Legislature(2003 - 2004)

03/29/2004 09:05 AM House FSH

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
              HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES                                                                            
                         March 29, 2004                                                                                         
                           9:05 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 Les Gara                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATE BILL NO. 315                                                                                                             
"An Act relating to the administration of commercial fishing                                                                    
entry permit buy-back programs."                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED SB 315 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 347(RES)                                                                                                 
"An Act  relating to  moratoria on entry  of new  participants or                                                               
vessels  into a  commercial fishery;  relating to  vessel permits                                                               
for,  and the  establishment  of  a moratorium  on  entry of  new                                                               
vessels  into, state  Gulf of  Alaska  groundfish fisheries;  and                                                               
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 315                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: ENTRY PERMIT BUY-BACK PROGRAM                                                                                      
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) STEVENS B BY REQUEST OF SALMON INDUSTRY                                                                  
TASK FORCE                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
02/11/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                                    
02/11/04 (S) L&C, FIN                                                                                                           
02/24/04 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                                           
02/24/04 (S) Heard & Held                                                                                                       
02/24/04 (S) MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                                        
02/26/04 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                                           
02/26/04 (S) Moved  SB 315  Out of Committee                                                                                    
02/26/04 (S) MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                                        
02/27/04 (S) L&C RPT 3DP 1NR                                                                                                    
02/27/04 (S) DP: BUNDE, SEEKINS, STEVENS G;                                                                                     
02/27/04 (S) NR: FRENCH                                                                                                         
03/09/04 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                                  
03/09/04 (S) Moved SB 315 Out of Committee                                                                                      
03/09/04 (S) MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                                        
03/10/04 (S) FIN RPT 5DP 2NR                                                                                                    
03/10/04 (S) DP: WILKEN, HOFFMAN, OLSON, BUNDE,                                                                                 
03/10/04 (S) STEVENS B; NR: GREEN, DYSON                                                                                        
03/17/04 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                                 
03/17/04 (S) VERSION: SB 315                                                                                                    
03/18/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                                    
03/18/04 (H) FSH, FIN                                                                                                           
03/29/04 (H) FSH AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 124                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 347                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: COMM. FISHING MORATORIA, INCL. AK GULF                                                                             
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) STEVENS B BY REQUEST                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
02/16/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                                    
02/16/04 (S) RES                                                                                                                
03/03/04 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                                       
03/03/04 (S) Heard & Held                                                                                                       
03/03/04 (S) MINUTE(RES)                                                                                                        
03/05/04 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                                       
03/05/04 (S) Moved CSSB 347(RES) Out of Committee                                                                               
03/05/04 (S) MINUTE(RES)                                                                                                        
03/08/04 (S) RES RPT CS  3DP 2NR           NEW TITLE                                                                            
03/08/04 (S) NR: OGAN, LINCOLN; DP: WAGONER,                                                                                    
03/08/04 (S) STEVENS B, ELTON                                                                                                   
03/08/04 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED                                                                                                 
03/09/04 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                                  
03/09/04 (S) Moved CSSB 347(RES) Out of Committee                                                                               
03/09/04 (S) MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                                        
03/10/04 (S) FIN RPT CS(RES)  3DP 4NR                                                                                           
03/10/04 (S) DP: WILKEN, BUNDE, STEVENS B;                                                                                      
03/10/04 (S) NR: GREEN, HOFFMAN, OLSON, DYSON                                                                                   
03/22/04 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                                 
03/22/04 (S) VERSION: CSSB 347(RES)                                                                                             
03/24/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                                    
03/24/04 (H) FSH, RES, FIN                                                                                                      
03/29/04 (H) FSH AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 124                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
CHERYL SUTTON, Staff                                                                                                            
to the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force                                                                             
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented SB 315 and SB 347 on behalf of                                                                   
the sponsor, Senator Ben Stevens.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MARY McDOWELL, Commissioner                                                                                                     
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission                                                                                           
Alaska Department of Fish & Game                                                                                                
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Discussed Sections 2-8 of CSSB 347(RES).                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
ED DERSHAM, Chair                                                                                                               
Board of Fisheries                                                                                                              
Anchor Point, Alaska                                                                                                            
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified that SB 347 is a necessary first                                                                 
step.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
SUE ASPELUND, Federal Management Resource Coordinator                                                                           
Office of the Commissioner                                                                                                      
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified that ADF&G supports efforts to                                                                   
amend CFEC's statutory authority in Sections 2-8 of SB 347.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MICHAEL RUCCIO, Fishery Biologist                                                                                               
Division of Commercial Fisheries                                                                                                
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)                                                                                        
Kodiak, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During discussion of SB 347, answered                                                                      
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
HERMAN SAVIKKO, Fishery Biologist                                                                                               
Division of Commercial Fisheries                                                                                                
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During discussion of SB 347, answered                                                                      
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
GLENN MERRILL                                                                                                                   
Sable Fisheries Division                                                                                                        
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During discussion of SB 347, discussed                                                                     
halibut by-catch rates.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
DAVID POLUSHKIN                                                                                                                 
K-Bay Fishing Association                                                                                                       
Homer, Alaska                                                                                                                   
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified in support of SB 347  as it's the                                                               
beginning of the rationalization process.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
JULIE BONNEY                                                                                                                    
Kodiak, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:   As the  representative of 25  trawl vessels                                                               
that fish out of Kodiak in  the Central Gulf of Alaska regulatory                                                               
area, urged the committee to forward SB 347.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JOE SULLIVAN, Attorney at Law                                                                                                   
Mundt MacGregor L.L.P.                                                                                                          
Seattle, Washington                                                                                                             
POSITION  STATEMENT:   As  the  representative  for the  City  of                                                               
Kodiak   regarding   Gulf  groundfish   rationalization   issues,                                                               
testified   in  support   of  the   Gulg  groundfish   moratorium                                                               
components of SB 347.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
SAM COTTON                                                                                                                      
Aleutians East Borough                                                                                                          
(Address not provided)                                                                                                          
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on SB 347.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
GLENN CARROLL, Fisherman                                                                                                        
Homer, Alaska                                                                                                                   
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in  general support of SB 347, but                                                               
expressed concern with regard to the fate of the jig fishery.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
BUCK LAUKITIS, Fisherman                                                                                                        
Homer, Alaska                                                                                                                   
POSITION STATEMENT:   Characterized  SB 347  as an  interim step,                                                               
and expressed concerns with regard to a vessel-based system.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
YAKOV REUTOV, Fisherman                                                                                                         
Homer, Alaska                                                                                                                   
POSITION STATEMENT:  Related his support of SB 347.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
ALAN PARKS                                                                                                                      
Homer, Alaska                                                                                                                   
POSITION  STATEMENT:    Testified  in  support  of  SB  347,  but                                                               
expressed concerns with regard to a vessel-based system.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
ILIA KUZMIN, Fisherman                                                                                                          
Homer, Alaska                                                                                                                   
POSITION  STATEMENT:   Testified in  support  of SB  347 and  Mr.                                                               
Laukitis' testimony.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
JOE CHILDERS, Director                                                                                                          
Western Gulf of Alaska Fishermen                                                                                                
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of SB 347.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 04-17, SIDE A                                                                                                            
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  PAUL   SEATON  called  the  House   Special  Committee  on                                                             
Fisheries meeting to order at  9:05 a.m.  Representatives Seaton,                                                               
Wilson,  Ogg, and  Samuels were  present  at the  call to  order.                                                               
Representative  Guttenberg   arrived  as   the  meeting   was  in                                                               
progress.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
SB 315-ENTRY PERMIT BUY-BACK PROGRAM                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON announced that the  first order of business would be                                                               
SENATE BILL  NO. 315, "An  Act relating to the  administration of                                                               
commercial fishing entry permit buy-back programs."                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 0128                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved  to adopt SB 315, Version  D, as the                                                               
working document.  There being no objection, it was so ordered.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0170                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHERYL  SUTTON, Staff  to the  Joint Legislative  Salmon Industry                                                               
Task  Force, Alaska  State  Legislature,  informed the  committee                                                               
that SB  315 is  the companion  to HB  410, which  this committee                                                               
heard and  moved out on February  9, 2004.  She  stressed that SB
315 is precisely the same legislation  as HB 410.  Simply put, SB
315  modifies  existing law  governing  buy-back  programs.   The                                                               
legislation   would   allow   the  Commercial   Fisheries   Entry                                                               
Commission  (CFEC)  to "front  fund"  a  buy-back program  if  an                                                               
appropriation were  received for that  purpose.  Senate  Bill 315                                                               
has a zero  fiscal note, she mentioned.  She  concluded by urging                                                               
the committee to report SB 315 from committee.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON, upon  determining no one wished  to testify, closed                                                               
the public hearing on SB 315.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0362                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  moved to  report SB  315 out  of committee                                                               
with individual recommendations and  the accompanying zero fiscal                                                               
note.   There being no  objection, SB  315 was reported  from the                                                               
House Special Committee on Fisheries.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
SB 347-COMM. FISHING MORATORIA, INCL. AK GULF                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON announced that the  final order of business would be                                                               
CS FOR  SENATE BILL NO.  347(RES), "An Act relating  to moratoria                                                               
on  entry  of  new  participants or  vessels  into  a  commercial                                                               
fishery; relating  to vessel permits  for, and  the establishment                                                               
of  a moratorium  on entry  of new  vessels into,  state Gulf  of                                                               
Alaska  groundfish  fisheries;  and providing  for  an  effective                                                               
date."                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 0442                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHERYL  SUTTON, Staff  to the  Joint Legislative  Salmon Industry                                                               
Task  Force, Alaska  State  Legislature,  informed the  committee                                                               
that Senator Ben Stevens introduced SB  347 at the request of the                                                               
Board of Fisheries, the North  Pacific Fishery Management Council                                                               
(NPFMC), the  Alaska Department of  Fish & Game (ADF&G),  and the                                                               
Commercial Fisheries  Entry Commission (CFEC).   She related that                                                               
Senator  Ben  Stevens  supports  SB   347  and  agrees  with  the                                                               
requestors that  it's necessary.   This legislation was  heard in                                                               
the Senate  Resources Standing Committee  and the  Senate Finance                                                               
Committee and passed the full Senate  with a unanimous vote.  Ms.                                                               
Sutton  related her  understanding that  the chair  has requested                                                               
specific data  from ADF&G and  CFEC, and has also  indicated that                                                               
he  didn't   intend  to  move   SB  347  from   committee  today.                                                               
Therefore, she deferred to the  specific agencies.  She concluded                                                               
by relating  Senator Ben Stevens'  request to report SB  347 from                                                               
committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 0600                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MARY   McDOWELL,   Commissioner,   Commercial   Fisheries   Entry                                                               
Commission, Alaska Department of Fish  & Game, specified that she                                                               
would  speak  to  Sections  2-8  of  SB  347,  which  amends  the                                                               
provisions  in current  law that  provide CFEC  the authority  to                                                               
administratively establish a temporary  moratorium on entrants of                                                               
new  participants into  a fishery.   Although  the aforementioned                                                               
exists  in current  law, its  current  construction is  virtually                                                               
unusable,  and  therefore no  moratorium  has  ever been  enacted                                                               
under it.   She highlighted that  the state has had  four to five                                                               
moratoriums over the past few years,  but those had to be enacted                                                               
by the legislature.  Ms.  McDowell explained that the idea behind                                                               
a moratorium provision  is to buy time in order  to determine the                                                               
best, long-term solution for controlling  growth and ensuring the                                                               
manageability of a fishery.  In  a fishery where there appears to                                                               
be a need to get a  handle on rapid growth, imposing a moratorium                                                               
rather  than a  permanent limitation  may be  a better  option in                                                               
some cases.   Currently, the  choices are to permanently  limit a                                                               
fishery  or to  leave it  open access.   Therefore,  a moratorium                                                               
could be used in a situation  in which there is insufficient data                                                               
regarding whether  limited entry  is justified  and needed.   The                                                               
constitution provides  for limited entry  so long as  it impinges                                                               
on  open access,  and  therefore  a moratorium  is  a good  tool.                                                               
Furthermore, the fact that a  moratorium provision already exists                                                               
illustrates  that  the  legislature has  already  recognized  the                                                               
utility  of  such  a  tool.    However,  the  provisions  in  the                                                               
legislation are  narrow and don't  provide much  flexibility with                                                               
regard  to structuring  the most  effective moratorium  possible.                                                               
Moreover,  the   process  required  in  the   legislation  is  so                                                               
cumbersome that  it might generate  a rush into a  fishery rather                                                               
than prevent such.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS.  McDOWELL highlighted  that  the need  to  address the  state                                                               
waters  ground fisheries  has arisen  and points  to the  need to                                                               
[put in  place a  moratorium provision]  for future  fisheries in                                                               
order  to avoid  the need  for special  legislation to  address a                                                               
problem.    She pointed  out  that  the current  law  [addressing                                                               
moratoriums]  uses  language specifying  the  ability  to use  [a                                                               
moratorium] if  there is  already a  problem in  a fishery.   The                                                               
current  process  is  extremely   slow  and  first  requires  the                                                               
commissioner of ADF&G to make  findings and request permission of                                                               
the Board of Fisheries to petition  CFEC.  The Board of Fisheries                                                               
has to schedule  the request at one of its  meetings, which means                                                               
that there  has to be  15-day public notice  of the meeting.   If                                                               
the  Board of  Fisheries approves  the request,  the commissioner                                                               
may   petition  CFEC,   which  can   then   begin  an   analysis.                                                               
Furthermore, the  current law  has no  provision allowing  for an                                                               
extension of the moratorium.   After issuance of a moratorium, at                                                               
least  five years  must  pass before  another  moratorium can  be                                                               
issued.  Therefore,  without the ability to  extend a moratorium,                                                               
there could  be a  situation in  which the  area would  return to                                                               
open access and create a "real  mess."  The aforementioned is why                                                               
the   legislation  proposes   giving  CFEC   the  authority,   if                                                               
necessary, to extend a moratorium for an additional two years.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 1034                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON  surmised that under  the current moratorium  law in                                                               
order to issue a moratorium, it  must be shown that there are too                                                               
many fishermen who will approach too much harvest.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL clarified  that the current law  specifies that CFEC                                                               
"may establish a  moratorium on new entrants into  a fishery that                                                               
has experienced recent  increases in fishing effort  beyond a low                                                               
sporadic  level  of effort  and  that  has  achieved a  level  of                                                               
harvest  that  may  be  approaching   or  exceeding  the  maximum                                                               
sustainable  level for  the fishery,  and for  which insufficient                                                               
biological  and  resource  management  information  necessary  to                                                               
promote  the conservation  of sustained  yield management  of the                                                               
fishery."                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON further surmised that  the desire is to be proactive                                                               
and have the ability to  establish a moratorium without the above                                                               
conditions.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL pointed out that [CSSB 347(RES)] specifies:                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     the  commission  may  establish  a  moratorium  if  the                                                                    
     commission  finds that  a  moratorium  is necessary  to                                                                    
     promote the conservation  of sustained yield management                                                                    
     of the  fishery and  the economic health  and stability                                                                    
     of the fishery,  and either to allow  the commission to                                                                    
     develop  regulatory  legislative proposals  to  address                                                                    
     the  needs of  the  fishery that  cannot  be met  under                                                                    
     existing  regulations  or  statutes  or  to  allow  the                                                                    
     department  of fish  & game  and  the board  to open  a                                                                    
     commercial fishery  that would otherwise  remain closed                                                                    
     to protect  a fishery  resource from  over exploitation                                                                    
     resulting from unrestricted access to the fishery.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON  related his understanding  then that the  desire is                                                               
to provide CFEC and the  Board of Fisheries with more open-ended,                                                               
less  specific  requirements  regarding   the  institution  of  a                                                               
moratorium.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS.  McDOWELL  clarified  that the  criteria  [specified  in  the                                                               
legislation] is just  as specific, but one doesn't  have to prove                                                               
that   the  situation   is  already   at  the   point  of   being                                                               
unmanageable.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1229                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON   surmised  then  that  the   current  law                                                               
addressing  moratoriums is  cumbersome  and if  a moratorium  was                                                               
called under  the current law,  it might  be too late  because of                                                               
the  waiting.     Therefore,  this  legislation   would  allow  a                                                               
moratorium to  be put into  place before  a situation is  too far                                                               
gone.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS.  McDOWELL  agreed, adding  that  the  moratorium allows  [the                                                               
department]  to buy  time while  assessing the  situation without                                                               
being pushed to a permanent program.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL turned attention to  the sectional analysis included                                                               
in the  committee packet, as  well as a table  comparing existing                                                               
statute  to  the  legislation.     Section  2  of  CSSB  347(RES)                                                               
specifies   the  purposes   for  which   CFEC  may   establish  a                                                               
moratorium.   Section 3  specifies that a  moratorium may  be for                                                               
one or  more fisheries  or one  or more  species, gear  types, or                                                               
areas.    For  example,  the ground  fish  fishery  has  multiple                                                               
species in  areas that [CFEC]  may want  to contain all  at once.                                                               
In response to Chair Seaton,  Ms. McDowell reminded the committee                                                               
of the  moratorium the legislature  placed on the  Southeast dive                                                               
fishery  in   which  several  fisheries  were   included.    This                                                               
legislation would  allow CFEC  to do  such administratively.   In                                                               
further response  to Chair  Seaton, Ms.  McDowell said  that this                                                               
legislation would  provide CFEC  flexibility to determine  how to                                                               
best handle a situation.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1488                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON posed  a situation in which there is  a fishery with                                                               
a  problem and  other fisheries  without problems.   He  surmised                                                               
that in such  a situation there could be a  moratorium that would                                                               
target  the  fishery  with  a problem,  but  also  include  other                                                               
fisheries that aren't distressed.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL said that would  be difficult.  She highlighted that                                                               
folks can challenge any actions  [taken by CFEC].  Furthermore, a                                                               
moratorium is a temporary measure  that isn't as restrictive as a                                                               
permanent  limitation.   She  clarified  that this  [legislation]                                                               
provides CFEC  with the flexibility  to do  something appropriate                                                               
for a given fishery.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL turned  to Section 4, which provides  the ability to                                                               
administratively extend a four-year  moratorium an additional two                                                               
years, if  necessary to achieve  the purposes of  the moratorium.                                                               
Section  5  expands  the  current law's  directive  for  CFEC  to                                                               
analyze whether  a fishery should  be limited under  the existing                                                               
limited entry  program.  Section  5 directs CFEC to  evaluate all                                                               
the  post-moratorium  options  in  order to  determine  the  best                                                               
possible  long-term   solution  for  the  fishery.     Section  6                                                               
discusses  a  qualification  date   not  just  criteria  for  the                                                               
moratorium,  and  therefore  establishes  an  "as  of"  date  for                                                               
eligibility  in  a  moratorium.   Section  6  also  provides  the                                                               
ability to establish  a moratorium on persons,  vessels, or both.                                                               
Although  this legislation  would allow  CFEC to  temporarily cap                                                               
entrants of new vessels, CFEC has  no authority to do a permanent                                                               
vessel-based limitation.  In response  to Representative Ogg, Ms.                                                               
McDowell explained  that a  couple of  years ago  the legislature                                                               
passed legislation giving CFEC the  ability to use a vessel-based                                                               
permanent  limitation program  in the  Bering Sea  hair crab  and                                                               
scallop fisheries.   The only  authority for a  permanent program                                                               
other than the aforementioned  is CFEC's traditional person-based                                                               
program.  Therefore, if, at the  end of a moratorium, CFEC felt a                                                               
variation  on the  current program  was  appropriate, CFEC  would                                                               
have  to  approach the  legislature  with  a proposal  requesting                                                               
additional authority for a permanent program.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGG interjected his  understanding that CFEC could                                                               
use an interim use or limited entry program.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL agreed, indicating those are traditional programs.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 1833                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGG turned attention to  Section 6, which [on page                                                               
4,  lines  8-9] refers  to  [the  eligibility criteria]  for  "an                                                               
interim-use permit, vessel  permit, or both".   However, the next                                                           
sentence [on page  4, line 10] doesn't use the  same language; it                                                               
only refers  to an  interim-use permit  or a  vessel permit.   He                                                               
asked if that's a typographical error.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS.  McDOWELL replied  no.   She explained  that the  language is                                                               
specifying  that  if  the program  is  person-based,  interim-use                                                               
permits would be issued to that  person.  However, if the program                                                               
is vessel-based, a vessel permit  would be issued to a qualifying                                                               
individual.  If  [the program] is a combination,  then both types                                                               
of permits  would be  issued during a  moratorium.   Ms. McDowell                                                               
related  her belief  that the  language on  page 4,  lines 10-11,                                                               
means that "whatever  kinds of permits you're  issuing under this                                                               
thing the eligibility criteria  must include minimum requirements                                                               
for past and present participation."                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGG  expressed interest  in the language  [on page                                                               
4, lines 8-9 and lines 10-11] to "track the same."                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 2009                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL returned  to her sectional analysis.   In Section 7,                                                               
subsections (g),  (h), (i),  and (j) are  necessary to  address a                                                               
vessel-based  program  because  current   law  only  pertains  to                                                               
person-based permits.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON surmised then that  there is no relationship between                                                               
current  vessel licenses  and the  vessel license  fees that  are                                                               
charged on  that and the  vessel permits under  this legislation.                                                               
Therefore, this  legislation proposes  a vessel  permit exclusive                                                               
of the current vessel license system.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL agreed, and added  that in a vessel-based moratorium                                                               
the skippers will  have to obtain interim-use permits  to run the                                                               
vessel that  has a permit  to participate, as  is the case  in an                                                               
open access fishery.   Ms. McDowell continued  with Section 7(k),                                                               
which  she   explained  is  trying  to   discourage  speculation.                                                               
Furthermore,  this provision  also means  that one  participating                                                               
during a moratorium doesn't have  a claim for a permanent permit.                                                               
However, there  may be reasons  to include a combination  of pre-                                                               
moratorium   and  moratorium   participation   in  a   subsequent                                                               
limitation.   The aforementioned  decision would  be made  when a                                                               
permanent  program  is  proposed.     She  reiterated  that  this                                                               
provision puts  people on notice  that any future  limitation may                                                               
be based strictly on pre-moratorium participation.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON surmised  then that the provision  means that [CFEC]                                                               
may or may not base [participation] on past catches.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 2206                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL  moved on to  Section 7(l), which makes  the general                                                               
provisions pertaining  to interim-use permits under  the standard                                                               
program applicable  to person-based moratorium permits.   Section                                                               
7(m)  is standard  boilerplate language  in the  existing program                                                               
specifying that  nothing in this  provision limits the  powers of                                                               
the Board  of Fisheries  and ADF&G.   Section 7(n)  addresses the                                                               
fishing history  of applicants.   If a vessel-based  program were                                                               
used, there  could be a dilemma  in which the catch  history in a                                                               
fishery is  based on fish tickets,  which are in the  name of the                                                               
skipper  with  the interim-use  permit.    The aforementioned  is                                                               
confidential information that's only  releasable to that skipper.                                                               
The  vessel  owner  wouldn't have  access  to  that  information.                                                               
Therefore, without  [Section 7(n)]  a vessel  owner may  not have                                                               
any  legal  access  to  the  records of  his  vessel,  which  are                                                               
necessary to  prove the participation  of the vessel in  order to                                                               
apply for a vessel-based permit.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON  requested that Ms. McDowell  discuss [Section 7(n)]                                                               
in relation  to the  individual fishery  quota (IFQ)  program and                                                               
the halibut  and sable fishery,  in which the  federal government                                                               
gave  all  the rights  to  the  vessel  owner while  the  fishing                                                               
history was held by the skipper.   This provision would allow all                                                               
information to be available to the vessel owner.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL  clarified that the amount  of information necessary                                                               
to prove the participation of  the vessel would be releasable [to                                                               
the  vessel owner].   Both  the hair  crab and  scallop fisheries                                                               
have provisions such as [Section 7(n)].                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 2368                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GUTTENBERG related  his impression  that some  of                                                               
these  vessels have  multiple  skippers.   He  asked if  [Section                                                               
7(n)] allows the fishing/harvest history  to be released to other                                                               
captains  or is  it from  each individual  captain to  the vessel                                                               
owner.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS.  McDOWELL replied,  "The latter."   Under  Section 7(n),  the                                                               
applicant,  the vessel  owner, would  apply  and the  information                                                               
would be  made available  by the  applicant.   The CFEC  has this                                                               
fish ticket  information.  When  there is an  application period,                                                               
CFEC notifies  the applicant  of his or  her fishing  history per                                                               
CFEC's records.  If the applicant  believes he or she has fishing                                                               
history  that CFEC  isn't aware  of,  then the  applicant has  to                                                               
bring in documentation of that.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON  recalled that  currently ADF&G has  a form  for the                                                               
vessel  owner to  use to  obtain the  vessel's history  from each                                                               
operator.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS.  McDOWELL referred  to the  aforementioned  as a  third-party                                                               
release.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON inquired as  to the result of this in  the case of a                                                               
lease.   He recalled that this  was a large issue  in the halibut                                                               
and  sable fish  fisheries.    He further  recalled  that if  the                                                               
vessel  was leased,  the  leasee  would have  the  rights to  the                                                               
fishery whereas the  vessel owner would retain the  rights to the                                                               
fishery if a skipper was hired.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS.  McDOWELL  explained that  in  this  general portion  of  the                                                               
legislation, it says that a moratorium  may be to the person, the                                                               
skipper, or  to a vessel owner.   Therefore, whether there  was a                                                               
lease wouldn't  be an issue  because the  permit would go  to the                                                               
vessel or  its owner.  In  further response to Chair  Seaton, Ms.                                                               
McDowell  said  that  if   a  vessel-based  moratorium  occurred,                                                               
ownership  would be  established  by regulation.   She  mentioned                                                               
that under the vessel-based limitation  programs in hair crab and                                                               
scallop  fisheries,   there  are  detailed  definitions   in  the                                                               
regulations regarding documenting the owner.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 2608                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGG  said that this legislation  doesn't establish                                                               
the authority  to issue vessel permits,  which will have to  be a                                                               
later statute.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL interjected, "Or permit program."                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGG posed  a situation during the  period of 1998-                                                               
2004 in which someone sells his or  her vessel in 2002.  He asked                                                               
if  the  intent is  for  the  latest  owner  to receive  all  the                                                               
information or  would the  information related  to the  period of                                                               
ownership be given to each owner.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS.  McDOWELL reiterated  that such  would be  defined under  any                                                               
regulations implementing  a program.   Most  likely, it  would be                                                               
defined as  the current owner at  the date of the  effective date                                                               
or  the   moratorium,  she   said.     In  further   response  to                                                               
Representative Ogg, Ms. McDowell said  that the language could be                                                               
included in the legislation.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  OGG   clarified  that  he  is   trying  to  avoid                                                               
ambiguity because there  could be two different  owners under the                                                               
current language.   There could be an owner for  a period of time                                                               
and the  vessel could be  sold to another owner.   Representative                                                               
Ogg suggested that the language  could refer to the present owner                                                               
or the history during a period of ownership.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  McDOWELL,  in  trying to  provide  Representative  Ogg  some                                                               
comfort, suggested that the language  could refer to the "release                                                               
to the current owner" because that's the intent.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 2711                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  asked if the aforementioned  is usually in                                                               
statute or regulation for other fisheries.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL answered that definitional  language is usually done                                                               
in regulation.   However, under the existing  program it's simple                                                               
because it [refers]  to human beings who  [don't change identity]                                                               
whereas a vessel  can go through a name change,  a number change,                                                               
and  vessel owner  change.   It's more  complicated when  dealing                                                               
with vessels, she said.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGG recalled  when the halibut fishery  went to an                                                               
IFQ under which  he said he believes one  with previous ownership                                                               
could obtain  an IFQ  for that period.   Therefore,  he expressed                                                               
the need to be clear.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS.  McDOWELL   reiterated  that  this  refers   to  a  temporary                                                               
moratorium not a transferable-use privilege.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON posed a situation in  which a vessel that was fished                                                               
in 1998  was sold to  someone in San  Diego, California.   If the                                                               
"current owner"  language is utilized,  the information  would be                                                               
given  to the  owner  in San  Diego who  would  qualify for  this                                                               
moratorium  permit  based  on another  owner's  participation  in                                                               
Alaska.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL clarified that this  section [Section 7(n)] strictly                                                               
addresses  who has  access to  the fishing  history of  a vessel.                                                               
Under  the other  provisions of  this  moratorium provision,  the                                                               
CFEC would have to establish  the criteria to obtain a moratorium                                                               
permit.  More  than likely, eligibility would  require the vessel                                                               
to  have made  landings in  certain years  or even  at a  certain                                                               
threshold.  The  [current] vessel owner would have  access to the                                                               
fishing history of  the vessel, while there  would be regulations                                                               
that  would determine  whether one  would get  in.   The [fishing                                                               
history  of  the  vessel]  would allow  the  owner  to  determine                                                               
whether it's worth applying for a moratorium permit.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 2939                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  said that the  owner of a vessel  would be                                                               
the  current owner,  and therefore  she questioned  why the  word                                                               
"current" would be added.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SEATON specified  that the  discussion  also involves  the                                                               
fishing  history of  the  vessel.   Often the  sale  of a  vessel                                                               
contains  contractual  provisions  saying that  they  retain  the                                                               
fishing  history  or  rights  of   the  vessel.    However,  this                                                               
legislation proposes  that the fishing history  is transferred to                                                               
the new [owner].                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON maintained that "current" isn't necessary.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 04-17, SIDE B                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said, "I'm either the owner or I'm not."                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  OGG   agreed  with  Representative   Wilson,  but                                                               
pointed out that the fishing history goes back to prior owners.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SEATON reiterated  that this  provision transfers  fishing                                                               
history information from a past owner  to a current owner.  Often                                                               
in  rationalization/restructuring  programs,  the  permit  holder                                                               
will  have   [the  fishing  history].     This   provision  isn't                                                               
attempting  to  establish  policy  for the  program,  rather  the                                                               
question  is  whether some  policy  changes  may preclude  future                                                               
choices.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 2924                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGG  said that  he merely  wanted clarity  in this                                                               
area because  standard language in  sales contracts  specify that                                                               
the [vessel]  is being sold  but any  and all fishing  rights and                                                               
"Exxon" rights and anything that  may accrue to the vessel during                                                               
the   period  of   ownership  [accrue   to  the   vessel  owner].                                                               
Therefore, the  new owner wouldn't  have any of  that information                                                               
[or rights  from the time period  under the former owner].   This                                                               
legislation  would now  say that  the  new owner  would have  the                                                               
right  to  review  the  aforementioned  data  even  if  it  isn't                                                               
included in  the contract.   Therefore, the question  and concern                                                               
is in  regard to  whether the [legislature]  wants to  over power                                                               
the contractual right explained above.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS.  McDOWELL  reiterated  that this  section  only  pertains  to                                                               
whether [a vessel  owner] may know the fishing history  of his or                                                               
her vessel.   This section doesn't grant  anything.  Furthermore,                                                               
this  section wouldn't  impact the  data that's  collected.   The                                                               
same information will be collected  with or without this section;                                                               
the fish tickets will specify which  IUP holder sold the fish and                                                               
the  vessel  on  which  it  was  landed.    This  section  merely                                                               
addresses with whom the information may be shared.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 2745                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS.  McDOWELL continued  the sectional  analysis with  Section 8.                                                               
She explained that  if a fishery has been under  a moratorium and                                                               
is subsequently limited under CFEC's  traditional program, then a                                                               
qualification  date may  be used  to review  participation, which                                                               
may or  may not include time  during the moratorium.   Since this                                                               
legislation  isn't   available  now,  ADF&G  and   the  Board  of                                                               
Fisheries   have  proposed   creating   a   section  that   would                                                               
statutorily create  a moratorium  for the ground  fish fisheries,                                                               
for which there is no time.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 2663                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
ED  DERSHAM, Chair,  Board of  Fisheries, informed  the committee                                                               
that for  several years  NPFMC has  been working  on the  goal of                                                               
rationalizing  the groundfish  fisheries in  the Gulf  of Alaska.                                                               
About nine months  ago, the Board of Fisheries  started a process                                                               
to consider  what the state would  do in reaction to  a finalized                                                               
NPFMC  rationalization for  groundfish fisheries  in the  federal                                                               
waters.  A  working group and the Board of  Fisheries have met on                                                               
this matter and  so far it has been determined  that [NPFMC] will                                                               
try to finalize the rationalization process sometime in 2005.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  DERSHAM  noted that  most  of  his  comments will  be  about                                                               
Pacific cod  because it engenders  most of the discussion  in the                                                               
groundfish  fishery.   In  the  Pacific cod  fishery  there is  a                                                               
parallel fishery  that takes place  in the state waters  the same                                                               
time  the federal  fishery  occurs in  the  Pacific cod  fishery.                                                               
There is a separate state waters  fishery at other times in which                                                               
pots  and jigs  are  allowed  from Prince  William  Sound to  the                                                               
Southwest Peninsula.   There are  restrictions in some  areas, he                                                               
noted.   From the working group  it is clear that  the status quo                                                               
can't   be   maintained   in   the   state   waters   until   the                                                               
rationalization process is finalized.   Furthermore, the Board of                                                               
Fisheries will  be very limited in  its options if there  isn't a                                                               
moratorium  on the  groundfish fishery  participants first.   Mr.                                                               
Dersham said that  with a completely open entry,  it would become                                                               
a huge  derby that  would impact the  fishermen and  the resource                                                               
itself.    Therefore,  the  working   group  recommended  that  a                                                               
moratorium is  a necessary  first step in  order to  identify the                                                               
participants in the  fisheries and the waters,  and determine the                                                               
best way  for the  state to  react.  The  options range  from the                                                               
aforementioned open state water  fishery to an integrated process                                                               
that  would approximate  what occurs  between the  two fisheries.                                                               
The latter  would probably require legislative  action, but would                                                               
still need  to meet constitutional  standards, in  particular the                                                               
least  impingement  clause.    The Board  of  Fisheries  is  very                                                               
focused on  what is best for  the state and the  economies of the                                                               
local  regions.   Without  a temporary  moratorium,  most of  the                                                               
options are  eliminated and [the  state would be] left  with only                                                               
the large state water fishery and  may only be limited to pot and                                                               
jig gear  types.  Mr. Dersham  said that basically the  desire is                                                               
to  keep the  options open  and this  legislation is  a necessary                                                               
first step in that venue.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR.  DERSHAM  explained  that  the first  eight  sections  are  a                                                               
consensus recommendation  of the work  group, but the  problem is                                                               
the  timeline.    With  the  timeline,  a  moratorium  from  CFEC                                                               
couldn't begin in  time to deal with the reaction  to the process                                                               
on the federal side.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 2233                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SEATON asked  if the  Board of  Fisheries took  a position                                                               
with  regard to  the vessel  permit structure  versus the  normal                                                               
CFEC limited entry interim-use permit structure.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. DERSHAM  replied, "No."   He explained that  the vessel-based                                                               
provision  came from  the  department.   In  further response  to                                                               
Chair Seaton, Mr.  Dersham confirmed that the  Board of Fisheries                                                               
didn't  take any  counteraction.    In fact,  most  of the  board                                                               
members spoke  in favor of  a vessel-based moratorium.   However,                                                               
it  wasn't  unanimous  and  the  work  group  and  the  Board  of                                                               
Fisheries didn't take a specific position.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON requested that Mr.  Dersham discuss why the Board of                                                               
Fisheries  doesn't  believe  it  could regulate  under  the  same                                                               
provisions currently being used in the parallel fishery.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.  DERSHAM informed  the committee  that he  has been  informed                                                               
that  there  may be  some  by-catch  apportionment problems  with                                                               
managing the  longline fishery  in state  waters.   Therefore, he                                                               
said he  feels that without  a moratorium [the state]  would have                                                               
less options.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON  surmised then that  the conflict with  the parallel                                                               
fishery isn't in regard to  the provisions that violate the Board                                                               
of Fisheries guidelines for establishing a new state fishery.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. DERSHAM  confirmed that  this is  related to  something other                                                               
than by-catch that the department brought forward.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 2042                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SUE ASPELUND, Federal Management  Resource Coordinator, Office of                                                               
the  Commissioner,  Alaska Department  of  Fish  & Game  (ADF&G),                                                               
began by announcing  that ADF&G supports efforts  to amend CFEC's                                                               
statutory authority  as in Sections  2-8 of the legislation.   As                                                               
Mr. Dersham  described actions pending  in the NPFMC  will likely                                                               
limit entry  or rationalize the  Gulf groundfish fisheries.   The                                                               
state is working  a similar process.  However,  neither action is                                                               
likely  to occur  prior  to the  2006  Gulf groundfish  fishery's                                                               
seasons.  Ideally, the department would  like for the state to be                                                               
able  to take  administrative action  to institute  a moratorium.                                                               
However,  even if  provided with  that statutory  authority, it's                                                               
unlikely that  CFEC, given the  complexities of the  state's Gulf                                                               
groundfish  fisheries, would  be able  to implement  a moratorium                                                               
within  the  timeframe  the   department  believes  necessary  to                                                               
adequately  protect  the  fisheries   from  speculation  and  the                                                               
increased  pressures   resulting  from  the   federal  groundfish                                                               
rationalization process.  Therefore,  ADF&G supports the Board of                                                               
Fisheries  finding   for  the   immediate  implementation   of  a                                                               
moratorium on the entry of  new vessels into the state groundfish                                                               
fishery  as requested  in its  finding, 2004-FB-228,  of February                                                               
23,  2004.   She  highlighted the  language  in Section  1(b)(1),                                                               
which  specifies  the  purpose   to  be  immediately  imposing  a                                                               
moratorium  on entry  of new  vessels in  the state's  groundfish                                                               
fisheries.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. ASPELUND  explained that when  a fishery has  been identified                                                               
for  limitation,  a pattern  of  speculation  has been  observed.                                                               
Speculation exacerbates  the problems that a  proposed limitation                                                               
seeks  to  prevent,  such as  increased  competition,  additional                                                               
capitalization,    decreased   economic    viability   for    the                                                               
participants,  localized  depletion,  et cetera.    Ms.  Aspelund                                                               
emphasized the need to remember  that [the department] is seeking                                                               
only a  moratorium in SB  347.   The proposal in  the legislation                                                               
isn't  the  permanent program.    She  then turned  attention  to                                                               
Section 9, which  describes the fisheries that  would be included                                                               
in the moratorium.  She pointed  out that vessels were chosen for                                                               
limitation over persons  because it's believed it  would define a                                                               
smaller   pool  of   participants  during   the  period   of  the                                                               
moratorium,  which would  more effectively  achieve  the goal  of                                                               
controlling the  growth during the  development of  the permanent                                                               
program.     Initially,  this   legislation  included   the  Gulf                                                               
groundfish fisheries in Southeast  Alaska, but those were removed                                                               
in  the  Senate  Resources  Standing Committee.    The  Southeast                                                               
participants believe  the nature  of their  fishery is  such that                                                               
they don't  fit the more  general demographic of  those fisheries                                                               
that have  been included.   Furthermore,  the jig  fisheries were                                                               
exempted  from the  legislation in  order to  provide entry-level                                                               
access  to   Gulf  groundfish  fisheries  throughout   the  Gulf.                                                               
Section  9(b)  specifies  that  a  vessel use  permit  is  a  use                                                               
privilege rather  than a property  right.  Section  9(c) provides                                                               
the date of  implementation of the moratorium  while Section 9(d)                                                               
describes the qualifying years for  the moratorium.  Ms. Aspelund                                                               
explained that  the years 1998-2003  were used because  the Board                                                               
of Fisheries first  authorized a state water  Pacific cod fishery                                                               
in 1997.   Therefore, it wasn't until 1998 that  there was a full                                                               
state waters  Pacific cod fishery,  which is why that  was chosen                                                               
as  the  qualifying  year.     She  further  explained  that  the                                                               
aforementioned is  believed to maximize  the benefits  to Alaskan                                                               
residents.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS.  ASPELUND pointed  out that  Section 9(e)  is hoped  to be  a                                                               
disincentive for  a race for  fish during a moratorium.   Section                                                               
9(f) specifies  that CFEC  regulations can  supersede subsections                                                               
(d)-(e).   Section 9(g) allows  for the substitution of  a vessel                                                               
in  the event  of loss,  destruction, and  damage.   Section 9(h)                                                               
allows  for  sales  of  vessels  during  the  provisions  of  the                                                               
moratorium.     Section   9(i)   addresses   the  vessel's   size                                                               
restriction  and allows  the transfer  of  a vessel  permit to  a                                                               
vessel that's  shorter.   Section 9(j)  establishes fees  for the                                                               
vessel permits.  Ms. Aspelund  emphasized that Section 9(k) is of                                                               
particular  importance because  it directs  CFEC, in  corporation                                                               
with  ADF&G and  the  Board of  Fisheries,  to conduct  necessary                                                               
investigations   to   determine  appropriate   alternatives   for                                                               
management  of entry  and to  bring those  proposals back  to the                                                               
legislature  if   statutory  or  constitutional   amendments  are                                                               
necessary  to  implement  the   recommendations.    Section  9(l)                                                               
authorizes CFEC to  adopt regulations.  Section  9(m) exempts the                                                               
halibut  and   black  cod  fisheries.     Section  9(n)  provides                                                               
definitions.   Sections 10-11 correlate  with a  previous section                                                               
regarding  access  to  landing.    She  concluded  the  sectional                                                               
analysis with Section 12, which is a cleanup section.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 1635                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON  directed attention  to the  definition of  "Gulf of                                                               
Alaska" on  page 10, line 17.   He asked if  the definition means                                                               
to include all of the waters to the end of the Aleutian Islands.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. ASPELUND deferred to other department representatives.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1535                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MICHAEL  RUCCIO,   Fishery  Biologist,  Division   of  Commercial                                                               
Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish  & Game (ADF&G), related his                                                               
understanding that NPFMC's directive  is to only rationalize Gulf                                                               
fisheries and  for those  purposes the Gulf  of Alaska  would end                                                               
170 degrees west longitude, which is  in the vicinity of the Four                                                               
Mountain Island  in the Aleutian  Chain.  Beyond the  170 degrees                                                               
west  longitude,   that  portion  of  the   Aleutian  Islands  is                                                               
considered  part of  the Bering  Sea Aleutian  Islands Management                                                               
Area and isn't slated for rationalization by NPFMC.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON  clarified that  this legislation  is speaking  to a                                                               
moratorium, not NPFMC.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. RUCCIO acknowledged that and  clarified that his response was                                                               
framed in  terms of the fact  that 170 degrees west  longitude is                                                               
the end of the Gulf of Alaska as defined by NPFMC.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON reiterated  that this legislation in  no way relates                                                               
to NPFMC  or the federal  program.  He related  his understanding                                                               
that  this legislation  addresses  a state  water moratorium  for                                                               
state  waters, and  the state  waters are  defined as  all waters                                                               
west  of  Cape Suckling  to  the  end  of the  Aleutian  Islands.                                                               
Therefore, he indicated the need  to obtain further clarification                                                               
on this point.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. ASPELUND  turned attention to  a map in the  committee packet                                                               
labeled Figure  2, which shows  the South Alaska  Peninsula, Area                                                               
M.   The  line between  Area  M and  the  Bering Sea  is what  is                                                               
described in the  definition of the Gulf of Alaska.   She related                                                               
her  belief that  "this  is  the state's  definition  of Gulf  of                                                               
Alaska waters."  She offered to check on this matter.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS.  ASPELUND  directed attention  to  page  10, line  10,  which                                                               
specifies "In  this section".  Therefore,  the definitions listed                                                               
only pertain to  this legislation.  In response  to Chair Sutton,                                                               
Ms. Aspelund  said that she  listened to  the work group  and was                                                               
support staff for it.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 1292                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SEATON asked  if, under  vessel licenses,  the work  group                                                               
considered  the amount  of [vessels  owned  by] residents  versus                                                               
nonresidents.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS.  ASPELUND related  that the  data isn't  yet available.   She                                                               
informed  the   committee  that  one  of   the  difficulties  and                                                               
complexities  in this  process  is juxtaposing  federal data  and                                                               
state data.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  OGG  asked  if   the  work  group  discussed  who                                                               
actually fished the boats as  opposed to who were absentee owners                                                               
who didn't fish.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. ASPELUND said that is  included in the data request regarding                                                               
residency,  which isn't  available  yet.   The  [work group]  has                                                               
mainly  focused  on the  statutory  and  constitutional boxes  by                                                               
which  they're constrained.   Many  folks are  familiar with  the                                                               
federal  statutes and  regulations,  but less  familiar with  the                                                               
state process.   Therefore,  most of the  discussion has  been in                                                               
regard to the state's authority.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SEATON  recalled  that  Mr.  Dersham  had  said  that  the                                                               
department  had said  [the Board  of Fisheries]  didn't have  the                                                               
ability to  manage a  longline fishery  or the  parallel fishery.                                                               
The  aforementioned seems  to be  the driving  force [behind  the                                                               
legislation].  Therefore, he requested an explanation.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 1087                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HERMAN  SAVIKKO,  Fisheries  Biologist,  Division  of  Commercial                                                               
Fisheries, Alaska  Department of Fish  & Game (ADF&G),  turned to                                                               
the  question of  gear.   He  explained that  when  the Board  of                                                               
Fisheries originally developed a  state water fishery for Pacific                                                               
cod, the gear in use was reviewed.   Of the four major gear group                                                               
users,  the pot  and jig  have the  least impact  on halibut  by-                                                               
catch, which is  why the fishery within 0-3  miles was restricted                                                               
to that gear.   However, the department doesn't  have the ability                                                               
to  allocate  additional prohibited  species  catch  in that  0-3                                                               
miles.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON recalled  the change in the state  water Pacific cod                                                               
fishery, which  was partially based  on the halibut  [by-catch in                                                               
the 0-3].   He  asked if the  board's guidelines  are problematic                                                               
because they include low by-catch  gear and don't allow the board                                                               
to regulate the parallel fishery.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. SAVIKKO  clarified that halibut  are an  international treaty                                                               
fish and the [International  Pacific] Halibut Commission actually                                                               
dictates the allowable catch and  the allowable by-catch in those                                                               
fisheries.   A number for  the by-catch  in the 0-3  mile fishery                                                               
isn't  specified.   In  further  response  to Chair  Seaton,  Mr.                                                               
Savikko  specified that  he is  referring to  by-catch retention.                                                               
He explained  that in order to  have a fishery from  0-3 miles, a                                                               
specific  amount of  halibut by-catch  wouldn't  be allocated  to                                                               
longline gear.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON offered,  "I guess it's a prohibited  species in the                                                               
P-cod  [Pacific  cod] fishery  wherever  it  occurs so  it's  not                                                               
allocated to  the P-cod  fishery in federal  waters either.   So,                                                               
... it has to be thrown back  from January 1 until the opening of                                                               
the  halibut  fishery."   He  questioned  whether he  is  missing                                                               
something.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 0828                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
GLENN   MERRILL,  Sable   Fisheries  Division,   National  Marine                                                               
Fisheries  Service  (NMFS),  explained   that  when  the  federal                                                               
government  establishes  by-catch  rates for  various  fisheries,                                                               
it's  done  in concert  with  the  International Pacific  Halibut                                                               
Commission  (IPHC).   When the  aforementioned is  done, specific                                                               
rates  are established  for  certain time  periods  based on  the                                                               
amounts necessary  to maintain  the groundfish  fishery.   In the                                                               
case of the  longline fishery, there is a  specific allocation of                                                               
by-catch  mortality, which  is provided  on an  annual basis  and                                                               
broken into seasons.  The  aforementioned can be taken in federal                                                               
and  state  waters during  the  parallel  fishery.   However,  he                                                               
understood  Mr. Savikko  to be  pointing out  that there  isn't a                                                               
separate  process  for establishing  a  halibut  by-catch cap  or                                                               
mortality  cap within  state waters  specific to  a state-managed                                                               
fishery.    The  aforementioned   would  need  to  be  negotiated                                                               
separately with IPHC.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON surmised then that  the fish with an established by-                                                               
catch rate and  by-catch mortality rate caught  with longlines in                                                               
the parallel  fishery in state waters  aren't currently allocated                                                               
to  a state  water fishery  because it  hasn't been  established.                                                               
However, if  that same  fishery continued to  occur, he  asked if                                                               
Mr. Merrill  is saying  the council or  the IPHC  wouldn't extend                                                               
the  same  by-catch and  mortality  rate  in  the fishery  as  it                                                               
currently occurs.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. MERRILL replied that the  state could negotiate that with the                                                               
IPHC in concert with the council.   However, the point is that it                                                               
doesn't currently exist.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 0607                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DAVID   POLUSHKIN,  K-Bay   Fishing  Association,   informed  the                                                               
committee  that the  K-Bay Fishing  Association is  a small  boat                                                               
longline fleet out  of Homer.  The boats in  the fleet range from                                                               
32  feet to  50 feet.   Currently,  there are  34 members  in the                                                               
association and  the membership is 100  percent Alaska residents.                                                               
He noted  that during the winter  the members fish mostly  out of                                                               
Kodiak.  Mr. Polushkin opined that  SB 347 is intended to curtail                                                               
the race for  fish while the federal  government proceeds through                                                               
the rationalization  of the Gulf  of Alaska.   The state  is also                                                               
doing  its part  of  the  process, he  remarked.   Mr.  Polushkin                                                               
related that  the K-Bay Fishing  Association does support  SB 347                                                               
as it's  the beginning  of the  rationalization process  and will                                                               
help  those  currently  participating in  the  fishing  industry.                                                               
Furthermore, it will  help those Alaska residents  fishing in the                                                               
Pacific-cod fishery.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 0485                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JULIE BONNEY informed the committee  that she represents 25 trawl                                                               
vessels that  fish out of  Kodiak in  the Central Gulf  of Alaska                                                               
regulatory  area.   Most of  the vessels  aren't operated  by the                                                               
owner.  Therefore,  if there is a move to  a permit-based skipper                                                               
program,  there will  be a  disconnection which  the owner  won't                                                               
have  a permit  to access  inside (indisc.).   In  order for  the                                                               
fishery to  operate efficiently,  the owner  on shore  deals with                                                               
the vessel to deal with the  mechanics, gear, and delivery to the                                                               
processor.  It's  normal for the owner not to  operate the vessel                                                               
in this gear type.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. BONNEY  pointed out  that the federal  process has  looked at                                                               
the  ownership of  limited liability  partnerships  (LLPs).   For                                                               
groundfish in the North Pacific, it  has been found that the Gulf                                                               
of  Alaska  has  the  highest amount  of  Alaska  residents  that                                                               
participate in that  fishery.  In the central Gulf  of Alaska, 85                                                               
percent of the fixed gear  vessels are owned by Alaska residents.                                                               
Within  the  trawler fleet,  Alaska  ownership  is between  30-50                                                               
percent whereas  the AFA and the  pollock in the Bering  Sea only                                                               
have  about  6  percent  Alaska  ownership.    Therefore,  giving                                                               
permits to vessels really means  giving permits to Alaskans.  Ms.                                                               
Bonney concluded  by urging the  committee to forward SB  347 and                                                               
to ensure that vessel owners have access to obtain the permit.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BONNEY,  in response  to  Chair  Seaton, suggested  that  he                                                               
request from  ADF&G documentation provided by  Northern Economics                                                               
regarding the number of Alaska  residents versus nonresidents for                                                               
every groundfish fishery in the Gulf of Alaska.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. ASPELUND indicated that  the aforementioned information would                                                               
be provided to the committee.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0183                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JOE SULLIVAN,  Attorney at Law, Mundt  MacGregor L.L.P., informed                                                               
the  committee that  he represents  the  City of  Kodiak in  Gulf                                                               
groundfish rationalization  issues.   He mentioned  that he  is a                                                               
member  of  the  board's  Gulf  groundfish  rationalization  task                                                               
force.    He  said  he   supports  the  general  changes  to  the                                                               
moratorium  provisions.   Furthermore,  he said  he supports  the                                                               
adoption of the Gulf groundfish  moratorium components of SB 347.                                                               
Rationalization is important for the  Gulf of Alaska, in terms of                                                               
addressing  resource  issues and  the  need  to address  economic                                                               
stability in  the Gulf of  Alaska.   It's necessary to  level the                                                               
playing field  as there are  other groundfish fisheries,  such as                                                               
Bering  Sea pollock,  halibut,  and sable  fish,  that have  been                                                               
rationalized.   Mr.  Sullivan highlighted  the importance  of the                                                               
groundfish fishermen in the Gulf  of Alaska having the same tools                                                               
available as is to other fisheries.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. SULLIVAN turned  to the point of view of  the task force, and                                                               
commented that  the moratorium  is intended  to be  a placeholder                                                               
rather than  a program.  The  notion behind this is  to stabilize                                                               
the  fishery  while  the  ultimate  program  is  being  developed                                                               
through the CFEC [process].                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 04-18, SIDE B                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. SULLIVAN said that a  vessel-based approach is preferable for                                                               
purposes of maintaining the stability  within the fleet currently                                                               
participating  in  the  Gulf   of  Alaska  groundfish  fisheries.                                                               
Often, vessels have  skippers who are individuals  other than the                                                               
owners   and  sometimes   there  are   multiple  skippers.     He                                                               
highlighted  that  a  person-based  permit system  may  strand  a                                                               
vessel and  it's crew with the  owner being unable to  employ the                                                               
boat.    The  aforementioned  situation   could  also  result  in                                                               
allocating a number  of permits, which could  increase the amount                                                               
of participation in the fishery.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 0105                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. SULLIVAN  opined that the  committee has identified  a couple                                                               
of important issues  that should be addressed  in connection with                                                               
the legislation.  One such issue  is related to what is done when                                                               
a  vessel has  been  lost or  transferred  during the  moratorium                                                               
qualification   period.     The   legislation  contemplates   the                                                               
aforementioned situation  after the moratorium permits  have been                                                               
issued.     However,  the   legislation  doesn't   contemplate  a                                                               
situation in which  one party owned the vessel while  it made the                                                               
qualifying landings and transferred  the vessel to another person                                                               
while the seller  retained all the fishing rights.   Unless there                                                               
are provisions to allow the seller  to apply for a vessel permit,                                                               
there will  be problems.   Therefore, one should consider  how to                                                               
address the aforementioned situation.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. SULLIVAN  turned to  the long-term program  and said  that it                                                               
wasn't the expectation  of the members of the task  force that it                                                               
would necessarily consider a  vessel-based program going forward.                                                               
The  discussions  were about  working  on  a program  that  would                                                               
address  a trans-boundary  fishery  because the  pollock and  cod                                                               
stocks in the  Gulf of Alaska move back and  forth between the 3-                                                               
mile  line.   Without  a  companion system  under  which a  state                                                               
system  is  coordinated  with  a federal  system,  there  is  the                                                               
potential to  disrupt the  activities of  the fishing  fleet that                                                               
has  fished those  trans-boundary  stocks.   The  NPFMC has  been                                                               
reviewing a  person-based system, and therefore  he surmised that                                                               
the  state would  want to  review how  to develop  a person-based                                                               
eligibility  and  rationalization  system  that  would  meet  the                                                               
state's  constitutional  requirements   and  policy  goals  while                                                               
coordinating  with the  federal  system that  is  expected to  be                                                               
person-based  as  well.   He  concluded  by reiterating  that  he                                                               
didn't believe the ultimate system should be vessel-based.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 0425                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SAM COTTON,  speaking on  behalf of  the Aleutians  East Borough,                                                               
informed the committee  that he is also a member  of the Board of                                                               
Fisheries  groundfish  committee.   He  explained  that the  Sand                                                               
Point, King Cove, and False  Pass areas have resident fleets that                                                               
use trawl,  pot, and  jig gear  to harvest  groundfish, primarily                                                               
Pacific cod and  pollock in the western Gulf.   Most of the hook-                                                               
and-line fishing  is done  by nonresidents.   Mr.  Cotton related                                                               
that  there is  support  for this  proposed  moratorium from  his                                                               
communities,  especially  in  light  of  the  possibility  of  an                                                               
expanded state  fishery.  As  Mr. Dersham pointed out,  there are                                                               
two  different  state  fisheries.    Under  the  Gulf  of  Alaska                                                               
rationalization proposals, there  is a risk that  the state would                                                               
lose  management  control  over  some of  those  fish  that  have                                                               
historically been harvested in state waters.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  COTTON acknowledged  concerns  with regard  to owner  versus                                                               
operator issues.   There are  also concerns with regard  to boats                                                               
larger than 58 feet that fish  in the parallel fishery that would                                                               
be grandfathered  in somehow.   In the  state water  fishery, the                                                               
boat must  be 58 feet or  smaller in the western  Gulf.  However,                                                               
during  the parallel  fishery in  state waters  larger boats  can                                                               
enter and have  a great advantage because they can  put more gear                                                               
in the  water.  Therefore, he  wasn't sure how folks  would react                                                               
to grandfathering  those boats  into a state  fishery.   There is                                                               
also concern  because although there may  be restrictions related                                                               
to size, the  ticket could be passed to another  boat.  Moreover,                                                               
there is  concern regarding whether  this could apply  to pollock                                                               
as well as cod.  There are a  few local boats that are capable of                                                               
harvesting all of  the pollock that's allowed.  In  fact, as much                                                               
as 75  percent of the pollock  harvested in the western  Gulf has                                                               
been taken within state waters.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR.  COTTON  related  his  understanding that  SB  347  won't  be                                                               
reported  from committee  from today,  which would  [be agreeable                                                               
because  it would]  allow  the advisory  committees  to meet  and                                                               
discuss  the  issues.    Most  of the  members  of  the  advisory                                                               
committees  are  fishermen  and  have been  fishing  as  the  jig                                                               
fishery is still open, he noted.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON confirmed that the legislation will be held over.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  COTTON turned  to the  statistics describing  boat size  and                                                               
other issues and  informed the committee that  the department has                                                               
provided  some  raw data.    He  opined  that  once the  data  is                                                               
complete, it's  the data to  which folks should refer  because it                                                               
will be the most recent and most exhaustive research.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0833                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
GLENN  CARROLL, Fisherman,  informed  the committee  that he  has                                                               
fished in  the pot and jig  fishery for Pacific cod  for about 10                                                               
years and has  participated in the Board of  Fisheries task force                                                               
group.  Mr. Carroll related his  view that the task force and the                                                               
Board of Fisheries envision most  of the issues and concerns will                                                               
be taken  up next year.   Mr. Carroll related that  in general he                                                               
supported  the  legislation.    However,  as  a  result  of  this                                                               
[legislation] the  jig fishery will  be disenfranchised.   Again,                                                               
he expressed hope that the jig  fishery can be addressed once the                                                               
moratorium is in place.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 0963                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BUCK LAUKITIS,  Fisherman, commended the  goal of SB 347  and the                                                               
Board of Fisheries and Mr. Dersham  for their work on the Gulf of                                                               
Alaska   groundfish  rationalization.      The  Gulf   groundfish                                                               
fisheries issues are  complex.  As a state issue,  there are more                                                               
species,  vessels,  gear  types, and  communities  involved  than                                                               
probably salmon limited entry in  the 1970s.  Mr. Laukitis opined                                                               
that  there is  the  potential to  unlock  economic benefits  for                                                               
coastal  communities in  the state,  if  all rationalization  was                                                               
handled  successfully.    A well-developed  plan  would  make  it                                                               
possible to  control rates of  harvest, improve  product quality,                                                               
promote harvest  during processor synergies, enhance  safety, and                                                               
ensure  the  sustainability  of  the  resources.    However,  the                                                               
failure  to   act  would   seriously  disadvantage   state  water                                                               
participants  because  of  the pending  rationalization  program.                                                               
Although SB  347 is an  interim step toward a  more comprehensive                                                               
groundfish  rationalization  plan,  he  opined that  the  use  of                                                               
vessels rather  than permits  probably predetermines  the outcome                                                               
of the  final plan.   The aforementioned is a  significant policy                                                               
that should be fully addressed.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. LAUKITIS  related his own  experience in the state  water cod                                                               
fishery in  which he has  been an owner  and operator of  his own                                                               
family-owned  boat.    He  recalled  that  he  has  been  in  the                                                               
following  situations:    running  a boat  as  a  hired  skipper;                                                               
leasing a  boat that  he operated;  hiring a  skipper to  run his                                                               
boat;  and  being a  skipper  of  a boat  that  he  owned with  a                                                               
business partner.   Therefore, in  six years he has  fished under                                                               
five different business structures on  four different boats.  Mr.                                                               
Laukitis said that a vessel moratorium  will work for him as will                                                               
a permit-based system  because an owner and/or  operator would be                                                               
covered  under  either  situation.   He  related  the  following,                                                               
"Permits  are  issued to  individuals  in  state water  fisheries                                                               
because the  state thought it  would be  a good policy  to ensure                                                               
that  persons, not  companies,  canneries,  banks, or  investment                                                               
groups  be  allowed  to  control the  privilege  to  harvest  the                                                               
state's resources."   Mr. Laukitis  stressed the need  to realize                                                               
that non  owner-operated business structures  are disenfranchised                                                               
by a  permit moratorium while  skippers are disenfranchised  by a                                                               
vessel moratorium.  Therefore, the  question is regarding whether                                                               
it's  possible to  develop moratorium  criteria  to include  both                                                               
permits  and   vessels.     He  related   his  belief   that  the                                                               
aforementioned  is  possible,  and therefore  it's  important  to                                                               
pursue this.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1313                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
YAKOV REUTOV, Fisherman, related his support of SB 347.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
ALAN  PARKS  said that  although  he  supported  SB 347,  he  was                                                               
concerned with the  vessel-based permit system.   He reminded the                                                               
committee  of  his  testimony  regarding  the  Korean  hair  crab                                                               
fishery in which  he had feared [moving to  a vessel-based permit                                                               
system]  would  be  used  as   a  precedent,  which  is  what  is                                                               
happening.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
ILIA  KUZMIN,  Fisherman,  informed  the committee  that  he  has                                                               
fished in the  Gulf of Alaska for  about 10 years.   He said that                                                               
he supports SB 347 and Mr. Laukitis' testimony.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 1471                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JOE  CHILDERS,  Director,  Western   Gulf  of  Alaska  Fishermen,                                                               
informed  the committee  that Western  Gulf  of Alaska  Fishermen                                                               
consist of 23  vessels that are combination vessels  that fish in                                                               
most of the fisheries in the  Gulf of Alaska.  The commonality in                                                               
the  group  is that  all  [the  vessels] are  Western  Gulf-based                                                               
trawlers.   Mr. Childers related  that the  organization supports                                                               
the legislation.   He  opined that the  most important  aspect of                                                               
this is  the fact that  this issue has  been elevated so  high in                                                               
the Alaska State Legislature.  This  is a very important piece of                                                               
legislation that  will be  a part of  the rationalization  of the                                                               
Gulf   of  Alaska   groundfish   fisheries   and  the   remaining                                                               
unrationalized  fisheries  in Alaska.    He  explained that  this                                                               
legislation is trying  to address the fact that there  is a state                                                               
water fishery,  a parallel fishery,  and a federal fishery.   The                                                               
parallel fishery is  managed by the state  and federal government                                                               
and it overlaps  state water boundaries.   Therefore, any efforts                                                               
implemented   on   behalf  of   the   federal   system  for   the                                                               
rationalization  effort are  fairly  well nullified  by the  fact                                                               
that people  can fish  state water  under the  same tax  and thus                                                               
create  a race  for  fish  inside state  waters.    The Board  of                                                               
Fisheries  task force,  of which  Mr. Childers  is a  member, has                                                               
been  grappling  with this  issue  for  some  nine months.    The                                                               
moratorium is basically an effort  to stop folks from piling into                                                               
the fisheries that  aren't economically viable today.   It's true                                                               
that fewer people  are participating today than in the  past.  In                                                               
fact, many of  these fisheries are very depressed.   Mr. Childers                                                               
informed the committee that the  Western Gulf of Alaska Fishermen                                                               
support the  moratorium legislation and being  vessel-based.  The                                                               
support for  the vessel-based system  is because  these fisheries                                                               
don't  need to  have more  participants eligible  than have  ever                                                               
fished.  The  efficacy of the vessel-based moratorium  is that it                                                               
places  a  cap  on  participation.   Mr.  Childers  concluded  by                                                               
highlighting that  the moratorium  legislation is just  that, not                                                               
rationalization legislation.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1701                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON announced that there  would be another hearing on SB
347.  [SB 347 was held over.]                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being no further business before the committee, the House                                                                 
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:3                                                                    
a.m.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                

Document Name Date/Time Subjects