Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/11/1996 05:05 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 11, 1996
5:05 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.
OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative David Finkelstein
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 42 am
"An Act allowing a person to hold more than one entry permit for
certain fisheries and amending the definition of `unit of gear' for
purposes of the commercial fisheries limited entry program; and
providing for an effective date."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
UPDATE ON ALASKA'S OUTSTANDING LEGAL ISSUES CONCERNING FISHERIES
BY DAVID BENTON, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 42
SHORT TITLE: LIMITED ENTRY & UNITS OF GEAR
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
01/23/95 71 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/23/95 71 (S) RES, FIN
02/06/95 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/06/95 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/06/95 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/06/95 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/18/96 2774 (S) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED -
REFERRALS
03/18/96 2775 (S) RESOURCES
03/27/96 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/28/96 2938 (S) RES RPT 1DP 3NR
03/28/96 2938 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G)
03/29/96 (S) RLS AT 12:05 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
04/02/96 3013 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/2/96
04/02/96 3015 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/02/96 3015 (S) AM NO 1 MOVED BY TAYLOR
04/02/96 3015 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/02/96 3016 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
04/02/96 3016 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SSSB 42 AM
04/02/96 3016 (S) PASSED Y20 N-
04/02/96 3016 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
04/02/96 3030 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/03/96 3615 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/03/96 3615 (H) FISHERIES, RESOURCES
04/10/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/10/96 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/11/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
ROBIN TAYLOR, Senator
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol Building, Room 30
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3873
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement on SB 42.
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 SB 42.
OTTO FLORSHUTZ
P.O. Box 547
Wrangell, Alaska 99929
Telephone: (907) 874-2522 (message)
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 42 as written.
JOHN JENSEN
P.O. Box 681
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: (907) 772-4635
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 42.
LIZ CABRERA, Director
Petersburg Vessel Owners Association
P.O. Box 232
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: (907) 772-9323
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 42.
BILL FLOR, President
Southeast Dungeness Crab Association
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
(NO ADDRESS OR TELEPHONE NUMBER PROVIDED)
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 42.
BILL ALWERT
P.O. Box 1711
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-5511
POSITION STATEMENT: Asked question regarding SB 42.
DAVID BENTON, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99811-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-6136
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented update on Alaska's outstanding legal
issues concerning fisheries.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-17, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN ALAN AUSTERMAN called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. and noted there was a
quorum. Members present at the call to order were Representatives
Austerman, Moses and Elton. Representatives Davis and Ogan joined
the meeting at 5:10 p.m. and 5:32 p.m., respectively.
SB 42 - LIMITED ENTRY & UNITS OF GEAR
Number 0041
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR, sponsor of SB 42, described the bill as "the
second shoe to drop". A bill he sponsored the previous year,
identical to one sponsored by Representative Grussendorf, had
provided the beginning of a limited entry system in the dungeness
crab fishery. Senator Taylor recalled a flood of entrants came
into Alaska from Oregon and Washington, resulting in doubling and
redoubling of the numbers of participants. "Finally, after some
years where the economics of that over-extended fishery began to
take their toll, and we saw the numbers of permits beginning to
level off and come down, we felt it was probably a good time to
initiate this tiered system," Senator Taylor said.
Number 0144
SENATOR TAYLOR explained there was insufficient time the previous
year to accomplish a title change. "The title had been written too
tightly and, as a consequence, we were unable to put the stacking
provisions within the title," he stated. "The tiered system that
was created creates four different levels of gear involvement in
the fishery, starting at 300 pots at the top, which would be a
Class A permit, going down to a 75-pot limit, which would be a
Class D ... permit."
Number 0202
SENATOR TAYLOR indicated the legislation allowed the stacking of
two permits, so that a person with 75 pots, for example, could
purchase a 225-pot or Class B permit and put themselves at the 300-
pot limit. "By limiting it to two permits, you would not end up
eliminating all of the smaller, entry-level permits," he said,
indicating there had been serious concern that economics might
quickly generate only Class A or B permits, eliminating an entrance
level for new participants.
Number 0348
FRANK HOMAN, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC), commented that Senator Taylor had provided a good summation
and offered to answer questions.
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON asked how long it would take to develop
the regulations.
MR. HOMAN replied it was hard to say. However, he estimated
approximately six months. It would not be the current season, he
said, but rather the 1997 season, at least, because permanent
permits would be required before CFEC could allow stacking them
together.
Number 0421
OTTO FLORSHUTZ testified via teleconference from Wrangell, saying
he opposed SB 42 as written, although modification had made it more
to his liking. He believed access to the fishery by smaller or
younger operators was highly important. However, the timing of the
bill was bad. The tiered limited entry system was not to be
implemented until June 1997. "While the resource is healthy, there
are some other things seeking to destroy this fishery," he said.
Mr. Florshutz referred to a meeting in October 1995, at which the
Board of Fisheries postponed a decision to cut pot levels by one-
third and directed the Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to
develop a comprehensive management plan for the 1997 meeting
schedule. The board had forewarned crabbers to get their facts and
figures together if they hoped to defeat this management plan.
"Fish and Game's position was clear," Mr. Florshutz said. "The
45,000-pot tiered limited entry system plan was too much." He
suggested ADF&G would have lots of charts and graphs to prove the
imminent destruction of the resource under the current and past
management plans.
MR. FLORSHUTZ said it was uncertain how many permits would be
issued or pots fished. He suggested up to 58 interim permits could
be issued. "This bill would ensure that all unfished gears would
be bought, stacked and then aggressively fished," he said. "This
type of maximization of fishing effort at this time is dangerous in
regard to the Board of Fish[eries] decision. This bill could work
if amended to read that any gears transferred would sunset or
forfeit one-third of the pot allotment. This would ensure some
future gear reductions and demonstrate so to the board. For
example, 150-pot gear sold becomes 100 pots transferred and 50
forfeited. That would be a one-time only. But, this bill, if
passed as written, may be like getting a raise the day before your
boss fires you."
Number 0617
JOHN JENSEN testified via teleconference from Petersburg, saying
simply that he supported SB 42.
Number 0632
LIZ CABRERA, Director, Petersburg Vessel Owners Association,
testified via teleconference in support of SB 42. She referred to
the tiered system and said it gave current dungeness participants
an opportunity to make their operations more economically viable
without increasing the number of pots in the fishery, while
allowing new participants. By limiting the number of permits per
individual to two, the bill guaranteed that smaller permits could
not be consolidated into 300-pot blocks.
Number 0698
BILL FLOR, President, Southeast Dungeness Crabbers Association,
testified via teleconference from Petersburg. He said the bill was
a compromise that his organization supported, primarily because it
allowed for an entry level permit.
Number 0730
BILL ALWERT spoke via teleconference from Kodiak, asking if the
bill had any bearing on Kodiak. He noted there was no limited
entry there yet.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN indicated he understood that it did not
currently pertain to Kodiak. He asked if there was further
testimony or discussion by the committee.
Number 0812
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON moved that SSSB 42 (am) move from committee
with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal notes.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
UPDATE ON ALASKA'S OUTSTANDING LEGAL ISSUES CONCERNING FISHERIES
BY DAVID BENTON, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Number 0841
DAVID BENTON, Deputy Commission, Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G), explained he was Alaska's commissioner for the Pacific
Salmon Commission. He noted that Marty Weinstein from the
Department of Law and Kevin Duffy, Co-Chair of the Northern Panel,
from ADF&G, were available for questions. Mr. Benton furnished
hand-outs to the committee.
MR. BENTON provided a detailed history. In 1985, Alaska was in a
precarious position, with tribes in Washington and Oregon
threatening litigation to extend the Boldt decision into Alaska
fisheries. Canada had been fishing aggressively on stocks of
concern to Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. Primarily because of
the litigation threat, Alaska entered into a treaty intended to
foster rational management and rebuild chinook stocks. Those
stocks were shared by fisheries up and down the coast, came from
numerous systems, intermixed throughout the region, and were in a
depressed status. "As part of entering into the treaty, Alaska was
provided some protection from the Boldt-related, U.S. v. Washington
litigation," he said.
MR. BENTON explained the resulting three-part agreement provided
for 1) a treaty with Canada; 2) an out-of-court settlement
involving Alaska, the tribes and the federal government, which set
aside the litigation under the Baldrige Stipulation; and 3)a
commission composed of a tribal commissioner, a southern states
commissioner and an Alaska commissioner, which would have veto
power within the U.S. section and make decisions on salmon
allocation between the northern and southern United States.
Number 1082
MR. BENTON said although that arrangement served Alaska well for a
number of years, that was no longer the case. The "first crack in
the dike" was the re-initiation, by the tribes, of the U.S. v.
Washington proceedings. "That is basically an allocation issue
between us and the tribes over salmon that are harvested in Alaska
and whether or not those salmon count against the non-treaty
tribes' share down in Washington and Oregon," Mr. Benton explained.
"The protection from that litigation was one of the key points that
brought Alaska into the treaty."
Number 1136
MR. BENTON referred to "the second and more immediate crack in that
dike", events over the past couple of years where the southern
states re-initiated other litigation against Alaska, most notably
on chinook the previous year. "Those legal actions, tied to
Canada's intransigence over the equity issue, have put the Pacific
Salmon Treaty and the whole process in serious jeopardy," Mr.
Benton said. "And there are a number of major issues that have
become seriously intertwined. And I think the future of whether or
not this treaty survives is certainly a question."
Number 1178
MR. BENTON referred to rebuilding of chinook stocks, the subject of
litigation the previous year and much controversy. "The tribes and
state of Washington and Oregon sued Alaska because they did not
support our harvest level of 230,000," he said. "They were
successful in that litigation, primarily because of procedural
issues, although the judge gave every indication that, in her
opinion - although she didn't venture into fisheries management
issues - in her opinion, that Alaska ... probably would have
harvested too many fish. And under her injunction, we harvested
175,000; and Alaska's proposal at the time was 230,000."
MR. BENTON noted the upshot was disruption of both the fishery and
the treaty process. Prior to that, Alaska had operated within the
U.S. section on a more level playing field. Although the southern
U.S. members had not been pleasant, they were more or less equal in
terms of negotiations and nobody had leverage over anyone else.
"Now, we're in a situation where, I think, the tribes in the
southern United States believe that they have considerable leverage
over Alaska in the process, and it has become apparent in the way
they negotiate that they are willing to use that leverage," Mr.
Benton asserted.
Number 1280
MR. BENTON indicated Alaska took a number of actions the previous
fall. The department looked at the chinook program and the treaty
provision calling for a chinook rebuilding program, which had been
guiding the policy-making in the commission for the life of the
treaty. They identified key issues, added and assembled technical
staff, and started taking apart, systematically, those issues and
the rebuilding program, examining them to see how they affected
Alaska's fisheries and the status of those stocks.
Number 1337
MR. BENTON said a legal team in the Department of Law was assembled
to provide guidance and to help them look at obligations under the
treaty to ensure that Alaska's management and negotiations were
consistent with both the treaty and the law, in an increased effort
to prevent future litigation. "All that's ... a way of saying that
we decided that we would go on the offensive this fall and put the
south in the position of having to defend their status under the
chinook rebuilding program," Mr. Benton stated. "We identified ...
a whole range of technical issues and raised them repeatedly with
the southern states and tribes. They have, to date, been fairly
reluctant to engage us in those technical issues and instead have
relied, pretty much, on political and PR efforts to keep us in a
place where they're in an advantage in terms of the negotiations.
And they, I believe, have been working pretty closely with our
Canadian counterparts to do that."
Number 1410
MR. BENTON said in January, the first sit-down session of the
Pacific Salmon Commission occurred, an executive session involving
Alaska, Canada and a U.S. executive. "At that meeting, the
southern United States, in our U.S. executive session, put forward
a proposal that would have very severely constrained the Alaska
chinook fishery," he said. "I don't want to get into the numbers,
but it was just a very significant reduction which would have, in
essence, had us not even having a fishery this year. Canada came
forward at that same meeting and provided a very superficial
analysis of concerns that they have for stocks on the west coast of
Vancouver Island, claiming that if there weren't severe
restrictions beyond those that were in place in 1995, that some of
those stocks would be -- they're depressed now and could even go
extinct. And that was their words. They did not provide much in
the way of technical back-up at that time."
Number 1476
MR. BENTON said the second round of meetings took place in
February. Between those two meetings, Alaska asked the Canadians
for data on the status of those stocks. By February, some data had
been received, but not all of it. Mr. Benton said Alaska's
technical people worked with the Canadians and got into some in-
depth review of the Canadian presentation. Referring to the
Canadians, Mr. Benton said, "Their contention is built around the
production out of a couple of major hatcheries on the west coast of
Vancouver Island. They have tied that production argument, and
problems they've had with the hatcheries, to the wild stocks on the
island. And it turns out that after a fair amount of review, a lot
of their contentions are not accurate, and the linkage between the
hatcheries and the wild stocks is tenuous at best, for some
systems, and non-existent for a fairly sizeable number of systems."
MR. BENTON referred to a recent meeting in Victoria, at which
Canada made a proposal for Alaska's fishery that looked remarkably
like the original southern U.S. proposal and that would have
significantly restrained Alaska's fishery. The three items on the
agenda were status of Fraser River sockeye, southern U.S. coho and
chinook. "And they tied agreement on those other two fisheries to
us accepting a very low number on chinook," Mr. Benton said. "The
southern United States, on the other hand, actually became somewhat
more reasonable. They came back to us with a different proposal
that was more acceptable, but not really acceptable yet, for our
fishery. But more importantly, they laid out a concept that opened
the door for, maybe, a longer-range solution to the problem. And
what they put forward was ... a three-part proposal that would have
an interim arrangement for '96, negotiating, between now and the
end of the year, a long-term arrangement for '97 and beyond on
chinook, and an agreement that Alaska and the southern U.S. would
get together and develop a program for restoring production to
those chinook stocks in southern United States."
Number 1627
MR. BENTON continued, "We followed up on that with them and
actually fleshed it out and gave them a more detailed proposal on
all three components. And I'd say that for our numbers in '96 that
we are still fairly far apart. But if we're able to reach some
kind of accommodation on a longer-range, harvest-sharing
arrangement that extends from '97 and beyond, that both sides could
live with, we actually may be able to reach some kind of
accommodation for 1996."
MR. BENTON said the principle was "if we're going to share the
pain, we're going to share the gain." He stated, "Under the life
of the treaty to date, Alaska was constrained by a ceiling on the
chinook fishery of 263,000. And in the late '80s and early 1990s,
the abundance more than doubled in the fishery, but we were still
constrained at that low level. And our fisheries didn't have the
opportunity to access those fish. So, they didn't get to share in
the gains that were made in terms of rebuilding those stocks. Now
they're asking us to share in the pain in the low numbers. And
we've said, `if we're going to have to do that, then we want to see
a system that is somewhat more balanced and symmetrical, that gives
us opportunity, if we're going to have to take the constraint as
well'."
Number 1697
MR. BENTON noted there had been some progress using that concept.
"The importance of that is that if we get this kind of an agreement
put in place, we will not wind up in court this year," he stated.
"And given the way that the 9th Circuit has dealt with us, that's
probably a real advantageous thing to do, if we can do it." He
pointed out that did not mean Alaska would accept just any number
for 1996. An acceptable number would have to be based on the
status of stocks, not just a political reallocation accommodating
interests of the southern U.S. "So, we're still working on that
part of it, as well," he added.
Number 1735
MR. BENTON referred to the equity issue and the New Zealand
ambassador, Mr. Beeby, hired by the United States and Canada to
help sort out the equity argument. "In simple terms, equity is one
of several principles in the treaty," Mr. Benton explained. "It
basically says each party, the United States and Canada, should get
the benefits of the production of salmon from their ... respective
waters." Mr. Benton said it was vague and was an allocation issue.
"Canada has made this a theological tenet for them ... in their
negotiations in the commission," he said. "And they maintain that
the United States takes far more fish of Canadian origin than
Canada takes of U.S. origin. And without getting into all the
details, it is very contentious. It is very complicated."
MR. BENTON explained, "Clearly, we don't agree with the Canadian
viewpoint on how equity needs to be resolved, and we reached an
impasse between the two countries last year on this matter. It was
the issue that caused Canada to institute the transit fee a couple
of years ago. It was the issue that caused Canada to walk out of
the treaty process initially. It was the issue that Brian Tobin,
when he was fisheries minister and came out to the west coast in
'94, it was the issue that caused him to institute a fishing
strategy that was designed to fish hard on U.S. stocks, primarily
Washington and Oregon stocks, to bring the United States to the
table so we could resolve the equity issue."
Number 1822
MR. BENTON indicated Ambassador Beeby was hired as a mediator,
reluctantly by the U.S., in a last-ditch effort to resolve
differences. "He was unable to do that," Mr. Benton said. "Canada
back-tracked severely from progress we'd made even up to that
time." He said since Ambassador Beeby's departure, Canada had made
a lot of noise about having his report released. "Let me assure
you that the ambassador did not make a report," Mr. Benton said.
"He didn't even make a proposal. He had some concepts that he
floated around and there were several different versions of these
concepts. They were not acceptable to either or both of the
parties at any one time. When he left, he did not find fault with
either side in this debate. It's just that it is a very
complicated issue that the parties are very far apart on right
now."
Number 1849
MR. BENTON referred to the equity matter and said those dealing
with it on the U.S. side did not know where to go next. They
believed Canada was unwilling to negotiate in a good-faith manner.
"We've made every effort we could think of to get them to the table
so we could talk about it," Mr. Benton stated, indicating they had
offered to meet with Canada any time or place to discuss equity
arrangements. "And it has just gotten nowhere. So, I don't see us
making any progress on that any time soon," Mr. Benton added.
Number 1914
MR. BENTON indicated the issues of chinook and equity, combined
with Canada's problems with internal reallocation and fisheries
management, did not bode well for reaching agreements with Canada
this year or in the short-term foreseeable future. Canada had
instituted licensing and buy-back programs in their fleet, with
possible reductions of a third or greater. The licensing scheme
involved stacking licenses that were awarded to individuals who
might have to pool them onto one vessel in order to operate.
MR. BENTON understood Canadian fishermen had been paying the
government for several years in case of a future buy-back program.
"One industry representative down there told me it was on the order
of $65 million that they'd paid, that they thought they had to
institute a buy-back program when they agreed to it," Mr. Benton
said. "The Canadian government can't quite find that $65 million
now. They don't know how they're going to implement that buy-back
program. But it's there and they've got everybody pretty stirred
up. That, combined with the way they've mismanaged their fisheries
have really got their internal political situation in bad shape.
Their fishing policies have pretty much decimated their coho
stocks. They have consistently overfished their southern resident
chinook stocks down there in Georgia Strait and they have done a
terrible job on the Fraser River, to the extent they're going to
have to close the sockeye fishery this year. So, there's a lot of
pressures inside Canada that are going to cause them to not be very
amenable to negotiations with us."
MR. BENTON suggested it was to Alaska's benefit to reach accord
with the southern U.S. to avoid court battles. "We're willing to
go to court and will go to court if we have to, to defend Alaska's
interests," he said. "But I would hope that we could reach an
accommodation with them and hopefully resolve our differences
there. And then maybe then, together, we can deal with Canada ...
on a united front inside the U.S. section."
Number 2021
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked about the limit for Southeast Alaska
chinook this year.
MR. BENTON replied although he could not speak to the numbers,
Alaska was reasonably far apart but within striking distance of
agreement with the southern U.S., but nowhere near any kind of
agreement with Canada. Following a planned meeting of the U.S.
commissioners towards the end of April, more firm information
should be forthcoming. "The sticking point right now is the
estimate of abundance of chinook," Mr. Benton said, explaining that
estimates were done through a modeling effort conducted by Alaskan,
southern U.S., and Canadian scientists. He stated, "Until we have
agreement on that abundance estimate, we're not going to able to
really get an agreement on an overall number for this year. But I
will tell you that abundances are down this year over last. That's
not unexpected. We knew that there was a problem with Robertson
Creek Hatchery on the west coast of Vancouver Island."
Number 2088
MR. BENTON said several years ago, there had been back-to-back el
ninos, during which there was heavy predation on hatchery-released
chinook in Barkley Sound. That hatchery accounted for
approximately 30 percent of Alaska's fishery when it was up and
running. "So, we know abundances are down because of that," Mr.
Benton said. "We knew there was a problem with that hatchery
program. This year was the year that was projected to be sort of
the bottom of that curve and abundances are now supposed to start
increasing because of the survival of that hatchery stock and
others, because ocean survival conditions improved. It should help
us out in '97 and ... beyond. But this year, abundances are
definitely down and Alaska is going to act responsibly. We have a
conservation obligation under the treaty and just generally, that's
the way we manage fisheries. And so, we're going to respond to
that. But we don't think the kind of response Canada was trying to
force us into was anywhere near responsible or appropriate."
Number 2125
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked about the predation on hatchery fish.
MR. BENTON replied it was mackerel, which followed warm water north
into Barkley Sound.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON noted Mr. Benton's reluctance to talk about
the numbers and asked why.
MR. BENTON explained there were international negotiations and that
Alaska was right in the middle of negotiating with the south in an
executive committee setting. He was bound by those rules.
Number 2168
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON indicated he sensed the Canadians did not feel
constrained about discussing the issue.
MR. BENTON replied the Canadians had not been very constrained
about meeting any of their obligations recently. For example, with
regard to the mediator in the equity issue, there was an agreement
not to discuss the mediator's operations in the press, which the
Canadians came close to violating after presenting inaccurate
information. "But that doesn't mean that Alaska can't meet its
obligations, at least with regard to our southern colleagues I'm
trying to negotiate with right now," he said.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked at what point Mr. Benton could begin
talking about the numbers.
MR. BENTON hoped after the next round of discussions with the
southern U.S. commissioners that either an agreement would be
reached or that they would be close enough to talk about numbers.
Number 2270
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if there was any way of allocating the
sport fish harvest by Washington and Oregon residents, and the
commercial troll harvest by Washington and Oregon trollers, to the
southern catch rather than to Alaska's catch.
MR. BENTON asked if he meant in-state.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON concurred and asked why that should be counted
against the Alaska harvest.
MR. BENTON declared that was just the way it was structured under
the annex in the treaty. All catch in Southeast Alaska was under
that quota, regardless of who caught the fish.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if that could be changed. "For example,
I've been told that half the sport fish harvest in Southeast Alaska
is by Washington and Oregon anglers," he said. "I get very
frustrated ... that that's allocated to us." He asked if it was
written in stone.
Number 2278
MR. BENTON said he sometimes shared that frustration. "It has to
do with the treaty annex and, in part, it has to do with U.S. law,"
he said. He suggested that, as with other allocation issues, it
might be unconstitutional to discriminate between residents of
respective states. As for the treaty annex, the harvest in
Southeast Alaska was under a quota. Mr. Benton mentioned a related
problem, the large sport fish catches off the west coast of
Vancouver Island that were not accounted for under the Canadian
quota.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON indicated that was his next question. He
asked if that was also written in stone and how that had happened.
Number 2326
MR. BENTON said he was not around when the treaty was negotiated.
"But my understanding is that the reason that that occurred is
because the southern delegates, at the time the treaty was
negotiated, were so anxious to get an agreement that they agreed to
allow Canada to not count their sport fish harvest off Vancouver
Island under the annex. So, the annex covers troll and net and
some sport. It's sort of called `sport troll' but it's ... in the
outside waters. And it's relatively a minor component of the
overall sport catch off the west coast of Vancouver Island. At the
time, I don't think the sport fishery was that large. But what has
happened is that they've had an enormous explosion in the sport
fish component of their fishery, none of which is counted under the
quota."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if that was a door that could not be
opened again.
MR. BENTON replied, "Well, I've brought it up a number of times
with the Canadians. And every time I do, the southern United
States guys are the ones that start squawking about, `oh, we can't
bring that up again'. It's pretty frustrating. That's why, in
some ways, I'd like to ... try to get some better cooperation
between the U.S. commissioners, if possible, so that we can do
things like that. But as long as it's the way it is inside the
U.S. section, there's no way we can get to it, because it requires
both sides to agree."
Number 2391
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he was amazed at the ability of the
Canadians, when there was a vacuum of information, to take
advantage of that. He expressed concern over the way Canada had
characterized the departure of Ambassador Beeby. He asked if the
ambassador could prepare a press release saying `I have no report;
I have circulated concepts; the concepts were not agreeable to both
parties'."
MR. BENTON stated he shared the frustration and said, "When Canada
first broke this as a news article and started doing their PR
campaign, we went to the U.S. negotiator - because really this is
his province, and the U.S. government should be responding, in my
view - and strongly urged him to deal with us. And the U.S.
government has been reluctant to get out there in front of the PR
campaign. I guess they just feel that they're better off doing
things behind the scenes." Mr. Benton said Ambassador Pipkin
solicited a letter from Ambassador Beeby clarifying the situation,
which apparently Beeby sent to Fortier, the Canadian negotiator.
Mr. Benton never saw the letter, which addressed confidential
issues.
TAPE 96-17, SIDE B
Number 0003
MR. BENTON said whereas Canada had no qualms about "pushing the
envelope," the U.S. did not want to do so and was stuck with the
result.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said he understood negotiations were still going
on and there was no cap set for Southeast Alaska.
MR. BENTON concurred.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN remarked that at some point, people would want
to start fishing. He asked if that time arrived and there was no
cap set, whether ADF&G would set a conservative cap.
MR. BENTON explained that, excluding last year, in years past when
there was no agreed-to annex, Alaska set a harvest range, usually
in keeping with the previous annex, which would have been 263,000.
However, in more recent years, that number had been somewhat
constrained by Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements to deal
with Snake River fall chinook. "This year, because of the severe
reductions in the Canadian fisheries - they're planning fairly
significant reductions in their chinook fishery - and in southern
fisheries - primarily because of coho - we don't think that the ESA
question is really going to ... have much effect up in Southeast
Alaska," Mr. Benton said. "So, we shouldn't have much of a problem
with an ESA issue if ... the fishery is conducted anywhere near
where it has been in recent years."
MR. BENTON indicated that if Alaska could not get an agreement from
southern United States interests, let alone Canada, Alaska would
set the best number possible and live by it. "And it's at that
time that the opportunity for the south to take us to court sort of
comes into play," he said. "Hopefully, we'll have an agreement or,
hopefully, it will be a number that even if they can't agree, maybe
for political reasons, they won't think it's worth their time and
effort to go to court. We will be responsible. But ... right now,
we're in a situation where we can't even really estimate what that
number should be."
Number 0103
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked whether Mr. Benton anticipated a lawsuit
from the Canadians if an agreement was reached with the southern
U.S. and a cap was set.
MR. BENTON replied, "Canada can't take us to court. The only way
that Canada got in that lawsuit was at the invitation of Washington
and the tribes ...."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN expressed appreciation to David
Benton, who had worked on these kinds of issues for over a decade.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there were further questions and
thanked Mr. Benton for the presentation.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct, CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN
adjourned the House Special Committee on Fisheries meeting at 6:00
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|