Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/25/2003 08:35 AM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
April 25, 2003
8:35 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Dan Ogg
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Cheryll Heinze
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 25
Supporting Alaska's independent commercial fishermen and
Alaska's fish processing industry and opposing the establishment
of processor quota shares.
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 25
SHORT TITLE:COMMERCIAL FISHING & PROCESSOR SHARES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)SEATON
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/16/03 1008 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/16/03 1008 (H) FSH, STA, RES
04/16/03 1008 (H) REFERRED TO FISHERIES
04/22/03 1058 (H) COSPONSOR REMOVED: HEINZE
04/23/03 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
04/23/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(FSH)
04/25/03 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
LINDA FREED, City Manager
City of Kodiak
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 25 and answered
questions from the members.
RON BRIGGS
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 25.
ROGER ROLAND
Unalaska, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 25.
DAVID HILLSTRAND
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 25.
MAX MALAVANSKY, City Administrator
City of Saint George
Saint George, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 25.
BOB STORRS, Vice President
Unalaska Native Fisherman's Association
Unalaska, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 25.
SINCLAIR WILT
Alyeska Seafoods, Inc.
Unalaska, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 25.
JOHN MERCULIEF, City Manager
City of Saint Paul
Saint Paul Island, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 25.
TOM ENLOW, General Manager
UniSea, Inc.
Unalaska, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 25.
RON PHILEMONOF, Chief Executive Officer
Village Corporation of Saint Paul
Saint Paul Island, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 25.
PHYLLIS SWETZOF, City Clerk
Village Corporation of Saint Paul
Saint Paul Island, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HJR 25.
DOROTHY CHILDERS, Executive Director
Alaska Marine Conservation Council (AMCC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 25.
DAN FALVEY, Advisory Council Member
North Pacific Fishery Management Council
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 25.
DAVE OHMER, Plant Manager
NorQuest Seafoods, Inc.
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 25.
STEVE FISH
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 25.
SUE WEAVER
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 25.
JESSIE NELSON
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 25.
GLENN CARROLL
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 25.
JOHN HANSEN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 25.
DAVE WOODRUFF, Manager
Alaska Fresh Seafoods
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 25.
DICK POWELL
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 25.
GREG HATHAWAY, Plant Manager
Trident Seafoods, Inc.
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 25.
JULIE BONNEY, Director
Alaska Ground Fish Data Bank
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 25.
CHARLES REHDER
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 25.
MIMI TOLVA
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 25
CHARLIE PARSONS
Western Gulf of Alaska Fishermen Group
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: testified in opposition to HJR 25.
HEATHER McCARTY, Representative
for Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association;
Board Member
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 25 and
answered questions from the members.
KRIS NOROSZ, Representative
for Icicle Seafoods, Inc.
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 25.
GORDON BLUE, President
C.R.A.B. Group [Crab Rationalization and Buyback Group]
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 25 and answered
questions from the members.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-26, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. Representatives Seaton,
Wilson, Ogg, and Guttenberg were present at the call to order.
Representatives Samuels joined the meeting as it was in
progress. Representative Heinze was excused from the meeting.
HJR 25-COMMERCIAL FISHING & PROCESSOR SHARES
Number 0064
CHAIR SEATON announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 25, Supporting Alaska's independent
commercial fishermen and Alaska's fish processing industry and
opposing the establishment of processor quota shares.
Number 0142
LINDA FREED, City Manager, City of Kodiak, testified in support
of HJR 25. She told the members that all on-shore crab
processing in the Kodiak region takes place in the City of
Kodiak, so this is a very significant issue for the community.
She pointed out that the members have a copy of Mayor Floyd's
letter [in their packets] which highlights some points made by
the mayor and responds to some of the testimony made in earlier
hearings.
MS. FREED stated that this is a policy issue on one of the
largest industries in the state of Alaska, and it is imperative
that the legislature take a look at this because it will impact
coastal communities and residents throughout the state. The
North Pacific Fisheries Management Council [NPFMC] is influenced
by what the policy is in the state of Alaska with this and other
fisheries issues. She encouraged the members to provide
guidance to the NPFMC and the administration. Ms. Freed said
the City of Kodiak has participated in the NPFMC process, but
does not believe the process has been as open and inclusive as
others have said. She explained that while there have been a
number of economic studies and analysis done with regard to this
issue, the council has eliminated or ignored some of the
economic analysis that did not support the council's preferred
alternative.
Number 0331
MS. FREED told the members that the only reason community
protection and binding arbitration are a necessary component of
the council's preferred alternative is due to the fact that
individual processing quotas [IPQs] are included in that
alternative. The alternative the council promoted is called the
two-pie system, which gives quotas to both the processors and
the individual harvesters and fishermen. This system is
untried, untested, and has not been shown to maximize national,
regional, or state benefit. There is no reference in any of the
analysis that shows that the two-pie system has been in use in
any resource extraction industry anywhere in the world. The
proposed rationalization plan will be the theory's multimillion
dollar, or perhaps billion dollar, beta test, she said. Ms.
Freed told the members that the City of Kodiak does not believe
Alaska should be the guinea pigs for this system. She pointed
out that they have agreed that some IPQs could be acceptable,
but in a much smaller percentage or range, at most at the 30
percent range.
MS. FREED stated that the City of Kodiak is only one of the
coastal communities that will be damaged and severely impacted
by this particular program. She summarized her comments by
saying that [the city] supports the legislature's efforts to
look into this policy issue and encourages them to provide
policy direction for the administration and the NPFMC. Ms.
Freed stated that the City of Kodiak supports this resolution.
Number 0409
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked Ms. Freed to expand on her
comments concerning the NPFMC's not having an open process.
MS. FREED responded that she sat as a member of the Community
Protection Committee which was established to talk about
protections for communities that would be impacted by this
particular program. She explained that the members [of the
Community Protection Committee] were told it would only be
possible for them to bring up issues already posed within the
framework of the council's decisions, and anything outside of
the council's framework could not be discussed by the committee
unless the committee had a two-third's vote. The committee was
established in such a way that Kodiak could never get a two-
third's vote to bring any issue of discussion to the table. Ms.
Freed said she would be happy to provide the members with copies
of the minutes of those meetings. She said she was concerned
because she believed if the committee was working to protect
communities, then there should have been an opportunity to
discuss all kinds of protections that might help most of the
coastal communities that are dependent on crab. Unfortunately,
the committee was not given that opportunity through the
process. On the surface it appeared open, but the fact remained
that there were such strict rules for participation, that the
committee was not allowed to explore what some members thought
were adequate, appropriate, or even unconventional, but
acceptable, community protection measures.
Number 0560
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG commented that he believed her
response was directed at the process after the decision was
made. He asked her what happened prior to that, while the NPFMC
was deliberating on the issue.
MS. FREED replied that the City of Kodiak was never formally
asked or involved within the process. The NPFMC did not reach
out specifically to communities. What did happen is that there
would be notices posted on the council's web site, and if
communities went to the web site and were familiar with the
issues and understood the significance of the issues, they were
allowed to participate, but were not encourage or contacted to
identify the significance of the issues going on. Ms. Freed
told the members that the City of Kodiak testified before the
council that if the city had realized the significance of the
issues and had been better informed by direct contact with the
NPFMC or council staff, the city would have started
participation much earlier in the process. She said that once
the city understood what the council was doing, they became very
actively involve. She commented that this involvement has been
very expensive for the city to protect the industry and
community.
Number 0650
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked Ms. Freed what steps are left in this
process.
MS. FREED responded that there are significant steps left in
this process. The NPFMC has come up with a preferred
alternative without meeting the requirements of the federal NEPA
[National Environmental Policy Act of 1969] process. She said
the council has not done a full analysis of a range of
reasonable and practical alternatives as required by federal
law. Ms. Freed said the City of Kodiak is very hopeful that the
NPFMC will go through that process, and it will be much clearer
what the impacts really are because they will have completed a
full analysis. She explained that the council still has to take
final action and cannot do that until the NEPA or EIS process is
complete. Ms. Freed said she understands Senator Stevens may be
holding public hearings on this process and that is one reason
it is so important for the state to be involved and take a
closer look at this as a policy perspective. If Senator Stevens
asks for a state position, it is imperative that it be a
position that takes into consideration all of the needs,
interests, and concerns of residents and participants of the
fishing industry, she concluded.
Number 0755
RON BRIGGS testified in support of HJR 25. He told the members
that the majority of the fishermen and a lot of the small
business people he knows in Dutch Harbor do not want the last
best offer that was voted on by the NPFMC. This vote went
against the findings of the expert the council hired, Dr. Pott
from California Technical Institute, who is considered to be the
leading expert on binding arbitration in the United States. Dr.
Pott recommended fleetwide arbitration because it enables the
fishermen to negotiate the best price for their crab, which, in
turn, generates more fish tax money for the state and
communities. Mr. Briggs explained that fishermen perceive that
in going down this road, fishermen will get less and less for
their product, which, in turn, will generate less money for the
state and communities through fish taxes.
Number 0871
ROGER ROLAND testified in support of HJR 25. He told the
members he is a resident of Unalaska, and fishes for salmon in
Chignik, gray and black cod in Unalaska, and herring around the
state. He asked the members to note what has happened in
Chignik over the past couple of years. He explained that in
2001 the fishermen were presented with a new product possibility
which substantially out performed the traditional markets.
However, both of the commercial buyers told him that they were
not interested in the new product because they thought it would
not work in the marketplace. Mr. Roland said that in 2002 this
new market returned a dollar a pound ex-vessel price to
fishermen for sockeye salmon. He stated that a comparison of
what Kodiak and Area M, which are the two areas that border
where he fishes, averaged approximately $.50 per pound [more
than where he fishes].
Number 0986
MR. ROLAND said the two-pie discussion concerns crab stocks in
the Bering Sea, but he said he is convinced that these same
companies that would benefit from processor shares for crab
would use this plan for a template for multi-species Gulf
rationalization. The miniscule 10 percent that is supposed to
allow for the kind of competition he mentioned earlier would be
laughable if it were not so tragic. Mr. Roland encouraged the
members to ask any of the existing processors if it would be
possible for them to be successful on 10 percent [share]. In
closing, he said he supports legislation that stymies the
processors ability to dictate an unfair price to the fishermen.
Number 1020
DAVID HILLSTRAND testified on HJR 25. He told the members that
he remembers when the halibut quota share system was first
implemented, and many people opposed it. He asked the members
to come up with more than a resolution opposing the NPFMC's
proposal. He said he believes it would be more helpful for the
legislature to come up with a recommendation or solution to the
problem for the council and Senator Stevens. Mr. Hillstrand
said that during the NPFMC's hearings Kodiak, Homer, and several
other communities came out in opposition to processor quota
shares, and this had no effect on the NPFMC's vote for the crab
rationalization plan.
MR. HILLSTRAND said when hearings were held [on the IFQ system]
the only thing the fishermen were able to affect were the dates
that were chosen. The council did listen to fishermen's
suggestions and [the fishery] went to a limited entry system,
and then to an IFQ system. He pointed out that the fishermen
saw the shares split up between lots of smaller boats. There
was equity in that the resources were split up between all the
users of the resource, he commented.
Number 1126
MR. HILLSTRAND explained that there is some history with the IFQ
program. When fishermen received quota shares, they took
advantage of the opportunity to put as much money as possible in
their pockets, and there was an effort to bypass the processors.
He said he does see the processors' side of the argument;
however, giving the processors 100 percent was not a realistic
option, so the council came up with the 90 percent to 10 percent
option. He said he does not believe that option is justified.
Mr. Hillstrand commented that a 50-percent-to-50-percent
proposal might be more equitable. He said if this option were
adopted there would be less argument between the parties. He
said he believes binding arbitration is not realistic because it
only encourages price fixing. He suggested that the legislature
address the option of the first right of refusal of the selling
of processor shares to the CDQ groups, and the regionalization
of CDQ groups.
Number 1238
MAX MALAVANSKY, City Administrator, City of Saint George,
testified in opposition to HJR 25. He told the members that the
council process was open. The community has been involved in
the crab rationalization process since 1999. Mr. Malavansky
said he sat on the Community Protection Committee and that the
process was open, fair, and democratic. He said he does not
agree with comments that the process was not fair. Since Saint
George is 750 miles west of Anchorage the community made every
effort to be present at the NPFMC meetings. Mr. Malavansky said
that he believes the processors have made significant
investments in communities. The public investment by the City
of Saint George, the State of Alaska, and the federal government
has been over $40 million in the last 15 years. He said that
the community looks at crab rationalization [favorably].
Number 1372
BOB STORRS, Vice President, Unalaska Native Fisherman's
Association, testified on HJR 25. He told the members that he
is standing in for others who could not get off of work to
testify. He commented that there has been a lot said about the
two-pie option including the fact that it was a result of a long
complicated process, went before the NPFMC, and that it had been
reviewed by a number of economists. Mr. Storrs agreed that it
was a long and complicated process; however, from the beginning
the committee was told by the large [processing] companies that
there was a "poison pill." Any program that did not offer them
PQs [IPQs] was not to be considered as a preferred alternative
or the large [processing] companies, with their immense money
and political clout, would not allow it to go forward, he said.
The final package that was put before the council was looked at
by the NPFMC and approved unanimously.
MR. STORRS pointed out that only one currently active Alaskan
fisherman was on that council. He said if this option went
before the council today, there would not be the same unanimous
vote. He took issue with respect to earlier comments that a lot
of economists reviewed [and agreed with] this option. He said
what was not mentioned is that with the exception of the
economists hired by the Knowles Administration, whose department
at Washington State University received a very large amount of
money from the Pacific Seafood Processors; almost all the other
economist who looked at this plan have trashed it. The General
Accounting Office [GAO] is not known as "bean counters with an
attitude," but in their polite way they did develop an attitude
over Dr. Matulich's methodology. Mr. Storrs told the members
that even though the Knowles Administration did decide to carry
the charge for the big companies and hired Dr. Matulich to
justify it, people in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and
at the federal level have expressed incredulity at this option.
One senior member of the division that would be administering
the plan, when asked about Dr. Matulich's use of the
halibut/sablefish program as an indicator for the problems that
would happen for big business, said that this is "fraud."
MR. STORRS summarized his comments by saying that there is the
threat that if the processors do not get quotas, there are
certain communities that would suffer and die. He emphasized
that there are alternatives that have been proposed to protect
these communities by regionalizing the deliveries. These
alternatives were killed by that "poison pill" and were not
allowed to proceed unless the companies, not the regions, were
specifically granted the resource. Mr. Storrs said that
Alaskans should not be the only people in the United States who
do not receive protection under anti-trust legislation. He
believes fishermen should be allowed to establish functional
fishermen's cooperatives because people are willing to look at
other alternatives.
Number 1680
SINCLAIR WILT, Alyeska Seafoods, Inc., testified on behalf of
Alyeska Seafoods, Inc., in saying he opposed HJR 25.
Number 1712
JOHN MERCULIEF, City Manager, City of Saint Paul, testified in
opposition to HJR 25. He told the members that since the harbor
opened on August 4, 1990, it has become one of the two largest
ports in the Bering Sea. Crab processing has replaced the fur
seal industry, and it is Saint Paul's only industry that makes
up 80 percent of the community's tax base. The shoreside and
shore-based processors handle about 40 percent of the opilio
crab caught in the Bering Sea. The spin-off business on the
islands of Saint Paul and Saint George creates independence and
local employment, and improves the viability of the community
and the well being of the people who live in Saint Paul. The
community is able to have volunteer services, maintain the
infrastructure, and have year-round jobs for many of the people
as a result of the crab industry operating, processing, and
flying people in and out of Saint Paul Island. To support this
industry in the past, the community invested its future, and
incurred one of the highest per capita debts in the state to
support the local and national crab industry. Mr. Merculief
pointed out that they do not have cod, salmon, or pollock; all
they have is crab. The [Village Corporation] of Saint Paul has
invested time, money, and manpower, working closely with the
NPFMC, state and federal government agencies, and various crab-
dependent communities. The community supports the crab
rationalization plan. He said Saint Paul put their faith in the
process mandated by Congress in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act; and he asked the members to
respect this act. Mr. Merculief told the members that on behalf
of the community of Saint Paul, he opposes HJR 25. He told the
members that this is an attempt to override hearings,
deliberations, negotiations, and due process. The resolution is
a direct threat to the well-being and livelihood of the citizens
of Saint Paul.
Number 1880
TOM ENLOW, General Manager, UniSea, Inc., testified in
opposition to HJR 25. He told the committee that UniSea, Inc.,
has been a crab processor in Unalaska for 30 years. Mr. Enlow
said he is testifying in opposition to HJR 25 and in support of
the NPFMC preferred alternative. That plan addresses the
economic concerns for communities, seeks to retain parity
between harvesters and processors, and promotes conservation
issues including the rebuilding of healthy crab stocks. The
plan chosen by the council is the result of many years of hard
work by dozens of staff and industry representatives, and
includes extensive public hearings and complete and thorough
analysis, he said. Mr. Enlow explained that throughout the
rationalization process there was bound to be controversy,
simply because there was too little fishery left and far too
many interested parties. It came down to those entities that
could demonstrate a historical economic dependency to the crab
fisheries.
Number 1947
MR. ENLOW told members that many of the concerns that were
raised in HJR 25 were also raised during the public hearing
process and have been addressed by the NPFMC and the crab plan.
Amendments to the NPFMC motion have been fully developed and
deal with many of the issues including provisions for binding
arbitration that allows for an independent third party to come
in and help determine and negotiate fair market price between
harvesters and processors.
MR. ENLOW went on to say community protection provisions were
established to ensure that coastal communities that are
economically dependent on crab fisheries are protected under the
rationalization plan. Mr. Enlow explained that at the core of
these community protection provisions lie processor quotas, for
what really binds a harvester to a community is the processor
who resides in that community. Without the processor tie, the
harvester has nothing that binds them to the community and it
would mean the catch could be taken anywhere, including
communities that do not have a historical dependency on crab.
Number 1977
MR. ENLOW disagreed with earlier testimony from Kodiak that
there is no model available to compare what would happen on a
two-pie system. He said he believes there is a model in the
American Fisheries Act groundfish rationalization, which is a de
facto two-pie system. Mr. Enlow said this system has had great
success simply because processors and harvesters have
collaborated to maximize the value of the fishery.
MR. ENLOW said processors have invested millions of dollars in
the pollock and cod operations. UniSea, Inc., alone invested
$10 million in the pollock plants to increase recovery, reduce
costs, and add value by diversifying their product line in
supplying new markets. As a result, there have been greater
revenues, which have been shared with the harvesters, as well as
the local communities of Unalaska and the State of Alaska.
Without the assurance of marketshare, processors would not have
the confidence to make the investments. Mr. Enlow said he
believes the same thing will happen with crab rationalization.
Without the processor quota [shares], the processors will not
have the confidence to make the necessary investments that will
lead to maximizing the fisheries value, and sharing the
increased revenues with both harvesters and coastal fishing
communities.
Number 2066
MR. ENLOW remarked that crab fisheries have a desperate need for
a comprehensive rationalization plan to fix the many problems.
This plan should not jeopardize the economic viability of
communities and fishermen, he said. Mr. Enlow said it is his
understanding that the NPFMC is done with the work on this plan
and has no intentions of going back and redoing any part of it.
That basically means any opposition to its current form is
opposition to the entire rationalization plan. In closing, Mr.
Enlow said this plan must be moved forward with confidence that
the responsible agencies including the U.S. Department of
Commerce and Congress will keep the program under close scrutiny
and won't allow any unfair practices.
Number 2110
RON PHILEMONOF, Chief Executive Officer, Village Corporation of
Saint Paul, testified in support of HJR 25. He told the members
that TDX Corporation is the landlord for Trident and Icicle
seafood plants on Saint Paul Island and only has a leaseholder's
interest in these plants. They also own the Anderson building,
which was the first crab plant on Saint Paul; however, it was
cutoff from the 8 percent historical quota by an arbitrary date
that was set. Mr. Philemonof commented that all is not well on
Saint Paul Island because there is not agreement on all points
in the [crab] rationalization plan. Mr. Philemonof pointed out
that at one point TDX [Corporation] did support the crab
rationalization plan, but unfortunately the community protection
measures were watered-down to a point where these measures are
meaningless. It is an empty promise because there are no
protections for communities under the current amendments that
were adopted, he stated.
MR. PHILEMONOF told the committee that the Village Corporation
of Saint Paul doesn't support the crab rationalization program;
and therefore, they support HJR 25. He asked that the members,
too, demand that the NPFMC put in better community protection
measures. He said the community was told that they had no risks
with this rationalization plan, but unfortunately, that is not
true. The community has taken risks by investing over $20
million in Saint Paul, yet there is no protection for the
community. Mr. Philemonof commented that the Village
Corporation of Saint Paul has no problem with Icicle [Seafoods,
Inc.] and Trident [Seafoods, Inc.] getting PQs [IPQs], but what
they do require is that those PQs [IPQs] be tied to the plants
in the community where the Village Corporation has already made
substantial investments. It is essential that the product is
not taken to floating processors around the country, he said.
Number 2229
PHYLLIS SWETZOF, City Clerk, Village Corporation of Saint Paul,
testified on HJR 25. She told the committee that while she is
currently the city clerk, she was the school board president for
many years, and is very concerned about the crab fisheries
because it is so much a part of the community's economy. Ms.
Swetzof pointed out that HJR 25 opposes all the work that has
been done by the parties involved. There were hundreds of man-
hours spent in trying to reach a fair deal between all the
parties. The end of negotiations always means that everyone
wins something and everybody loses something, she said. Ms.
Swetzof pointed out that the crab rationalization plan complies
with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, the American Fisheries Act, the development of the IFQ
processes, and an on-going attempt to protect stakeholders and
the resource. Ms. Swetzof told the members that she believes it
is important that this legislation be allowed to go through.
She stated she opposes HJR 25.
Number 2289
DOROTHY CHILDERS, Executive Director, Alaska Marine Conservation
Council (AMCC), testified in support of HJR 25. She told the
members that AMCC is a community based organization with over
900 members, most of whom are fishermen, subsistence harvesters,
small business owners, and other local residents living in
Alaska's coastal communities. Ms. Childers said that the AMCC
supports the rationalization of the crab fishery because the
resources need an improved management system. She explained
that she worked with the NPFMC to advance conservation and
community benefits of groundfish rationalization as well.
However, the AMCC supports HJR 25 because they are concerned
about the processor quota and the controlling affect this system
will have on markets, fishermen, communities, and the public
process for managing Alaska's resources.
Number 2351
MS. CHILDERS went on to say that she recognizes the important
role that the processing sector has in communities. She said
the question of Congress legalizing processor quotas should not
be reduced to a processor versus fishermen battle, as some have
made it out to be, because everyone knows the two sectors are
mutually dependent. She said she thinks instead of asking what
it will take to get fishermen and communities to accept
processor quotas, the question should be, "What is the
appropriate way to support each sector of the seafood industry
in order to better serve conservation management of the fish,
stability of the communities, and preservation of the American
competitive free-enterprise system." The Alaska Marine
Conservation Council is involved in this issue because they see
processor quotas as much more than an ordinary allocation
decision. Processor quotas in the crab fishery, and if [this
kind of plan] is applied to groundfish and salmon [fisheries],
it will have a tremendous impact on the face of the seafood
industry, governance of the public fishery resources, and day-
to-day challenges for fishing families and small processing
companies, she stated.
Number 2395
MS. CHILDERS believes that having the government allocate the
marketshare in the form of processor quotas cannot be glossed
over as a creative solution for rationalization. She said she
believes it will create a kind of cartel that will squelch
innovation and entrepreneurial opportunities and ultimately
exert an unacceptable degree of control over Alaska's fishing
families.
MS. CHILDERS urged the members to consider the public policy
implications of the processor quotas because the NPFMC can find
other ways to support processors and communities without giving
permanent rights to a few corporations to buy fish from
independent fishermen.
Number 2436
DAN FALVEY, Advisory Council Member, North Pacific Fishery
Management Council, testified in support of HJR 25. He told the
members that he is a fisherman and has been a member of the
Advisory Council on NPFMC for the last 12 years. Mr. Falvey
commented that while he fully appreciates Representative
Samuels' remarks on the council's process, he fully supports HJR
25 and believes it is very appropriate for the legislature to
comment on this issue because processor quotas are outside the
normal secretary/council review process. He explained that PQs
[IPQs] require Congress to substantially change the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and grant an
exemption to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890. Mr. Falvey
said he sees HJR 25 as a comment to Senator Stevens as he
considers making legislative changes, rather than micro managing
the NPFMC process. Processor quota shares will have a profound
impact on Alaska's communities and he reiterated that he
believes it is appropriate for the legislature to comment on
that.
Number 2505
MR. FALVEY shared that 45 percent of the PQs [IPQs] will be
owned by foreign owned companies, the processors can leave a
community two years after PQs [IPQs] are enacted, and it will
have a significant effect on raw fish tax. He told the members
that he believes this plan will effect all fishermen because
this plan will cause consolidation in the processing industry
and will eliminate independent market processors from forming.
This will affect ground fisheries and salmon fisheries, at a
time when there is a need for more markets and innovation,
rather than less, he stated. Mr. Falvey said he believes PQs
[IPQs] will spread to other fisheries. He sited proposals for a
Gulf of Alaska rationalization plan and a plan for the salmon
fisheries in Bristol Bay as well. In closing, Mr. Falvey
pointed out that the NRC [National Research Council] report
states that there is no compelling reason to have PQs [IPQs]
because the concerns of processors can be addressed through
other mechanisms that are legal and do not require anti-trust
[exemptions]. The concerns of the communities can be addressed
through regionalization of components of the plan that are legal
and do not require legislative changes. Mr. Falvey urged the
members to support HJR 25.
Number 2543
DAVE OHMER, Plant Manager, NorQuest Seafoods, Inc. testified on
HJR 25. He told the members that he has been in the seafood
processing business for 25 years and cannot remember a time when
the processors and fishermen have had such financial hardships.
Mr. Ohmer said he believes it takes a lot of discussion, public
input, and expertise by the management bodies to offer positive
solutions. He stated there is no way the legislature can match
this process, and is very concerned for the future of decision-
making processes if the legislature steps in and throws out
decisions that have taken years to be worked out. Mr. Ohmer
said that he believes it is important to keep the NPFMC and
Board of Fish processes because it is the proper place to find
the solutions to the industry's problems. He told the member
that he does not believe this precedent would affect long-line
fisheries and salmon fisheries. Mr. Ohmer said he opposes HJR
25 and hopes the committee will let the process work.
Number 2620
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that HJR 25 does not override
anything that has been done by the [NPFMC]. The resolution is a
comment on a section of the proposal going through the NPFMC.
He explained to Mr. Ohmer that the legislature does not have the
authority to override the council's process.
Number 2642
STEVE FISH testified in support of HJR 25. He told the members
he is a 29 year resident of Southeast Alaska, and believes it is
not appropriate for the legislature to tell the NPFMC how to
manage fisheries; however, it is appropriate for Alaska's
Representatives to raise red flags when a proposed action will
threaten and impose undue hardship on Alaskan communities,
businesses, people, and the state's resources. Mr. Fish said he
believes it is important that Alaska has a strong processing
sector in the industry because fishermen depend on the
processors a lot; however, what is being proposed goes way
beyond what he believes is appropriate in helping the processing
sector. Quota share programs are designed to facilitate
consolidation. When considering consolidation and the market
control of the fisheries, the negatives far outweigh the
positives, and the positives can be reached through other means.
Mr. Fish reiterated his support of HJR 25.
Number 2718
SUE WEAVER testified in opposition to HJR 25. She told the
members that she and her husband have been Bering Sea crabbers
for 22 years. She said she supports the NPFMC 11-0 decision,
and recognizes that council has spent four years listening to
all the testimony on all the issues. Ms. Weaver stated she does
not believe the legislature should be addressing issues like
this; stay out of it and let the process work.
MS. WEAVER said one of the reasons she would like to see this
crab rationalization plan go forward is that it would mean
longer seasons. For example, last fall the king crab opening
was 68 hours long, and the opilio season was 10 days. Ms.
Weaver explained that openings such as this leave little or no
room for error or breakdown, and either one of these events
could cost a crabber the season. She also pointed out that if
the season were longer it would be possible to open new markets
and develop new products. Another reason this plan would
benefit fishermen is that many times fishermen are out in
weather they should not be out in. Even though it is about
choices, it is also the only way [she and her husband] can make
a living. Ms. Weaver said that in all the years they have
fished the crab season, only once were they delayed because of
weather. That was three years ago, when the U.S. Coast Guard
said that if something happened they would not risk themselves
to save us. Crabbers have the most dangerous job in the world,
she commented. Safety is one of their biggest concerns and if
the crab rationalization plan were to pass, all of this would
change for them, she said.
MS. WEAVER told the members that they are on one of the smallest
boats that fish in the Bering Sea and are from a small coastal
community. She said AMCC claims to be protecting fishermen like
her and her husband, but AMCC is really an environmental group.
Ms. Weaver closed by saying she opposes HJR 25.
Number 2800
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Ms. Weaver to comment on the
testimony from individuals who are in favor of HJR 25, but do
not live in a coastal community or make their living as crab
fishermen.
MS. WEAVER replied that she is not sure what Representative
Wilson is asking. However, she said that she questions why
groups and people who are opposing the [crab rationalization
plan] are testifying in support of HJR 25 since they have no
vested interest in it; while she and her husband, who oppose the
resolution, do. She said she believes their voice should be
heard over other people [who have no vested interest in the
plan].
Number 2866
JESSIE NELSON testified in opposition to HJR 25. She told the
members that she and her husband had a crab boat that fished
from Kodiak to Adak to the Russian border. The NPFMC spent
years working on the Bering Sea crab rationalization program and
voted 11-0 to forward the plan. Ms. Nelson asked how many of
the members of the committee have attended these meetings and
how many have testified. The sponsors of this resolution are
not fishermen and have no vested interest in the fishery, she
commented. She questioned how the Special Committee on
Fisheries can make a judgment on this issue without spending
months evaluating the plan and conducting hearings.
Environmental groups are testifying on this issue, but there is
no environmental issue here. Ms. Nelson expressed the opinion
that the stakeholders are the ones who should be listened to
with respect to this issue.
MS. NELSON told the members that salmon fishermen are afraid
that this plan will extend to salmon fisheries; however, as 35
year salmon fishermen, they have delivered to the same processor
for 30 years [and are not concerned with the processor quota
shares option in the plan]. For the past eight years, salmon
fishermen have lamented the negative effects of the last
governor's injection of politics into fisheries management, and
now this resolution is proposing to do just that, she commented.
MS. NELSON pointed out that during the hotly contested IFQ
debate the legislature properly stayed out of it. She told the
members that she is opposed to setting a new precedent and
opposes HJR 25.
Number 2945
GLENN CARROLL testified on HJR 25. He told the members that he
has been fishing for 40 years and is now currently involved in
the Gulf of Alaska groundfish fishery.
TAPE 03-26, SIDE B
MR. CARROLL said he is concerned about what will come next [in
the Gulf of Alaska ground fisheries]. He said first there was
the cooperative issue, then the crab [rationalization program],
and he believes the Gulf of Alaska is next. Mr. Carroll said
that he does not support blocking the crab rationalization
program, just the provision of processor quotas.
Number 2926
JOHN HANSEN testified in opposition to HJR 25. He told the
members that he is an owner and operator of a Bering Sea crab
boat. For the past four years the people involved in this
fishery; the fishermen, the communities, the canneries, and the
NPFMC have been negotiating this rationalization process, he
said. The program needs to proceed forward for safety and
economic reasons. Mr. Hansen is opposed to HJR 25.
Number 2866
DAVE WOODRUFF, Manager, Alaska Fresh Seafoods, testified in
support of HJR 25. He told the members that he is part owner
and operator of a seafood processing plant. He said he has been
a resident since territorial days, started his crab fishing
career in Dutch Harbor in 1969, and he has owned and operated a
crab processing plant in Kodiak for 25 years. He told the
members that he has brought millions of pounds of crab from the
Bering Sea on vessels that were owned by Alaska Fresh Seafoods.
He explained that his partners owned 50 percent of the
processing facility in Kodiak. In the scenario the NPFMC has
brought forth, these vessels will not have the opportunity to
bring crab back to Kodiak as they have through the qualifying
years.
MR. WOODRUFF pointed out that Kodiak has helped to pioneer the
Bering Sea crab fishery. The community has built the
infrastructure to handle the large fleet of boats, which was
over 65 crabbers at one time, but is currently down to 35 to 40
vessels. The crabbers have brought crab back to this community
year after year and will not have that opportunity any more.
Mr. Woodruff told the members that as a four-time elected
official of Kodiak, he felt it was his responsibility to bring
this to the committee's attention and ask for help when he
realized the community was losing the battle. He pointed out
that Kodiak has a vested interest in the Bering Sea crab, just
like Saint Paul and Unalaska. Kodiak has invested millions of
dollars of capital and still has the processor capability to run
crab from the Bering Sea.
MR. WOODRUFF summarized his comments by saying that he supports
HJR 25, and believes the council process is broken and needs to
be fixed. He told the members that he served eight years on the
advisory panel and in those eight years the panel managed fish
stocks, not people and companies. Mr. Woodruff said he believes
the NPFMC needs to get back to managing fisheries on a
sustainable basis, and not try to manage the social problem
since these problems will work themselves out.
Number 2736
DICK POWELL testified in support of HJR 25. He told the members
that he has fished out of Kodiak for 39 years and owns three
crab boats. Two of them fish crab in the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands. Processor shares would force him to sell his
crab to a specific processor, and since he owns a
catcher/processor, he would not be allowed to even buy his own
crab which he has done in years past, he said. Mr. Powell
stated that he believes he should be allowed to sell his crab to
whomever he wants to, and especially to his own processor.
MR. POWELL explained that he has been involved in the
discussions of the crab rationalization process with the NPFMC
since the beginning and he is very disappointed. He said he has
been to nearly every meeting and has made numerous trips to
Washington, D.C. on this issue. Mr. Powell told the members he
believes this process is broken because one industry has
controlled the whole process. The processors have been able to
out-spend the fishermen, their lobbyists, and consultants. He
commented that after the NPFMC selected the preferred
alternative [which was included in the report and provided] to
Congress, the processors went racing back to [Washington, D.C.]
to get special legislation enacted right away to adopt the plan.
Mr. Powell stated that there has been so much opposition to this
from Alaska and other areas of the country, that Congress has
decided to have a hearing on this issue before taking action.
Number 2650
MR. POWELL told the members that he believes that the new
administration and the legislature needs to take a stand on this
important policy question. He questioned whether Alaska will go
back to the fish trap days when the processing industry
controlled commercial fishing. Mr. Powell stated that he
supports HJR 25 and asked the members to pass it from committee.
Number 2677
GREG HATHAWAY, Plant Manager, Trident Seafoods, Inc., testified
in opposition to HJR 25. He told the members that he is 16 year
resident and runs the processing plant in Kodiak that employs
250. Mr. Hathaway stated that he is strongly opposed to HJR 25
because he believes that any crab rationalization plan should
recognize both harvesters and processors equally for their
investment in the industry. The NPFMC has been working on this
issue for a number of years, and processors shares is one way to
recognized both sectors investments equally.
Number 2591
JULIE BONNEY, Director, Alaska Ground Fish Data Bank, testified
in opposition to HJR 25. She told the members that she has
lived in Kodiak for 20 years, and owns a consulting business
that represents troll catcher vessels and shore-based
processors. Ms. Bonney said she is opposed to HJR 25 because
she does not believe the Alaska State Legislature should be
involved in this issue by advising Senator Stevens [of the
legislature's position]. There have been many controversial
allocation restrictions on fisheries that both the NPFMC and the
Board of Fisheries have worked through, and at the time when
those other decisions were made, the Alaska State Legislature
did not make a statement on the issues, she said. Ms. Bonney
pointed out that the NPFMC is under scrutiny on a national level
by organizations such as, the U.S. Oceans Commission and the PEW
Oceans Commissions, who review how federal fisheries are being
managed. Some people would like to see the fisheries managed on
a national level by removing all regional authority, but she
said she believes that is the last thing Alaskans want.
MS. BONNEY pointed out that she believes the testimony heard
before the committee is the same testimony that came before the
NPFMC. The difference is that while the members are hearing the
motions and views of individuals, they are not receiving the
analytical information on why this decision was made, she said.
MS. BONNEY commented that in terms of Gulf rationalization,
those members that she represents believe that historical
communities, processors, harvesters need to benefit from the
allocation system. HJR 25 is really an anti-community and anti-
processor position [statement].
Number 2465
CHARLES REHDER testified in opposition to HJR 25. He told the
members that he is a Bering Sea crab fisherman. During
testimony he has been keeping track of those for and against the
resolution. He said his count shows 22 in favor of the
resolution and 23 against the resolution. Mr. Rehder said he
opposes the resolution because it does not offer a solution. He
said at this point in the process he is interested in a
solution, not opposition.
Number 2427
MIMI TOLVA testified in support of HJR 25. She told the members
that she has a financial interest in a Bering Sea crab boat that
she depends on for her family's support. Ms. Tolva commented
that she does not know how the [processor quota shares proposal]
has managed to get this far, and cannot fathom how a proposal
which provides for 90 percent of "A" shares and only 10 percent
"B" shares [has proceeded through the process]. Several
advisory panel members at the NPFMC expressed shock at the 11-0
vote allowing this proposal to go forward, she commented. Ms.
Tolva told the members that she believes it is important that
the legislature weigh in on this issue. She offered that some
of the processors may be feeling pressured because they now have
to offer competitive prices for halibut, on top of battling an
anti-trust law suit on [salmon pricing].
MS. TOLVA stated that she does not believe that the Bering Sea
crab fishermen should have to accept artificially low prices to
compensate for the challenges facing processors. Once the
[quotas] are given away, it will be impossible to get it back;
and once the harvesters lose the ability to negotiate a fair
price, find a better market, or a more innovative way to process
or market crab, that ability is gone forever. Ms. Tolva said if
there had been a more fair and equitable processor quota system,
she would have supported it, but as it stands now, in the
interest of protecting the present and future participants in
this fishery in the free market system, she strongly supports
HJR 25.
Number 2345
CHARLIE PARSONS, Western Gulf of Alaska Fishermen Group,
testified in opposition to HJR 25. He told the members that he
has 25 years of experience as a ground fisherman and he believes
the rationalization plan should stay within the NPFMC [purview]
because he has faith in the process and [the council members']
abilities. Mr. Parsons said he believes that some individuals
with little or no history in the fishing industry would like to
see this process derailed. He asked the members to see that
this does not happen.
Number 2310
HEATHER McCARTY, Representative for Central Bering Sea
Fishermen's Association; Board Member, Alaska Seafood Marketing
Institute, testified in opposition to HJR 25 and answered
questions from the members. She told the members that she has
been a resident of Alaska for nearly 30 years and her family has
been in the salmon fishing industry for as long as she can
recall. Ms. McCarty explained that her testimony before the
committee is on behalf of the Central Bering Sea Fishermen's
Association which is the CDQ [community development quota] group
on Saint Paul Island. She said that she knows the members have
heard from a number of people on Saint Paul Island, all but one
of whom, has been opposed to HJR 25.
MS. McCARTY told the members that she has a copy of the economic
analysis report which is about 600 pages long [300 pages of
analysis and 300 pages of appendices] and was done by the NPFMC
and the agency staff to support the crab rationalization
program. The report deals with every aspect of this issue. She
offered to leave the report with anyone who would like to review
it, she said.
MS. McCARTY responded to an earlier question posed by Vice Chair
Wilson to [Sue Weaver who lives in Homer], as to the motives of
individuals who are supportive of HJR 25, but are not involved
in crab fisheries or who are not living in one of the coastal
communities [that depend on the crab fisheries]. Ms. McCarty
said she believes these individuals believe that this program is
a template for other fisheries, but that assumption is wrong.
In fact, when David Benton, Chairman of the NPFMC, made his
final speech on this issue, he stated for the record that no one
on the council, in voting for this plan, intended for this to be
a template for the rationalization of the groundfish fisheries
in the Gulf, and certainly not for salmon fisheries. Ms.
McCarty stated that she believes that fear is what is driving a
lot of the opposition to processor shares, and that is an
unfounded fear in her opinion.
Number 2155
MS. McCARTY commented that the committee has heard a lot of good
testimony on why community protection and processor protection
are inextricably linked in this plan. Saint Paul Island has two
lags to the economy in Saint Paul, one is crab processing and
the other is a local halibut fishery. These fishermen make
their living fishing for halibut; there are about 1 million
pounds in that quota, and it is fished every year out of small
boats around the island. These fishermen depend on the
processing capacity on the island which does crab processing, to
then process their halibut. If that processing capability
disappears they would not have the capability to process their
own halibut and that would be a huge loss to them.
Number 2102
CHAIR SEATON asked Ms. McCarty, after [the adoption of] the
amendments [to the crab rationalization plan], what restrictions
are in place with respect to CDQ groups or other groups moving
their processing quota shares from one community to another?
MS. McCARTY commented that she is not an expert on the final
amendments. She offered to provide her perception of the
amendments with respect to this issue.
CHAIR SEATON responded that a representative from NMFS [National
Marine Fisheries Service] is here and can answer this question.
The committee has heard two testimonies on this issue from Saint
Paul Island; the TDX Native Corporation stated that they do not
have protection, and the City of Saint Paul Island stated that
they do have protection.
MS. McCARTY replied that she can address the Saint Paul issue.
The TDX Native Corporation owns the buildings and the land that
is being used by a couple of processing plants. If the quota
share measures go through, those processors would be given the
quota shares rather than the owners of the property, she said.
In Saint Paul, the processor and community protections
intertwine in this program which provides an opportunity for the
community to gain even more control over the processing.
Community groups, such as CDQ groups, could actually take over
those processing plants in communities.
Number 1957
KRIS NOROSZ, Representative for Icicle Seafoods, Inc., testified
in opposition to HJR 25. She told the members that processors
in the crab fishery made large specialized investments based
upon a derby style fishery, and likewise, crab vessel owners
made significant investments. When a fishery rationalizes, such
as the plan for the one in the Bering Sea, the race for fish
ends and there is a surplus capacity. Both sectors, the
harvesters and the processors, need to be granted shares in
recognition of their investment and historical participation in
order to avoid a shift in the power of one sector over another,
while still protecting communities, she said. In the case of
the sablefish and halibut program, shares were not granted to
each sector and, as a result, there was a shift in power and
some communities, such as Yakutat and Pelican, lost a lot of
income as a result of that shift in power. Ms. Norosz stated
that the Bering Sea Crab [rationalization] plan has taken great
pains to avoid that type of situation.
Number 1885
MS. NOROSZ explained that Icicle Seafoods, Inc. has three
floating processors that they use for crab [processing]. They
have also used these platforms to process herring and salmon in
Western Alaska. Ms. Norosz told the members that if Icicle
Seafoods is not granted processor shares based on their
historical participation there is a strong likelihood that they
would not be able to economically continue to operate these
platforms and that would result in fewer markets for salmon and,
in some cases, maybe no markets at all for herring in some areas
of Western Alaska.
Number 1846
MS. NOROSZ commented that she listened to a previous meeting via
teleconference where it was erroneously reported that crab
fishermen do not support this plan. She said she thinks the
members have heard otherwise today. Ms. Norosz concluded her
testimony by highlighting the Alaska Crab Coalition's press
release where they state their strong support for the program.
She also pointed out that the Bering Sea's Skippers for
Equitable Access also support the program. Ms. Norosz noted
that both of these groups were part of the initial stakeholders
that initiated the Bering Sea crab [rationalization] plan.
MS. NOROSZ submitted additional papers [and reports] for the
members review, and pointed out that one paper by the United
States Congressional Research Service which deals with anti-
trust issues disputes these concerns and identifies other
industries with market segmentation. Another report that she
provided the members is the State of Alaska's response to the
GAO's [General Accounting Office] report. In this report the
state concludes that the GAO distorted the state's research into
the halibut and sablefish IFQ program, and that the GAO relied
on faulty analysis, she commented. The final paper she provided
the members is a white paper done by the State of Alaska which
was written last June after the NPFMC passed the [crab
rationalization] plan unanimously; that paper supports the plan
and states the reasons for supporting such a plan.
Number 1751
GORDON BLUE, President, C.R.A.B. Group [Crab Rationalization and
Buyback Group], testified in support of HJR 25 and answered
questions from the members. He told the members that he
submitted some information for the members review, including a
memorandum [Sher & Blackwell LLP, dated June 14, 2002] on
antitrust issues, which Mr. Garner told the members was not in
existence at a previous hearing [see minutes of the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting dated 4/23/03]. Mr. Blue
encouraged the members to study that memorandum and the material
that Ms. Norosz has provided because this is a large and
important part of what the proposed plan does. The plan
allocates the quota for processors and creates a horizontal
market division which is a per se violation under existing
antitrust rules. He pointed out that Congress has the power to
set those rules aside. What is important to note, he said, is
that the NPFMC had no debate on the wisdom of the antitrust
rules; and, in fact, they set aside the study which showed the
proposal would probably create an unfair balance to the benefit
of processors, which the council itself had commissioned.
Number 1642
MR. BLUE commented that the members have heard from some crab
fishermen today who support this program because of their close
relationship with particular canneries that have spanned as many
as 25 years. He pointed out that the C.R.A.B. Group is composed
of 104 crab harvester vessels. He said he has fished in the
Aleutians and Bering Sea for 25 years. The group's [membership]
supports crab rationalization, but they do not support crab-
processing quotas for the reasons already described. He stated
that the group supports HJR 25.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked Mr. Blue if all 104 crab harvester
vessels presently fish in the area that will be impacted by the
[NPFMC crab rationalization] plan.
MR. BLUE responded that he has not verified that; however, he
said he does know that all of those vessels have the right and
the privilege to participate in the fishery. He commented that
he does not know, for instance, if everyone of them went out for
the opilio crab fishery this last season.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked for clarification that they have the
right to participate in the fishery.
MR. BLUE responded that in the last two years all 104 crab
harvesters have participated in the fishery.
Number 1531
REPRESENTATIVE OGG restated his question by asking if all 104
vessels participated in both the opilio and king crab fishery in
the last two years.
MR. BLUE replied that, of the 104 vessels in the group, nearly
all have participated in the last couple of years, but he stated
that he does not know if they fished just in the Bering Sea. He
pointed out that there is also the Aleutian Islands brown crab
fisheries. Mr. Blue said he is sure about the fact [that
members of the group have fished for crab] because there is a
recent qualification period that applies which he believes is
about 4 years old. So everyone who is licensed would have to
have participated within that time. Mr. Blue said it is
possible that there are some members who have lost vessels or
have tied up for one reason or another; however, that would not
be a significant number of the membership.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked if all 104 vessels qualify for the
Bering Sea crab rationalization plan, with the exception of
those vessels that had been lost at sea.
MR. BLUE said that is absolutely correct; in fact, even vessels
that had been lost at sea [could be replaced and participate in
the fishery].
CHAIR SEATON announced that he was ending public testimony on
HJR 25. [HJR 25 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1388
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at
9:52 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|