Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/17/1995 01:23 PM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 17, 1995
1:23 p.m.
Kodiak, Alaska
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Chairman
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Kim Elton
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl E. Moses, Vice-Chair
Representative Scott Ogan
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Discussion on:
HB 149: "An Act relating to the Board of Fisheries; and
providing for an effective date."
HB 141: "An Act relating to the appointment of members of the
Board of Fisheries."
HB 165: "An Act relating to membership on the Board of
Fisheries."
WITNESS REGISTER
NICK SZABO
P.O. Box 1633
Kodiak, AK 99615
Phone: 486-3853
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided general testimony
MARK KANDIANIS
F/V PROVIDER
Kodiak Fish Company
326 Center Ave., Suite 205
Kodiak, AK 99615
Phone: 486-3309
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 254
JEFF PETERSON
P.O. Box 141
Old Harbor, AK 99643
Phone: 286-2252
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided general testimony
AL BURCH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Alaska Draggers Association
P.O. Box 991
Kodiak, AK 99615
Phone: 486-6292
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 149 and Supported HB 254
CHRIS BERNS
Area K Seiners
P.O. Box 26
Kodiak, AK 99615
Phone: 486-5091
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 149
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-17, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN ALAN AUSTERMAN called the meeting to order at 1:23 p.m. at
the Golden Anchor Restaurant in Kodiak. He noted, for the record,
Representatives Davis and Elton were in attendance and that a
quorum was present. He explained that the purpose of the meeting
was just to take testimony on bills restructuring the Board of
Fisheries (BOF) and no action would be taken on any of them.
Number 039
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS asked if the committee had received much
input on this issue of restructuring the BOF?
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN indicated that he had received calls opposing SB
49 and its companion legislation, HB 149, and stated the importance
of the BOF. He said, "I just don't want to rush any bill through
that restructures that board without having time to look at it and
make sure that we're doing the proper thing."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he appreciated that the BOF conversation
was taking place.
Number 095
NICK SZABO introduced himself as a former BOF member of seven
years, from 1975 to 1982 and said, "I was chairman of the board
from the five years from 1977, until 1982. This was during Jay
Hammond's Administration. In fact, the first year, it was a Board
of Fish and Game. It was a combined board and it was (in) the
legislative session of 1975, the legislature chose to split it into
the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game." He testified, "I
think that we're dealing with a two-fold problem here and, I think
the basic structure of the board is a good one, having a citizen-
type board and keeping it to a small enough number, such as seven,
is a good concept, but over the years the legislature has been
constantly besieged with proposals to either expand the membership,
or to designate seats, certain types of seats and so forth. I
noticed that some of the bills speak to those types of things. The
problem I see is that we need to change the perception of the role
of board members. Too often I think, both the public, and possibly
the legislature because they're responding to their constituents,
think of the board as a mini-legislature where you have people who
represent either geographic areas, or they represent a particular
user group, or a particular gear type, and it's self-defeating to
try to accommodate that perception. There's just no way, with a
seven member board, you can accommodate every geographic area and
every user group. Even among sports fishermen, you have the so
called elite fly fishermen and then you have the sports fishermen
who just want to catch a fish anyway they can and take it home and
eat it. On the board I saw there were conflicts even among that so
you can't satisfy every user group. I think that we've got to
change the idea that board members are not supposed to be there
representing in the same way that a legislature represents a
particular faction or a particular constituency because, if they do
that, then it's at the expense of competing constituencies. The
other part of the problem is the very liberal interpretation the
courts have recently made with the conflict of interest law.
They've said that almost anybody with any interest gets
disqualified from voting so now you have: someone puts their
representative up there but then he can't vote and he can't
actually represent them because he's being disqualified because of
this ultra-liberal interpretation of the conflict of interest law.
Therein you have a real catch 22 problem. I think you need to sort
of refocus the public's perception of the role of the board
members. I think that it is important that the board members have
experience in a lot of different fisheries both commercial and
sport and subsistence, commercial in different areas of the state.
I don't think it really matters whether they hold an entry permit
or not as long as you get good quality people on there. That's the
key to the thing. Of course that's not your responsibility, it's
the Governor's responsibility to choose the people and of course
you have the confirmation ability to reject them if you don't think
they're qualified. But if the Governor would spend more time
trying to get good quality people, that are number one, smart
enough. As the chairman stated, the Board of Fishery is probably
one of the most, if not the most important board in the whole
state. So you need people, and the issues that they deal with are
very complex, and most of the issues the board deals with are
allocation issues. If it were strictly only biological issues than
you really wouldn't need a board the professional ADF&G department
staff could deal with those. The role of the board is to act as a
buffer between the public and the professional Fish and Game
staff."
Number 185
MR. SZABO continued, "You need people with experience and the
reason that you need people with a lot of experience in the
fisheries is because, unlike in the court system, when people come
to testify before the board, they don't take an oath that they're
telling the truth and the whole truth. They can come up and tell
the board anything they want and there's no way to actually verify
the validity of that information unless board members personally
have a good understanding of what the real world is all about.
Therefore, I think it's important that you have people with a wide
range of experience, people with a lot of intelligence and the
ability and the willingness to spend tremendous amount of time,
because it's not just the board meetings that people have to
attend. They're expected to attend local advisory committee
meetings. They're expected to interrelate with department staff.
It's much like your own job with the legislature. The public is
continually calling you up on the phone and writing you letters and
stopping you on the street, in the grocery stores and so forth,
letting you have the benefit of their specialized advise. It
requires a great amount of time. I think there is a value though,
I mean, theoretically, you could have everybody live in say, Homer,
and it really wouldn't make a difference as long as these people
had experience. But there is a value in having a geographic
representation because then, number one, you give more people more
direct access to at least one board member. So that they can
personally contact that person and relay their ideas and concerns
to them."
MR. SZABO continued, "The other reason for having geographic
representation is similar to the reason that the legislature has
committees that specialize in different issues or laws that deal
with different issues. Your Health and Social Services, and your
Natural Resources, and here we have a Special Committee on
Fisheries. The issues are so complex that no one board member,
similar to the legislature, can be an expert on every detail of
every facet of every issue. So it's useful to have board members
that are geographically distributed so that they cannot represent
that area, but they can specialize on the problems of that area,"
and said, "and really become the board's expert, so to speak, for
that area. Not that they represent that area in some allocation
conflict. There should be clear instructions to the board members,
they're not representing an area, they're just specializing in an
area and that is their specialized area of knowledge. If somehow
you could convey that through legislation. It's easy to say all
this but then it's another matter to write this into law. Then I
think we would have a better product."
Number 255
MR. SZABO added, "The other aspect of the problem which I mentioned
is this ultra-liberal interpretation by the courts of the Conflict
of interest law. When I was appointed to the board, there was a
mass resignation from the board because of the conflict of interest
law and Governor Hammond, actually it worked out well for him cause
he had a whole clean slate because the Board of Fish and Game at
the time resigned because of the legislature enactment of the
conflict of interest law. But our instructions at that time, from
the Department of Law were that, well you're supposed to act in the
public interest and even though you are part of a class, say you're
a fisherman in Bristol Bay, or a fisherman in Kodiak, as long as
the effect of the regulation doesn't benefit you exclusively, it
may benefit the class that you're in, as long as you can show that
you considered all the evidence and you voted for what you thought
was in the best interest of the public, then you ought to be able
to vote whether you had a vested interest in that fishery or not.
The board is so small and it requires four votes to move anything,
no matter how many votes are actually present that if you
disqualify two or three people, you tip the whole balance of the
board and you can have one or two people controlling the outcome
because you've already disqualified two or three already. So I
would hope that possibly, the legislature would consider not
exempting the board from the conflict of interest law but making it
similar to how the legislature operates. You're not exercising a
vote for yourself, your exercising a vote for the people of Alaska.
And you may have a vested interest in the outcome, but you should
go ahead and state what your interests are and then vote because
you can't have a situation where you disqualify everybody that has
some kind of interest in the outcome. I understand that they're
looking at an even more liberal interpretation. Now they have a
representative from the Department of Law at board meetings that
sort of has this sort of authority to say who can vote and who
can't. I think that's wrong. It would be almost the same as if
the members of the legislature that served on the Special Committee
on Fisheries couldn't vote when these (fisheries related) bills
came to the floor because they had more knowledge and more
expertise and they were involved in these bills and, therefore,
they shouldn't vote on them. That's almost what you're talking
about by disqualifying people with the most knowledge about a
situation. Because they are now saying that not only can you not
vote, you cannot discuss the issue, you cannot debate the issue, so
all of this expertise that you're supposed to have is completely
lost to the board. So that's my view of what the problem is.
Speaking specifically to some of the bills here, with all due
respect to our chairman, I guess I'm not that excited about
splitting the Board of Fisheries into a marine fisheries and a
freshwater fisheries. Particularly with salmon where you have to
have total management of the species throughout it's range. I
think you would have an unworkable situation whether it's the Kenai
River or the Bristol Bay systems or whatever where you had one
board regulating the harvest in the freshwater part of it and
another board regulating the harvest in the saltwater part of it.
I don't honestly see how that's a workable situation. I know there
have been proposals in the past to have a finfish board and
shellfish board. There have been proposals to have a regional
board but you still have the same problem because there's a lot of
overlapping jurisdictional problems when you start splitting these
things up."
Number 321
MR. SZABO concluded, "If you could change the perception and
possibly mandate some standards for the members that the Governor
had to follow. I think it also would be useful if there was a
requirement that board members went through some type of
orientation. I know I didn't when I was there and I don't know
whether they do now. I don't think they do. But similar to what
the freshman legislators go through. Where they really understand
what the law provides, what the conflict of interest law provides,
what their role is, and so they don't get off on the wrong foot as
far as thinking they're supposed to be representing a group when
they're really not supposed to be and that type of thing. I think
that might be useful. But otherwise I guess I would propose
leaving the basic structure the way it is."
Number 333
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN thanked Mr. Szabo for his testimony and said,
"HB 254, splitting the board: That whole concept behind that was
to hopefully address, at some point in time, the workload that the
board is under. By splitting it we thought, possibility, of
splitting that workload as well," and regarding HB 165 said, "I
think you made comments that regionalization of the board does have
some merit as long as the best people end up getting in the
positions."
MR. SZABO responded, "I was just looking at this HB 165, that
doesn't set up regional boards that just requires that the board
membership come from various regions, right? I'm not hung up one
this geographic representation other than like, I say, it's useful
to have a distribution so that the public can have more access. If
they're all concentrated in one area then it's the access the
public has to the individual board members. So I'm not sure I'm in
favor of specifying that there has to be a geographic
representation or not. I'm just saying it's a useful thing to
have. I think the most important thing is to have good quality
people." He said, "Other than having something as to the best
qualified, best educated people. I think you can say though that
they have to have experience and maybe you can mandate that they
have to have experience in more than one area of the state, or more
than two areas of the state, or more than one fishery of the state
but I think that's critical that you have to have people with a
broad base of experience. We had the problem when I was on the
board with some of the members on the board who had very limited
experience outside of their own particular area. They just didn't
understand what was going on in the rest of the state. So that's
why I think that it's so imperative that you have people with a
broad range of experience."
Number 402
MR. SZABO continued, "If I can shift over to this thing about time
that you were speaking of, the time thing was something that we
grappled with continuously when I was on the board. During the
time I was on the board was the enactment of the Magnuson Fisheries
Act, commonly known as the 200 mile law, the enactment of the
Alaska National Interest Lands Act, which provided for the federal
subsistence oversight that we're grappling with now, in addition to
the board meetings we were constantly going. I was traveling to
Washington D.C. on fisheries stuff with National Marine Fisheries
Service. We were dealing with the Department of the Interior
constantly trying to draft the state's position on the National
Interest Lands Act. It was just an inordinate amount of time and
we grappled with going on these three year cycles and trying to
limit public testimony. Every time you turned around though, the
public said well you can't limit public access, we need more
advisory committees. I don't know how much money we put into
upgrading the advisory committees. When I was on there it went
from 20 advisory committees to over 60 advisory committees.
Governor Hammond, that was his big thing. We had to upgrade the
advisory committee system so I think we tripled the number of
advisory committees and the public they complain about how long the
board meetings are and how long they have to sit there and wait for
their turn but when it becomes their turn, every individual wants
the board to spend, to study in great detail, every facet of every
issue that pertains to them. It's just an unwinable situation and
I don't know what the solution is. I know there's people that are
opposed to the concept of having a professional board and I guess
I'm not real keen on that idea either. I know we have members of
the Limited Entry Commission here and I have great respect for all
of what they've done, but I would hate to see the board would turn
into something like that where you had three people concentrated in
Juneau that have political appointed jobs that they felt they had
to play the whole political game in order to maintain their jobs
and so forth. But yet, how can you expect a person, with the
amount of time that it takes, how can you expect a person to make
a living outside of all this and still make a fair living for their
family, unless they're semi-retired or independently wealthy or
whatever, the average person cannot spend the amount of time that's
demanded by the public without some fair compensation. So I think
it might be of value to have maybe a quasi professional board where
at least you got compensated, say maybe even to the same range as
a department head, or something like that, for the amount of time
that you spend at board meetings and so forth. Because right now
you're burning people out. I was on there for seven years and I
think that's one of the longest times except for Gordon Jensen from
Southeastern who was on there for 20. You're just burning people
out after every two years and the whole arguments about term limits
aside, I think it is useful to have some historical perspective and
some continuity so that you're not continually replowing the same
ground all the time. So I think it is beneficial to have people
stay for more than one term but you can't expect people to do that
if they can't make a living outside of the large amount of time
that they spend on the board."
Number 448
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON said, "I think we're getting to the point
where a person who wants to serve on the board is maybe too crazy
to put on the board. It's an incredible demand on your time. A
person tends to, over time, make more enemies than friends," and,
"I share your concern that we're not only taking from a rather
small pool of people who can take the time to do it, but you're
also narrowing that pool because of the demands that are placed on
it and the terrible nature of the job. And the scary part is that
we're now getting proposals that do lead to a three person
professional board." He emphasized, "The public's perception being
that a region needs to represented, or a user group needs to be
represented, but I guess from my relative short time in the
legislature, even more scary about what the public perception
(indisc.) is what the legislative perception of what the Board of
Fisheries should be and I don't know how you get around the problem
of changing the public's perception. I think there needs to be
some attention paid on the part of everybody involved in the
industry, commercial side and the sport side, on what the
legislative perception (is) because the legislative perception I
think is becoming more and more destructive to the board process.
Because there is a tremendous political drive toward
regionalization, towards making sure a user group is represented on
the board. It's not just the Legislative Branch, it's also the
Executive Branch. I don't know how you get around that other than
keeping after us who are involved in the confirmation process or
keeping after the Governor."
Number 478
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said, "The biggest concern I have I think that
you indicated is where the board might become similar to the
legislature where you're almost campaigned for the board or someone
campaigns for you where then a particular person is brought forward
by a group and they've campaigned for him, they've promoted him,
they've lobbied for his appointment. Not only in the Governor's
Office but in the legislature and that person representing that
group is put on that board after all this campaigning, promoting
and lobbying. So who's he going to protect on that board? He's
supposed to be looking at the overall picture like you indicate."
He also stated, "It appears that that approach has been expanding
itself, promoting itself more in the last two or three cycles of
appointments than previously. That's the big concern I have and if
that approach continues then the whole value of a citizen board is
going to be mute. It won't be there."
Number 505
MARK KANDIANIS, F/V PROVIDER, Kodiak Fish Company, testified
saying, "I have resided in Kodiak, Alaska since 1980. I have been
registered with the state of Alaska for scallop fishing for fifteen
years and worked under Alaska's fish and game regulations for the
same period. In 1990, I attended a fisheries meeting in Kodiak
chaired by Senator Ted Stevens on the pending vessel moratorium for
vessels fishing in the federal waters off Alaska. I found out at
this meeting that this vessel moratorium would not apply to the
scallop fishery. There had never been a federal management plan
written for this species, though this fishery has taken place off
Alaska in federal waters since the late 60s. In 1991, I started
talking to Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the North Pacific
Management Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service about
developing a Fisheries Management plan for scallops in the EEZ
(exclusive economic zone) waters off Alaska. It has been a long
process with little reward. A moratorium control date was set for
July 1, 1993. Still after this date, new arrivals from the
collapsed overcapitalized east coast fishery entered the scallop
fishery here. The control date was moved ahead after some
questionable lobbying and the new arrivals' efforts to invalidate
the original control date in the federal register in Washington
D.C. All of these new entrants arrived with two boats each. Some
of the earlier ones came with unusually large crews. The results
were quick depletion of some localized stocks and intense scrutiny
of potential bycatch problems. Since the arrival of these new
boats, we have had regulation upon regulation imposed on us as well
more than doubling of the fleet size. We started the process of
developing a management plan with the intent of trying to maintain
a viable fishery and we have come out this process the biggest
losers period. Our fishing time and income has been cut in less
than half. We are now outnumbered by the newly arrived east coast
scallop boats by more than two to one. All of the long time
participants in the Alaska scallop fishery are now suffering severe
financial distress without exception. This appears to be the
reward for years of hard work trying to maintain a once viable
fishery."
Number 638
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there is scalloping within the three
mile limit.
MR. KANDIANIS indicated approximately 25 percent of the scallop
fishery in the last five or six years took place within three
miles. He added, "And after this episode with `Mr. Big,' it looks
like the state may lose its management outside of three miles out
to the EEZ, unless there's a change in the Magnuson Act or the
council somehow can delegate authority back to the state. It's a
real dilemma. The scallop fishery is just the tip of the iceberg.
It also will apply to other fisheries in the Gulf here and possibly
the Bering Sea, the crab fisheries. A little known fishery like
ling cod could be affected. It's quite a dilemma. And this outfit
from the east coast is taking it to the test and proven himself
right so far."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if the North Pacific Management Council is
currently in the process of planning for fisheries in this area.
MR. KANDIANIS said, "They're probably going to come up with some
kind of plan but all these new management regimes that we've worked
hard to work with the state to developed may have to be completely
redone again under the federal guidelines. And I know that the
state does not want to lose management of the fishery. It's a
pretty tough deal and, again, the same applies to species such a
crab in the Gulf and possibly up in the Bering Sea. I don't know
if anybody would be foolish enough to test it up in the Bering Sea
but it's still out there."
Number 658
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said in reference to HJR 25, "It sounds like
a similar situation that Representative Grussendorf brought to us
a couple of weeks ago." He added, "The Governor, the other day,
indicated he's working with NMFS to reinstitute state control in
state waters. To what degree, what stage they're at, and what the
opportunities are to any favorable outcome in the negotiations,
it's still yet to be seen."
MR. KANDIANIS said, "We're being held hostage by the whole process
and we've been the backbone of the fishery for the last 15 years
and we're losing every day. The only scenario that we see, the
outcome for us to come out of this, is that IFQ problem which gives
the historical participants the most favorable quota share and the
longer we delay, these guys who just showed up from the east coast,
after we had already come up and developed the plan, they come in
on the tail end of the deal, with a couple of boats each and the
longer we delay, or if it takes five years, all that past history
that we had is lost and gone. These guys (indisc.) boats from
South Carolina and Virginia, they walk away with the fishery. The
residents of the state would lose."
MR. KANDIANIS then commented about the BOF saying, "We see this
board process: It's become an inshore sport board and they're
making policies for offshore fisheries which is Magnuson Act. You
may not even have that option anymore. There's a lot of offshore,
large boat fisheries that the new inshore sport board is making
legal things on and they don't have a clue as to what's going on.
We'd like to maybe see a split board or an interjurisdictional
board to handle those kinds of problems. I wouldn't want to sit on
a board and discuss salmon issues. I've always pretty much fished
offshore fisheries and I wouldn't want to be in that position,"
and, "Every three years we get five minutes to testify for
something that our whole life depends on."
TAPE 95-17, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked, "What's your perception of the advisory
groups in the pre-board process, do you use those?"
MR. KANDIANIS replied, "For the most part, the advisory boards seem
to be comprised mostly of salmon, herring and game people. We have
an advisory meeting here and we get finally something worked out
and it might be something that's actually happening down at Sand
Point or Dutch Harbor and we never know when those are going to
take place."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked, "So you're saying that for your portion
of the industry anyway, the subgroups, the pre-board process is not
all that beneficial?"
Number 045
MR. KANDIANIS clarified, "It really does have it's place for the
inshore fisheries," and, "And they do seem to do well with those.
It's always controversial but they do seem to work things out. And
we'd like to have the same opportunities. Only with our own
offshore board."
JEFF PETERSON testified, "I grew up commercial fishing with my
father. He doesn't fish anymore. He lost his permit to the I.R.S.
and when I was growing up he insisted that I have a background in
(something) other than commercial fishing to fall back on. So I
went into the Marine Corps for four years and got a military police
training and became a village public safety officer. What I've
seen in the last week when we had the BOF meeting is, and that was
the first time I ever attended a meeting and participated, what I
see lacking on the fish board, it's not lacking but I see a
potential for it, is the original, the status quo of subsistence,
commercial and sport. It's not being followed in this state.
There's only a few native people attending the meeting to testify
and here you're discussing who can catch what fish and here we're
talking about large numbers of fish caught by draggers and the
bottom line is you've got to maintain your resource and not worry
about making a living for next year and this year, you've got to be
worrying about keeping the fishery alive forever instead of having
the user group move from east coast, the Gulf of Mexico, to the
west coast, now up in Alaska, now they're going to go to Russia
because they're going to fish out the area. People want a board
that live right here, right next to the water year 'round. You
can't have somebody coming in from a fishery that died off on the
east coast sitting on the board, just because he claimed residency
in Alaska. I believe you have to have somebody that lives in
Alaska year 'round, grew up here, lives here, intends to live here.
Those are the people you want on the board because we want to see
this ocean stay as it is right now."
Number 112
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN agreed that the first priority in all decision
making should be the fish resource.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS commented that many Alaska fishery decisions
are made by the federal government in Washington, D.C.
Number 156
AL BURCH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, Alaska Draggers Association,
testified, "First off, the BOF and the North Pacific Council need
to be complimented on the excellent job that they have both done
protecting the fisheries over the years. We still have fish. The
east coast doesn't," and "I became involved when the board was the
Board of Fish and Game. They met maybe a week to ten days. They
took care of all the fish and game issue during that short period
of time. The state has grown, the fisheries have evolved. We have
a BOF, we have a Board of Game, and they're both overloaded.
Absolutely overloaded with the work that they have to do. I've
read these bills. I don't agree with a professional board at all.
I don't know if we need it by geographical areas or if we need it
by gear type fisheries interest, but something needs to be done.
Things aren't going to get easier. We have a tremendous whitefish
fisheries here. We had the state involved for a short time. We
had a budget for a bottom fish person here in Kodiak. The person
went to American Samoa, the money went to the King Crab fisheries.
They didn't refill the position. That was the last time the state
was really involved in the bottom fish fisheries. We have one
person in Southeast now that takes care of the black cod inside, a
bottom fish biologist down there. Very, very minimal involvement.
If the state does get involved in whitefish management then we
would have to have a separate board, a board of interjurisdictional
fishers. As it was stated before, we need people on that board
that understand our fisheries. The makeup of the board now is
salmon. They hear some very, very controversial issues. We just
went through one here in Kodiak and Kodiak won this time,
proposition 333. Next year we might not. It comes up again in
November. But those people are (indisc.), they sat down, they
listened to the fishermen, they understood the issues and they made
what I felt was a fair decision. That same board in the five
minutes that I would have before that board, I could not even begin
to educate those people to the issues of whitefish. So something
does have to be done with the board. I don't see the answers here.
I wrote a letter to Rod Swope when Cooper was in, about a five page
letter stating what I thought would be an answer, I copied that
letter, ran it through the copy machine and sent it to Tony.
Before the transition team met that letter got into (indisc.) I
still believe that that's the way to go, we should have a third
board."
Number 237
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN confirmed that Mr. Burch supported HB 254 which
creates a separate board for groundfish.
MR. BURCH also stated that he would like to see the Alaska Marine
Safety Education Association's (AMSEA) budget supported. He said,
"We feel that AMSEA's doing an excellent job."
Number 282
CHRIS BURNS, AREA K SEINERS, testified that the Legislative
Research Agency had found no precedent in any state for a
professional board overseeing natural resource issues. He said, "I
think that a professional board would be purely experimental and
since it would be experimental, you wouldn't know the outcome and
we have a lot to lose in this state as we are basically natural
resource based. I think it's a pretty far out idea, myself." He
then described the recent decision on the Kodiak versus Cook Inlet
issue and added, "What the BOF found at this last meeting here in
Kodiak (is) they didn't have enough scientific information like
scale-pattern analysis and genetic code sampling, things like that
they know for sure what's going on. They were doing things like
weighted averages and stuff off of fish tickets to determine what
was going on and they found that the science was really lacking
there. But all this other science is fairly costly and with the
ADF&G budget being basically down to forty million dollars and even
threatened to go below that, there isn't enough money to get good
science. So what we're going to end up with is basically just a
bunch of fighting going on with no way to prove a point unless you
just rake out the money and hire your own biologist and then come
in with a biased biologist on one side or the other. So obviously,
the best thing to do would be to get more money into the Fish and
Game budget, not to go to any other area except some kind of
genetic studies or scale pattern studies in salmon. That would
save a lot of allocation issues." He added, "If we had scale
pattern analysis of the fish that we catch I think that we would
come out good with the Anchorage people and they would find,
because of timing of the fish we catch and everything doesn't match
up to the rivers that are lacking in Anchorage. But what we would
find is that we might have a problem with the Canadian's hatchery
fish. So we might be getting into jumping out of the frying pan
into the fire."
MR. BURNS said, "The Canadians are playing real hard ball with us.
If Alaska was Iceland or Russia or England, they have battleships
out fighting over little pieces of rock they have 200 miles around.
Alaska is just playing like `Oh yea, it's okay we'll pamper you
guys between Ketchikan and Seattle, that little coast of Canadian
water there.' The Canadians aren't letting our boats pass safely.
And you know the only reason that we don't control halibut in state
waters is because of the IPHC treaty we have with Canada. If a guy
really wanted to play hard ball, he'd dissolve the treaty."
Number 402
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON agreed, "Because of the Fish and Game budget,
I think that the Board is relying an awful lot more on 'seat of the
pants' kind of stuff. Anecdotal information. I think that is a
very very dangerous situation. And as you say, sometimes good
knowledge can hurt but at least it's good knowledge."
MR. BURNS said any increments in the ADF&G budget should go towards
"people doing the scientific work."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if there were presently increments
included in the budget for a scale pattern studies.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON indicated that there was no such increment and
cuts would be coming for Bering Sea crab research.
Number 450
MR. PETERSON voiced concern about the chum salmon shortage in the
Yukon River.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN adjourned the meeting at 2:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|