Seven years later, with a plan to manage Alaska's crab fisheries through a quota share program in place, the North Pacific Fishery Management continues to wrestle with the fishery.

The legislation was intended to make the fishery safer by allocating shares, in place of the intense short fishery that resulted in many deaths at sea, and to provide economic stability through programs to end overcapitalization.

Still, what happened in Dutch Harbor continues to haunt the multi-million dollar crab industry, and the processors, vessel owners and crew involved.

The initial plan prompted a fierce debate that spread from the fish docks in Alaska to Washington, D.C., said veteran fisheries reporter Bob King in a document he wrote on the first 50 years of Alaska's commercial fisheries.

"The Justice Department opposed processor shares, arguing they were a disincentive to innovate. Arizona Senator John McCain also spoke out against processor shares, saying they 'throw an enormous wrench in the free market machinery,'" wrote King, now an aide to Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska.

Despite the opposition, the crab rationalization plan went into effect in 2005.

In its first year, the fishing fleet shriveled from 251 vessels to 89, while the crab fishing season grew from three days to 93, King said.

In the aftermath, many say the program is working exactly as intended. Others who say they were not compensated are particularly critical of "mail box fishermen," those who have sold their boats but continue to reap profits from the quota shares they lease out at huge profits.

Practically everyone who made it to the Dutch Harbor meeting has a different version of what happened there, but one topic mentioned repeatedly was pressure and coercion.

"The council was flawed and broken because of the imbalance of representation on it, and still is," said Gordon Blue, now an Episcopal minister from Sitka but then the owner of two crab boats. "No one gets on the council from Alaska or Washington state unless they have processor support."

Political pressures

Blue is one of a number of people who have argued over the years that the council process has been dominated by the processors.

"I think there was a lot of pressure and strong-arming," said Blue, who said he ultimately got out of the crab fishery because of economic ruin. "Certainly the threat (to go along with processor quota shares) was there. Business relations got a lot more difficult for those in opposition."

Blue said there was also pressure on the council members, "a lot of lobbying before the meeting. Debate in the council itself was limited."

"There is always pressure at the council meetings, especially if it is an allocation issue," said Dave Benton, who was the council chairman at the Dutch Harbor meeting. "After thousands of pages of analysis and hundreds of hours of testimony, it was amazing that there was a unanimous vote. Most of the participants said they could make it work."

People knew where it was going to go, said Benton, who now serves as executive director of the Marine Conservation Alliance, in Juneau, an umbrella group of fishermen, processors and fisheries support groups.

"They knew it was going to go to Congress."

The crab rationalization package ultimately won congressional approve as a rider on an appropriations bill attached by then-Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska.

Kevin Duffy, commissioner of the state Department of Fish and Game under the Tony Knowles administration, introduced the state's motion on crab rationalization.

The motion included the 90-10 processor quota shares. Some in attendance said an audible gasp went through the audience when the figures were announced.

Knowles said in an interview in late May that his administration supported a 70-30 split for processor quota shares. When Duffy introduced 90-10 "it was a surprise," he said.

"I don't know why it went through, but it went through with a unanimous vote and we heard about it after it was done, and there was no way to get back into it," Knowles said. "The council had no interest in getting back into it."

Duffy, who could not be located to comment for this article, subsequently left his state job in December 2004. In January 2005, he became executive director of the At-Sea Processors Association. In December 2006, he was replaced by Stephanie Madsen, who was at that time chairman of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.

Benton said that despite the unanimous vote, under Roberts Rules of Order, anybody on the prevailing side could have told the council that they wanted to reconsider their vote, but nobody did.

Larry Cotter, chief executive officer of the Aleutian-Pribilof Island Community Development Association, one of six Community Development Quota groups created to provide more coastal community economic stability, also said parliamentary action was available, "but nobody on the council availed themselves of them."

Knowles dropped the ball

Knowles, who has been out of office since 2002, said he still thinks crew were entitled to shares.

In an interview with Casey Kelly of Kodiak radio station KMXT in 2006, when he was running for the U.S. Senate, Knowles said the crab rationalization program had not gone well for Alaska.

"I talked with crew members, boat owners and community leaders about the emerging crisis with regard to jobs and economy as a result of some of the consequences of the Bering Sea crab rationalization program, which has seen a severe drop in loss of jobs and hurt businesses in coastal communities, and a loss of crew jobs and boats," Knowles said. "Clearly what we need to do now is take action on that, by first not allowing anything to happen in the Gulf (of Alaska) rationalization plans which might just duplicate the same problems that came up with the Bering Sea crab rationalization plans. We need to put a moratorium on that."

Knowles also told Kelly he could take some responsibility for what happened with crab rationalization during his administration as governor.

"I was, at least in the minds of the people, part of the problem, and I plead guilty," he said. "The evidence has come through that it hasn't worked well for Alaska, so we need to start a new page on that. We need to insist that the fishing jobs that were lost, the fishing boats that were cut down, that have hurt the economies of coastal Alaska, that we go back to a regime that encourages those things rather than cuts them out."

One option discussed

Crab boat captain Keith Colburn, who attended the Dutch Harbor meeting, said only one of many options available for processor quota shares was discussed: the one that directed that 90 percent of all harvest be delivered to certain processors, the so-called 90-10 split.

"The discussion lasted a very brief time and the chairman, Dave Benton, slammed down the gavel and said 'that's it,'" Colburn said. "Everyone in the industry not in the processing sector walked out off the room absolutely shocked. At the time, the harvest sector was under the assumption that a 70-30 or 80-20 split was going to occur."

The council's advisory panel had, in fact, included a minority report that recommended a rationalization program that addressed resource conservation priorities and the concerns of harvesters, communities and processors without inclusion of processor quota shares.

Michelle Ridgway, a marine biologist who served on the advisory panel, was among the signers of the minority report, which she said prompted no discussion by the council.

"Everybody had the screws put to them," Ridgway said. "They were in a pressure cooker. The council members, if they had questions or reservations, they never said a word."

Advisory panel member Dave Frasier, who signed the minority report, said threats to go along with the processor quota share option were obvious, and that the advisory panel was "muzzled."

"We were not allowed to give our minutes to the council. We had to read the minutes into public comment to get them on the table," he said.

Ridgway also said she witnessed a captain or boat owner tell a crew member he was not to testify and sent him back to the boat. She saw another man who "grabbed his crew by the scruff of the neck and threw him against the wall right there in the Grand Aleutian Hotel and said, 'If you testify, you will never have a job in this industry again.'"

Program pressures

The pressure to keep processor shares intact continues, said Shawn Dochtermann, a veteran fisherman and officer of the Crewmen's Association.

Dochtermann, who feels the crew should be allocated shares, said processors told vessel owner quota shareholders in April 2007 that if they spoke up at the 18-month review on crab rationalization that the processors would help crew get their reallocation.

By the December 2008 council meeting, the Crewmen's Association had 10 crewmen and a couple of boat owners lined up to testify.

"After a couple of the crew members spoke, they got phone calls from the boat owners saying, 'If you speak, you lost your job,'" he said.

Vessel owners were also threatened with loss of quota share leases if they spoke out against the program, he said.

Dochtermann argues that under rationalization, those who do find work are paid less because boat owners deduct huge quota share leasing fees before paying crew. Pre-rationalization, crew made about 6 percent and skippers 15 percent of what the harvest earned, he said. Now crew makes less than 3 percent.

But some feel program is working, including crab cooperative manager Edward Poulsen.

"From what I understand, most people pay their crew the same as they did before," Poulsen said. "Guys don't charge royalties on quota they were initially issued. That is the baseline. My crew is interested in leasing additional quota. If they are already up there (on the Bering Sea) they would much rather lease more quota and get a few more days fishing."

Few want to go back to 2002 ways, said Jim Balsiger, then Alaska region director for NOAA Fisheries and a voting member of the council. Balsiger is now acting assistant administrator for NOAA Fisheries.

"I know there are problems. I know crews feel they did not get justice. Some communities feel left out," he said. "Back then it was everyone working together. Everyone was trying to move the process forward to make sure constituents concerns were heard. I think it was the best we could do on that day. I wouldn't second-guess that today. If things need to be fixed, the council is the place to fix it."