Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/18/1996 05:06 PM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
April 18, 1996
5:06 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."
- PASSED CSHB 538(2d FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTMENTS TO BOARD OF FISHERIES: GRANT MILLER, DAN
COFFEY AND VIRGIL UMPHENOUR
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) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/06/96 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/06/96 2995 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/06/96 2995 (H) FISHERIES
03/11/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/11/96 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/13/96 3113 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) 2DP 3NR
03/13/96 3113 (H) DP: AUSTERMAN, ELTON
03/13/96 3113 (H) NR: G.DAVIS, OGAN, MOSES
03/13/96 3113 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G)
04/17/96 3826 (H) RETURN TO FSH COMMITTEE
04/18/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
AMY DAUGHERTY, Committee Aide
House Special Committee on Fisheries and
Legislative Assistant to
Representative Alan Austerman
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol Building, Room 434
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4230
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained changes in CSHB 538(2d FSH).
JOHN WINTHER
P.O. Box 509
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: (907) 772-4754
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSHB 538(2d FSH).
GRANT J. MILLER
P.O. Box 2456
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-5982
POSITION STATEMENT: Appointee to Board of Fisheries.
DAN K. COFFEY
207 East Northern Lights Boulevard, Number 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 274-3385
POSITION STATEMENT: Appointee to Board of Fisheries.
VIRGIL L. UMPHENOUR
2400 Davis Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 456-3885
POSITION STATEMENT: Appointee to Board of Fisheries.
ALVIN D. OSTERBACK, Mayor
City of Sand Point
P.O. Box 249
Sand Point, Alaska 99661
Telephone: (907) 383-2696
POSITION STATEMENT: Approved Miller confirmation; testified about
Coffey; did not recommend Umphenour.
DORNE HAWXHURST
Cordova District Fishermen United
P.O. Box 939
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907) 424-3447
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified about confirmations.
DAN WINN
P.O. Box 1272
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-8712
POSITION STATEMENT: Voiced concerns about Coffey.
TAMMIE SHRADER
P.O. Box 2601
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-7670
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed Coffey confirmation.
CINDY AMBERFIELD
P.O. Box 2518
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-3621
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged reconsideration of Coffey nomination.
DICK H. BOWER, SR., Member
Board of Fisheries
P.O. Box 3662
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-7132
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported confirmation of Miller and Coffey.
JIM RICHARDSON
308 G Street, Number 103
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 279-2883
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported Coffey confirmation.
BILL SULLIVAN
P.O. Box 943
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-4850
POSITION STATEMENT: Strongly opposed Coffey confirmation.
LOU CLARK
United Cook Inlet Drift Association
2840 Porcupine Trail
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Telephone: (907) 345-0817
POSITION STATEMENT: Strongly opposed confirmation of Coffey and
Umphenour; supported Miller confirmation.
JOHN McCOMBS
P.O. Box 87
Ninilchik, Alaska 99639
Telephone: (907) 567-3334
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed confirmation of Coffey and Umphenour;
supported Miller confirmation.
DAVID HORNE
HC 2, Box 543
Kasilof, Alaska 99610
Telephone: (907) 262-4551
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed Coffey confirmation; supported
Miller confirmation; testified about
Umphenour.
LARRY VAN SKY
HC 1, Box 1330
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 776-8627
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed confirmation of Coffey and Umphenour.
BEN ELLIS, Executive Director
Kenai River Sportfishing Association
P.O. Box 1228
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-8588
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported confirmation of Coffey and
Umphenour.
GARY HOLLIER
P.O. Box 2965
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-9185
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported Miller confirmation; opposed Coffey
confirmation.
GRACE KENDALL
P.O. Box 2523
Sterling, Alaska 99672
Telephone: (907) 262-6130
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed confirmation of Coffey and Umphenour.
PAUL SHADURA
P.O. Box 1632
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 262-1632
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed Coffey confirmation.
DENBY LLOYD, Chief Resource Analyst
Aleutians East Borough
1600 A Street, Suite 103
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-5146
Telephone: (907) 274-7555
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported confirmation of Miller and Coffey.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-18, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN ALAN AUSTERMAN called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 5:06 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Austerman, Davis and Elton.
Representatives Moses and Ogan joined the meeting at 5:12 p.m. and
5:15 p.m., respectively.
HB 538 - VESSEL MORATORIUM FOR HAIR CRAB FISHERY
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked Amy Daugherty to explain how the current
committee substitute for HB 538 differed from the previous one.
Number 0063
AMY DAUGHERTY, Committee Aide, House Special Committee on
Fisheries, and Legislative Assistant to Representative Alan
Austerman, said the committee substitute that had passed out of
committee previously was a general moratorium for the Bering Sea
Korean Hair Crab. After it reached the House Rules Committee,
there had been misgivings about it, especially by the
representative of the district most directly affected by the bill.
MS. DAUGHERTY explained the current draft established a five-mile
buffer area around the Pribilof Islands, to be utilized exclusively
by small crabbing vessels no greater than 58 feet in length.
Ms.Daugherty said a compromise among many people had been reached
and that, to her knowledge, everyone was currently satisfied with
it.
Number 0178
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON made a motion to adopt work draft 9-
LS1736\Z, dated 4/18/96, CSSB 538. There being no objection, it
was so ordered.
MS. DAUGHERTY referred to the intent language on page 2, lines 15-
16, and said, "The Department of Fish and Game has been through
this document and this plan, and they felt very strongly that we
needed to leave the ... 100 percent observer program intact, or at
least put intent language in there so that that would remain."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if that was new language.
MS. DAUGHERTY affirmed that.
Number 0270
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON noted that it maintained 100 percent observer
coverage for all vessels engaged. He asked if that meant skiff
fishermen around the Pribilofs would need an observer aboard.
MS. DAUGHERTY replied that the department was concerned about the
resource. There were also several other species of crab in the
area. "That's exactly what it is right now, 100 percent crab
observer coverage," she said. "Since we are essentially providing
for that fishery, they wanted us to include that. The industry has
not resisted that yet." She pointed out that within the five-mile
zone, there was not much of an industry, nor many boats 58 feet or
less.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON suggested it was almost mutually exclusive
language if they were trying to establish a skiff fishery.
Number 0361
MS. DAUGHERTY explained it was not a skiff fishery. "I'm sure the
waters are way too rough for a skiff fishery," she said.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON replied he may be misstating it. He asked
whether a boat in the small-boat fleet off the Pribilofs would be
required to have an observer on board.
MS. DAUGHERTY affirmed that.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON maintained that it still might be mutually
exclusive.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted there was already 100 percent coverage
with the existing fishery. If more boats were entering the
fishery, the department wanted to continue to have 100 percent
coverage to protect this fragile fishery. Chairman Austerman
called on Mr. Winther to testify.
Number 0433
JOHN WINTHER testified that he owned a vessel that fished for hair
crab in the Bering Sea. He agreed there had been compromises on
both sides and said, "Our group can live with what's been done
here. We're happy with it. And the alternative, we know, would be
nothing. And if that happens, after this year, we can forget about
trying to do something for the fisheries because of the added
effort that will come into the fisheries the next season,
November1." Mr. Winther indicated the reason there was currently
100 percent observer coverage was the high number of small king
crab stocks in the general area, the by-catch for which the
department wanted to monitor closely. "So, they want to continue
to have 100 percent observer coverage on any vessel that might
participate in this fishery," he said. "And it's a real fine line.
You can be fishing along and, all of a sudden, just get into the
king crab. And they have to monitor that very closely." Mr.
Winther thanked everyone for their work in reaching the compromise.
Number 0530
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there was discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS made a motion that CSHB 538 move from
committee with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal
note.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN objected so that his presence could be
noted, then withdrew his objection.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there were further objections. There
being none, CSHB 538 moved from the House Special Committee on
Fisheries.
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTMENTS TO BOARD OF FISHERIES: GRANT MILLER, DAN
COFFEY and VIRGIL UMPHENOUR
Number 0601
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted the next order of business was a hearing
on the confirmations of Grant Miller, Dan Coffey and Virgil
Umphenour to the Board of Fisheries. All three nominees were
present on teleconference. Chairman Austerman called on Mr. Miller
to speak first.
Number 0669
GRANT MILLER testified via teleconference, saying he had been a
self-employed commercial fisherman for 30 years and was dependent
on fisheries resources as his sole source of income. His wife and
two sons, who were 19 and 20 years old, also participated in the
fisheries, including the halibut longline, herring gillnet, salmon
seine and troll fisheries. "I'm dependent on these resources and
intend to do the best I can to see that we continue to have these
resources," he concluded.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Miller which fisheries he
participated in.
Number 0781
MR. MILLER said although his main fishery currently is Southeast
salmon seining, he spent most of his time since 1977 as a troller.
"My wife and I trolled with the Johnny Roger up until three years
ago, when we bought a seine permit, and we continue to fish
together as a family," he said. "I still hold my troll permit and
I fish in the winter ... troll fishery and also in the experimental
hatchery openings in the spring with the troller. I also currently
operate a herring bait pound in Sitka sound, which ... the last two
years has not managed to get any herring, so that hasn't produced
anything for me. I also have some IFQ shares in halibut, which we
fish with the troller, the Johnny Roger."
Number 0841
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said the biggest complaint he heard about the
Board of Fisheries, which he believed was a public perception by a
significant proportion of Alaskans, was that the board was biased
towards commercial fishermen. He asked Mr. Miller to comment on
that and on how objective he could be. He also asked whether Mr.
Miller could manage the fisheries on a sustained-yield principle
and recognize the growing competing interests of sport fishermen,
tourists and others.
Number 0891
MR. MILLER pointed out that the make-up of the board was not biased
towards commercial fishing. "I believe we have three people on the
board who own commercial fishing permits," he said. "I believe I'm
the only one whose sole source of income is commercial fishing.
Then we ... also have Trefon Angasan, who does hold a permit in
Bristol Bay, and Dr. White, whose main income is dentistry, who
also holds a ... permit in a small gillnet fishery, I believe, on
the Kuskokwim. So, I don't believe there's a bias there on the
board."
MR. MILLER continued, "At this time, in terms of how I approach it,
my main concern is the resource, and I believe that I make my
decisions based on the best available information provided to me by
our Department of Fish and Game. And my first consideration is the
resource and its ability to sustain and produce, for all users.
And, as may be evidenced by our recent meeting in Cook Inlet, we
have made decisions that aren't necessarily biased towards
commercial fishermen. And I would say that some may interpret the
decision ... at Cook Inlet to be particularly favorable towards the
sport fishermen. I believe that's possible for all of us, and I
think, ... given the information that we get from the Department of
Fish and Game, all of us appear to have the same concern about the
resource. And I don't believe that I would be biased unduly
towards the commercial fisheries versus other users."
Number 1010
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that the question was a difficult one
for an appointee to answer. He noted committee packets contained
something he considered relatively extraordinary, a letter
endorsing Mr. Miller, signed not only by commercial fishing
interests but also by Carl Rosier on behalf of the Alaska Outdoor
Council, one of the most vocal sport entities in the state, and by
Bill Foster on behalf of "day charter people." Representative
Elton concluded that while Mr. Miller did a good job of answering
the question, perhaps even a better answer was what some of the
sport fishing people said about him.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN clarified his question was categorical, not
personal. He declared he was not saying there was a bias but a
perception of bias. "And for many people, the perception is
reality," he said. "So, thank you for that answer."
Number 1098
MR. MILLER assured Representative Ogan he did not take offense and
had been asked that question, which was important, before.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there were questions from the committee
and then requested that Mr. Miller stay on line.
DAN K. COFFEY testified via teleconference from Anchorage, saying
he was a 49-year Alaska resident and single parent of three sons
who made his living as an attorney and businessman. "In the past,
I have been a commercial fisherman," he said. "Most recently, I
was the owner of a 80-foot halibut schooner, which I sold ... to my
partner in 1990. I was then, and always have been in Alaska, a
sports fisherman, so, I have had ... interests on both sides of
this."
MR. COFFEY said as an attorney, he spent a lot of time prior to his
appointment reading the constitutional provisions, statutes and
case law. "And the three meetings we've had as a board, what I try
to do most is read all of the volumes and volumes of material that
is given to us, take policies that the board has had for 20 years
or more and apply the facts, as we learn them, to the policies that
this board and the prior boards have adopted, and make decisions
that are, first, in the interests of conservation and sustained
yield," he explained. "And then, the more difficult questions,
which are ... somewhat subjective, are the ones of allocation
between beneficial users, which ... [are] the ones that cause the
most argument between the people, but [I] try to apply those
decisions in a fair and equitable manner as best I can. I think if
I am confirmed, that that's the way I would continue to run my
tenure on the board."
Number 1233
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON noted that Mr. Coffey's resume listed service
on the board of F.I.S.H., Inc. He asked if Mr. Coffey was still on
the board or involved with it in any way.
MR. COFFEY replied, "When I made the application for the Board of
Fisheries, I resigned from the board of F.I.S.H., Inc." He
indicated that was in December. "I was also the registered agent
of the corporation and I resigned from that position and severed
all my ties to the organization, returning files. And I had the
corporate book and I gave that back to the president, things of
that nature, because it, to my way of thinking, would have been
inappropriate to remain on the board of F.I.S.H., Inc., and also
serve in the capacity as a member of the Board of Fisheries. So,
I've severed all my ties with the organization."
Number 1284
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked about the board of F.I.S.H., Inc.
MR. COFFEY explained that F.I.S.H. was an acronym for "Fairness in
Salmon Harvest". It was a corporation formed for the purpose of
drafting and getting on the ballot the F.I.S.H. initiative, which
was currently on the ballot and had recently withstood legal
challenges in Southeast Alaska. "It basically is an allocative
direction to the Board of Fisheries," Mr. Coffey said. "If this
passes, it will be similar to a statutory provision which would
require a certain allocation of fish between commercial and sports
fishing interests. And the corporation was the vehicle that was
used to draft and sponsor and push this initiative."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN indicated it could be argued that involvement
with F.I.S.H. could give a bias towards sport fishermen. He asked
whether Mr. Coffey could be fair towards commercial fishing
interests in decisions that might be contrary to what he had worked
for on the F.I.S.H. board.
Number 1373
MR. COFFEY responded, "Well, I believe so, and I will certainly
strive to be that. Much as what Mr. Miller just said, our first
and primary objective - and I haven't seen anybody on the board
currently who doesn't share this - our first and primary objective
is ... for the conservation of the salmon stocks and the crab
stocks, or whatever they may be, and their sustained yield.
Whenever we have conservation issues, there's no argument among
board members. We have to face those issues first."
Number 1401
MR. COFFEY recognized that many commercial fishermen believed he
had a bias. "But my goal, again, is to take what is a public
resource, look at it in light of the demands that are made upon
that resource, look at the policies that the board uses - and these
are adopted in regulation, there are various policies, the Upper
Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan is one of them, and that's what
we dealt with in Cook Inlet - take those policies, which are of
many years' duration, and apply them to our decision-making
process," he said. "And sometimes that comes down on the side of
commercial interests and sometimes it comes down on sport
interests."
MR. COFFEY cited the example of Cook Inlet, where some board
decisions were supported in part by sports interests and some,
involving the Northern District of Upper Cook Inlet, were strongly
supported by the set net commercial fishermen in that district. "I
knew this would be controversial when I got on there because of the
perceived bias," he said, adding that he tried to make the best
decision based on the evidence and material provided to the board.
MR. COFFEY emphasized that the fisheries were fully utilized. "So,
when you make decisions to change the status quo, you are taking
from one and giving to another, or things of that nature, so it's
very difficult," he said.
Number 1508
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS asked how much time Mr. Coffey spent as
an attorney and on business interests.
MR. COFFEY indicated his practice involved commercial law with a
heavy emphasis on liquor law and licensing. "And there's not many
other people who do that at all, so, it's a very specialized
practice," he said. "And I'm able to do that in such a manner that
I probably spend half of my time on my law practice and the rest of
my time is on my business. I would now say that it's probably 40
percent on law and 40 percent on the business, and 20 percent on
the Board of Fisheries."
Number 1538
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said articles had suggested Mr. Coffey was a
one-issue appointee. "It's indicated that you've publicly stated
that yourself, and that issue is to take fish from the commercial
fishery in Cook Inlet and ... reallocate them to the sport fishing,
guiding and tourism industry," he said, asking Mr. Coffey to
address that.
MR. COFFEY replied he had never said that. He explained, "Mr.
Miller and I were appointed two days before Cook Inlet started.
So, from the very get-go, in those meetings, I was asked, both by
members of the public, as well as the press, if I was going to
resign after the meetings on Cook Inlet and if ... this was the
only thing I was interested in. And I told them - I'll tell you -
that that's not my nature. I didn't ... agree to take this job so
I could sit there for three weeks on the Cook Inlet board and then
walk away. And I think if you ask people who have observed me in
the shellfish meetings, and people who have observed me in the
recent meetings on the June fishery and Area M, they will tell you
that I read the material and I work real hard to participate, as
best I can, in all of the things that the board is doing. So, if
I am confirmed by the legislature, then I will work hard on all
issues in all areas of the state to try to fulfill the duties ...
that a member of the Board of Fisheries needs to do."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there were further questions for Mr.
Coffey and asked him to stay on line. He then called on Virgil
Umphenour.
Number 1677
VIRGIL UMPHENOUR testified via teleconference from Whitehorse,
British Columbia. An Alaska resident since 1971, he owned and
operated a small fish and meat processing plant in Fairbanks. He
bought commercially caught fish, primarily from the Upper Yukon,
and custom processed sport-caught fish and game. In addition, he
was a big game hunting guide. Mr. Umphenour had been on the Board
of Fisheries almost two years, having been reappointed at the time
Mr. Coffey and Mr. Miller were appointed.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked Mr. Umphenour to characterize the board
and his impressions of it.
Number 1726
MR. UMPHENOUR responded, "Well, there's a lot of issues before the
board and it's a lot of work and requires a lot of research and a
lot of paying attention at the meetings. And it makes a lot of
hard decisions pertaining primarily to allocation. But some of the
hard decisions are what to do about some of the various
conservation concerns that we have cyclically, king crab in Bristol
Bay and a lot of other concerns. But I believe that our system is
the most democratic system, probably, of any of the states, where
the public is allowed to participate and get their ideas across.
Anyone that wants to can make a proposal and the proposals are
heard. And the department has to ... make comments on the pros and
cons of the proposal that the public puts in. So, I feel it's a
very good process."
Number 1775
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if Mr. Umphenour believed the issue
around False Pass had been resolved.
MR. UMPHENOUR's reply was indiscernible.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked what action had been taken.
MR. UMPHENOUR responded, "Action that was taken at this last
meeting was that we put mandatory retention for all salmon caught
in the fishery. And I think that that action will stop a lot of
the mortality of chum salmon in that fishery, that are migrating
through, in the June fishery. So, it will put a lot more fish into
the terminal areas that ... they're bound for."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Umphenour to explain what had
occurred previously, how that differed, and what his position was
on it.
Number 1831
MR. UMPHENOUR replied, "What was going on before is a number of the
fishermen, which are purse seiners and drift gillnet fishermen,
would catch chum salmon and then release them back into the water.
And there's no way to know how many of those fish are going to die.
And the indications are that a very large portion of those fish are
going to die, especially the ones caught in gillnets. If they're
gilled, they're going to die. And there was no accountability for
how many of these fish were being caught and then released. And we
have a chum cap in that fishery, and the chum cap was put there by
the board first in 1986, and it was to conserve chum salmon headed
for the Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim (indisc. -- coughing). (Indisc.)
again, at this board meeting just this past week, and I supported
it fully."
Number 1874
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the chum were a by-catch of another
species being targeted, with the chums being pitched because they
were of lower value.
MR. UMPHENOUR replied, "Partially correct but not completely
correct. The chum cap is there to conserve chums. The targeted
specie is the sockeye that are bound for Bristol Bay. And if they
catch 700,000 chums in that fishery, then the fishery is supposed
to close. And so, it's a conservation measure to try to encourage
the fishermen to target sockeye and not chum salmon."
Number 1898
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked: "And so, what you're saying ... is that
the chum cap, if they turned the fish back when they caught them in
the nets and kicked them back, that wasn't counting against the
cap?"
MR. UMPHENOUR said that was correct. "And then, a certain amount
of those fish naturally die, and there's no way to quantify exactly
how many of them die, but in tagging studies that the department
has done in that area on sockeye and chum salmon both, the figures
used ... for tagging mortality, in which the fish are handled as
gently as possible, are as high as 50 percent, the estimates on the
mortality," he said. "And so, a fish that's caught and not handled
gently is going to have a higher mortality than one that is handled
gently, and especially a fish caught in a gillnet, because ... if
they're gilled, they're going to die. There's no question about
it. The fish that are caught in that fishery are headed for the
Kuskokwim, the Yukon, Norton Sound and Kotzebue, the ones that are
in the conservation concern mode. And some of those systems are
... in excess of 1,000 miles in the ocean before they get to the
river they're going to go up. And then, some of those fish, in the
case of the Yukon, have in excess of 2,000 miles to travel up the
river. And then, they lose scales and have other physical damage
to them that exposes them to infection and bacteria and fungus and,
also, increased predation."
Number 1980
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked what the estimated catch was of fish
being kicked back from that fishery.
MR. UMPHENOUR replied, "I've had a number of people tell me that
it's a very large amount, but there's just no way of knowing it,"
he said. "I know that the Department of Public Safety, when they
did their investigation into it last year, they reported that they
were ... `frequently' returned to the water."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked: "So, if this chum cap ends up with an
adequate escapement to the Yukon-Kuskokwim, ... would you be
willing to relax that? And I would assume this probably has a
devastating impact on the Area M fishermen, doesn't it?"
Number 2021
MR. UMPHENOUR responded, "Now, people could say it has a
devastating impact on it. Maybe it does. But the people have to
consider the impact on the fisheries like Norton Sound, where the
commercial and sport fishery have both been closed since 1988. And
portions of the subsistence fishing have been closed since 1990, I
mean totally closed. There's four rivers there that are totally
closed to subsistence fishing and have been since 1990, and six
more rivers that have had severe subsistence restrictions put on
them. The Area M fishery doesn't only fish in June, but, in the
case of the Norton Sound fishery, that's the only salmon fishery
they have, and ... it has a long history of fishing. And they used
to average catching between 65[,000] and 70,000 chum salmon in the
Nome Subdistrict back in the 50s, when the salmon stocks were low
statewide."
MR. UMPHENOUR continued, "Their average catch in that district now,
for subsistence only, because that's the only fishery that's
allowed, is in the neighborhood of 3,000 chum salmon. And the
AreaM fishermen also have other fishery resources that they can
fish for besides salmon. But they fish for salmon all the way up
into September. So, they have many other ... alternative
resources. But the people in Norton Sound, the people in the
Kuskokwim and Yukon and Kotzebue Sound, have no alternative fishery
resources to speak of. And, also, the people in the Yukon here in
Canada. That's why I'm here now, is discussing the rebuilding of
the salmon stocks on the Canadian side of the border."
Number 2095
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON posed a question to be answered by Mr. Coffey
and Mr. Miller, as well, in their closing statements. He asked Mr.
Umphenour whether he made a distinction between Alaska anglers and
the guided sport or sport/commercial fishery.
MR. UMPHENOUR replied, "Yes, I do."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked how Mr. Umphenour would apply that
distinction regarding policy.
MR. UMPHENOUR responded, "My recommendation is this. Hunting
guides are required, for a number of reasons, to have an experience
factor of having hunted part of five years in the state of Alaska.
That's for a number of reasons, especially when they're taking
people on dangerous rivers and remote areas where there's lots of
bears around. That's my first recommendation. My second
recommendation is that non-resident alien sport fishermen should
have to be guided. There was a case on the upper Susitna, not this
year but the year before, where a fishing guide from the
Netherlands sunk a boat and drowned and ... neither him nor any of
his clients even had a life jacket on. But these people can't read
the regulation book. They don't know what the regulations are
because they can't read the regulation book. They have no concept
whatsoever of conservation of the resource and they should be
required to be guided just like non-resident aliens are in the big
game industry. ... Because there are a very large number of non-
resident guides, where their fisheries have been destroyed in the
Pacific Northwest, and some of them as far away as Florida, that
are coming up to Alaska, paying the $25 and declaring themself a
sport fish guide, and they are very unethical. I've had complaints
from a number of resident guides on the Gulkana River in the
Glennallen area, on the Kenai River and the Susitna drainage in
Bristol Bay, that have all complained to me about the unethical
activities of these non-resident guides that are coming up here to
make the big bucks and head back to Florida or California or
wherever they come from."
Number 2223
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES said, "You've mentioned that enforcement
reported a high percentage of what is commonly known as `chum
chucking'." He asked where Mr. Umphenour got that information.
MR. UMPHENOUR replied he got it from Colonel Glass of the
Department of Public Safety, who was the head state trooper for
fish and wildlife protection. "And it was in a report that he
presented to the Board of Fisheries," he said.
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES asked if there had been any arrests or
violations written up.
MR. UMPHENOUR responded, "Yes, there were, but not on that issue,
because there is no way to determine it. There was a loophole in
the regulation and there was no way to determine whether the fish
were dead or alive, because they sink."
Number 2259
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES indicated that was different from the report
he himself had received.
MR. UMPHENOUR stated, "The report from Colonel Glass said that the
fish were released frequently."
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES asked whether Mr. Umphenour felt there is
adequate enforcement and administration in Norton Sound and on the
Yukon River.
Number 2270
MR. UMPHENOUR replied that he felt there is. "In the Yukon River,
the state troopers in 1994, ... for the Anvik River fishery, they
had four undercover troopers observing twenty fishermen fish," he
said. "And in Norton Sound, that fishery's closed. And the Yukon
River fishery, for the fall chums, was closed in 1992, 1993 and
1994 for commercial and sport fishing, and in 1993, totally closed
for subsistence, also, due to lack of chum salmon, while the AreaM
fishery still fish as much as they could. ... In fact, in 1994 ...
and '95 both, they continuously fished the last 15 days of ... June
on those same fish stocks."
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES stated, "It has been reported to me that
you've made the statement you didn't care what the testimony was or
what the facts were, you wanted Area M closed." He asked if that
was a true statement.
MR. UMPHENOUR replied, "No, that's a false statement."
Number 2330
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN thanked Mr. Umphenour and asked all appointees
to stay on line, informing them they would have an opportunity for
closing statements following public testimony.
Number 2352
ALVIN D. OSTERBACK, Mayor, City of Sand Point, testified that he
was a fisherman from Area M and had attended the recent Board of
Fisheries meeting. He spoke on each appointee. "I would hope that
the legislature would go ahead and approve Grant Miller," he
stated. "I worked with him in the past on the UFA board of
directors. I think he is quite knowledgeable, has a lot of fishing
experience, and he's a good addition to the Board of Fish[eries]
and to the process."
MR. OSTERBACK stated, "We had mixed feelings on Mr. Coffey. I sat
at the past couple of board meetings watching him work. I know
that he spends a lot of time learning the issues, studying the
documents before him. Knowing that he hasn't been involved in the
process in the past, I wanted to see how he would react to the
issues that were in front of the board. I think he did all his
homework." Mr. Osterback said he had been attending Board of
Fisheries meetings ever since there was a 13-member board. Mr.
Coffey was the first board member he had seen organizing in boxes
all the data pertaining to each item as it came up. "And I was
kind of impressed with that," he said, adding that he felt Mr.
Coffey was trying to be fair. "We didn't come out of this last
meeting real pleased with what we wound up with, but I think he did
a fair job on the issues that we were dealing with, so, I would
recommend that he would be a fair and good balance to the board
process," he concluded.
Number 2430
MR. OSTERBACK referred to Mr. Umphenour and said, "I think if I
[were] you, I would listen to some of the tapes from the past board
meetings before I made a decision. And my personal opinion is that
he has a closed mind and is just plain not capable of learning.
And I don't think he wishes to. I think he's there with a set
agenda. I'm sorry, I wouldn't recommend him."
DORNE HAWXHURST, Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU),
testified via teleconference that she represented several hundred
fishermen in what was referred to as "ADF&G Management Area E."
She stated CDFU was concerned about the appointment of Mr. Coffey.
TAPE 96-18, SIDE B
Number 0005
MS. HAWXHURST expressed CDFU's concern about bias on the part of
Mr. Coffey stemming from his involvement with the F.I.S.H.
initiative, which she said was a direct attempt to by-pass the
Board of Fisheries process.
Number 0081
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Osterback whether he thought Mr.
Umphenour had so much influence on the Board of Fisheries that he
could adversely impact his fishery.
MR. OSTERBACK replied, "I believe that with the amount of members
that you have on the board, I think what you should be looking for
is to have a board that's impartial and looks at all the
information before them that they get from the staff, the
biologists, public testimony that comes in. ... I feel that if you
have a board member ... that basically has his own agenda, does not
respond to staff reports, public testimony, then I feel that you,
in fact, have one member that's not acting in the best interests of
the state or the fishing industry. And with the fishing industry
being one of the largest employees and a large part of the work
force in the state of Alaska, I feel that ... you're doing an
injustice to the fishing industry by having somebody that sits
there and continually pushes his own agenda, and refuses to look at
the data presented to him."
Number 0146
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that Mr. Umphenour had quoted data and
said many fish runs were severely depleted. He said the bottom
line was that without escapement, everybody loses. "And if there's
a problem in the Yukon River, which apparently there is, then while
... the different user groups are fighting amongst themselves, the
run crashes and nobody wins," Representative Ogan stated. He
acknowledged that the three appointees had different interests but
suggested on the whole, there was balance. He asked: "Do you
think that that's impossible with Mr. Umphenour?"
MR. OSTERBACK responded, "Yes, I do." He said the main issue in
his area was over chum, which had been under consideration for 15
years. He noted he had perhaps missed one board meeting over the
years. He believed fishermen, as a whole, were conservative and
wanted to see the fish come back forever, especially in areas such
as his, where there were generations of fishermen, and up in the
AYK.
MR. OSTERBACK said there were problems, which he believed the board
realized. He said, "Yes, we've participated in ... the tagging
study that was done. We've participated in anything that the state
has asked us to do in trying to help out with the conservation
problems up in the AYK area. ... I just feel that, with the amount
of effort that everyone puts into it from both areas, that Mr.
Umphenour fails to look at the issues that are presented, to look
at the facts that are presented to him, and basically has an
agenda."
Number 0272
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented that there was a history of
overfishing nationwide. "And I don't know whether it's fishermen
or where you point the fingers, but fishing's gone everywhere
else," he said. "That's why they're coming here."
MR. OSTERBACK suggested listening to the tapes.
Number 0297
DAN WINN testified via teleconference from Homer, saying he was a
commercial fisherman who had lived there since 1970. He believed
Mr. Coffey's position, as expressed in the F.I.S.H. initiative, was
extremely radical and not good for the state or the fishery in
general. Although he appreciated efforts of members of the Board
of Fisheries and the Board of Game, he hated to see either board be
radicalized and wished to see someone more reasonable appointed.
He emphasized that if a commercial fisherman came up with something
as radical as the F.I.S.H. initiative, but "on the other side", he
would not support that person being on the board, either.
Number 0384
TAMMIE SHRADER testified via teleconference from Homer, saying she
adamantly opposed the confirmation of Dan Coffey. She believed he
could not be impartial dealing with commercial fishing issues and
cited the F.I.S.H. initiative as a reason.
MS. SHRADER asked why the confirmation hearings were not held in
February, when more fishermen were available for public comment.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN acknowledged that was a good question for which
he had no answer. He suggested that perhaps the legislature needed
to consider that for next year.
Number 0443
CINDY AMBERFIELD testified from Kodiak, saying she owned a candy
store and had experience representing a local group called Alaskans
for a Fishing Future, which had been involved in commercial fishing
issues in the past year. She said, "I am appalled that ... neither
of the gentlemen from Kodiak who were nominated for a position on
the board have been accepted for that position or are a part of
this confirmation hearing." She said there was no representative
on the board from Kodiak. "And these are the people whose lives
are most affected by board decisions," she said, emphasizing the
importance of commercial fishing to Kodiak's economy. She urged
reconsideration of Mr. Coffey's nomination.
Number 0526
DICK H. BOWER, SR., Member, Board of Fisheries, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage, noting that he lived in Soldotna.
He pointed out that Mr. Umphenour, who had previously been
confirmed by the legislature, had spent considerable time on the
board. Mr. Bower believed that the public and the legislature
could judge his performance based on that.
MR. BOWER recalled that he had faced a situation 26 months earlier
similar to that faced by Mr. Miller and Mr. Coffey. Within a month
of being appointed, Mr. Bower had been involved in meetings
involving some of the most contentious issues faced by the board.
Confirmation following those meetings was one of the most difficult
situations he had faced in his professional life, he said. On that
basis, he was commenting on performance by Mr. Miller and Mr.
Coffey during the two meetings in which they participated as
members.
MR. BOWER said both Mr. Miller and Mr. Coffey did a fine job in
quickly determining the rules and the direction under which the
board operates. Both had proven very effective at taking the
masses of material they had to go through, along with public
testimony and staff reports, to fully participate in "the proposal
and the province that the board faced." Both showed themselves to
be articulate, critical thinkers who asked questions to obtain
needed information from staff, public testimony, or the reactions
of fellow board members.
MR. BOWER noted that Mr. Miller had provided relevant information
in a couple of instances, and given valuable advice. He believed
Mr. Coffey was able to carefully analyze information. Mr. Bower
had written a set of findings with Mr. Coffey in connection with
the last board meeting and believed Mr. Coffey had done a fine job
with that. Mr. Bower stated, "He's able to bring to us his
knowledge of the law and the way that we need to approach some of
these things where, unfortunately, the board seems to find it's
continually faced with some kind of conflict or some kind of
litigious situation." He concluded by stating his full support
for confirmation of Mr. Miller and Mr. Coffey.
Number 0747
JIM RICHARDSON testified via teleconference from Anchorage in
support of Mr. Coffey's confirmation. Involved with management of
commercial and sport fisheries, as well as "management of
recreational users" on the Kenai River, he had watched the board
process for 20 years. He referred to Cook Inlet and said there was
a growing population that wanted to see change, whereas the board
process had been directed to protect the status quo. Mr.
Richardson believed change was needed and that people like Mr.
Coffey, who had the necessary skills, intelligence, and ability to
take a stand, should be on the board.
MR. RICHARDSON said Mr. Coffey could not be intimidated and
indicated people had been physically threatened and board members
"almost pushed around" at a recent board meeting. "Mr. Coffey, who
is up for confirmation, was threatened that if he didn't vote a
particular manner on an issue, that his confirmation would be
blocked," Mr. Richardson asserted, indicating that if the game was
to be played that way, the legislature should get rid of the board
process altogether. He pointed out the amount of time required of
board participants and said "we should thank our lucky stars that
he's there to take that on."
Number 0909
BILL SULLIVAN testified via teleconference from Kenai that he
strongly opposed Mr. Coffey's confirmation. "When Governor Knowles
lobbied the commercial fishermen for their vote, prior to being
elected, he stated that he would not allow a board appointee to act
on issues in the Board of Fish[eries] prior to being confirmed by
the legislature," Mr. Sullivan stated, indicating he did not
believe Mr. Coffey could divorce himself from the F.I.S.H.
initiative, for which he understood Mr. Coffey to be a co-author.
Mr. Sullivan believed the initiative was irresponsible.
MR. SULLIVAN stated he was bothered that Mr. Coffey had not
divulged his connection with the Cook Inlet Sportfishing Caucus,
for which, to Mr. Sullivan's understanding, Mr. Coffey was and
might still be an attorney. He noted that Bob Penney was president
of that caucus.
Number 0990
LOU CLARK, United Cook Inlet Drift Association, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage, saying he had fished in Cook Inlet
for over 30 years. He strongly opposed confirmation of Dan Coffey
and Virgil Umphenour and stated concern about bias in both
instances. However, he supported Grant Miller, who, he believed,
could look at both sides of the coin.
JOHN McCOMBS testified via teleconference from Kenai in opposition
to the appointment of Dan Coffey, who he believed had been cavalier
in procedures regarding allocation criteria during board meetings.
Like previous testifiers, he was concerned about bias related to
the F.I.S.H. initiative. He was also concerned about conflicts of
interest involving other clients, for whom he wished to see a list.
He spoke against Mr. Umphenour's appointment. However, he favored
Mr. Miller's confirmation and believed he had a broad enough
background to do a good job.
Number 1081
DAVID HORNE testified via teleconference from Anchorage in
opposition to Mr. Coffey's confirmation. He referred to the Alaska
Public Offices Commission (APOC), from whom he had a copy of a
letter addressed to Mr. Coffey as the attorney for the Cook Inlet
Sportfishing Caucus. "And there are three pending allegations that
have not been resolved," he said. He also believed having three
sport fishing representatives from Cook Inlet was overkill on the
board. He said the action at the last board meeting effectively
crippled the commercial fishing industry in Cook Inlet.
MR. HORNE spoke in favor of Mr. Miller. He felt Mr. Umphenour had
done a credible job and listened to both sides, although he did not
vote the way Mr. Horne would have wanted.
Number 1193
LARRY VAN SKY testified via teleconference, saying he had lived in
North Kenai since 1952. He related that he had just spent five
days in Anchorage at the Board of Fisheries hearings, his first
experience there, and was disappointed in how he perceived the
board to receive its information. Mr. Van Sky said he was "very
perplexed with Dan Coffey" and spoke against his appointment. He
cited concerns about bias and impartiality due to other
affiliations.
MR. VAN SKY questioned the inclusion of three board members from
the Cook Inlet area, Dan Coffey, Larry Engel and Dick Bower, all
affiliated with sport fishing organizations. He believed the board
had a built-in bias towards sport fishing and asked how one could
suggest there was a bias towards commercial fishing, which he
believed was less well represented. He further noted that no board
member was from Kodiak or Prince William Sound. Referring to the
Kenai River, he suggested there had been attempts, successful thus
far, to allocate fisheries towards the tourist industry in Alaska.
"And I'm not opposed to tourism, but ... I would just like to see
them be more impartial on how they look at the commercial
interests, as well," he stated.
MR. VAN SKY said he opposed the appointment of both Mr. Coffey and
Mr.Umphenour. He concluded with comments about commercial fishing
in Cook Inlet and said what was currently happening with the board
limited his ability as a recent purchaser of a commercial license
to tell what would happen with Cook Inlet's fishery.
Number 1454
BEN ELLIS, Executive Director, Kenai River Sportfishing
Association, testified via teleconference that his nonprofit
organization, based in Soldotna, supported confirmation of Dan
Coffey and Virgil Umphenour. He cited dedication to the protection
of genetic diversity and the resource as reasons, indicating non-
commercial users had a constitutional right that should be met
before allowing responsible commercial harvest. He recalled that
Mr. Coffey had been praised during the board hearings on Cook Inlet
by Paul Ruesch, commercial fisheries regional biologist with the
Department of Fish and Game, who told Mr. Ellis he had gained
tremendous respect for Mr. Coffey, as he asked good questions and
was very willing to learn. "We totally agree," stated Mr. Ellis.
He referred briefly to Virgil Umphenour, saying he was highly
qualified and placed the resource first.
Number 1606
GARY HOLLIER testified via teleconference that he had been an
Alaska resident in the Kenai area for 42 years. He thought Mr.
Coffey could do a fine job in any area of the state besides Cook
Inlet, where Mr. Hollier felt Mr. Coffey was biased against
commercial fishermen. He cited the F.I.S.H. initiative and Mr.
Coffey's affiliation with Bob Penney, who had "tried for years to
cut back and eliminate the commercial fishery in Cook Inlet."
MR. HOLLIER recalled that a commercial fisherman had testified
before the board against proposals that would have restricted his
ability to make a living, urging the board not to do anything to
cause further habitat damage to the Kenai River. His first time to
testify, the fisherman was nervous, Mr. Hollier said. "When he was
done, Mr. Coffey jumped down his throat," he said. "I thought he
was very arrogant and his attitude towards this fisherman was
uncalled-for." He referred to the Blanchard Line, about which Mr.
Coffey had no knowledge at the meetings, and said, "If you don't
understand that, you cannot make any sound decisions when it comes
to Cook Inlet allocation with red salmon."
MR. HOLLIER pointed out that even if commercial fishermen had
dominated the Board of Fisheries, they had come from Elfin Cove,
Sand Point, Sitka, or the Yukon River, for example. There had
never been three people from the same interest group on the Board
of Fisheries, he stated, reiterating his desire not to see Mr.
Coffey confirmed. He concluded by stating his full support of
Grant Miller and added, "I don't have much comment on Mr.
Umphenour."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if Mr. Hollier was asserting Mr. Engel
was biased.
Number 1788
MR. HOLLIER replied he thought Mr. Engel was biased towards sport
fishing efforts.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked: "And do you believe the agenda of the
"Fearsome Three" [Coffey, Engel and Bower] is to eliminate ...
commercial fishing in Cook Inlet? Is that what your testimony is?"
MR. HOLLIER said he definitely got that feeling at the last
meeting. "There was no biological data to indicate that there
should be more red salmon put into the Kenai River," he said. "In
fact, testimony was overwhelming not to put more red salmon into
the Kenai River to exasperate habitat damage. If we're not going
to listen to our biologists, let's get rid of them. ... The
testimony was overwhelming not to do it, and this board went and
did it. Now, if you can tell me that that isn't a preconceived
agenda, then I missed the big picture there."
Number 1893
GRACE KENDALL testified via teleconference from Kenai in opposition
to Mr. Coffey and Mr. Umphenour. "I think their political agenda
has no place on the fish board," she said, indicating this was
particularly true for Mr. Coffey. She stated that the board had
become so unbalanced and political that it appeared hardly anyone
remained on the board who was truly interested in the health of the
salmon runs or the rivers.
Number 1995
PAUL SHADURA testified via teleconference from Kenai in opposition
to confirmation of Dan Coffey, whom he characterized as a "back
door man" and a "magician". He indicated Mr. Coffey should divulge
his client list so the public could see if there is a conflict of
interest. He also suggested the legislature should not condone
ethics violations.
Number 2071
DENBY LLOYD, Chief Resource Analyst, Aleutians East Borough,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage, saying he had
experience in state management of fisheries and had been around the
Board of Fisheries process for some time, as well as the North
Pacific Fisheries Management Council process. His impression of
the board appointees had developed from a wait-and-see attitude.
Given that the board was supposed to have people of divergent views
from around the state, he thought the best that could be hoped for
was that those on the board would be intelligent in their
understanding of information and respond to public concerns. He
said it was unusual for the borough or him personally to comment on
confirmations.
MR. LLOYD said although he had no familiarity with Mr. Coffey
before the last meeting, he was more than pleasantly surprised with
his performance. "Mr. Coffey not only was exceedingly diligent,
particularly for a first board member, but I think in comparison to
any board member, in his pursuit of the information and pursuit of
a wide variety of views on the issues before him and in his
analytical ability to cut through some of the fluff, cut to the
kernel of things and make his personal judgment on that and bring
that to the board."
MR. LLOYD said he had similar comments for Mr. Miller, with whom he
had been familiar previously from involvement with fisheries
issues. He emphasized Mr. Miller's fair manner. Mr. Lloyd
concluded by saying his personal recommendation, as well as that of
the Aleutian East Borough, was "a hearty confirmation for Dan
Coffey and Grant Miller."
Number 2342
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there were others who wished to
testify. He then asked if the committee had specific questions,
noting that all three appointees would provide closing statements.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON prefaced his question by saying Mr. Umphenour
had already addressed it. He asked Mr. Coffey and Mr. Miller to
address, in their closing statements, whether they believed there
was or should be a distinction between Alaska anglers and the
guided sport/commercial fisheries.
[END OF TAPE - COMMENTS BY CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN CUT OFF]
TAPE 96-19, SIDE A
Number 0005
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN called upon Grant Miller to make a closing
statement.
MR. MILLER said, "First of all, ... I very much support this board
process. I believe it is a system that has worked well for this
state. It obviously has areas where it needs improvement, and one
of those you just identified in terms of the issues that continue
to be taken up during the out-of-cycle process. I think that there
are some options that we can look at to make this board more
efficient. I would like to see some mechanisms whereby, possibly,
we strengthen the advisory committee and require that proposals
pass through these advisory committees before they reach the Board
of Fish[eries]. It would certainly, I think, help to eliminate the
volumes of proposals that we get before this board. And it would
also, I would think, help to get those issues out on the table in
the regions from which they come, so that much of that is not ended
up being discussed at the Board of Fish[eries] level to the extent
that it is now."
Number 0133
MR. MILLER suggested at meetings he had attended, there was a
common theme, particularly involving Cook Inlet. "We continually
get issues before us that are very difficult for this board to
reach a resolution on, either because research is limited, in some
cases, non-existent," he said. "Enforcement problems are another
common concern that people have brought to us. And the other is
habitat protection."
MR. MILLER noted the guided sport fishery was expanding, whereas
almost all commercial fisheries were limited and the resident sport
effort had remained relatively constant. "And when it comes to
allocation issues, that is always a point that brings a great deal
of contention in these discussions," he said. "I guess what I
would like to see ... the state do is take a lead in providing
funding for research, for enforcement, and particularly for habitat
protection, and I think these things are very critical to the board
making good decisions and to preserving and protecting the
resources that we have here, that are the best in the world and I
would like to see remain that way forever."
Number 0278
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said it had been asserted there was a
conspiracy by the board to eliminate commercial fishing. He asked
whether Mr. Miller thought that was a well-founded assertion.
MR. MILLER responded that he had never felt there was any kind of
conspiracy in regards to that.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "Whenever there's an allocation with
game, commercial users - I'm talking about guides, primarily -
readily accept the fact that they're the first to go. And it
doesn't seem to be the situation with commercial users of fish.
... Residents take priority in game allocation issues." He asked
Mr. Miller to comment.
Number 0383
MR. MILLER replied, "Well, I would certainly like to think that
Alaska residents would have priority over their resource,
regardless of whether it's fish or game. ... At this point, I think
we have a relatively adequate resource ... that we can provide some
... usage by great numbers of people. But I think that unless we
have some kind of a handle on fisheries such as the guided sport
fishery, which is expanding, we will probably continue to have
things of a contentious nature appear before this board regarding
allocations of the resource, which does have a limit. And it is
fully utilized at this point."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN concurred.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN thanked Mr. Miller and called upon Dan Coffey.
Number 0452
MR. COFFEY said it was important to understand that prior to his
appointment, Governor Knowles did not ask him to do anything in
particular or anything specific. "In fact, in the two meetings we
had, he stressed over and over again that he wanted me to support
the board process," Mr. Coffey said. "And I know why the F.I.S.H.
initiative rose. It rose out of frustration with the board
process. And I know that the Governor does not support that
initiative and he wants the board process to work."
MR. COFFEY continued, saying the best way to make the board process
work is to appoint diverse people who are willing to work hard and
do their best to serve the interests of all people in Alaska,
recognizing that the resource is public and nobody has a claim on
it. "The sports people don't have a claim on it, the commercial
fishermen don't have a claim on it," he said. "It's a common
resource and we have to share the resource."
MR. COFFEY promised to support the board process, which to him
meant showing up for meetings, reading the material and doing his
best to understand the issues and consequences. "I have to listen
to all the people who testify," he said. "And I don't think any of
those people in Kenai who testified against me would deny that I
would come out into the audience during breaks and I would talk to
them and we would discuss and debate it. Their problem is, they
don't like the way we voted on a couple of issues, and so, they're
against me ... and that's fine. That's their choice. But I did
that because I thought that was the best way to go, not to get them
or punish them or do anything evil to them, but that's just the way
I saw the issues. So, I support the board process. And that's the
way it will be as long as I'm permitted to serve on the board."
Number 0596
MR. COFFEY suggested Mr. Shadura could obtain his client list,
which had been on file for several weeks, from the Alaska Public
Offices Commission. "I wanted also to answer the APOC issue
relative to Cook Inlet Sportfishing Caucus," he said. "In 1994, I
was hired to represent that caucus in a matter before the Alaska
Public Offices Commission. We filed various reports, and ..., I
think, ... sometime in early 1995, the last matter was filed before
the APOC. Nothing was heard from the APOC for months, until
certain commercial fishing interests in Kenai reactivated the
investigation, and I then received this letter, to which one of
these gentlemen, I believe Mr. Horne, referred to."
MR. COFFEY continued, "Immediately upon receiving a letter in a
matter that was more than a year old, I contacted another attorney
and the case has been handed off to him. That's Mr. Dan Hensley.
It was my thought that the matter had been resolved in late '93 or
early 1994, with the final (indisc.), and inasmuch as nothing more
had been heard for a year or more, thought nothing of it, although
I did ... disclose that on my initial ethics statement, to the
initial meeting of the board, that in the past I had represented
Cook Inlet Sportfishing Caucus, and that was on the record at the
very first meeting and the very first ethics disclosure." Mr.
Coffey asserted he had no affiliation with it and said it would be
inappropriate.
Number 0723
MR. COFFEY noted that on the issue of putting more fish in the
Kenai River, the vote on the board was 7-0. He referred to the
issue of Alaska anglers versus guided sport and said the board had
heard a lot of testimony about that. "And the problem that we
faced in trying to deal with it was that the guided sport are not
commercial fishermen by statutory definition," he explained.
"Therefore, we were faced with a situation where statutorily and on
regulation, we could not do anything to differentiate between
Alaska anglers and guided sport."
MR. COFFEY continued, "My understanding is that there's legislation
pending in front of you folks that would change that definition and
make it possible for this emerging commercial industry to be
subject to regulation, either by the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission or by the Board of Fish[eries]. And my feeling is that,
as any other takers of the resource, they ... need to be regulated
and their harvest and their methods and their means, and all these
other things that relate to how they operate, needs to be brought
under the control of the Board of Fish[eries] or some other
regulatory entity. And I believe that, based on everything I've
seen, that the Board of Fish[eries] would be the best for that.
And I would like to see us have the ability to do that, because we
were hampered in our efforts to do that because of existing
statutory schemes."
Number 0827
MR. COFFEY indicated the out-of-cycle problem had been a matter of
debate among board members. "It's a problem which is a problem,"
he said. "If it continues to grow, we would probably be in a
situation where the state would be better served by a full-time
professional board much like the Alaska Public Utilities
Commission, because we'll get overwhelmed with it. Right now, it
takes somewhere in the neighborhood of a third of a year for people
to deal with these issues. ... And I, for one, would like very much
to keep everything in cycle. We were, I felt, compelled to deal
with Area M out of cycle because of a statement by Judge Erlich in
Nome, which in essence closed an entire commercial fishery. And
so, we called a special meeting because his ruling was that `if the
board would give findings as to why they did what they did, then my
injunction would be lifted'. And so, we met and spent the extra
time to ensure that there would be a commercial fishery where there
has been a commercial fishery since, at least, from our data, ...
1910."
MR. COFFEY continued, "So, we get faced with some of those things
that are outside of our control, that mandate we do it. But to the
extent that we allow ourselves to get out of the three-year cycle,
I think we're doing a disservice to the public and I think we're
burdening ourselves unnecessarily. So, I, for one, am a board
member who supports keeping things in cycle and not taking them out
of context. That lends continuity to the fisheries and it limits
the amount of work that the board is forced to do in its very
limited time."
Number 0934
MR. COFFEY referred to statements made by Mr. Hollier, who believed
Mr. Coffey was biased with regards to Cook Inlet. He asserted that
the reason for opposition to his appointment was disagreement with
decisions made. "But his comment about I would do a good job
elsewhere is probably more telling, because I will work real hard
to do a good job elsewhere and I will treat this common resource in
a manner which is, in my opinion, fair and equitable to all the
people in the state of Alaska," Mr. Coffey concluded.
Number 0982
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said there had been discussion in committee
about the fairness of making legislative appointments after a
person had served. "And I'm not going to second-guess any of your
judgments from the previous Board of Fish[eries] meeting," he said,
"because that's not fair to you and I wouldn't want anybody to be
making any decision on the board based on whether they thought it
would help them get confirmed or not."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON expressed appreciation for Mr. Coffey's
statement of commitment to the board process. However, he said,
"There are some, and I probably count myself as one of them, ...
who would say if you're committed to the board process, an
allocation of a common property resource through the board, that
that commitment can best be expressed by opposing the F.I.S.H.
initiative." He asked for Mr. Coffey's response.
Number 1051
MR. COFFEY stated, "The best place to do Board of Fish[eries]
business is on the Board of Fish[eries]. The next best place is
the legislature. And the worst place is in the initiative process.
And had the frustration level not been so high with the process at
the board level, I do not believe the F.I.S.H. initiative ever
would have come to life."
MR. COFFEY offered an example, saying, "There is an Upper Cook
Inlet Salmon Management Plan, which deals with how Upper Cook Inlet
salmon stocks will be dealt with, based on nature of the species
and the time of the runs of those species. And only at this last
board meeting did we address some of the issues relative to how
that plan would be implemented. And that plan has been in effect
since 1979. So, that's where the frustration level comes from.
And so, I don't believe that the F.I.S.H. initiative is a good
solution. It ... cast in concrete a methodology that the board
would have to apply.... I'm trying to say that the board should be
allowed the discretion. If what works in Year 1 doesn't work in
Year 5, the board should not be hamstrung to the point where it
can't get around things based on either statute or initiative or
any other legislative way of doing business. ... I much prefer the
board process. I think it's the best of all three ways."
Number 1142
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said the answer that would have given him the
highest comfort level would have been an expression of belief by
Mr. Coffey that the board, which he was now a part of, was capable
of making allocation decisions. He further would have liked to
have heard that Mr. Coffey strongly believed, and advised his
former cohorts thus, that the initiative process was the wrong way.
MR. COFFEY replied, "Well, I do believe that the board is capable
of making allocation decisions. And I do believe that we do not
need the F.I.S.H. initiative."
Number 1190
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said one problem was lack of confidence in the
board process, not necessarily because of what the board had or had
not accomplished. "For example, I can make an argument that the
board has been extremely effective in the last two decades, given
that we are now harvesting ten times as many salmon as we did in
the mid-1970s," he said. "And I think that's a strong indication
of success. But despite that, there is a perceptual problem."
Representative Elton asked if Mr. Coffey saw a problem with the
position he was now in. He said, "I have the sense that you could
speak with the voice of God, and many Alaskans are going to hear
not what you're saying but what they think you're saying. ... And
I guess if I were in that position, I'm not sure I'd want to put
myself on the board."
MR. COFFEY replied, "After three meetings of the length and
duration and amount of effort that we've had to put out, I'm not so
sure, either." He said he had lived in Alaska for 50 years and
very much believed in the public process, which he had been
involved with in elections and political life for a long time. "I
thought I would bring something of value to the board," he said.
"Certainly, I have concepts and ideas and beliefs that I bring with
me. ... And I think that my strength is that I'm willing to work
and be analytical about things, and I try to have an open mind
about things. Have I done things that put some fear in people?
Absolutely, I've done things. But there are some things they ought
to think about, too. ... I had a commercial fishing vessel for six
or seven years. And I understand ... some of the fears that these
people have relative to the commercial fishery. And it's
particularly exacerbated ... this year with the low fishing prices
and the farm fish and all these things that lead people to believe
that their livelihood and their lifestyles are in jeopardy. And
those factors all go into consideration when we make decisions.
Beyond that, I don't know how to respond."
Number 1359
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to testimony about threats made at a
board meeting. He asked if that was factual and whether it
concerned him.
MR. COFFEY replied, "No. As I said earlier, I have a kind of
specialized practice. I do represent liquor license clients. ...
I have been threatened, both physically and with confirmation, but
it's people who are angry and fearful. ... And sometimes people say
things that they ... really don't mean just because they're angry
and fearful. And, so far, there hasn't been anything overt. And
the people who are opposed to me have been mostly decent, courteous
folks, which they are, and they have mostly spoken out against my
views and not against me, personally, although that's not entirely
true, you know, there's a couple of people who get into ... a
personal thing, rather than my views. ... I'm not easily
intimidated, nor am I afraid that something will happen to me,
either physically or otherwise. And if I'm confirmed, I'll work
hard. If I'm not confirmed, ... I'll go on with my life."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN thanked Mr. Coffey and called on Virgil
Umphenour.
Number 1448
MR. UMPHENOUR stated, "I do have an agenda. And my agenda is to
look out for the sustained yield of the resource in this state. We
have a lot of areas in the state where we have conservation
problems, and there's various reasons why they do. And it's the
board's mandate to manage the fisheries for sustained yield, from
the constitution of the state. And the only thing is, the
constitution defines sustained yield in some cases; in the case of
fish, it doesn't. And so, it's up to each individual board member
to more or less formulate his own definition of what sustained
yield is. And I'd like to give you my definition."
Number 1491
MR. UMPHENOUR said, "Sustained yield is the amount of fish - if
we're talking about salmon - that it takes to spawn, on the
spawning grounds, that will provide an average historical harvest
by all consumptive users. ... When we have fisheries, when we have
all consumptive use eliminated, and we still cannot get the
biological escapement, well, then, we don't have sustained yield
and ... we have to try to figure out how ... to get it
accomplished. Now, in the case of my agenda as far as the Area M
fishery, in our shellfish meeting we just had, I was the board
member that made the motion to give the seiners that live in Area
M twice as many crab pots as the big vessels that come primarily
from Washington state. And if I was biased against them, I would
not have fought as hard as I did for about four hours on that one
proposal. And I was successful in getting it passed." He said,
"I'm not biased against those people. I'm biased to get sustained
yield in the fisheries ... to give back the fisheries that used to
have sustained yield but now are closed."
Number 1556
MR. UMPHENOUR said, "For the proposals that come up out of cycle,
... the board has a petition process and we also have an agenda
change process. And both processes, the board has a very narrow
policy that they measure these requests by. And they have to meet
some kind of emergency; otherwise, the board does not take them up.
And there's a number of unforeseen emergencies in resource
situations that have to be brought up out of cycle. And so, I'm
frustrated with the number of proposals that are basically the same
thing, and we have to address each one of them one-at-a-time. And
what Mr. Miller said, about ... more of a goal for the advisory
committees, I think could be helpful as far as having the bulk of
proposals that we get. I know that for the Southeast meeting
that's coming up this winter, there's already over 400 proposals
been submitted to the board. And I'm sure that a lot of them will
be redundant. And so, maybe the advisory committee process, if it
was strengthened a little bit or modified a little bit, that it
could cut down on some of that work load."
Number 1634
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked: "Did I understand you correctly, then,
that you don't consider that there is a problem with the out-of-
cycle hearings that you hold?"
MR. UMPHENOUR replied, "No, I don't really think it's a problem,
because a number of emergencies come up, and that's the reason for
having our petition policy, that we have to have a finding of
emergency. And some things are emergencies; some aren't. We
addressed, I believe, three of these at this meeting that we just
concluded this past week. And we didn't find an emergency in any
case. Sometimes things come up that are a bona fide emergency and
need to be addressed, so we have to have some way to address them.
But there is a problem with too many proposals that are redundant."
Number 1671
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Umphenour to respond to the
allegation that there was a conspiracy or that "the fearsome
threesome" were trying to eliminate commercial fishing.
MR. UMPHENOUR replied, "There's no conspiracy. People get upset
and they say a lot of things and a lot of people maybe feel that
their livelihood is threatened. But it's not the Board of
Fish[eries]' problem that we're in the situation of an absolute
glut of salmon on the worldwide market and the prices are so low.
That's what the problem is." Mr. Umphenour brought up an issue
that he said was not Board of Fisheries business. He had contacted
Senator Stevens's office and Don Young's office suggesting having
the federal government put salmon steaks and fillets in the federal
supply system so that salmon could be fed to people in the
military, the federal prisons, and so forth. "And that would be
one giant step to introduce the American public, especially in the
military, to something that they've never eaten before in their
life," he concluded.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded, "Good idea."
Number 1745
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN thanked Mr. Umphenour for his comments.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that while there was diversity on the
board and different opinions, and even different agendas and
biases, to a certain extent, he tended to believe that when people
take positions of authority, they were apt to do the right thing.
He noted that legislators also represented different constituencies
and interests. Speaking to Chairman Austerman, he said, "However,
I think the common denominator that you and I have, and I respect
you tremendously for, sir, on the record, is ... I think we both
are trying to look out for the bottom line, which is the resource.
And I just hope that those on the board process and those that are
listening tonight will realize that we all have a common interest
... in protecting that resource, and that is our common strength.
And even though we have conflicting interests, we all work for that
goal."
Number 1812
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he was going to do something a little bit
different. "And I appreciate the time that a lot of people have
put in. I mean, this has been a long meeting, but I think it's
probably one of the more important meetings that this fish
committee is going to have. And I'm going to make a motion that is
not necessarily the same as one of the usual motions. And so I
move we report out of committee the name of Virgil Umphenour, with
a recommendation that he be confirmed, and ask members to vote no."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN objected and asked if it was in order.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN ruled the motion out of order and said the
decision as to whether they would be appointed would be made on a
full vote of the floor, rather than as an individual committee
member or as a committee itself.
Number 1873
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked to speak to that ruling and said, "Mr.
Chair, I checked before I made the motion, this afternoon. And my
understanding is that it is in order, and that the motion that
you're talking about is a motion that is a standard motion, but is
not anything that is mandated one way or the other. So, ... I'm
not going to withdraw my motion."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN restated his objection, saying it was highly
irregular and that only three of the five members were still
present.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said, "I can see we'll be stymied without the
other members here. At this point in time, the best thing would be
to hold their recommendation for forwarding their names until we
can get a full committee."
Number 1931
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that he was not withdrawing the motion.
"I'd like to respond to the previous speaker," he said. "This is
not a motion that is out of order. This is ... a motion that is
maybe uncomfortable. But I think that the members of the full
house, that we're forwarding this to, have a right to know what our
individual opinion is. We're the ones that sat in committee.
We're the ones that heard the testimony. And I think that that
should carry some weight." He concluded by saying, "I do want the
record to reflect that there is a quorum here, that I think the
motion is in order, and I'm not going to withdraw the motion."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN, in response to mention of a quorum, said, "Not
any more," and left the room.
Number 1973
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted there was no longer a quorum and recessed
the meeting, at 7:17 p.m., to the call of the chair.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|