Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/08/2008 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB259 | |
| SB254 | |
| SB202 | |
| SB265 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 243 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 265 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 202 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 119 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 259 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 254 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 254
An Act extending the termination date of the Alaska
regional economic assistance program; and providing for
an effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, SPONSOR, explained that the
committee substitute for SB 254 contains the entire purpose
of HB 16, extension of the vessel base fishing limited entry
system.
HOUSE BILL NO. 16
"An Act providing for an effective date by
delaying the effective date of repeal of the
authority of the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission to maintain the vessel-based
commercial fisheries limited entry systems for
the Bering Sea Korean hair crab and weathervane
scallop fisheries, and the effective date of
conforming amendments related to the repeal of
those systems."
HB 16 did not languish in Committee. It was introduced
early with extensive hearings last year. Following
discussions with the Department of Fish and Game &
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC). He hoped to
see seamless management tools in place for managing the
coast of Alaska State waters. He wanted to see regulations
in place.
Senator Seaton pointed out the inclusion of two fisheries in
the work draft. When it was adopted in 2002, there was
significant statewide testimony regarding anticipated
problems including "super consolidation. The hair crab
fishery was closed two years before the temporary limited
entry permits were granted. There is no hair crab fishery
anticipated for the next three years.
He referenced the scallop fishery permits that had been
issued. Currently, there are only three boats that harvest
100% of the scallops in Alaska. There is a tax issue
because the fishery has been consolidated too far and
information is not available. There are only two Alaskan
boats participating in that fishery. Both boats have
testified that they would like to see the license period
extended to five years. There is a sunset included in the
bill. In the current plan, the ownership goes to the vessel
owner and is the same system used by the federal government.
The program would not terminate the 70% fisheries now
occurring in federal waters. The federal water limited
entry system will remain in place.
Representative Seaton reviewed the temporary nature of the
permits. He addressed how well the program worked for
Alaska. He maintained that there needs to be a policy call
on that fishery.
2:34:40 PM
Representative Seaton continued, nothing in the legislation
prevents the system from being in place in federal waters.
The State recognizes that individual participants gain the
rights and that it can be transferred, but no one else can
enter the fishery.
He maintained that there is ample time to go back and create
a limited entry program based on the proposed deliveries.
Historically, the Alaska fishery attempts to have
participants, however, at this time, it is in the hands of
only three. Those provisions have prevented many fishermen
from participating on an economic scale.
Representative Seaton emphasized that the Community
Development Quota (CDQ) is an excellent program. The
language of the bill would not prevent it but rather
proposes monitoring a statewide program, maintaining fishing
permits.
Representative Seaton stated that there is no conservation
issue attached to the fisheries, which is driven by the
economics of participation.
2:39:33 PM
Representative Thomas asked about the statewide boat
displacement. Representative Seaton explained, there is no
way to legally indicate that it is an Alaskan boat. The
program displaces those boats so they do not have access to
the fishery. He reiterated, there are only three fishing
vessels in the entire fishery.
Representative Thomas was concerned and asked if limited
entry was eliminated, how the fleets would access an open
fishery. Representative Seaton explained that the question
is not whether the vessels could be excluded from Alaska but
rather that they are receiving dollars from Alaska without
coming to the State. He maintained that the program should
go away.
2:44:00 PM
Representative Nelson asked if the concern is with
shareholders not fishing the vessel, yet receiving benefits
from the resource. Representative Seaton indicated his
concern with people who do not participate in the fishery,
but actually "own" the fishery. He added that the program
has constricted jobs available to Alaskans and that jobs in
the fishing industry are removed through the program, which
means a loss of jobs and opportunities to coastal Alaska.
2:45:27 PM
Representative Nelson elaborated that the vessels are so
large that no one in her village can actually afford to own
one. Representative Seaton pointed out that some are only
75 feet and that the fishery does not have to be in a huge
vessel. Historically, there have been smaller boats used in
coastal towns. The consolidation included a vessel 123 feet
long. He recognized that some coastal villages do receive
small checks because a larger vessel is distributing those
funds. He reiterated that the bill only addresses the
scallop fishery, which fishes three miles within the coast.
2:48:18 PM
Representative Thomas mentioned halibut fishing outside the
coast of Alaska. He asked why there are complaints being
voiced now, after so many years of being displaced.
Representative Seaton explained that the personal limited
entry system in Alaska is not consolidated and remains with
that person, which does not guarantee that Alaskan people
are actually participating in the fishery.
Representative Thomas commented on the medical transfer
permit restrictions allowed every three years.
Representative Seaton spoke to the illegal practice of
leasing a permit, noting the exceptions for medical
emergencies limited to a specific length of time. He
worried about one boat harvesting the entire fishery.
2:57:22 PM
Representative Kelly summarized that the bill outlines two
issues. One related to procedure and the other regarding
the merits of the issue. He inquired which committee the
bill should have been assigned to after the Fisheries
Committee.
Vice-Chair Stoltze understood that it should have gone to
the House Resources Committee. Representative Kelly thought
that forwarding the bill to the House Finance Committee was
a "clear violation of the rules". He disagreed with
incorporating it into an unrelated bill and the process it
had followed.
Co-Chair Meyer acknowledged that was a correct recap of
Speaker Harris' position & what happened.
3:00:54 PM
Representative Kelly asked to take public testimony on the
issue. The sunset is being requested to be changed from
five to ten years. He reiterated that the issue needs more
attention and that he does not support the proposed ten year
sunset.
3:02:06 PM
Representative Gara interjected that consideration should
have gone through the public issue and not have been
determined in the Majority Caucus. He was uncomfortable
with the process, maintaining that anything of merit should
always be debated and that the committee process provides an
opportunity to hear and deliberate issues.
Representative Gara acknowledged he was confused about the
issue. He was sympathetic for a piece of the State, which
does not have a vibrant economy, yet has an interest in the
fishery. He agreed that the power of the Alaskan fisheries
should not be consolidated by huge outside companies. He
acknowledged it is not a black and white issue.
If the sunset was not extended, the Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission (CFEC) would have to determine who receives
the vessel permits. If the sunset went into effect, the
State would then have to determine who gets the permits to
protect the resource. He asked if there was a way to
determine permits distributed statewide and continue to have
an interest in them given a preference.
3:06:21 PM
Co-Chair Meyer commented that if the issue is important
enough, it will surface for a public hearing.
Representative Seaton interjected that the bill has been
heard and given multiple hearings over the past two years.
Representative Gara questioned the effect of the sunset on
the vessel permitting.
3:08:58 PM
FRANK HOMAN, COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY
COMMISSION (CFEC), JUNEAU, responded that CFEC would not be
able to do anything if that happened. There is no way to
take the vessel license program to an individual license
program. There is no way to go backward except to go "way
back in time" in the last ten to fifteen years. In the
last five years, since the vessel license program has been
in effect, the fishery has been limited to the vessels
participating. To establish a limited entry system, the
law clarifies the need to look back to four years
experience and then choose from those participants. At the
end of 2008, there is no population to draw on, except the
vessel participating.
The traditional method determines that those fishermen
recently fishing get the most points. Mr. Homan added that
in 2002, when the Legislature allowed the system for these
two fisheries, it had been studied for five years prior at
the Department of Fish and Game, attempting to determine a
way to use the individual permitting system that identified
the conservation of the fishery. There could be too many
fisherman eligible to apply and the resource is fragile.
The idea was presented to the Legislature, who debated and
studied it. The Legislature allowed the exception to the
general rule. He clarified that there is no way at this
time to prevent non residents from participating.
3:14:00 PM
JOHN HILSINGER, DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL FISHERIES DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, advised that the Department
supports the limited base entry system because it provides
for conservation of the resource. If it is determined to
return to the entry system, the Department has developed a
management plan that will work if there is not much entry
into the fishery. It is unknown how many people would come
into that fishery if it was open entry. He reiterated that
the Department is attempting to develop a plan, which
provides the necessary conservation of the resource.
The Division will need to divide the scallop beds into a
State and federal waters portion and manage each section
separately. The boats would have to register. The vessels
would loose flexibility where they could fish. There are
many questions regarding how the system would work in the
open entry system.
Mr. Hilsinger noted that fishery is a voluntary
cooperative. The economics of the fishery is small,
harvesting approximately ½ million pounds of scallops. He
noted that there is 100% observer coverage except in the
Cook Inlet. He added that most of the scallop beds are in
federal waters; there are only three that cross over.
There are only three places where a State water boat could
fish.
3:18:58 PM
Mr. Hilsinger commented that if there are regulations that
are too restrictive, the fishery could become uneconomic
for everyone. That is not the intent of the Division. The
intent is not to have different regulations inside and
outside the three mile limit because of enforcement
difficulties. He offered to answer additional questions of
the Committee.
3:19:39 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if the Department had initiated
the discussion regarding emergency regulations. Mr.
Hilsinger replied that the preference was to maintain the
vessel base limited entry system.
3:20:38 PM
Representative Hawker asked if the Limited Entry Commission
and Commercial Fisheries Division support the language
proposed in the bill. Mr. Homan stated that the Limited
Entry Commission does. Mr. Hilsinger added that the
Commercial Fisheries Division, Department of Fish and Game,
also does.
Representative Hawker inquired about the term position of
each agency. Mr. Homan responded that the original
intention for the agency was to make the vessel license
permanent for the two fisheries. Mr. Hilsinger echoed
comments made by Mr. Homan.
Mr. Homan addressed consolidation issues. He stated that
in 2002, the Legislature wrote into law [AS 16.42.450] that
CFDC would establish regulations to avoid consolidation;
that has been accomplished. The cooperative nature of the
fishery is a result of that mandated legislation.
3:23:17 PM
Representative Kelly interjected previous discussion
regarding a way to determine bill management, which the
public can understand. He did not intend to change his
position on the legislation.
3:26:43 PM
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, Page 1,
Line 3, after "system", inserting "for the Bering Sea Korean
hair crab and weathervane scallop fisheries". Vice-Chair
Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Hawker explained that the amendment provides
"title tightening". Vice-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his
OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, it was
adopted.
3:27:39 PM
Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT HCS SB 254(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HCS SB 254 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with new zero note by the
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission and fiscal notes #1 &
#2 by the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development.
AT EASE: 3:29:11 PM
RECONVENE: 3:33:46 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|