Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/09/2004 09:03 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 347(RES)
"An Act relating to moratoria on entry of new participants or
vessels into a commercial fishery; relating to vessel permits
for, and the establishment of a moratorium on entry of new
vessels into, state Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries; and
providing for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Wilken explained that this legislation "would establish a
moratorium in the Gulf of Alaska State waters groundfish
fisheries."
Senator B. Stevens stated that he is sponsoring this bill at the
request of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC),
the Department of Fish and Game, and the Alaska Board of Fisheries.
He noted that components of Sections 2 through 8 would amend
"existing provisions in the Limited Entry Commission to establish
temporary moratoriums on the entrance of new participants into a
fishery." He characterized the change "as a technical correction
and modification to those provisions" as the Board currently has
this authority. He reminded the Committee that while the Commission
is allowed to consider the development of a moratorium to protect a
fishery, they are prohibited from implementing one without
Legislative authorization.
Senator B. Stevens continued that the bill would also establish a
specific moratorium on the Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries, as
suggested by the Board of Fisheries and as outlined in Sec. 9, page
seven of the bill. He also noted that the Department of Fish and
Game, the Board of Fisheries, and the Limited Fisheries Entry
Commission have been cooperatively involved in an extensive two-
year task force to align State programs with programs proposed by
the federal fisheries for the areas they manage. He reminded the
Committee that the State has the authority to manage fisheries up
to three miles from shoreline and that the federal government
manages the fisheries between three and 200 miles from shore. He
reiterated that this legislation is an effort to align Alaska's
same stock species management with the federal fisheries management
proposals.
Senator B. Stevens stressed that were the State's moratorium plan
not established at the same time as the federal quota management
plan, there would be a migration to the State's area as it would be
the "last open fishery." He clarified that were a quota plan
developed for the federal three to 200 mile area, and no plan
developed for the State's zero to three mile area, then there would
be "a massive influx into the zero/three fishery which would result
in increased pressure on the stock, increased pressure on the
managers," and a decrease in the historical participants' catch.
Therefore, he stated, this legislation would serve to provide a
check and balance between what is occurring in the management that
is "changing for the positive in the long run" for the
sustainability for the participants, the communities that depend on
the industry, and the resources.
Co-Chair Wilken asked whether a three to 200-mile federal
moratorium is currently in effect for the fisheries identified in
Sec. 9 of this bill.
Senator B. Stevens responded that a federal Licensed Limitation
Program (LLP) moratorium, in which the numbers of participants in
certain fisheries are fixed, has been in effect since 1991.
Co-Chair Wilken asked whether the twenty fisheries identified in
this legislation are included in the federal LLP.
Senator B. Stevens responded that the federal LLP does not pertain
to the bill's fisheries. He stated that this legislation applies to
the groundfish fisheries that are managed by the State, and which,
he clarified, are currently open to new participants. He reiterated
that the purpose of this legislation is "to prevent an influx
during this period of development." He exampled that the
halibut/sablefish quota management plans development process took
ten years, from 1985 through 1995, to finalize. He informed that in
1985 there were, on a statewide basis, 2,700 vessels fishing
halibut and 370 vessels fishing the black cod/sablefish market as
depicted on the spreadsheet he distributed titled "Number of Unique
Vessels - All Areas" (copy on file) that reflects the number of
vessels fishing halibut and sablefish in the State from 1980
through 1999. Continuing, he shared that the number of halibut
vessels increased from the 1985 level to a high of 4,400 in 1991
and the number of sablefish vessels increased to a high of 1,100 in
1994. He voiced that he "wholeheartedly" endorses this legislation
in order to prevent an influx of participants, which could create
"instability." He defined instability as a time when the catch
rates of historical participants declines, the communities
dependent on the industry are negatively affected, and the third
and "most important challenge of adequately managing the biomass,
is increased dramatically when there is an influx in the fishery."
Co-Chair Wilken asked how this legislation would affect the Prince
William Sound longline fishery that is specified in the list.
Senator B. Stevens noted that the Prince William Sound longline
groundfish fishery would include such things as Pacific cod and
rockfish, but not halibut. He stressed that the vessels having a
permit for those fisheries would continue to be able to fish, but
that no new entrants would be allowed during the three-year
moratorium. He stressed the fact that the moratorium implemented by
this legislation would be limited to a three-year period, and were
a long-term or allocation plan developed, it must be ratified by
the Legislature as specified in Sec. 9, subsection (k), page nine,
line 29 through page ten, line three that reads as follows.
(k) During the moratorium established under (d) of this
section, the commission shall, in cooperation with the
Department of Fish and Game and the Board of Fisheries,
conduct investigations to determine appropriate alternatives
for management of entry into Gulf of Alaska groundfish
fisheries in the state. The commission shall submit proposals
to the legislature for legislation or constitutional
amendments necessary to implement the recommendations of the
commission.
Co-Chair Wilken understood therefore, that those who currently hold
permits in the twenty identified fisheries in the bill would be
able to continue to fish, and that no new entrants would be allowed
for the next three years.
Co-Chair Wilken asked the definition of "non-pelagic" and
"pelagic," which are terms used in the list of twenty fisheries.
SUE ASPELUND, Federal Management Research Coordinator, Office of
the Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game, explained that the
term pelagic refers to fish "that swim up in the water column and
non-pelagic are those fish that live on the bottom."
Senator Hoffman understood that this legislation would allow
vessels owners who have never fished to be granted fishing rights,
and he asked why this would be good policy.
Ms. Aspelund clarified this is a vessel-based moratorium rather
than an individual-based moratorium. She explained that a vessel-
based moratorium was determined to be a more effective avenue to
contain growth during the three-year moratorium period. She
stressed that this temporary moratorium program would "freeze" the
fisheries at this point in time to allow for a rights-based system
to be developed by the Board of Fisheries, the Commission, and the
Department of Fish and Game.
Senator Hoffman asked whether it is the intent of the Department in
the future to invest the fishing rights with the skipper and the
crew rather than with the vessel.
Ms. Aspelund replied that the rights of skippers and crew would be
part of the deliberations. However, she stressed that until further
analysis is conducted, it is uncertain as to whether that would be
the final determination.
Senator Hoffman asked the expected timeframe for this
determination.
Ms. Aspelund anticipated that the earliest federal and State
determination date would be prior to the 2006 season; however, she
reminded that the halibut/sablefish plan took ten years to develop.
Senator Hoffman opined that transitioning fishing rights from the
multi-vessel owners to the skippers "and potentially the crew"
might be difficult. Therefore, he asked the Department's opinion on
the matter.
Ms. Aspelund responded that it is too early to make a determination
as the processes are in the initial stages. She reiterated that
skipper and crew rights are a component of the NPFMC analysis that
is currently being conducted. In addition, she noted that the Board
of Fisheries process in also in the early stages, and therefore,
she declared that it would be "premature" to comment. She assured
the Committee that a goal of this restructuring endeavor is to
provide maximum benefits to the fisheries, to residents and local
communities, and to the State.
ED DERSHAM, Chairman, Alaska Board of Fisheries, testified via
teleconference from Homer and noted that while the final plan is as
of yet undetermined, the work group does support a vessel-based
moratorium at this time in order to provide time to address the
issues. He stated that without this moratorium, the State's ability
to address the issue would be difficult, as the State's shoreline
to three-mile fishery would be overburdened as a result of the
federal "rationalization" plan. Overburdening, he attested would
result in serious economic issues and would require conservation
methods to be applied to such fisheries as the Pacific cod.
Senator B. Stevens stressed that contrary to the argument that is
being raised, this bill does "not allocate future rights." He
declared that the Legislature has no desire to enter into the
discussion of future rights allocations as that, he declared, is
the responsibility of the managers of the fisheries such as the
Board of Fisheries and the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council. Continuing, he stressed that there is a process in place
and when a plan is developed, it would be presented to the
Legislature for further action. He avowed that this bill would
provide fisheries managers with a three-year window in which to
address how to protect the resource from an onslaught of
participants into fisheries that are currently sustainable and to
protect the economics of the current participants.
Senator Hoffman agreed that protection of the resource should be
"the driving concern;" however, he worried that utilizing vessel-
rights, as proposed, might provide multi-vessel owners with "the
upper hand," as they could argue that they have the rights. This,
he commented, is his primary concern because it is the crewmen and
the skippers working in this dangerous industry who are risking
their lives rather than the multi-vessel owners who potentially
might never be on any of the vessels. Therefore, he continued,
while vessel-rights might be the mechanism with which to address
the issue initially, the multi-vessel owners should not be provided
an edge "in the hierarchy" when the determination is being made
regarding who should be granted the rights."
Mr. Dersham informed that specifying the vessel-rights approach for
the three-year moratorium period was a decision of the work group
consisting of the DF&G, the Board of Fisheries and the NPFMC. He
stated that this approach was determined to be "the fairest and
only effective way to get our arms around the participants;"
however, he assured that Senator Hoffman's concerns would be
addressed as the process develops.
Senator Dyson, voicing appreciation for Senator Hoffman's concerns,
commented that there is no intention to grandfather in any
component for the future. He commented that it is very difficult
for resource managers to manage a resource if there are a huge
number of very efficient, large vessels harvesting the resource.
Therefore, he agreed that limiting that component would provide a
very effective job of managing the resource. He attested to the
validity of the bill's goal to integrate the State's management
practices of its shoreline to three-mile limit with those of the
federal government's management three to 200 mile area practices.
Continuing, he reiterated that another valid concern is that the
State should maximize the participation of Alaskan fishermen, as he
noted that a great number of the individuals in the fleets are from
outside of the State. However, he allowed that there are US
Constitutional constraints in this regard. Finally, he stated that
the financial interests of individual business people, is an area
that government does not handle very well. He voiced respect for
the NPFMC and that he would support this legislation as he
recognizes three of the legislation's goals to be valid.
Senator Olson asked whether the number of multi-vessel owners is a
significant number to matter in the issue.
Ms. Aspelund replied that one of the real problems with furthering
the analyses is the difficulty in gathering and integrating federal
and State data. However, she noted that preliminary numbers
indicate that during the three-year moratorium period, the
participation calculations are that 1,475 vessels and 1,655 persons
have participated. She estimated that 80 percent of the
participants are State residents.
Senator Olson asked regarding the owners of those vessels.
Ms. Aspelund responded that the Department does not know who the
owners of the vessels are.
Ms. Aspelund corrected, for the record, that as a result of a
technical amendment to align Sec. 9 with other Legislative
moratoriums and general sections of the bill, the committee
substitute before the Committee specifies there to be a four-year
moratorium. Therefore, she clarified that the moratorium would be
in effect from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2008.
Co-Chair Wilken asked regarding the duration of the federal
moratorium.
Senator B. Stevens clarified that rather than establishing a
moratorium, the federal management plan incorporates an LLP, which
specifies that no more vessel licenses would be issued. Thus, he
continued, the number of licenses is set and licenses could only be
transferred where there is a disaster or a replacement scenario.
SFC 04 # 34, Side B 09:51 AM
BRUCE SCHACTLER, testified via teleconference from on offnet site,
and stated that this is "a convoluted" issue. He disclosed that he
has no involvement in groundfish fisheries and is participating
solely because of personal interest in the matter. He declared that
the participants are "the guys running the boats and catching the
fishing." Historically, he attested, there has not been one
management regulatory regime that has "actually given the crewmen"
or the permit holder "any consideration" beyond "the lip service"
conducted in the analysis stage of the issue. He further opined
that while crewmen rights are discussed and researched; the
politics of the decision makers and the interests that those people
have "in the people who put them there" override the fact that the
people who actually produce the product are "cut out of the deal."
While understanding the reasoning behind establishing a moratorium,
he stated that it would be a temporary rather than permanent fix.
He asserted that the federal fisheries management problem and
"their inability to fix it," is the driving force that has resulted
in the federal government asking the State to address the issue in
a similar manner. He declared, "that people have bought off on
that" and are, therefore, moving this legislation forward.
Mr. Schactler suggested that the State disallow letting fishermen
with federal LLP licenses to fish in State waters. Were this to
occur, he continued, Alaskans who wish to fish in State waters
would be able to do so instead of being prevented from doing so for
four years as proposed in this legislation. He voiced that there
are other options available to protect the biomass as opposed to
"shutting the fishery off" as this legislation does.
Mr. Schactler declared that this bill would not fix the problem, as
there are 2000 LLP license holders who could fish in the State's
waters. He stated that, were this legislation to move forward, some
system must be in place to ensure that State residents would be
provided the ability to fish upon the conclusion of the moratorium
and "the fix" of the federal problem. He stated that this
moratorium does not need to become a permanent thing, although he
declared that every moratorium previously entertained became
permanent. He stressed that the State such not continue to let its
fisheries be run by the federal fisheries and their "failure to
deal with their problem." He urged the Legislature to take care of
the State's fishermen and the State's fisheries, and he stressed
that other solutions to the issue are available. He stated this
rather than correcting the issue, this course of action would not
fix the fishery or provide for State residents, but would instead
allow absentee owners to continue to be involved in it. He noted
that rather than allowing the Department and the Commission to
effectively deal with the issue, this legislation would allow the
Legislature to dictate action. In conclusion, he urged the
Committee to support actions that benefit Alaskan residents and to
not allow this temporary moratorium to become permanent.
Senator B. Stevens pointed out that, rather than being federally
driven, this legislation was brought forward at the request of the
managers of the Department, the Commission, and the NPFMC.
MARY MCDOWELL, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission,
Department of Fish and Game, stated that the Commission does not
have the statutory authority to mandate a permanent limitation
program upon the termination of the moratorium. She disclosed that
the Legislature had previously authorized the Commission to
implement a vessel-based moratorium in the scallop and herring crab
fisheries; however, she pointed out; however, that no statutory
authority exists for any other fishery. She stressed that it was
not the Commission's decision to implement a vessel-based
moratorium as no analysis has been conducted in this regard;
however, she noted that the Commission does have the authority to
implement a person-based permit moratorium. She communicated that
the Commission would work with the Department to develop a plan for
future limitations, and she stated that were it determined that the
fisheries would be better served by a method other than the current
limited entry permit program, that plan would be presented in the
form of legislation to the Legislature for consideration.
Ms. Aspelund clarified that jig fisheries are exempt from this
moratorium in order to provide entry-level access to that Gulf
groundfish fishery.
Mr. Dersham stated, in response to Mr. Schactler's comments, that
the Board is very mindful of the need to protect its authority over
State's waters and to determine the best solution for the State and
the economies of the region. He stated that the Commission is
cooperating with the other entities to the point at which its
authority continues to be maintained. He noted that the option of
denying LLP license holders the ability to fish in State waters
might not work as almost every Alaskan fisherman also holds an LLP
license.
Senator B. Stevens moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations.
There being no objection, CS SB 347(RES) was REPORTED from
Committee with fiscal note #1 in the amount of $40,800 from the
Department of Fish and Game.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|