That includes detailed information on everything from the number of active crewmembers in each fishery to the number of days active crew license-holders work in total, by community or by fishery.

Good data on crew participation would allow for more complete analysis of the economic importance of commercial fishing to the state economy, Geron Bruce, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's assistant director of commercial fisheries, told participants at the Pacific Marine Expo 2007 on Nov. 17.

Under the current data reporting system, crewmembers cannot be linked to a particular fishery or area because their licenses are general to all commercial fisheries. Using the existing data, it is impossible to know if crew license holders fished at all, where they fished, how much they fished, how many crew fished from a vessel or how much they earned.

Since crewmember identification is not recorded on fish tickets, it is not possible to associate crew sizes or crew earnings with a particular fishery or area using fish ticket data.

Bruce said his department's goal is to devise an efficient data collection system to gather data on the number of crewmembers involved in specific fisheries and the hours they worked, while maintaining confidentiality on when and where crewmembers fish, information that could be used against them by competitors.

The department must still determine who will record crew participation, when will it be documented and what is the best mechanism for reporting, plus procedures for an audit and appeals process.

Data on crewmember participation and hours worked is recorded by processor and tender operators, permit holders, vessel owners or the crewmembers themselves, “all these databases need to be able to talk to one another,” Bruce said.

Problems caused by lack of accurate information in the commercial seafood harvesting sector have hindered efforts of government agencies, economic development groups and the private sector to resolve issues impacting crewmembers in the face of declining fishery values and increased foreign competition.

A report issued by the Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference at Anchorage earlier this year pinpointed the economic needs of collecting such data.

Another impetus for collecting crew data is to determine how crewmembers might be affected by various rationalization programs, Bruce said. The SWAMC report, written by Northern Economics Inc., said that while the fishing industry is one of the state's largest employers, the lack of information hampers the efforts of fisheries-dependent communities to influence public policy-making, to build infrastructure and grow their economies.

The report laid out four possible paths toward improving seafood harvesting labor data, including adoption of an e-landings reporting system to include all fisheries and crew data.

The report noted that the Alaska seafood harvesting and processing sector provides more direct jobs than oil and gas, mining, agriculture and forestry, plus their associated primary processing industries combined. In some areas of the state, such as the Aleutian and Pribilof islands, Bristol Bay and Kodiak regions, jobs in the seafood industry account for about half of all employment, the report said.

Various crew jobs are generated in fisheries under state management, fisheries under federal management, and jointly managed fisheries, which are primarily fisheries in federal waters managed by the state of Alaska under federal delegation.

Yet, the report noted, crewmembers differ from other groups involved in harvesting and processing seafood in terms of the amount of data collected on their activities, and these differences result in less overall information being available for stakeholders.

This includes the number of active crew license holders by community or in total each year, the number of active crew license holders by fishery, the number of days active crew license holders work in total, by community or by fishery, and the income of active crew license holders in total, by community or by fishery.

A new system would require a one-time cost of $150,000 to develop the data collection system itself, including the software, plus another $150,000 for new staff to maintain and operate the system, Bruce said.

“The soonest we would get the money would be in another fiscal year, and then it would take another two years to design and implement the system,” he said.

When asked by the audience what they could do to help, Bruce suggested that they express their interest in the project to their legislators.

Bruce said there are a number of issues to be considered in determining how to collect crew information, which is currently gathered through a cooperative self-reporting system. There is a need to determine who will record crew participation, when to document, what mechanism to use for reporting, how to measure compliance with reporting, plus an appeals process, he said.

“Compliance is an important issue,” Bruce said. “We also need to be realistic about what we expect in compliance. From the department's standpoint, we are trying to work cooperatively with (the industry) for the benefit of the fisheries.”