Performance Details

Department of Fish and Game

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

  • Management
  • Stock Assessment and Research
  • Customer Service and Public Involvement

Arrow GraphicResults

Core Services
A: Department Result  Details >
A1: Management  Details >
  • TARGET #1: Maintain total annual value of commercial harvests and mariculture production at over $1 billion annually.
  • TARGET #2: 100% of resource developers meet agency requirements for protection of fish, wildlife, and their habitats.
A2: Stock Assessment and Research  Details >
  • TARGET #1: Achieve salmon escapement goals in 80% of monitored systems.
  • TARGET #2: Update and maintain the Community Subsistence Information System (CSIS), an online public information resource, by including all studies completed during the fiscal year.
A3: Customer Service and Public Involvement  Details >
  • TARGET #1: Increase sales of hunting and trapping licenses to the three-year average.
  • TARGET #2: Return sport fishing license sales and revenue collection to 2008 levels to ensure excellence in fisheries management and research for the benefit of recreational anglers, the state's economy, and future generations of Alaskans.
  • TARGET #3: Increase the number of public comments submitted during the regulatory meeting cycle.
  • TARGET #4: Provide a sufficent amount of time for board members to address proposals.

Performance Detail


A: Result - Department Result

A1: Core Service - Management
    
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
2012
$2,172
$1,000
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: 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 FY2013, 99.78% 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.



A2: Core Service - Stock Assessment and Research
    
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
2013
76%
80%
2012
69%
80%
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.


    
Target #2: Update and maintain the Community Subsistence Information System (CSIS), an online public information resource, by including all studies completed during the fiscal year.

Methodology: Tally number of communities with quantitative survey data added to the Community Subsistence Information System.

Number of Community Studies Formatted for Community Database
Fiscal Year Southeast Southcentral & SW Interior, West, Arctic Total
FY 2013
3
0%
15
0%
22
-31.25%
40
-14.89%
FY 2012
0
0%
15
+1400%
32
+45.45%
47
+104.35%
FY 2011
0
-100%
1
-97.83%
22
+266.67%
23
-64.06%
FY 2010
12
-29.41%
46
-33.33%
6
-77.78%
64
-43.36%
FY 2009
17
69
27
113

Analysis of results and challenges: Updates of the Subsistence Community Information System (CSIS) were possible in 2013. The database was updated with an online public information system, making content from research harvest studies easily accessible for the public, fisheries and wildlife managers, resource developers, and division research staff, among others.

Data from 40 studies were added in FY2013. Stand-alone datasets from annual salmon and halibut harvest surveys are planned for merging into the CSIS, so all harvest information can be available through a single portal. This is the single source of subsistence harvest information for communities in the state.

A3: Core Service - Customer Service and Public Involvement
    
Target #1: Increase sales of hunting and trapping licenses to the three-year average.

Methodology: License Statistics

Sales of Hunting and Trapping Licenses
Year Resident Non Resident Total
2013
96015
-0.55%
15643
-1.94%
111658
-0.75%
2012
96546
-1.12%
15952
+4.41%
112498
-0.37%
2011
97642
+4.55%
15278
+5.34%
112920
+4.66%
2010
93390
-4.94%
14504
+4.12%
107894
-3.82%
2009
98247
+7.31%
13930
-2.36%
112177
+6%
2008
91558
14266
105824

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.

2013 sales of hunting and trapping licenses were high (111,658).

The most common resident license is the Hunt/Sport Fish license (44,893).

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:
   • http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=licensevendors.statistics


    
Target #2: Return sport fishing license sales and revenue collection to 2008 levels to ensure excellence in fisheries management and research for the benefit of recreational anglers, the state's economy, and future generations of Alaskans.

Methodology: Number of licenses sold was obtained from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Division of Administrative Services (DAS), Licensing Section. The actual revenue collected by fiscal year is from the Fish and Game Fund Analysis report prepared for the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) prepared by the ADF&G Finance Officer.

Sales of Fishing Licenses by Calendar Year
Year Resident Nonresident Total License Sold Target FG Fund Revenue by FY
2013
187,507
266,271
453,778
486,405

2012
183,725
253,694
437,419
486,405
$12,372.0 M
2011
190,148
258,840
448,988
486,405
$12,258.4 M
2010
186,777
255,432
442,209
486,405
$12,187.0 M
2009
194,658
252,427
447,085
486,405
$13,473.7 M
2008
186,311
300,094
486,405
486,405
$15,103.0 M

Analysis of results and challenges: Both sport fishing license sales and participation have fluctuated since 2008. Resident license sales have been stable during this period whereas non-resident license sales have decreased since 2008. The contemporary challenge for the division is to return non-resident participation in recreational fisheries to the 2008 participation threshold. The actual Fish and Game revenue reported is by fiscal year (July 1- June 30).

Related links:
   • ADF&G License Statistics


    
Target #3: Increase the number of public comments submitted during the regulatory meeting cycle.


Public Comments Submitted to Boards
Fiscal Year BOF Total Comments BOG Total Comments
FY 2013
1066
532
FY 2012
784
1209
FY 2011
418
755

Analysis of results and challenges: The Board of Fisheries has a three year cycle while the Board of Game has a two year cycle. Each meeting cycle, the number of public comments can be dependent upon the the status of the resources. Meeting cycles dealing with contentious issues tend to result in a high number of comments submitted.

During FY2012, the large number of public comments for the Board of Game was the result of a form letter submitted by hundreds of people concerning intensive management. In FY2011, the number of comments for the Board of Fisheries does not include oral testimony for two meetings.
    
Target #4: Provide a sufficent amount of time for board members to address proposals.


Number of Proposals and Comments Per Board Meeting Day
Fiscal Year BOF Proposals/Mtg Day BOF Comments/Mtg Day BOG Proposals/Mtg Day BOG Comments/Mtg Day
FY 2013
9
41
11
30
FY 2012
11
24
15
64
FY 2011
11
13
14
34

Analysis of results and challenges: The trend over the pass three meeting cycles shows the boards address 9 to 15 proposals per meeting day, and 13 to 64 public comments and testimony per day.

The amount of days provided for the boards to complete their work is sufficient, yet intense. Both boards have large work loads during meetings. Meeting days last as long as 8 to 10 hours. The boards set their schedules prior to knowing the number of proposals before them. If the number of proposals increases over time, more meeting days will be needed in order for the boards to be able to make effective decisions.

In FY2012, the large number of public comments for the Board of Game included a form letter submitted by over 100 individuals concerning intensive management. In FY2011, the number for Board of Fisheries public comment does not include oral testimony at two meetings.

 

Current as of August 28, 2014