Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/06/1996 05:10 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 6, 1996
5:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Chairman
Representative Carl Moses, Vice Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Kim Elton
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members were present.
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 538
"An Act relating to the establishment of a moratorium for vessels
participating in the Bering Sea Korean hair crab fishery; relating
to a vessel permit limited entry system; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 390
"An Act relating to the nonresident anadromous king salmon tag and
the anadromous king salmon stamp; requiring nonresident alien sport
fishermen to be accompanied by a sport fishing guide; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 538
SHORT TITLE: VESSEL MORATORIUM FOR HAIR CRAB FISHERY
SPONSOR(S): COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
03/06/96 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/06/96 (H) FISHERIES
03/06/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 390
SHORT TITLE: KING SALMON TAGS & STAMPS/GUIDE FOR ALIEN
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ELTON
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
01/05/96 2368 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2368 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2369 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FSH, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/22/96 2861 (H) STA REFERRAL WAIVED
02/22/96 2861 (H) REFERRED TO FSH
02/28/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/28/96 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/06/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
AMY DAUGHERTY, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Alan Austerman
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol Building, Room 434
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4230
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 538.
JOHN WINTHER
P.O. Box 509
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: (907) 772-4754
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 538.
GORDON BLUE
P.O. Box 1064
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-7967
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 538.
EARL KRYGIER, Program Manager
Extended Jurisdiction Section
Division of Commercial Fisheries Management
and Development
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-6112
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 538.
FRANK HOMAN, Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
8800 Glacier Highway, Suite 109
Juneau, Alaska 99801-8079
Telephone: (907) 789-6160
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided commission's position and answered
questions regarding HB 538.
WILLIAM ARTERBURN
Pribilof Bering Sea Food
1500 West 33rd, Suite 110
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 278-3212
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 538 but wanted to ensure local
participation.
LARRY MERCULIEFF, General Manager
Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association
730 I Street, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 998501
Telephone: (907) 279-6566
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 538.
ROBERT OWENS, Attorney at Law
for Scandies Limited Partnership
Copeland, Landye, Bennett & Wolf
550 West Seventh, Suite 1350
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-5152
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 538.
LINDA KOZAK
Kodiak Vessel Owners Association
P.O. Box 135
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-3781
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 538.
PHILLIP LESTENKOF
c/o Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association
P.O. Box 288
St. Paul, Alaska 99660
Telephone: (907) 546-2597
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 538; asked for consideration
of local residents.
SIMEON SWETZOF, JR.
Wind Dancer
c/o Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association
P.O. Box 288
St. Paul, Alaska 99660
Telephone: (907) 546-2597
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 538; supported moratorium only
if it gave locals an opportunity to
participate.
MYRON MELOVIDOV, Owner/Skipper
Aleut Crusader
c/o Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association
P.O. Box 288
St. Paul, Alaska 99660
Telephone: (907) 546-2597
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported moratorium under HB 538 but wanted
door left open for local residents.
SPENCER DE VITO
P.O. Box 317
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 283-7437
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 390 but thought it needed work.
GARY HULL
P.O. Box 1964
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-5661
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 390.
VERN NOWELL
P.O. Box 7062
Nikiski, Alaska 99635
Telephone: (907) 776-5803
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 390.
MARVIN WALTER
1340 Fritz Cove Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-0942
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 390.
MIKE BETHERS
Juneau Charter Boat Association
P.O. Box 210003
Auke Bay, Alaska 99821
Telephone: (907) 789-0165
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 390.
MIKE DOBSON
Nine Lives Charters
P.O. Box 32563
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Telephone: (907) 780-4468
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 390.
MIKE MILLAR
Salmon Guaranteed Charters
4510 Prospect Way
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-9345
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 390.
BENNY MITCHELL
103 Darrin
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-5909
POSITION STATEMENT: Strongly supported HB 390.
THERESA WEISER, Vice-President
Sitka Charterboat Operators' Association
P.O. Box 2300
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-8883
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to HB 390 as written.
ERIC STIRRIP, Owner
Kodiak Western Charters
P.O. Box 4123
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-2200
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 390.
WAYNE SANGER
(No address available)
Telephone: (360) 445-5308
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 390.
BOB ANDERSON, Owner/Operator
Fireweed Lodge
P.O. Box 116
Klawock, Alaska 99925
Telephone: (907) 755-2930
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 390.
PHILLIP L. GRAY
4410 North Douglas Highway
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-6913
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 390.
MARK KAELKE
Alaska Skiff Charters
3718 El Camino
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-3914
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 390.
TRACY RIVERA
Capital City Fishing Charters
P.O. Box 020193
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Telephone: (907) 463-1529
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 390.
DICK CAMERON, Owner/Operator
Angler's Choice Outdoor Adventures and
Angler's Choice Lodge
1950 Glacier Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-5572
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 390.
DOUG UNRUH
Angler's Choice Lodge
P.O. Box 32214
Juneau, Alaska 99803
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 390.
ED DERSHAM, President
Anchor Point Charter Association
P.O. Box 555
Anchor Point, Alaska 99556
Telephone: (907) 235-5555
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 390.
FRANK LIBAL
Fairweather Guides
P.O. Box 1071
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-8284
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 390.
JIM PRESTON
Big Jim's Charters and Board Member,
Juneau Charterboat Operators Association
P.O. Box 210336
Auke Bay, Alaska 99821
Telephone: (907) 789-0088
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 390.
KEITH STEPHENS
Juneau Charterboat Association /
Snoopy's Adventures
P.O. Box 32083
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Telephone: (907) 789-9740
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 390.
JOJI OLIVER
Prince of Wales Charter Association
c/o Fireweed Lodge
P.O. Box 116
Klawock, Alaska 99925
Telephone: (907) 755-2930
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 390.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-10, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN ALAN AUSTERMAN called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Austerman, Ogan, Davis and
Elton. Absent was Representative Moses.
HB 538 - VESSEL MORATORIUM FOR HAIR CRAB FISHERY
Number 0068
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted that the first item of business would be
HB 538. He called upon Amy Daugherty to present the sponsor
statement on behalf of the House Community and Regional Affairs
Committee, for which Representative Austerman is co-chairman.
AMY DAUGHERTY, Legislative Assistant to Representative Alan
Austerman, read the sponsor statement for HB 538:
"In the 1980s, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game conducted an
experimental fishery for Korean hair crab. Due to many unknowns at
that time about this extremely fragile species and the delicate
habitat in which it exists, the stocks were quickly depleted and
the fishery was closed.
"By 1991, stocks had rebounded and two Alaskan-owned vessels were
able to conduct another experimental fishery in the immediate
vicinity of the Pribilof Islands.
"Alaska fishermen, working cooperatively with ADF&G, have since
established permit guidelines pertaining to the configuration and
size of the pots used, as well as handling techniques to ensure
that these delicate animals are not harmed by the fishing effort.
To limit the effort, ADF&G has ensured the fishery is opened
simultaneously with other crab fisheries in the Bering Sea.
"Recently, however, dramatic declines in the harvest guidelines for
other crab stocks have resulted in additional effort entering the
Korean hair crab fishery. The 15-20 vessels currently
participating in the fishery have already marginalized the
opportunities for the Alaskans who pioneered this fishery.
"If this fishery, created by Alaskans, is to remain viable, entry
must be limited as soon as possible."
Number 0190
MS. DAUGHERTY noted that there was a small amendment, the insertion
of one word, that had been provided in writing to the committee.
Number 0201
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN briefly mentioned reasons for introducing the
bill, including the small size of the fishery, the amount of effort
going toward it and its fragility. "We knew we didn't have time
this year to get in any kind of a limited entry or real control on
that fishery," he said. "The concept of this bill before you is to
basically put a moratorium on it to give us time to work on that
... fisheries."
Number 0292
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked if there were incidental catches in
other crab fisheries or whether hair crab was a targeted,
individual, specific fishery that only went after those particular
crabs.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN suggested that representatives from the
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) could be asked that question.
He noted that the amendment mentioned by Ms. Daugherty was on page
2, line 25, and agreed to call it Amendment 1.
Number 0370
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON moved that Amendment 1 be adopted. There
being no objection, it was so ordered.
JOHN WINTHER testified that he was a Petersburg resident who got
started in commercial fishing in 1964 in Juneau, moving in 1973 to
the Bering Sea, where he built a crab boat and had fished ever
since. He said his vessel became involved in the hair crab
fisheries in 1994. Although there were 11 vessels at the time,
there had only been three or four vessels a couple of years prior
to that. "It's one of the few fisheries that's managed by the
state of Alaska without a fisheries management plan under the
council, so there's no jurisdiction under the council to do
anything - it lies with the state of Alaska," he explained. He
mentioned that the season started November 1; in 1995, 15-18 boats
showed up. Mr. Winther indicated the fishery had a quota of 1.5
million pounds. The crabs, which were small and fragile, were
usually caught one to three at a time, per pot. They were
specially processed and marketed and required being taken to shore
every few days.
Number 0489
MR. WINTHER suggested that with the big influx of vessels, there
would be management problems. The department had indicated if the
effort could not be controlled, they would shut down the fishery
because they could not manage it with the number of boats coming
in. "So, those of us in the fisheries got together," Mr. Winther
explained, "and see if we could do something about it through the
state. And in the process, we learned that the current system in
place allows only a license to go to an individual. And in the
Bering Sea, the fisheries are probably 99 percent nonowner skippers
on board those boats. So if that system went into place, then all
these nonowner skippers would have the ticket to fish and there's
nothing to keep them on board your boat. And they'd go someplace
else and there you're stuck." Mr. Winther referred to the early
days of the fishery and said, "the four or five boats that were in
there were all Alaska residents." He added, "Now, there's still
four or five boats in there and there's 15 Seattle boats." He
emphasized that the dilution of Alaska participants was increasing
rapidly. "We had a major share," he said, "but now we don't."
They were therefore asking the legislature for a moratorium and to
give the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) the authority
to implement a vessel license program. "Because up there, it's not
like other local fisheries where you're working out of your home
all the time," he said. "Up there, when you leave home, you're
gone for months at a time and it's just not conducive to a skipper-
type of limited entry system," he said, referring to salmon and
herring fishery management.
Number 0609
MR. WINTHER emphasized that a key point of the bill was the 1996
cut-off date. "Because the season will open again November 1,
1996," he said, "and any more effort coming in - it'll probably
double again, because our other fisheries that start on that date,
namely, the red king crab fisheries, we don't have that anymore."
For example, the bairdi crab fishery that usually opened at the
same time would not happen this year due to decreased stocks. "So
that's going to leave this one the only one to hit," he said. He
expressed concern that with increased boats, the season would be
short and uneconomical, whereas now, although it was marginal for
the boats already there, it was economical.
Number 0684
MR. WINTHER concluded by saying the fishery was slow and required
careful handling of the crabs, which were specially marketed in
Japan. "All these crabs are brought onshore in Alaska," he said,
indicating crabs from some other fisheries were processed offshore.
Number 0709
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS asked where the crab were found.
MR. WINTHER referred to a wall map and said they were found in a
"block around the Pribilof Islands," which was the only area with
an amount to provide a fishery currently. "And the crabs are so
fragile, you can't even fish in rough weather," he said. "You've
got to stop. Where you would keep on fishing in the other
fisheries, you stop because of the tossing around in the tank, the
handling of them on the deck, things like that."
Number 0769
GORDON BLUE testified he owned a vessel named the Ocean Cape that
had been involved since the reopening of the Korean hair crab
fishery around the Pribilofs in 1991. He was a participating
partner and manager of a second vessel, which was also owned by the
community development quota (CDQ) and Native village corporation
for St. Paul. "So, we have strong local participation in that
vessel," he explained. "It was put together largely to bring some
real local participation to this fishery."
Number 0831
MR. BLUE said, "I want to underscore John Winters' statements about
the fragility of these crab." He explained there was a rapid
build-up in the early 1980s from vessels displaced from Bristol Bay
red king crab when that fishery collapsed. "We had, I think, 76
vessels in '82, something like that, in the fishery, all fishing
with whatever pots they could use, and they delivered about two
million pounds of product; and then the fishery collapsed. Now,
the present fishery is sustaining nearly that much product. I
believe the difference is that we handle the crab differently. We
have a very limited type of gear that the Department of Fish and
Game has worked to standardize for the industry. It's a small pot
that's fished on long lines and it's specially designed for this
fishery. It limits by-catch and it limits handling of the ... crab
that we do retain. We land them on a sorting table that is
specially cushioned and we just handle them very carefully. And I
think that reduction in mortality is only possible with the
relatively small amount of effort in vessels that are in the
fishery now." Mr. Blue noted that the by-catch that occurred in
the bairdi crab fishery in the area was relatively small. He said
the Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) had allowed some by-catch
landings after that fishery reopened; however, there was a lot of
dead-loss and they were then outlawed.
Number 0945
MR. BLUE emphasized the importance of the fishery to St. Paul
residents, who had worked hard to establish a no-trawl zone around
the islands, which ADF&G had helped with, to protect habitat for
the Korean hair crab, as well as for king crab in the area. "And
that seems to be paying off," Mr. Blue said. "There's a small
fishery in each of those that's now allowed. If the vessels that
are displaced by the closure of red king crab in Bristol Bay, which
is expected to extend into at least the next season, continued to
come into the fishery at the rate they have, it will be basically
unmanageable." He noted that for the 1992-1993 season, the Ocean
Cape had fished from November until March. "Last year," he said,
"we fished for three weeks." He added that ADF&G had expressed
doubt that the fishery could be managed in a sustainable fashion if
the fleet increased further. "And I think this is the cleanest,
simplest way that there is available to allow the number of vessels
to be capped," he said, referring to HB 538.
Number 1031
MR. BLUE continued, "It also allows that the community of St. Paul
has some participation in the fishery." He noted that if licenses
went through the normal CFEC process and were awarded to skippers,
St. Paul's vessels would have four licenses that qualified, but the
community would have nothing out of that. They would still have
their share of the boat, but no rights to the fishery or licenses.
Number 1059
MR. BLUE expressed it would be nice if the fishery were for small
boats. Locals had been out in the early '80s in pioneering efforts
to explore the waters around St. Paul for this resource.
"Unfortunately, the biology of the crab is such that they are soft
shell," he said. "When we were closed in March of '93, it was for
soft-shell condition, and when we fished in the summer months and
into the beginning of September, the crab were soft. So they're
very fragile and with any effort at all, there's grave danger to
the resource. So we're looking at what's basically a large-boat
fishery. It's going to run no earlier than October for the
condition, and the season opener is now November 1st until, at
latest, March." He added that the people of St. Paul had told him
they supported the moratorium.
Number 1131
EARL KRYGIER, Program Manager, Extended Jurisdiction Section,
Division of Commercial Fisheries Management and Development,
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), explained he dealt with waters
external to the three-mile limit. He pointed out that the bulk of
the Korean hair crab stock was located outside state waters, inside
what was known as the "EEZ."
Number 1170
MR. KRYGIER said, "The problem that you might consider would be
whether or not the state should be concerned in management of a
fishery in federal waters." Under the Magnuson Act, which had
authority over the zone from three to 200 miles offshore in the
United States, a state could only expand its authority into federal
waters outside the boundaries of the state to those vessels
registered under the laws of the state. "So, if you have a state
registration," he said, "we can externally manage that vessel's
fishing activities." The most important exception to that was when
a federal fisheries management plan existed for a fishery, with the
bulk of the fishery occurring in federal waters. "Since there is
no federal fishery management plan on hair crab," he said, "they're
left without any management other than state."
Number 1235
MR. KRYGIER explained that neither the North Pacific Fisheries
Management Council (NPFMC), which set up regulations for the EEZ,
nor the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which implemented
those regulations, was interested in bringing the hair crab fishery
under their management. The hair crab fishery was small, with 12-
20 vessels at most, and required fairly intensive management. "The
state has been managing this fishery since its inception," Mr.
Krygier said. He mentioned the "Mr. Big" scallop vessel that
fished in the Gulf of Alaska without any regulations and said,
"There's kind of a hole in the Magnuson Act that allowed that
action to occur and the reason is that that vessel wasn't
registered under the laws of the state."
Number 1288
MR. KRYGIER continued, "In the Bering Sea, that problem really
doesn't exist, and particularly in this fishery, that problem does
not exist. Because the vessels need to come to shore to drop off
their product and also because they need to support their
activities with fuel and crew changes and everything else, they
need to use the state's docks and the state's waters to mount their
fishing operations. And once they do that, they also need ... to
be registered under the laws of the state." He noted that the
state was actively working with Senator Stevens to get new wording
in the reauthorization language for the Magnuson Act, which should
occur in the next few months. That would give the state authority
directly to manage fisheries that either were delegated from NPFMC
to the state or which did not have a fishery management plan. "In
other words, it will clear up the Mr. Big loophole," he said. He
added, referring to HB 538, "For those reasons, I think this is
probably a reasonable thing for you to consider."
Number 1346
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked what ADF&G's position was as to the need
for the moratorium.
MR. KRYGIER referred to the small size of the fishery. "When there
was a lot of activity in that fishery before," he said, "the
fishery did collapse. Obviously, if you can have control over the
amount of access into a fishery, you don't have the problem of
controlling the harvest." He indicated most of the major crab
fisheries were currently undergoing very significant and
precipitous stock declines, resulting in a lot of crab vessels in
the Bering Sea / Aleutian Islands area with little else to do.
"The Bristol Bay red crab fishery hasn't opened for two years," he
said. "We had a very poor showing of the tanner crab fishery in
Bristol Bay this last year; whether that fishery even opens next
year ... we'll know after the summer survey. The Opilio stocks,
which have been kind of running the fishery for quite awhile, ...
are at a much lower level than they've been." Mr. Krygier noted
that whereas the Opilio harvest had been almost 300 million pounds
a few years earlier, just over 50 million pounds were harvested
this year.
Number 1433
MR. KRYGIER pointed out that 350 - 400 crab vessels fished in the
Bering Sea. "Their main source of income is very restricted right
now," he said. "So, they are going to be looking for other things
to do. And certainly, from an economic standpoint, it makes a lot
of sense for the fleets to protect that. The council itself has
passed a license limitation program for the rest of the crab
fisheries. So, this is sitting out there with no limitation under
it. Because it isn't under a fishery management plan, the council
didn't deal with it. But all the rest of the crab fisheries will
now have a license limitation program under them. From a
biological standpoint, when you get too many people fishing, and
people who are forced to fish because of economic reasons, it makes
the fishery unmanageable."
Number 1484
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked about the collapse that occurred before
from overfishing.
MR. KRYGIER replied he was not the manager for that fishery and
thought it occurred in the mid-1980s.
MR. BLUE suggested it was 1984.
Number 1509
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked about the need to bring hair crabs to a
processing site a couple of days after being caught.
MR. KRYGIER responded, "My understanding of the fishery, as far as
the actual product that they sell in Japan that has the high-value
price, is that it comes directly in within a few days and is flown
over to Japan whole."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS clarified he was thinking about what would
happen if other fisheries collapsed and someone with a Seattle
ship, for instance, wanted to come in. "This will get Alaska-
registered ships," he said, "and you think you're catching the
problem because they have to come to a local port," requiring them
to fall under state regulations. He suggested there might be a
loophole there.
Number 1576
MR. KRYGIER explained the scenario being described was the "Mr.
Big" scenario, fishing directly out of Seattle and not coming into
state waters. "The whole Bering Sea crab fishery technically is
open to that loophole," he said, "where a vessel could come in and
fish anywhere without seasons or limits. Number one, I think the
whole fleet has learned very clearly that we will shut the whole
waters down, as we did with the scallop fishery - and now, we're
stuck and we can't reopen them, and so, everyone is suffering. And
even the people who were the bad guys in that situation are trying
to get us to reopen the fishery and we can't because they put us in
a technical nightmare. So, that's one problem, that's one issue.
The second is, the vessels fishing in the Bering Sea, they need
support with fuel and crew." He suggested they would have to go
back through Seattle to get those.
Number 1628
MR. KRYGIER said that third, for vessels fishing in Alaska out of
Washington, every insurer of those vessels required them to be
registered so the vessels could have access to Alaska ports in the
event of a breakdown. "If a vessel went out there and was a bandit
and they broke down, if they came into port, we'd seize them. And
their insurance companies don't want to have that happen," he said.
"So, those kinds of things lead us to believe that we're not going
to have those types of problems in the Bering Sea area."
Number 1657
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if there had been a precedence for this
type of action before, in other fisheries, by the legislature.
FRANK HOMAN, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC), stated this was an important piece of legislation. He
pointed out CFEC had as a model the Southeast dungeness crab
fishery, for which the legislature had instituted a moratorium.
During that four-year moratorium, CFEC had worked with the fleet
and ADF&G to design a program that CFEC then instituted to limit
that fishery last year. "So, the model does work and it has been
very successful in including all of the major participants in the
fleet," he said.
Number 1727
MR. HOMAN discussed aspects of HB 538 that CFEC thought were
important. First, it stopped expansion. Under the current limited
entry law, CFEC was not able to establish a vessel license program;
they only had an individual license program. "So, in the time it
would take to come through the legislature with a major piece of
legislation," he said, "there would probably be a disaster in that
fishery out there if no action was taken to put a moratorium or a
restriction on the amount of catch." By this legislation, he
explained, the CFEC would be directed to draft a vessel license
program during the moratorium. They would work with the fleet and
ADF&G and bring it back to the legislature before the moratorium
would expire; the new program would therefore be put through the
public process. "So, you'd have plenty of opportunity to see this
new system take shape over the next few years if this passes," he
concluded.
Number 1797
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked about a fiscal note.
MR. HOMAN replied there was a zero fiscal note because the fishery
was small and the minor increase in licensing for the moratorium
could be absorbed; their best guess was that two to three dozen
vessels would be dealt with. If they subsequently designed a
vessel limitation program, that would be put in future budgets.
Number 1857
WILLIAM ARTERBURN, Executive Vice-President, Pribilof Bering Sea
Foods, testified via teleconference from Anchorage, explaining that
the company was a subsidiary of a local village corporation, with
offices in Anchorage and St. Paul. "We're very supportive of this
effort to limit the hair crab fishery," he said. "I think under
the conditions that it's probably the only thing to do to maintain
a resource out there." However, he wanted to make a case for local
participation in the fishery.
Number 1899
MR. ARTERBURN mentioned that the Central Bering Sea Fishermen's
Association had lobbied the NPFMC for a five-year bottom trawl
closure in Area 4C, primarily to protect hair crab and blue king
crab resources so that there would be an opportunity of a local
fishery out there. That action predated the current fishery by
several years, he said. He suggested that in the next four years,
the Pribilof community should have the opportunity to introduce a
minimum number of vessels into that fishery that would involve some
local ownership. "We don't know how or have anything specific to
offer at this time," he said, "but we think they should be afforded
that opportunity."
Number 1959
MR. ARTERBURN referred to AS 16.43.901, which discussed replacement
of vessels lost due to sinking or other causes, and recommended
that ADF&G adopt the management goal of 12-15 vessels, with re-
entries after dropping out, for whatever reason, being limited
until the management goal was achieved. "We think this management
objective is well justified for conservation purposes," he added.
Number 1993
MR. ARTERBURN indicated local St. Paul Island fishermen had a
history of experimentation in the hair crab fishery dating back to
1979. While several local vessels had made landings, it was
uncertain whether those vessels would be credited. "We think that
the department should make extra efforts - and the CFEC - in
designing this program to work with the local fishermen and find
some ways to afford these local Aleut fishermen out there an
opportunity to get involved in this fishery." He further asked
that the state work with the local community to set up a shellfish
advisory board, as the area was one of the few in the Bering Sea
without such a board to advise ADF&G. Mr. Arterburn emphasized the
hair crab fishery was local, with local resources in extremely
close approximation to the community. "These guys don't have to
leave home in order to catch these fish," he said. "They're
literally an hour or two off their shores." He reiterated the
desire to place a few local vessels in the fisheries over the next
several years.
Number 2084
LARRY MERCULIEFF, General Manager, Central Bering Sea Fishermen's
Association, testified via teleconference from Anchorage,
explaining the association, a CDQ organization in Western Alaska,
had 200 members including fishermen and their families from St.
Paul. He stated support for efforts involving commercially prized
fish and crab stocks in the Bering Sea, including the Pribilof hair
crab stocks which they believed to be threatened. He discussed the
no-trawl zone mentioned in previous testimony and the pioneering of
the hair crab fishery in 1979. There had been several local boats,
which he listed by name, that had all made landings in that
experimental fishery. "And of course, once word got out," he said,
"the outside boats came in and overfished the stocks in the early
'80s and it crashed." Until the hair crab fishery opened again in
1991, locals had to focus exclusively on the halibut fishery, which
was fully capitalized. "We need to expand and we need to focus,
since it's a day boat fishery, on resources that are on our
doorstep, and hair crab is one of them," he said.
Number 2193
ROBERT OWENS, Attorney at Law, Copeland, Landye, Bennett & Wolf,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage, on behalf of Scandies
Limited Partnership, against HB 538. He referred to earlier
mention of the hair crab fishery being fragile and said that in the
sense of how the crab need to be handled, there was no dispute in
that. However, in the sense of the health of the fishery itself,
Mr. Owens asserted that the population was growing, with increased
landings. He suggested the analogy of the fishery in the 1980s,
when it crashed, failed to take into account that at that time, no
guidelines on harvest amounts were imposed. It was an unrestricted
fishery then, whereas ADF&G now imposed limits. He said references
to overfishing were merely recognizing the theoretical possibility
that if a lot of boats entered the fishery, it could become
unmanageable by virtue of sheer numbers. "That is not the case
today," he said. He thought the special requirements for the
fishery made it expensive to enter. "The economics are such that
it is not likely to create a land rush type of approach by the
other boats in the Bering Sea," he suggested.
MR. OWENS said, "In general, this procedure does not follow the
recognized procedure that the legislature otherwise set out." He
thought there was a risk of denying opportunity "by creating a very
exclusive club of people that had participated in this fisheries.
Reducing the number to 12 to 14 is a very small number." He only
knew of one local boat that had been fishing and said the others
were not from that area. "So, it's not going to create opportunity
for the local residents," he said. "It closes a fishery and if
this model is followed further, it's going to deny the flexibility
necessary for crabbers to maintain an economic viability. They
need the ability to move around among areas and among species to
keep their investments busy. And, therefore, by creating little
pigeonholes of investment and development, in the long run, there's
a greater likelihood of calamitous financial disaster to those
fishermen who are pigeonholed, limited to where they can go and
what they can do."
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES joined the meeting at 5:55 p.m.
Number 2386
LINDA KOZAK, Kodiak Vessel Owners Association, testified via
teleconference. She emphasized that although the association had
historically been opposed to any form of limited entry and in
support of opportunities to diversify in the Gulf of Alaska and the
Bering Sea, they nonetheless supported HB 538.
Number 2407
MS. KOZAK indicated she had been informed by a representative from
ADF&G that due to current overcapitalization in the Korean hair
crab fishery, any further increase would result in closure of the
fishery. Alaskan vessel owners who were members of the association
had expressed concern about being left out of a fishery they had
helped to pioneer and which they depended on. Members of the
association subsequently voted to support any efforts to ensure the
hair crab fishery remained viable for Alaskans. The only way they
saw to do that was to stop new entry into the fishery. Ms. Kozak
indicated the association had 12 vessels that participated in the
fishery. They wanted to see the moratorium occur as soon as
possible and she emphasized the importance of the July 1, 1996
date. "There are individuals in the Seattle fishing fleet, in
particular, which are looking at this fishery," she said, "as it
possibly is the only viable fishery remaining in the Bering Sea."
TAPE 96-10, SIDE B
Number 0007
MS. KOZAK reiterated that while her group had historically opposed
limited entry in most forms, at this point in time, they saw there
was no other option in this fishery and urged passage of the
legislation.
Number 0044
PHILLIP LESTENKOF testified via teleconference from St. Paul,
saying he was a local small-boat owner. He emphasized that
whatever limited entry system was put in place should allow for
local residents to be considered and not be left out. Mr.
Lestenkof indicated he long-lined for hair crab in 1982 on a 24-
foot vessel and also delivered in 1986. He also crewed on a 26-
foot boat, running a string of 150 pots. "At that time, our harbor
wasn't developed," he said. "The harbor was right in the middle of
construction and we always had to pull our boats out," he added,
noting that they were also trying to develop a halibut fishery for
local boats at that time. "The only economy we have here is right
in our back yard," he said, indicating the hair crab were close to
shore. "We don't live on a very large island. We don't have any
other kind of natural resources like timber or oil or anything else
that we can count on to develop a local economy." He expressed
there had not been time to really get things going with the hair
crab. Mr. Lestenkof reiterated that they did not want to be cut
out of the limited entry system and again asked that locals be
considered.
Number 0218
SIMEON SWETZOF, JR., testified via teleconference from St. Paul,
saying he owned a boat, the Wind Dancer. He supported the
moratorium only if locals would have an opportunity to participate
in the fishery. "It's very difficult to come up with financing to
be a participant in it," he said. He expressed that if he could
not participate, he wanted for his children to be able to do so.
"You all know, we don't fish salmon, we don't do herring," he said,
adding that the only thing they fished was halibut. "And we always
talk about wanting to participate in other fisheries," he said. "I
don't want the doors slammed on this island as far as being a
participant in the fisheries around the Pribilofs, the Bering Sea."
Number 0301
MYRON MELOVIDOV, Owner/Operator, F/V Aleut Crusader, testified via
teleconference from St. Paul that he participated in the
experimental fishery in the 1980s. He supported the moratorium but
wanted for the door to remain open for local residents to be part
of the fishery.
Number 0364
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referred to earlier testimony alleging there
was no current need for regulation. He asked, if there was no
need, what regulations or laws were in place that allowed the state
to act.
Number 0398
MR. KRYGIER replied that ADF&G basically managed the fishery
through their local area biologist, who kept track of the landed
catch. As fishermen brought in the crab, fish tickets were filled
out. This provided total harvest and rate, allowing the
performance in that fishery to be viewed. Mr. Krygier explained
that when the number of participants increased, the ability to
predict fishery performance and what was actually occurring in the
fishery population became difficult. "You either way overshoot or
way undershoot a quota when you have excessive participation," he
said, "because there's no way to in-season manage a crab fishery."
Number 0463
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "The department does not seem to have a
real good track record with anticipating crab stock crashes." He
asked Mr. Krygier to relate his perspective on reasons why crab
fisheries had come and gone through the years.
MR. KRYGIER responded, "That's a loaded question." He indicated
that crab fisheries were difficult to predict as far as upswings
and downswings. "A lot of it has to do with oceanographic
conditions and recruitment," he said. "Whereas you'll have a
spawning event year after year, it's how successful is the progeny
to make it in to the proper habitat and then grow through the
successive early age classes, so that it can recruit to the
harvestable portion of the population. And a lot of that has to do
with oceanographic conditions." He added, "The other factor is
that in previous years, we really didn't manage as conservatively
as we should have. We now recognize that a lot of the management
strategies that we had in past years were probably incorrect and
probably had some effect on allowing overharvest to occur. The
department is becoming more and more conservative in its management
approach to any crab management, because those stocks are so
volatile in their ability just to survive the normal recruitment
events."
Number 0557
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if fish politics had anything to do with
it.
MR. KRYGIER asked for clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN expressed discouragement at "the urge to fish
today and to heck with tomorrow because we'll make the bucks now,
and then there we are, we don't have a fishery."
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES suggested that the situation as Mr.
Krygier had explained it, regarding crab management, was the same
for pretty much all the fisheries, with too many boats chasing too
few fish.
Number 0620
MR. KRYGIER agreed. "It's certainly difficult to manage any
resource when the amount of capacity is so large that the ... time
it takes in which the fishery occurs is shorter and shorter," he
said, "because it doesn't allow you to get the in-season assessment
of fishery performance." He added that for almost all of the
stocks, ADF&G was underfunded in its ability to get out and assess
those stocks. They had a pre-season estimate of the resource, but
without the in-season fishery performance, they could not really
determine whether the pre-season guess was correct and adequate to
reflect the actual health of that resource.
MR. KRYGIER continued, "In the Bering Sea, we take one trawl sample
every 400 square miles to make our population estimates. And over
a number of years, as we crisscross the Bering Sea and every 400
square miles take one little sample, we get a picture of what that
is in relationship to the size and the health of that particular
stock. But it's only a guess. And it's that in-season harvest
that goes on and how fast that goes in relationship to the number
of participants that allows us to say, `yes, this is a good pre-
season guess' or `no, it's a bad pre-season guess.' And if it's a
bad one, we'll stop the fishery and close it off early."
Number 0698
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to testimony that the optimum fleet
size for the hair crab fishery should be 12-15, which was
significantly lower than would result under HB 538. He asked
whether Mr. Krygier agreed with the 12-15 figure.
MR. KRYGIER replied that he was not the manager of that fishery and
did not know the fishery well enough to answer the question.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to the local, small-boat fleet and
asked, "Do you manage fisheries now where you have -- if the quota,
say, is 1.8 million pounds -- where `x' number of pounds are for a
small-boat fishery or local fishery and `x' number of pounds for a
large-boat fishery?"
Number 0750
MR. KRYGIER replied, "I believe that if the Board of Fisheries
wanted to develop a fishery management plan which would set aside
a portion of the harvest for various size[s] of vessels, they could
do that."
Number 0766
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if the legislature could,
constitutionally, mandate and legislate local support or
preference.
MR. KRYGIER responded that was a little out of his field. He then
explained that in the NPFMC process, "they have the ability to set
up, by vessel size categories, certain types of allocations." He
added, "I believe that the board can probably also, by certain size
of vessel category, probably do some allocations within that.
That's my guess. I'm not an expert on that."
Number 0815
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said, "I think there's been enough questions
raised here that we don't have answers to that we may want to hold
this bill for a few days and then come back to it." He expressed
that he desired to see the bill move on but wanted to address those
questions.
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES said, "One of my concerns is, if you're
talking about 15 100-foot boats, it's probably a fishery that would
support maybe 30 or 40 50-foot boats. So that's hard to stipulate
how many boats."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked what other committees of referral there
were for the bill.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN responded, "This is the only committee." He
added, "I guess that's one of the reasons I'm kind of hesitant to
moving it out tonight, because it is the first hearing we've had on
it. This is the only committee of referral to this. And there
have been a number of questions raised here that maybe some of the
members don't feel comfortable with yet."
Number 0873
MR. HOMAN stated, "I know there were a number of questions raised
about how things might work. And what the legislation directs the
commission to do during the period of the moratorium is to develop
a piece of draft legislation that would come to the legislature.
And in the development of that draft, we would solicit information
from the local people and those participating in the fleet. And
then once the legislation was developed ... it would go through the
legislative process, where you would have public input. And then,
if that was successful, it would still go through another stage;
when the commission would develop regulations, they would also go
back to the public for comment."
Number 0941
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS noted that it would be a moratorium for four
years.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said, "It does have a sunset on it." With
concurrence of the members, he left the bill in committee.
HB 390 - KING SALMON TAGS & STAMPS/GUIDE FOR ALIEN
Number 0962
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN introduced HB 390, noting it was a bill
sponsored by Representative Elton that had been heard once and had
gone to subcommittee. He asked subcommittee chairman
Representative Davis for a report.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS indicated there had been a meeting that
morning addressing the key items in the legislation. He referred
to page 2, lines 27-31, and said, "We eliminated subparagraph (e).
If they pay for a tag, we just took away the refund. They pay for
it in hopes of catching one. If they don't catch one, we make
money." He explained that the discussion had been that it was done
that way in other venues. Representative Ogan noted that the
subcommittee meeting had included Representatives Ogan and Elton.
Number 1068
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN suggested that each of the four recommendations
could be treated as an amendment on its own. He said, "If there's
no objection, I'll entertain that as Amendment Number 1 for sake of
discussion."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "In part of the discussion that we had,
it was felt that many guides or lodges would probably be vendors.
And if someone, for example, was fishing at a fishing lodge, he
might pick up one or two tags and by golly, if fishing was hot and
they thought their chance of getting a third one was pretty good,
then they'd lay out the money for the third one. But again, with
big game hunting tags, you pay your tags and if you get the animal,
you fill your tag, and if you don't, you don't get a refund."
Number 1144
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there was any further discussion on the
amendment; he then asked if there was opposition to it. Hearing
none, he noted that Amendment Number 1 was approved.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referred to the second amendment, regarding
page 5, line 29, relating to the nonresident anadromous king salmon
tag, and said, "Subparagraph (A) is there's no charge for the first
tag. As you recollect, there was considerable discussion relating
to the charges last meeting. And line 29 in this amendment is
changed to $50 dollars - from $100 to $50. And in discussion
overall with the fees, that is the only change that is ...
recommended."
Number 1193
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said, "I'll accept that as Amendment Number 2,
unless there's any objection."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN indicated there had been discussion of maybe
increasing, after two fish, the fees for the third and subsequent
fish. "But I think that it was the consensus of the committee that
possibly it would be getting too expensive," he said. "The general
conclusion was $50 for the second one."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said, "If I understand you correctly, then, that
second tag becomes $50 instead of a $100. And if they do want a
third one, they'll pay $200 more, the way you've done this."
Number 1241
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied, "I think some of the most meaningful
discussion there was that if someone in Southeast landed in Juneau
and was on a tour of Southeast and some areas, and they were in
Juneau and they caught a king salmon, and then they went up to
Haines or Skagway and there was opportunity to go fishing up there,
that $100 would probably be a little steep and would probably
eliminate a lot of visitors from fishing the second one. But we
didn't want to maybe restrict the opportunity of some guides and
lodges ... from that second opportunity. So we thought that $50
was still within the means of most people but $100 was a little
strong, and yet we didn't want to be too free with our king salmon
and have no charge on that. I think, additionally, that there's
probably room for some additional discussions; I'm sure additional
testimony will address this area of the legislation."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there was further discussion or any
objection to Amendment Number 2. Hearing none, he noted that
Amendment Number 2 had passed.
Number 1329
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS indicated the next area of discussion was on
page 9, line 31, continuing on to page 10. He said, "It deletes
the `or'; it ends the sentence after 08.54 - it ends that sentence
there with a period. So it adds a period there and it deletes a
semicolon and the word `or' and then eliminates subparagraph (3).
So ... what this was doing was requiring that nonresident aliens --
it's mandating that they use a guide. And again, the discussion
centered around how it's done in other venues in statute. We
didn't want to complicate things by having things differently in
fisheries, as related to hunting."
Number 1391
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said, "I'm going to accept both items 3 and 4 of
your recommendations as Amendment Number 3, placing the period on
line 31 and eliminating the words `colon, or', and deleting, on
page 10, lines 1 through 4."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said, "That's correct."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there was any objection to that as an
amendment. He then asked if there was discussion.
Number 1408
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted the amendment singled out nonresident
aliens. He pointed out that, for example, with hunting guides,
nonresident aliens were not singled out, but rather, all
nonresidents. He expressed that people not living in this country
should not be discriminated against. "It should be people that
don't live in this state," he said, adding he thought that might be
an issue for a separate bill.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there was further discussion on
Amendment Number 3 or any objection to it. Hearing none, he noted
that Amendment Number 3 was adopted.
Number 1490
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS indicated that had been the extent of what the
subcommittee had felt it could address.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN recalled that the subcommittee had discussed
that the commission may adopt regulations on page 2, lines 19
through 26.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS agreed that was correct and thanked
Representative Ogan for pointing that out. He said, "What that
relates to, I think, is page 3, line 3, would add a new section to
indicate that the commissioner would have authority to draft
regulations relating to this section. And that ... dealt with the
discussion we had over if you catch a king and apply a tag ... how
do you show that the tag is valid and after the fish is butchered,
how do you prove that that's your fish and that's your tag. So, we
couldn't come up with anything concrete ... even relating to
hunting regulation, as to how that would fit. So we pawned it off
on the commissioner, through regulations, to come up with how to
deal with that."
Number 1595
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if that was an amendment the subcommittee
wished to make by adding wording on page 3.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied, "I believe so, with concurrence of
the rest of the subcommittee; I think that was a consensus." He
said, "(f) would become (e) and then we would have a new (f)
stating - I didn't have it written out here - the commissioner
shall adopt regulations -- shall draft regulations relating to this
section."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON noted that part of the deleted language was,
"the department may charge a fee set by regulation." He suggested
that instead of saying "the commissioner", they may want to say
"the department".
Number 1673
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN suggested, "the department shall determine by
regulation what relevant information is requested."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS noted that there was standard language in
almost all statutes.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if the bill had another committee of
referral.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON indicated it would go to the House Resources
Committee and the House Finance Committee.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN suggested "maybe a letter of intent or something
written up by the subcommittee here and passed along with the bill,
and having the next committee make that change. As long as we
don't have it in writing, it's kind of difficult to do it here.
So, I would suggest that we just make it part of the record here
that we will forward to the next committee of referral this
amendment suggestion."
Number 1736
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "We can get in touch with the
department. They may have the appropriate language elsewhere." He
pointed out there had been a good memo distributed to the members
of the subcommittee by Representative Gary Davis that should become
part of the packet if and when the bill left the current committee.
"I think it's a good statement of intent," he said. "And so, I
would move that the memo dated March6, 1996, from Representative
Gary Davis to the members of the subcommittee, become part of the
record."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted there had been a motion and asked if there
was an objection. There being no objection, the memo from
Representative Gary Davis, dated March6, 1996, became part of the
record.
Number 1782
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON reiterated, for the benefit of testifiers, the
changes made by the subcommittee. "The first change takes away the
ability to be reimbursed for tags that are purchased but not used.
The second change sets the tag fee for the second tag at $50
instead of $100. And then the third change ... deletes the
requirement that nonresident aliens must be accompanied by a
registered guide in the state of Alaska."
Number 1830
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked about moving a conceptual amendment that
the commissioner may adopt regulations.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN replied that he thought it was already put as
part of the record just by the discussion and by sending a letter
of intent along to the next committee.
Number 1939
SPENCER DE VITO testified via teleconference from Kenai that he was
known as the very first fishing guide on the Kenai River, although
he had been retired since 1980. He thought HB 390 was headed
"somewhat in the right direction." He expressed that the needs of
residents must be met as a priority, saying, "HB 390 offers not
only the best game in town but the only game in town." Because of
large numbers of nonresident and alien fishermen on the Kenai
River, "something must be done," he said, "even though it's a
little late." He said, "HB 390 appears to be the very first
serious bit of legislation coming from Juneau that might set a
precedent, especially for the troubled Kenai River and Cook Inlet.
It's a fishery where nonresidents take thousands of pounds of king
salmon out of the state annually." He expressed a regret about
the need the cut back on the king salmon fishery.
Number 2051
MR. DE VITO said the time was long overdue to regulate king salmon
as a trophy fish. "One thing is for certain," he said. "Resident
Alaskans have to fight hard for every bit of space and every fish
these days. By promoting the king as a trophy fish and curtailing
nonresidents, no matter where they come from, from engaging in
sport fishing for king salmon with such gluttonous intensity, our
state would place more value on our fish and assure more security
and longevity for the guiding industry. I support HB 390 until
someone comes up with something better. It needs some work but
you're on the right track."
Number 2200
GARY HULL testified via teleconference from Kenai that he was a
guide, saying, "I can't support this bill as it is right now. We
need something like this but I think there's some real problems
with it." His suggested, "change the limit for nonresidents but
don't get into their pockets. These people spend a lot of money as
it is. Instead of five fish a year, let them only have three." He
thought the complementary license that the Governor could give away
should be stricken from the bill. "I don't think the people who
would receive these licenses deserve them; they can afford to buy
them. And I know he's not going to give any to a poor boy that
couldn't afford to buy them that's been dreaming all his life to
come up here and hunt or fish." As for nonresident aliens, he
said, "I do believe that nonresident aliens should have to have a
guide." He recalled experiences with foreign fishermen who were
"gluttonous with the fish," rude and hard to fish with on the bank.
He suggested guides could aid them and help them understand the
laws. He concluded, "If you can work this bill over a little bit,
I could probably support it. But the way it is, right now, I
can't."
Number 2362
VERN NOWELL testified via teleconference from Kenai, saying he had
been an Alaska resident since 1959. He believed that personal use
for Alaska residents should be the number one priority. "I do
believe it's time to put the king salmon in a trophy category," he
said. He thought the bill was a good step in the right direction.
"The first tag should come with the license," he said. "The second
tag should be a minimum of $50 or $75 and then go to the $200 fee,
and so forth. There should be a maximum amount of kings that can
be taken. Just because you can afford to keep buying tags at a
higher price, I do not believe you should be able to do that." He
suggested, for example, for a person fishing on the Kenai River and
also in Southeast Alaska, maybe a total of four kings.
Number 2463
MR. NOWELL said he did not go along with the handling of the money
taken in by each tag [part of testimony cut off -- end of tape].
TAPE 96-11, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. NOWELL talked about enforcement, saying in years of fishing, he
had never had his bag limit checked. He believed more protection
was needed in high-volume areas. "There are hundreds more fish
being taken out than the state is aware of," he said. "And the
protection end of this bill is going to have to really come into
play." He concluded, "If you could work something in for
protection with these fees, I could go along with 390. But we
definitely have to do something."
Number 0844
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented that unfortunately, funds could not
be dedicated to anything except the fish and game fund. As he
recalled, the only way the commissioner could use that fund was if
there was proof of a serious threat to the resource. "I'd like
nothing better than to get more protection," he added. "It's going
to have to be done through appropriation in the ... legislative
process. We can't dedicate this money to protection. It's
unconstitutional."
Number 0147
MR. NOWELL replied, "Whatever means you do [it], you're going to
have to put some money toward protection." He said he had
personally witnessed people catching fish to send to Europe to sell
for $75 per pound. He referred to nonresidents coming up with a
motor home and sitting by the Kenai River, fishing and canning all
summer long and then selling it or bartering it. "That's going to
have to stop," he said. "I think there should be a seasonal limit
put on kings for nonresidents, a seasonal limit on reds and silvers
for nonresidents."
Number 0218
MARVIN WALTER testified that he was a charter boat operator in the
Juneau area. He thought HB 390 was based on opinion, not fact. He
was concerned that charter boat clients might not want to fish in
Juneau because of the cost of the trophy fish. He discussed catch
rates, saying in May his 13 clients caught 7 fish, for a 53 percent
catch rate. In June, 76 clients caught 24 kings, for a 31 percent
rate. In July, 102 clients caught 24 kings, for a 23 percent rate.
In August, 123 clients caught 15 kings, for a 12 percent rate. For
the summer, for king salmon, he had a total of 70 kings for 314
clients, for a catch rate of 22 percent. Even though the rate of
success was higher on his charter boat than for the ADF&G weekly
reports, Mr. Walter considered the success rate low. He questioned
whether commercial interests were being voiced under HB 390 at the
expense of charter operators. He wondered if the king salmon were
a trophy fish, why it was being sold commercially. He noted that
ADF&G had classified the 50-pound king a trophy fish in Southeast
Alaska, a size that neither Mr. Walter nor any of his clients had
ever caught.
Number 0570
MIKE BETHERS, Juneau Charter Boat Association, indicated his
testimony represented the views of 20-25 active operators in the
Juneau area. He read the following:
"First of all, the ADF&G currently has a box full of tools to
manage the recreational king salmon fishery in Southeast. The
Board in 1992 directed the Department of Fish and Game to manage
the recreational king fishery so as to allow for uninterrupted
fishing throughout the season and to minimize the regulatory
restrictions on unguided anglers. At the same time, the fishery
management options to obtain these goals were provided, and they're
currently written in the Southeast/Yakutat Chinook Salmon
Management Plan. HB 390 would dramatically increase the costs of
king salmon fishing for visiting nonresident friends and relatives,
some of which make annual visits. We feel a good portion of these
anglers would likely return to Alaska, at least to fish for king
salmon.
"HB 390 would have a very detrimental impact on our sport fishing
guiding, charter boat and lodging industry, and all associated
travel services. King salmon are available in British Columbia,
Washington, Oregon, California and the Great Lakes System. If this
legislation and its price structure were passed, we feel that a
great portion of nonresident anglers would pass right on by Alaska
and fish in other places where kings are more available at a lesser
cost.
"The `one free king salmon with a stamp' provision may satisfy some
short-stay visitors. However, we feel that most cruise ship
anglers catching a king on their first stop in Alaska would not
likely fish again in another community. In this regard, this
legislation would have a detrimental impact on even half- and
whole-day trips in every community in Southeast Alaska. Keep in
mind that in Juneau, the average charter boat trip leaving the dock
generates from $10 to $30 in local sales tax. Given the
approximately 40 boats we have here, that figures out to better
than $100,000 a year that our little, puny charter boat fleet
generates for our local sales tax. Also, the sport fishing in
Juneau generates tens of millions of dollars to the local economy,
over a $100 million to the Southeastern economy and hundreds of
millions to the state of Alaskan economy.
"In all likelihood, we feel that the effect of this legislation if
passed would be a reallocation of catch rather than any savings in
catch. In most instances, the king salmon not caught by a
nonresident sport angler would likely be taken by some sort of
commercial gear and sold for 60 cents to $2 or $3 a pound. Given
that the average king salmon caught by a nonresident sport angler
already generates well over $1,000 to our local and state economy,
it would make really the best sense to get as many kings as
possible caught by nonresident anglers.
"In regard to the allocation issue, the sport allocation of king
salmon has not been taken since it was established in 1992, even
though the sport allocation is less than 20 percent of the total
Southeast allocation and there have, in fact, been increases in the
number of charter boats and nonresident anglers.
"There may in fact be a reduced allocation of king salmon to
Southeast this season. However, we don't feel this is
justification to put a permanent law on the books which would
forever restrict harvest by a segment of our sport fishery. This
year, the Board of Fisheries has already indicated they will take
necessary action, if required, should Southeastern allocations turn
out to be unmanageable.
"In conclusion, we request you to take no action on HB 390 for the
above reasons. Once again, we do appreciate your interest in king
salmon; however, suggest that efforts be directed toward achieving
an adequate allocation to Southeast Alaska, rather than reducing
public access to a public resource and crippling an industry that
adds hundreds of millions of dollars annually to our local and
state economy. Further, we would request the legislature to leave
fisheries issues to the Board of Fisheries."
Number 0844
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Bethers how many of his clients had
caught more than one king salmon.
MR. BETHERS responded, "We target kings sometimes. Most often, we
target what's most available. And last year, when we had cohos
available, we targeted them. On the few trips that we targeted
kings, we generally caught kings." The previous year, his first
season, he had 48 paying days. On three of those days, they had
"limited" on two or three people on king salmon. Additionally,
they had released legal-size king salmon on those days.
"Chartering this last summer, I'd estimate I killed under 30
kings," he concluded.
Number 0906
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON clarified that any fish not taken by the
charter fleet would not be reallocated to the commercial fleet.
"The Board of Fisheries does set the allocation for the sport
fleet," he said. "Part of that allocation is caught by
nonresidents, part of it is caught by residents. So anything not
caught by nonresidents would be reallocated only toward resident
sport fishermen and not toward the commercial fleet."
Number 0957
MR. BETHERS responded that the king salmon stocks seemed to be
fully utilized. In the last few years, the commercial fishery had
been allocated over 80 percent of the king salmon. Given the
efficiency of the gear and the number of hooks in the water, he
thought fish not taken by a recreational angler would probably
"swim a couple of hundred yards the other way and run into a troll
hook or a gillnet."
Number 1016
MIKE DOBSON, Nine Lives Charters, testified that Alaska spends
millions of dollars on tourist recruitment every year. "This bill
will negate much of this goal," he said. "This bill will actually
promote Canadian king fishing. We already are more expensive than
Canada; this will make it far more expensive than Canada." He
thought the king salmon were not trophies. In twenty years of
fishing in the Juneau area, he had never caught one in excess of
fifty pounds, he said. He noted that a brown bear, which was a
trophy, cost $585 for tags and license. He felt a 20-30-pound king
salmon was hardly a trophy of such proportions. He suggested that
king salmon fishermen were already paying an estimated $1 million
to $1.2 million in tags, with half going to the creel study census
and half going to king salmon enhancement. Mr. Dobson said there
had not been an overharvest in that branch of the fishing industry
to date.
Number 1157
MIKE MILLAR, Salmon Guaranteed Charters, read some excerpts from a
letter he said he had sent to Representative Elton a few months
ago. He had chartered for nine years. He countered the idea of
king salmon being unique and in short supply by saying they were
available from California to Alaska, as well as in the Great Lakes.
He suggested king salmon were currently "feeling the impacts of
poor ocean survival due to el nino, hydroelectric dams and
federally sanctioned gillnets." He pointed out that until last
year, British Columbia took, by their estimate, 100,000 sport-
caught kings annually, with a limit of four per day, which were not
counted against their quota allocated by the North Pacific Salmon
Treaty. On the other hand, Alaska had for several years
voluntarily counted its sport-caught kings against its treaty
allocation.
Number 1240
MR. MILLAR said, "My customers for the most part are middle-income
America and, as such, are on a budget. I grant you that there are
some high-rollers who can afford HB 390, but they really are the
exception." He cited a study commissioned by ADF&G in the mid-
1980s, which found a sport-caught king salmon was worth $923 to the
economy of Southeast Alaska. "Sport fishermen have the least
impact on the resource of all the user groups and spend the most
money per fish in pursuit of their sport," he said. "HB 390 will
not only hurt the sport fishing but every business that relies on
the tourist dollar." As an alternative to HB 390, he suggested
establishing freezer limits for sport fish, not only for king
salmon. He further suggested bringing pressure on ADF&G to invoke
area management for king salmon. "King salmon we catch in Juneau
are different from those in Ketchikan," he said, asserting that the
fish passing by on the outside coast were the ones in contention.
Number 1380
BENNY MITCHELL testified via teleconference in strong support of HB
390. "I see an awful lot of frozen fish moving through the Sitka
airport each day during the summer," he said. "I see massive
amounts of fish brought into Sitka's docks each evening by guided
sport fishing charters." He thought it possible that some of the
fish shipped south as sport-caught might enter the commercial
market elsewhere. He urged swift passage of the bill.
Number 1430
THERESA WEISER, Vice-President, Sitka Charterboat Operators'
Association, testified via teleconference, saying she also had a
fishing lodge operation in Sitka. The association was opposed to
HB 390 as written, fearing the high dollar amounts proposed would
put king salmon charter boat operators out of business. "I know
that very few of my clients would be willing to pay the exorbitant
fee that is proposed," she said. She pointed out that there was no
commercial hunting or harvesting of Alaska trophy big game. "So,
I would ask, why is the state and Southeast Alaska giving away this
very valuable king salmon resource to the commercial fishery, i.e.,
the 20,000 current allocation to the net fishing and then an 80
percent allocation to the commercial troll fleet?" She said, "at
least nonresident sport anglers come here to the state and leave a
very high and significant amount of monetary value here in exchange
for the privilege of the sport fishing experience and taking some
of our precious natural resource back home with them." In closing,
she noted that 200 million salmon were caught in Alaska annually,
with two million caught by sport anglers.
Number 1647
ERIC STIRRUP, Owner, Kodiak Western Charters, testified via
teleconference that many of his objections to HB 390 had been
voiced already. He suggested reducing both the nonresident and
resident bag limits for king salmon, which he thought would be
equitable. "If king salmon are so valuable, then they're valuable
to all sport fishermen," he said. "We all live in the United
States. We all live under the Constitution of the United States.
And I don't see a difference between a person coming to the state
of Alaska from the state of Washington to fish versus somebody
coming from Fairbanks, coming to Kodiak to fish." He thought HB
390 set a bad precedent.
Number 1768
WAYNE SANGER testified via teleconference from Washington state,
saying he had owned and operated a small, full-service sport
charter fishing business out of Craig since 1987. He said there
had been a quota placed on sport harvest of king salmon in 1992, as
a result of efforts by commercial interests. Since 1992, he said,
the sport charter fleet had increased by more than 50 percent.
"Resident and nonresident sportsmen alike are feeling the effects
of allowing uncontrolled growth in the charter industry after
placing a cap on the resource," he said, "due to restrictions
placed on all sportsmen by Fish and Game to avoid overharvesting.
Limited entry of charter licenses should have happened in 1992 when
the resource was capped. HB 390 will undermine the vitality of the
sport charter industry in Alaska." Mr. Sanger expressed that the
fees, which he felt were excessive, would discourage nonresident
sportsmen from traveling to Alaska.
MR. SANGER noted that currently, 25 percent of the charter
operators in Alaska also held commercial licenses, a trend which he
said was on the increase. "Commercial fishermen are expanding into
the charter industry without increasing the sport allocation," he
said. "King salmon stocks should be reallocated between commercial
and sport interests and a moratorium should be placed on the
registration of new charter boats. If this was done, there would
be enough salmon and the nonresident angler would still find Alaska
an attractive fishing destination."
Number 1856
BOB ANDERSON, Owner/Operator, Fireweed Lodge, testified via
teleconference from Klawock, saying he was a lifelong Alaska
resident who had owned the lodge for six years and had chartered
prior to that. He indicated it took marketing effort each year to
maintain the charter industry. He suggested the biggest
competition they had was with British Columbia; he thought HB 390
would encourage people to go there instead. Most of his guests
were on a budget and were middle-income people, he emphasized.
Number 1936
PHILLIP L. GRAY testified that he sport fished locally for king
salmon for food for himself and his family, out of a small skiff.
He testified in support of HB 390, saying he thought it was a good
idea to protect the residents of Alaska from the increasing harvest
of king salmon by nonresidents. "I've lived in Alaska for over 30
years and it's getting much more difficult to get a few fish to
eat," he said. "Our family of four uses maybe about 12 king salmon
a year. But greatly increased competition for the fish by charter
boats and nonresidents are making it difficult for residents to get
fish. We are told that nonresidents are taking two-thirds of the
sport catch of king salmon in Southeast Alaska now, and the catch
rate of king salmon by the charter boats is twice that for the
residents. The charter boats fish every day. They have
sophisticated electronic gear, down-riggers, and are on the fish
constantly. Charter boats are really just another commercial
fishery."
MR. GRAY discussed the difficulty of catching bottomfish near
Juneau. He related how a friend had watched "nonresidents bringing
in ping-pong-paddle-size fish and cleaning them and packaging them
up to take back home rather than releasing them to grow up." He
concluded, "There's increasing competition for everything out there
that can be sold or eaten and I agree with some reasonable
restrictions so that our residents can get more fish to eat. I
think the wise use of the resource would be allow more sport catch
so that charter boat anglers can help to contribute to the economy,
there. But until we get more fish and the commercial fishermen are
getting a few less, I think I support HB 390," he said.
Number 2020
MARK KAELKE, Alaska Skiff Charters, said most of his opposition to
HB 390 had already been voiced. He thought HB 390 would impact
fisheries on a statewide basis, whereas the fishery and its
problems varied by area. "I believe that ADF&G should continue to
manage king fisheries by area," he said, "and not have legislation
such as 390 in the way of that."
Number 2060
TRACY RIVERA, Capital City Fishing Charters, spoke against HB 390,
saying he agreed with most of the testimony in opposition. He
said, "I think we're getting into the point of fish politics rather
than looking at the science behind it and having Fish and Game
manage the resource." He thought management should be done by
area, rather than for the state as a whole.
Number 2097
DICK CAMERON, Owner/Operator, Angler's Choice Outdoor Adventures
and Angler's Choice Lodge, said most of his views had been voiced.
He suggested there was a 100,000-person-per-year increase in
Southeast Alaska visitors, with no allowance to the economic value
of those people coming to this region. "If we put this kind of
economic sanction on the king salmon fishery," he said, "those
people will not be dumping that money into this economy." He
referred to by-catch in the coho fishery and suggested more fish
were killed during that fishery than would account for the entire
sport allocation. He asked, "Where are we going to find people to
enforce this bill?" He thought the economic ramifications of
enforcement needed looked into. He further noted that the sport
harvest quota for the previous year was unfilled, suggesting
amounts caught were 7,000-8,000 fish shy of the quota. "The burden
of that should not be on the charter boat industry if someone
didn't put forth the effort to go out and catch the fish," he said,
"because they were there."
Number 2188
MR. CAMERON suggested king salmon could not be compared to large
game species, saying, "There's not anything similar to it. Even
residents of this state in some areas are only allowed one brown
bear per every five years, four deer per year. It's not the same
as a two-king-salmon-a-day bag limit for a resident versus someone
only economically being able to take one king salmon out a year."
He further thought regional differences were so great that "this
blanket bill isn't logical." He thought priorities should be
geared towards resident sport fishermen, then "on down the line,
with sport being the focus and take what's left and give that to
the commercial guys."
Number 2247
DOUG UNRUH, Angler's Choice Lodge, stated, "Everybody's said
everything. I'm not in support of this house bill. I am a lodge
owner. And charging people up to another $1,200-$1,500 for a
three-days' bag limit, I think, is just way, way out of line." To
slow catch rate, he preferred to see a bag limit of some type. He
referred to the established trophy sizes and suggested, "if you
want to start charging those increments of prices of fish over
those weights, I wouldn't have a problem with that because I don't
catch them anyway."
Number 2293
ED DERSHAM, President, Anchor Point Charter Association, testified
via teleconference from Homer in opposition to HB 390, saying, "I'd
like to echo all the comments that have gone before me,
particularly those of Theresa Weiser in Sitka." He added that the
bill could have potentially disastrous effects on the charter
industry and a large segment of the economy of the Kenai Peninsula.
He referred to recent meetings with the Board of Fisheries, the
results of which HB 390 could undo. He thought the matter should
be left to the Board of Fisheries and should be addressed areawide,
rather than for the entire state.
Number 2379
FRANK LIBAL, Fairweather Guides, testified via teleconference from
Homer in opposition to HB 390. He pointed out that some charters
were for family groups, to whom the fee rates would be prohibitive.
Number 2404
JIM PRESTON, Big Jim's Charters and Board Member, Juneau
Charterboat Operators Association, testified about the fee
structure under HB 390. "I would like to remind the committee what
happened a couple of years ago," he said. "When the $35 blanket
fee was put on the initial king salmon stamp, that fee did not even
last the season. On July 1 of that year, that fee structure was
completely changed because of the devastating impact it had on the
nonresidents choosing, once they got here, `another $35, forget it,
I'll go -- not spend my money catching the fish.'" He feared the
fee would drive clients away from Southeast Alaska. "And they will
go down to British Columbia," he said, "where they can still catch
their four king salmon per day." Mr. Preston suggested removing
sport-caught king salmon from the allocation.
TAPE 96-11, SIDE B
Number 0005
MR. PRESTON referred to the export limit. He noted that British
Columbia had an export limit of 40 kilograms, approximately 88
pounds. "If we put a similar type of export limit," he said,
"we're going to deal with the issues that cause the residents to be
so angry about the nonresidents catching king salmon, that is, the
`Winnebago warriors' up there on the Kenai just canning them on the
spot, sending them home, case after case of them. Or the box after
box after box that goes through our airports. If there was, say,
a 100-pound or 120-pound limit on that, that would reduce that."
Number 0058
MR. PRESTON mentioned the notion of trophy fish. "What's not been
mentioned," he said, "is that when you talk about the other trophy
animals ... these animals are taken by sportsmen. They're none of
them taken commercially. Yet, over 80 percent of the king salmon
are being allocated to commercial interest. Then you're saying
that less than 20 percent we're now going to have to consider as
trophy?" Mr. Preston expressed that the idea behind HB 390, of
wanting to do something about the king salmon, he liked. "But 390
doesn't do it," he concluded.
Number 0101
KEITH STEPHENS, Juneau Charterboat Association and Snoopy's
Adventures, testified that he was born in the Juneau area and grew
up commercial fishing, having owned ten boats. For the past eight
years, he had been in the charter business. He noted there were
2,900 commercial fishing permits and 115,000 licensed resident
anglers, yet the resident sport fishermen were allocated only 17
percent of the total. He indicated that in 1994, charters took 48
percent of the sport fish allocation and private boats took 52
percent. In that same year effort and angler days for charters
were 27 percent, whereas for private fishermen, they were 73
percent. "So," he said, "the problem isn't that charters are
taking fish away from resident fishermen." He expressed that HB
390 was detrimental to state efforts towards tourism.
MR. STEPHENS suggested that HB 390 was totally unenforceable.
"It's true that king salmon is a trophy fish," he said, "if caught
in the over-50-pound range. But generally, these kings in
Southeast and the rest of the state cannot be compared to those
mature fish in the Kenai River and other river fisheries.
Therefore, game tags for tagging big game and fish tags have no
comparison whatsoever. After all, game hunters are not allocated."
He thought king salmon belonged to everyone nationwide.
Number 0262
JOJI OLIVER, Prince of Wales Charter Association, testified that he
operated Prince of Wales Charter Service and had been guiding for
15 years. He expressed opposition to HB 390. He said, "We suggest
dealing with the problem with, maybe, bag limits and, obviously,
the allocation issue."
Number 0306
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN thanked everyone for their patience and their
testimony. He noted that due to the late hour, two of the
committee members were no longer in attendance. He suggested
holding the bill until everyone was present.
Number 0337
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted for the record that few people from the
general public had been present to testify. "People primarily that
came out to testify are people that have an interest in making
money off the resource," he pointed out. "The average Alaskan
didn't show up tonight off the street."
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct, CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN
adjourned the House Special Committee on Fisheries meeting at 7:41
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|