Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/24/1997 05:06 PM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 204 - MORATORIA ON COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY Number 810 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN announced the next order of business to be HB 204, "An Act revising the procedures and authority of the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, the Board of Fisheries, and the Department of Fish and Game to establish a moratorium on participants or vessels, or both, participating in certain fisheries; and providing for an effective date", and stated that his staff will present the bill. AMY DAUGHERTY, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Representative Alan Austerman, read the following sponsor statement into the record: "House Bill 204 amends the existing moratorium law as part of Alaska's existing fisheries management process. The current moratorium statute is burdensome unworkable and confusing. The current process involves multiple steps where fishers seeking a moratorium must first go to the Commissioner of Fish and Game, who, in turn must seek authorization from the Board of Fisheries. Once authorization is granted from the Board of Fisheries, the commissioner then petitions the Limited Entry Commission to provide a moratorium. "The Limited Entry Commission is them authorized to go forward if it can make findings required by the current statute, which are difficult to understand and mutually inconsistent. "This process prevents a quick response in fisheries that are growing too rapidly to ensure effective management. As a result, the resource and the economic livelihood of fishers could be jeopardized. In some situations, Alaska Department of Fish and Game's only recourse is to close the fishery or refuse to open a new fishery if effort cannot be controlled. "House Bill 204 would allow fishers seeking a moratorium to petition the commission directly. This legislation would also give the commission the authority to place a moratorium on vessels and gear as well as individuals. This is important in a fishery like the Bering Sea Korean Hair Crab Fishery, which is a bill we did last year. "Under the current statute, eligibility to participate during the moratorium is based on past participation. This requirement precludes the use of a moratorium in new fisheries or in fisheries that have remained closed for years. In these two situations, participation level in an open access fishery may be initially too great to promote resource conservation and sustainable fisheries. House Bill 204 would allow the commission to implement a moratorium in such fisheries and base eligibility on other reasonable standards such as participation in similar fisheries. "Additionally, HB 204 would allow the state to extend its moratorium authority to offshore fisheries adjacent to state waters when consistent with federal law. "Improving the moratorium law is consistent with our concern for developing and protecting jobs, as well as streamlining government an resource protection." Number 989 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that, sponsor of the Senate version of the bill, Senator Loran Leman was present. Number 997 DALE ANDERSON, Chairman, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, stated that the bill makes a lot of sense, it is an opportunity to streamline the process and gives fisherman direct access to the commission as was originally intended. It relives the legislature of dealing with moratorium issues, issues that the commission is paid to deal with. The bill has a zero fiscal note, it will be a financial savings to the state as well. He stated that the commission does have an existing moratorium authority, it is not something that is being looked at as a new authority, but it is a very confusing convoluted process that the public has to go through to obtain a moratorium in their fishery and the bill will provide direct access to the commission by the individual fishers. Number 1114 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the language on Section 3, page 2, since this is not a permanent limited entry but a moratorium, get the authority from the legislature to invoke a permanent limited entry. Number 1123 MR. ANDERSON responded that the difference between a moratorium and a limited entry is, a limited entry is a permanent piece of legislation, and a moratorium is a sunsetted opportunity to place a participation cap on a fishery that has been brought to the commission as one that has a resource with an economic viability concern. It gives the commission four years to decide whether or not a permanent limited entry program is proper for the fishery. He stated that in the Southeast Dungeness Crab Fishery this is what we had, which worked well, resulting in a management plan in that fishery. Number 1242 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked what has been repealed in Section 10. Number 1255 MR. ANDERSON replied that he would have to get back to Representative Ogan on that. Number 1274 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that everyone has to understand that this is not a limited entry issue, it is a moratorium issue and how it is applied to the fisheries that are in crisis. Number 1286 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that he would have to debate that point and would have to call the moratorium a temporary limited entry. You limited that amount of people that can fish so we are giving the commission the ability to declare a temporary limited entry. Number 1308 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN replied if there is a fishery that is in crisis how would you do it. The objective of a moratorium is to be able to still have a fishery and not let it go rampant and destroy itself. He asked if the moratorium has to go the full four years. Number 1332 MR. ANDERSON responded that it does not have to go the full four years, but in the past in the Dungeness Crab Fishery, the Korean Hair Crab Fishery and now with the HB 141 the scallop moratorium bill, four years has been the acceptable standard. Number 1362 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that for the record Section 16.05.050.19 explains the powers and duties of the commissioner but not by way of limitation the following duties. It states, "to petition the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, unless the Board of Fisheries disapproves the petition". He stated that it apparently repeals the Board of Fisheries ability to disapprove the petition. Number 1420 MR. ANDERSON replied that right now it is required that the individual go to the commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game, who has to go to the Board of Fisheries, who has to go back to the commissioner to give the okay, who then petitions to the commission. He stated that the commissioner is repealing those steps. We want the public to come directly to the commission and we are still required to ask the Department of Fish and Game their opinions. He stated that the commission is not attempting to wipe out the association that we have with the Department of Fish and Game, rather have it in a more direct line. Number 1481 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked, "So you are asking for not only the legislature to give you the authority to close this whenever you want but you are also asking to have the fish board not have a say in it." Number 1500 MR. ANDERSON replied that the Board of Fisheries always had a say in any fish management program that is produced in the state of Alaska. He stated that we live within the Board of Fisheries qualifications that they put on a fishery as they are responsible for the methods and means of capture of fish. Number 1525 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that AS 16.05.251(g) states "The board shall consider whether the commissioner, in support of the request for approval of the petition, has adequately shown that the fishery meets the requirement for a moratorium on new entrants under AS 16.05.050. The board by a majority vote of its members at the meeting when the petition must be considered shall approve or disapprove the petition." Basically we are eliminating the Board of Fisheries from this process and that would take another system of checks and balances out. Number 1572 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there was any part of the bill that bring in the Board of Fisheries and the Department of Fish and Game back in. Number 1581 MR. ANDERSON replied that in any study that the commission does, they have to answer to the courts. The commission has to go through the process to make their findings before they can declare a moratorium on a fishery. He stated that the very reason the commission is asking that the statutes be changed is because the Board of Fisheries should not have that authority to vote on what the commission does. He stated that this step is unnecessary. Number 1648 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that he disagrees with that statement. The Board of Fisheries should be in the loop. Number 1661 MR. ANDERSON replied that they are in the loop at this time even within this bill. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if he could explain that. MR. ANDERSON responded that on page 1, line 13, it states "To allow time for the commission, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Game and the Board of Fisheries, to investigate and evaluate management alternatives, including establishment of a maximum number of entry permits under AS 16.43.240." Number 1702 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that if the Board of Fisheries is consulted and they think that it is a bad idea, the commission can still go through with it anyway. Number 1716 MR. ANDERSON replied that it would be the same response if everything the Board of Fisheries were to do and we had the authority to re-look at what they did. He stated that the commission has an effective team now with the Board of Fisheries and the Department of Fish and Game, who all shares one common goal which is protection of the resource for sustained yield management. He stated that the places that we differ are that we look at economic viability. The Board of Fisheries cannot look at economic viability. The Board of Fisheries can look at methods and means of capture, the commission cannot look at methods and means of capture. The Department of Fish and Game cannot look at those two things but they have to manage what the Board of Fisheries puts down as the rules. He stated that there are checks and balances and we have developed effective management plans. Number 1824 DEAN PADDOCK, Representative, Alaska Bristol Bay Drift Netters Association, stated that many of the members are opposed to limited entry in principle but support it as a matter of reality and is something that is desperately needed and in most cases has arrived on the scene too little and too late. Part of the reason for that is wrapped up in the bill. He stated that the association's biggest criticism is the arcane and obtuse process that the commission had to go through to deal with situations crying for attention. He stated that the fisheries are so overcrowded is witness to the fact that we are usually a year late and many dollars short. The necessary window of opportunity which the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission has had to have in order to take a desired action has frequently been too small for them to assist, in a timely fashion, in making what was necessary to happen, actually happen. He stated that this bill will allow the process to work with a smaller window of opportunity. Declaring a moratorium is something that has proven to be time consuming and difficult. He referred to Mr. Anderson's statement that the process can work very well, the fisherman see nothing circuitous outlined in the present statute. He pointed out to Representative Ogan Section 2 (b)(1), lines 13 through 14, subsection 2, page 2, line 3 and Section 4 (d)(2) which offers more than adequate opportunity for input by the Department of Fish and Game due to the nature of the way these consultations do in fact work. He stated that the association recommends the favorable consideration of this measure. Number 2235 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked what the wishes of the committee are. He asked of Representative Ogan needed further information on the sections being repealed in the bill. Number 2263 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied that he still has some misgivings about it but not enough to hold the bill up. Number 2277 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to move HB 204, 0-LS0802\A, with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note. Number 2280 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there were any objections, hearing none HB 204 was moved out of the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|