Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/18/2004 08:32 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 415-FISHING IN MORE THAN ONE FISHERY Number 2515 CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 415, "An Act authorizing a commercial fisherman to fish in each fishery for which the commercial fisherman holds a commercial fishing entry permit; relating to the power of the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission and the Board of Fisheries to limit the number of fisheries in which a person may hold an entry permit and operate gear during a fishing season or a year; and providing for an effective date." [It was clarified that the proposed committee substitute (CS), Version H, had been adopted at the previous meeting.] CHAIR SEATON turned to public testimony. Number 2470 WESLEY J. HUMBYRD, Homer, informed members that he has been a commercial fisherman since 1966, mostly for salmon, and wants to see this bill pass. As a single person, he said, he feels discriminated against because those with family members can take one member who holds a permit on board in each area. He reported that he'd talked to the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) four years ago about trying to straighten this out, but had been told to go to the board, which then said it didn't feel it had the right to make such a decision. Thus he said this bill would open it up for people like himself who have no family members. CHAIR SEATON asked who at the Board of Fisheries had told Mr. Humbyrd that the board didn't have authority to change these regulations. MR. HUMBYRD said he didn't remember. Number 2304 DOUG MECUM, Director, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), referred to the original version of HB 415 and indicated ADF&G had made suggestions to the sponsor's staff relating to nonsalmon fisheries. He noted that the Board of Fisheries has adopted a number of restrictions including those for "superexclusive vessel" and "superexclusive use areas," mainly in the groundfish, herring, and shellfish fisheries around the state. Subsequently, he said, to address those concerns, this bill was limited to salmon net fisheries, which solves many potential problems. However, some issues remain. MR. MECUM noted that the bill talks about an entry permit. He said a question was raised in talking with the Department of Law as to whether the bill applies only to fishing in limited-entry fisheries, because it refers only to entry permits and not to interim-use permits. Thus a question is whether a court would interpret "entry permit" to include interim-use permits. Calling this a technical question, he pointed out that many of the potential concerns in this regard are limited because [the bill] currently applies just to salmon fisheries, which are to his knowledge all under limited entry currently. Number 2231 MR. MECUM highlighted a technical question relating to the term "gear" in the bill: it possibly could include vessels unless otherwise specified. Hence he suggested it might be helpful to clarify that the bill isn't intended to limit the authority of either CFEC or the board to limit vessel use in multiple fisheries, or at least to address that issue. MR. MECUM turned to another issue. He said the board has for at least one salmon fishery in Alaska, the one under the Chignik cooperative management plan, adopted 5 AAC 15.359, a regulation that says a CFEC permit holder who participates in the annual cooperative fishery in Chignik may not participate in any other commercial salmon net registration area as either a permit holder or crewmember from June 1 through August 31, and also that if someone holds a salmon net gear permit for more than one commercial salmon net registration area, that person must designate the Chignik area as a single area for salmon net fishing for that year. He pointed out that someone fishing in the cooperative in Chignik doesn't necessarily use a vessel, and there were concerns that people might operate vessels in other fisheries. He said the bill obviously raises a question about the board's authority to deal with those types of issues. Number 2127 MR. MECUM, in response to Representative Ogg, specified that the bill in its current form raises a question of whether the board could adopt a regulation like the one it already adopted for the Chignik fishery, as a sideboard, to limit people from fishing in other fisheries. REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked whether the board has authority now to adopt language like this in regulation. MR. MECUM answered affirmatively, saying that's his understanding. A regulation basically stipulates that someone can only fish in one salmon net registration [area] in a year. He agreed that people can own multiple permits, can't fish them themselves, and may transfer a second permit to a relative who then fishes on board a second vessel. Saying the board has authority to make these kinds of limitations, and referring to the previous testifier, he added, "Maybe I should go through the statutes and clarify that, to make sure, but I'm not sure the advice he was given is correct." Number 1993 REPRESENTATIVE OGG requested a history of proposals put before the Board of Fisheries that deal with this issue. MR. MECUM relayed his understanding that this issue has come up many times in the past "and they've been reluctant or unwilling to ... change that." Number 1958 CHAIR SEATON referred to page 2 of Version H, where it says "operate gear". He asked whether that is the language in question that might allow boats to be used in any fishery. MR. MECUM said that's correct. He affirmed that he had Version H, pointed out that this just raises a question, and noted that comments from the Department of Law had been forwarded to the sponsor's staff. Mr. Mecum indicated legislative counsel had offered the belief that it doesn't create a problem, in which case he said it would be fine. Number 1900 CHAIR SEATON acknowledged that the next question might need to be addressed by the board's legal counsel, but asked whether it is Mr. Mecum's opinion that the board has authority to "lift these" for specific areas, like it does for exclusive, superexclusive, or nonexclusive areas. He cited the examples of Kodiak, Cook Inlet, and Prince William Sound [fisheries in which a person wants to participate in a year] and asked whether the board could consider and adopt a regulation to say, for the management of the fisheries and allocation reasons, that it could allow permit holders to fish within those three areas in a year. He pointed out that if it were statutory, it would be done statewide. MR. MECUM suggested perhaps Bruce Twomley [of CFEC] would be a good person to ask. He said it's his understanding that the board could do that, and that CFEC basically follows the board's lead in terms of its regulations. CHAIR SEATON noted that Mr. Twomley would testify a bit later. Number 1780 REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked whether there'd been any particular rationale when the Board of Fisheries rejected this proposal previously. MR. MECUM replied that when such issues are presented, permit holders in one fishery or another express concern about other people coming into their fisheries and about allocation. He pointed out that things have changed to where perhaps 20 to 50 percent of permits are actually fished sometimes; thus people are asking whether this concept of a superexclusive salmon fishery is appropriate anymore. He surmised that's why some people are pushing this legislation forward. Number 1690 MARK MUNRO, Homer, noted that he and his wife fish in Bristol Bay. Stating opposition to the bill, he said this is an allocation issue; the result will be taking resources from local areas such as Naknek and Dillingham, where there is much lower overhead and people will fish regardless of the economics. He said he doesn't believe it's right to allow an elite group of fishermen to hit the peaks of every fishery, and he believes it's against the intent of limited entry to diversify the resource and allow local communities to benefit. He disagreed with what he characterized as a trend of giving the resource to an "owner group." He concluded, "You shouldn't even be talking about this, is ... my opinion." Number 1612 MAC MEINERS, Juneau, spoke on his own behalf, noting that he holds both a Kodiak seine permit and a Southeast gillnet permit. Saying he'd like to see some guidance from the legislature in making some decision or helping the board through the process, he told members: I'd like to see it happen. I think it would stimulate permit prices. I think it would help the individual fisherman. Though it'd be hard to make the right choice at all times, to hit the peaks, I still think it would make it a lot easier for us to generate revenue when there is hardly a fishery in the state - salmon fishery - where you can generate enough money for the year. MR. MEINERS mentioned the need for an opportunity to harvest these fish, but emphasized the importance of markets with regard to whether someone can "roam the coast." Noting that halibut boats go from Bristol Bay all the way to Dixon Entrance, he suggested a little more latitude would be a lot more beneficial. CHAIR SEATON pointed out that this bill gives no guidance to the board; rather, it takes authority away from the board. MR. MEINERS clarified, "I'd like to see it in the board's hands to make the decision." Number 1454 GERALD McCUNE, Lobbyist for United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA), spoke in support of the bill, noting that he'd received a lot of calls about it from all over the state. He agreed this issue has been before the board several times, but suggested those weren't opportune times to talk about it, since the fisheries were more solid. He reported that UFA had decided, since the issue was before the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force ("Task Force") and a lot of people were urging that this happen, to bring it before the policymakers in the legislature to hear the issue out, rather than take it to the board. MR. McCUNE said a lot of people hold two or three permits, but dual permits can only be fished inside an administrative area; a fisherman cannot run back and forth between fisheries in different areas. Saying people who own more than one permit think they are being discriminated against and should be able to fish all their permits, he remarked, "There's 50 guys ... in Copper River that have Bristol Bay permits in their wife's name or their daughter or their son's name; they go there anyway. So the theory of running around, hitting every peak, ... I don't think that's going to be really a clear option now." MR. McCUNE pointed out the key role of markets, as [Mr. Meiners] had discussed; noted that this doesn't include vessels, just permits; and predicted that the people who'd take advantage of it first are those who have permits currently in the name of a spouse or child and would transfer those to their own name. Beside the need to buy a different vessel, he suggested it would cost perhaps $60,000 for a new permit, harbor fees, and gear, especially for someone who hadn't made the investment already. MR. McCUNE, noting that the [salmon] fisheries are all limited, highlighted the diversification this could provide. He questioned the ability of people to hit all the peaks if there aren't markets, and cited the seine fishery in Bristol Bay as an example. If it's limited to just a couple of areas, he suggested, it would discriminate against those who own permits in other areas. "A lot of people think it's time that ... we take a clear look at this and let people fish their permits that they do own," he concluded. Number 1180 CHAIR SEATON asked, if this is limited by markets, whether Mr. McCune sees the ability for so-called highline fishermen from one area to displace local fisherman in another area. For example, if a processor has a really good fleet that supplies fish from both Prince William Sound and Southeast Alaska, would they be able to "leverage out" some of the local fishermen? MR. McCUNE replied that he wouldn't think so. He said there are only so many permits anyway, and people choose to fish those permits. For example, he said, the Copper River is "maxed out" on permits, and all but nine were fished last year, though that is an exceptional fishery. He mentioned several processors by name, saying they are spread out in the state anyway "and have their own fishermen for those different areas." He added that a lot of fishermen who fish for NorQuest [Seafoods, Inc.] in the Copper River also fish in Bristol Bay. CHAIR SEATON requested that Mr. McCune return when the bill is brought up again. Noting that time was limited, he called upon Mr. Twomley to address questions. Number 1029 BRUCE C. TWOMLEY, Chairman/Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, also offered to return at the next hearing. Referring to the question of whether the board has authority to selectively lift this requirement of choosing an individual fishery to fish each season, Mr. Twomley said he thinks there is some authority found in the 1990 Hebert case. He elaborated: The board really has a lot of authority when it comes to establishing exclusive area and superexclusive area registration. And I know that I'm told that in practice they recently did that in one of the herring fisheries. There were local individuals from Goodnews Bay who came to the board and asked the board to lift their superexclusive area status so they could bring more people and buyers into the fishery. And I'm told the board did that in the last session. In contrast - and this was also a fairly recent development - inside Bristol Bay itself, where you've got a series of subdistricts where people register and then can't quickly move from one to another, ... they have to register and there's a waiting period before they can move - local people in the subdistrict of Togiak wanted superexclusive subdistrict area registration so they wouldn't get invaded by others in the Bristol Bay fishery. And they got that from the board. ... And so the board ... has done both in recent times. They've established one superexclusive area among ... subdistricts that are not superexclusive, ... and they have also lifted one superexclusive area among Western Alaska herring fisheries, which are, for the most part, superexclusive areas. So, at least from practice and from the Hebert case, I would think that they could. Number 0941 CHAIR SEATON thanked participants. [HB 415 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|