Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/09/2004 09:02 AM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 409-SEINE VESSEL LENGTH CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 409, "An Act relating to the maximum length of salmon seine vessels; and providing for an effective date." Number 2925 TIM BARRY, Staff to Representative William K. Williams, Alaska State Legislature, introduced HB 409 on behalf of Representative Williams, sponsor by request of the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force. Mr. Barry explained that the bill was discussed in the "production subcommittee" and by the task force as a whole to give the [Board of Fisheries] and Alaskan fishermen another tool to diversify and increase the value of their products. MR. BARRY emphasized that this bill doesn't eliminate the 58- foot length limit on salmon seiners. He said as far as he knows, this is the only commercial boat limit enshrined in statute. The Board of Fisheries has authority to impose or change length or gear limits on commercial fishing boats. If the bill became law, the Board of Fisheries would still go through the public process before changing the length limit. He pointed out that HB 409 says at least 66 percent of the entry permit holders must favor the adoption of the regulation. TAPE 04-4, SIDE B Number 2998 MR. BARRY referred to an opinion from Legislative Legal and Research Services written by George Utermohle that says the 66 percent vote requirement might be unconstitutional. He also brought attention to the zero fiscal note from the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G). Noting that HB 409 says the Board of Fisheries would conduct the vote of permit holders, he said he'd like Mr. Mecum [from ADF&G] to address the possible extra expense to conduct a referendum. Number 2947 REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked about the history of the 58-foot length requirement. MR. BARRY said he didn't know the entire history, but had been told it predated statehood. CHAIR SEATON added that it was a long and bitter history. Number 2865 DOUG MECUM, Director, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), testified as follows: With regard to the 58-foot limit, if there were any, say, fishery management or conservation issues associated with repealing that by the Board of Fisheries, I guess we feel like we could adequately address those through that public process. The other issues associated with it are really socioeconomic issues, allocation issues, and, of course, that's what the board deals with all the time. So, we don't have any issues with that part of the bill. MR. MECUM reported that ADF&G submitted a zero fiscal note because it didn't know whether there would ever be a cost. He said there were only five or six seine fisheries in the state that meet every three years, and it would entail a minimal cost. Number 2816 MR. MECUM wondered, from a process standpoint, if "a regulation adopted by the board to authorize the use of a vessel" would become valid only after the vote took place. He said the way the Board of Fisheries works now, the proposal gets submitted by the public or by the department, and then the board considers it and goes through the Administrative Procedure Act. If [the board] adopts the regulation, it is drafted by ADF&G and submitted to the Department of Law, which makes changes and sends it to the lieutenant governor for signature; it becomes law 30 days later. MR. MECUM said it is a unique situation whereby the board goes through the public process; if [the regulation] is adopted into law, it then can be invalidated by a vote. He felt that [the invalidation process] might be the issue [Legislative Legal and Research Services] is raising, as well. Number 2761 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Mr. Mecum to explain the reasoning behind the 66 percent vote requirement. MR. MECUM replied that it was a longstanding provision and that there are a lot of fishing regulations tied to it. He said the board used the [66 percent] limit to create slower-paced fisheries. He opined that the concern involves the allocation issues, and offered an example: If there were 400 seiners and only about 200-220 were actively fishing, and the board was considering repealing [an authorization to use a vessel longer than 58 feet], there would be concerns from some members of the fleet about people coming in with bigger boats. You could have a permit and no boat, and then you could just fish your permit on that larger boat, some boat from outside or inside Alaska. MR. MECUM said he thinks fishermen are torn on this issue and concerned about their ability to compete. He added that the task force wanted a supermajority of [permit holders] to support it. Number 2661 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether it is typical that a fisherman might want to do something on board that is value- added like [adding a] freezer, but lack the room. MR. MECUM answered in the affirmative, adding that having more room is one impetus suggested by [fishermen]. He said another forthcoming bill dealt with the idea of fishermen's ability to "do something more with the fish" such as value-added processing. Number 2599 CHAIR SEATON suggested the length could be 90 feet or longer for volume processing, not just an increase [to] 65 feet or so. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked if there were also gear restrictions included in the 58-foot limitation. MR. MECUM replied in the affirmative. He said the [increase in boat length] doesn't require a change in the size of the net used. He mentioned remote fisheries in the Aleutians, False Pass, Southeast Alaska, and Kodiak that are catching a lot of fish and having to offload them to a tender. With a larger vessel, they wouldn't have to offload because they could pack more fish. He reiterated that concerns with particular fisheries could be dealt with by the Board of Fisheries process. Number 2477 REPRESENTATIVE OGG mentioned that the Bristol Bay fishery was currently under regulation for 32-foot [vessels]. He asked about the history, including whether there had been any proposals to make changes, and what, if any, impacts the proposals had. MR. MECUM said it was a good question; many times over the years people have proposed changes to the vessel length limit in Bristol Bay, as recently as a few months ago. The Board of Fisheries rejected those proposals. Number 2422 REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked about the conservative nature of the board's response to the proposals. MR. MECUM said he believes it relates to socioeconomic issues, the allocation issues, where local people don't have the capital to invest in a larger boat or have just bought a new boat. REPRESENTATIVE OGG wondered about comments from the board on other gear types, supportive or not. MR. MECUM asked if Representative Ogg was still asking about Bristol Bay. REPRESENTATIVE OGG said yes. MR. MECUM mentioned setnets and driftnets, but said he couldn't remember the various comments from the board members. Number 2325 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if gillnetters and trollers had no limit on boat lengths. MR. MECUM said that was correct. Noting that Mr. Barry had given a good summary, he said there are other vessel length limits such as in the scallop fisheries, but no limits other than practical limits on gillnetters and trollers, or even on seiners. CHAIR SEATON mentioned tuna seiners in the 140- to 160-foot range in Alaska years ago that were tendering, but not seining. MR. MECUM, in response to a question from Representative Samuels, said, "There are a variety of vessel length limits scattered throughout the regulations for different purposes, but this is the only one, that I'm aware of, that's in statutes." Number 2181 GERALD McCUNE, Lobbyist for United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA), said originally his agency supported HB 109, but there was some confusion: some thought every permit holder would vote, while others thought just seiners would vote. He said fishermen who own two different-sized boats who want to consolidate their operations and save money have been trying to make this change for a long time. He explained that he doesn't see a big change with this bill because some fishermen are locked into the size of their boats. Suggesting that getting seiners together for a vote may be a problem, he remarked, "A lot of guys in Prince William Sound don't want it." He closed by saying some fishermen would prefer that a public hearing with the Board of Fisheries take the place of voting. Number 2047 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if 66 percent is a realistic number. MR. McCUNE replied that many people are comforted knowing that most of the [boat owners] in the area support this change. Some people think votes shouldn't be taken to change statute, and others think it shouldn't be in statute, but should be in regulation. He added that he's still awaiting the [UFA] board's decision on whether to proceed with a vote. CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any controversy within the [UAF] board about decreased value of 58-foot boats if Canadian ex-drum seiners are brought into the U.S. market. MR. McCUNE said there was some concern, but drums couldn't be used, even if the 58-foot limit were changed. He reiterated that he didn't predict a big change due to this bill. Number 1857 CHAIR SEATON asked if it was Mr. McCune's understanding that the purpose of the bill was to allow seiners to haul more fish. MR. McCUNE replied that if the only reason for the bill was to increase the volume [of fish], that would be a poor business plan because most seiners operate under limits, especially for pink salmon, and so a bigger boat won't solve their problems. Many would like to process on board and need a bigger vessel because fish, once cleaned, can't go in RSW [refrigerated saltwater]. The boats out westward are looking to consolidate their business, he added. CHAIR SEATON surmised that the committee would hear from those fishermen. Number 1745 REPRESENTATIVE OGG mentioned that Mr. McCune had said there'd be a vote before going to the board, but offered his own reading that the regulation would be adopted and then voted on. MR. MCCUNE acknowledged that he might have had it backwards. Number 1690 REPRESENTATIVE OGG stated concerns: the focus on the vote, the testimony from Bristol Bay, and knowing the concerns and nature of salmon fishermen. He said the issue of allocation starts to play into it. Saying he thought the intent of the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force was to add flexibility to the fishing industry so it could adapt, he expressed concern that the 66 percent vote, given what he said is the conservative nature of fishermen and the fisheries, empowers the minority to stop flexibility. MR. McCUNE reflected that he didn't have a position at this time. He said he was still waiting to hear from the board. Some think the vote should be taken out, and others are comfortable with it, he noted. He agreed the salmon task force came up with a high threshold, but said it could be changed by these discussions. Number 1481 CHAIR SEATON asked how votes taken with regard to previous tax bills were structured. MR. McCUNE replied that the aquaculture tax had to be a vote of the permit holders in the area conducted by the regional hatchery; it was a majority vote. CHAIR SEATON asked if other restructuring bills had the 66 percent vote. MR. McCUNE said he wasn't sure. Number 1381 SCOTT McALLISTER, Seiner, spoke in favor of HB 409. He said he has felt for years that the 58-foot length limit has restricted the quality of his business. He emphasize how important it was to get the [issue] to the Board of Fisheries. He noted he was a big fan of the Board of Fisheries process whereby fishermen have the access to regulation and can take control of fisheries in ways that are meaningful to them. He said he believes this bill works as part of that process. REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked Mr. McAllister how he felt about the 66 percent vote requirement. MR. McALLISTER answered that he didn't think it was necessary and had never seen the board move brashly and go against the majority. He felt decisions were best left up to the board. Number 1184 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Mr. McAllister what size of vessel he needs to accomplish the operations he referred to earlier. MR. McALLISTER replied that he had a design in his head; he described his current boat and said there is plenty of room on a 58-foot boat to handle the largest legal purse seine allowed in Southeast Alaska. He'd like at least another 10 feet forward of the current well deck, the working deck. He explained that he has "big-gulped" 30,000-40,000 pounds [of fish] and, in a few minutes, turned around and got more. Volume is the goal, he explained. He needs the room to slow down and turn the volume into quality. He explained how he would create a value-added fish hold with the extra 10 feet, and how he then wouldn't have to deliver the fish "in rigor." MR. McALLISTER explained that the bulk of salmon are harvested by seiners who have to deliver "abused" fish. Using the extra 10 feet, he would sort, hydrate, and bleed the fish, and store them in a chilled environment, thus avoiding any abuse to the fish. He said his goal is to deliver a quality fish, similar to farmed fish, and not crude "h & g" [headed and gutted] fish. In reply to questions from Chair Seaton, Mr. McAllister said space is the requirement he doesn't have now; he needs another apparatus to bring the fish out of the water and elevate them. Chances are, his sets would be the same size, but the pace would slow down. [The added space] would allow him to be market- driven. Number 0586 BRUCE WALLACE, Purse Seine Vessel Owner, testified in favor of HB 409. Concurring with Mr. McAllister's ideas, he emphasized that seine fishing is essentially volume-driven; the extra 10 feet would slow down the process and take some of the volume away, but the loss of volume would be made up in quality. Agreeing that [the 58-foot limit] ought to be extracted from statute and put into regulation, he also agreed with the need for change, with the desire to have the vote at a 51-percent majority, and that it has to go through the board process. Number 0098 DAVE AUSTERBACK, Member, Sand Point Advisory Committee (SPAC), noting that he has been in the fish seine business for 40 years, said he believes the 58-foot limit has worked well. TAPE 04-5, SIDE A Number 0001 MR. AUSTERBACK said the 58-foot limit has slowed down fisheries, which he supports. Many 58-foot boats in his area are already being widened. As a marine vessel surveyor, he spoke of the value, practicality, and stronger stability of 58-foot boats. He said because quotas are small, hauling [volumes] of fish isn't an issue with SPAC. Furthermore, the 58-foot limit protects coastal community fisheries, where people want to process on shore because of a lack of market opportunities. He said his area is still volume-oriented, with a few value-added programs. Not personally a strong supporter of the board process because of political motivation and ever-growing restrictions, he noted that SPAC supports the 66 percent vote. Number 0440 CHAIR SEATON asked Mr. Austerback to explain the relationship between the groundfish fisheries and the 58-foot [limit]. MR. AUSTERBACK explained that his area has a state water groundfish fishery that takes place seven days after the federal fishery; the only vessels that can participate are 58 feet and under. CHAIR SEATON asked if the state water groundfish fishery would have to be changed for the fleet in Mr. Austerback's area to participate if the boats were longer than 58 feet. MR. AUSTERBACK answered in the affirmative. In reply to a question from Representative Wilson, he said his area was currently involved in value-added processing and in new market areas in the salmon fishing industry. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON offered her understanding, "Because you want to be able to use your same boat in the other fishery, if this was available, most of you wouldn't take advantage of it." MR. AUSTERBACK replied no [they wouldn't take advantage of it]. Number 0662 JOHN FOSTER, President, Sand Point Advisory Committee; Member, Board of Directors, Peninsula Marketing Association, spoke if decreased value of boats if HB 409 passes. He said a smaller net won't work on a larger vessel. Volume is not a problem in his area. He did see a problem with the effects on state water groundfish fisheries if the limit size is changed. Asking whether the 66 percent vote requirement was for all permit holders or just seine permit holders, he pointed out that there are three types of gear in his area but 75 percent are gillnetters. Saying the driftnetters and gillnetters won't vote for the seiners to have larger boats, he predicted court battles over this issue. Number 0860 CHAIR SEATON explained that the way the bill is set up, the vote is 66 percent of the fishery, by gear type. MR. FOSTER asked if it applies just to seiners. CHAIR SEATON said that is correct. MR. FOSTER added that many UFA board members have not been contacted about the bill, and he suggested that be done. CHAIR SEATON replied that UFA was listening and had heard Mr. Foster's comment. Number 0967 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if Mr. Foster's area would not take advantage of HB 409 either. MR. FOSTER replied no. He explained that the majority of the money to his area comes from bottom fishing. CHAIR SEATON asked Mr. Foster whether his biggest concern, if the 58-foot length were eliminated, would be a big push to eliminate the 58-foot restriction for the state water fisheries, which is where the fleet derives its largest percentage of income now, even though those same vessels fish for salmon. MR. FOSTER replied yes. He said he didn't see [fishermen] in his area cutting themselves off from the state water fishery. CHAIR SEATON acknowledged the arrival of Representative Williams, sponsor of HB 409. Number 1138 TIM MOORE, Seiner, spoke about Prince William Sound and the few opportunities for high-grade salmon there. Noting that the majority of the fish are pinks and chums, he predicted that it would be more likely for boats to team up [rather than for fishermen to increase the length of their boats]. He said the value-added idea doesn't apply much to his area, and the consolidation of vessels doesn't apply to his area due to the small number of permits and small harvest. The reality is that some [boats] may be put out of business in the attempt to have better-quality fish if larger boats are used. He said with the 66 percent vote, however, the chance of that happening was slim. He stated support for the 66 percent vote because of the benefit to individual areas. CHAIR SEATON thanked participants. [HB 409 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|