Legislature(2007 - 2008)BUTROVICH 205
02/13/2008 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB251 | |
| SB246 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 251 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 246 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 248 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 251-VESSEL PERMIT SYSTEM
3:36:46 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS announced SB 251 to be up for consideration. In
packets was a proposed committee substitute (CS), Version E,
labeled 25-LS1386\E, Kane, 2/5/08.
SENATOR DONALD OLSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
SB 251, told members this deals with a complex situation. In
2002 the legislature created a vessel-based permit system for
the emerging hair crab and scallop fisheries in state waters.
This was to address resource conservation concerns because of
unlimited fleet harvesting capability and to provide the
efficiencies of unified management across state and federal
waters. Without SB 251, the permit system expires December 30,
2008, at which time these two fragile fisheries will revert to
unlimited open fisheries, creating significant pressure on the
resource and fisheries management.
SENATOR OLSON said SB 251 is strongly supported by the state and
federal fisheries managers to sustain the management and
conservation values of the current system, and it is strongly
supported by fishing organizations within his own district. He
also indicated it has support from the United Fishermen of
Alaska (UFA) and other statewide fisheries organizations.
SENATOR OLSON pointed out that whereas SB 251 permanently
eliminates the sunset for the vessel-based permit system, the
proposed CS, Version E, simply extends the sunset date for ten
years. This alternative proposal would trigger future
legislative review of the merits of this system.
SENATOR OLSON told members his interest stems from two Community
Development Quota (CDQ) groups with permits in these fisheries:
1) Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation and 2) Coastal
Village Regional Fund, represented by Senators Olson and Hoffman
in their respective districts. These consortiums of coastal
villages share in the economic benefits of high-seas fisheries;
without SB 251, the value of their investments and these permits
will drop to zero, and the fisheries and economies will be
threatened. He provided a map of villages affected if this
sunset isn't extended.
3:39:51 PM
SENATOR STEVENS arrived.
SENATOR OLSON highlighted the prevention of management chaos,
noting that prior to 2002, state and federal waters were fished
under two sets of rules and regulations; there was a management
agreement between the two governments for these fragile
fisheries, and management was given to the state. Without
SB 251, there'll be an open season and new regulations will be
put in place; many more fishermen will be out there. Saying
this affects lots of people, even some who aren't in the
fisheries, he asked for members' support.
3:41:56 PM
FRANK M. HOMAN, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC), Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), in
response to Senator Stedman, said there are two forms of limited
entry today. One is the traditional method, to an individual
fisherman; this is how all the salmon fisheries are established.
Of the 68 limited fisheries, 66 are in the traditional
individual-permit system. Only two fisheries - those being
looked at today - are under a vessel license permit system.
MR. HOMAN explained that the two fisheries generally use big
boats that have two or three skippers in a year. Under the
traditional system, each skipper would have received a permit.
However, the desire was to limit this fishery to conserve the
resource. So rather than doubling or tripling the number of
permits, in 2002 CFEC talked with the legislature, which
authorized this new system for these two fisheries.
SENATOR STEDMAN surmised the department and administration
support this bill.
MR. HOMAN affirmed that, specifying that CFEC, ADF&G, the North
Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC), and UFA are in
favor. It only relates to these two fisheries where the
resource is of such concern. The previous open access led to
the 2002 legislation; the effort is to prevent going back to
that situation.
3:44:47 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how many permits are under the vessel
permit system and how many are owned by Alaskans.
MR. HOMAN replied there are 8 permits in the scallop fishery and
18 in the hair crab fishery. It's a little difficult to tell
about residency, but he believes at least 3 scallop permits are
for Alaska residents; there were 4, but one moved.
MR. HOMAN said in the hair crab fishery, Alaskans have an
interest in at least a third of the permits. These are vessel
permits, and a vessel can be owned by an individual, a
partnership, or a corporation. Generally, fishermen band
together to be able to afford the larger boats for these two
fisheries. It's not the same as for salmon, where individuals
buy vessels.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if he'd heard any opposition.
MR. HOMAN replied yes; some people do not like this system, but
a majority of those he's heard from aren't in the fishery. To
his knowledge, the majority of fishermen want to keep this
system because it's well managed and understandable - they know
what the rules and regulations are. Some people don't like the
idea of limited entry to begin with, however, and would prefer
open access for all fisheries. He surmised the limited entry
system was instituted to prevent that kind of chaos.
3:47:45 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if Alaskans are saying there are too
many out-of-state permits and they're denied access.
MR. HOMAN responded that limited entry is based on historical
participation, both for the traditional system and the vessel
license program; CFEC takes a fishery as it is when it's limited
and, under the limited entry law, has to give credit for
historical participation. The State of Alaska cannot
discriminate between residents and nonresidents. All fisheries
have some nonresidents when they're limited. Taking limited
entry as a whole, it is about 78 percent Alaskans. It has
worked well over the 30 years of limited entry, he said, with
the same percentage as when it was first limited. He added
there is no way he knows of to direct a permit to an Alaskan.
MR. HOMAN, in response to Chair Huggins, highlighted how fragile
the two vessel-permit fisheries are; they can't stand very much
pressure. He said going to open access would encourage more
boats to participate. The catch for the scallop fishery is
limited by a quota system regulated by ADF&G. Any addition
would impact the whole fleet economically.
CHAIR HUGGINS asked if any other aspects of limited entry
protect the species.
MR. HOMAN answered that the limited entry system, when designed
30 years ago, had two goals: conservation of the resource and
protecting the economic health of the participants. All limited
entry fisheries that have been established had conservation as
the first basis. The effort is to protect the resource so it
sustains itself over time and provides an economy for the state.
3:51:12 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS asked if there is an active weathervane scallop
fishery.
MR. HOMAN affirmed that. In further response, he opined that
the current quota is 500,000 pounds of shucked scallops; it has
been that for several years.
CHAIR HUGGINS noted there were affirmative nods from the
audience.
MR. HOMAN estimated the gross value fluctuates from perhaps
$2 million to $4 million. He pointed out that the Bering Sea
hair crab resource is in even worse shape; that fishery hasn't
been open for at least six or seven years. He said ADF&G is
monitoring it, waiting for the resource to replenish itself so
it can be opened.
3:52:53 PM
JULIE KAVANAUGH, Fisherman, noted her family lives in Kodiak and
has commercially fished from Ketchikan to Akutan for 34 years.
Lifelong Alaskans, they are 100 percent dependent on fishing
income. Although they don't participate in these particular
fisheries, she said they value the decisions that affect them in
years to come. She said while SB 251 seems basic, simple, and
easy, the structure of these fisheries made it conducive for
vessels to form cooperatives and reduce the number of
participants in the scallop fishery from 8 to 3-4.
MS. KAVANAUGH indicated in 2002, in the Grunert case, the Alaska
Supreme Court struck down 5 AAC 15.359 because it was
fundamentally at odds with the Limited Entry Act, whose central
premise was that permit holders are individuals who actively
fish; a cooperative regime didn't require active participation
by permit holders. Since only 3-4 permits are fished, she asked
where the other vessels are and what other fisheries they impact
while collecting royalties on Alaska's resources.
MS. KAVANAUGH said the court also expressed concern that a
cooperative-style fishery may interfere with CFEC's ability to
determine an optimum number of permits; the model destroys any
relationship between the number of permits issued and the
ultimate number of participating vessels and gear units. She
opined that the 2002 legislation which allowed vessel-based
permitting was unconstitutional, going against the premise that
access rights are for persons who actively participate.
MS. KAVANAUGH indicated ADF&G has a management plan outline to
replace the vessel-based system and believes it has the
management tools and ability to implement it. Even without
sufficient funding, she said, ADF&G's able staff are confident
they can care for Alaska's resources. Disagreeing that SB 251
is about conservation, she asked that state managers be allowed
to manage the fisheries and be given funding to do so. Voicing
concern about the precedent set by vessel-permit legislation and
how it has been used by the Board of Fisheries in the Gulf of
Alaska, she stated strong opposition, saying SB 251 is
unconstitutional, has no merit, and affects her and the
community where she lives.
SENATOR GREEN requested a response.
3:57:16 PM
MR. HOMAN responded that SB 251 doesn't authorize cooperatives
or say anything about them. What can happen already, in any
fishery, is a cooperative effort by fishermen to lower costs to
increase economic return. For example, the Kodiak fishery has
nine participants with traditional individual permits; they get
together and harvest fish with one or two boats, for economic
reasons. In the scallop fishery, similarly, five boats operate
under an agreement among themselves that only two or three will
fish; they then share the harvest. Nothing new in the bill
leads to that.
SENATOR WAGONER gave his understanding that this reduces the
amount of gear effort.
MR. HOMAN affirmed that, noting there is a lot less pressure on
the resource by having three boats instead of five; if it goes
to open access, there'd be many more boats fishing. Certainly,
ADF&G could restrict seasons, catch, or gear, but all those make
it less economically feasible for boats that participate. The
scallop fishery isn't an entry-level fishery where someone could
just decide to hop in a boat and go. It takes an investment
because the boats are big and there is a lot of gear.
CHAIR HUGGINS noted it's a bottom fishery by design.
MR. HOMAN agreed. He recalled that one small-boat scallop
fisherman had testified in earlier meetings that he doesn't go
out most years because he can't make any money.
CHAIR HUGGINS asked to hear from ADF&G as well.
4:01:20 PM
JOHN HILSINGER, Director, Commercial Fisheries Division, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game, told members ADF&G supports this
bill. It has found, under the vessel-based limited entry
system, that this is a highly manageable and sustainable
fishery. As Mr. Homan noted, only the scallop fishery is open.
MR. HILSINGER noted the hair crab fishery is at low stock
levels; if this bill doesn't pass and it goes to open entry, it
would significantly delay any possible opening in that fishery.
It's partly a conservation issue related to blue king crab; that
fishery has a very low catch per pot. When the number of boats
is small, fishermen can concentrate on the area where the hair
crab are. But as the number of boats increases, they tend to
spread out and increase their bycatch of blue king crab. He
said ADF&G has been working hard to reduce any potential bycatch
of blue king crab in order to recover that stock.
CHAIR HUGGINS asked about other elements the committee should be
aware of.
MR. HILSINGER replied that in anticipation of this limited entry
program possibly coming to an end, ADF&G has been developing a
potential management plan to deal with the fishery. While it's
ADF&G's best attempt to design a fishery that sustains the
stocks, however, it would lead to problems. For one thing, the
state-waters boundary line runs through the middle of several
scallop beds; sometimes it isn't straight. It would be
extremely difficult for a boat to stay on one side or the other.
MR. HILSINGER explained that a boat in the state-waters fishery
wouldn't be allowed to fish in federal waters, but a federally
licensed boat could fish in both. To separate the catch, ADF&G
anticipates requiring boats to register for either state or
federal waters and then stay in those waters until they
reregister.
MR. HILSINGER said this would complicate management and likely
would impact the profitability. The boats are used to towing
back and forth across the line. Having to stay on one side or
another will increase costs because they'll have to lift and
then reset the gear. It will complicate the fishery.
CHAIR HUGGINS surmised ADF&G prefers limited entry.
MR. HILSINGER affirmed that. In response to Senator Wagoner, he
explained that while the blue crab would be returned, that
population is at such a low level that ADF&G has actually closed
other crab fisheries specifically to prevent such bycatch. He
indicated even the level of incidental mortality from being
caught and returned would be a problem for that population.
SENATOR STEVENS asked him to explain the contingency plan and
what the fishery would look like if this program ended.
MR. HILSINGER answered that the following is envisioned: The
registration deadline would be April 1; the season opens July 1.
Since these vessels are all required to have observers on board,
observers would be identified and trained before the season
opens. Each boat would register for either state or federal
waters. Although a boat could only fish in the area for which
it registered, a change of registration would be allowed.
MR. HILSINGER further explained that harvest totals would be
kept separate for state and federal waters; ADF&G would set up
separate harvest guidelines for those. About 30 percent comes
from state waters and 70 percent from federal waters.
Envisioned is some kind of vessel monitoring system (VSM) based
on a global positioning system (GPS); a vessel could be tracked
on a computer screen to see if it was fishing in the appropriate
area, and thus ADF&G would know whether the catch was from state
or federal waters.
MR. HILSINGER noted there might be another element he didn't
recall. Also, some fishermen might have other proposals when
the board takes this up at its March meeting.
4:08:59 PM
SENATOR McGUIRE asked what is being done through regulation for
gear and bycatch in general, whether there has been discussion
of this in ADF&G, and whether the technology and gear are
improving at a level that the department is happy with.
MR. HILSINGER replied it is discussed. All fisheries are
different. Recently lots has been heard about salmon bycatch in
the Bering Sea pollock fishery, which is at high levels; he
opined that there isn't good technology to prevent that. There
also are bycatch issues in longline fisheries. One in the news
recently relates to seabirds, which may take the bait as the
gear is set or retrieved; technology appears pretty effective in
preventing that, and the department recently put out news
releases alerting folks that they're required to have that
seabird-avoidance gear onboard their vessels.
4:11:13 PM
OLIVER HOLM, Fisherman, informed members that he'd been fishing
around Kodiak Island over 40 years in many different fisheries,
though not the scallop fishery. He said he doesn't believe it
is appropriate for Alaska to have state-managed fisheries based
on vessels rather than individuals. It goes against the intent
of the constitutional framers and the limitation program, which
gave people the right to fish in Alaska. When it is switched to
vessels, it's impossible to keep track of who owns the right.
MR. HOLM said most bigger fisheries in Alaska are managed by the
federal government, and corporate owners have plenty of
opportunity under federal limited entry to participate as vessel
owners; he believes it is important that the state not go that
route in state waters, but instead provide a counterpoint to the
federal system so actual people and residents of Alaska have an
opportunity to make a living.
MR. HOLM downplayed UFA's endorsement. Noting he's on that
board, he said this item was put on the agenda for
teleconference not long ago, with fairly short notice. The vote
was 11 for; 1 against, which was him; and 8 abstentions. There
wasn't extensive debate about the merits of this policy. He
questioned how that can be a ringing endorsement for a change in
state policy.
SENATOR McGUIRE asked if Mr. Holm had talked to Alaskans who'd
like to get into one of these fisheries but hadn't been able to.
MR. HOLM replied that people haven't been able to because of the
license limitation program. He opined that there wouldn't be a
flood of new participants, because scallop fishing takes a
fairly substantial vessel, but he surmised some people might
want to participate in the 30 percent that's in state waters.
4:14:31 PM
ALEXUS KWACHKA, Kodiak, testified that he is absolutely opposed
to vessel-based limited entry, believing it's not in the state's
best interests. There were 12 vessels for scallops in 1996; now
there are 4. He asked where those other 8 vessels are and
whether they receive economic benefits from participating in
other fisheries as well. Noting $2 million to $4 million is
substantial money, Mr. Kwachka said he'd like to see the money
trail and how that works.
MR. KWACHKA noted there hasn't been a hair crab fishery since
2000; he doesn't believe one is imminent and thus this seems to
be a shotgun approach to fix a small-scale problem. He opined
that corporate ownership isn't in Alaska's best interest.
Recalling talk about economic efficiencies, he said there can be
the greatest economic efficiencies in the world - one scallop
boat, longliner, salmon boat, and crab boat - but that's not in
Alaska's best interest. He said the "economic inefficiencies"
of these fisheries are what drive coastal Alaska.
MR. KWACHKA recalled a 2006 bill enacted to allow permit
stacking. He also referred to recent changes by the Board of
Fisheries, noting one person can fish two permits with all the
units of gear. Saying consolidation isn't the route to take in
these fisheries, he instead proposed that these programs should
be based on providing economic opportunity for Alaskans.
MR. KWACHA reported that he sits on the fish and game advisory
committee. Last night they looked at what the state has in mind
for a scallop fishery, which he thinks is workable. Although it
would create a few problems related to the boundary line, the
line is highlighted on computers and it's straightforward. He
specified that he doesn't support this bill.
4:17:10 PM
THERESA PETERSON, Fisherman, Kodiak, told members she is a 20-
year resident there, a member of an active commercial fishing
family, and a strong supporter of Alaska's limited entry system
and its stated policy that limited entry permits only go to a
person who actively participates in a fishery. For this and
other reasons, she opposes SB 251.
MS. PETERSON said the authority to allocate harvest privileges
to vessel owners and corporations is fundamentally at odds with
the Limited Entry Act. If the State of Alaska desires extreme
consolidation and absentee ownership among Alaska's fisheries,
legislators need to propose such a change to the constitution
and justify, in a transparent manner, why such a move is
beneficial to Alaska's residents.
MS. PETERSON said while this bill addresses solutions to a
particular problem within the hair crab and weathervane scallop
fisheries, it sets precedent and policy. She urged the state to
find another method within the framework that works for the 66
traditional limited entry fisheries. She expressed concern that
under the vessel-based program, owners could designate one
person to hold and operate the permit.
MS. PETERSON opined that the contingency plan outlined by
Mr. Hilsinger covers the biological and managerial concerns. As
a supporter of limited entry and holder of four permits, she
expressed hope that her testimony wouldn't be discounted because
she doesn't hold a permit in this fishery. She surmised that
permit holders who reap the benefits while not actively
participating will naturally support continuing the program.
MS. PETERSON said while the NPFMC supports the bill, several
managers have implemented rationalization programs that have led
to absentee ownership of Alaska's fishing privileges, which
isn't beneficial to Alaska's residents. She expressed hope that
legislators would stand up for coastal communities and keep
active participation a component of the limited entry system.
4:20:12 PM
ALAN PARKS, Fisherman, Homer, noted he has participated in
commercial fisheries in Alaska for over 30 years. He voiced
adamant opposition to SB 251 and agreed with the Kodiak
testifiers. He said the concept of vessel-based limited entry
conflicts with many philosophical approaches of the state on
fisheries allocation, shaping coastal communities, and providing
opportunity for Alaskans. Expressing concern that the vessel-
based system is also corporate-based, an approach he disagrees
with, Mr. Parks said he doesn't favor any management regime that
creates absentee ownership and a revenue stream for people who
don't actively fish.
MR. PARKS conveyed approval of ADF&G's contingency plan outline,
saying it's important to have good monitoring. By knowing
whether the harvest is in state or federal waters, the state
will know which scallop beds are being fished and how many
pounds come from each bed, allowing better conservation than
now. He said the state has an opportunity here to move forward
with regulating the state-waters fisheries to the greatest
benefit of Alaskans.
4:23:46 PM
JERRY McCUNE, United Fishermen of Alaska, pointed out that a
letter in packets says UFA doesn't support this kind of vessel-
based program except for this particular fishery. Noting there
couldn't be other programs like this unless it went through the
legislature, he emphasized that this is about conservation.
Citing personal experience, he predicted that if it goes to open
access, folks will try to go fishing and then overload the
fishery, leading to its closure. He said it makes sense to UFA
to run this particular very small fishery this way.
SENATOR STEVENS asked why UFA generally opposes vessel-based
fisheries.
MR. McCUNE answered that the established program, with ownership
of permits by a person, has been in place in large fisheries.
Part of UFA's decision was because about 28 skippers would
qualify for a permit in this particular fishery. But 28 boats
would be too many for the fishery. He indicated the vessel-
based permit works for this fishery, keeping it viable and
keeping a small portion of those boats working.
4:27:39 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS inquired about UFA's vote on this.
MR. McCUNE replied he takes his instructions from the board. As
long as the majority supports something, his instruction is to
follow that. He doesn't talk about how particular groups voted.
CHAIR HUGGINS asked whether the UFA board had asked Mr. McCune
to testify in support of this bill.
MR. McCUNE affirmed that.
CHAIR HUGGINS asked if anyone else wished to testify. He then
asked Mr. Hilsinger to address any issues from the testimony.
4:28:52 PM
MR. HILSINGER returned to the issue of trying to manage the
scallop fishery under ADF&G's contingency plan. He said the
boundary line of federal waters is not a smooth line across the
ocean. Even though it's at three miles, it bumps around every
point of land on the coast. He surmised people might
underestimate the difficulty of staying within state waters
while fishing. It will increase enforcement issues.
MR. HILSINGER reported that some fishermen have suggested
limiting the size of the scallop dredges to slow the fishery and
make it more manageable. He predicted that might actually make
boats with federal permits not viable in the fishery, since only
those can fish in federal waters; then that whole fishery would
be at risk.
MR. HILSINGER noted if there were separate gear types in state
and federal waters, there'd be tremendous enforcement difficulty
- which boat it is, how much gear is on board, what size it is,
and so on, plus ensuring that the boat doesn't cross over the
line with the gear. It wouldn't be as easy to manage as
separate fisheries in state and federal waters.
MR. HILSINGER also pointed out that ADF&G doesn't have precise
population estimates for the scallops in state waters versus
federal waters. Generally, about one-third of the catch has
come from state waters and two-thirds from federal waters. But
there isn't the ability right now to actually survey those
waters to determine precise distribution. So harvest guidelines
are based on a general understanding of the historical harvest,
not necessarily on a good estimation of numbers of scallops.
MR. HILSINGER, in response to Senator Stevens, explained that
there is a federal program under which someone buys a federally
approved VSM unit and then a computer screen can be used to
track the boat and know where it is, where it has been, and so
on. Also, each vessel is required to have an onboard observer,
who is primarily there to collect biological data but can also
try to track where the boat is. An observer has to sleep
sometimes, so solely having one on the vessel doesn't ensure
that ADF&G knows where it is fishing. The hope is that having
both the onboard observer and the VSM will allow tracking.
MR. HILSINGER noted there is some difficulty because the boat
isn't prohibited from going into state or federal waters, but is
prohibited from fishing there. The VSM shows whether a boat is
on one side of the line or the other. If it's traveling at
fishing speed where it isn't supposed to fish, there'd be a
suspicion of fishing but no proof. There'd still have to be
enforcement to make sure people fish where they're supposed to.
SENATOR STEVENS remarked that the ADF&G contingency plan sounds
rational and logical. While there'd be difficulties, he didn't
see insurmountable problems.
MR. HILSINGER explained that ADF&G's plan would ultimately
depend on how many vessels participate. If there wasn't a big
increase in effort, it would probably work; a large increase
would be more problematic. One reason for the registration
deadline is so ADF&G could close an area before it even opened
if ADF&G saw a tremendous increase in effort. He emphasized
that the state-waters portion of an individual scallop bed can
be extremely small, although in some cases it's fairly large.
4:36:50 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the court has ruled on the
constitutionality of a vessel-based permit system.
MR. HOMAN came back up and answered no. The court has ruled on
scores of limited entry cases, but not relating to vessel
limitation. Pointing out that the term "consolidation" was used
several times in testimony, he clarified that in 2002, when the
legislature approved this program, it was well aware of that
issue. All these issues have been discussed in the past.
MR. HOMAN noted the statute says the Limited Entry Commission
shall adopt regulations limiting the number of vessels that may
be held by a permit holder or group of related permit holders if
the commission finds that limiting the number of vessel permits
that may be held by a permit holder or group of related permit
holders is necessary to prevent the excessive concentration of
ownership of vessel permits in the fishery.
MR. HOMAN said following that, a series of regulations were
adopted for these fisheries. In the scallop fishery, no person
or entity may have an interest in any more than one permit. In
the hair crab fishery, it's limited to two; that's because when
these fisheries were limited, the hair crab fishery had
participants who owned two vessels. By statute and regulation,
consolidation cannot go any further than it is, he added.
MR. HOMAN pointed out that the co-ops discussed today in this
fishery, and other fisheries of the traditional nature, are
agreements by participants to form together for mutual benefit.
This isn't authorized or encouraged by the state. They do this
for their own betterment. This type of situation is available
to all fishermen.
MR. HOMAN also emphasized that the legislation which authorized
this doesn't extend to any other fishery. The legislature made
an exception for these two fisheries in 2002 so they'd be
managed differently. And CFEC cannot go into any other
fisheries with this vessel license program unless authorized by
the legislature. Thus there is no spreading corporate takeover
of other fisheries.
4:41:31 PM
SENATOR STEVENS expressed appreciation for Mr. Homan's long
involvement with CFEC. He asked what principles led the state
down the road of a limited entry program based on the
individual, rather than the vessel.
MR. HOMAN indicated in the early 1970s, when limited entry was
established, fisheries consisted primarily of individual owners.
The legislature wanted to protect that. Limited entry was
designed to protect individuals who depend on the fishery for
their livelihood and also those who depend on the fishermen,
mostly families, often in rural Alaska. That has worked well
for many years.
MR. HOMAN said as fisheries grew and other fisheries besides
salmon became involved, however, different business structures
became evident. Although the traditional individual system
didn't always quite work out, it was always kept as a principle.
In fact, it is an overriding principle of the state to have an
individual participating actively in the fishery.
MR. HOMAN noted in the Grunert decision, cited earlier, the
Alaska Supreme Court upheld that principle in the traditional
fisheries, saying the individual was important, as was active
participation. The new system developed by the legislature in
2002 is an exception. Trying to accommodate the individual, and
those dependent on that individual, is still the guiding
principle.
4:45:14 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN moved to adopt CSSB 251, Version E, labeled 25-
LS1386\E, Kane, 2/5/08, as the working document.
SENATOR STEVENS objected. He said lots of reasons had been
heard why the committee shouldn't be dealing with this, and he
wouldn't repeat them all. Fishermen in communities had opposed
the idea. Historically, it has been an individual-based limited
entry permit system. Highlighting unintended consequences, he
opined that the committee was seeing the results of that here.
SENATOR STEVENS removed his objection and Version E was adopted.
CHAIR HUGGINS invited the sponsor to provide closing comments.
He noted Version E only changes the date, to December 30, 2018.
SENATOR OLSON concurred. He said his heart goes out to those in
Kodiak who have investments and others in the private sector who
are affected negatively. But some folks in the poorest areas of
the state have been able to subscribe to the CDQ program and
benefit because they weren't able to afford some of the big
capital investments.
SENATOR OLSON added that no system will be perfect. Letting
this sunset creates the need for a whole set of regulations and
a bureaucracy set up with monitors on these ships. Highlighting
the monumental change and surmising it will have negative
effects if this program sunsets, he urged support for the bill.
4:47:49 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN moved to report CSSB 251, Version E, out of
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
notes.
SENATOR STEVENS objected. He explained that the committee had
heard strong opposition from the communities he represents, and
the constitutionality needs to be addressed. Also, he saw
nothing insurmountable with ADF&G's plan to manage these
fisheries if the program isn't extended.
SENATOR STEVENS emphasized individual ownership by real people
and providing economic opportunities for Alaskans. He said
absentee ownership is an important issue, and this conflicts
with principles held by many including him. While appreciating
Mr. Homan's comments, he said this isn't a bill he wants to move
forward. If it does move, he questioned extending it ten years,
when the original program was for eight.
SENATOR GREEN reported being approached in the hallway by
someone who said folks in favor of the bill had been told it
wasn't necessary to call in.
MR. HILSINGER, in response to Senator Wagoner regarding federal
requirements, said in the scallop fishery it isn't a requirement
to have the VMS on board. In some other federal fisheries, it
is. Most of the boats have it, however.
4:51:23 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senators McGuire, Wielechowski,
Wagoner, Green, Stedman, and Huggins voted in favor of moving
the bill from committee. Senator Stevens voted against it.
Therefore, CSSB 251(RES) was moved out of the Senate Resources
Standing Committee by a vote of 6-1.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|