Council Members,

Across the North Pacific Coast, too many of our salmon are intercepted and killed far from home in distant ocean fisheries—and too few fish return to spawn for recovery and support the ecosystems, economies, and communities that depend on them. In response to concerning salmon bycatch genetic stock composition data presented under Agenda Item B10 and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game report under Agenda Item B6, I urge the NPFMC to fulfill its obligations under National Standard 4 (NS4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act—and Let Our Salmon Come Home.

National Standard 4 of the MSA was designed to ensure that when fish harvests are allocated among competing uses and users, those allocations are fair and equitable to all fishermen, reasonably calculated to promote conservation, and structured to prevent any single entity from acquiring an excessive share of fishing privileges. Critically, NS4 also establishes that management measures cannot discriminate against residents of different states—meaning that communities in Washington, Oregon, California, or Alaska’s own subsistence-dependent villages cannot be systematically disadvantaged by harvest decisions that disproportionately benefit a different state’s commercial interests. These are not aspirational goals; they are binding statutory requirements.

The B10 genetic stock composition data make the NS4 failure concrete: approximately 47% of Chinook salmon caught as bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock trawl fishery originate from coastal Western Alaska river systems—fish that never reach the rivers and subsistence communities they were bound for. Indigenous communities in the Yukon and Kuskokwim basins endure fishing closures of up to seven years to protect the very populations that industrial trawl operations continue to intercept at sea. Recreational anglers across the Pacific Coast face season cancellations and closures imposed in the name of conservation—sacrifices rendered meaningless when the same fish are captured before they can return. When one sector acquires fish that would otherwise sustain subsistence-dependent families and recreational fisheries in the same region, NS4’s prohibition on excessive share acquisition is violated. When those families and anglers are denied access to fish that a differently situated industry captures at sea, NS4’s prohibition on discriminating against residents of different states is violated too.

As the Council reviews the ADF&G report under B6, I urge it to consider whether the current delegation of salmon management plan authority to the State of Alaska adequately satisfies the Council’s nondelegable NS4 obligations. The equity issue here is not confined to Alaska—fisheries operating out of Southeast Alaska harvest Chinook salmon of which more than 98% originate from rivers in Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia. These Southeast Alaskan fisheries routinely harvest excessive shares of Washington Coast and Oregon Coast Chinook, discriminating against Tribes, fishers, and residents from the states of Washington and Oregon. For example, Pacific Salmon Commission (2026) data show that over the most recent 20-year period, 47% of the total harvest of Grays Harbor Chinook occurred in Southeast Alaska, leaving only 22% for communities of Washington State. Along with this massive inequity in harvest allocation, conservation goals are not being met. Across the same 20-year period, the data show a declining trend in escapement and numerous years of missed escapement targets. Ultimately, the information suggests that Alaska’s salmon management plans—and the NPFMC—may be violating section NS4 of the MSA in failing to promote conservation and ensure fair and equitable allocations.

In closing, I urge the NPFMC to fulfill its obligations under NS4 of the MSA—and Let Our Salmon Come Home to the local watersheds, communities, and ecosystems that depend on them.