Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/03/2000 05:07 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 3, 2000
5:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Harris, Co-Chair
Representative Carl Morgan, Co-Chair
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Hal Smalley
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bill Hudson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Board of Fisheries
Robert "Ed" Dersham - Anchor Point
Larry J. Engel - Palmer
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
OVERVIEW: IMPACTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA FARMED ATLANTIC SALMON ON
ALASKA WILD SALMON STOCKS
- POSTPONED
PREVIOUS ACTION
No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 411
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Mr. Dersham's
appointment to the Board of Fisheries.
CARL ROSIER, President
Alaska Outdoor Council
8298 Garnet Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Mr. Dersham's and
Mr. Engel's appointments to the Board of Fisheries.
ROBERT "ED" DERSHAM, Appointee
to the Board of Fisheries
PO Box 555
Anchor Point, Alaska 99556
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as an appointee to the Board of
Fisheries.
DALE BONDURANT
31864 Moonshine Drive
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Mr. Dersham's and
Mr. Engel's appointments to the Board of Fisheries.
GERRY MERRIGAN, Director
Petersburg Vessel Owners Association
PO box 232
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Mr. Dersham and Mr. Engel to the Board of Fisheries, not on
the basis of their personal qualifications, but in relation to
the hopes of getting a commercial fishing representative on the
board.
LARRY ENGEL, Appointee
to the Board of Fisheries
PO Box 197
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as an appointee to the Board of
Fisheries.
JERRY McCUNE, Representative
United Fishermen of Alaska
211 Fourth Street, Suite 110
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1172
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on the appointment of Mr. Dersham
and Mr. Engel to the Board of Fisheries in relation to the lack
of commercial fishing representation on the board.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-11, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIRMAN CARL MORGAN called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 5:07 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Harris, Morgan, Dyson and
Smalley. Representatives Kapsner and Whitaker arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS - Board of Fisheries
CO-CHAIRMAN MORGAN announced the committee would consider two
appointees to the Board of Fisheries - Mr. Robert "Ed" Dersham of
Anchor Point; and Mr. Larry J. Engel of Palmer. (Resumes were
provided for each appointee.)
CO-CHAIRMAN MORGAN announced the committee would first consider
the appointment of Mr. Robert "Ed" Dersham of Anchor Point to the
Board of Fisheries. [There was also discussion in relation to
Mr. Larry Engel's appointment to the Board of Fisheries.]
Number 0105
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS, Alaska State Legislature, came
before the committee to testify. She has known Mr. Dersham and
has worked with him for many years. He has been a capable member
of the board; he has been doing a great job. He has brought a
sense of balance. She strongly urged the committee members to
support his confirmation to the Board of Fisheries.
Number 0177
CARL ROSIER, President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), came before
the committee to testify. Mr. Dersham has been a good board
member. He's come to the board meetings well prepared. The AOC
supports the reconfirmation of Mr. Dersham to the Board of
Fisheries.
Number 0250
CO-CHAIRMAN MORGAN called on Mr. Dersham and asked him whether
he's willing and ready to serve on the Board of Fisheries.
ROBERT "ED" DERSHAM, Appointee to the Board of Fisheries,
testified via teleconference from Homer. Yes, he has been on the
board for three years now, and he has learned a lot during that
time. He has been to all the regions of the state and can use
the knowledge that he has gained to be an effective member of the
board for the next three years. He has also enjoyed working with
all the different user groups. He feels that it has been a
productive process. He would very much like to be a part of the
board again.
Number 0320
CO-CHAIRMAN JOHN HARRIS talked about the concerns of the
commercial fishing interests in relation to the decisions and
practices of the Board of Fisheries. He then asked Mr. Dersham
what the board could do differently to direct more interest
toward regional areas, such as the local advisory committees,
since the board deals with statewide concerns and since many
regions have different points of view.
MR. DERSHAM replied that the local advisory committees are key to
providing local input to the board, especially for the more
remote areas. He further stated the subcommittee process that
the board uses at regulatory meetings has enhanced input from the
advisory committees. The advisory committee members, he
explained, are ad hoc members of the subcommittees, which allow
for more input in addition to the 15 minutes allotted for public
testimony. The board, he noted, put the subcommittee process
into policy at its March meeting. The board also works closely
with the advisory committees in relation to task forces and
standing committees to provide a sense of ownership. He cited
the local area management plans for halibut in Kodiak, Cook
Inlet, Prince William Sound, Resurrection Bay and Yakutat as
examples of areas that are closely tied to the local advisory
committees.
Number 0633
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS asked Mr. Dersham how much weight the board
gives to the local advisory committee's recommendation in
comparison to information or opinions coming from other areas of
the state.
MR. DERSHAM replied that that it depends on the circumstances.
As a general rule, the board members give a lot of weight to the
advisory committee's recommendation, but it depends on the issue.
If there are a lot of legal questions involved, for example,
sometimes the board can't follow the advice of the local advisory
committee. He further noted that some of the advisory committees
felt that when the subcommittee process was first started it was
not enhancing their input; some thought that it was diminishing
their input. But that has changed since it has been taken around
the state to different meetings, and some changes have been made
to it.
Number 0775
REPRESENTATIVE HAL SMALLEY asked Mr. Dersham how he leans toward
looking at the biological and scientific data in regard to the
management of salmon fisheries - the Cook Inlet salmon fishery in
particular.
MR. DERSHAM replied biological and scientific data are very
important. The better the data, he said, the easier it is to
make a decision. The board always tries to seek out the very
best data available, but sometimes it is not available because of
the costs associated with gathering certain kinds of data. For
example, biological data is the most important deciding factor
for interception and conservation issues. In regard to
conservation of coho [salmon] in Cook Inlet, the biological data
is greatly lacking; as a result, at the February meeting the
board members had to make a decision based on the best data in
front of them.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY explained that he asked the question
because of concerns expressed in regard to the decision made by
the board in relation to putting as many coho [salmon] on the
spawning bed as possible in spite of the fact that there wasn't a
determined conservation need expressed by the Department of Fish
& Game.
MR. DERSHAM wondered whether the concerns are in relation to the
request to change the agenda item, which came from the Governor,
not the Department of Fish & Game. Once the request was accepted
by the board, however, the department indicated that it felt
there was a conservation concern in relation to the Kenai River
and the northern district sockeye [salmon], particularly in Knik
Arm.
Number 1049
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked Mr. Dersham how the board or
legislature should evaluate the priority of who harvests fish
once the wild stock has been satisfied. In other words: How
should the resources be divided amongst consumptive, sport,
industrial, charter, guide sport and commercial users?
MR. DERSHAM replied that once escapement and subsistence needs
are met in each fishery, the board looks to the seven allocation
criteria that were adopted several years ago. The criteria
relate to the importance of deciding among fisheries in regard to
their importance to the economy of the state, to the economy of
the region, to the characteristic and number of participants in
each fishery and so forth. Those criteria, he said, are balanced
and fair; when applied carefully, they are the best decision-
making tools. Beyond the seven criteria, the board does its best
to get the stakeholders to come to agreement amongst themselves.
He cited a meeting in Sitka in February at which the stakeholders
(guide, non-guide, and commercial users) spent a good part of a
day "hammering out" an agreement on king salmon allocation with
the guidance and help of the board. That is the best way, he
said, to come to an agreement; but he recognized that that is not
possible all of the time.
Number 1303
DALE BONDURANT testified via teleconference from Kenai. He is a
53-year-resident of the state. He has attended many board
meetings. Mr. Dersham has shown that he's a fast learner. He
called him a sincere member of the board in that he works well
with the other members. Mr. Bondurant supports the confirmation
of Mr. Dersham to the Board of Fisheries.
Number 1361
GERRY MERRIGAN, Director, Petersburg Vessel Owners Association,
testified via teleconference from Petersburg. He has been to a
fair number of board meetings in the last couple of years. He
can say that he's had some good and bad experiences. He has also
experienced frustration. He has worked with both Mr. Dersham and
Mr. Engel, and he thinks that they are pretty open people. But
the key to the board, he said, is balance; and, in that regard,
commercial fishing interests do not have a representative on the
board. There is no member on the board who makes a living
commercial fishing. In particular, there is an absence of
members who fish on the ocean. There is no "blue" water
experience on the board. He said:
Where there are a lot of allocation issues in front of
the board, there are a lot of nuts and bolts issues of
just commercial fishing and how it works. The ...
committee process is a wonderful thing, but it's also
dying of its own length. And part of it is just trying
to get all the points across, and some of these may be
done better by more knowledgeable board members. It
seems like other boards and commissions ... are
represented by people that actually have some
involvement in that fishery, and right now we just
don't have anybody on the board.
MR. MERRIGAN further noted that there were several people who put
their names in for an appointment, but the Governor chose not to
pass them on. He cited Robert Merchant (ph) from Kenai as an
example.
CO-CHAIRMAN MORGAN asked Mr. Merrigan whether he opposes or
supports the confirmation of Mr. Dersham and Mr. Engel.
MR. MERRIGAN replied he would have to oppose their confirmations,
not on the basis of their personal qualifications, but in the
hopes of getting a commercial representative on the board.
Number 1510
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS asked Mr. Merrigan why he thinks the Governor
is not listening to recommendations to appoint commercial
fishermen as board members.
MR. MERRIGAN replied that one problem is because there isn't a
fisheries advisor as part of the governor's cabinet. The
position hasn't been filled since Jay Nelson (ph) left two years.
In that regard, it's hard to contact the governor's office. He
further noted that the Governor has been to Petersburg at which
time the same complaint was expressed to him. But the Governor,
he said, has only lent a "deaf ear."
Number 1486
REPRESENTATIVE MARY KAPSNER recommended to Mr. Merrigan that he
approach Bob King [Robert, Press Secretary, Office of the
Governor], who was originally from Dillingham; and Kate Troll
[Fisheries Development, Juneau Office, Division of Trade and
Development, Department of Community & Economic Development].
MR. MERRIGAN noted that the Petersburg Vessel Owners Association
is still waiting on a call from the boards and commissions staff
in the Governor's office in relation to the North Pacific Council
appointments.
CO-CHAIRMAN MORGAN announced the committee would next consider
the appointment of Mr. Larry Engel of Palmer to the Board of
Fisheries.
Number 1663
CO-CHAIRMAN MORGAN called on Mr. Engel and asked him why he would
like to be reappointed to the Board of Fisheries.
LARRY ENGEL, Appointee to the Board of Fisheries, testified via
teleconference from Palmer. Fisheries, he said, have been a very
important part of his life since his earliest remembrance. He
grew up in the state of Washington and participated in his
family's commercial fishing activities in the San Juan Islands
during his youth. He attended and graduated from the University
of Washington's College of Fisheries. He came to Alaska during
the territorial days as part of the U.S. Naval Station in Kodiak
where he can recall the debate over the issue of fisheries in
relation to statehood. He worked for the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game from 1960 to 1992 until he retired. He has also
worked with the Matanuska-Susitna Borough on a contractual basis
in relation to fisheries issues. He was appointed to the Board
of Game in 1992 by Governor Hickel. He was reappointed by
Governor Knowles. He feels that at this point in his life he can
give back to the fisheries resource. He further noted that
serving on the board is a volunteer type of service, which is
what people do to make the country strong. He asked that the
committee members consider his confirmation favorably.
Number 1833
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY asked Mr. Engel what he envisions over the
next ten years in relation to the economic considerations and
commercial fisheries in Western Alaska, Cook Inlet and the Copper
River. In that regard, he's looking for words like strong, weak
or just plain absent.
MR. ENGEL replied, he thinks, that all of the fisheries in the
state have certain challenges ahead. He said,
We all know that farmed fish take 40 percent of the
world market. We all know that hatchery and some
elements/parts of the state have augmented the natural
reproduction to a very substantial amount that has had
potential impacts on other geographical areas of the
state. We do know that these types of things create
enormous amounts of uncertainty within the commercial
and sport fishing industries in the state of Alaska.
As to Western Alaska, we've had a chronic...Let me say
this, in the state of Alaska we've been riding very,
very high on our salmon productions, not just in
(indisc.--something fell over the microphone) but ...
almost overall the highest production we've ever seen.
If you look at the one-hundred-year-harvest situation
in Alaska, we are doing very well. We are breaking
records more often than not, but there are certain
areas that are not, and that's Western Alaska. For
whatever the reason, something is going on in the
Bering Sea ... beyond our understanding. Western
Alaskan stocks are not doing well.
As far as Cook Inlet goes, I think Cook Inlet stocks
are generally healthy. We've got a lot of things in
place to manage our sockeye [salmon]. We're getting a
lot of things in place to manage our king salmon. They
are the most [notable] to managers mainly because some
of the other species are relatively minimal compared to
the sockeye and the king salmon. But we're moving in
the direction that we should be able to provide to
stable fisheries in those areas.
Prince William Sound, we've got an enormous hatchery-
augmented situation that's very concerning to me: that
we have relied so heavily on artificial reproduction of
those stocks to maintain them. They're very healthy.
Well, they're very robust, the hatchery stocks are.
The percentage of wild fish are much, much smaller than
the hatchery fish. There's been a flip in natural
reproduction and artificial reproduction in that area.
That concerns me, but, again, I don't know if I've
responded to your questions. You've posed a very
multi-faceted economic, social and biological question.
Number 2038
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY stated he specifically asked a broad
question for conversational purposes. He said,
If we were looking at a management of the resources
from the Board of Fisheries' perspective and the
discussion that we've had about commercial fisheries
basically ... not having a voice. You know, if I look
over the last 15 years, just the changes in the
commercial fishing seasons, they've lost approximately
half the number of days. And so, I guess, what I was
looking forward to seeing if there was an answer about
with the management of the resources in the manner in
which it has been done, if you see commercial fishing
as an endangered species?
MR. ENGEL replied:
Absolutely not. On a statewide basis commercial
fishing is thriving, if you will, which is certainly
the economic impacts of huge hatchery productions in
the Asian countries, Japan, Russia, and in the 40
percent farmed. All you have to do is walk into Fred
Meyer tomorrow and look and see what they've got for
sale. They've got fillets of Atlantic farmed salmon.
That's a fresh product that they can produce. Those
are things that are threatening Alaska's commercial
fishing. I think those are very threatening type
things. If you're talking about Cook Inlet, in
specific, I think Cook Inlet is having a situation
where you've got a geographical human, you know,
predator situation. There's more and more human beings
living in Cook Inlet; over half the state's population
wanting some reasonable share of the resource. The
people that catch the majority of that resource at this
time are commercial fishermen. And so they're
threatening from that allocation standpoint; I think,
others asking for some reasonable share, and from the
economic impacts of the huge farmed production and huge
hatchery production in the Asian countries. And so,
yes, those are very serious and very concerning types
of situations. The Board of Fisheries has somewhat
limited ability to deal with some of these
international type issues, but we certainly have a
major player in terms of allocation between sport and
commercial [users] within the Cook Inlet area and
elsewhere in the state. But [in] most of the state,
that's not a major issue right now. Bristol Bay, for
example, is subject to the international play of the
hatchery and the farmed fish and relatively small
impacts in terms of any kind of reallocation, if you
will, of those specific resource. But some other
newcomer to the playing field so...But Cook Inlet's the
opposite. I mean, they're right here in Anchorage, and
they are subject to all kinds of pressures from
outside. And I understand all of them and have to deal
with them, and my most difficult challenge on the Board
of Fisheries is allocation.
Number 2209
DALE BONDURANT testified via teleconference from Kenai. He has
known Mr. Engel for years. He's a real concerned individual on
the board. He thinks out problems. He doesn't really "get in
bed" with anybody in relation to allocation issues. In that
regard, he supports his reconfirmation.
Number 2240
CARL ROSIER, President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), came before
the committee to testify. He first responded to some of the
previous comments. As he counts the members of the Board of
Fisheries, there's at least four people who are strongly
interested and participate in commercial fisheries. He cited
that the gentleman from Sitka has trolled and purse-seined; there
are two gill net representatives; and the gentleman appointed
from Bristol Bay was strongly supported by the fishermen in
Bristol Bay.
MR. ROSIER continued. The AOC, he said, is a strong supporter of
the board's regulatory system. During his employment with the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, he had the opportunity to
observe and participate on a significant number of regulatory
sessions with a variety of board members. The system in Alaska,
he said, is the most publicly open process in the nation. And,
when viewing the generally good condition of the fish and game
resources, it is a system that has served the state well. And
part of the board's effectiveness has been the quality of the
many dedicated individuals who have served on what is considered
the toughest regulatory appointment in the state.
MR. ROSIER said the appointees before the committee are two very
capable individuals who truly deserve to be confirmed for another
term on the board. The current board operates as a consensus
building entity that has established efficient processes to bring
opposing views to the table for resolution amongst the
stakeholders and further enlightenment of the board. If the
stakeholders, however, cannot reach a consensus, the board has
the last and best information on which to make the final
decision.
MR. ROSIER said that the present board leaves no question that
the conservation of the resource is the priority consideration in
the decision-making process. In this arena, he explained, the
board has recently completed the development of a sustainable
fisheries policy for the state. The development of the policy
has occurred in conjunction with the stakeholder groups and the
technical support of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game. The
policy provides guidance to the public, department and future
boards to ensure continued sustained yield. He called it a good
piece of work. Balance in regard to decisions affecting a
variety of user groups by the current board is probably the best
that he has observed.
MR. ROSIER said in that regard, no one interest group dominates
the board, as has been observed in the past. Although a
participant may not like a decision, that participant has every
opportunity to make a case and know that the board is listening
and fairly evaluating that participant's view. The members of
the current board come to the meeting well prepared, which is
obvious by the debate within the board and reams of material
produced. The two members before the committee for
reconfirmation have grown in their knowledge and understanding of
the great number of fisheries in the state. The AOC, therefore,
urges the committee members to support their confirmations.
Number 2469
JERRY McCUNE, Representative, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA),
came before the committee to testify. The UFA is not going to
testify for or against the appointments. In that regard, the UFA
is going to "stay on the fence" and let the committee members
stand on their own. In response to earlier comments, the fishing
industry is saying that a person doesn't necessarily have to be a
fisherman to sit on the board; the industry is saying that there
are some areas that are lacking in expertise; for example, there
isn't a member of the board who has "blue water" experience.
Furthermore, a lot of the members are from Southcentral Alaska.
The industry isn't saying that the members haven't fished or
taken part in a fishery; but there really isn't a member of the
board who makes a living from fishing, except for Mr. Miller
[Grant J.] who recently gave his fishing permit to his son. In
relation to comments made earlier about farmed fish, the industry
is rebounding. He cited that exports of fish are up 46 percent.
In that regard, markets are opening. He cited France as an
example. Not every fishery, however, is getting the ex-vessel
price that they should, but there has been an improvement.
Number 2592
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS asked Mr. McCune to explain the following
language in a letter from the United Fishermen of Alaska to
Governor Tony Knowles, dated March 31, 2000:
I am also concerned that all the names of the
prospective candidates were not on the table for public
comment before you announced your decision. Alaska
fishing groups and others put a lot of effort into
considering Board of Fisheries candidates, putting
names on the list at the last minute frustrates the
public process.
MR. McCUNE replied UFA is part of the process in that they review
and interview those who have submitted their name as a possible
candidate to the board. The governor, however, has the
prerogative to put forward a name that is not on the list. In
that regard, UFA would like to see some sort of process so that
they would know who is being considered by the governor who is
not on the list.
Number 2687
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS asked Mr. McCune whether UFA is not taking a
position on either one of the appointees.
MR. McCUNE stated that UFA is not taking a position on either one
of the appointees.
Number 2706
CO-CHAIRMAN MORGAN announced that the names of Robert "Ed"
Dersham and Larry Engel would be forwarded to the joint session
of the House of Representatives and Senate for consideration.
CO-CHAIRMAN MORGAN informed listeners that the overview hearing
on the impacts of British Columbia farmed Atlantic salmon on
Alaska wild salmon stocks had been postponed.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, Co-Chairman
Morgan adjourned the House Special Committee on Fisheries meeting
at 5:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|