Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/30/1997 05:00 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 149 - PREFER CONSUMPTIVE USE SALMON FISHERIES Number 2057 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN announced the committee would hear HB 149 "An Act relating to the management of salmon fisheries; and providing for an effective date." REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING, Sponsor of HB 149, came before the committee to present the bill. He informed the committee that there have been some problems with the rivers and streams in Mat-Su in that over the years, there have been dramatic decreases in the returns of salmon. This has been an ongoing problem and it seems to be getting increasingly worse. He noted as far as the economy, the Mat-Su depends on the sports fishing industry to a large degree. There is a direct correlation between the diminished runs of fish the rivers and the impact on the economy, from the store owner to the bait and tackle shop owner to the gas station owner to the hotel owner, etc. He said, "They all are negatively impacted by the diminished numbers of people that go to the Mat-Su that fish our rivers when there are fish that (indisc.) - fish that the Fish and Game do not permit to be caught as a result of restrictions that have been placed on our rivers -- restrictions such as the numbers of fish allowed to be caught, restrictions such as the use of artificial lures in lieu of bait, restrictions in terms of the numbers of days you're allowed to fish during the week or the numbers of hours, things of that nature." REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said there are some very frustrated constituents in the whole Southcentral Region as a result of the problems out there. He stated the constituents are frustrated because it seems like people aren't acting to deal with the problem. They initially looked to the Board of Fisheries to resolve this problem. As a result of the lack of action by the Administration and the Board of Fisheries, a petition was circulated which resulted in over 28,000 signatures from people who are demanding that we get more fish in our rivers. He said the vehicle put forth to try and achieve that objective was the F.I.S.H. (fairness in salmon harvest) Initiative. REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said the bill is, for the most part, reflective of that F.I.S.H. Initiative. He said the reason he introduced the legislation is because the initiative that he hoped would be on the November ballot was struck down by the supreme court. The court decided this was an unconstitutional issue, as far as the public putting forth the initiative, and they said it is the role of the legislature to decide on allocation issues. He said HB 149 is essentially the same bill he introduced last session which died as a result of the Nineteenth Alaska Legislature running out of time. REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING explained the intent of the legislation is to direct the Board of Fisheries to give first priority of the fish resource to the personal consumptive user. He noted consumptive user would defined as the sports fishermen, the personal use individual and also the subsistence user. Representative Kohring said there is concern about sustained yield concept as we want to make sure we get enough salmon migrating back to the rivers so that they reproduce. He said the bill directs that the Board of Fisheries give that priority to the personal consumptive user after the sustained yield escapement goals. REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING explained that what he is trying to achieve with HB 149 is more fish. He said currently, the sports fishermen roughly gets about 1 percent of the entire resource. The personal consumptive user, as a whole, gets roughly 3 percent. The commercial fish operator gets 97 percent. Representative Kohring said he is talking about a small amount of the resource for the vast majority of the people who are the sports fishermen and the personal user. REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said he understands there were over 300,000 people who bought the 1996 sports fishing license. He said, "If we want to quantify, in terms of how many fish, just to put it in layman's terms, what would 5 percent represent. It's been calculated out that if we achieve that goal, it would be roughly 17 fish, per season, per sports fisherman, and we don't think that's very unreasonable at all." Representative Kohring said he would like to point out that the bill is confined to the Cook Inlet Region. He noted the legislation doesn't make reference to the fact that it deals only with those areas in the state of Alaska that have 500,000 angler days per year. As it currently stands, it is just the Cook Inlet Region that has that kind of activity. REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said they are not against the commercial industry, they are just looking for a more fair share of the resource. He said he thinks it is in everyone's best interest that we do get more fish into the rivers because of the sustained yield concept. Representative Kohring said he thinks the direction that we're going is the same as Washington, Oregon and California where they depleted the resources to the extent where there were no fish going back into the rivers to reproduce. Now there are many rivers that are dead. He noted he is very concerned that is the direction that Cook Inlet is going. REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said the problem is not really with the number of fish. He said it is his understanding that we have near records of numbers of fish that are migrating up in the Lower Cook Inlet and are being caught by commercial fishermen, yet at the same time, we're seeing almost near records of returns in the rivers of the Mat-Su. He referred to there being a direct correlation in that there are massive amounts of fish, but they're not getting beyond a point. The salmon that are migrating up Cook Inlet are being intercepted by the commercial fishing fleet. He noted the commercial fishing fleet would include the setnetters as well as the driftnetters. Number 2413 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said he has had discussions with Representative Kohring regarding the bill and the implications it would have to the overall fishery policies of the state of Alaska. He noted they also discussed holding hearings during the interim. The hearings that will be held will center on where the Alaska fisheries will be in 10 to 15 years from now. Chairman Austerman said Alaska fisheries are our most valuable and prolific natural resource. Fisheries is the number two tax base in Alaska. TAPE 97-19, SIDE B Number 0001 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said the committee will hold a number of hearings all over the state after the salmon industry has closed down for the season. He indicated he has chosen the fall so that there will be participation from all user groups. Number 0063 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to the interim hearings and said one thing that should be kept in mind is the fact that there will be an eminent takeover of navigable waters by the federal government on October 1. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said hopefully, there will be a solution before then. He pointed out commercial fishing currently is a large tax base to the state of Alaska and that everybody understands the sportfish industry is relatively new to the state. He referred to Representative Kohring's purpose statement and said it seems to him that it removes commercial fishing out of Cook Inlet which is a big tax base. Number 0128 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING responded, "Certainly it would result in less of a commercial catch and less dollars from that aspect of the economy. However, when we're talking about the commercial industry still getting a lion's share of that resource, and we still feel that would be roughly 95 percent if this legislation were to become law, they're still going to have a lion's share of those dollars that are going to be captured, you know, from that industry. As far as the economic impact, that would be a sports industry hazard in Southcentral Alaska. I think that should be noted as well." He said there are a lot of dollars that flow through the economy as a result of expenditures that relate to the sport fish industry. Number 0172 REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER referred to Chairman Austerman making reference to the fact that commercial fishing is such a large part of the state tax base and said he thinks that point is challengeable in the sense that there are those who would argue that commercial fishing doesn't even pay its own way. He said, "When you consider that a great amount of that they pay actually goes back to the local communities, it would be nice if I could do that and I could pay my property taxes through whatever business I was employed in, but I don't see that as adding to the state's economy." REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said he has another point in relation to the local impacts in Southcentral Alaska. He informed the committee members that there was a study done by the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) which analyzed the net impact of sport fish caught versus the commercial fish caught. At that point in time, they basically said the study was a wash. He said that may have been the situation and you can argue the merits of the study, but if you hold that the study is at all correct you would recognize the fact that the sport fishing industry is one that's growing throughout Southcentral Alaska, has huge opportunity for expansion, has huge economic opportunity in relation to the creation of jobs and has a tremendous potential benefit to Southcentral Alaska in the larger picture. Representative Mulder said if you're looking at the commercial fishing industry today versus the commercial fishing industry ten years from now, he thinks that you'll see that sport fishing offers Southcentral Alaska far greater economic opportunity and advantage than commercial fishing does. Number 0173 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said he would clarify his statement. Commercial fishing is the number two tax base, under oil, of tax revenues for the state of Alaska. He said, "How the legislature has taken that money and allocated it is the debate that you're making right now." Number 0296 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS referred to the bill and asked what the mechanism is that allows the fish to get to the sport fish industry and when there would be commercial fishing. Number 0320 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said he won't even attempt to give any detail as far as how the mechanism would work because it would be his assumption that the Department of Fish and Game, through the board, would make those decisions. He said he would put his faith and trust in the department and board in that they would make the proper judgements and see that the program is carried forward. REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Representative Kohring what the intent of the bill is. Number 0350 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER responded saying the intent, when the bill was written, was to have the department make a determination of the demand by the common consumptive users, subsistence, personal use and sport fish. That information would be provided to the Board of Fisheries where they would establish the allocation to satisfy those needs. At the point and time within the management structure, the Department of Fish and Game could manage the catch rates in relation to allowing that number of fish to escape up the river systems, to ensure that those levels are going to escape, while at the same time providing for reasonable commercial harvest opportunity. Representative Mulder said he thinks the mechanism is there. It's the directive or desire of the department to have some direction about how they're supposed to proceed. He stated the legislation gives the department directive that there be up to 5 percent of fish reserved for the common consumptive users. REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said there is already a mechanism in place for the natural escapement for sustainable yield. He said basically the bill just sets a percentage that maybe hasn't been set before for the escapement. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER responded that was correct. Number 0437 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that this is an allocation bill no matter how you look at it. He said Representative Kohring indicated that sponsors of the bill are not satisfied with the allocation issue. The allocation has taken place on the board level, so it is currently at the legislative level to take a look and decide what to do with it. He then referred to Section 2 and said it deals with the management of Alaska salmon stocks. Subsection (a) deals with the management of sustained yield, which they all agree with. Chairman Austerman read from subsection (b) "The Board of Fisheries shall adopt regulations establishing methods and means of taking salmon that protect salmon spawning and rearing habitat from damage that may, individually or cumulatively, result in significant reduction in the productivity of salmon stocks." He then asked Representative Kohring to explain the wording of (b). Chairman Austerman also indicated he was uncertain whether cumulative affects refers to downstream fisheries or included habitat. Number 0502 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING referred to the first part of Chairman Austerman's question and said in terms of attempting to protect the habitat with this language, he would expect that through the regulatory process, the Board of Fisheries would do everything in their power to protect the habitat of the spawning beds so that the there is the enhancement of fisheries to the extent of achieving our sustained yield goals. He said the answer to the first paragraph is an effort to protect the habitat for the sustained yield purpose. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN referred to Section 3 of HB 149 and said it gets into the area of the 500,000 angler days per year. He said it is his understanding that Southeast Alaska currently has that level for fishing. Potentially, the Dillingham and Bristol Bay area is also potentially getting close to that right now. He asked Representative Kohring if he has looked at this. Number 0579 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING explained his intent of the legislation is to just focus on Cook Inlet. Given the increasing fishing pressure of that river system, he thinks it would be safe to say that number is higher at this point. He noted he wouldn't have a problem adjusting that number accordingly so they can continue to just focus on the Cook Inlet Region. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER referred to the last review of the angler effort in Southeast Alaska and said he believes it was somewhere over 300,000 days. It was substantially less and it was projected that it would take longer to reach that figure. Unless he had incorrect information or that there has been dramatic increased pressure, it was not necessarily the intention to exclude other regions that were emerging as a potential for inclusion within the bill. He said when you try to write a statute like this one, you recognized that at some point there is a threshold that you reach and you say, "Well at this point, effort is growing so much we are now seeing a shift in focus of where the economic benefit begins." Representative Mulder explained that the end user is now creating more economy for the state of Alaska if it goes to the personal consumptive user than it is for the commercial user. He stated he differs, in that regard, to Representative Kohring. Representative Mulder said with the level within the bill, he thinks it still only impacts Cook Inlet, but eventually it could effect the other area. That is only in accordance with the fact that those areas are increasing under pressure in relation to the economic opportunity. Number 0685 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN explained that as an informational point, he thinks there will be questions. He referred to the economic differences between commercial fishing, sport fishing and personal use and said he thought there was a study done last year on the Kenai area showing the economic value between commercial fish and sport fish. If he remembers correctly, there was a balance where they found that both commercial industries provided about same amount of economic benefit. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said that is correct and that was the ISER study he referred to. The economic benefit, as they determined, was about wash at this point in time. He said, "That is why we looked at this being more/less the threshold number because certainly the pressure for personal consumptive users is growing within that region, whereas the evaluation of fish and fish products of salmon, specifically in relation to commercial fishing, is diminishing worldwide." Number 0745 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said another thing in that section is the migration route. He stated that if he is reading the section correctly, with the migration route language in the bill, there is a potential that Chignik, Kodiak and every other fishery would close down until the 5 percent figure was reached statewide or cumulatively. The Cook Inlet area would take the 5 percent before the other fisheries would open. He noted that is his perception of reading the bill. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated that potential does exist. He said Chairman Austerman is reading the bill potentially correct. Number 0824 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN referred to Kodiak and said it would allow the sport fish industry to continue to fish in Kodiak, but it might close down the whole commercial industry. He said he thinks this is something that needs to be addressed. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to the language and said he believes it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. He said, "What is spurring a lot of this is the Deshka River crash of the king salmon has probably gotten this going more than anything and the department has been in there for several years trying to get wire coded tags in the heads of the smolt and they can't find the doggone things." He stated the other side is that there is the bycatch of chinook in pollock catches, from the Bering Sea, where tags have been collected for a number of years, but nobody has ever compiled the data to find out where they're coming from. He said the committee should review that language to see if it is even possible to enforce. He noted he doesn't think it is. Number 0849 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said there is an emerging intercept fishery developing off of Kodiak which has commercial user battling commercial user. The point is that in times of abundance, they would be able to do an intercept fishery and still ensure that there will be enough fish that would return. In times of low return, the potential for commercial shutdown does exist. It is very difficult when you have an emerging fishery that is growing that wants more and more of a slice of that pie. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said, "My guess is that the crux of this bill is what we're talking about right now when we really get down to the differences between sport fishing and commercial fishing - how we come to a really rational decision on how to do this because when you have mixed stock fisheries, which has been going on for eons - ever since people started fishing here, it's been a mixed stock fishery." He referred to the reports that came from the coded wire tag study that was done in 1994, around Kodiak Island, on Cook Inlet tags, not one Cook Inlet tag showed up on the Kodiak catch. Number 1014 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said it is hard for him to imagine that the Department of Fish and Game would actually take extreme measures. He referred to the 5 percent total and said it is a very small piece of the overall resource to achieve that goal. He said he doesn't think that there will have to be drastic action to the extent of the Department of Fish and Game shutting down some of the migratory paths. The fishing industry would have to be awfully depressed to reach the point where some of the migratory routes would be shut down. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said he tends to agree with Representative Kohring, although the potential is there. He said things like that would have to be defined tightly in relation to when the 5 percent will be reached and whether it would be projected on what has already gone by Kodiak and the other areas. REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said he would like to hear from the Department of Fish and Game. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said the definitions have to come about somehow so everyone understands exactly where they are and what they are doing. He said that is the reason why the committee is having discussion. Number 1162 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING thanked Chairman Austerman for hearing the bill. Number 1251 ED CRANE, Officer, Alaska Seafood Council, came before the committee to present his testimony. He said his organization consists of individuals, companies and other nonnatural entities from every segment of the seafood business in Alaska. He noted it includes not only harvesters and crew members, but processors, cannery workers, suppliers. Mr. Crane informed the committee they have 20 corporate or institutional members and just under 1,900 individual members. He said the council members depend entirely on commercial fishing for a living, but he is also a recreational fisherman and has a particular distant fondness for the Deshka River. He urged that the legislature not mess with allocation issues. There is an established process. He indicated it may be imperfect and frustrating to many people, it is an advocacy process and is based upon advice, guidance, science from the professional managers and it is a process which has been in place for many years. Over the years, despite the warts and pimples, it has displayed an ability to deal with its own problems. To intrude this legislature, or any legislature, into that process may give certain people some momentary pleasure or satisfaction, but it's a bottomless pit for the legislature to get into. MR. CRANE said as he looks at the legislation and the F.I.S.H. initiative, harsh words come to mind such as "deception." There has been discussion about only 5 percent which isn't very much. He said about a year ago, he looked at data relative to the Upper Cook Inlet salmon fisheries, which was available from the Department of Fish and Game. He noted he looked specifically at information of for the five species of salmon from 1990 through 1994. During those five years, sport fishermen caught 89.3 percent of the king salmon, 33.6 percent of coho, 7.7 percent of sockeye, 22.3 percent of pinks and 7.1 percent of chum. He said for all five species, 13.5 percent were caught by sports fishermen. Mr. Crane said he finds it very difficult to understand why we want to go to only 5 percent when there is a record like that to look at. He noted he doesn't see how or why legislation like this should go anywhere until it is made clear exactly what the supporters want and how and why. MR. CRANE referred to numbers from the Department of Fish and Game and said between 1984 and 1994, resident sport fish licenses increased from 178,000 to 183,000, which is less than 3 percent. Non-resident sport fishing licenses increased over that same ten- year period from 115,000 to 227,000, which is 97 percent increase. In 1993, the Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism, did a visitors survey and found that 6 percent of the visitors to Alaska cited fishing as their primary reason for coming to Alaska. He said it is not the mainstay of the tourism business for Alaska. Mr. Crane said those 6 percent were asked to rate, on a scale of 1 through 7, their satisfaction of their fishing experience in Alaska. They rate Southcentral fishing at 5.7. MR. CRANE showed committee members information dated September 4, 1996, which listed names, addresses, telephone numbers, of 149 non- resident owned sport fishing lodges and guides from 26 states and two foreign countries. He said there are issues that must be addressed. He said he doesn't think they can be addressed on the basis of emotion and finger pointing. We have to do something more, in terms of working together, to identify problems. MR. CRANE informed the committee members he is a recreational pilot and during the late 1980s and early 1990s, he would often fly over the upper regions of the Deshka and some of the other Mat-Su steams. He said he doesn't believe that what happened to the Deshka had anything to do with commercial fishing in the upper Cook Inlet. Number 1815 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS referred to the 149 people that were from out of state and question how many are from the state. MR. CRANE informed the committee the total list, as he recalls, was right around 1,100 or slightly more than 10 percent were non- residents. Number 1838 REPRESENTATATIVE MULDER asked what the percentage is of nonresident commercial fishermen and what the percentage is for nonresident or non state owned processors. MR. CRANE said his recollection is as far as limited entry permits. AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER indicated the percentage was 76 percent. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said, "Obviously there is a is a higher percentage of nonresident commercial fishermen than there are guides - or more than double." MR. CRANE said he was trying to say that there is more to this than just the emotion involved. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he would like to remind Mr. Crane that it is the legislature's prerogative to get into allocation issues as the supreme court has said so. He said there is a lot of energy and emotion behind this issue. Number 2037 ROBERT HALL was next to testify via teleconference from Mat-Su. He said 28,000 Alaskans signed the F.I.S.H. Initiative petition to put this on the ballet and let Alaskans vote. He continued, "This right was yanked from us by the supreme court and the supreme court said that this is the legislature's responsibility and only they could put this on the ballot or only they could pass a law." MR. HALL explained that years ago, the legislature established a priority for subsistence. He said he is asking to establish a second level of priority for other noncommercial activities. The polls show that overwhelmingly Alaskans support a higher allocation of salmon to consumptive users. No matter how you look at it, you have to look a the bottom line, there is a basic fundamental disagreement about who owns the salmon. Commercial fishermen have invested tremendous amounts of money and time, they own a limited entry permit and they believe that those salmon belong to them. The rest of the Alaskans believe that the fish are owned by all Alaskans and that we're all entitled to a fair share, hence the title of the F.I.S.H. Initiative with the fairness in salmon harvest. He stated, "If that's the fundamental objective that everybody is looking for, we'll be able to reach it. However, if you believe that you own the salmon or if you have pressures of making a boat payment next year and you have all the pressures that you have from other competing factors, whether they be from Norway or the Valley of the (indisc.), you sometimes look at the F.I.S.H. Initiative and say `Ah, this is just one more straw on my back,' and Alaskan is pitted against Alaskan. It is a very divisive situation. I don't think there is one of you who could honestly stand up and say, `The Board of Fish is a nonpolitical situation.' And yet that is who is managing and allocating the fish today, a very political board and honestly, bottom line, it's been dominated by commercial fishing interests since statehood and that has really frustrated noncommercial fishermen." MR. HALL continued, "There is this talk about the commercial fishing industry versus the sport fishing industry in dollars and value, and that's all well and good. But really for personal use and sport fishermen, especially Alaskans - those who have grown up here, sports fishing is part of our lifestyle. It's part of who we are. You know, taking your children fishing, it's part of why we put up with these long winters and short days in the winter, it's because fishing and sport fishing is really part of who Alaskans are. And when we're denied a fair opportunity, and the testimony and the evidence, a fair opportunity to sport fish, especially in the Mat-Su is abundant, and that frustration that Mr. Kohring spoke about earlier is what prompted this F.I.S.H. Initiative, and when we're denied that fair opportunity, this is the result. And I think until the commercial fishing industry is willing, or maybe some of the legislators that represent the commercial fishing areas, are willing to look at the fundamental fact that we have a problem with inequity and this is very political and that we have an unfair allocation scheme and that we need to work for fairness. The bottom line, as Governor Knowles said, we need to put more fish in these Mat-Su rivers." MR. HALL said the Mat-Su doesn't have the political strength and critical will that the commercial fishing industry does throughout the state of Alaska. He said there is a problem in the Mat-Su and we are sacrificing the lifestyles and the people of the Mat-Su for the dollar of commercial fishermen. Mr. Hall said we are looking for fundamental fairness of who owns these salmon and to protect the lifestyles of the residents and the future generations of the children of Alaska. Number 2438 BRUCE KNOWLES, President, Guide Association, testified via teleconference from Mat-Su. He informed the committee members he was a sponsor for the F.I.S.H. Initiative and believes strongly in what they are doing. Mr. Knowles said he feels that Alaskans had this initiative stolen away from us by the supreme court of Alaska. He questioned why there is a need for this bill and said immediate steps have to be taken to protect our endangered salmon runs to ensure that biological statement goals are being met. TAPE 97-20, SIDE A Number 0006 MR. KNOWLES said, "Farmed fish make up 40 to 50 percent of the market today. What's it going to be in ten years? Last year, we had so many pink salmon that they could not be sold and the state of Alaska allowed the roe to be stripped out of these pink salmon. This is the first time that's ever happened because they could not sell the fish from the hatchery. Commercial fishermen and hatcheries currently owe the state over $100 million in loans with very little being paid back. A Wall Street article, last year, stated that up to 400 commercial fishermen could default on their loans this coming year. My question is, `How much does the hatcheries owe and how much have they paid?' Hatcheries currently owe $92 million and have not repaid their loan. Commercial fishermen insist that they are being targeted, they are being reduced, their hours are being reduced that they can fish, yet in 1996, they caught two million more fish in Cook Inlet than they did in 1941." MR. KNOWLES continued to give his testimony, "Consumptive users have had many restrictions placed on them. Season limits on king salmon have been placed on sports fishermen in Cook Inlet. Commercial fishermen do not have any limit on the number of kings that they can take up over the hill and take to the processor. Sports fishermen have had their tackle reduced, hours restricted, rivers closed during king season and other seasons. In some areas, large sections of the day have been closed where no fishing is allowed at all. Guides have been restricted from taking out clients on certain days. Personal use fishermen were forced off the beach and into the streams because they did not want the competition with commercial fishermen. And in the Knik Arm, it was stated that they were moved off the beach and into the streams because they were taking fish headed to streams that were having problems with their returns and were endangered of losing their runs. Major changes have been made to rainbow, char and grayling limits and fishing requirements in Cook Inlet. This is do to low numbers. Could this be because of insufficient food? Ask me how many salmon runs failed to meet their BEGs. Ask me how much data is available in Upper Cook Inlet. We are behind the power curve, folks, we need to get something done and the F.I.S.H. Initiative I feel will do it." Number 0252 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said meetings that will be held, statewide, in the fall will also include the Board of Fisheries. There are currently a number of proposals as to whether the Board of Fisheries is doing the right job and that will all come within where we're going to be in 10 or 15 years with our fisheries. The hatcheries will also be included. Chairman Austerman said the committee will talk about not only commercial fishing versus sports fishing, but also the Alaskan fish resource and how we're going to make sure it is a viable resource. Number 0294 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said he believes the committee will also be talking about a resolution regarding a ballot issue for limited entry for sport fisheries guiding. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN indicated that resolution was recently introduced. He noted HB 19, which just passed the House, will also be addressed as it is part of the overall fisheries the committee is discussing. Number 0350 STEVE STROMME, Commercial Fisherman, came before the committee members to testify in opposition to HB 149. He said he has been a commercial fisherman all of his adult life. Mr. Stromme said the bill will impact people like him, his children and his ex-wife who he has to pay support to. Mr. Stromme informed the committee he grew up in Oregon and has fished in Oregon, Washington, California, Good News Bay, Bristol Bay and just all up and down the West Coast. He said he doesn't believe the problems of Oregon and Washington are the problems of Alaska. He said his first boat was repossessed in Oregon, he was there and knows what happened there. It is not the same as Alaska. Number 0445 JERRY McCUNE, United Fishermen of Alaska, came before the committee members to give his testimony. He stated this issue goes very deep. Mr. McCune said he would like to clarify the 5 percent figure that is in the bill. He said this is one of the hardest things to understand, even when we had the F.I.S.H. Initiative on the ballot. He said, "It says 5 percent of the statewide salmon harvest projection." Mr. McCune continued, "What that is, is 150 million to 200 million fish. So the pinks and chums are driving the numbers up high. You take 5 percent, that's 6 to 10 million fish. Now you want to talk about fair, that's 1,000 percent increase in the sport fishing. That's how they're coming up with this number." MR. McCUNE said the number is based on the statewide projection which gives you 6 to 10 million fish and that's not the way to manage fish. You can't just say, "We're going to put 6 million fish in the Kenai River next year for all the other users and everybody else would have to hold back until that number is in there." He said it won't work like that as the river will be devastated. MR. McCUNE referred to some of guides suggesting that commercial fishing is the problem. He said you have to look further than just commercial fishing. The sport fishery has grown a lot over the last ten years. We have to look at all aspects, commercial, person use, sports fishing and the guides. He said, "From ten years ago, I've taken more salmon as a commercial fishermen because basically where I fish, the runs have been higher. We've had record runs. But also on the other end, it's grown to the use that's gotten very high on how much they're taking. So if there is a big problem in the Mat-Su, I'll be right along the sports fishermen or anybody else to say if those streams are really that devastated as they're telling me, then I'll get together with them and we'll try to figure out what's going on with that system because there isn't a fisherman in this state that would want to see a system go down. That's detrimental to my income and everybody else's interest and the sports fisherman that has just as much interest as I do in taking their salmon home." MR. McCUNE said he, as a commercial fisherman, has a real problem giving up his livelihood for somebody else that's making a living off the resource, and that's guides. Until that problem is resolved and we've come to a level on the rivers that everybody can live with, it is very unfair to keep pointing at the commercial fishing industry. He indicated he is willing to sit down with Mr. Knowles or anybody else to discuss if there is a problem. If there is a problem then we should get Fish and Game up to the Mat-Su and figure out what that problem is so everybody can share in the resource. If there are mandates on all things that need to be done, then it becomes split between the commercial and the other users. He said we got to sit down and figure out how the issues are affecting the rivers and how everybody can get along in using them. Number 0711 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN invited Mr. McCune to come up to Mat-Su during the summer. He said maybe the Department of Fish and Game could also come and meet with some of the people who have concerns and there could be a meaningful discussion. Representative Ogan said at some point we need to look at guides as a commercial use of the fish. He noted he was on the Big Game Commercial Services Board. He said he doesn't like fishing in the valley anymore because there are too many people. He indicated he used to fish in Dillingham before it got crowded there. Representative Ogan said the highest and best use to him is personal use and subsistence. Those who live in urban Alaska don't qualify for subsistence, but he considers himself an urban subsistence hunter and fisherman. He said that should be the number one best use. He said maybe the committee can look at some areas in HB 149 or in another bill where that use can be prioritized and address the commercial exploitation - the guides, the people that are coming up from the Lower 48 and putting the pressure on the whole. He said that is a separate issue and it should be on table. Alaskans should feed their families first. He said he thinks commercial fishermen and sports fishermen can agree that Alaskans should feed their families first and there is enough resources to do that. He said the tourist can stand in line behind Alaskans. Number 0883 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said he and Mr. McCune have a conflict of interest in that he has a fiduciary interest in a guiding service in Port Moller, Alaska. He said he does receive income off of both guided fisheries tourism and commercial fisheries. and the more tourism related activity from the Kenai Peninsula, I do receive more earnings." Number 0940 EMMET HEIDEMANN was next to testify via teleconference from Anchorage. He informed the committee members he is not a salmon permit holder, but he is a sports fisherman and also does some guiding for only Alaskan sports fishermen. He noted he doesn't like to take tourists out. Mr. Heidemann said he has been listening to some of the comments about the F.I.S.H. Initiative and how they got 28,000 people to sign so fast. He said they don't mention that they paid signature gathers about $1 a head to gather signatures in the Mat-Su, Anchorage, Kenai and Soldotna areas. When the people were gathering the signatures, they weren't 100 percent true in that there was some very misleading information given out. He said the 28,000 signatures were gathered, but they were paid for by a professional gatherer. Mr. Heidemann referred to the F.I.S.H. Initiative or HB 149 and said the healthy abundant salmon runs of Alaska enjoyed today are a result of successful management plans developed by the Alaska Board of Fisheries and implemented by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The biologists are the ones that are calling the shots and he believes that when the science is taken out of fish management, we'll be making a big mistake. He said when it comes to maintaining the salmon production levels (indisc.) meet Alaska's goal as conservation of fair sharing. Too many fish in the spawning grounds can be just as disruptive as a balance of too few. Mr. Heidemann said management decisions that could lead to additional (indisc.) efforts could be carefully addressed with an eye towards habitat protection. The preservation of our fragile fishery resources and important responsibility can't be driven by the politics and misinformation. MR. HEIDEMANN said we've heard the term that commercial fish and sports fish are about a wash. He said that term is sort of misleading. The value of a fish caught commercially is still higher than a fish that is caught sports fishing. He indicated there has been talk about habitat and the poor runs in the Mat-Su area. Nobody has talked about the large motors and the big jet boats that are running up and down the rivers and the over building of houses close to streams. He said he knows of one individual who brags about catching anywhere from 25 to 50 fish, per hour, from the deck on his house. There is very little enforcement up there. Mr. Heidemann explained the commercial industry have nets in the rivers in the Mat-Su district and nobody has talked about them. MR. HEIDEMANN explained the streams are very small. The guides are increasing at such a rate and they are taking an awful lot of fish. He said we need to look at it all, work together and work for Alaska. It shouldn't be commercial versus sports. MR. HEIDEMANN referred to HB 149 and said he sees a lot of similarities between it and the F.I.S.H. Initiative. He stated he takes offense that people are trying to put the F.I.S.H. Initiative into HB 149, without trying to change the words of intent. The thinking is wrong and is a disservice to Alaska. He stated he is very opposed to HB 149. Number 1172 MARGO SHERWOOD, Domestic Engineer, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. Ms. Sherwood stated, "I am here to testify in support of HB 149. As wife, mother and grandmother, who feeds my offspring fish in their diets, I feel that the allocation of salmon are not fair. I have watched the number of fish caught in our Susitna drainages diminish over the last few years. I have listened to my husband and other give advise to the Fish Board and ADF&G in regards to slow decline of fish returns, but in most cases they, the board, and ADF&G ignored their pleas. Now that the fish are not coming back in numbers that will maintain a sustained yield we, the sports fisher people, do not come out until it's silver time. And in not doing so, have impacted the economy of the whole Mat-Su Borough. It isn't good to watch friends lose their businesses for the sake of the mistakes made by the Fish Board and ADF&G. All we ask is something to protect the economy of the valley and put an equal amount of fish on my table. I think this bill will do it." Ms. Sherwood said she has a commercial fisherman friend and he says they are not getting the fish. She said the sports fishermen aren't at the Susitna drainage. She questioned whether the 400 setnetters could be the impact. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said there are a number of people asking that same question and he doesn't have an answer at this point in time. Hopefully, in the fall they will come up with some of those answers during the statewide hearings. Number 1275 DON SHERWOOD, President, Alaska Boating Association, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He noted his organization has chapters in Anchorage, the Mat-Su Valley and Fairbanks. He said, "I have come here to testify on behalf of my constituents which are 90 percent fishermen and hunters. We support this piece of legislation because a lot of us have fished these areas for over 31 years. I have witnessed the diminishing returns of salmon on our rivers and streams within the Susitna drainage and the Upper Cook Inlet Region. For over ten years, I have spoke with the Board of Fish and ADF&G bio people and warned them of the increased harvest of salmon by commercial and setnetters below the mouth of the big Su and has fallen on deaf ears until the Chinooks crashed on Deshka and other streams, and guess who got cut back. Yes, the sport fishermen. The Fish Board has always kowtowed to the money maker and has allowed the record harvesting to continue. We are only asking for a fair and equitable share of our renewable resource. The Mat Valley, which depends on the economic income from sport and consumptive users, are now feeling these restrictions in over-the- counter sales by the people who recreate in this area. We realize that the crash and dash by ADF&G to try and rectify the problem has started, but is it too late in some of these areas. All we want is a fair share to put on our families tables and this bill is a start in that direction." CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said because of the lateness of the hour, he would bring the meeting to an end. He indicated HB 149 would be brought up again.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|