Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/27/2000 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
March 27, 2000
5:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Harris, Co-Chair
Representative Carl Morgan, Co-Chair
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Hal Smalley
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 333
"An Act relating to the accounting for and appropriations of the
dive fishery management assessment; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HB 333 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 360
"An Act relating to registration for commercial set gillnet
fishing sites; relating to leases for shore fisheries
development; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 333
SHORT TITLE: DIVE FISHERY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/02/00 2070 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
2/02/00 2070 (H) FSH, RES, FIN
2/02/00 2070 (H) FISCAL NOTE (F&G)
2/02/00 2071 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
2/02/00 2071 (H) REFERRED TO FSH
3/27/00 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 360
SHORT TITLE: SET NET SITES/SHORE FISHERIES DEVELOPMT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/09/00 2149 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
2/09/00 2149 (H) FSH, RES, FIN
2/09/00 2149 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (F&G, DNR)
2/09/00 2149 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
2/09/00 2149 (H) REFERRED TO FSH
3/27/00 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 333.
CAROL CARROLL, Director
Central Office
Division of Support Services
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Avenue, 5th Floor
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1724
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 360.
RICK THOMPSON, Regional Manager
Land - Southcentral Region Office
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Suite 1080
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5937
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 360.
SUE ASPELUND, Bristol Bay Setnetter
PO Box 1715
Cordova, Alaska 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 360.
TOM CHURCH, Prince William Sound Setnetter
PO Box 406
Cordova, Alaska 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 360.
DAN CHALUP, Representative
Kachemak Bay Fish Producers Co-op
RDO Red Mountain
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 360.
SANDY UMLAUF, President
Ugashik Set Net Association
PO Box 2407
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 360.
PAUL SHADURA II, Kenai Setnetter
PO Box 1632
Kenai, Alaska 99611-1632
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 360.
DAN OGG, Kodiak Setnetter
PO Box 2754
Kodiak, Alaska 99615-2754
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 360.
MIKE NUGENT, Kodiak Setnetter
PO Box 1937
Kodiak, Alaska 99615-1937
POSITION STATEMENT: Asked a question regarding the moratorium.
AL BAUMAN, President
Kvichak Setnetters Association
PO Box 91118
Anchorage, Alaska 99509-1118
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 360.
ROGER KUCHENBECKER, Bristol Bay Fisher
PO Box 876608
Wasilla, Alaska 99687-6608
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 360.
JAMES PAHL, Prince William Sound Fisher
PO Box 179
Cordova, Alaska 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 360.
AL WHALEY, Representative
Prince William Sound Set Netters Association
PO Box 671789
Chugiak, Alaska 99567-1789
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 360.
KARL KIRCHER, Executive Director
Kenai Fishermen's Association
43961 Kalifonsky Beach Road
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 360.
KIM RICE,(PH) Vice President
Egegik Set Net Association
(Address not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 360.
LAUREN MOSS (PH), Prince William Sound Setnetter
(Address not provided)
Girdwood, Alaska 99587
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 360.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-10, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIRMAN JOHN HARRIS called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Harris, Morgan, Whitaker and
Smalley. Representatives Dyson, Hudson and Kapsner arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 333 - DIVE FISHERY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS announced the first order of business as House
Bill 333, "An Act relating to the accounting for and
appropriations of the dive fishery management assessment; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 0121
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Fish & Game, came before the committee to present
the bill. This is a piece of legislation that the Department of
Fish & Game requested and worked on in cooperation with the
Southeast Alaska Regional Dive Fisheries Association [SARDFA].
This bill is an example of private industry working with a
government agency to bring about programs that both feel are
beneficial. He explained that dive fishers in Southeast Alaska
and the department were both frustrated in that attempts to
expand the [assessment] of the stocks were limited because of
funding. As a result, dive fishers stepped forward and indicated
their willingness to pay an assessment above and beyond what they
already pay through normal fisheries business taxes to go towards
stock assessment and research to help make additional resources
available and to expand the fishery. This bill, therefore,
reclassifies the funds collected under the assessments as non-
general fund program receipts.
Number 0395
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS indicated that the bill is self-explanatory.
He entertained a motion to move it out of committee.
Number 0423
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON made a motion to move HB 333, version
1-GH2022.A, out of committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal notes; he asked unanimous consent. There being
no objection, HB 333 so moved from the House Special Committee on
Fisheries.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS called for a brief at-ease at 5:10 p.m. in
order to hand the gavel over to Co-chairman Morgan.
CO-CHAIRMAN CARL MORGAN called the meeting back to order at 5:13
p.m.
HB 360 - SET NET SITES/SHORE FISHERIES DEVELOPMT
CO-CHAIRMAN MORGAN announced the next order of business as House
Bill 360, "An Act relating to registration for commercial set
gillnet fishing sites; relating to leases for shore fisheries
development; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0465
CAROL CARROLL, Director, Central Office, Division of Support
Services, Department of Natural Resources, came before the
committee to present the bill. She explained that last year the
shore fisheries program was reduced by $200,000 leaving the
department with $100,000 to run a program that they couldn't
afford. At the time of the budget cut, the department informed
the legislature that in order to run some type of shore fisheries
program they would have to come back with legislation. House
Bill 360 is the department's attempt to devise a program that
they can run with the amount of money left in their budget. She
noted that shore fishers pay a fee of $300 a year, which goes
into the general fund. The department, however, is only allowed
to expend $100,000 of those fees. The bill proposes a program
with a lesser level of service. For example, there would no
longer be a lease program and a means to resolve conflicts
between users. Those in disagreement could either use mediation,
arbitration or the court system.
Number 0756
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON stated it seems that going to mediation
and/or the court system is a lengthy process. In that way, the
fish would be gone. He's worried that some disputes would not be
settled in a reasonable amount of time and therefore end up in
violence.
MS. CARROLL replied there has been testimony to that effect.
Number 0816
REPRESENTATIVE HAL SMALLEY stated he has heard from the industry
that they would like to keep the existing shore fisheries lease
program. They have indicated that nothing is broken so why try
to fix it. He asked Ms. Carroll whether she is saying that there
is no longer a program since the funds have been cut.
MS. CARROLL replied there is $100,000 for a program, but right
now there is a moratorium on any new shore fisheries leases and
the Department of Natural Resources is doing what they can to
keep up with any conflicts and adjudications.
Number 0873
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY asked Ms. Carroll to indicate the number
of challenges. He agrees with Representative Dyson in that the
fishing season would be gone by the time there is any
adjudication by using mediation, arbitration and/or the court
system.
MS. CARROLL replied she's not sure of the numbers. She deferred
the question to Mr. Rick Thompson of the Department of Natural
Resources.
Number 0937
RICK THOMPSON, Regional Manager, Land - Southcentral Region
Office, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Department of Natural
Resources, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He
doesn't have specific numbers with him, but he can say that in
the past several years the department has worked hard to reduce
the number of withstanding conflicts. He noted that conflicts
tend to arise with new applications for a lease, which can take
anywhere from 12 months to 18 months to adjudicate.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY asked Mr. Thompson whether a site is
fished when it is being adjudicated.
MR. THOMPSON replied it depends on the type of conflict. He
noted that a person does not need a lease to fish a site, but in
order to get the lease any conflict has to be resolved.
Number 1029
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY commented that in Cook Inlet, where he
used to fish, conflicts tended to come with new leaseholder. In
that way, a person moved in on a site and if there wasn't a lease
or some method of showing that the site was taken it was not
fished. According to his recollection, a new purchaser was
allowed to fish until there was a ruling.
MR. THOMPSON stated, if a lease is not involved, the first person
on the site has the right to fish that site.
Number 1101
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Thompson whether there would be an
implicit or explicit transfer of the site with the sale of a
setnet permit with the new registration system.
MR. THOMPSON answered that the registration sites would be
transferable.
Number 1164
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked whether there is a value in the site,
as well as the setnet permit. He further asked whether sites are
owned and controlled by the state.
MR. THOMPSON answered a site is exclusive to a leaseholder when
that holder is fishing, otherwise it's public land.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked whether a site is available to
somebody only when it has been abandoned.
MR. THOMPSON answered that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked whether a lease is issued annually.
MR. THOMPSON answered, currently, a lease is issued for a ten-
year period.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked whether a leaseholder can sublease a
permit.
MR. THOMPSON answered a leaseholder can assign his lease to
another qualified fisher.
Number 1286
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that many sites have been in the same
family for 50 years, and quite a few of them have had significant
improvements made to them. He cited landing strips, water
systems, beach roads and generators as examples. He can see how
an annual registration system would cause a lot of anxiety. Is
he correct in saying that as long as the same permit is in force
a person is not in danger of losing his site under the new
registration system?
MS. CARROLL answered she believes that is correct.
MR. THOMPSON stated existing leaseholders would automatically be
granted a registration site for their site upon the natural
expiration of their lease.
Number 1385
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said that in the areas where he has fished
in Bristol Bay there are always those who set their outboards
towards the channel from the beach, which raises the blood
pressure of those on the beach. He asked what protection a
leaseholder has in that case.
MR. THOMPSON replied, under the current program, sites are
surveyed and marked. There is a certain distance between nets,
otherwise it becomes an enforcement issue involving the
Department of Fish & Game.
Number 1462
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked whether a person can set a net
outside his area.
MR. THOMPSON answered that some districts allow that to happen,
but not all.
Number 1523
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY said at one time a person could fish as
far offshore as the net could go, and at times the beach fishers
ran a foul with the drift fishers for coming too close to the
shore. As a result, a limit was set to 1.5 miles from mean high
tide. He noted that in Cook Inlet, where he used to fish, the
problems were the result of new fishers setting their nets and
eventually encroaching on another person's site.
Number 1572
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that in the district where he has
fished the jurisdiction for setnetters and driftnetters is about
the range of a shotgun. [The comment was followed by laughter.]
[THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT THE GAVEL WAS HANDED BACK TO CO-
CHAIRMAN HARRIS]
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS opened the meeting to public testimony.
Number 1622
SUE ASPELUND, Bristol Bay Setnetter, testified via teleconference
from Anchorage. She has setnetted in the Naknek-Kvichak district
for 20 years and has been involved with the shore fisheries lease
program for a great number of years. She currently holds a shore
fishery lease. She is totally opposed to the language in HB 360
and SB 258, the companion bill in the Senate. She has seen the
program work very successfully in the Naknek-Kvichak area. Her
family has had the site for over 50 years. Her daughter is the
fourth generation to fish on the site and despite that they have
had to use the Department of Natural Resources for adjudication
issues. Ms. Aspelund further said that lease holders pay a fee
and they deserve to have adjudication service. This bill would
totally destabilize what has evolved into a functional and
effective program. As Representative Dyson has indicated,
infrastructure is often developed on the adjacent upland with a
ten-year lease period and knowledge of some protection. Setnet
fisheries are unique in that oftentimes the entire family is
present at a site because of the stability that the current
system has provided. She doesn't believe that the registration
program is going to work in terms of drawing a map and plugging
in GPS [global positioning system] coordinates, for people make
mistakes. She cited that when her site was surveyed the entire
area was surveyed incorrectly by half a site. She said,
If that can happen with people who are skilled and
trained in their field and have all kinds of licenses
to do what they do, think how complex the issues are
going to be when we as individuals are trying to take a
coordinate with GPS and turn and sketch it.
MS. ASPELUND continued. When she was on the Naknek-Kvichak fish
and game advisory committee, the Department of Natural Resources
was instrumental in settling a major conflict on her beach, which
if it had gone in one direction would have required every single
setnetter on that beach to move his site. It was only because of
the Department of Natural Resources that the conflict was
successfully resolved. She encouraged the committee members to
keep the bill in committee, unless significant changes are made
to it. Program receipt authority is a possible option, but she
would not continue to pay a $300-lease fee, if this is going to
be the only protection for her site.
Number 1829
REPRESENTATIVE MARY KAPSNER pointed out to Ms. Aspelund that if
this legislation does not pass there will be no protection. It's
better than nothing. It might not provide as many services as
before, but in its absence there will be nothing.
Number 1876
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Ms. Aspelund whether he heard her say
that, if the present program can be retained, the setnet
community might be open to an increase in fees to fund the
program.
MS. ASPELUND replied, "No." The fees that they already pay
adequately fund the program. She was talking about program
receipt authority in which the user fees actually go towards
funding the program.
Number 1933
TOM CHURCH, Prince William Sound Setnetter, testified via
teleconference from Cordova. He is speaking in opposition to the
bill. According to his understanding, the old program costs
about $300,000 a year to administer, and the setnetters were
satisfied with that program. The fiscal note indicates that the
program receipts bring in about $360,000 a year, which equates to
a surplus. The department has indicated that they spend anywhere
from $95,000 to $100,000 to administer the current program, which
equates to about 26 percent of the revenue generated. As a
result, the setnetters are getting less service for the same
amount of fee. The way to go, he said, is to get rid of the
moratorium, return to the old program, and if necessary ask for
more money to administer the program. The old program is a
proven program of stability and conflict resolution. A lengthy
and costly process of mediation and arbitration would be in
addition to the fees that setnetters currently pay.
Number 2042
DAN CHALUP, Representative, Kachemak Bay Fish Producers Co-op,
testified via teleconference from Homer. The co-op consists of
16 members who are all setnetters. The co-op is opposed to the
bill for the reasons the previous testifiers have indicated. Why
change something that is working well? The co-op also believes
the money that setnetters are paying should be allocated to the
Department of Natural Resources to support the program.
Number 2102
SANDY UMLAUF, President, Ugashik Set Net Association, testified
via teleconference from Kenai. The association represents
approximately 65 setnet permits. She has setnetted in Cook Inlet
and has encouraged other fishers to purchase shore fishery
leases. The association requests that the committee members vote
against the legislation. The old program was more than self-
sustaining. It offered stability and provided a means for
conflict resolution. Why throw away a self-sustaining program
that was working? There was general satisfaction with the
program amongst the setnetters. Some believe that the new
program is being instituted so that the state can avoid the
litigation costs of conflict resolution. If that is the case,
she said, the thinking is wrong. This new program can lead to
many different types of litigations. The self-registration
program uses GPS coordinates for the location of fishing nets,
when the U.S. Department of Defense continuously scrambles the
outgoing GPS satellite data coordinates. As a result, the
coordinates can be up to 100 feet off creating disagreements.
She said,
This sort of discrepancy is critical in areas where the
shore fishery leases are stacked in to the available
tidelands exactly 300 feet apart. One setnet fisherman
can say his GPS showed one thing and his neighbor can
show him something else, that their GPS coordinates
will show on different days. These types of
disagreements can wind up being settled with our
readily available guns. Who do you suppose the
families will be suing then? The deepest pocket they
can find, and that would be our great state of Alaska.
If the fishery does become disorderly because of shore
fishery disputes the Department of Fish & Game will be
forces to close down the setnet fishery. Once again,
opening up the threat of litigation to the state by the
fishermen who were able and ready to be fishing and
unable to fish. The new shore fishery registration
program does not allow state law enforcement to do
anything with individual fishermen disputes on the
beach. Enforcement would basically have to tell all of
the setnet fishermen involved in a dispute to take
their nets out of the water, stop fishing, and enter
voluntary arbitration or go to court over the dispute.
The season would long be over before those fishermen
would get resolution of where they could set their
nets. Now, this bill, without comment or commercial
fishermen's input, (indisc.) the old program and
replaces it with a self-registration system. And
fishermen are expected to pay the same fee. Ugashik
Set Net Association strongly opposes the changes and
urges you to support the current program.
Number 2311
PAUL SHADURA II, Kenai Setnetter, testified via teleconference
from Kenai. His family has been setnetting in Kenai for
approximately 100 years. He remembers stories from his father
and uncles about the days of having to be first-in-time and
first-in-place. They would start staking their sites as soon as
the snow started to melt. In that regard, leases have gone a
long way in providing continuity. In the area that he setnets
there are about 50 to 60 nets within a 4 mile by 1.5 mile area
out from the beach, and the Department of Fish & Game will not
write a ticket if the nets are 580 feet apart. Without setnet
leases, there would not be an orderly fishery whatsoever, and a
shotgun might be right for the types of confrontations that would
ensue. He opposes the bill. The fees are sufficient to cover
the costs of the current program. He suggested increasing the
fee for new members as a means to get more funds. It would also
be more advantageous and cost effective to break the moratorium
rather than to try and implement the program called for in the
bill. A new program would probably cost the state more money to
try to implement.
Number 2448
DAN OGG, Kodiak Setnetter, testified via teleconference from
Kodiak. He falls in line with a lot of the previous testimony.
He sees language in the bill as causing problems. For example,
on page 7, subparagraph (j), the language allows for anybody to
register a site within three years after the previous person
registered his site. The language doesn't give the first person
a priority, which allows for "claim jumping" and disorderliness.
But, if the language is changed so that it's enforceable upon the
persons who have registered areas as it stands now, it just might
work.
Number 2533
MIKE NUGENT, Kodiak Setnetter, testified via teleconference from
Kodiak. He asked Ms. Carroll whether the moratorium is for new
sites or for renewals as well.
MS. CARROLL replied, she believes, that the moratorium covers all
leases, not just new ones.
MR. THOMPSON stated, at the current time, the Department of
Natural Resources is not accepting any applications for new
leases. The department is trying to renew the ones that have
expired during the interim period.
Number 2606
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS announced that he does not intend to move the
bill out of committee today. He plans to only take public
testimony.
Number 2629
AL BAUMAN, President, Kvichak Setnetters Association, testified
via teleconference from Anchorage. He has fished in Bristol Bay
for about 25 years. He applied for his first lease in 1983. He
has seen the shore fishery program develop over the years, and it
has always worked closely with the fishers. In 1993, when the
fees were raised from $150 to $300 to cover expenses, the cost of
the program was just over $200,000 and there were four employees.
The program is down to one employee, but the fee has remained the
same when the actual cost, aside from labor, is somewhere between
$30,000 and $50,000. This legislation, along with SB 258, would
gut the current program. There would be no new lease
applications; no amending of existing diagrams, which is
necessary from time to time because of erosion or the elimination
of a site to make another one better; no renewal of existing
leases; no conflict mediation; and no public notices of the new
registered sites, which is a crucial vehicle in diverting
conflict. The Kvichak Setnetters Association is wondering why
they would be paying for this new program, for they would not be
getting any new services. He doesn't know of any setnet
organization or any setnetter who backs this new registration
program. The only way that he can see to continue paying a $300-
fee is if it is applied specifically to the program.
Number 2777
ROGER KUCHENBECKER, Bristol Bay Fisher, testified via
teleconference from Mat-Su. He is very much against the bill.
It is ill-advised, and it shouldn't proceed any further in the
legislative process. He supports the present system for various
reasons. The main reason is because there are maps showing where
the setnet sites are located, which is very user friendly, lends
stability, and it works. An advantage to the old system is that
the department can adjudicate when there are conflicts, which is
very important to a lot of fishers. It is much more cost
effective than individual fishers having to resolve conflicts
themselves. Another reason to oppose the bill is the GPS system.
There isn't enough accuracy with the hand-held units that would
be required under this new registration system, which would
result in all sorts of conflicts. In speaking with other
fishers, the vast majority do not support the new registration
system and the fees involved. They feel that they would be
paying out money and not getting that much of a service in
return.
Number 2891
JAMES PAHL, Prince William Sound Fisher, testified via
teleconference from Cordova. He opposes the bill. He's worried
about the language in the bill that indicates an auction to the
highest bidder. It seems that an auction would cost money given
all the details involved.
Number 2938
AL WHALEY, Representative, Prince William Sound Set Netters
Association, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He is
a setnet permit holder. He thinks HB 360 is a wonderful bill for
the Department of Natural Resources, but he thinks it's a lousy
bill for setnetters. It is completely based on funding needs.
It is not based on logic in any way. Setnetters have paid a fee
for years, and essentially the only thing that they get is a
section in the water to put a net and a means to resolve a
conflict. If the bill was to pass, setnetters would simply be
paying money for nothing.
TAPE 00-10, SIDE B
Number 0001
MR. WHALEY continued. He is opposed to the bill, and he hasn't
met a setnetter yet who isn't opposed to it either. He feels
fortunate to be a part of Prince William Sound, for there is a
small group of setnetters and there is not a lot of conflict.
But in the event of a conflict, because of the remoteness, it
would not be resolved in an amicable fashion. He wonders why
setnetters would have to pay the state a few of $300 when the
cost to resolve a conflict would have to be paid by them
directly.
Number 2918
KARL KIRCHER, Executive Director, Kenai Fishermen's Association,
testified via teleconference from Kenai. He referred to a memo,
dated October 5, 1992, from the Department of Natural Resources,
which details how the increased rental fees for the shore fishery
leases were calculated to ensure that adequate program receipts
were collected to cover administrative costs. The memo also
refers to AS 38.05.082(c), which states that the director shall
establish a reasonable rent for shore fishery development leases
that equals the administrative costs in processing a leasehold
application. Given that logic, he is assuming that the fees
would be reduced to cover the approximate $100,000 that it would
take to run the new program, which would result in $200,000 of
less revenues brought in under the old program. In effect, the
$200,000 cut made by the legislature in 1999 to the shore
fisheries budget that resulted in this bill would be offset by a
$200,000 reduction in revenue. The net effect is that setnetters
would have a program that costs less, offers less, and provides
less protection and stability than the original shore fishery
lease program, and because of AS 38.05.082(c) the effect for
either program is the same.
MR. KIRCHER does not see the need to change a program that has
worked well for so long, a program which brought stability and
development to the fishery. He asked the committee members to
look closely at the circumstances surrounding the original cuts
to the funds that were clearly raised for a specific purpose. He
also asked the committee members to inquire as to whether or not
there are any specific areas of the shore fishery lease program
that are financially or administratively problematic. The
industry would be more than willing to address these issues. For
now, he said, Department of Natural Resources should continue to
issue renewals in order not to harm those whose leases expire
while the problem is being resolved. He announced that the
association does not support the bill, and that the association
would be willing to work towards reinstating the old program. He
noted that the Senate Resources Committee is working on a
committee substitute for a type of program receipt accounting so
that the funds raised by the program would be recognized and
therefore make legislative funding for the program more likely in
the future.
Number 2776
KIM RICE (ph), Vice President, Egegik Set Net Association,
testified via teleconference from an off-net location. He has
setnetted in Bristol Bay for 15 years with his family.
Setnetters are paying their way and the program works. He thinks
that the solution is to approach the finance committees with
recommendations from the committee members of the House Special
Committee on Fisheries and ask them to restore the funding to the
program. It is necessary for the survival of the fishery. It is
mostly an Alaskan fishery, and the fishers deserve respect for
their hard work. The money, he said, is more than enough. The
conflicts of five to seven years ago have nothing to do with
today. The facts indicate that the problematic areas have been
resolved, for the most part. Setnetters need the security of a
ten-year lease. He reiterated the approach should be a non-
general fund receipt program similar to what the legislature is
trying to do for the dive fishery. The setnet program has been
around for 20 years, yet somehow they have been forsaken in the
process. The state makes money off of the setnetters, and with
the lack of conflicts there is going to be less of a need for a
large staff. He further commented that the fishers were
contacted about this bill after it was written, and that the
Governor must not know what is going on, for this is a stable
fishery and helps to stabilize the entire state. He hopes that
the committee members table the bill.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS pointed out to Mr. Rice (ph) that the
legislature, by constitution, cannot dedicate funds, but that
there are other ways to get funds close to where they belong.
Number 2626
LAUREN MOSS (PH), Prince William Sound Setnetter, testified via
teleconference from an off-net location. She is a resident of
Girdwood. She is a member of the Prince William Sound Set
Netters Association. She opposes the bill. It holds nothing
that is functional for setnetters. They would like to see
funding restored to the present program because what is the point
in fixing a program if it isn't broken. An increase of $360,000
a year to $3.6 million a year is a pretty big increase for a
proposed system that would be ineffective; a program that is
poorly written and full of holes. She cited a renewal system on
a yearly basis does not guarantee that fees would not increase
every time the legislature cuts Department of Natural Resource's
budget, and she's a fisher that can't afford an increase in the
fees. She also questions how the department can spend $300,000
for one part-time employee. She suggested that the committee
members ask for an accounting of that budget before moving
forward in judging the bill. She further noted that litigation
costs are going to increase due to GPS inaccuracies. In the
district where she setnets, certain sites are only 300 feet
apart, and an inaccuracy of over 100 feet would set everybody on
top of each other. A dispute would put everybody out of
business. She would like to see the entire bill killed. She
appreciates the efforts being made to rewrite the bill by putting
the funds into a lease program account that can be appropriated
solely for the shore fishery lease program.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS closed the meeting to public testimony.
[HB 360 WAS HELD IN COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION]
Number 2440
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, Co-Chairman
Harris adjourned the House Special Committee on Fisheries meeting
at 6:07 p.m
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|