+250%
|
32
+113.33%
|
| FY 2010 |
0
-100%
|
6
0%
|
1
-90%
|
8
+14.29%
|
6
-33.33%
|
15
-44.44%
|
| FY 2009 |
1
0%
|
0
-100%
|
10
+42.86%
|
7
+600%
|
9
-25%
|
27
+28.57%
|
| FY 2008 |
0
|
1
|
7
|
1
|
12
|
21
|
Analysis of results and challenges: The Division of Subsistence (Division) conducts field studies and gathers harvest survey information in communities almost entirely with special project funding. The funding is generally obtained through a competitive proposal process to address questions related to customary and traditional uses of specific fisheries and wildlife resources. Systematic regionwide surveys can occur only when relatively larger funding support is available, a rare occurrence in the past ten years. The data table shows information has been incomplete for several regions over a five year period, with improvement in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. The target is to have scientific information collected and analyzed in each region at a consistent level each year; and develop a balance across regions, recognizing geographic differences. The target was achieved in three regions in the past five fiscal years.
|
| A6:
Core Service - Ensure state authority to manage fish, wildlife, and water on all lands within its boundaries, public rights to access on public waters, and other access rights except as specifically diminished by acts of Congress. |
| |
Target #1: Annually participate in steps leading to adoption and implementation by federal, state, and municipal agencies of ten land management plans, regulations, ordinances, treaties, and policies in order to assure recognition of state authority.
|
| |
Target #2: Annually monitor and provide staff support to five steps or items in national and state legislation in order to accurately reflect existing state authorities and public access and activities.
|
| |
Target #3: Annually coordinate with, and provide assistance to, the Department of Law in issues involving possible litigation to protect the State sovereign authority and public activities.
|
| |
Target #4: Annually participate in ten federal decisions and three training sessions involving shared jurisdiction over fish and wildlife under Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, ANILCA, or Bald Eagle Protection Act.
|
Current as of January 31, 2013
