Bristol Bay dual permit operations, vessel heterogeneity, and the migration of Alaskan permit holders

Abstract

This dissertation examines three aspects of Alaska's Limited Entry program. Chapter 1 explores the outcome of dual-permit regulations. The Alaska Board of Fisheries passed regulations allowing for dual permit operations in the Bristol Bay Pacific salmon drift gillnet fishery starting in 2004. These regulations allow two permit holders to fish from a single vessel with additional gear. Policymakers anticipated that the dual permit regulations would encourage young fishermen to enter the fishery and reduce the number of limited entry permits transferred from local fishermen to nonlocal fishermen and nonresidents. Statistical analyses reported in Chapter 1 indicate that the dual-permit program successfully offset part of the adverse influence of increases in the market value of permits on the number of new entrants and that implementation of dual-permit regulations was followed by a reduction in the median age of new entrants, particularly among nonresidents. However, the implementation of dual-permit regulation failed to staunch the outflow of limited entry permits. Chapter 2 examines the persistence of heterogeneity in the size of fishing vessels active in the Bristol Bay salmon drift gillnet fishery. When entry was limited, the commercial fishing fleet included a mix of vessels up to the long-established 32-foot maximum length. The race for fish that so often arises under license limitation favors the adoption of vessel and gear configurations that maximize catch-perday and could be anticipated to lead to increased homogeneity in fleet composition. Yet, statistical analyses indicate that even after over four decades, the composition of this fleet remains heterogeneous in vessel size and vessel value. Multivariate analysis of time series observations of vessel values indicates that vessels captained by permit holders who were given their permit are less capitalized than vessels captained by permit holders who purchased their permit. Likewise, vessels operated by local resident permit holders are less capitalized than vessels owned by nonlocal Alaskan or nonresident permit holders. In addition, vessels operated by older permit holders are less capitalized than vessels operated by younger permit holders. Chapter 3 examines the factors that influence the migration of permit holders. Since limitation, there have been concerns that ever more of the permits issued to individuals local to Alaska's fisheries would come to be held by individuals who were not local to the fisheries. The count of permit holders local to a fishery can change because of transfers, administrative cancellations, or because permit holders migrate either to or from fisheries where the permit is used. Chapter 3 considers possible factors that predict permit migration to or from different residency classes. Included in our analysis was a look at season length, fleet participation rates, permit transfers, the size of the fleet, gear type, wages of construction workers to serve as a proxy for substitute employment, and the local unemployment rate. Statistical analyses indicate that fisheries with longer seasons show slightly elevated migration from local to nonresident status of permit holders. Permit latency and permit holder migration have a negative relationship among the significant variables. Transfers serve as a substitute for permit migrations and provide the largest influence on permit migrations. For every resident type of migration, as the transfer rate increases, fewer permit holders migrate. The total number of permits within the fishery also affects the migration of permit holders, albeit only minimally. The second-largest influence on permit migration is gear type. Migrations to local setnet permit holders had a smaller magnitude of change than migrations from permit holders across most categories. Generally speaking, migration tends to move towards a nonresident status of permit holders. Wages of construction workers were only significant at the 5% level for transfers from locals to nonresidents and from nonresidents to locals, but both variables were positive. As the local unemployment rate increases, the rate of locals emigrating outside of Alaska increased.