Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 120
03/19/2013 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB143 | |
| HB49 | |
| HR6 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 143 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HR 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 49 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HR 6-CHINOOK BYCATCH LIMITS
10:26:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 6, Requesting that the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council take action to reduce the
quantity of Chinook salmon bycatch in the Gulf of Alaska and
Bering Sea trawl fisheries by setting new limits in the Gulf of
Alaska trawl fisheries and lowering the existing limits in the
Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea pollock fisheries to at least half
of the current limits.
10:26:43 AM
LOUIE FLORA, Staff to Representative Paul Seaton, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HR 6 stressing that the need for the
resolution is due to the overall shortfalls being experienced
among Chinook stocks throughout the state. A known, major
factor in low stock returns is Chinook mortality, which is due
to bycatch during the pollock and non-pollock trawl fisheries.
The resolution asks the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
(NPFMC) to lower the existing bycatch limits in the Gulf of
Alaska and Bering Sea pollock fisheries to at least one-half of
the current limits, and to address the non-pollock trawl fishery
in the Gulf of Alaska. He stated his belief that the
commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) has
recently submitted a motion to NPFMC, requesting council action
on non-pollock trawl bycatch.
MR. FLORA reviewed the language in the resolution to highlight
the concerns encompassed by the whereas statements, which
include the importance of Chinook salmon to the state, the
economic implications of depleted stocks, and the closures and
restrictions that ADF&G has had to impose on various fisheries
due to the lack of Chinook returns/escapement. He then directed
attention to page 2, lines 13-28, and paraphrased the language,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
WHEREAS Chinook salmon bycatch is a direct and
controllable source of mortality for extremely
valuable and declining salmon runs throughout the
state; and
WHEREAS the Chinook salmon bycatch cap in the Bering
Sea pollock fishery is set at 60,000, which is more
than the entire subsistence fishery on the Yukon
River; and
WHEREAS the Gulf of Alaska bycatch allowance
represented 20 percent of the 2011 Cook Inlet, Prince
William Sound, Kodiak, Chignik, and Alaska Peninsula
sport, subsistence, and commercial Chinook salmon
harvest and will likely represent a greater percentage
of the 2012 harvest; and
MR. FLORA emphasized that the language is particularly telling
and the first resolve requests the NPFMC to take action to
reduce bycatch, establish new limits, and lower this number by
half in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska pollock trawl
fisheries. The final resolve requests NPFMC to require 100
percent observer coverage in the Gulf of Alaska trawl fisheries
to provide accurate estimates of bycatch. He finished the
review stating that HR 6 will be distributed to the governor and
all members of the NPFMC.
10:31:48 AM
CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony on HR 6.
10:31:58 AM
GEORGE HUTCHINGS, Co-Captain, F/V Elizabeth F, stated opposition
to HR 6, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
We are against the resolution to further reduce
Chinook salmon bycatch at this time, at the council
level; in both the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska trawl
fisheries.
In the upcoming April council meeting there will be
genetic sampling, river of origin data available for
the first time. We ask that no decision be made until
this data is made available and we have a better
understanding of where trawl caught, Chinook salmon
bycatch are destined to.
Please make your decision based on science rather than
politics.
Furthermore, any more reduction in Chinook salmon
bycatch in the Alaskan trawl fishery could cause a
catastrophic closing of all Alaskan trawl fisheries,
damaging all our coastal communities.
10:33:26 AM
PATRICK O'DONNELL, owner, F/V Caravelle, said he was
representing himself and the Alaska Whitefish Trawlers
Association, and stated opposition to HR 6 paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read [original punctuation provided]:
The trawl industry is very concerned about the health
of the Chinook salmon resources and we are doing a
number of things aimed at doing a better job of
managing our bycatch.
We have been working within our industry to develop a
hot-spot reporting system to alert vessels of
potential areas of high bycatch. Vessels that see
salmon coming on board, as well as our processors who
may see salmon coming into the plant are a part of
this important process.
We voluntarily self-impose limits on the amount of
bycatch that any vessel can have.
We have worked with industry and the council and were
successful in having a scientific program initiated in
the Central Gulf of Alaska this year. This "Exempted
Fishing Permit" program will allow for the development
of salmon excluder devices that can be shown to be
effective in reducing salmon bycatch. Salmon
excluders have been proven very successful in the
higher-horsepower vessels in the Bering Sea and this
new project will help modify that technology for use
in the lower-horsepower vessels in the Gulf of Alaska.
This project is starting now - this spring - and we
hope to see improvements in excluder technology that
can be put in place this year.
Our industry has partnered with National Marine
Fisheries Service in funding the expanded Chinook
salmon genetic research being done at the Alaska
Fisheries Science Center - Auke Bay Laboratories in
Juneau. This increased effort is aimed at determining
where these fish are coming from and the most recent
data shows that the majority of Chinook bycatch is
coming from SE Alaska, British Columbia and the
Pacific Northwest, with a predominance coming from
hatcheries. It is very important to know where the
salmon are coming from before management decisions are
made that could severely impact the trawl industry by
putting unnecessary restrictions in place. The
concerns that you have expressed in your resolution
are related directly to the health of Chinook salmon
returns to Cook Inlet and Western Alaska river systems
and there is no evidence to indicate that trawl
bycatch is the source of those problems. I encourage
you to carefully consider that causing significant
damage to the harvesters, processors and communities
that are a part of the groundfish industry in Alaska
without any evidence that it will result in
improvements in the Chinook salmon resource in Alaska
is a bad idea.
At the next meeting of the North Pacific Fisheries
Management Council meeting in Anchorage beginning
April 1, there will be an update on the salmon genetic
research program and we are looking forward to the
results from that work.
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that the resolve on page 3, line 4, of
the resolution requests observer coverage on all Alaska trawl
fisheries, and asked for the current rate of observer coverage
for the Kodiak trawl fleet.
MR. O'DONNELL responded that observer program coverage is about
12-15 percent, with the goal of 15 percent. The program was
restructured in January of this year.
10:38:04 AM
PETER THOMPSON, commercial fisherman, said he has lived in and
fished out of Kodiak for over 33 years. He informed the
committee under the Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) web site there is a vessel-specific bycatch file.
A review of the file revealed that many vessels take 20-30
Chinook per trip, and there are some boats with numbers as high
as 80 per trip. In fact, one vessel reported taking in 243
Chinook, with 17 observed hauls, on a February 16 trip. One
week later the same vessel reported taking 297 Chinook, with 10
observed hauls. He said this boat has been fishing in the Gulf
of Alaska under the previous 30 percent observer coverage
requirement, but in 2013 became a registered catcher/processer
(CP) which now requires 100 percent observation coverage.
Additionally, he pointed out, this vessel is not chasing pollock
but fishes under the "W" category for arrowtooth sole. Another
concern is the recent shift to corporate ownership of the
trawlers. As an example, he recounted a conversation with a
friend and captain of one of the corporate trawlers, who was
embarrassed to share that a significant number of Chinook had
recently been taken, and attributed it to the corporate owners
directing where the fishing was to take place in order to pursue
larger pollock for the company, despite the area being known as
a Chinook hot-spot. Mr. Thompson said it is important to take
under consideration what occurs when corporations own a vessel
and rent a skipper with expectations that he "perform."
Finally, he reported that as a sport troller, he routinely
catches a Chinook or two on a given trip; however, five trips
out this winter have produced zero Chinook and no strikes. Mr.
Thompson restated the procedure for researching bycatch by
vessel.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether Mr. Thompson is saying that the
vessel fishing for sole had lower bycatch when it was not
observed, and now has higher bycatch numbers because of the
level of observation.
MR. THOMPSON opined that the boat fishing for sole fishes
continuously for seven days at a time, processes fish onboard,
and returns to shore to offload a final product. Prior to the
1/1/13 effective date for the new requirements, the observation
requirement was the same as that of the trawl catcher boats
because of a federal exemption. He declined to speculate on why
the bycatch numbers have tripled for this particular vessel.
Mr. Thompson urged the committee to take note of this type of
bycatch pattern, as well as the ease of access for obtaining
information on vessel-specific bycatch.
10:44:09 AM
DAVID DAHL said he has been a Kodiak fisherman for 38 years, the
last 18 years as a trawl fisherman. He paraphrased from a
prepared statement, which read [original punctuation provided]:
My concern with the salmon hard-caps now in place, and
going further, will create even bigger problems for
the community of Kodiak and all fishermen who work and
live here. There is a direct correlation between the
salmon returns and the biomass of pollock in the Gulf
of Alaska. We've been through this before, in the
late 80's early 90's, pollock stocks were spiking and
the salmon returns were the poorest ever. The bays
were full of pollock feeding on salmon fry. I was
salmon fishing then, and we couldn't catch salmon so
we seined pollock and brought them to town. Now we
are looking at an even larger biomass of pollock in
the Gulf of Alaska. If the trawl fleet is shut down
because of the hard-caps, millions of pounds of
pollock will not come over the docks in Kodiak, which
equals Kodiak workers out of work for months, loss of
tax revenue for the city of Kodiak, not to mention the
devastating loss of salmon stocks in the Gulf of
Alaska. The numbers are there. Do the homework. See
the correlation.
MR. DAHL concluded that there is not a political answer; in
fact, Cook Inlet is full of pollock and the salmon fry "[are]
just not going to have a chance." As a salmon fisherman, he
caught thousands of kings that the cannery would not buy. There
is a catch of 200,000 to 300,000 king salmon with the salmon
seiners, yet the real problem is ignored. In Kodiak, there is a
return of about 50,000 to 100,000 king salmon and 200,000 to
300,000 are caught. Mr. Dahl urged for the committee to find
out what the real problem is.
10:47:08 AM
CHARLIE FREEBURG, captain, F/V Alaska Beauty, said he has been a
resident of Kodiak since 1991. He stated the majority of the
bycatch in the Kodiak trawl fishery are jacks, averaging five
pounds, and indications are that they are hatchery fish. He
agreed with the intent to protect Chinook salmon, but the
[resolution] is not based on science. He opined the NPFMC is
working out measures to limit Chinook bycatch, and said his
vessel is involved in testing the salmon excluder device. He
reported the current bycatch rate is less than one salmon per
five tons of pollock, which is clean fishing, and the fleet is
trying to improve that ratio. The present system prevents
individual accountability, which makes it difficult for
individual vessels. In addition, 100 percent observer coverage
will be a difficult requirement to meet, as observers are in
high demand and are not always available. Finally, he said
state and federal management of the Alaska fisheries is
conservative and provides good abundance. Mr. Freeburg
concluded that HR 6 fails to provide any solution to the Chinook
problem.
10:51:18 AM
DAVE KUBIAK, fisherman, F/V Mythos, said he has been a resident
of Kodiak for 49 years and began fishing in 1964. He stated his
support for [HR] 6 and said it represents a first step for the
legislature and the state to weigh in on problems. The state
has done a very good job of managing inshore fisheries, and
because a large percentage of the pollock harvest is caught
within state waters, the state should manage this fishery.
Other species are also affected by bycatch, such Tanner crab and
halibut. He agreed that the trawlers are not to be blamed for
changes in the ocean, but are part of the equation that impacts
the fisheries; in fact, bycatch of all species should be
lowered, he said. It is important for Alaska to actively manage
its fisheries, and he has observed that some states no longer
have viable fisheries. He expressed support for the 100 percent
observer coverage requirement and said all bycatch should be
brought to shore, as is done in Europe.
10:53:50 AM
THERESA PETERSON, fisherman, F/V Patricia Sue, said she was
speaking for herself and paraphrased from a prepared statement,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
I've been living and commercial fishing out of Kodiak
with my family for over 25 years. We are involved in
the Tanner crab, cod, halibut and salmon fisheries; my
husband and I, as setnetters, and now our son runs the
boat seining around the island. We are dependent upon
healthy fishery resources for our livelihoods and have
weathered many ups and downs over the years as
abundance levels wax and wane. We fish within the
limits in Alaska and as a result we still have fish to
catch.
During times of low returns of species like Chinook,
it is incumbent upon fishery managers to be responsive
and reduce fishing mortality to provide for the long
term health of the resource. State action to protect
Chinook runs is swift. Emergency Orders shut down
fisheries immediately in times of low returns as the
Cook Inlet setnetters experienced last summer. It is
painful, and the economic losses are enormous, but the
long-term health of the Chinook salmon must come
first.
Action to reduce mortality of Chinook salmon in the
federal arena is a much slower process and it is
critical that the NPFMC hear from our State
legislatures that federal council action must continue
to implement management measures to reduce bycatch of
Chinook salmon and improve data with increased
observer coverage.
Alaska is respected worldwide for sustainable
fisheries and as State representatives I encourage you
to support HR 6 and send a message to the NPFMC that
bycatch of our iconic Chinook salmon must be reduced
in federal fisheries.
10:55:58 AM
ART NELSON, Director of Policy and Outreach, Bering Sea
Fishermen's Association, stated support for HR 6 and reminded
the committee NPFMC adopted Bering Sea measures in 2008, but the
regulations were not implemented until 2010. Since then,
Chinook salmon stocks in western Alaska have continued to
seriously decline. The Board of Fisheries (BOF), ADF&G, sets
amounts necessary for subsistence needs of all stocks of salmon
that have subsistence use; for the Yukon River, the minimum
amount necessary for subsistence has not been met in the last
five years. On the Kuskokwim River, the minimum amount has been
missed for the last two years by a large percentage. At this
point in time, any Chinook bycatch is affecting spawning beds
and fish racks, and although bycatch is not the whole problem,
BOF is in the process of further action. He restated support
for the resolution and stressed the importance for everyone to
petition the commissioner, as one of the six voting members from
Alaska, to urge her support.
10:58:45 AM
PETE WEDIN, speaking for himself and the Alaska Marine
Conservation Council (AMCC), said much of his fishing business
in Homer relies on Chinook salmon. He paraphrased from a
prepared statement, which read [original punctuation provided]:
This morning I am representing an organization that I
have belonged to since 1995. The Alaska Marine
Conservation Council is a family of seafood harvesters
from all over Alaska and is dedicated to protecting
the long-term health of Alaska's oceans and sustaining
the working waterfronts of our coastal communities.
Our members include fishermen, subsistence harvesters,
marine scientists, small business owners, and
families. Our ways of life, livelihoods and local
economies depend on productive oceans. We believe
that coastal residents have a valuable and unique
perspective on the marine ecosystem and have the right
to meaningful and influential participation in
decisions.
The Gulf of Alaska non-pollock trawl fishery is
operating without a cap on Chinook salmon bycatch.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council is
working on a motion to address this management
deficiency. There is a range of alternatives included
in the motion and two of the elements that we think
are important are full retention of PSC and a Chinook
cap of 5,000 fish. This alternative represents the
only choice for a meaningful reduction in Chinook
bycatch. When the council placed a cap on the pollock
fishery in the gulf, after a high Chinook bycatch of
54,000 kings in 2010 the cap was set higher than the
10-year average. This is not a meaningful reduction,
but at least it prevents the waste of more than 25,000
Chinook. We do not know the proportions, but we do
know that they are catching salmon from rivers that
flow into the Gulf of Alaska. Some of these rivers
include those in your district like the Kenai,
Kasilof, Ninilchik, Susitna, Karluk and many others
around the Gulf.
As you are aware, there are many rivers that ADF&G has
listed as "stocks of concern" both in the Gulf and the
Bering Sea. In 2012, both commercial and recreational
fishermen faced severe closure due to low Chinook
returns. By capping the non-pollock trawl fisheries
in the Gulf of Alaska to 5,000 Chinook we are asking
the fleet to join us in protecting salmon stocks. We
do not believe that this bycatch of Chinook is the
answer to all the problems facing this stock but we
know that this is something we can and should do.
Looking at the charts of catch vs. bycatch from
various targeted fisheries and various vessels we find
that some are fishing cleaner than others. Given the
present race for fish it seems that we will be
rewarding those that have the highest bycatch with the
most quota.
The discussion has begun in the Council to pursue a
Catch Share Program for the Gulf of Alaska
Groundfisheries. This is the "tool" that the trawl
industry says is essential to bycatch reductions. We
must recognize the shortcoming of past programs and
commit to doing things differently this time. All
impacted community members should have an opportunity
to provide meaningful input. AMCC strongly supports
HR 6 that includes the principles that will maintain
healthy fisheries and robust waterfronts in the Gulf
of Alaska, and the Bering Sea coastal communities.
11:02:42 AM
MYRON P. NANENG Sr., president of the Association of Village
Council Presidents (AVCP), informed the committee AVCP
represents 56 villages on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. He stated
his organization's support for HR 6 and said it needs to go even
further. In 2007 the Bering Sea trawl fleet had a bycatch of
127,000, based on industry incentives for avoidance of Chinook
salmon. In 2009, the NPFMC, under a motion made by the
commissioner of ADF&G, imposed a Chinook bycatch limit of 60,000
for the Bering Sea trawl fleet. Following that motion, ADF&G
informed the people on the Yukon River that their harvest would
need to be reduced, due to a lack of returning Chinook. Mr.
Naneng advised that subsistence fishermen have sacrificed since
the 1990s to help rebuild Chinook stocks. Today, both
subsistence and commercial fisheries are closed on the Yukon,
including chum salmon, to comply with the Canadian treaty
obligations and with escapement. Prior to these restrictions
and closures, an economic fishery worth over $10 million existed
on the lower Yukon River. The Kuskokwim River villagers have
been cited for taking subsistence fish, even though there is a
high bycatch rate of 60,000, and it is not fair to villagers who
rely on salmon for food. In fact, subsistence-caught salmon
helps villagers survive through the winter because of the high
prices of food and energy in the Bush. He posed a rhetorical
question: Does the committee want to provide opportunities for
the operation of trawl fisheries at the expense of the citizens
of Alaska who live in the river systems? He urged for the
administration to file a lawsuit to reduce the bycatch rate from
the current limits. Mr. Naneng equated the limits imposed on
the villagers by state government and the North Pacific
Fisheries Management Council to that of federal intrusion. He
said, "We need to correct that, on behalf of the citizens of
Alaska who live in the river systems who are now being
criminalized by the system that we thought was going to be
protecting us." He suggested that the committee consider adding
another resolve in HR 6 to read:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council fails to take any
significant action in a timely manner the State of
Alaska Department of Law is encouraged to file
litigation on behalf of the citizens of Alaska who
depend upon this resource as a critical source of food
for subsistence and recreation.
MR. NANENG noted that the State of Alaska has filed lawsuits
regarding Beluga whale, sea lion, polar bear, and voting rights.
"The basic needs of our people, their need for food," he said
requires a lawsuit.
11:09:34 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 11:09 a.m. to 11:10 a.m.
11:10:23 AM
BECCA ROBBINS GISCLAIR, Policy Director for the Yukon River
Drainage Fisheries Association (YRDFA), informed the committee
YRDFA is an association of subsistence and commercial fisherman
from all along the Yukon River in Alaska. Her association has
been attempting to reduce Chinook bycatch in the Bering Sea
since the early 1990s. She provided a PowerPoint presentation
entitled "Salmon Bycatch in the Bering Sea Groundfish
Fisheries," and pointed out that in reaction to spikes in
Chinook bycatch numbers such as the one that occurred in 2007,
NPFMC took action for the reduction of bycatch [slide 2]. She
stated YRDFA is in support of HR 6 because action before another
spike occurs is appropriate. From a Yukon River perspective,
there is great concern about bycatch from the Bering Sea because
genetic identification of stock from the Bering Sea pollock
fishery is available; in fact, scale pattern analysis began in
the 1990s and improved methods were implemented in 2010. In
2009, 2005-2007 genetic stock composition data was used by NPFMC
to set a cap on bycatch in the pollock fishery. At that time
about 54 percent of bycatch was from Western Alaska stock; since
then, results from 2010 indicate 73 percent was from Western
Alaska stock, with 20 percent of that from the Upper Yukon
[slide 3]. Ms. Gisclair said this indicates the impacts may
even be higher than previously thought.
11:14:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE inquired as to whether the change was due
to increasing numbers in the Middle and Upper Yukon stocks or
decreasing numbers in others.
MS. GISCLAIR answered it is not from an increase in any of the
Yukon River stocks, as those have been in a downward trend since
2008. She opined that what is caught in the pollock fishery
does not necessarily correlate with abundance, and is influenced
by the location being fished.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked if different areas were fished in the
two years of study, or whether the sample size for each group
could have varied.
MS. GISCLAIR explained that the sample sizes are slightly
different and how the samples are taken has varied from
opportunistic to the current system which is more
representative. The department studied how to improve sampling
methods for more meaningful results. The data from 2011 forward
will be from 100 percent observer coverage and thus superior to
earlier data. In response to Chair Seaton, she clarified that
2005-2007 and 2010 data are genetic stock identification.
MS. GISCLAIR continued to describe the concerns that exist for
the Chinook salmon stock abundance in Western Alaska: there
have been disaster declarations for the Yukon River since 2008;
there is no directed commercial Chinook fishery; and subsistence
is severely restricted. The preliminary numbers for subsistence
harvest in 2012 show one-half of the historical harvest, which
has a significant impact on resident's lives and the culture of
the area. Despite the restrictions imposed, escapement goals
and Canadian treaties are not being met and runs are not
sustainable [slide 4].
MS. GISCLAIR directed attention to the current management in the
Bering Sea, saying that under the current management system, it
is possible that 60,000 Chinook could be caught as bycatch
annually, which is "more than those runs can bear." Her
association recommends a reduction in the current cap by at
least one-half to begin protecting the runs. She concluded that
the in-river reaction to mortality is keeping food off of tables
and to be fair a reduction should be made overall [slide 6].
11:20:01 AM
STEPHANIE MADSEN, executive director of the At-sea Processors
Association (APA), said she was a 40-year resident of Alaska.
Her association represents vessels that catch and process
pollock in the Bering Sea, but not in other areas of the Gulf of
Alaska. She referred to the 2009 final environmental impact
statement (EIS) upon which was based NPFMC's decision on how to
manage Chinook salmon bycatch, and explained that the NPFMC
decision came from five alternatives and many options that were
developed by workgroups and lengthy public testimony. She noted
that the cap called for in HR 6 was one of the alternatives
presented, but it was not the one selected. In the Bering Sea
the incentive target for bycatch is an annual total of 47,000
divided between all of the vessels. The 2013 total Chinook
allocation for over 500,000 metric tons of pollock is about
13,000. Last year, APA vessels caught 2,933 salmon for 500,000
metric tons of pollock. At the vessel level, that amount is
hundreds of salmon per vessel. Ms. Madsen cautioned that the
committee does not yet have the information that the NPFMC is
currently collecting from surveys that will reveal the cost of
the program to the pollock fisherman. Further, the resolution
speaks only to the in-river commercial, subsistence, and
recreational fisheries, and does not address its economic
hardships on the people involved in the pollock fishery. She
pointed out that the vessels will not stop fishing but will have
lower recovery, and will have to sacrifice fuel and
productivity. She returned attention to the aforementioned EIS
saying that the systems, cap levels, and risks have been
analyzed; in fact, she reminded the committee that this is a
federal fishery regulated by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, national standards, the
National Environmental Policy Act, and various executive orders.
In addition, except for genetic information, there is no new
information that NPFMC did not consider in its deliberation.
Regarding the spike in Chinook bycatch in 2007, Ms. Madsen
explained this was due to closures that forced the vessels to
fish in areas where more salmon were located. She acknowledged
that the fishery is very complex, and it may not seem fair to
Yukon River residents; however, the reality is that ADF&G gap
analysis indicates there are other forces and unknown data. The
fleet is an easy, out-of-state target, but it provides
employment benefits to the state. She emphasized that a cap is
not as effective as an incentive program because the state's
incentive program requires the fleet to reduce its bycatch at
all levels of abundance of salmon and pollock. Ms. Madsen
assured the committee that the trawl fleet takes this problem
seriously and deserves recognition for its efforts, and
suggested that the resolution should address the need for
support for the industry so it can implement further change.
She concluded that the industry will continue to work to reduce
salmon bycatch, to support the food bank program, and to support
research.
11:28:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked what happens to the bycatch that
comes aboard.
MS. MADSEN said all fish are retained until counted by an
observer. Qualified fish go to the SeaShare food bank program
in the Seattle area. She mentioned that Community Development
Quota (CDQ) programs are interested in funding SeaShare and
bringing the fish to Alaska communities.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE surmised the bycatch fish are bound for the
Kuskokwim and Yukon Rivers, and encouraged the fleet to get the
fish to those in Alaska who face restrictions on fishing.
MS. MADSEN advised that some villages, but not all, have
expressed interest in receiving fish.
CHAIR SEATON recognized the industry is working hard; however
the committee must respond to new genetic sampling analysis in
state fisheries throughout the state.
MS. MADSEN urged the committee to insert whereas statements to
acknowledge the efforts of - and the needs of - the trawl fleet.
She opined the resolution implies the committee "know[s] more
than the council did when it took action ... and to me that is
not reflective of the conversations that I hear around the table
here in this room."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS asked why some villages do not want fish
products provided to them.
MS. MADSEN explained that Chinook is iconic and salmon fishing
and fish camps are a cultural aspect of the family and lifestyle
of the villages, thus villagers want the opportunity to catch
fish as they always have.
CHAIR SEATON compared receiving fish through a program to
receiving food stamps.
11:35:40 AM
CHAIR SEATON, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HR 6.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON directed attention to page 2, line 13, of
the resolution and asked for the definition of "controllable."
CHAIR SEATON responded the term recognizes that efforts of the
industry and fishermen - such as salmon excluders - can limit
salmon bycatch somewhat.
11:37:25 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 11:37 a.m. to 11:38 a.m.
11:38:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to page 2,
line 15, which read:
Whereas, there exist salmon excluders, nets that
maximize salmon exclusion, with new designs and
concepts coming out regularly to reduce Chinook and
chum salmon bycatch;
CHAIR SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion.
CHAIR SEATON removed his objection, and with no further
objection Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
11:40:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON moved Conceptual Amendment 2 to page 3,
line 7, which read:
Be it further resolved to expand the SeaShare program
to deliver more or all of the edible bycatch to
Alaskans and not out of state.
CHAIR SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON expressed the intent to expand the food
bank program as broadly as possible.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE said it is desirable to have the SeaShare
program retain the salmon for in-state use. He suggested that
if the bycatch is returned to Alaskans it may be excluded from
the vessels' quota.
CHAIR SEATON cautioned that exclusion may increase the amount of
allowable bycatch in the fishery and thereby decrease the amount
of fish for inshore fisheries. Also, communities may object.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON disagreed with Representative Feige's
suggestion.
CHAIR SEATON withdrew his objection, and with no further
objection Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
11:44:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON surmised that if vessels were required to
freeze and bring to shore everything that was caught, as is
required in parts of Europe, it would create an economic burden
and be an incentive to reduce bycatch. He suggested that this
incentive would be more effective than a bycatch limit. This
would also present an opportunity for more sampling, and would
avoid wasting a resource. He stated that he did not support the
resolution as written.
CHAIR SEATON explained that different processing procedures and
the size of a vessel effects whether retention is a disincentive
or not. Since requests have been made for additional "Whereas"
statements, he suggested holding HR 6 for the consideration of
amendments or additions.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON expressed his interest in working on
additional language.
11:51:46 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that HR 6 would be held and public
testimony would not be reopened.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 143 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFSH 3/12/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 143 |
| Copy of 7 day crew licenses sold-Res and NonRes.pdf |
HFSH 3/12/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 143 |
| Copy of 7-DayCrew_2005-2012_By-LicYr-Name.pdf |
HFSH 3/12/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 143 |
| Fish Fund license permit revenue (2).pdf |
HFSH 3/12/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 143 |
| HB143-DFG-DAS-03-08-13.pdf |
HFSH 3/12/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 143 |
| HB143-DOLWD-FF-3-8-13.pdf |
HFSH 3/12/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 143 |
| HB 143 three Dude License Proposals .pdf |
HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 143 |
| HR6.pdf |
HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/21/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HR 6 |
| NPFMC Chinook bycatch briefing.pdf |
HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/21/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HR 6 |
| Dec 13 Alaska Journal of Commerce article on Chinook, Chum bycatch.pdf |
HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/21/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HR 6 |
| AVCP bycatch letter.pdf |
HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/21/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HR 6 |
| AVCP bycatch resolution.pdf |
HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/21/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HR 6 |
| YRDFA bycatch resolution.pdf |
HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/21/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HR 6 |
| Tanana Chiefs Conference bycatch resolution.pdf |
HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/21/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HR 6 |
| HB0049A.pdf |
HFSH 2/26/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 49 |
| HB 49 Chinook Research - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFSH 2/26/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 49 |
| HB 49 - Chinook Research Sectional Analysis FINAL.pdf |
HFSH 2/26/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 49 |
| HB 49 - BBNA LTR of Support.pdf |
HFSH 2/26/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 49 |
| HB 49 - Chinook Research (Gov's $30M itemized).pdf |
HFSH 2/26/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 49 |
| HB 49 - Chinook Research Powerpoint.pdf |
HFSH 2/26/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 49 |
| HB 49 BSFA Back Up 2.22.13.pdf |
HFSH 2/26/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 49 |
| HB 49 Version N.pdf |
HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 49 |
| HB 49 Changes for Version N.pdf |
HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 49 |
| HB 49 Version N - Map of Public Member Regions.pdf |
HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 49 |
| HR 6 Chinook Bycatch Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/21/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HR 6 |
| HR 6 Chinook Bycatch Management Timeline.pdf |
HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/21/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HR 6 |
| HB049-DOR-TRS-02-22-13.pdf |
HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 49 |
| BSAI Salmon Bycatch Presentation 3.19.2013.pdf |
HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HR 6 |
| HB049-DCCED-DCRA-02-22-13.pdf |
HFSH 3/19/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 49 |