Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/12/1995 05:06 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
April 12, 1995
5:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Chairman
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Scott Ogan
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Moses, Vice Chairman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Confirmation Hearings for Trefon Angasan and Dr. John White to the
Board of Fish.
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HB 292: "An Act relating to searches by peace officers who
enforce fish and game laws and to false statements and
omissions in regard to application for fish and game
licenses, tags, and permits."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HB 296: "An Act relating to the authority of the State of
Alaska over fish and game."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HJR 38: Relating to reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act.
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HB 254: "An Act relating to the management of fish and aquatic
plants; establishing the Board of Salmon and
Freshwater Fisheries and the Board of Marine
Fisheries; and providing for an effective date."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
TREFON ANGASAN
Box 100-220
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Telephone: 265-7829
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided brief statement
DR. JOHN WHITE
Post Office Box 190
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: 543-3778
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided brief statement
DALE BONDURANT
HC 1 Box 1197
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: 262-0818
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported both confirmations, Supported HB 292,
and Supported HB 296
JOHN GLASS, Colonel
Alaska Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507-1225
Telephone: 269-5509
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 292
JOE RYAN, Legislative Assistant
Representative Al Vezey
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 216
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: 465-3258
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Sponsor Statement for HB 296
MIM ROBINSON, Chairman
Port Alexander Fish and Game Advisory Committee
Post Office 8045
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: 568-2236
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns about HB 296
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Post Office Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99811-5526
Telephone: 465-6143
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns about HB 296 and
Supported HJR 38
MARTIN WEINSTEIN, Assistant Attorney General
Alaska Department of Law
Post Office Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns about HB 296
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 216
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: 465-3258
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HB 296
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 292
SHORT TITLE: FISH & GAME ENFORCEMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) OGAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/05/95 1026 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/05/95 1026 (H) FSH, JUDICIARY
04/12/95 (H) FSH AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 296
SHORT TITLE: STATE AUTHORITY OVER FISH AND GAME
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/05/95 1027 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/05/95 1027 (H) FSH, RESOURCES
04/12/95 (H) FSH AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HJR 38
SHORT TITLE: MAGNUSON FISHERY CONSERVATION & MGMT ACT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) AUSTERMAN,Navarre,Grussendorf
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/24/95 895 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/24/95 895 (H) FSH, RESOURCES
04/05/95 (H) FSH AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/05/95 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/10/95 (H) FSH AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/12/95 (H) FSH AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 254
SHORT TITLE: ESTABLISH TWO FISH BOARDS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) AUSTERMAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/15/95 742 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/15/95 742 (H) FISHERIES, FINANCE
04/12/95 (H) FSH AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-22, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Special Committee on Fisheries was called to order by
Chairman Alan Austerman at 5:06 p.m. Members present at the call
to order were Representatives Davis, Elton and Ogan. The meeting
was on teleconference with Anchorage, Bethel, Port Alexander, and
Soldotna.
CONFIRMATION HEARING - BOARD OF FISH
Number 033
TREFON ANGASAN, testified via teleconference from Bethel, giving a
brief statement to the committee. He stated that he is a lifelong
commercial fishermAn, holds a drift permit for the Bristol Bay
fishery and employed by the Bristol Bay Native Corporation. He
commented, "I have followed the Board of Fish process, since the
inception of the board process. I've attended nearly all the
meetings." He further stated, "I've always been a strong advocate
of the board process as a way to regulate the fishery. I was first
appointed to the board in 1992. When I came to the board, I
believe that I was fair with all the people." He believes that
people should have fair and equal access to the Board of Fish. He
also indicated that he has a strong interest in the conservation of
the resource.
Number 094
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked Mr. Angasan if he was still commercial
fishing.
MR. ANGASAN responded in the affirmative.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN also asked Mr. Angasan if he had any comments
about the False Pass, Kodiak and Cook Inlet intercept issues.
MR. ANGASAN answered that because of the way the conflict of
interest laws are written, he was usually excluded from the False
Pass issues.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN clarified that his comments were directed more
to the issue of intercept fisheries.
MR. ANGASAN stated that fishermen have a right to make a living.
He went on to say that it's a waste of time to try and put other
fisheries out of business. He also believes that conservation has
got to be the highest priority. He said, "When we're dealing with
conservation, there needs to be a balanced historical harvest from
both ends of the user chain and incorporate that into the
management plan. I think when we see growth in the interception of
certain stocks that it has its entitlement to sound management for
conservation. I know that terminal fisheries for example, don't
fish until the escapement goals have been achieved. So that's the
difference between a terminal fishery and a mixed stock fishery,
where they're allowed a quota."
MR. ANGASAN went on to say that the Area M fishery is assured of an
escapement goal. Because of this, the intercept fishery is a
viable part of the economy in the False Pass area. The Cook Inlet
and Kodiak situation is completely different. He remarked, "There
isn't that much information regarding the level of intercept, if
you will, in the Kodiak fishery. I know that Kodiak is a
historical fishery. The Native people and the Native villages have
thrived on the salmon for hundreds of years." He expressed that
the level of interception is a hard one to call for the Kodiak
area, because of the lack of information.
Number 187
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS asked Mr. Angasan for a simple definition
of sustained yield.
MR. ANGASAN responded, "Sustained yield is the ability to
perpetuate a fishery through conservation and allow for an orderly
extraction of that resource."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS followed up by asking Mr. Angasan how he felt
about fishermen who have obtained a permit to be a commercial sport
fish guide or a commercial drift and setnet fisherman.
MR. ANGASAN related that there needs to be a controlled harvest.
The historical catch of the fishery has to be looked at and
allocated accordingly. He remarked, "Things aren't constant. As
growth and population occur, we need to incorporate some of that.
But I also think that there needs to be some safety net to radical
changes in the fishery. We need to avoid those kinds of situations
where radical changes occur where one user group is reaping all of
the benefits and eliminate those that have historically caught fish
in the area."
Number 246
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON asked Mr. Angasan if he was comfortable
with the review process in Cook Inlet, as proposed by the Governor.
MR. ANGASAN asserted that it is helpful if more people are involved
with the process. The Cook Inlet issue needs as much information
as possible. He mentioned that he is a strong advocate of personal
use fishery in the Cook Inlet fishery.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked Mr. Angasan if he had any final comments.
MR. ANGASAN commended the committee for having this hearing in
spite of the current workload of the legislature.
Number 288
DR. JOHN WHITE testified via teleconference from Bethel. He
pointed out that he has been a member of several committees, task
forces and coalitions dealing with fisheries. He is currently the
president of the Salmon Research Foundation. He stated for the
record, "My philosophy basically grinds down to, treat fairly those
people that come before you, be a very careful listener about what
people have to say and know always that your constituency is not
particularly any individuals from the state of Alaska. Your
constituency is also the way of the fish."
Number 330
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked Dr. White if he was still commercially
fishing.
DR. WHITE said that he is a drift gill netter in the Kuskokwim
area.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked Dr. White if he could also respond to his
earlier question about the intercept issues.
DR. WHITE detailed, "The most important thing is that people who
are involved in the contentious of over-resolving the problem,
should have gotten together a long time ago and figured out the
research that was needed and the constructions of progressive
management plans to (indisc.--coughing) rate the effects of those
fisheries. That has to start with the stake holders. If those
kinds of things would have gone on in the Area M fishery, 10 or 12
years ago, I think many of our problems would have been solved."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN thanked Dr. White for his willingness to serve
on the board. He asked him if he had any further comments.
DR. WHITE thanked the committee for taking the time to conduct
these hearings.
Number 370
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON commented that he certainly didn't want to
switch jobs with either one of these two gentlemen.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS moved the names of Dr. John R. White and Mr.
Trefon Angasan from committee to the Resources Committee without
indicating any position from this committee.
Number 385
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked the Chair if the confirmations were
going on to the Resources Committee.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN replied in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objects to all these confirmation type motions
that are made in this way. He stated that he supports the
nominees.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN hearing no objections, ordered both names to the
Resource Committee.
HB 292 - FISH AND GAME ENFORCEMENT
Number 404
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN briefly outlined the advantages of HB 292. He
read from his sponsor statement that these proposed changes would
enable the Alaska Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection (ADFWP)
to more effectively enforce the residency requirements for
licenses, tags, and permits, and to reduce court dismissals, by
clarifying that false residency statements are strict liability
violations, that can result in a misdemeanor conviction and require
a bail set by the bail schedule and reduce the officers' paperwork
burden, so that they can devote more time to enforcement duties.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN added that the sponsor statement serves as a
sectional analysis and would be happy to go over that with the
committee.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN suggested that Representative Ogan go ahead and
explain what this proposed legislation does.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to his sponsor statement in advising
the committee as to the current requirements of issuing a statement
of intent to search. He did specify that adoption of this bill
would not change the requirement that the ADFWP would still have to
have probable cause. He also reported that another area of concern
when prosecuting residency cases, deals with the culpable mental
standard of "knowingly" currently used in AS 16.05.420. HB 292
also updates the penalty to reflect the new strict liability nature
of the offense of "unsworn falsification." He went on to elaborate
with a couple examples.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN opened the testimony to teleconference
participants.
Number 490
DALE BONDURANT testified via teleconference from Soldotna, in
support of HB 292. His one concern was if it was specifically
named at tier two. He certainly is opposed to this type of
exclusion of people in Alaska to participate. He was also in full
support of the two Board of Fish nominees.
Number 512
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked Representative Ogan to respond to Mr.
Bondurant's concerns about tier two.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN specified that this was not directed at tier
two, however, there are problems in tier two applications and some
falsification that goes on. In an effort to prosecute the worst
cases, it could apply to tier two. His main focus was hunting and
fishing licenses and the out-of-state tags that are not purchased.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Colonel Glass how widespread the problem
of falsification is.
Number 537
COLONEL JOHN GLASS, Alaska Division of Fish and Wildlife
Protection, testified via teleconference from Anchorage, in
response to Representative Ogan's question. He did not know how
many there are. In response to Mr. Bondurant's concerns he stated,
"This is more specifically aimed for the licensing portion of
individuals who claim the 12-month residency, when in fact they
have not been residents for the 12-month period of time that's
required. As to the tier two permits, Major Russel informs me that
the Board of Game just recently passed some regulations under five
(5) Alaska Administrative Codes (AAC) in which it specifically
addressed those concerns."
Number 555
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked Colonel Glass about the intent to search
form (12-504) and whether the protection officers needed a
magistrate to sign those.
COLONEL GLASS responded that if they fail to fill one of these out,
any evidence they seize would be of no value to them in court. But
he did state, "It does not at all make or change any differences as
for as obtaining a search warrant." He further indicated that this
form was a redundant piece of paper that doesn't serve any purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS commented that his support for this bill is
growing since it also seems to be a paper reduction act.
COLONEL GLASS agreed with Representative Davis and added that it
will not cause any hardship on a suspect, because they are still
bound by the laws of search and seizure.
Number 585
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Colonel Glass if a license is classified
as a paper that would fall under the constitutional prohibition for
a warrantless search.
COLONEL GLASS indicated that he wasn't sure if he understood the
question. But he did give a case scenario to try and explain how
this form is used in the field. He related, "If I come across you
hunting in Unit 19, you have your tent there and I ask you if I can
search your tent for evidence of a set of moose antlers. And you
give me that consent to search. I then have to issue this form
advising you that you've given me the consent to search your tent.
It does not in any way allow me to search that, if it's against
your wishes to search that tent."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON followed up by asking, "If you ask a sports
fisherman for his license, he has to give you consent before you
can look at the license?"
COLONEL GLASS said it was a separate issue. They are not required
to have a search warrant to ask for a fishing license. People have
to show it to them under different laws.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON ended with a question about how many of the
ADFWP's officers are seasonal temporaries and how many of them are
full-time employees.
COLONEL GLASS replied that their current staffing level is 81 field
commissioned officers. He also indicated that there is between 20
and 25 seasonal employees that have no enforcement authority at
all.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON commented that the seasonal aides would not be
covered.
COLONEL GLASS confirmed this was true.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS made a motion to move HB 292 out of committee
with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN hearing no objections, ordered HB 292 moved out
of the Fisheries Committee to the Judiciary Committee.
HB 296 - STATE AUTHORITY OVER FISH AND GAME
Number 639
JOE RYAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Al Vezey, read
the following sponsor statement for HB 296 into the record:
"HB 296, `An Act relating to the authority of the State of
Alaska over fish and game' would codify the primacy of the
state of Alaska over the federal government on matters
concerning the management of fish and game resources. It
is a state's right enjoyed by 49 other states.
"The power to manage fish and game was given to the state of
Alaska as a condition of our becoming a state and as a
condition of entry into the Union. This power cannot be
abridged or altered, except by mutual agreement of the
people of the state of Alaska and the federal government.
"This bill will give the state of Alaska a tool with which it
can enforce the right of the state to manage its fish and game
resources. The bill also provides that state funds cannot be
used to implement or enforce federal fish and game
regulations.
"This bill will send a message to the Congress and people of
the United States that the state of Alaska or an agency
created by the state, will be the only one permitted to
manage fish and game within the borders of the state of
Alaska."
Number 650
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked how this piece of legislation would
affect the United States/Canadian salmon negotiations, Magnuson Act
and some of the other federal and state protocols that we have in
place for the management of fisheries resources.
MR. RYAN explained that it has been a policy of the U.S. Department
of State on managing those matters of foreign policy not to consult
the state of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON commented that he felt there was state
participation because of the activities of our two U.S. Senators,
our U.S. Congressman and the authorization of the Magnuson Act. He
is concerned about the affect this bill would have on those
protocols if this was to be enacted.
MR. RYAN said that he really didn't know. This was a broad policy
statement that the sponsor felt the legislature should adopt.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON indicated that he would hold any further
questions for the Alaska Department of Law.
Number 681
MR. BONDURANT testified via teleconference from Soldotna, in
support of this proposal. He also voiced his opinion about Senate
Joint Resolution 19 and its shortcomings. He is amazed that the
state pays agency personnel to assist the federal subsistence board
in enforcing Title 8 of the Alaska Native Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA), after the Supreme Court tell us that
Title 8 is in conflict with the Alaska State Constitution.
Number 695
MIM ROBINSON, Chairman, Port Alexander Fish and Game Advisory
Committee, testified via teleconference from Sitka, indicating that
residents have written a letter to the Governor concerning cuts to
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game budget.
TAPE 95-22, SIDE B
Number 000
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, had concerns about this piece of legislation. He stated,
"It's our impression that this legislation is primarily motivated
by the conflict that has existed between the ANILCA and the State
Constitution. However, it also extends over into a lot of other
arenas, where the state government and the federal government
cooperate, in many instances very much to the state's benefit." He
specified that the Pacific Salmon Treaty, Magnuson Fishery and
Conservation Act, International Halibut Treaty and the Migratory
Bird Treaty are a few examples of how the state and federal
government cooperate. He further specified, "In all of these
arenas, the ultimate decision making authority rests with the
federal government, but the state as a member of the negotiating
team, as a player at the table, has very significant input into the
kind of program the federal government develops."
MR. BRUCE commented that if we go further in polarizing our
relationship with the federal government, it will jeopardize some
of those areas of cooperation, which have been very beneficial to
the state of Alaska. He mentioned that many of the fish and
wildlife that the state manages or participates in, are highly
migratory species and they only spend a portion of their life in
Alaska. He said, "Whether we want to manage them entirely or not,
it is not within our power to manage them entirely because they do
not, their life cycles are not limited to the state of Alaska. We
require the cooperation of other states and in some cases, other
countries, in order to develop and implement successful management
programs which provide for the sustained yield use of these
resources for Alaskans." He further remarked that if we as a state
can't participate in these joint forums, the state would be
jeopardizing major tools they use in assuring Alaskans get their
fair share of these resources.
MR. BRUCE spoke to Section 1 (d) of HB 296. He wasn't sure what
this section would do in respect to the Pacific Salmon Commission.
He specified, "Several fisheries in Southeast Alaska, are managed
under annexes of that salmon treaty. This is an international
treaty. Of course, since it is an international treaty, the
federal government is the signatory for Alaska and the rest of the
United States." He went on to say, "This treaty has essentially
had a preemptive impact on the management of these salmon resources
within Southeast Alaska. However, I don't think that the passage
of this law is going to make this treaty go away." Additionally he
stated, "People from Washington and Oregon have requested
significant reductions, more than 50 percent reductions, in the
Chinook salmon harvest in Southeast Alaska. Every time those
proposals have come forward, the Alaskan negotiating team has been
able to go to the table and successfully beat those back and get a
much larger allocation for Southeast Alaska. It's our
interpretation of this Section 1 (d), that we would not be able to
do that any more."
MR. BRUCE wrapped up by saying the federal government provides tens
of millions of dollars to the state of Alaska to manage fish and
wildlife. He felt it was in the best interest of the state to
maintain that funding.
Number 184
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referred to Section 1 (d), lines 4, 5 and 6 of
HB 296. He asked if it would take a law to continue the North
Pacific Salmon Management Treaty.
MR. BRUCE replied that he felt it would require a state law or
regulation because of the language contained in Section 1 (d), but
would do nothing to negate the federal law that is in place.
Number 232
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Bruce, as an example, what would
happen if this law was in effect and the state of Alaska determined
that they were going to take more Chinook salmon, because it wasn't
worth taking any cuts to preserve a total of six Snake River fish.
MR. BRUCE responded that the Endangered Species Act is a player in
the Pacific Salmon Commission. He advised, "Because there are some
listed species harvested in Alaska, we have to get a Section 7
permit from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to even
conduct any level of Chinook salmon harvest in Southeast Alaska.
If we told the federal government, we were not going to comply with
the terms of the treaty, we would probably not get a Section 7
permit from the NMFS. We would forego any commercial and
recreational Chinook harvest in Southeast Alaska."
Number 266
MARTIN WEINSTEIN, Assistant Attorney General, Alaska Department of
Law, testified with concerns about HB 296. He followed up on a
couple of points, as laid out by Mr. Bruce. In regards to Section
1 (d) of this bill he asserted, "As we manage the state resources,
even under state law, we're going to be constrained by certain
federal laws." He further specified, "We can't manage our
resources inconsistent with these federal laws." His impression
was that we leave ourselves wide open for civil and criminal
violations under the Endangered Species Act.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked Mr. Weinstein why couldn't we manage our
resources inconsistent with federal regulations.
MR. WEINSTEIN specified that federal law supersedes state law.
Number 310
MR. RYAN spoke again to the committee. He said, "We have a bone of
contention in the state, of who actually owns the resources. We
have a constitutional state Supreme Court ruling that said what
these are. We have, as I've included in the small packet, a copy
of the Statehood Agreement, that says the management of fish and
game will be the conditions under which it will be turned over to
the state."
Number 342
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON expressed his feelings about how we can change
things we don't like within the parameters of the law. He is
offended by this piece of legislation.
Number 353
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS commented that this bill says we don't care
what laws are in position in the federal government. He felt we
would wind up in court if this legislation were to become law. He
shared that this bill would state an opinion from the legislature
over some related subsistence court cases that are still pending.
He suggested that they hold HB 296 until they can hear from the
sponsor on some of the questions and issues raised before the
committee.
Number 393
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that he too, was committed to getting
the federal government out of the management of our fish and
wildlife. But he felt there were enough legal complications with
HB 296 that he questioned the wisdom of proceeding with this bill.
Number 403
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN indicated that HB 296 would be held until
Representative Vezey is available to discuss it further with the
committee.
HJR 38 - MAGNUSON FISHERY CONSERVATION & MANAGEMENT ACT
Number 414
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN spoke as the prime sponsor of this resolution
and read his own sponsor statement into the record:
"House Joint Resolution 38 speaks to the upcoming Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management Act reauthorization
which was last re-authorized in Congress for a period of
three years and is set to expire at the end of this year.
The Act serves two purposes: 1) to make a national claim
on the fisheries resources of the continental shelf in the
band of marine waters from 3 to 200 miles offshore -- the
exclusive economic zone (EEZ); and 2) to set up a system
for managing and conserving the fisheries resources within
the zone. To meet this management and conservation aim,
Congress created the Regional Fishery Management Council
system. Alaska is represented on the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council.
"In creating the Council system, Congress recognized the
strong interest coastal states had in the fisheries
resources of the EEZ off their shores. Congress charges
the Councils with the primary responsibilities for
determining management policy, within the EEZ, and
mandates that the voting members of each of the eight
regional Councils be drawn from the relevant coastal
states. There is only one voting member representing
the federal government on each Council.
"The North Pacific Fishery Management Council is unique
among the eight regional Councils created by Congress.
This Council is the only one assigned the EEZ lying
directly and entirely off the coast of a single state --
Alaska. All of the other Councils' regions of authority
span multiple state coastlines. Congress recognized this
uniqueness, as well as the historic participation in the
fisheries off Alaska by residents of Washington and Oregon,
when prescribing the voting membership of the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council. There are 6 votes from Alaska,
3 from Washington, 1 from the National Marine Fisheries
Service.
"Maintaining that Alaska majority on the NPFMC is one of
the principal issues during this and former Magnuson Act
reauthorizations and is addressed in this resolution.
This resolution also suggests several provisions for the
state's best interest be included within the reauthorization.
"Thank you for your consideration of this resolution."
Number 447
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS appreciated that fact that the last bill was
held so the committee could vote on this Resolution.
Number 459
MR. BRUCE set forth that the ADF&G does support HJR 38.
Number 471
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN indicated there are two amendments in the
committee packets. He further stipulated that the first amendment
for consideration is numbered G.2. He noted the changes would add
the "be it resolved" issues that the committee would like to see
covered.
Number 485
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved amendment number one.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS objected for the sake of discussion and study.
Number 501
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS withdrew his objection without discussion
taking place.
Number 503
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked for an explanation of amendment one,
paragraph five, which talks about Individual Transferable Quotas
(ITQ). Specifically, he wanted to know if there was presently a
provision to provide a portion of the annual harvest in a fishery,
subject to ITQs for entry level fishermen or small vessel owners
who do not hold ITQs.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN responded that there wasn't and that was why
this paragraph was in the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON further asked if we were establishing the
parameters under which we want the Magnuson Act renewed. He
related that somebody could come to the conclusion that the state
of Alaska doesn't want it renewed because we didn't do anything
about reserving a portion of the ITQs for the entry of fishermen.
He was generally concerned that it could be perceived as a list of
conditions, under which the state would then accept the renewal of
the Magnuson Act.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN agreed with Representative Elton that there was
always that possibility of misperception.
Number 523
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS somewhat agreed, but pointed out that the
language contained in this Resolution is such, that it requests,
doesn't demand the federal government to reauthorize the Magnuson
Act.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN acknowledged Representative Davis' comments and
also recognized Representative Vezey and informed him that HB 296
had been heard, but held.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS requested that HB 296 be reopened so
Representative Vezey could answer the questions of the committee.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN indicated that the committee would finish up
with HJR 38 first and time permitting would take additional
testimony on HB 296.
Number 539
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN ordered amendment number one passed upon hearing
no objections.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN indicated that the second proposed amendment was
listed as G.3.
Number 544
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved and objected to amendment number two.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN pointed out that this amendment was self-
explanatory, but there was a typo on line 5 of the proposed
amendment number two. It should read "United" not "Untied."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON remarked that he kind of liked the typo and
objected to its removal.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN specified very briefly what this amendment adds.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN removed his objection.
Number 553
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN ordered amendment number two passed upon hearing
no objections.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved CSHJR 38(FSH) with a zero fiscal note
attached.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN upon hearing no objections, moved CSHJR 38(FSH)
out of committee.
HB 296 - STATE AUTHORITY OVER FISH AND GAME
Number 563
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN informed the committee that he was reopening
public testimony on HB 296.
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY made himself available to answer any
questions of the committee.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN indicated that several questions were raised by
the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS mentioned that Alaska is party to several
different treaties that accept a federal role. He asked
Representative Vezey how HB 296 would affect some of those
relationships.
Number 577
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY revealed that what this bill attempts to do is
codify what is already in the Statehood Compact. Alaska has been
a part of all of these international treaties involving its
resources.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS informed Representative Vezey that most of the
discussion earlier had centered around Section 1 (d) of the
proposed legislation. He wanted a clarification from the sponsor
as to a conflict concerning the preemption clause of this section.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY felt there wasn't a conflict. He explained,
"The federal government really doesn't do much management of fish
and game in Alaska." He further reported, "They get the state of
Alaska to enact regulations, what it amounts to, and then they
depend upon the state to enforce them. They don't have the
resources to actually enforce virtually any of the regulations.
You're trying to carry this over into the area of allocation of
international resources."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS indicated that a federal treaty regulates the
halibut fishery in this state. He asked Representative Vezey if he
was saying that those fish are not within our jurisdiction because
they're international fish.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY responded that halibut are international fish.
He said, "It is my understanding that the enforcement of this is
done by the state." He remarked that there is federal monitoring,
including the Coast Guard protecting our waters. He also felt that
if we hadn't agreed to abide by this halibut treaty, we wouldn't
have an international treaty.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS expressed that other comments from the
committee included concerns about the Endangered Species Act and
how HB 296 would affect this Act. He asked, "Should we tell the
feds that we don't have authority in the state to enforce the
Endangered Species Act?"
Number 640
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY agreed with that conclusion. His inclination
was to say that he doesn't think this bill impacts the Endangered
Species Act. He related, "The state of Alaska doesn't enforce the
Endangered Species Act per se. We don't hunt endangered species,
we do in some cases fish for them in incidental catch, but again I
don't know that I see a conflict there, because the Endangered
Species Act has more to do with habitat than actual management of
the resource itself."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS presented an example of the federal government
placing the coho salmon on the endangered species list.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asserted that federal law would still
supersede state law. He said, "We still have an agreement where we
manage our fish and game resources. It would still be up to the
state of Alaska to manage its coho salmon."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS understands this bill to be a management tool
for the resources, without consideration of any laws made by the
federal government.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied this was what the bill was attempting
to do.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS indicated that it clarifies it for him in some
degree.
Number 665
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN referred to HB 296, Section 1 (b) and asked
Representative Vezey if this paragraph is trying to pre-empt
subsistence.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that the intent was not to pre-empt
subsistence, but it would pre-empt the federal government from
managing a subsistence program in the state.
Number 680
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON thanked Representative Vezey for coming down
to the committee and clarifying the intent of this bill. He again
referred back to Section 1 (d) of HB 296 and the Endangered Species
Act. He stated, "It would seem to me that if the federal
government makes a decision, and there is a management plan that
results in reduction of power at certain..."
TAPE 95-23, SIDE A
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON "...which would mean that any state agency
that acquiesced in the management plan, would be in violation of
this law."
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "If you're dealing with salmon that
spawn in territory other than the state of Alaska, you're dealing
with the management of that fisheries in Alaskan waters. Again,
it's my understanding that the state is a part of those
international and national negotiations. And we agree to abide by
them. I do realize that there probably has been some cases, more
than one, where there has just been an edict. You simply won't do
that, because it's in violation of federal law. We still have to
recognize that federal law would have primacy. But it would get
down to a question of, would federal regulation have primacy over
state law."
Number 050
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON commented that because of federal
requirements, hundreds of fishermen have seen a diminishment in
their catch. This in turn translates into lost income.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY agreed that this was a complex subject in
regards to this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON felt that at some point, someone is going to
take the state to court because the state is not doing something
they're supposed to be doing and a judge will make a decision
concerning allocation.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Representative Elton to clarify if he
was talking about state or federal.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON answered that he was talking about the issue
of supremacy in federal law.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY specified that what this bill is saying is,
"Going back to paragraph 1 (b), that whatever your fish and game
laws are, they will be managed by state persons. The implication
there is, if the federal government comes in and says state law
doesn't permit you to do this, and we're going to come in and
manage your fish and game. This very simply says, if you try and
manage our fish and game, it is against our law."
Number 130
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked Representative Vezey if the Alaska Native
Land Claims fell under federal law.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY indicated that ANILCA is under federal law.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if they're guiding subsistence under a
federal law already, then would Section 1 (b) change this status.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that Section 1 (b) wouldn't change
that. It simply says only the state would manage the resource.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN reiterated that this was the case except for
subsistence, which is in ANILCA.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY indicated that ANILCA doesn't specifically
provide for the federal government to come in and manage the
resources. ANILCA provides for a subsistence preference, and the
Secretary of the Interior designates what steps to take.
Number 150
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented that ANILCA provides for a rural
preference in subsistence.
Number 154
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON again referred to paragraph (b) in conjunction
with paragraph (d).
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY responded to Representative Elton's concerns.
He set forth, "The federal government exercised its supremacy in
law and enacted the Marine Mammals Act. That was in contradiction
to Alaska's management policy for marine mammals. What the federal
government wanted to do and negotiated for a long period of time,
was to get the state to manage the federal regulations. In my
opinion, the state of Alaska had the insight to say, we're not
going to manage that program."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON reaffirmed what Representative Vezey said
about the federal government having the responsibility to manage
the Marine Mammals Act.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY also reiterated that the state does not
enforce the Marine Mammals Act.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he would be concerned for the future,
because it puts the resource at risk. The federal and state
governments have less and less to manage these resources.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asserted that Alaska still has a management
policy on marine mammals. But even those regulations refer to the
federal regulations. He further stated, "What this bill does is it
really puts pressure on the federal government to look at the
jeopardy it's putting itself in.
Number 220
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN thought it would be appropriate to contact the
Alaska Attorney General's office in regard to this bill.
Number 227
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked Representative Vezey if he would put
salmon in the same category as halibut in regards to the federal
government passing some law regulating the catch.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY was inclined to say yes. Alaska's fish could
be harvested outside of our territorial waters. We have a vested
interest in working with neighboring states and countries in
regulating any harvest of fish. He alleged, "In 1976, when we
adopted the 200-mile limit, I think the next five years, I think
our fish harvest increased 500 percent."
Number 267
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON appreciated Representative Vezey for taking
the time to answer the questions and concerns of this committee.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY thanked the committee and again apologized for
not being here earlier.
Number 276
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN announced that this bill also has a referral to
the Resources Committee. He suggested that HB 296 should be moved
out of this committee. He also suggested that it could be moved
out with a recommendation that the Attorney General's office be
contacted.
Number 289
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON felt that this bill should have a Judiciary
Committee referral as well.
Number 299
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY didn't have a problem with it going to the
Judiciary Committee. He indicated that it would take a letter from
the Chairman to request that the Fisheries Committee recommends
that this bill gets a referral to the Judiciary Committee.
Number 306
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS moved HB 296 out of the House Special
Committee on Fisheries to the Resources Committee with individual
recommendations, and the attached fiscal note. This motion also
included a letter be sent, indicating the committee's desire that
the bill also have a Judiciary Committee referral.
Number 321
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN objected to the motion. He was amazed at the
turn around by other members of the committee. He has reservations
about the legal implications that this bill presents.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that since he and Representative Ogan
both sit on the Resources Committee, they could make sure these
concerns were addressed by the ADF&G and the Attorney General's
office.
Number 340
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN lifted his objections based on those
recommendations.
Number 344
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS accepted this as a friendly amendment to his
motion. He indicated that the letter would request that the
appropriate agencies would be contacted and involved.
Number 349
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN hearing no further objections, passed HB 296 out
of Fisheries Committee with individual recommendations and a letter
of our concerns and desires to the Speaker of the House. This
letter would include a recommendation for a referral to Judiciary
and input from ADF&G on subsistence.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN adjourned the meeting at 6:56 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|