Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
04/10/2010 09:00 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB266 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 266 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 266-PERSONAL USE FISHING PRIORITY
CHAIR EDGMON announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 266, "An Act providing for a priority for a
fishery that is restricted to residents when fishing
restrictions are implemented to achieve an escapement goal."
9:14:46 AM
CHAIR EDGMON recalled Representative Keller moved CSHB 266 for
adoption at the meeting of 3/29/10, and the chair objected for
the purpose of discussion. Chair Edgmon removed his objection
and, there being no further objection, CSHB 266 was before the
committee.
9:15:09 AM
CHAIR EDGMON informed members of the public that the committee
would be unable to hear testimony by phone until the arrival of
Legislative Information Office (LIO) personnel to facilitate
teleconferenced testimony.
9:15:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH noted there was opposition to the bill from
a variety of sources. He asked whether the sponsor would like
to respond to the opposition.
9:16:21 AM
BEN MULLIGAN, Staff to Representative Bill Stoltze, Alaska State
Legislature, remarked:
Regarding the opposition, in large part I believe the
sponsor, I mean this is more of a policy call on how
you would prioritize, you know, the fisheries within
Alaska who, in times of shortage, who would get a
priority. And I understand that by doing this change
it would ... it changes how things would go.
Obviously, that would upset people. But I know
Representative Stoltze feels that having, you know,
the ability for Alaskans to go out and access their
resources for consumption is important, and that's why
he brought the bill forward.
9:17:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH observed that a reallocation, such as this
bill brings, invites litigation. He opined the proposed change
may result in a burdensome court case, and asked whether the
costs of defending the state could be offset.
9:18:19 AM
MR. MULLIGAN said he was unsure at this time, but could look
into the possibility.
9:18:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the Board of Fisheries (BOF)
has the authority to allocate to a certain user group.
9:18:35 AM
MR. MULLIGAN said, "I believe so, but ... Representative Stoltze
believes that this was worthy of giving it a priority and so he
brought the bill forward to clarify that as, as an importance."
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ surmised that currently the BOF can look at
all personal use, sport, and commercial use, and by law has the
flexibility to allocate accordingly, but the bill would require
the BOF to consider a certain priority over another.
MR. MULLIGAN said yes.
9:19:41 AM
CHARLES SWANTON, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), in further response to
Representative Munoz, said there is a priority for subsistence
in times of shortage, and "all other uses are on equal footing,
with regards to allocation, and the Board of Fisheries does have
the current authority to allocate amongst those various uses."
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked, "After subsistence, can they, can
they prioritize amongst those three user groups, or not, it has
to be done equally? I mean, do they have flexibility currently
or not?"
9:20:41 AM
MR. SWANTON expressed his belief that the BOF has the
flexibility.
9:20:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked whether this issue has been
previously discussed by the BOF, and followed by recommendations
or rulings on personal use.
9:21:06 AM
MR. SWANTON advised he does not have personal knowledge of BOF
discussion on this issue; however, around the state, for some of
the larger personal use fisheries, BOF has set allocations. For
example, allocations have been set for the Copper River fishery
and the personal use fishery in Chitna.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT further asked whether the BOF set the
personal use allocations, or if the allocations were done by
legislation.
MR. SWANTON said "The Board of Fisheries, that's under their
purview."
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT confirmed that the decisions for personal
use for Chitna and Copper River were done through the BOF and
not legislatively.
MR. SWANTON concurred.
9:22:39 AM
CHAIR EDGMON asked how many personal use fisheries exist across
the state.
MR. SWANTON responded that there are a large number of personal
use fisheries, and he estimated there may be 80.
9:23:17 AM
CHAIR EDGMON stated that one of the concerning aspects of the
legislation is that the bill would task the BOF with reviewing a
great number of fisheries, perhaps writing management plans
giving personal use fisheries a higher status, and placing
restrictions on the other fisheries. Although the dip net
fisheries are the most contentious and their number is small, he
noted the absence of a fiscal note that measures the impact of
the bill to the BOF.
9:24:24 AM
MR. SWANTON said the chair's assessment is "right on the money."
9:24:59 AM
CHAIR EDGMON announced the arrival of LIO personnel.
9:25:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked the director for his prediction of the
effects of the bill's passage.
9:25:40 AM
MR. SWANTON assured the committee that the BOF would need to
take a conservative look at some of the larger fisheries, and
their current management plans, and review them in light of the
priority use. He refrained from further speculation.
9:26:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH said, "This looks like a total re-vampment,
of a, priorities ... it would seem to me that you would have to
work the process from the bottom up." Furthermore, he opined
that the federal government has a different priority. He stated
his hope that the director could provide an idea "of what would
happen."
9:27:51 AM
MR. SWANTON provided the example of the Chitna fishery on the
Copper River. The BOF would publicly notice its intent to deal
with readjusting priorities within the personal use fishery, as
well as review the Copper River commercial fishery, and the
subsistence and sport fisheries involved in the same stocks.
Thus, in-cycle or out-of-cycle, the entire management plan would
be reviewed with appropriate changes made to recognize the
priority. Mr. Swanton opined this would not be a small
undertaking, given that the management plan has been in effect
for about fifteen years, and the current status is entrenched.
Other than that he would not speculate.
9:29:41 AM
CHAIR EDGMON asked whether there is a need for the legislation.
9:29:57 AM
MR. SWANTON said that was up to the legislature and the
residents of the state.
9:30:33 AM
The meeting was recessed at 9:30 a.m. to a call of the chair.
9:47:09 AM
[Although not formally announced, Chair Edgmon called the
meeting back to order at 9:47 a.m. Present at the call back to
order were Representatives Edgmon, Munoz, Kawasaki, Buch,
Johnson, and Millett.]
CHAIR EDGMON announced that time to continue the hearing is
limited, and recalled that the committee has held four hearings
on HB 266. Furthermore, the committee has received a tremendous
amount of written testimony, and has heard a limited amount of
public testimony during the previous hearings. He asked for the
will of the committee.
9:48:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to report CSHB 266, version [S],
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
CHAIR EDGMON objected.
9:48:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT stated she was aware of the personal use
fisheries granted through the process of the BOF; however, she
expressed her discomfort at this process being undertaken by the
legislature. In addition, she understood the desire of
residents to access a resource that is owned by everyone in the
state. Representative Millett stated her support for moving the
bill to the next committee in order to thoroughly explore why
the issue is not before the BOF.
9:50:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON restated his motion to report CSHB 266,
version S, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes.
CHAIR EDGMON restated his objection.
9:50:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON contended that the greatest use for
salmon should be on the table of Alaskan families. The bill
ensures that "when there is a choice to be made, that the choice
is that the Alaska family, [obtains] a valuable protein,
especially as the economy turns a little bit, and we go down ...
that protein on the table is, has to be one of the top
priorities for the use of our fish and game." He stated his
support for expediting the bill.
9:51:52 AM
CHAIR EDGMON explained his misgivings regarding the bill: The
bill is controversial and potentially far-reaching in its
implication for the BOF, and in its effect on fisheries that are
currently recognized as the best managed in the world. He
pointed out that the state's fisheries management policy is
based on science and consensus, is well-funded, and is
established in the state constitution. Furthermore, the BOF has
the appropriate authority to take the action intended by the
bill, as it did by the recent subsistence determination in the
Chitna dip net fishery. He underscored his opposition to the
bill and concluded that this issue deserves more debate.
9:54:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH stated his concern with the legislation is
that the reallocation required will incur legal challenges of a
considerable cost. Although he agreed that there should be
consideration of the affected user groups, fiscal due diligence
requires that he object to this bill.
9:55:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ said that the bill has raised public
awareness of the issue; however, further work should continue on
the jurisdiction of fishery's issues. She stated that many of
her constituents are in opposition to moving the bill forward.
9:56:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to the caution about legal
challenges and pointed out that the state is currently under a
legal challenge regarding the priority of a commercial use group
over a personal use fishery; thus, current law is not effective
in preventing lawsuits. Furthermore, it is the responsibility
of the state to go to court when challenged, for the defense of
its citizens.
9:57:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI spoke of his personal experience with
the Chitna dip net fishery. It is difficult for people in
Fairbanks to understand why they were allowed to catch five king
salmon in the '90s, and are now only allowed one. He noted
8,000 residents from the Fairbanks/North Star Borough area are
in support of the bill and, although he has reservations, he
urged that the bill advance to the House Resources Standing
Committee for further discussion about resource allocation
issues and for additional public testimony.
10:00:19 AM
CHAIR EDGMON apologized to those who were unable to testify by
teleconference, and asked the committee to vote on the bill.
10:00:54 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kawasaki, Johnson,
and Millett voted in favor of HB 266. Representatives Buch,
Munoz, and Edgmon voted against it. Therefore, HB 266 failed to
move out of the House Special Committee on Fisheries by a vote
of 3-3.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|