Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/21/2000 05:25 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
February 21, 2000
5:25 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Morgan, Co-Chair
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Hal Smalley
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Harris, Co-Chair
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Mary Kapsner
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING
Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Marlene A. Johnson - Juneau
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
PREVIOUS ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
MARLENE A. JOHNSON, Appointee
to the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
9505 Antler Way
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Alaska
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC).
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-02, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR CARL MORGAN called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 5:25 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Morgan, Dyson and Smalley.
CONFIRMATION HEARING
Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
CO-CHAIR MORGAN announced that today's meeting is a confirmation
hearing for Marlene A. Johnson to the Alaska Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission.
CO-CHAIR MORGAN called on Ms. Johnson and asked her to inform the
committee members about herself.
MARLENE A. JOHNSON, Appointee, Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission, came before the committee to testify. She stated the
most important aspect of her life is being a grandmother. She is
the mother of five children and is married. She has been on the
commission for a little over three years now. She is originally
from Hoonah where she worked for the Huna Totem Corporation. She
was also the chairman of the Sealaska Corporation, and served on
its board of directors for 20 years.
MS. JOHNSON further stated that she has been involved with fishery
issues since she was young. She worked for Ward Cove Packing as an
accountant in Hoonah when there was a crab cannery and a fish
cannery in Excursion Inlet. She served as chairman of Ocean Beauty
Seafoods, and still sits on a university advisory committee.
MS. JOHNSON further stated that her involvement with the commission
has been interesting and educational. She thinks that she has
added to the commission with her knowledge of personnel issues.
She has been able to update some of the commission's antiquated
policies using her administrative skills.
Number 0276
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked Ms. Johnson to discuss the kinds of
decisions the commission makes in terms of administering a limited
entry system.
MS. JOHNSON replied the most important decision is whether or not
to limit a fishery. She explained that fishers and groups bring a
fishery to the commission and ask that it be limited. The
commission then researches and determines whether or not that
fishery is in danger. The commission also works with the
Department of Fish & Game and uses its resources to help determine
whether or not to limit a fishery. Once a fishery is limited, the
commission then establishes a point system to determine whether or
not a particular fisher should be "in" or "out" of that fishery,
which is usually based on a fisher's history. If a fisher
disagrees with a decision made by the commission's staff, that
fisher can appeal it.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Ms. Johnson whether the commission sends
that fisher to a board of appeals.
MS. JOHNSON replied the commission is the board of appeal. She
explained that initial decisions are determined by staff, and
appeals are heard by hearing officers. A disagreement with a
hearing officer is then appealed to the commission; it takes two to
three commissioners to agree on a final decision.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Ms. Johnson whether a final decision can
be appealed to the superior court.
MS. JOHNSON replied yes. A person has 30 days to appeal a decision
to the court system. In her opinion, the commission has done a
great job in issuing decisions. She noted that only two opinions
have been overturned by the court system in the last ten years.
Number 0510
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Ms. Johnson to explain the criteria that
the commission uses in determining whether a fishery ought to be
limited.
MS. JOHNSON replied upon receipt of a petition the commission
normally turns it down. The commission then looks at that fishery,
holds hearings in the affected areas, and works with the Department
of Fish & Game in relation to its scientific research and
knowledge. The commission also works with the Board of Fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that Ms. Johnson's comments seem to
indicate the "procedure." He asked her to explain the "criteria"
that the commission uses.
MS. JOHNSON replied the criteria is that a resource is in danger.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said, "So it's a management tool to limit the
amount of effort."
MS. JOHNSON replied right. It's a management tool to limit the
amount of effort because a resource is in danger, and because the
economy of a fishery is in danger either for the fishers or the
industry. She pointed out that by law the commission has to look
at the economics of a fishery.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Ms. Johnson whether it's the
commission's responsibility by law to look after and protect the
economic welfare of a fisher.
MS. JOHNSON replied it's the commission's responsibility to look at
the economic welfare of an individual fishery as a whole, not the
individuals of an industry.
Number 0668
CO-CHAIR MORGAN asked Ms. Johnson whether a major criterion for the
commission is to determine whether a fishery can sustain itself if
it is opened.
MS. JOHNSON replied that is one. She said,
According to law in the constitution, we need to not
infringe upon open fishery as little as possible. If we
can leave it open - of course - that would be ideal.
But, as Washington, Oregon and other places close down,
there gets to be more capitalization into Alaska and
so... Normally, it's the fishers themselves that come to
us and ask us to limit it because of the--there's too
many fishermen in the business.
Number 0754
REPRESENTATIVE HAL SMALLEY asked Ms. Johnson what she sees as a
trouble area for the commission in the future.
MS. JOHNSON replied the dive fishery. The commission has been
looking at the dive fishery for about six months to a year - its
moratorium will run out in July of 2000. She noted that the
commission recently made a decision to limit geoduck, but there is
no agreement amongst dive fishers as to whether or not sea
cucumbers should be limited. Ms. Johnson also mentioned that the
abalone fishery is closed and it wouldn't be able to open again, if
there are going to be too many fishers. The commission is
currently looking at the sea urchin fishery.
Number 0900
CO-CHAIR MORGAN asked Ms. Johnson her opinion on extending the
moratorium for the hair crab and scallop fisheries.
MS. JOHNSON replied something will have to be done, but the
commission doesn't have the ability to limit vessels properly.
CO-CHAIR MORGAN asked Ms. Johnson what she sees as the biggest
challenge for the issue of limited entry or for a fishery in the
future.
MS. JOHNSON replied the prices. If the prices keep declining a lot
of the fisheries will not be economical [to fish]. It's not so
easy for someone who owns a boat to make a living fishing one
species anymore. She further noted that keeping limited entry
permits in the state is a challenge. She cited that 77 percent of
the permits are held by Alaskans, but Bristol Bay is a problem
area, as the committee members well-know.
Number 1013
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON announced, for the record, that he holds a
limited entry permit for Bristol Bay. A person could argue,
therefore, that he has a conflict of interest. If he ever went
before the commission a person could argue favoritism.
Number 1048
CO-CHAIR MORGAN asked Ms. Johnson how she feels about the state
buying back permits.
MS. JOHNSON replied it is more complicated than it sounds; there
are thousands of permits that are not being fished. She said,
If you're gonna start buying them back, all these people
that aren't fishing them would want you to buy theirs
back. So you would not be reducing the actual impact in
the water you would not, I don't think, effect...I think
there's ways to do a buy-back, but I wouldn't see the
state doing that, you know, and doing a good job of it.
I thinks there's ways for the private enterprise to help
get their own, without opening and buying all the unused
permits back.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated he doesn't think that many of the
expensive permits in the highly productive areas aren't being
fished. He cited Bristol Bay and Chignik Lagoon as examples.
MS. JOHNSON said there are some.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied, "But, they're not ones that I don't
think were ever purchased on the market."
MS. JOHNSON agreed with Representative Dyson's comment. Contrary
to what is heard, locals do not sell their permits as often as they
give them to family.
Number 1184
CO-CHAIR MORGAN asked Ms. Johnson whether she would favor buying
back active permits rather than inactive ones.
MS. JOHNSON replied she's not sure how that could be done.
CO-CHAIR MORGAN asked Ms. Johnson whether the commission keeps
records of which permits are active and which permits are inactive.
MS. JOHNSON replied, yes, but the commission doesn't have the
ability - legally - to not buy back inactive permits.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON mentioned that his friend bought a Bristol Bay
limited entry permit for $385,000 about 14 years ago, but it hasn't
been worth that since.
MS. JOHNSON stated the value of a Bristol Bay limited entry permit
is at its lowest.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated he has heard that a Bristol Bay limited
entry permit is valued at $85,000 to $90,000 now.
Number 1280
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY expressed his appreciation of Ms. Johnson
and her background. He said, "You are a busy person."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON expressed his appreciation of Ms. Johnson and
her state service.
CO-CHAIR MORGAN expressed his appreciation of Ms. Johnson and her
presence this evening.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, Co-Chair
Morgan adjourned the House Special Committee on Fisheries meeting
at 5:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|