Legislature(2015 - 2016)BUTROVICH 205
04/14/2016 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB216 | |
| SB42 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 42 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 216 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 42-PERSONAL USE FISHING PRIORITY
3:36:10 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced consideration of SB 42.
SENATOR STOLTZE, sponsor of SB 42, explained that this is called
the "Alaskans First Fisheries Act" in times of shortages when
allocation decisions are made to meet management goals. Priority
fisheries are those that are Alaskan resident-only fisheries:
subsistence and personal use (PU). He said the department has a
neutral position on it, but during his confirmation ADF&G
Commissioner Cotten got himself into trouble with the United
Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) and all the other constituencies by
acknowledging that looking at "Alaskans First" was not a bad
idea. Senator Stoltze said he appreciated his candor and that he
had "to take a little bit of a beating" on it.
SENATOR STOLTZE said he is talking about a small percentage of
the fisheries that are allocated. During presentation of the
bill in the State Affairs Committee on April 1, 2015, an
industry individual testified that Alaska has an allocation
system: "The commercial fishing industry catches it and we can
buy it." While that ideology might work well in some regions of
the state, it would cause rebellion if it became more of an
official state policy than it already is.
SENATOR STOLTZE said there are about 80 personal use fisheries
of different species and shellfish, but the ones that are most
popular are on three major rivers: the Kasilof, the Kenai, and
the Copper River that has the Chitina Dipnet Fishery where
almost 50,000 Alaskan households fish. And that cuts out the
"middle man."
3:40:26 PM
SENATOR STOLTZE said Alaska residents should be able to get fish
for their families and that subsistence and personal use
fisheries are the only two fisheries that are Alaska resident-
only fisheries.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if all other fisheries would be restricted
before the PU fishery is restricted.
SENATOR STOLTZE said that is correct. That includes sportfishing
and commercial fishing.
3:42:08 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony.
WES HUMBYRD, representing himself, Homer, Alaska, opposed SB 42.
He said he had been a commercial fisherman in Cook Inlet since
1966 and an Alaska resident since 1971. The commercial fisheries
in Cook Inlet have been drastically curtailed by the allocation
corridor that the Board of Fisheries put up two years ago.
"There's plenty of fish around for all these people that want to
go get them."
He said all politicians swear to uphold the constitution, but
most of them must not read it, because he sees violations of
Article 8, Section 15, that says no exclusive right or special
privilege of a fishery shall be created or authorized in the
natural waters in the state.
3:45:19 PM
JOHN MCCOMBS, representing himself, Ninilchik, Alaska, opposed
SB 42. He said he had been a commercial fisherman in Cook Inlet
for 40 years. The PU fishery began in the 1980s when there were
large surpluses of fish. These fish were already 100 percent
allocated and there was a commercial priority at that time for
sockeyes. He said the PU fishery is unlimited now and over
600,000 sockeyes were harvested in 2015.
The PU fishery is expensive and "rhetoric about cheap protein
couldn't be more false," Mr. McCombs said. Because SB 42 pits
Alaskans against Alaskans and recreational fishermen against
commercial fishermen and advances existing antagonisms, he
couldn't support it.
3:46:28 PM
ED MARTIN, representing himself and his wife, Cooper Landing,
Alaska, supported SB 42. He said he feels sympathy for the
commercial fishermen. One of the first jobs he had in high
school was fishing across the Inlet for the Bunker family, and
he learned a valuable lesson there: that Cook Inlet had a lot of
fish. In those days, it was quite different from today.
He believes that there is no reason for Alaskans to be pitting
themselves against each other for this resource. If it is a
common use, then the most important part is to be certain that
everyone has access to the fish and they shouldn't need a
license to do it. Commercial fishermen get a privilege in the
form of a license or a permit. He thought this issue would
always be contentious.
3:49:20 PM
AL BARRETTE, representing himself and his family, Fairbanks,
Alaska, supported SB 42. The intent of the bill is about
prioritizing the resource in times of shortage: subsistence gets
priority and then next in line should be the PU and then
commercial and sport. His family will depend on the Chitina PU
fishery to help them make it through these financially rough
times.
3:51:22 PM
DAVID MARTIN, President, United Cook Inlet Drift Association,
Homer, Alaska, opposed SB 42. People should be able to either
catch or buy their fish, he said. Further this bill violates
Article 8, Sections 1, 3, 4, and 15 of the Alaska Constitution.
The dipnet fishery is one of the most unorganized and unenforced
fisheries in the state, but there is plenty of opportunity to
get fish as indicated by South Central's catch of over 650,000
salmon last year. Every fishery needs to be a good steward of
the resource and share in the harvest of the surplus, but also
share in the conservation of it when needed. Probably more
Alaskans buy their salmon than fish for it, so there is ample
opportunity for everybody to have fish, and that opportunity
needs to be shared on an equal basis.
3:53:51 PM
STEVEN VANEK, representing himself, Ninilchik, Alaska, opposed
SB 42. He said he is a retired commercial fisherman and had
lived in Alaska since 1964. It costs a lot to travel to go
dipnet fishing, so don't be telling him that it's for poor
people to feed themselves. Fishing is the number one industry in
Alaska and this bill opposes the commercial industry that built
Alaska. "It's a slap in the face to the processors who provide
thousands of jobs in Alaska. It's foolishness."
MR. VANEK said friends have told him that a lot of the fish are
given away to friends and relatives who visit; they are not used
for personal use. The dipnet fishery gets used for Christmas
gifts!
3:56:23 PM
ROD ARNO, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC),
Palmer, Alaska, supported SB 42. He said the PU fishery was
codified in 1978, and at a time the state was trying to stop
takeover of federal management by agreeing to a rural priority.
Individuals who lived in Fairbanks, the Valley, and Anchorage
were excluded from the Chitina fishery, and the Board of
Fisheries had to come up with a way of providing them with
personal use on an equal footing with subsistence. Since that
time, a number of PU fisheries have grown across the state and
the AOC believes that conservation continues because individuals
who gather a wild food source from a public resource have
interest in its preservation. He thanked Senator Stoltze for
this bill.
CRISTY FRY, representing herself, Homer, Alaska, opposed SB 42.
This bill is blatantly political, she said, and inserts the
legislature into fisheries management, which should be solely
the purview of the Alaska Board of Fisheries and the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). Considering the bill's
sponsor, it is obviously aimed at prioritizing dipnetters in the
Kenai and Kasilof Rivers over commercial fishermen.
4:00:12 PM
ERIK HEUBSCH, representing himself, Kasilof, Alaska, opposed SB
42. He said he participates in sport, commercial and personal
use fisheries. All Alaskans have an opportunity to share
Alaska's bountiful fishery resource, and at times when they are
not as bountiful, all Alaskans must share in the burden of
conservation. He stated, "Senate Bill 42 is divisive and
reckless." It would upset the balance among user groups that is
the result of an actual process of decision-making. The bill's
language is so vague that if it is passed, the unintended
consequences could threaten every fishery across the state.
For instance, the bill states: "When the harvest of a stock or
species is limited to achieve a management goal, the Board of
Fisheries shall place restrictions on all other fisheries before
restricting personal use fisheries." He asked what "all other
fisheries" means and who that would affect. Are the restrictions
limited to only that particular stock and how would that apply
in mixed-stock fisheries like Cook Inlet and most areas across
the state have? The bill also uses the term "management goal"
and then offers a constrained definition for that term. How
would that affect existing management plans?
MR. HEUBSCH concluded that SB 42 creates many problems and
solves none.
4:02:06 PM
GEORGE PIERCE, representing himself, Kasilof, Alaska, supported
SB 42. This bill is not unconstitutional, he said. In fact, in
the mid-90s this situation went to court and it was ruled that
the personal use and subsistence fisheries were the same thing.
These fish belong to him; they're not commercial fishermen's
fish and not sportfishing fish. There is enough fish to go
around.
SENATOR STOLTZE thanked him for his consistent involvement in
the public process.
4:04:48 PM
DAN ANDERSON, representing himself, Homer, Alaska, opposed SB
42. Having personally witnessed the degradation of the habitat
and the chaos in the mouth of the Kasilof and Kenai Rivers and
watching the communities around them deal with all the carnage
from this type of activity he didn't know how anyone could
encourage this behavior. This is not the Alaska he moved his
family here to experience. "If you don't put the fish first,
what have we got? And if you degrade the habitat the fish won't
return."
4:06:37 PM
CATHERINE CASSIDAY, representing herself, Kasilof, Alaska,
opposed SB 42. She supported Cristy Fry's comments and wouldn't
repeat them. Senator Stoltze said this is a simple bill, but it
isn't. The unintended consequences for messing with the 80 PU
fisheries around the state are clearly beyond the author's
knowledge or understanding. This is why fishing regulations
should not be set by the legislature or by ballot initiative.
"Let the ADF&G and Board of Fisheries manage our fisheries."
4:08:17 PM
ROSS MULLINS, representing himself, Cordova, Alaska, opposed SB
42. He had been a commercial fisherman in Prince William Sound
since 1963. He is currently retired and living in poverty due to
the Exxon Valdez oil spill. He stated that the intent of the
personal use fishery is a noble one, but it needs to be highly
regulated, because these fish, at least in the Copper River, are
several hundred miles above the commercial fisheries. The
commercial fishermen are restricted in the early weeks in order
to ensure that a sufficient amount of fish get through the
fishery to provide adequate fish for the dipnetters in Chitina.
He was on the board of the Prince William Sound (PWS)
Aquaculture Corporation in its early days when the idea of
salmon enhancement was promoted through the hatchery programs,
which have become a fairly sustaining component of PWS
fisheries. PWS commercial fishermen fund a large portion of the
subsistence and dipnet fishery production by funding the Gulkana
Hatchery that produces red salmon. They did not want to see
their own efforts restricted due to the personal use upstream
fisheries.
He explained that the PU fisheries take fish that come through
after the commercial fishermen have had their opportunity. It is
highly regulated to get enough escapement into the high upstream
lakes and streams that produce the offspring that return in
later years. By giving the PU fishery priority there is no way
the ADF&G could manage these fisheries in an effective manner
and that will penalize sport and commercial fishermen to an
inordinate degree. Without the ability to maintain sufficient
escapement, the fisheries will ultimately be destroyed.
4:13:07 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL, finding no further comments, closed public
testimony.
SENATOR STEDMAN moved Amendment 1.
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: SB 42
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "to personal use fisheries when fishing
restrictions are"
Insert "for the imposition of fishing restrictions"
Page 1, lines 5 - 6:
Delete "Except as provided for subsistence uses of
fish stocks in AS 16.05.258, when the harvest of a
stock or species is limited to achieve a management
goal, the Board of Fisheries shall place restrictions
on all other fisheries"
Insert "When the harvest of a stock or species is
limited to achieve a management goal, the Board of
Fisheries may not place restrictions on commercial
fisheries"
CHAIR GIESSEL objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR STEDMAN explained that this amendment makes a bill that
had a pretty good intention better. This language puts the
prioritization of use to commercial fisheries. He pointed out
that the fishing industry will exceed the gross value of the
state's oil industry by $1 billion this year (oil is $7 billion
and fishing is $8 billion). Coming into 2017 it is by far the
biggest employer in the state and is active throughout all of
coastal Alaska, hugely active in Anchorage based on number of
permits.
4:15:54 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL reread the new language and then removed her
objection.
SENATOR STOLTZE objected to it, because it changes the nature of
the bill. He thinks there is already a defacto preference for
commercial fishing within the department. If Senator Stedman
would add some revenue to bump up that $22 million the general
fund already gets from fisheries a notch, he might go for the
amendment.
4:19:31 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN commented that taxation would not fit under the
title.
SENATOR COSTELLO quipped that every bill seems taxing these
days.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked for a roll call vote: Senator Stedman voted
yea; Senators Costello, Coghill, Stoltze, and Chair Giessel
voted nay; therefore Amendment 1 failed.
SENATOR STOLTZE said he would rather have this issue go through
the deliberative process than go through a voter initiative, and
this is the appropriate place for the legislature to advise the
Board of Fisheries. He moved to report SB 42, version 29-
LS0096\H, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note(s).
SENATOR STEDMAN objected.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked for a roll call vote: Senators Coghill,
Stoltze, Costello, and Chair Giessel voted yea; Senator Stedman
voted nay. Therefore SB 42 moved from committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB216-Amendment 2 in SRES-Coghill-4-14-2016.pdf |
SRES 4/14/2016 3:30:00 PM |
HB 216 |
| SB42-Amendment N.1-04-14-2016.PDF |
SRES 4/14/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 42 |