Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/02/2003 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
May 2, 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 BILL NO. 281
"An Act relating to a moratorium on entry of vessels into the
Southeast Alaska sport fish charter fishery; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 281
SHORT TITLE:MORATORIUM ON CHARTER VESSEL LICENSES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)WEYHRAUCH
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/23/03 1071 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/23/03 1071 (H) FSH, RES
04/23/03 1071 (H) REFERRED TO FISHERIES
04/30/03 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
04/30/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(FSH)
05/02/03 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
05/02/03 (H) Heard & Held
WITNESS REGISTER
DON BREMNER
Central Council
Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 281.
THOMAS SUSS
Point Sophia Development Company
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that restoration of the Hoonah
cannery would make it a destination site for tourists.
BLAINE HOLLIS, Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on the difficulties involved with
including the definition of charter sport within that of
commercial fishery.
GORDON JACKSON, Chairman of the Board
Kake Tribal Corporation;
Director, Business and Economic Development,
Central Council
Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 281.
JIM PRESTON, Owner and operator
Big Jim's Charters
Auke Bay, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 281.
KAREN POLLY, Charter boat operator;
Campus Director
University of Alaska Southeast
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in strong opposition to HB 281.
ED STAHL, Charter boat operator
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 281, saying
that it denies access to the resource.
CARLA SZITAS
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 281 on behalf of
herself and other single boat operators.
DONALD WESTLUND
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 281.
ERIC LEE, Fisherman
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 281.
KEN DOLE, Partner
Waterfall Resort
Prince of Wales, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 281.
DALE KELLY, Executive Director
Alaska Trollers Association;
Executive Board Member
United Fishermen of Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 281, expressing support of
implementing a limited entry program.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-28, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. Representatives Seaton,
Ogg, Samuels, and Guttenberg were present at the call to order.
Representative Wilson arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 281-MORATORIUM ON CHARTER VESSEL LICENSES
CHAIR SEATON announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 281, "An Act relating to a moratorium on entry of
vessels into the Southeast Alaska sport fish charter fishery;
and providing for an effective date."
Number 0170
CHAIR SEATON informed the committee that at this time the intent
was not to move HB 281 out of committee, but to hear additional
public testimony and then to determine how best to proceed.
Number 0350
DON BREMNER, Central Council, Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of
Alaska, expressed opposition to HB 281 for a number of reasons,
one being the negative socio-economic effects to rural villages
similar to those resulting from the 1973 Alaska Limited Entry
law. He recommended that prior to passing HB 281, socio-
economic impact studies be conducted to indicate the effects on
communities and the already-declining commercial salmon
industry. Mr. Bremner paraphrased from his written testimony
and provided the following:
We believe that HB 281 flies in the face of the Alaska
State Constitution, Article 8, Section 15, and we want
to point out the section that we believe that any bill
like this has to meet. I'll read this: "[... the
power of the State] to limit entry into any fishery
for purposes of resource conservation, to prevent
economic distress among fishermen and those dependent
upon them." We don't see any evidence in our research
of [Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)] and
sport fish material where this needs has to be
addressed - of a biological need or a resource in
distress to call for this type of limited entry into
this fishery.
Number 0570
MR. BREMNER continued:
We believe that the state has been given the
responsibility of managing and recommending these
types of actions ... and we believe that the state has
done a pretty good job over the years. I have here
for you as a reminder, the [ADF&G] mission statement,
and their guiding principles that they use. This is
what the public, I believe, looks at in measuring and
monitoring what to expect as far as the management of
the state fishery. If you look at the first two
guiding principles, I think those really bring it home
for the public: provide for the greatest long-term
opportunities for the people of Alaska; improve public
accessibility.
We believe that this bill is an allocation of access
to the resource and the opportunity to get into the
fishery in this manner (indisc.) as a reminder that
the [ADF&G] really should be the group or the
organization to make these type of recommendations
based on biological and scientific reasons, and the
Board of [Fisheries] is also up there in the process
that should be the group to make these
recommendations.
We have reviewed all of the state's [ADF&G] sport
fishing updates and we didn't read anything in there
that indicates declining numbers of any of the
targeted species that are being sought after by these
charter vessels.
Number 0665
MR. BREMNER continued:
If you look at a national survey that we have, a 2001
survey, sport fishing contributes money and jobs to
Alaska in the amount of approximately $537 million.
This is money and jobs that we are now going to
allocate to a yet unknown group of owners. We don't
know if they're residents or not, and it doesn't seem
like a logical approach at this time. What we had
hoped would be that the Board of [Fisheries] and
[ADF&G] would have the opportunity to recommend the
types [of] systems, that the system be allowed to
work, that it seems to have worked really well in the
past ... there's other management schemes out there
that could be looked at and used before we ever get to
this level.
Number 0791
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was a problem with there being too
many charter vessels operating in the villages.
MR. BREMNER said no, and explained that a funding summit on
economic opportunities in rural Alaska, scheduled for October,
will provide an educational opportunity for local folks to learn
more about six-pack licenses as a means to supplement commercial
fishing incomes in the villages. He said that even in Yakutat
where there is a lot of sport fishing and hunting, it's not a
saturated business. He told the committee that a lot of other
questions need to be answered such as those pertaining to
resources, the 200-mile zone, the three-mile limit, and so
forth.
CHAIR SEATON requested that the committee be notified if local
problems [regarding this legislation] are identified in the
villages.
MR. BREMNER said that Angoon had indicated that there wouldn't
be time to educate the rural residents on the opportunity being
presented and that perhaps quotas should be developed for this
type of license.
Number 1022
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON reflected on the expressed concern that
there would be an increased number of boats, and asked if Mr.
Bremner was suggesting that this should be dealt with in a
different manner.
MR. BREMNER responded that he didn't know if this necessarily
meant that there'd be a lot more boats in the water, but thought
that the villages in rural Alaska still need to have a "right of
access" before the "door is shut." He said this is an
allocation issue, a limited entry issue, and there hasn't been
enough time to educate rural Alaskans about this opportunity.
CHAIR SEATON reiterated that the bill isn't currently in a
workable form. He indicated that this bill isn't "a fast train
moving."
Number 1164
THOMAS SUSS, Point Sophia Development Company, testified that
the company was in the process of restoring the Hoonah cannery
as a destination site for the growing number of tourists. The
project will be completed in about two years, he related.
CHAIR SEATON asked if charter boats were currently working in
Hoonah.
MR. SUSS responded that there are currently about a half dozen;
he mentioned that he is also a charter boat captain.
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was economic distress due to there
being too many vessels operating out of Hoonah.
MR. SUSS said no, not at this time, and that there was plenty of
opportunity for growth.
Number 1300
BLAINE HOLLIS, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law (DOL), referred to a
previous question from Representative Ogg [raised at the 4/30/03
meeting] regarding whether a definitional approach would be
helpful. He said he understood the question to address the
possibility that limiting entry into the charter sport fisheries
could be managed by the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC) in a similar fashion as CFEC manages limiting entry into
the commercial fisheries. One way to give CFEC this authority
would be to include "charter sport" within the term "commercial
fishery." He said he looked at the Limited Entry Act and in his
opinion this approach wouldn't work because the Limited Entry
Act is tailored very closely to fit the commercial fisheries; it
focuses on units of gear, gear operators, and has a variety of
provisions that wouldn't fit the charter fishery - such as
requiring that people have limited entry permits from 1974.
MR. HOLLIS suggested that what was required was more than just a
definitional change; some fairly extensive amending of the
Limited Entry Act would be necessary to make it fit both types
of fisheries. An alternate approach would be to include a
separate section or article in [Title 16], Chapter 43, where the
limited entry statutes are located, to deal with limiting entry
into the charter sport fishery.
Number 1426
MR. HOLLIS told the committee that this would be similar to what
was done last year with regard to the two fisheries for which
vessel-based systems are currently permitted. The legislature
could craft an article that contains provisions specifically
tailored to meet the needs and circumstances of the charter
fleet and that would provide a framework that the legislature
considers to be appropriate for allowing the CFEC to do for the
charter sport fishery what it currently does for [the commercial
fishery].
REPRESENTATIVE OGG thanked Mr. Hollis for his researching
efforts. He noted that going down that road was now truncated
and that perhaps the inclusion of a separate [section or
article] might be "a viable way to go."
Number 1538
GORDON JACKSON, Chairman of the Board, Kake Tribal Corporation
and also the Director, Business and Economic Development for
Central Council, Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska,
which, he said, serves 26,000 members throughout the Pacific
Northwest, provided the following testimony:
One of our many activities over the past year with the
Central Council has been the hosting of economic
conferences in Hoonah, Angoon, Kake, and Prince of
Wales Island. One of the big items that has been
identified as an economic-type activity has been
charter boat activity. Mainly because over the last
several years, logging has come to an end and the
processors have been leaving these smaller communities
in droves because it wasn't cost effective. The
economy, as a result, has been dropping like a rock.
Many of these folks are now invested in this kind of
business, taking six-pack licenses, investing in boats
and things like that.
Number 1622
MR. JACKSON continued:
All of these communities which I mentioned, once had
proud fishing fleets over the last three or four
decades. Today, these fleets are a fraction of what
they used to be. Let me give you some examples. When
limited entry fishing law was first introduced and
passed, for the purse seine industry, the community of
Angoon had 27 limited entry permits; today they have
one active permit. In the community of Hoonah, they
once had over 50 fishing in the Icy Straits area; they
now have four active permits. In Kake, they began
with 27; they now have only eight active permits. Add
the loss of logging jobs and you should not be
surprised to find a very bad economy in these smaller
communities.
Many of us remember in the past, cut-off dates or
moratoriums before a major policy was developed like
limited entry. This one you are proposing goes to the
extreme by not allowing the CFEC to issue vessel
licenses for recreational charter boats for 2004
unless the vessel was licensed in 2002 or before the
bill passed, and also [that it] recorded charter
operations in a state-required logbook in Southeast
waters in 2002 or 2003. I can tell you this provision
will close the door on any smaller community
entrepreneur who wants to get into this business. Add
on the logbooks, additional hoops to jump over, and
the loss of equal access and you are looking at no
charter boats in rural Southeast Alaska. This concept
of equal access is one you folks use to stop [the]
subsistence vote over the last decade. In this case,
I think you should be consistent and do the same
thing.
Number 1710
MR. JACKSON testified:
We at Kake Tribal Corporation have just finished our
land selections under the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act and selected a beautiful spot on the
Keku Islands outside of Kake. It was our plan to
build a fishing lodge there and diversify our holdings
in commercial fishing. With this moratorium, it will
be impossible to build without a charter boat license.
No bank will touch us. Our dream will have vanished.
Hoonah Totem just gave testimony that they're building
and working to build a cannery and that portion will
require charter boats. I believe this bill needs
work. I understand your concern. Too many boats
taking too much fish and crowding us out. I have run
through these fellas, cussed them out, and seen the
boxes and boxes leaving the airports all over
Southeast Alaska. There are a lot of them. However,
the numbers only occur in the so-called urban areas
around Juneau, Sitka, and Ketchikan. You need to
address the economics of how you will secure
employment opportunities for Southeast. You need to
address the semantics used in this bill.
After I read the bill, I came to only one conclusion:
it is a limited entry bill and no group of words said
after this would convince me otherwise. You need to
address the equity question. As many of you say - it
is in the constitution; it should not be ignored. If
you don't address these items, I suggest you go [and]
do what the Southeast villages do for something like
this. Take it down the beach and bury it!
CHAIR SEATON acknowledged Kake's donations of fish to the Fish
Caucus [meetings]. He said the committee recognizes the need
for differences between urban and rural areas in Southeast to be
addressed [in this legislation].
Number 1874
JIM PRESTON, Owner and operator, Big Jim's Charters, a single
boat charter operation, testified that he supports some sort of
moratorium on charter operations, saying that a serious problem
has occurred in the past and will occur in the future. He said
that currently there is relative stability and a high abundance
of fish, indicated by this year's king salmon allocation as
being one of the highest that's occurred in recent memory.
However, he said that the North Pacific [Fishery Management]
Council has recently passed the charter boat IFQ [individual
fishery quota] program and it will probably be implemented
during the next few years. When that happens, there will be
pressure on other species of fish occurring throughout the
state, but particularly in Southeast.
Number 1918
MR. PRESTON continued that king salmon is one of two species of
fish that are highly regulated, and suggested that the problem
is really an allocation issue pertaining to king salmon. He
said that although abundance is currently high, in 2000, when
that was not the case, the state implemented management measures
mid-season which resulted in a lawsuit by charter operators
against the state; this lawsuit ultimately ended in reverting to
the original plan.
MR. PRESTON addressed concerns from the smaller communities
which, he said, "hearken to what happened with the halibut IFQ
program." He said there was a "set-aside" in that particular
program for rural Alaskans. He added that there would not be a
problem in having a set-aside program for developing communities
like Hoonah where a lot of money is being invested into a lodge
operation, for example.
Number 2100
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked what Mr. Preston thought of this issue
being addressed by the Limited Entry Commission.
MR. PRESTON replied that legislation is needed to allow for
regulatory entities to act; otherwise the message is that "we
can't do this because it's against the law, it's against the
constitution." He told the committee that regarding the
suggestion of changing the definition, it would be nearly
unanimous that charter boat operators would be against re-
defining a charter operation as a commercial fishery.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG said that testimony had already been heard
indicating that changing the definition "probably wasn't a road
that would work," and thought that either the legislature could
go with the moratorium or authority could be given to the
Limited Entry [Commission].
MR. PRESTON replied, "Whichever route would come up with a
solution." He said in talking with Ms. McDowell, he didn't know
if the [sport fish charter fishery] could be managed as the
commercial fishery is managed; that is, focusing on a particular
area such as Sitka or Prince of Wales, for example, if that area
experiences a problem such as an overcapacity of king salmon.
CHAIR SEATON asked about the Division of Occupational
Licensing's involvement with the identification of participants
in this fishery.
Number 2250
MR. PRESTON responded that this referred to [former]
Representative Austerman's bill and said that everything in that
bill, except for the fee structure and the requirement for
insurance, is being implemented administratively even though the
bill didn't pass. He said that registration is required - one
has to show one's card - in order to get the logbook for the
vessel.
Number 2308
CHAIR SEATON commented that because HB 281 refers to Southeast,
it doesn't include all charter operators. He asked if
registration was necessary for freshwater charter operators
even though logbooks aren't required.
MR. PRESTON replied yes, he believed that all operators need to
be registered.
CHAIR SEATON asked if registration included records of
participation.
MR. PRESTON said that the only official record of participation,
for the state of Alaska was the logbook, which began in 1998.
He said the logbook includes the number of clients taken out for
a particular trip, the number of hours that were fished, the
area fished, and the harvest of certain species.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the logbook could be signed by the
owner of the vessel or the operator.
Number 2385
MR. PRESTON replied that it's supposed to be signed by the
"owner or agent of the owner."
CHAIR SEATON asked if Mr. Preston would have a problem with
tightening up regulations so that operators would be required to
sign the logbooks.
MR. PRESTON responded that no, he didn't have a problem with
that, saying that he supports having additional data so that
better decisions could be made.
Number 2440
KAREN POLLY, charter boat operator; Campus Director, University
of Alaska Southeast, said she trains charter boat operators for
the University of Alaska Southeast. She testified that she
strongly opposes HB 281 because it denies people the right to
make a living and even closes the door on that right. She said
there is currently a glut of salmon in the world market and that
the value and contribution of the charter boat industry to the
economics of Alaskan communities should not be underestimated.
She stated that the charter-caught fish, as a single fish,
contributes more economic value than a single fish caught in any
other manner.
MS. POLLY related that the University of Alaska Southeast,
Ketchikan campus, is the only licensed trainer of the United
States Coast Guard for 100-ton and 6-pack [licenses]. Three
years ago, eight candidates completed the coursework for the
100-ton license and this year there were 42 students. Given the
low prices of salmon, people in the industry such as divers and
commercial fishermen have a right to look for other avenues to
supplement their incomes. She told the committee that courses
have been taught in Sitka, Ketchikan, and Juneau and the demand
is growing; courses will probably be taught in Kotzebue and
Fairbanks later this year. She mentioned that the charter boat
industry is currently the most viable economic means of
supplemental income for fishermen and retirees.
MS. POLLY concluded by telling the committee that after the
death of her husband she became a charter boat operator and
because of that supplemental income she was able to pay for the
expenses of her boat. Since that time she's become a university
administrator and fully supports the development of the charter
boat industry.
CHAIR SEATON asked if the number of charter vessels was causing
economic distress in Ketchikan.
MS. POLLY responded that this was not the case and added that
her charter fishing operation was based out of Pelican, not
Ketchikan. She reported that there are about 10 charter
operators in Pelican, several of whom have been commercial
fishermen. She emphasized the importance of the economics
involved with 700,000 tourists visiting annually, which totals
more than the state's citizenry. She mentioned that Icy
Straits, Cross Sound and the outer coast is a huge area and that
while many of the charter boat operators serve the cruise ship
tourist industry, there is an equally large number [of
operators] who work out of lodges.
Number 2687
ED STAHL, charter boat operator, informed the committee that
after fishing in the 1970s as a hand-troller, he decided that
the future was in the charter boat industry, and therefore he
has been in that business for about 19 years. He explained that
there was a constant battle with the power trollers and that he
had stood alone in favor of limited entry. He told the
committee that he now has a 12-year old boy and his feelings
have changed; he sees the progression of young 14-year old boys
who enjoy working on the docks, who then work as deckhands and
eventually when they're older, want to buy and operate their own
charter boats. He said that there have been historical runs of
fish in recent years and that HB 281 denies access to the
resource.
CHAIR SEATON asked if king salmon are a problem.
MR. STAHL said, "That's the only problem." The lodges and power
trollers out in the West Coast are fighting over thousands of
fish, while the numbers of the other species were in the
millions.
CHAIR SEATON asked if the issue should be restricted to king
salmon.
MR. STAHL said this was correct and added that the issue of king
salmon has already been addressed; nonresidents can only catch
three fish. He asked, "How is a young man going to get a
license? Who's going to want to give away their license? You
don't even have a value on the license. Why in the heck would
somebody give their charter boat license to somebody when there
was no incentive?"
CHAIR SEATON indicated that these concerns were part of the
discussion.
Number 2922
CARLA SZITAS said she was representing herself and a few other
single boat operators and testified in support of HB 281,
although, "not as it stands." She told the committee that this
legislation should have occurred years ago to avoid the influx
of operators. She said she was not referring to the number of
fish but was referring to the number of businesses and clients.
She expressed her concern that "soon we're not going to have a
business, we'll be looking for other jobs because we can't make
it with our income." She said she would like the bill to say
"2002 and 2003." She stated that she supports limited entry for
charter fishermen according to the registered vessel permits.
She mentioned that the permits can be transferable, and that at
some point she would like to be able to retire. [Tape ends.]
TAPE 03-28, SIDE B
MS. SZITAS said that a glut cannot continue to occur in the same
business area.
Number 2987
DONALD WESTLUND testified that the U.S. - Canada Pacific Salmon
Treaty has not been addressed, which is probably why HB 281
doesn't go in the direction of limited entry; under the treaty a
new fishery cannot be created. He said that ADF&G can manage
according to bag and possession limits, which are very generous.
One tool that ADF&G has not used yet, but should be used on the
outside where more than 50 percent of the treaty fish are
caught, is a time and area closure. He said that as a guided
sport operator, his clients buy a sport fishing license. If his
clients are going to be limited to time and area closures, he
should have a guided sport fishing license rather than a sport
fishing license so that "you'll know who is going out and who is
catching fish." He said that CFEC is correct in saying that
"we're not a commercial fishery" because a commercial fisherman
can sell his fish.
MR. WESTLUND predicted that with this legislation there would be
an explosion of registration, similar to the one in the 1990s.
The commercial fleet would recognize that now would be the time
to register and similarly, any guide working for a boat owner,
in response to this legislation, would go out and purchase his
own boat. He concluded by saying that charter boats include
sightseeing and do more than guide sport fishing.
Number 2791
ERIC LEE, Fisherman, said that he's fished for a long time and
that his grandfather was a commercial fisherman as well. He
pointed out that this debate was not about protecting king
salmon because king salmon are managed on an annual quota system
whereby only so many can be harvested by the charter and troll
fleets, combined. The issue is that the charter and troll
fleets stand to benefit greatly by limiting the number of
charter operators because this legislation limits the number of
boats catching fish, it doesn't limit the number of fish to be
caught. He said another distinction to be made is that there
are a lot of charter boats that do not do much fishing at all,
and under this legislation those sightseeing charter operators
would fall under limited entry while there is no basis for that
limitation at all.
Number 2720
MR. LEE referred to Section 15 of Article 8 of the Alaska
constitution, which has to do with natural resources, noting
that his father worked on this when he was a constitutional
delegate, and read the following: "No exclusive right or special
privilege of fishery shall be created or authorized in the
natural waters of the State." He pointed out that with the
moratorium, an exclusive right and special privilege of the
fishery would be created because there would be no permits on
the market to buy and no new licenses would be issued; he
suggested that perhaps the state's legal council could help with
this legal issue. He said that as a boat owner, he did not
benefit from the IFQ program for halibut and black cod.
Furthermore, this legislation would be closing the door on an
important way to supplement income for those who know that "it's
not easy these days."
Number 2571
KEN DOLE, Partner, Waterfall Resort, said the business was the
largest remote saltwater fishing resort in the state as it
operates 25 charter boats, accommodates up to 84 guests per day,
and has been in business for 21 years. He reported that the
size of the charter boat fleet, coupled with the limited
allocation of king salmon had already created the need for
[ADF&G] to implement daily closures.
MR. DOLE said that the current king salmon management plan
continues to have daily closures built into the plan and that
it's likely that there will be daily closures even without an
increase in the charter boat fleet. He explained that this
segment of the industry cannot survive without the ability to
allow guests to harvest fish and that a moratorium is needed so
that a plan can begin to be crafted to solve the problem for the
long term. Currently the only mechanism for help is through the
Board of [Fisheries].
MR. DOLE continued that the Board of [Fisheries] has done a good
job in developing the current management plan; however, to give
the needed increase in king salmon allocation to the sport
fishery to avoid daily closures, fish would have to be taken
from the trollers and obviously the trollers are already in
financial difficulty so it's unlikely that this will happen.
Consequently, any growth in the charter boat fleet could be
devastating to the overnight lodge segment of the industry. He
pointed out that the lodge segment of the industry brings in the
highest return to the state for the resource harvested. At
Waterfall Resort, guests are charged between $750 and $1,000 per
day to stay at the facility. During May and June the targeted
fishery is king salmon. Nonresidents are limited to one king
salmon, with a maximum of three for the year. Therefore,
calculations reveal that guests pay up to $1,000 per fish and
most of that money stays in the state.
Number 2520
MR. DOLE continued that data necessary to solve this problem is
available since the logbooks and mandated guide registration
have been implemented. He restated that obtaining an increased
allocation from the Board of [Fisheries] has not been successful
and that the moratorium is needed so that the state will take an
active role in solving the long-term issues. He said he didn't
want limited entry and would like for other avenues to be
explored such as a sport fish funded troll permit buy back
program or possibly an IFQ program for king salmon in Southeast.
He suggested a well-thought out solution that would benefit both
the commercial and sport industries.
MR. DOLE concluded that a moratorium on charter boats is the
necessary first step in this process and that the discussion
needs to be focused on king salmon. He said that a set-aside
for rural areas needs to be looked into, as "we certainly don't
want to stop any potential growth in those areas." He concluded
by saying that a real problem exists today and it exists with
the current size of the fleet.
Number 2423
DALE KELLY, Executive Director, Alaska Trollers Association, and
Executive Board Member, United Fishermen of Alaska, said that
both organizations strongly support efforts to limit the numbers
in the guided sport fishing industry, but after hearing
testimony, it's questionable whether HB 281 is the perfect tool.
She said that something needs to be done and the need has
existed for many years. She mentioned that the Alaska Trollers
Association is directly affected by the growth of the guided
sport fishing industry in this region, and wants to provide
information that could be helpful to the discussion of limited
entry.
Number 2354
MS. KELLY gave several reasons why it's important that limited
entry programs be developed for the guided sport fishing
industry. She said that management in their region has been
confounded by the growth in the guided industry. She reported
that there are approximately 650 active charter boat operators
in Southeast, but there are over 1,200 licenses so there is
potential with the growth of the tourist industry for those
other permits to mobilize.
MS. KELLY said she wanted to clarify that as a past member of
the northern panel of the Pacific Salmon Commission, which is
the implementing body of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, there is a
provision within the treaty which says, "no new or redirected
fisheries". She said she does not believe that if the guided
fishery was limited that it would be considered as a new
fishery. She said, "It's an existing fishery in our region,
it's just that we would be managing it differently ... we
couldn't go into the Gulf, for instance, right now, as a
practical matter, without harming the treaty provisions."
Number 2256
MS. KELLY continued that it's possible to look at both the
conservation and economic elements of limiting entry and find a
fit in this fishery. King salmon is one area; obviously there
is an allocation through the treaty. She said that in most
years since the allocation of species between user groups, the
sport fishery has gone over their allocated quota and more often
than not, the overages have come from the troll fleet; this has
created user conflicts. The concern is that with growth,
management of the sport fishery will become more difficult.
Number 2218
MS. KELLY said that work has been done with the Board of
Fisheries on the king salmon management plan for the sport
fishery for a number of years; it's a work in progress and a lot
of improvements have developed. There is still a need to have
another tool in the toolbox, and that is a limited entry program
for the fishery. She said that in addition to focusing on king
salmon, some thought should be given to coho salmon, as there
have been record-breaking circumstances in Southeast over the
past decade, and with the cyclical nature of salmon, the numbers
are bound to go down and there might be trouble among all the
gear groups down the road.
Number 2162
MS. KELLY said that a lot of emphasis is heard about terminal
area fisheries for the guided industry. She mentioned the
consideration that most of the hatchery fish in Southeast are
paid for by commercial fishermen. She said right now it's fine
because there is a surplus of fish returning to the hatcheries
and "somebody's got to catch them." However this is another
potential area of trouble if there's expanded harvest and
expanded effort by the guided industry. She said if growth
isn't controlled, when abundance goes down "it's just gonna be a
nightmare" and by instituting a program, it's possible to get
ahead of that conservation curve. In terms of the economic
aspects, although limited entry has been in place for years for
the commercial fleet, it's a new concept for the guided
industry. She suggested that the fisheries not be considered as
mutually exclusive, saying that if there's limited entry for one
fishery, the impact on other fisheries be considered, since
there's a promise of stability built into a limited entry
program.
Number 2099
MS. KELLY concluded that [former] Governor Egan, in his letter
of transmittal, addressed the impact of the guided sport fishing
industry on the commercial fleet. She said that pushing one
fishery aside to benefit another does not make a lot of sense
when "we're highly reliant on both."
CHAIR SEATON asked if economic distress was between the charter
vessels' increase in usage having an impact on the commercial
fishing vessels or if it was between the charter vessels
themselves.
MS. KELLY said she believed it was both, explaining that
abundance of fish wasn't uniform throughout the region and that
there were different kinds of economic arguments to be made; one
of which was an economic argument between the fleets.
Number 1996
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was anybody else wishing to testify.
Upon hearing no response, he closed public testimony.
Number 1980
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said that the problem needs to be
addressed and the bill needs to be worked on, perhaps during the
interim.
CHAIR SEATON said he shared the sentiment.
Number 1942
REPRESENTATIVE OGG said that having listened to testimony,
participated in commercial fisheries, and watched what happens
when the idea of a moratorium is raised with the resultant rush
into the industry by non-participants wanting to ensure
themselves a place at the table, he said he wasn't supportive of
the bill as a moratorium. Perhaps it could be crafted
differently according to testimony that had been heard, he
suggested.
Number 1858
CHAIR SEATON said that HB 281 addresses a broad area and a broad
topic and it seems that there are specific needs that need to be
addressed. He said he could not support the idea of a charter
limitation addressing the fresh water charter vessels and
operators in Southeast since there have not been any comments
indicating problems in the area of fly-fishing, for example. He
said that he does not look favorably upon a limitation of all of
Southeast; however, if there is a localized problem it should be
dealt with but not in such a way as to impact the entire region.
He said he agreed with Representative Ogg that he didn't want to
send a wrong message to people in Southeast due to the issue
being considered in committee.
CHAIR SEATON said he was willing to work with the sponsor to
develop a committee substitute or a workgroup to address
problems pertaining to different areas and different species.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON suggested this was an opportunity for the
stakeholders to work together on this issue.
Number 1611
CHAIR SEATON asked if the committee was supportive of a
generalized Southeast moratorium on all charter vessels. Upon
hearing no response, he restated that the committee is
definitely not supportive of implementing a broad moratorium on
charter vessels throughout all of Southeast.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG noted his support of adding a section
including charter vessels to the Limited Entry law, thereby
involving the Limited Entry Commission, since he doesn't
consider this level of micromanagement to be within the
legislature's purview.
CHAIR SEATON added that several ideas had been suggested as ways
to make improvements, such as the collection of additional data
through the [Division of] Occupational Licensing. [HB 281 was
held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at
9:50 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|