Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/14/2004 08:40 AM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
April 14, 2004
8:40 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Cheryll Heinze
Representative Dan Ogg
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 322
"An Act relating to the rate of the salmon enhancement tax."
- MOVED SB 322 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 322
SHORT TITLE: SALMON ENHANCEMENT TAX
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)
03/02/04 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/02/04 (S) Moved SB 322 Out of Committee
03/02/04 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/03/04 (S) L&C RPT 3DP 1NR
03/03/04 (S) DP: BUNDE, SEEKINS, STEVENS G;
03/03/04 (S) NR: FRENCH
03/23/04 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/23/04 (S) Heard & Held
03/23/04 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/29/04 (S) FIN RPT 3DP 4NR
03/29/04 (S) DP: WILKEN, BUNDE, STEVENS B;
03/29/04 (S) NR: GREEN, DYSON, HOFFMAN, OLSON
03/29/04 (H) FIN AT 9:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/29/04 (S) Moved SB 322 Out of Committee
03/29/04 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/05/04 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/05/04 (S) VERSION: SB 322
04/06/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/06/04 (H) FSH, FIN
04/14/04 (H) FSH AT 8:30 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
03/29/04 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/04 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/05/04 (H) FSH AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/05/04 (H) Heard & Held
04/05/04 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/14/04 (H) FSH AT 8:30 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 322 on behalf of Senator Ben
Stevens, sponsor, who chairs the Task Force.
SUE ASPELUND, Federal Management Research Coordinator
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Related that CSSB 347(RES) most closely
reflects the status quo in the fishery, which is what is trying
to be achieved by the proposed moratorium.
MARY McDOWELL, Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC)
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed HCS CSSB 347, Version W.
HERMAN SAVIKKO, Fish Biologist
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the discussion of SB 347, answered
questions.
JEFF STEPHAN
United Fishermen's Marketing Association (UFMA)
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed UFMA's preference for CSSB
347(RES).
DUNCAN FIELDS
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 347, expressed
concerns.
MICHAEL MARTIN, commercial fisherman
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the discussion of SB 347, testified
in support of the moratorium for vessels but not captains.
ALEXUS KWACHKA, commercial fisherman
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 347, testified in
opposition to the moratorium and the skipper portion of the
legislation as well.
ROBIN CLARK
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 347,strongly
endorse the status quo for cod fisheries.
DONNIE LAWHEAD, JR., commercial fisherman
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 347, testified in
opposition to a moratorium in the groundfish fisheries.
JULIE KAVANAUGH
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with regard to SB 347.
JULIE BONNEY
Alaska Groundfish Data Bank
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the Alaska Groundfish Data
Bank supports CSSB 347(RES).
AL BURCH, Executive Director
Alaska Draggers Association
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 347, expressed the
need for stability in the commercial fishing industry.
RON PAINTER
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 347, requested a
moratorium for vessels rather than skippers.
SARA HAINES
"Fish Heads"
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 347, urged the
committee to let the realities of economics determine
capitalization.
FRANCIS COSTELLO
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As a hired skipper, expressed concerns with
SB 347 not having any provisions regarding hired skippers.
SHAUN KOSON
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 347, noted his
support of open access [to the fishery].
HAROLD JONES
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with SB 347.
ALAN PARKS
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT:
RACHEL BAKER
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 347, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-21, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 8:40 a.m. Representatives Seaton,
Heinze, Ogg, and Samuels were present at the call to order.
Representatives Guttenberg and Gara arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
SB 322-SALMON ENHANCEMENT TAX
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 322, "An Act relating to the rate of the salmon
enhancement tax."
Number 0059
CHERYL SUTTON, Staff to the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry
Task Force, Alaska State Legislature, presented SB 322 on behalf
of Senator Ben Stevens, sponsor, who chairs the Task Force.
This legislation, she explained, merely adds additional tax
rates of 30, 20, 15, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, and 4 percent to the
salmon enhancement tax. She further explained that under
current law, commercial salmon interim-use and entry permit
holders organized under regional aquaculture associations may
vote to tax themselves at the rates of 1, 2, and 3 percent. The
collected revenues pass through the Department of Revenue to the
Department of Community & Economic Development (DCED) and back
out to the regional aquaculture associations in order to fund
the operations and programs of those associations.
MS. SUTTON related that SB 322 was introduced because during the
interim Senator Ben Stevens chaired the Hatchery Subcommittee of
the Task Force during which much concern was related in regard
to cost-recovery practices for the hatcheries. Some wanted to
have the ability and flexibility to quickly "buy down" their
debt service. She highlighted that this is a totally optional
tax rate. In response to Chair Seaton, Ms. Sutton confirmed
that SB 322 merely changes the tax rates, not the collection
procedures or pass-through amounts.
Number 0301
REPRESENTATIVE OGG inquired as to the percentage required to
change the aquaculture associations' tax.
MS. SUTTON answered that the statute, AS 43.76.015(a)(1) reads
as follows: "it is approved by a majority vote of the eligible
interim-use permit (IUP) and entry permit holders voting in an
election held under this section in the region;".
CHAIR SEATON mentioned that there have been questions with
regard to cost-recovery fish and the high percentage of cost-
recovery fish that are taken by some of the hatcheries. Some in
the state would rather impose a high total tax and not have cost
recovery occur at all. Therefore, the fishermen would be free
to catch all of the fish rather than have special harvest areas.
This legislation would provide fishermen another option by which
they could fund the fisheries without having to segregate the
fish.
Number 0426
REPRESENTATIVE OGG moved to report SB 322 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
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."
CHAIR SEATON noted that the committee packet should include a
number of e-mails, faxes, and letters as well as a revised
fiscal note.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:50 a.m. to 8:53 a.m.
Number 0576
REPRESENTATIVE OGG moved to adopt HCS CSSB 347, Version 23-
LS1677\W, Utermohle, 4/13/04, as the working document.
CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion purposes.
Number 0650
SUE ASPELUND, Federal Management Research Coordinator, Office of
the Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G),
related that if ADF&G had to choose between CSSB 347(RES) and
Version W, it would support CSSB 347(RES). The department
believes that CSSB 347(RES) most closely reflects the status quo
in the fishery, which is what is trying to be achieved by the
proposed moratorium.
Number 0702
MARY McDOWELL, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC), Alaska Department of Fish & Game, reminded
the committee that CSSB 347(RES) created a moratorium on the
entry of new vessels into the ground fisheries in the Gulf of
Alaska (GOA). Version W, in an attempt to address concerns
heard [at the last hearing], proposes a double moratorium.
Version W would maintain the moratorium on the entry of new
vessels into the ground fisheries in the GOA as well as impose a
moratorium on the entry of new interim-use permit holders.
Therefore, Version W would "cap both the vessels and the persons
operating the vessels at those who had made any landings at all
of groundfish in these areas during the qualifying years." The
qualifying years are 1998 through the effective date of the
legislation. Version W intends to address the perception that
creating a moratorium only on vessels would drive a future
limitation program. While [CFEC] doesn't share that view, it
understands it. Therefore, Version W would cap everything
during the course of the moratorium and research would be done
to determine how to propose moving ahead with the future of [the
groundfish fisheries.
MS. McDOWELL noted that on page 5, subsection (g) corrects an
oversight in drafting. She explained that originally the
legislation was drafted such that [CFEC] was authorized to
perform capacity restrictions on a vessel permit. Therefore, if
one grandfathers in with a certain size vessel, one can't grow
into a larger vessel during the moratorium. The aforementioned
ability is also provided with a person-based moratorium if one
grandfathers into the moratorium by having participated on a
certain size boat. Ms. McDowell highlighted that this is an
ability available in the limited entry program for person-based
permits. Originally, the understanding was that since interim-
use permits can already have capacity constraints it would be
covered for a moratorium as well. However, that isn't the case
because the language in the capacity constraints portion of the
"other bill" specifies that a limited entry permit in a limited
fishery can have capacity constraints. Therefore, the language
"new persons" on page 5, line 9, corrects that oversight.
Number 1083
CHAIR SEATON surmised then that one would have to have both a
vessel moratorium permit and an interim-use moratorium permit.
He further surmised that an individual who fished on a 35-foot
longliner wouldn't be able to be hired on a 50-foot longliner or
utilize one of the other moratorium vessels that was a 50-foot
longliner.
MS. McDOWELL clarified that [subsection (g) on page 5] doesn't
pertain to the groundfish moratorium. In fact, under the
groundfish provisions in Version W a person with any
participation in any of the groundfish fisheries during the
moratorium could qualify to fish any type of gear, area, or
vessel size under the moratorium.
MS. ASPELUND turned attention to Section 9 of Version W, which
creates the groundfish moratorium. She explained that Section 9
has been restructured such that subsection (a) establishes the
moratorium and provides for the extension. Subsection (a) [on
page 7, line 12] is equivalent to the old [subsection] (d) in
CSSB 347(RES). Subsection (b) is the old [subsection] (k) in
CSSB 347(RES), which describes the investigation and evaluation
of the permit program that ADF&G and the Board of Fisheries are
required to perform during the moratorium. She noted that
subsection (b) specifies that any proposals will come before the
legislature for any legislation or constitutional amendments
necessary to implement [those proposals]. In response to Chair
Seaton, Ms. Aspelund pointed out that the January 1, 2011, date
is identical to that in CSSB 347(RES). She explained that the
moratorium period begins on January 1, 2005, and can proceed for
four years to 2008. If [CFEC] finds it necessary, it can be
extended for another two years to December 31, 2010, or January
1, 2011.
Number 1323
REPRESENTATIVE OGG referred to page 7, lines 22-24, and asked if
the intent is for any proposal during the qualifying years of
the moratorium to go before the legislature.
MS. ASPELUND confirmed that Senator [Ben] Stevens expressly
requested that language be included.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG posed a situation in which the Board of
Fisheries and CFEC decided that it had authority under present
regulations.
MS. ASPELUND interjected that in that case, one wouldn't have to
come to the legislature. Ms. Aspelund clarified that the
language [on page 7, lines 22-24] refers to any proposal that
can be accomplished under the current regulations and statutes.
CHAIR SEATON posed a situation in which the Board of Fisheries
decided it wanted to place a 60-foot limit on Cook Inlet, which
doesn't currently have a size limit. He surmised the
aforementioned would be permissible at any time without
returning to the legislature.
MS. ASPELUND agreed so long as it's within [the Board of
Fisheries] existing authority to do so.
Number 1464
REPRESENTATIVE OGG turned attention to page 6, line 29, and
requested explanation of subsection (n).
MS. McDOWELL explained that under the current limited entry
program, if one establishes eligibility for a permit as a
person, all fish ticket data is in the name of the skipper, the
IUP holder. Therefore, if CFEC needs to determine whether the
individual participated during the period under review for
eligibility, it's available on the fish ticket by the skipper's
name. She then turned to the case of a moratorium in which a
vessel can't participate unless the vessel participated in the
fishery during those qualifying years. In such a scenario, if
the vessel owner is different from whoever made the landings or
the vessel owner has changed since the landings, the vessel
owner applying for the use privilege may not have access to fish
tickets to prove that vessel participated. Therefore,
subsection (n) provides a vessel owner the ability to access the
landing records of the vessel in order to prove eligibility for
a permit during a moratorium.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG surmised then that the power being given to
the commission to declare moratoriums includes the ability to
allow vessel owners access to [landing records of their boat] in
order to prove their eligibility, if necessary.
CHAIR SEATON pointed out, "The way this is written that is
necessary to apply for a vessel permit. So, if participation is
required, then no confidential information really needs to be
released to the vessel owner. Is that correct?"
MS. McDOWELL confirmed that all that's necessary to prove
eligibility is that a landing was made.
CHAIR SEATON expressed the need to be sure that this isn't being
opened further than necessary. He related his understanding
that the intent is to only release the information necessary to
apply, and therefore only the fact that a delivery had been made
to the vessel owner would be released. Fish ticket information
wouldn't be released at all.
MS. McDOWELL agreed. She added that normally for eligibility
people don't need to ask for fish tickets because the ADF&G
number is on the fish ticket and CFEC can determine on what
vessel it was landed. Therefore, the records would probably
only need to be released in a case in which there is a dispute
over participation.
Number 1779
REPRESENTATIVE OGG pointed out that Section 10 also deals with
this issue, although it cites different statutes.
MS. McDOWELL clarified that what has been discussed [with
Section 7(n)] refers to the generic portion of the legislation,
which refers to future moratoriums while Section 10 applies
specifically to the groundfish moratorium.
MS. McDOWELL continued her review of the legislation with
[subsection] (c) of Section 9, which establishes how the person-
based moratorium would work. Any landings of any species in any
area, using any gear type on any size vessel during qualifying
years would make a person eligible to participate during a
moratorium. Essentially, a person would have the same choices
of participating in any of the fisheries in any of the areas,
although new participants wouldn't be allowed. In order to use
statewide permits for miscellaneous finfish or sable fish for
the species covered by this moratorium, the individual must have
an endorsement specifying that he or she is eligible to use his
or her permit in the area. Therefore, [subsection (c)]
establishes a one-time eligibility application-processing fee of
$50. If an individual is found to be eligible, the person would
have to purchase the same IUP permit prior to the moratorium in
order to participate in the groundfish fisheries. However, the
individual would be authorized to receive an endorsement on his
or her permit. She mentioned that the regulations for the
statewide permits will have to be changed such that it specifies
"these statewide permits are now everything for this period of
time, but for the fisheries defined by this moratorium." Ms.
McDowell opined that this provides the IUP holders flexibility
during the moratorium and provides vessel owners flexibility
with regard to who is available to be a skipper. She
highlighted that this doesn't divide the IUP holders into
individual fisheries as does the vessel moratorium.
CHAIR SEATON noted that currently the Board of Fisheries has
regulations with exclusive and superexclusive management areas
for say Pacific Cod. He asked if that exclusivity or super
exclusivity for Area M, Cook Inlet, Prince William Sound, and
Kodiak are based on the permit holder or the vessel.
MS. McDOWELL deferred to Mr. Savikko.
Number 2051
HERMAN SAVIKKO, Fish Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish &
Game, explained the every vessel is required to register with
the department before going fishing. Therefore, he related his
understanding that the vessel would be limited to participation
in a specific area. Mr. Savikko confirmed that the
aforementioned is the case with the groundfish fisheries now.
CHAIR SEATON related his understanding then that currently an
individual participating as a permit holder in a superexclusive
area can use another vessel to participate in another exclusive
area such as Kodiak.
MR. SAVIKKO agreed that such was his understanding as well.
MS. McDOWELL interjected that the aforementioned wouldn't be
impacted by the moratorium.
Number 2112
MS. McDOWELL returned to her review of Version W. She pointed
out that in [Section 9 subsection] (f), a $50 reissuance fee for
vessels is added.
MS. ASPELUND noted that although the language on [page 8] lines
21-24 is new language, it's typical language used within a
vessel moratorium. She clarified that it means the vessel
permit can't be used as collateral.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired as to how this deals with
federal action.
MS. McDOWELL pointed out that this is the same language used in
the current limited entry program and it's meant to protect
Alaska's fishing privileges from action by the federal
government. In further response to Representative Guttenberg,
Ms. McDowell related that the state is continually trying to
protect state-issued privileges from the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS). Thus far, the state has prevailed in
establishing that these [permits] aren't property that can be
attached and used as collateral. She noted that this is a use
privilege granted by the state, and therefore can be withdrawn
by it. It isn't property as recognized under tax codes, she
said.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked if there was a reason why that
particular language wasn't included for individual IUPs.
MS. McDOWELL explained that those are IUPs that are already
established in statute. "We're not creating a new kind of
permit here, we're just saying who may continue to get those,"
she further explained.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG related his understanding that it's an
endorsement to this permit, which makes it special and
different. Therefore, in a sense it's a new permit.
MS. McDOWELL explained that the endorsement will work as an area
designation rather than a new permit. The area designation for
this endorsement would [apply] statewide, including the GOA.
She confirmed that the existing statute already has that for
these permits.
Number 2347
REPRESENTATIVE OGG concluded then that this moratorium is
creating a new type of permit, a vessel permit, which doesn't
exist presently.
MS. McDOWELL replied yes.
CHAIR SEATON turned to page 8, line 25, and surmised that use of
the term "permit" throughout the legislation rather than
"license" takes care of any possible that the language "A vessel
permit" refers to a current CFEC vessel permit rather than a
moratorium vessel permit.
MS. McDOWELL agreed. She continued to the next change
encompassed in Version W, which can be found on page 9, line 30.
She explained that the provision on page 9, line 30, excludes
the same fisheries from the person-based moratorium as is
excluded from the vessel-based moratorium. If one participates
in the Prince William Sound sable fish fishery or any of the
halibut fisheries under the federal individual fish quota (IFQ)
system, the vessel permit or endorsement isn't necessary to
participate.
CHAIR SEATON drew attention to page 9, lines 1-3, which read:
"may reissue a vessel permit to another commercial fishing
vessel with an overall length that does not exceed the overall
length of a vessel that was sunk, destroyed, or damaged by more
than 10 percent ...". He pointed out that the aforementioned is
a different standard than what's specified at the end of the
same paragraph, which read: "... sunk, destroyed, or damaged,
to the extent that the vessel is inoperable for a state Gulf of
Alaska groundfish fishery;". Therefore, he expressed concern
with the seemingly dual standards.
MS. McDOWELL explained that the 10 percent means that the
[overall length of the new] vessel can't exceed the length of
the sunk, destroyed, or damaged vessel by more than 10 percent.
CHAIR SEATON questioned why a larger size vessel would be
allowed as a replacement if the goal is to constrain growth in
the fishery.
MS. McDOWELL answered that if a vessel is sunk or destroyed in
the middle of a fishing season, it can be difficult to find
another vessel the exact same length. In further response to
Chair Seaton, she confirmed that a smaller boat could be
utilized as a replacement.
CHAIR SEATON highlighted that by state law the [groundfish
fishery] vessel size is limited to 58 feet and that regulation
would remain in effect regardless of this moratorium allowing an
increase in length by no more than 10 percent when a vessel is
sunk, destroyed, or damaged.
MS. McDOWELL agreed that this provision doesn't supersede the
Board of Fisheries' regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG opined that the provision in Version W
would supersede the regulations because it would be in statute.
MS. McDOWELL clarified that this legislation specifies that
there can continue to be a moratorium permit, but the Board of
Fisheries' regulations would specify that a boat [larger than 58
feet] couldn't be fished in [the GOA].
MS. ASPELUND related that this legislation includes language
expressly specifying that nothing in this section will supersede
the Board of Fisheries regulations.
CHAIR SEATON surmised that the 10 percent designation is a
policy call.
MS. McDOWELL nodded in agreement. She then returned to the
review of Version W, and related that most of the provisions
make things parallel for the IUP and the vessel permit. She
noted that on page 10, lines 7-14, adds the interim-use to the
vessel [permit].
Number 2699
CHAIR SEATON returned attention to page 9, line 17, and asked if
this provision allows the transfer of the moratorium permit with
the vessel.
MS. McDOWELL replied yes.
CHAIR SEATON surmised then that a transfer of that license from
a vessel to another vessel would only be permitted if the vessel
is destroyed or damaged beyond operability.
MS. McDOWELL replied no. She explained that the provision on
page 9, lines 1-6, discusses that a vessel may be reissued if
it's sunk, destroyed, or damaged. However, the provision on
page 9, lines 17-19, speaks to a situation in which the vessel
owner opts to sell the vessel, in which case the vessel may
continue to participate in the fishery.
CHAIR SEATON posed a situation in which an individual with a
vessel that isn't more than 10 percent larger than an older
vessel wants to participate in the moratorium fishery. That
individual could purchase the older vessel [with moratorium
rights], sink/destroy it, and replace it with a vessel that is
up to 10 percent larger. Therefore, a new owner and a new
vessel would be brought into the state groundfish fishery. He
indicated that the aforementioned is traditionally done.
MS. McDOWELL said she didn't believe it could change size. If a
vessel owner opted to sell the vessel, the [moratorium rights]
could be transferred to the new vessel. The 10 percent increase
in size only refers to a situation in which a vessel [with
moratorium rights] is sunk or destroyed.
[Not on tape, but reconstructed from the committee secretary's
log notes, was MS. ASPELUND saying that Chair Seaton's example
was not how the provisions were intended, and therefore it
should be addressed if that is how it will be used.]
TAPE 04-21, SIDE B
CHAIR SEATON asked if the intent of subsection (g) on page 9,
line 20, is to allow the open gig fishery.
MS. McDOWELL replied yes. She then continued with subsections
(i) and (j), which has to do with moratorium participation not
counting for future use privileges and any permanent limitation
program. Subsection (i) flatly prohibits counting moratorium
participation for a future limitation program. With regard to
subsection (j), Ms. McDowell suggested the following revision
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 10, delete lines 22-27 and replace with:
"this section is subject to termination if the
commission adopts regulations establishing a permanent
limited access program for the fishery under AS
16.43.240 or under law enacted after the effective
date of this section. On or after the effective date
of regulations establishing a permanent limited access
program for that Gulf of Alaska fishery, the
moratorium established under this section for the
fishery is terminated and the"
MS. McDOWELL explained that subsection (j) attempts to alert
people to the fact that the moratorium could be shorter than
four years. Subsection (i) alerts people that some
consideration may be given to participation during a moratorium
in a subsequent limitation. Ms. McDowell encouraged the
committee to adopt the aforementioned revision to subsection
(j).
Number 2796
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked if the effect of subsection (j) is to
provide CFEC the ability to supersede the moratorium declared in
this legislation for any groundfish fishery, gear type, or time
period.
MS. McDOWELL clarified that subsection (j) doesn't allow CFEC to
supersede the moratorium other than to say that the moratorium
could be shorter than four years.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA expressed concern with the legislature
rather than CFEC deciding for which fisheries a moratorium
should be granted. He asked if subsection (j) allows CFEC to
extend the moratorium from what is specified in the legislation
or even end the moratorium [earlier than the four years
specified].
MS. McDOWELL specified that subsection (j) only applies to the
groundfish portion of the legislation. With regard to CFEC
being able to do things without returning to the legislature,
the generic moratorium of the legislation provides CFEC with the
authority to perform a full analysis. The groundfish portion of
the legislation is being created in statute because the Board of
Fisheries and ADF&G feel that action must be taken sooner than
[CFEC] could do it. Subsection (j) merely informs those
participating in the moratorium that if it's found that [CFEC]
could limit any of these fisheries under the existing permanent
limitation program, that could be done earlier than at the end
of the four-year moratorium. Subsection (j) also informs those
participating in the moratorium that the legislature could pass
another provision that could authorize CFEC to go ahead with a
different limited entry program sooner than at the end of the
four-year moratorium.
MS. McDOWELL, in further response to Representative Gara,
clarified that the generic portion of the legislation doesn't
pertain to these fisheries, which are limited under a different
subsection. [Subsection (j)] allows the timeframe specified in
the legislation to be overridden.
Number 2617
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that subsection (i) specifies that
participation of an IUP holder or a vessel during the moratorium
can't be used to establish eligibility in the future. However,
language on page 9, lines 28-30, specifies that perhaps
[participation in the moratorium will be used to establish
eligibility]. Chair Seaton opined that part of the reasoning
for this moratorium is to prevent a race for the fish. However,
the data for the proposal illustrates that there are
approximately three times as many vessels and permit holders
than are currently participating. Chair Seaton surmised that
since what is occurring during the moratorium may be used to
establish qualifications for a future program, it's establishing
a race for the fish because the clock is starting. Therefore,
if one wants to cover his or her potentials, then one should
fish in every fishery for which the individual is qualified even
if it isn't economic.
MS. McDOWELL acknowledged that this is a very inclusive
moratorium. However, she opined that the clock started years
ago. In fact, everyone knows that most every fishery will
eventually be limited. This was particularly the case with [the
groundfish] fishery. Although the aforementioned motivation has
been there for years, the number of participants has been steady
or declining in most of the fisheries. Ms. McDowell explained
that the concern is that if the federal government takes action
in the GOA or the Bering Sea, there could be a rush of new
participants, individuals who are excluded from other fisheries.
Number 2449
MS. McDOWELL related that CFEC feels it's critical to inform
people that [participation in the moratorium] may or may not
count. She reminded the committee that limited entry is only
constitutional if it grandfathers people in based on their
economic reliance on the fishery. In this case, the moratorium
could be six years long. Therefore, when deciding who can have
use privileges, a provision specifying that moratorium
participation may not count results in the situation of having
to grandfather people into permanent use privileges who may not
have participated in a decade. The inability to be able to
review whether an individual has continually been reliant on a
fishery is problematic with regard to maintaining a
constitutional, fair, and reasonable program. The language [on
page 10, lines 28-30] merely allows the ability, if necessary,
to provide people some credit for continued economic reliance
when determining permanent privileges.
CHAIR SEATON surmised then that Ms. McDowell is saying that the
moratorium may be unconstitutional if [recent economic reliance]
isn't counted.
MS. McDOWELL agreed, especially if the moratorium lasts for six
years.
CHAIR SEATON announced that this legislation will not be passed
out of committee today.
Number 2254
REPRESENTATIVE OGG commented that the last sentence of
subsection (j) will ensure that most everyone with a vessel will
want to fish because of the chance that the four-year or six-
year participation will count. Furthermore, it could allow the
fishermen to drag out the process. Representative Ogg opined
that without [the last sentence of subsection (j)] it seems to
encourage CFEC to act quicker and discourage fishermen from
dragging out the process.
MS. McDOWELL said that there are risks on both sides. From
CFEC's point of view, it supports "having that door open."
MS. ASPELUND related that [ADF&G] believes that in order to
develop the most effective programs possible, the [department]
needs the ability to use moratorium landings and participation,
if necessary, to design an appropriate program. Furthermore,
the [department] is trying really hard to design seamless
systems between the federal and state rationalization. There is
no desire to be in a position in which [the department] is
unable to respond in a way that's most beneficial to the state's
residents.
Number 2065
MS. ASPELUND informed the committee that subsection (m) [on page
6, lines 27-28] is the language to which she referred earlier
regarding Representative Guttenberg's question. The
aforementioned subsection reads as follows: "(m) Nothing in
this section limits the powers of the Board of Fisheries or the
Department of Fish and Game." She related her understanding
that the aforementioned language was carried forward in Section
9, although she couldn't find it. Therefore, she announced her
support of an amendment that would include the language [on page
6, lines 27-28] in Section 9.
CHAIR SEATON removed his objection to adopting Version W as the
work draft. Therefore, Version W was before the committee.
Number 1997
JEFF STEPHAN, United Fishermen's Marketing Association (UFMA),
related the UFMA's preference for CSSB 347(RES). Mr. Stephan
informed the committee that he is a member of the Gulf of Alaska
Groundfish Fisheries Rationalization Task Force under the Board
of Fisheries. Many of the meetings of the aforementioned task
force have been related to the general issue of aligning federal
management with state management for the GOA groundfish
rationalization. He expressed the need for the legislature to
act on this matter during this legislative session. The concept
of the original vessel moratorium was originally supported and
recommended by the [task force] and was subsequently adopted by
the Board of Fisheries. He echoed earlier comments regarding
the importance of aligning state management [with federal
management], to the greatest extent possible, without giving up
state jurisdiction.
MR. STEPHAN explained that his interest in this and supporting
the moratorium in [CSSB 347(RES)] is to accommodate the interest
of state GOA groundfish harvesters. The existing statutes don't
meet the needs of these harvesters nor do they provide the
provisions necessary to provide this alignment. If nothing is
done and CFEC and the federal government move forward, the
people at risk are state residents who may fish exclusively in
state waters or have some interest/participation in state and
federal waters.
MR. STEPHAN turned to the provisions regarding the permitting of
individuals and opined that it creates a closed class of
skippers, which may or may not be appropriate. The concern, he
related, is that it closes an opportunity for crewmembers to
move up to the skipper position. Furthermore, [the permitting
of individuals] doesn't enhance the objectives of the original
moratorium.
MR. STEPHAN, in response to Chair Seaton, stated that UFMA has
about 40 members.
CHAIR SEATON related that the rationale behind [Version W] is
that there is a vessel and a permit road. The state is
currently constructing its limited entry based on the permit
road. There is concern that a vessel moratorium would move down
the path of the federal program and there isn't enough time to
make the call at this point.
Number 1597
DUNCAN FIELDS noted that the committee packet should include his
written remarks and he encouraged the committee to review them.
Mr. Fields related his support of the changes encompassed in
pages 3-7 of the [Version W], which provides CFEC better
authority to impose a moratorium. However, he questioned
whether legislative imposed moratoriums are the way to go. Mr.
Fields stated that he and his constituency strongly advocate
that the imposition of a moratorium be based on individual
license holders rather than vessels. Version W encompasses a
moratorium based on individual license holders and on vessels.
He related his support of Version W as opposed to CSSB 347(RES).
He commented that he finds it difficult to understand why ADF&G
would continue to support a vessel-based moratorium because it
would create the opportunity for absentee ownership and non-
Alaskan ownership. If the vessel license limitation path is
chosen, someone should advocate for an owner-on-board provision
in order to maintain a nexus between the ownership in the
fishery and the vessels.
MR. FIELDS highlighted the importance of recognizing that there
is a large range of fisheries included in this legislation.
Most importantly, in 5 of the 20 groundfish pot fisheries, two
different fisheries are being encompassed. Included in those
five fisheries is a fishery that occurs when the federal fishery
is open, a parallel fishery, and there is a state-water fishery.
These two fisheries have different history, gear, and
prosecution. There is no relation between the two fisheries
other than that they are both managed in state waters.
Therefore, Mr. Fields suggested that the department provide
information regarding the differences in the state-water fishery
and the state parallel fishery for the five pot groundfish
fisheries being considered for a moratorium. Mr. Fields
informed the committee that his constituency strongly believes
that the state-water fishery should be exempt from the
moratorium. The state-water fishery was created as an entry-
level fishery and in areas such as Cook Inlet the fishery has
never fully developed and yet it's being considered for a
moratorium. "It's just not the best approach for managing the
state waters portion of the pot groundfish fishery," he opined.
In conclusion, Mr. Fields stated that this legislation needs a
lot of work.
Number 1322
The committee recessed to the call of the chair at 10:04 a.m.
[This is the end of the recording on Tape 04-21, Side B.]
TAPE 04-22, SIDE A
CHAIR SEATON reconvened the House Special Committee on Fisheries
at 5:07 p.m. Those present upon reconvening were
Representatives Seaton, Heinze, Ogg, and Gara. Representative
Guttenberg arrived as the reconvened meeting was in progress.
CHAIR SEATON requested that ADF&G and CFEC review the impetus
for this legislation.
Number 0351
MS. ASPELUND highlighted the Board of Fisheries findings
relative to this moratorium as well as the "Guiding principles
for groundfish fishery regulations." which should be part of the
committee packet. Ms. Aspelund communicated the following on
behalf of the commissioner of ADF&G and the [chair] of the Board
of Fisheries. She related that North Pacific Fishery Management
Council (NPFMC) is expected to take final action on a preferred
alternative to rationalize the GOA groundfish fisheries before
the end of this year with implementation taking no more than two
years. The concern is in regard to the potential for
speculative growth and increased pressure to groundfish
fisheries in the GOA that could occur in state waters should a
federal fisheries harvest rights-based system occur before the
imposition of a moratorium on growth or implementation of a
rationalization program in state waters. The additional
pressures, she opined, will be detrimental to both the
fisheries, the resource, and the state. Therefore, [ADF&G]
supports the Board of Fisheries request for an immediate
imposition of a moratorium on entry of new vessels into the
state ground fish fisheries in its 2-23-04 finding. She
highlighted (a)(2)-(4) of the Board of Fisheries findings paper.
MS. ASPELUND related that in the past when a fishery has been
limited it has resulted in a pattern of speculative growth,
which further exacerbates the very problems that the proposed
limitation seeks to prevent. She identified some of the
problems as increased competition, additional capitalization,
decreased economic viability, and localized depletion. The
rationalization of the GOA groundfish fisheries has been going
on for a decade or more. The level of growth during the
development of the halibut and sable fish IFQ fisheries
justifies concerns with regard to the need to freeze
participation during the development of both the state and
federal groundfish fisheries management regimes in order to
protect the interest of Alaskans. She identified the interest
of Alaskans as follows: increased efficiencies resulting in
economic benefits and stability in the fisheries; improved
safety and stock conversation; reduced bycatch and gear
conflicts; and entry level access to the GOA groundfish
fisheries. Therefore, it's important to note that this
legislation only seeks to implement a moratorium in an attempt
to freeze the status quo in the fishery as it exists today,
while all involved examine appropriate programs for a permanent
program in the future. She emphasized that the permanent
program is not part of this legislation.
MS. ASPELUND then turned attention to 5 AAC 28.089, upon which
the Board of Fisheries follows when regulating the groundfish
fishery and ADF&G follows in its management. She highlighted
numbers (4)-(6), which seem to be particularly germane to this
discussion. Numbers (4)-(6) read as follows:
(4) maintenance of slower harvest rates by methods and
means and time and area restrictions to ensure the
adequate reporting and analysis necessary for
management of the fishery;
(5) extension of the length of fishing seasons by
methods and means and time and area restrictions to
provide for the maximum benefit to the state and to
regions and local areas of the state;
(6) harvest of the resource in a manner that
emphasizes the quality and value of the fishery
product;
MS. ASPELUND concluded, "We believe that rationalization takes
us a long ways towards meeting those goals."
CHAIR SEATON asked if the tack was fully utilized for the
halibut and sable fish fisheries.
MS. ASPELUND said that she didn't know.
CHAIR SEATON related that the growth pattern and the restriction
on the seasons was because there wasn't enough fish to go
around. He recalled an earlier comment that there are a number
of fisheries for which the moratorium is placed, although the
total allowable catch or the guideline harvest isn't being
taken. Therefore, he inquired as to the rationale behind
implementing a moratorium on fisheries for which there have been
attempts to promulgate [regulations] and expand.
MS. ASPELUND deferred to Mr. Savikko.
MR. SAVIKKO answered that for only the Pacific cod, of the five
fisheries created by the Board of Fisheries in 1997, the GOA was
divided into three sections. The three sections are the
eastern, western, and the gulf. The historic patterns in those
fisheries were reviewed with interest in developing near-shore
fisheries. An allocative structure was developed for each of
the areas to allocate 25 percent from the federal fisheries to
the near-shore state fisheries. In the eastern region the only
area that falls into the aforementioned fishery is Prince
William Sound while in the central region the areas of Cook
Inlet, Kodiak, and Chignik are included. In the western region
the South Alaska Peninsula fell under the fishery. Therefore,
25 percent was taken and a system that can ratchet up was
developed. He explained that the ratcheting up would occur
depending upon whether the catch allocated could be utilized by
the individual. As an individual gained the aforementioned
ability, the individual would receive an annual increase up to a
specified cap. The Eastern Gulf, even under the federal
fishery, was not that productive. The geographical and
topographical aspects of the area make it not very practical, in
the case of Pacific cod. In the state fishery [in the Eastern
Gulf] it was first allocated at 25 percent. However, there was
little interest because of the difficulty in targeting Pacific
cod in the area. Therefore, the federal government requested
that it be ratcheted down to 10 percent, which resulted in
returning some of the fish back to the federal government.
Number 1025
MR. SAVIKKO turned to the Central Gulf of Alaska, and related
that Kodiak, Cook Inlet, and Chignik did reach the initial
trigger points. Therefore, each of those ratcheted up to a
larger percentage of harvest. All areas, save the Cook Inlet
area, are at their caps. Presently, Cook Inlet is at 3 percent
and it can increase up to 3.75 percent. The [local] biologist
believes the 3 percent will be taken this year and expects to
reach the 3.75 percent next year. The South Alaska Peninsula
has always had its 25 percent. These fisheries, which began in
1997, would run after the parallel fishery. Mr. Savikko
explained that the federal government begins these fisheries at
the first of the year. For state waters, 0-3 miles, there is a
global emergency order, which mirrors whatever the federal
government is doing at that time. Therefore, all of the gear
allowed under the federal system is permissible in the 0-3 miles
during the parallel fishery. During the parallel season, the
fishery would run from about January through March and then the
federal government would shut its system down. The state, by
regulation, would then open all of its fisheries from 24 hours
to 7 days after the close of the federal fishery. Most of the
state fisheries would run March through December. However, in
recent years because of the near-shore location of the stocks
and because of the efficiency gains of the fleet, these
fisheries have reached the guideline harvest levels (ghl) much
sooner than in the past. These fisheries started as an eighty-
month fishery and some, such as the Kodiak pot fishery, have
decreased to only two weeks. Even areas such as Cook Inlet have
reached the ghl. The length of the season has drastically
reduced despite the inefficiencies, restrictions, built into the
fishery by the Board of Fisheries. Restrictions such as pot
restrictions, vessel length restrictions, jig restrictions, and
super exclusivity, and irregular exclusivity haven't been
successful slowing the race for fish.
MR. SAVIKKO reminded the committee that one of the guiding
principles of the Board of Fisheries is to create a protracted
season and obtain as much revenue and product from the fish
being taken in a season. He related that Cook Inlet went from a
17-day pot season to a 23-day pot season. He explained that in
2003 the fishermen were targeting 720,000 pounds of fish while
this year the target is 1.2 million pounds. Although the target
for this year is nearly double, it is being taken in only six
more days. From a management perspective, it's becoming a bit
trickier to obtain the allocative splits in some of the
fisheries.
CHAIR SEATON surmised then that in a number [of areas] such as
Cook Inlet and Prince William Sound there has been unharvested
fish, even in the cod fishery. "And yet, we're proposing a
moratorium on entrants into the fishery that is not being taken
now," he opined.
MR. SAVIKKO agreed, and pointed out that the only fishery that
isn't fully utilized is the Prince William Sound fishery. Even
the federal fishery for the Eastern GOA wasn't fully utilized.
Number 1382
CHAIR SEATON inquired as to why a moratorium placing an
allocation on all of the fisheries is necessary.
MR. SAVIKKO reiterated that in the Prince William Sound fishery
fewer than a half dozen fishermen participate, and therefore
there doesn't appear to be a lot of interest in that fishery
because those fish are difficult to find and capture.
Therefore, a moratorium may be put in place in that fishery when
it isn't necessary, but when CFEC does its analysis it can leave
[that area] out of any option to more forward because of the
lack of necessity.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA returned to the matter of the need for the
legislation, and asked what would happen to the fishery, from a
conservation standpoint, without the passage of this
legislation.
MR. SAVIKKO predicted that if the fish populations remain in the
same areas in the same numbers, there will be shorter seasons.
The aforementioned has occurred under the current regime. With
regard to near-shore stock depletion, he said it's difficult to
predict. Continued sampling is done to determine whether a
certain stock of fish is being over fished.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA surmised then that without the passage of
this legislation, the approach would be to limit the season to
harvest approximately the same amount of fish as would be taken
in a longer season with fewer fishermen.
MR. SAVIKKO clarified that ADF&G can't limit the season. He
explained that the season is opened when the Board of Fisheries
mandates it to be opened. The department tries to manage to the
target, poundage, whatever time it takes the fishermen. As the
period gets shorter, it becomes more difficult to obtain an
allocative split between gear groups.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA posed a scenario in which the legislation
doesn't pass, and asked if it would be correct to assume that
approximately the same number of fish will be taken, just by
more fishermen.
MR. SAVIKKO replied yes, one could assume that approximately the
same volume of fish would be taken.
Number 1629
REPRESENTATIVE OGG related his understanding that Version W sets
up a "two-permit structure", and inquired as to how it will
work.
MS. ASPELUND agreed that Sections 9-13 establish two parallel
structures and moratoria. One of the moratoria is based on
vessels that have participated during the qualifying years of
1998-2003, the other moratoria is based on persons who have
participated in the same qualifying years. The vessel-based
moratoria is limited to however many of the 20 fisheries in
which it has a history whereas the individual-based moratoria
allows an individual who has fished in the GOA during the
qualifying years those individuals can fish in any fishery
established in the vessel program. Ms. Aspelund related the
assumption that in order for the vessel to operate, it will have
to be operated by a person who is also in the individual-based
moratorium.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG surmised that a vessel will be required to
have a permit, but the permit doesn't necessarily mean that the
vessel can fish. In order for the vessel to fish, there has to
be an individual with a permit. Representative Ogg inquired as
to what would happen if an individual is a vessel owner and a
permit holder.
MS. ASPELUND said that the individual will be qualified for each
of the permits. In further response to Representative Ogg, Ms.
Aspelund confirmed that both permits are necessary to fish.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG inquired as to who actually owns the vessel
permit.
MS. McDOWELL specified that the permit isn't property. The
permit would be issued to the owner of the vessel.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG surmised then that the owner of the vessel
could be an individual or a business organization.
MS. McDOWELL agreed, and clarified that the permit would be
issued to whatever the registered owner is. In further response
to Representative Ogg, Ms. McDowell confirmed that a vessel
owned by a corporation would need to hire from the pool of
participants. She noted that it's exactly as is the case now in
that an IUP holder has to run the vessel and under this parallel
moratorium, the IUP holder would have be an individual who had
participated during the qualifying years.
CHAIR SEATON interjected that the individual would have to have
a IUP permit with an endorsement.
Number 1870
MICHAEL MARTIN, commercial fisherman, informed the committee
that he has been a commercial fisherman for 37 years and is
present today to represent his family's corporation started in
1956. Mr. Martin addressed the issue of why this legislation is
necessary as follows:
One, currently National Marine Fisheries Service is in
the process of rationalizing the Gulf of Alaska from 3
miles to 200. To do nothing from 0-3 miles would
allow anyone access to the state's open entry
fisheries.
Two, currently every year has brought shorter state
fishery seasons. And in the last two years, the cod
pot fishery exceeded the gear-specific allocation;
correctly reallocating away from the jig fisheries.
This is a direct result from a fishery that is already
over capitalized.
MR. MARTIN then addressed the purpose of the moratorium as
follows:
The purpose of a moratorium is to stop the growth of a
fishery to allow time for the managers to research and
implement a proactive management for the maximum
benefit to the State of Alaska. All rationalizations
weigh heavily to the historical entities. These
entities have invested capital and effort to show
dependency on the fisheries of concern. For a
multitude of reasons, I'm here asking you to support
giving the moratorium for vessels and not captains.
Why? Number one, it would be consistent with how the
state dealt with the Bering Sea hair crab and
statewide scallop fisheries. Like those fisheries,
the purpose should be to create a status quo for
current entities and not to allow for expansion.
Number two, this would also be consistent with the
intent of the ... North Pacific Fisheries Management
Council moratoriums. Number three, to give a
moratorium to captains would expand the current fleet
to at least ... 26 percent higher than the current
participation. ... A real example of that ... the
fishing vessel Captain Kid (ph) pot caught fish 1998
through 2003. Under your moratorium for captains
concept, my vessel would qualify four captains ....
I've had numerous conversations with other boat owners
and found my example to be consistent with them. I
strongly believe that the number of unique permit
holders is underestimated.
Red herrings, owner-on-board provisions: Our family-
owned vessels that have never had an owner on board as
a captain. Please let me know which one of you are
going to call my 87-year-old grandmother, who is
currently CEO [chief executive officer] of her
company, [and tell her] that she now needs to go
fishing. ... Owners living out of state ... that may
be the case for some vessel and some captains, as it
is in many of our Alaska fisheries, but the majority
of owners still leave here in Alaska. I would contend
that a moratorium isn't going to increase anyone's
moving outside. In conclusion, I believe it's
important to allow the historical current vessel
owners the ability to maintain fishing operations as
they have and not reallocate and expand already over
capitalized fisheries.
CHAIR SEATON highlighted that he didn't know of anything in this
legislation that would require an owner on board. The
legislation merely requires that an individual with an endorsed
limited entry IUP has to be on board the vessel.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG mentioned that Mr. Martin has been a member
of the Board of Fisheries and is even a past chair of it.
Number 2134
ALEXUS KWACHKA, commercial fisherman, informed the committee
that he has been fishing out of Kodiak for 17 years. Mr.
Kwachka announced his opposition to the moratorium and the
skipper portion of the legislation as well. He opined that this
should remain an open-access fishery, which will best benefit
coastal Alaska fisheries. This legislation, he surmised, is
really attempting to facilitate the rationalization in the GOA
on the federal side. He pointed out that there are plenty of
management tools available to slow this down. For example, the
Board of Fisheries can reduce the amount of pots to harvest
these fish. With regard to quotas and how fast these fisheries
are going, he related that in 1997 40,000 metric tons of fish to
harvest and that has decreased to 20,000 in 2003 and the quota
is 25 percent of those numbers. The aforementioned illustrates
the dramatic decrease in the amount of fish that fishermen have
been able to harvest. In the same time period, fishing
efficiency has increased, which combined with the declined
harvest results in a quicker [season]. He acknowledged that
open access could lead to a race for fish, but economics should
be allowed to dictate the situation. The rationalization
process is a federal program that doesn't take into account
anything for skippers and crew. Mr. Kwachka related that he
doesn't want to help the federal rationalization program.
Number 2301
REPRESENTATIVE GARA inquired as to qualify for the individual
IUP. He asked if an individual who has participated in the
fishery in the past would automatically qualify.
CHAIR SEATON confirmed that participation by the vessel or the
permit holder in the years of 1998 through the effective date of
the legislation would allow the vessel or the individual to
qualify.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked if Mr. Kwachka would qualify for an
IUP, inquired as to what's wrong with imposing a moratorium that
would allow the permit holder to fish.
MR. KWACHKA specified that he doesn't qualify for a vessel
moratorium, but would qualify for a skipper card. Therefore, if
he purchases a vessel, he will have a card that says he can
fish, but no vessel on which to do so. Mr. Kwachka stated that
he didn't like that. Furthermore, he opined that it would limit
the number of people who could come off the deck and become
skippers, which he didn't like either. Mr. Kwachka said that he
didn't want any economical gain, rather he wanted to make a
living as a fisherman. "We're really lop siding this whole
system against the fishermen and coastal communities, for that
matter," he remarked.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA posed a situation in which the vessel-based
moratorium is eliminated and one could only participate in the
moratorium if he or she had participated in the fishery as a
fisherman. He asked if Mr. Kwachka feared that without a
moratorium the fishery would become too crowded.
MR. KWACHKA acknowledged the potential of the fishery becoming
too crowded. However, the Board of Fisheries could utilize
management tools to slow the fishery, such as tweak the pot
limits. Mr. Kwachka opined that coastal Alaska should have the
most opportunity to place people on the water fishing. If the
season becomes short enough that people can't make a living,
then people quit fishing. However, what's happening is that
people are going away because they aren't even having the
opportunity to participate.
Number 2489
ROBIN CLARK related that her husband has been a fished Alaskan
waters for 25 years and has skippered his own vessel and other
owner's vessels since 1988. Ms. Clark related that she and her
husband strongly endorse the status quo for cod fisheries. If
that's not possible, then the skippers and the crew that
harvested the fish shouldn't be excluded from the fishery. For
the past seven years, cod income has been at least half of her
family's fishing income. Ms. Clark related that she had thought
her voice had been heard loudly when she testified on behalf of
the skippers and crew in Kodiak [during a recent Board of
Fisheries meeting].
Number 2561
DONNIE LAWHEAD, JR., commercial fisherman, informed the
committee that he has been a commercial fisherman for 12 years.
He noted that he is a boat owner and a crewman on other boats.
Mr. Lawhead related that he is against the proposed moratorium
for groundfish in state waters. He echoed earlier testimony
that the fishery will govern itself. "This proposal is trying
to fast-track the process of a public resource so it will be
easier and faster to limit the number of boats fishing. This is
not good for fishing communities," he said. He pointed out that
fewer boats fishing results in fewer jobs and less money in the
community. "The final product of this proposal is probably a
limited entry permit or IFQ. Look at the federal fishery, they
went to co-ops with IFQs and processor shares. This is not
right. This is not what we want," he remarked.
Number 2633
JULIE KAVANAUGH informed the committee that her family owns and
operates a 58-foot vessel out of Kodiak. She related that her
husband has fished Pacific cod since 1991. Ms. Kavanaugh noted
her discomfort with regard to the haste under which this
legislation was created as well as the urgency to accept SB 347.
She expressed concern that under this proposed moratorium a
owner/operator would be obligated to draw from a closed pool of
operators. Therefore, there may not be an available operator to
run a boat. She expressed the need for an owner/operator to be
able to keep his/her boat running with an operator of his/her
choosing.
Number 2714
JULIE BONNEY, Alaska Groundfish Data Bank, informed the
committee that the Alaska Groundfish Data Bank consists of
approximately 25-30 trawl vessels which homeport in Kodiak. The
Alaska Groundfish Data Bank supports CSSB 347(RES), she related.
However, if Version W is more acceptable to this committee, then
it would be for the Alaska Groundfish Data Bank also. Ms.
Bonney noted that she is a member of the Board of Fisheries Gulf
[of Alaska] Rationalization Task Force. Eleven of the twelve
members of the task force recommended that the moratorium move
forward. Seven of the seven members of the Board of Fisheries
voted in favor of the moratorium. Now CFEC and ADF&G have come
to the legislature requesting that the moratorium proceed. She
expressed concern that the moratorium is being misconstrued as a
limited entry access program while the reality is that it's a
short-term controlled pool of vessels participating in order to
allow the state to react to the federal rationalization program.
She highlighted that the state and federal fisheries are
structured such that they work together under an open access
environment. Once the federal system is moved away from an open
access environment, those vessels will be able to participate in
state waters where they haven't before.
MS. BONNEY turned to the trawlers and provided the following
example. The Prince William Sound pollock fisheries have an
average of three vessels that participate in the fishery each
year. The quota for that fishery is approximately 2 million
pounds. Those three vessels choose to do that fishery and
forego the federal fishery, which happens concurrently. Now, on
average there are 35 vessels that fish the Kodiak zone of the
state fishery. If those federal fishermen aren't obligated to
fish on January, all 35 of those vessels could move to the
Prince Williams Sound state fishery. The aforementioned would
result in the state not being able to manage the fishery, and
therefore would forego the fishery. Ms. Bonney stressed that
this moratorium is a temporary measure to do research in order
to meet what the federal government is doing on its side. To
assume that one solution is going to fit every gear type or zone
is presumptuous. Ms. Bonney urged the committee to move the
moratorium forward.
Number 2892
CHAIR SEATON inquired as to Ms. Bonney's estimation with regard
to the first year the vessels would be fishing under an IFQ
program under a Gulf [of Alaska] rationalization that so far
hasn't adopted a preferred alternative.
MS. BONNEY recalled that Ms. Aspelund related earlier that
Commissioner Duffy suggested that the preferred alternative
would be determined by 2004 and the implementation would occur
in 2006 or 2007.
Number 2956
AL BURCH, Executive Director, Alaska Draggers Association,
informed the committee that the association represents 35-55
members.
TAPE 04-22, SIDE B
MR. BURCH noted his long-time involvement in fishing in Alaska.
He said that he agreed with most of the testimony of Mr. Martin
and Ms. Bonney. He further noted his agreement with Ms.
Kavanaugh on the skipper issue. He related that the skipper of
one of his vessels has been with him for about 14 years and been
skipper for about 6 years. On his other vessel, he lost a
skipper of 15 years to a heart attack and the present skipper
probably wouldn't qualify [under this proposed moratorium].
With regard to the earlier comments that this moratorium is on a
fast track, Mr. Burch related that this has been worked on for
four years. This is a situation in which something has to be in
place within the 0-3 mile area or else there will be chaos in
the fishery.
MR. BURCH turned attention to the Board of Fisheries findings
and purpose paper, which indicate the need to have economic
health and stability of the commercial fisheries. Currently,
the fisheries aren't economically healthy. In fact, the white
fish fishery is on the edge of following the salmon fisheries
into chaos. Stability is necessary, he opined.
MR. BURCH, in response to Representative Seaton, explained that
the pollock and the cod are increasing. However, the economic
stability of the fisheries aren't due to the sea lion closures
and other things that impact these fisheries. In order to
rationalize and stabilize the fishery, there has to be something
that works with the federal management scheme as it's developed.
In further response to Chair Seaton, Mr. Burch said that it's a
fair assessment that the earliest the IFQ would be implemented
would be in 2006 or 2007.
Number 2753
RON PAINTER informed the committee that he is the owner and
operator of two fishing vessels. Mr. Painter requested a
moratorium for vessels rather than skippers and expressed the
need for legislation that protects Alaskans and encourages
employment opportunity. He questioned why one classification of
crew would be given moratorium rights over another. He further
questioned why moratorium rights wouldn't be given to the source
of those employment opportunities, the vessel owners.
Therefore, he reiterated the need to place the moratorium on the
vessels rather than the skippers.
Number 2666
SARA HAINES, "Fish Heads," explained that the Fish Heads is a
small group of like-minded commercial fishermen. Ms. Haines
provided the following testimony:
It seems that this push for a state moratorium on
groundfish participants is the result of the
realization that when a federal rationalization plan
goes into effect there will be overlapping areas of
jurisdiction. The NPFMC has (indisc.) that they can't
go ahead with rationalization until the state adjusts
its regulation to mirror those of the federal
government. We urge your state to have its own mind
with regard to fisheries legislation. Senate Bill 347
spells out the fear that as participants are squeezed
out of the federal fishery, they will flood into the
state-water fishery and it means to slam the door on
these fish refugees before they can get in. The term
used for this is over capitalization, but this is a
euphemism for too many fishermen. The fact is these
are real people who fish and live here in Alaska. The
idea that it is time to thin out the herd for the good
of the survivors is down right Stalinist. The idea
that the Alaska State Legislature should proactively
head off over capitalization sounds like something the
Soviets would've done. As they start to lead into
this tar pit of regulatory issues, I think the
legislature should ask itself, "What country do I live
in? How about a little freedom here?" The US General
Accounting Office identified two problems with the
federal IFQ plan interim report last February. One
was a lack of community protection and the other was a
lack of new entry participants. The state-water
fishery has always been a way for locals to make a
living in their own community, and a way for new
entrants to get a start fishing. Don't slam this
door. Please let the realities of economics determine
capitalization like they should in America. In the
hearts of many, Alaska stands for freedom. Don't
chain fishermen to one spot and tell them not to move.
Don't try and take our freedom away.
MS. HAINES, in response to Chair Seaton, estimated that the Fish
Heads consist of about 50 members. In response to
Representative Ogg, Ms. Haines related that the organization
encompasses any commercial fisherman who thinks as the Fish
Heads.
Number 2500
FRANCIS COSTELLO informed the committee that he is a hired
skipper in Kodiak who has spent 22 years commercial fishing in
[the Kodiak area]. He related how he rose through the ranks
from a crewman to a hired skipper. Mr. Costello said that he
didn't want to be left on the bench as a hired skipper, which
would be the case if this legislation is passed without any
provisions for hired skippers. "I can't say that enacting a
federally cloned moratorium title system for state cod is the
way to go, but the whole dynamics of the fishery will change,"
he opined.
CHAIR SEATON noted that this moratorium would be on all
groundfish fishery species, not just cod, within the three-mile
limit.
SHAUN KOSON informed the committee that as an owner of a 33-foot
vessel he participates in the jig fishery [in Kodiak]. The jig
fishery hasn't been addressed, and therefore will allow others
to enter. Mr. Koson further informed the committee that he is
prepared to enter the state-water cod fishery, although the
moratorium hasn't provided him the opportunity to do so. This
moratorium ties the permit to the vessel, and therefore he would
have to purchase another vessel in order to get into the [state-
water cod] fishery. The aforementioned is wrong. He expressed
the need for the legislation to address people such as himself
and others. Furthermore, he noted that he can't buy into the
fishery nor is the jig fishery protected. "Where are you going
with this," he asked.
CHAIR SEATON said that the hearing is to determine where the
legislation is going. He noted that there are three committee
substitutes (CS), one of which relates only to vessels, one
relates only to permit holders, and Version W is a dual system
in which both vessel and permit endorsements would be required.
No decisions have been made yet, he stated.
MR. KOSON opined that the federal government missed the boat.
He indicated that the federal government should've gone for gear
sight through allocation or something similar. Mr. Koson
predicted that through consolidation, people will lose their
jobs on the larger boats. "I had seen the writing on the wall,
I bought the smaller boat. I'm trying to get into the fishery.
And now ... you're slamming that door that the Fish Heads said.
And ... it's going to be more than a slight hardship on myself
and my family. Open access still works. ... I don't know what
the answers are to this because rationalization hasn't happened
yet, it's not there. You can't slam the door on people that are
already here, geared up, spending money trying to get ready to
do the fishery," he stated.
Number 2202
REPRESENTATIVE OGG acknowledged that the department had
automatically excluded the jig fishery because one fishery
needed to be open at the very bottom. He inquired as to the
sentiments of other jig fishermen.
MR. KOSON related that over the last couple of years the jig
fishery season has closed earlier, which he indicated was a
result of more crossover [between the state-water and federal
fishery]. Mr. Koson reiterated his belief in open access. In
further response to Representative Ogg, Mr. Koson said: "Well,
you have the boats that are doing the pots ... during the
federal season ... in state waters and then they crossover and
they do the pots in the state waters and then they crossover and
they do ... the state-water jig. So, ... you're going to give
them more permits to keep doing that, and still take away from
us." Mr. Koson recalled the notion that [the jig fishery] is
supposed to be an entry-level fishery, for which he has already
done the time. However, now this moratorium would close the
door that allows one to move up.
Number 2078
HAROLD JONES related that he has just reviewed [Version W] in
the last hour. He expressed concern with the fisheries being
split up such that there won't be enough left to make [a
living]. Therefore, he questioned whether his investment is
worthwhile. Mr. Jones informed the committee that he has been
fishing continuously since 1947. He recalled that originally
the trawlers had 100 percent of the cod, but little by little
the percentage decreased as more people fish pots and long
lines.
CHAIR SEATON inquired as to the number of vessels in Kodiak that
fish the federal waters but haven't made a delivery since 1998
or haven't made [a delivery] within the state-water fishery. He
asked if there are lots of vessels that only fish the federal
fishery.
Number 1846
MR. JONES commented on the closures within the state-water
fisheries as well as the sea lion closures and critical habitat
areas. It's become difficult to find a place to fish, he
opined. Mr. Jones said that he couldn't provide a specific
number of vessels, but related that everyone fishes everywhere
they are legally allowed.
CHAIR SEATON surmised then that Mr. Jones didn't know of the
number of vessels or very many vessels in Kodiak that only fish
federal waters and wouldn't qualify on the basis of fishing in
state waters since 1988.
MR. JONES said that folks fish in the state waters so long as
the sea lion closure don't keep them out.
Number 1701
CHAIR SEATON posed the question regarding the number of those
who haven't made a delivery within the state-water fishery since
1998 to Ms. Bonney and [the Alaska Groundfish Data Bank].
MS. BONNEY referred to the state's LLP [limited liability
partnership] listing, which shows 467 vessels that don't fish
within the three-miles of state waters. Those vessels are
mostly larger vessels, such as catcher/processor vessels. Ms.
Bonney related her opinion that virtually all of the local
Kodiak trawl fleet would qualify to fish inside the three miles.
However, that would be for pollock because many areas within the
three miles are closed to nonpelagic gear.
Number 1618
ALAN PARKS informed the committee that he has been fishing since
1975 and has participated in various fisheries. He related that
he testified extensively in opposition to the Korean hair crab
vessel-based limited entry because he feared it would spill over
into other fisheries, which is happening now. The vertical
integration possibilities with a vessel-based system are bad for
Alaska, coastal communities, and active fishermen, he opined.
Mr. Parks further opined that it's not necessary for the state
to follow management policies to mirror the federal fishery.
MR. PARKS turned attention to page 3, line 4, subsection (a),
which read: "The commission may establish a moratorium on entry
of new persons or vessels, or both, into a commercial fishery if
the commission finds that the moratorium is necessary". Mr.
Parks said that it's important not to leave such a policy
decision to CFEC. Furthermore, including vessels in this
moratorium is removed from what the state has historically done.
He pointed out that limited entry permits were issued to
fishermen not vessel owners, which is what he suggested in this
case as well. The effects of the complexities pertaining to the
vessels are unseen. Therefore, a person-based moratorium would
simplify things. He indicated that all the complexities
couldn't be dealt with this session. Mr. Parks suggested
maintaining the state's historic management of its fisheries for
the people. Mr. Parks related that he would go with the
moratorium if it's a person-based system.
Number 1206
MS. KAVANAUGH reiterated that her husband feels that it's
morally right to go with a person-based moratorium rather than
vessel-based. Furthermore, tying the skipper to the vessel will
bog the system down and not work, she related for her husband.
CHAIR SEATON, upon determining there was no one else who wished
to testify, closed the public hearing. He related his
understanding that Version W provides CFEC to create, for any
fishery in the future, a vessel-based moratorium or permits or
both as well as creating this moratorium strictly for GOA.
MS. McDOWELL replied yes. In further response to Chair Seaton,
Ms. Kavanaugh confirmed that hypothetically CFEC can implement a
moratorium on permit holders. However, the statute doesn't
function, which is why the moratoriums done thus far have been
enacted legislatively. This legislation is meant to correct the
problems in the existing statute.
CHAIR SEATON asked if this legislation addressed correcting the
current statute on license holders, the same language [as in
Version W] would accomplish that if the legislation only spoke
to license holders.
MS. McDOWELL answered yes, the corrections would be necessary
either way.
Number 0990
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked if ADF&G has any authority currently
to conduct a vessel-based moratorium.
MS. McDOWELL replied no. In further response to Representative
Gara, she confirmed that if the first eight sections of [Version
W] weren't passed, CFEC would have nonfunctional authority to
implement a person-based moratorium but not authority to
implement a vessel-based moratorium.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA related his understanding that the only
vessel-based moratorium authority CFEC has is by statute for
two fisheries.
MS. McDOWELL explained that the legislature enacted a moratorium
in the scallop and hair crab fisheries and later passed
legislation providing CFEC the authority to do a permanent
limited entry program based on vessels.
Number 0886
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether it would be unworkable if the
legislature clarified CFEC's authority to implement a person-
based moratorium but didn't provide CFEC the authority to
implement a vessel-based moratorium.
MS. McDOWELL acknowledged that such would improve the existing
moratorium provisions. However, it wouldn't provide the ability
to effectively do a moratorium in some fisheries. For the
groundfish fishery an analysis would be necessary in order to
determine whether [it would need to be a vessel-based or person-
based moratorium]. She related that from CFEC's first review it
appears that it would be very difficult to [gain meaningful
control] on growth in the groundfish fishery under a person-
based moratorium. The threat to this fishery is primarily
additional fishing power. If the federal government takes
action such that a number of vessels are freed to enter into
[the groundfish fishery], there could be a large influx of
additional vessels/fishermen into the fishery. She related that
[establishing a cap on the number of vessels in the fishery]
appears to be the most effective way to address the possibility
of additional entrants into the fishery.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA posited that since CFEC will limit the
catch, the large influx of vessels/fishermen would be prevented.
MS. McDOWELL pointed out that CFEC has no power over the catch
levels. The CFEC only regulates the number of participants.
When there is a permanent limitation program, there's the
ability to reduce the number of participants that would be
grandfathered in. She explained:
When you go to a permanent limitation program, there
you have the ability to actually, to some extent,
reduce the number ... that you would grandfather in
normally. The highest number of participants in any
one year, not everybody who's participated all the way
back -- in which case ... you would issue permanent
permits to the highest number of participants in a
given year, which may be several hundred not 1,300.
And you have a system of deciding who's in based on
most economic reliance.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA reiterated that although CFEC may issue a
large number of permits, the fishermen would have knowledge that
ADF&G will ultimately limit the catch or the season. Therefore,
he predicted that people probably wouldn't go through the
arrangements to bring in tons of vessels from a decreasing
federal fishery.
MS. McDOWELL interjected that the issue is in regard to how
those [individuals] will make a living during those moratorium
years. She pointed out that vessels that are geared, have a
crew, and are fishing in a fishery in which the opportunity is
reduced or gone will need to do something. "Whether this
[participation during the moratorium] is going to get them a
permit six years from now or not, they're looking for a way to
make a living now, they have every reason to move in ... and
participate," she explained. The aforementioned is the risk
that the Board of Fisheries and ADF&G believe to be very real.
Number 0330
CHAIR SEATON expressed concern with the broadness [of the
legislation]. When one looks at the number of pot vessels in
Kodiak, last year there were 43 pot vessels that fished.
However, the number of unique vessels that would qualify under
the terms of this legislation would amount to 152 vessels. He
noted that those [152 vessels] all participated in that fishery
and if the years of moratorium participation are allowed to
count, it seems the expansion and the race for fish will result
from those vessels that are already geared up, know the area,
and have participated. Chair Seaton expressed concern that what
will happen [under this legislation] is that there will be a
potential race for fish within the group of vessels that have
already participated in the fishery because of fear that those
from the federal fishery may enter the fishery.
MS. McDOWELL characterized Chair Seaton's concern as legitimate
as this is a very exclusive moratorium. She noted that a less
inclusive moratorium could be constructed, which requires tough
decisions resulting from much analysis. Therefore, the default
was to be extremely inclusive. She acknowledged that the risk
of being extremely inclusive is that "some of those will enter
again." She reiterated her earlier comments that [fishermen]
and vessel owners have had a lot of motivation to participate
for the last five years in anticipation of limitation.
TAPE 04-23, SIDE A
MS. McDOWELL opined that she didn't know that a moratorium would
provide more motivation to [participate] in the next four to six
years than the motivation that has been present over the last
five years.
Number 0043
CHAIR SEATON surmised that to be the same case with the phantom
federal vessels. "If we don't think it's going to be a
motivation for the people that are geared up for the fishery to
go out and participate, why would we think it would be a
motivation for people that their vessels really aren't
configured to participate in those fisheries," he asked. There
seems to be a disconnect between the rationale of the federal
vessels entering the fishery and the participating state vessels
not being motivated to enter.
MS. McDOWELL identified the difference as the federal vessels
being geared up and possibly excluded from fishing in a fishery
they are currently fishing. She deferred to ADF&G.
CHAIR SEATON recalled that the testimony has been that the first
time those [federal] vessels would be excluded or implementation
of rationalization would be 2006 or 2007.
MS. McDOWELL said that was her understanding, but, again,
deferred to ADF&G.
Number 0224
REPRESENTATIVE GARA opined that allowing, during a moratorium,
the catch to count toward the future ability to fish a fishery
after the moratorium has a number of bad side effects. For
instance, it might create a race into a fishery that [the
moratorium] is trying to regulate and limit. He asked if there
is any strong down side to saying that participation during a
moratorium shouldn't count.
MS. McDOWELL related that CFEC feels it's important to have the
ability to count some recent participation in any future
limitation program in order to make sure that any future would
be reasonable, fair, and constitutionally defensible since
CFEC's obligation is looking at a limitation. The goal of a
limitation is to grant the use privileges to those most
economically reliant on a fishery. If the time of the
moratorium has to be excluded, then that portion of time can't
be looked at in determining who is most economically reliant.
Therefore, CFEC is stuck with having to grant use privileges to
those who may not have participated for a decade. The
aforementioned can make it difficult to construct a permanent
limited entry program that is fair, reasonable, and
constitutionally defensible.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG commented that establishing the
criteria is the difficult thing, regardless on what it's based.
MS. McDOWELL said that's exactly why this is being proposed as a
moratorium rather than a permanent limitation. This particular
situation has so many variables at play that this legislation
merely proposes a "time out."
Number 0583
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked if Ms. McDowell agreed that open
access still works.
MS. McDOWELL stated that open access is the default under state
management. The constitutional amendment that allows for
limited entry is only constitutional so long as it impinges as
little as possible on open access. Therefore, open access would
be in place unless a fishery needs some constraints to access in
order to make the fishery biologically sound, manageable, and to
avoid economic distress among fishermen. Open access, she
related, can work in a fishery that isn't overcrowded.
CHAIR SEATON inquired as to how this moratorium maneuvers around
the constitutional test for the Prince William Sound cod
fishery, which goes year round and doesn't have enough
participants to take the available fish.
MS. McDOWELL answered, "I think it gets around it because it's a
moratorium." She surmised that if after an analysis the
situation is as [Chair Seaton suggests in Prince William Sound],
then one probably couldn't justify a permanent limited entry
program for that fishery. However, if one area is left to open
access when all the other areas are constrained under a
temporary moratorium, then anyone wanting to enter the fishery
will go to the area with open access. Therefore, in order to
protect the area with open access from the aforementioned, one
may want to not continue that open access [during the
moratorium].
CHAIR SEATON asked if the hypothetical that people may want to
enter the area with open access is good enough [to constrain
it].
MS. McDOWELL replied, "Only for a moratorium, I don't think you
could get away with that for limited entry."
Number 0854
REPRESENTATIVE OGG inquired as to the number of vessels that
could move into the fishery from the federal zone in 2006.
MS. McDOWELL deferred to ADF&G.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG returned to the notion that a temporary
moratorium would maneuver around the constitutional open access
issue because of the hypothesis that folks would rush into that
open access area. He inquired as to why the same logic wouldn't
apply to subsections (i) and (j) [on page 10]. He questioned
why subsection (i) wouldn't be sufficient alone.
MS. McDOWELL related that [subsection (j)] pertains to the
future limitation program; it specifies that when a permanent
limitation program is [implemented] recent economic
participation can't be taken into consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG pointed out, "But you're going into ... the
permanent permit program while this moratorium is in place, not
afterwards, during this temporary moratorium."
MS. McDOWELL clarified that it [subsection (j)] pertains to the
decision regarding what is permanently limited and how the
permanent program can be structured.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG surmised that the open access issue can be
avoided on a fishery that's healthy by placing it under a
temporary moratorium and stop entry into that healthy fishery.
However, that same temporary moratorium can't be used to exclude
the catch during the moratorium in relation to a limited entry
program.
MS. McDOWELL maintained that those are two different things
because one is referring to the criteria for the moratorium and
one is referring to the criteria for a permanent limitation
program. She emphasized that these aren't the findings of CFEC.
When CFEC performs a limitation or a moratorium
administratively, an entire rationale and rationale document has
to be developed. Section 9 of this legislation statutorily
enacts it by the legislature, and therefore it's the
legislature's decision regarding "whether this passes muster."
REPRESENTATIVE OGG related that the basis for not using those
fish catches during the moratorium is to [avoid a race for the
fish]. The aforementioned rationale was used on a temporary
moratorium on an open access fishery that isn't threatened.
Representative Ogg opined that the purpose behind [the temporary
moratorium] is to avoid [a race for the fish] and if the door is
left open, then [the race for the fish hasn't been avoided].
Number 1202
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG indicated that the economic model
could be significantly different and evolve into a different
creature in six or so years such that a new legislature decides
to use a different set of criteria.
MS. McDOWELL highlighted that the legislation includes a
provision that specified that during the moratorium, CFEC and
ADF&G will work together to determine a proposal for a
permanent limitation program. If a limitation is actually
warranted for any or all of these fisheries, [the question
becomes] whether CFEC could do it effectively under its existing
statutory authority. If it can be done under CFEC's existing
statutory authority, the normal process for limiting a fishery
would proceed. However, if it seems that CFEC needs additional
authority, CFEC would return to the legislature with proposed
legislation regarding the additional authority. Ms. McDowell
reiterated that currently the only authority CFEC has is to do
nothing and let the fishery return to open access when the
moratorium terminates or to limit these fisheries under the
existing person-based program.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked if there is any reliable documentation
regarding the number of federal fishermen who aren't state
fishermen that would come into this fishery.
MS. ASPELUND said that there is only very preliminary
information on that. She related that there are a number of
things that haven't been discussed on the record, such as the
potential impacts from the crab buyback program that is
underway. There's likely to be an infusion of capital from
those approximately 150 vessel owners in the crab fishery.
While the vessels are retired out of the fishery altogether,
there's an excess of unused vessels available. Therefore, it's
likely that some of those [from the crab fishery] will enter
this fishery. Furthermore, there is a real fear on the part of
the state-water and the parallel fishery groundfish folks with
regard to the Bering Sea groundfish fishermen on the north side
of the peninsula. She recalled earlier testimony regarding
stellar sea lion measures and the critical habitat areas, which
could also impact how this fishery and all other Alaska
fisheries are prosecuted. "It's been the assessment of a number
of folks knowledgeable about these fisheries that they have
determined that the risk to ... the Gulf groundfish fisheries
staying status quo is greater than any potential risk ... posed
by speculation within the moratorium," she related. Ms.
Aspelund reiterated that this proposed moratorium allows time to
sort out all the potential threats to the fishery, it protects
the existing participants in the fishery. Ms. Aspelund
clarified that she isn't very comfortable with the data.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked if there is a ballpark figure with
regard to the number of vessels that could come into [the
groundfish fishery].
CHAIR SEATON related that the information given to the committee
is that there are 467 LLPs with no harvest in state waters.
However, that doesn't mean that those 467 harvested in federal
waters. Chair Seaton explained that the LLP was instituted in
1992 and is basically a moratorium right to the vessel owners.
Number 1712
RACHEL BAKER, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, clarified that
457 LLPs didn't have state-water deliveries from 1998-2002,
which is all the data available for the federal waters.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG inquired as to any projection with regard to
the Bering Sea crab rationalization.
MS. ASPELUND answered that there is unlimited potential.
MR. SAVIKKO related that it's a federal program for which the
data is not available. He informed the committee that there are
approximately 275 vessels that will be made available to
participate under crab rationalization, some number of those may
choose to participate in the federal buyback program. However,
he said that he didn't have any idea what number may opt out of
the fishery entirely.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG said that it would be helpful to have some
numbers since these factors have been mentioned.
MS. ASPELUND deferred to NMFS staff. In response to
Representative Ogg regarding the quantity of Bering Sea
groundfish vessels possibly moving into this fishery, Ms.
Aspelund encouraged the committee to seek that information from
NMFS staff. She characterized the possibility of Bering Sea
groundfish vessels as a factor in the [moratorium].
Number 1962
REPRESENTATIVE OGG recalled that the actual number of vessels
fishing in state waters is approximately 550 on a yearly basis.
However, that number increases to 1,017 under the moratorium.
It appears that under the moratorium, the fishery is potentially
being increased by the same number of vessels that may come in
from the federal fishery, he surmised.
MR. SAVIKKO agreed that the potential exists, but noted that if
these fishermen had been economically sound and able to continue
in the fishery they probably would've. "So you're going to have
vessels that come and go. For the purposes of this moratorium
would some boat that's been moth-balled or moved to another
fishery, would it be economically feasible for him to come into
this closed class of vessels speculating that his history now
could count when in fact it may not," he related. Mr. Savikko
noted that there is the potential for those vessels to enter,
but he opined that the economic reality would probably lean
toward those vessels not entering.
CHAIR SEATON mentioned that's the same economic reality for the
LLP vessels. Chair Seaton expressed the need to view the horde
on the horizon in relation to the configuration of the vessels
and the potential to participate in these fisheries.
MS. ASPELUND informed the committee that of the 467 LLP EEZ
participants, 251 of the vessels were less than 60 feet in
length. Therefore, 56 percent of that group would fall within
the Board of Fisheries 60 foot or less. She also informed the
committee that 192 of these vessels were 60-124 feet and only 24
vessels were 125 feet and above.
Number 2181
REPRESENTATIVE OGG related that one can interpret the increase
in vessels that aren't presently fishing as opportunity for new
entrants. It seems [that this legislation] encourages people to
fish during the moratorium and provide people an opportunity to
purchase those vessels with the appropriate classification.
Representative Ogg asked if it's correct that those vessels
which weren't fished last year and weren't going to be could be
purchased by someone else.
MS. ASPELUND agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG recalled testimony regarding people shifting
from one fishery to another. It appears that under this
moratorium anyone could shift over to the jig fishery. However,
the state wanted the jig fishery to be an entry-level fishery.
Representative Ogg asked if the Board of Fisheries has reviewed
making the jig fishery exclusive so that there wouldn't be
crossover.
MR. SAVIKKO said that the Board of Fisheries has not yet
considered that, although he encouraged participants in the
fishery to present a proposal to the board. What Representative
Ogg discussed is a tool that the Board of Fisheries could use to
prevent vessels from reconfiguring gear in order to participate
in the jig fishery, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG highlighted that the Board of Fisheries, on
its own, decided to leave the jig fishery as open access.
Therefore, he questioned whether the board on its own could
decide to have the jig fishery be exclusive open access without
a proposal.
MR. SAVIKKO opined that it would take a proposal before the
Board of Fisheries from either industry or ADF&G to eliminate
the multiple uses of gear. Generally, the board relies on the
industry or the public to bring problems forward.
Number 2375
MS. ASPELUND said that she has spoken with Diana Cote, Executive
Director, Board of Fisheries and Ed Dersham, Chair, Board of
Fisheries, about this, and related that the Board of Fisheries
has a tool, a board generated proposal, that can be utilized to
address decisions like this. In querying the board regarding
the concerns of the jig fishermen, there could be an agenda
change request that could place the matter on the agenda this
year. The [Board of Fisheries] seems to see the seriousness of
the issue and is willing to address it out of cycle in order to
maintain and protect a viable entry-level fishery. She
encouraged folks to contact the board on this matter.
Number 2460
CHAIR SEATON asked if ADF&G could provide a list of the
fisheries that remain open throughout the year in order to get a
handle on the number of fisheries that are not distressed, but
would fall under a moratorium.
MR. SAVIKKO indicated he would do so.
[SB 347 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 7:22
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|