Legislature(2007 - 2008)BARNES 124
03/07/2007 08:30 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing|| Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and Game | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 7, 2007
8:35 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Bryce Edgmon
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Lindsey Holmes
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Denby Lloyd, Acting Commissioner - Juneau
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
DENBY LLOYD, Acting Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided background information and
answered questions.
BEAVER NELSON, Commercial Fisherman
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
Acting Commissioner Lloyd.
JOHN JENSEN
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
Acting Commissioner Lloyd.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 8:35:18 AM. Representatives
Johnson, LeDoux, Edgmon, and Johansen were present at the call
to order. Representative Wilson arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING
^Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
8:35:36 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the only order of business would be
the confirmation hearing on the appointment of Denby Lloyd as
commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G). He
related that the committee should have letters of support from
the following: Cordova District Fishermen United, Southeast
Alaska Fishermen's Alliance, Alaska Dragger's Association, Bob
Wallace, John Murray, and Bob Thorstenson Jr. He then explained
that the committee is charged with reviewing and assessing the
qualifications of Mr. Lloyd. He reminded the committee that
comments should be directed only to fisheries questions as other
natural resource issues can be addressed in the House Resources
Standing Committee.
8:40:35 AM
DENBY LLOYD, Acting Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish &
Game (ADF&G), began by informing the committee that he first
came to Alaska 35 years ago to attend the University of Alaska -
Fairbanks from which he received degrees in biological science
and biological oceanography. He noted that he has held a number
biology-based positions at the local, state, and federal level
throughout Alaska. Positions were held with the ADF&G, North
Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), Office of the
Governor, Aleutians East Borough, National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), as well as research time with the University of
Alaska. He said what his experience has been with habitat
issues. Acting Commissioner Lloyd told the committee that he is
very heartened by the words and strength of the Alaska State
Constitution, which provides a number of basic guidelines such
as management for sustained yield, maximum benefit, and for the
people of Alaska. He emphasized that without people there would
be no need to manage the resources. Furthermore, these are
public resources that require management for the public trust.
He opined that anyone who is going to be the commissioner of
ADF&G is going to need to represent a broad array of interests
while focusing on the protection and development of the
resources of the state. He indicated that the commissioner
shouldn't get involved in any particular user group's priority
or preference other than the subsistence preference. A sense of
fair play, utilizing solid scientific information, and upfront
policy analysis is necessary to represent the department and the
state.
8:44:47 AM
CHAIR SEATON inquired as to Acting Commissioner Lloyd's view of
the relationship of the commissioner's office with the Board of
Fisheries (BOF), particularly in relation to the department
managing for sustained yield, maximum use, and emergency order
authority versus BOF's regulatory policy-setting authority.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD said that he views the department and
BOF as complimentary organizations. The department is charged
with providing the scientific and other background information
upon which BOF makes a number of policy and regulatory
decisions, which the department is charged with implementing.
However, the department falls largely outside the arena of
making those difficult allocation decisions amongst various user
groups. Acting Commissioner Lloyd characterized the
department's ability to make emergency order decisions in-season
as a strength. For the most part, the emergency orders work
well. The department uses this authority routinely to open and
close various fisheries so that escapements fall within the goal
ranges and all available harvestable surplus is captured by the
various fisheries. The difficulty, he opined, is when clear
goals haven't been specified. He acknowledged that if
conflicting goals occur, judgment calls with regard to how best
to manage in-season can create difficulties.
8:48:03 AM
CHAIR SEATON highlighted that there have been concerns that the
specificity of some of the management plans have reached the
point of taking away the authority for in-season management.
For example, the Upper Cook Inlet has window closures that are
date specific rather than based on run timing. He inquired as
to how the commissioner can strike a balance between run timing
and a policy with specific dates and times in order to achieve
the maximum harvest.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD commented that the Upper Cook Inlet is
probably the location in the state with the most apparent
conflict or confusion amongst conflicting goals of the
management plan. He explained that typically in commercial
salmon fisheries, [the department] is clearly mandated to manage
the harvest within specified escapement goals. Emergency order
authority is used to attain those escapement goals. However, in
the Upper Cook Inlet there are conflicting direct management
objectives with BOF's management plans, which specify certain
closed windows. The department doesn't have clear guidance on
what it should use its emergency order authority for if, for
example, more harvest pressure is necessary to keep the
escapements below the upper range of an escapement goal. Acting
Commissioner Lloyd opined that the department will use its
emergency order authority to increase harvests in the case of a
large run that was going to exceed the upper end of the
escapement goal, if that would clearly damage the run. However,
the scientific information on that matter is equivocal and
requires an unfortunate level of judgment in the commissioner's
office. The department would, ideally, prefer BOF to address
the aforementioned question and state the overarching goal.
8:51:42 AM
CHAIR SEATON surmised then that prior to the issuance of an
emergency order there needs to be proof of damage to the run
even though it's above the escapement goals.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD remarked that [the Upper Cook Inlet
situation] would be an extreme example. He said that he, as
commissioner, would be looking for a clear reason to override
the BOF's judgment of two competing user groups.
CHAIR SEATON further surmised then that Acting Commissioner
Lloyd's philosophy would be to not use the emergency order
authority to achieve the maximum benefit, but rather to do so in
order to avoid long-term problems that damage the
sustainability.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD clarified that he would attempt to
keep the department from arbitrating what maximum benefit to the
people means. The BOF is making public policy decisions. He
explained, "One aspect or the benefit is certainly achieving as
much of the harvestable surplus for commercial harvest as
possible. And typically, everywhere else in the state that's a
clear message, a clear directive to the department." However,
in the [Upper Cook Inlet] case, the BOF is also trying to accrue
benefits to the sport fishery as well. Acting Commissioner
Lloyd specified that he didn't want ADF&G to be in the position
of arbitrating the maximum benefit for sport and commercial
users and how that equates to the maximum benefit to the people
of the Alaska. The aforementioned is more appropriately the job
of the BOF.
CHAIR SEATON related his understanding that the department is
under the management plan, and therefore can increase the sport
harvest from three to six fish. If, even with a six fish
limit, there are excess fish, is the situation one in which
there is going to be over escapement and the department has no
tool for taking those fish "or are we talking about different
stocks of fish at this point." He mentioned that he's referring
to the Kenai.
8:55:45 AM
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD mentioned that he has been involved in
some of the in-season discussions over the last couple of years.
Advice from the Department of Law (DOL) is often sought with
regard to the limits of ADF&G's in-season authority. The
department, he said, would seek all available opportunities to
capture the harvestable surplus within the management plans.
When the department has to move outside of the stated management
plans of BOF the situation becomes difficult, in terms of
applying judgment against the law and the expectations of the
users to not unduly prefer one user group over another. The
aforementioned is always a dilemma, but it's more so in the Cook
Inlet given the intensity of use. The department will be
participating with the BOF on the conflicts inherent in the
current structure of the management plans. He expressed hope
that those discussions will result in some guidance. However,
he opined that currently there is a fundamental conflict between
the two mandates of the Cook Inlet Management Plan.
CHAIR SEATON opined that the desire is to have the best managed
fisheries while allowing the department to have flexibility to
manage the fisheries in a manner that achieves the best return
for everyone in the state, whether sport or commercial fishers.
8:57:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to the department's vision
with regard to a rationalization plan for ground fish.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD reminded the committee that the
rationalization effort is largely in the federal arena through
NPFMC. He further reminded the committee that the governor has
requested that NPFMC stand-down from proceeding with Gulf of
Alaska ground fish rationalization through October 2007 while
the administration prepares a vision for rationalization. In
response to Chair Seaton, Acting Commissioner Lloyd related that
to many rationalization of fisheries means some form of
limitation and control over the number of participants. Under
that definition, the salmon license limitation program is a form
of rationalization. However, for some rationalization has come
to mean a share program in which people are granted the
privilege of a certain share of the harvestable surplus of fish.
The aforementioned, individual fishery quota (IFQ) programs, are
controversial as they limit participation and are often based on
one's history of participation in the fishery and from there
forward [the IFQs] are sold. This administration has some
concern with the aforementioned aspect of rationalization, which
is referred to as privatization. The effect of privatization is
to take the future stream of benefits of a public resource and
vest them into private hands, to which, he opined, this
administration will object. He then pointed out that there are
ways to achieve the benefits of rationalization, which results
in longer seasons and more flexibility for individual operators
to harvest in some instances. Some of those benefits can be
achieved without privatizing the resource, he opined. He noted
that [the department] is keeping an eye on looking at the
possibility of deriving such benefits without privatizing
resources.
9:02:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN noted his appreciation for Acting
Commissioner Lloyd's public service. He then turned to the
Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST), which is being renegotiated. He
inquired as to Acting Commissioner Lloyd's thoughts on that
process.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD informed the committee that the PST is
due to expire at the end of 2008, and thus renegotiated
positions need to be in place by 2009. He noted that the
negotiating sessions have already begun. The PST is between
Canada and the United States, but it still places the various
participating states against each other. For instance, Alaska's
interests aren't necessarily the same as those of Washington and
Oregon for access to harvestable surpluses of chinook, sockeye,
and coho. The team in place consists largely of members who
have successfully represented the state in the past. He
informed the committee that David Bedford would remain the
deputy commissioner of ADF&G and his focus is mainly oriented
toward the PST and the Pacific Salmon Commission process. Gordy
Williams, also very experienced in the PST, is on staff. There
are also a number of technical assistants, both full-time and
part-time, as well as contract employees. Some of the issues
include harvest sharing between Lower 48 states and Canada as
well as the federal administration's push to address salmon
recovery in the Pacific Northwest through harvest reductions
rather than through habitat mitigation and amelioration of the
effects of dam programs [in the Pacific Northwest]. Alaska, he
opined, must be vigilant in providing the science that defends
Alaska's harvest regimes while remaining familiar with those of
the Lower 48 and Canada.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN noted his appreciation for keeping staff
with experience in this area as it's important to fishermen in
Southeast Alaska.
9:05:47 AM
CHAIR SEATON then turned the discussion to the International
Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC). He inquired as to the
state's philosophy in relation to halibut issues as well as the
captain and crews who fish during the commercial operations of a
charter vessel.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD characterized the matter as a complex
issue that is driven by an international treaty between the U.S.
and Canada. He highlighted that halibut have been managed for
over 100 years by the IPHC. However, through the Northern
Pacific Halibut Act the allocation decisions within the U.S.
have been delegated to the respective councils, which is NPFMC
for Alaska. The council for Washington and Oregon is the
Pacific Management Council (PMC). He related that he has come
to understand that the IPHC addresses the overarching biological
decisions each year and sets the allowable harvest levels
leaving the allocation of those to NPFMC and the federal
government through NMFS. The commercial harvest is managed
under the IFQ program while the sport harvest is controlled by
the long-standing two fish per day bag limit. The growing
halibut charter sector increased its catch to the point that the
commercial harvesters were concerned that in the future the
aforementioned would cut into the allowable take by commercial
interests. Therefore, the commercial harvester brought the
issue to NPFMC and requested a regulatory program that would
place a cap on halibut charter take. From that request, there
was discussion regarding how the halibut charter industry would
be regulated.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD reminded the committee that last year
the halibut charter sector exceeded what NPFMC had laid out as
its target guideline harvest level (GHL). Various commercial
interests went to the IPHC charging that NPFMC hadn't yet
constrained the charter harvest within the guideline.
Therefore, they requested that the IPHC place a limit on the
halibut charter harvest. The IPHC chose to do so and reduced
the daily bag limit for Area 2C, Southeast Alaska, and Area 3A,
South Central Alaska, from two fish to one for a specified
period in the summer. The department sent a letter to the NMFS
expressing concern with the bag limit reduction. The concern
was based on the notion that IPHC shouldn't make domestic
allocation decisions but rather NPFMC should. However, the
[department] realizes that NPFMC didn't take sufficient action
to constrain the harvest. Therefore, ADF&G requested that NMFS
review IPHC's decision and look for alternatives
administratively to achieve the harvest limits in the charter
sector while providing NPFMC the opportunity to address the
issue internally. Recently, the federal Secretary of State and
Secretary of Commerce have denied the IPHC reduced bag limit and
NMFS is involved in developing an alternative for Southeast
Alaska to achieve the same level of harvest reduction in the
charter sector. He pointed out that NMFS has recognized that
ADF&G's efforts by emergency order to prohibit retention of
halibut by skipper and crew of charter vessels would achieve the
necessary harvest reduction in Area 3A, South Central Alaska.
Therefore, no further action is necessary this year by NMFS. In
South Central Alaska the bag limit will remain at two fish as it
has for many years. For 2007, the focus is an effort to find an
alternative to reduce to a one fish bag limit that would still
provide some harvest reduction. The long-term solution to
determine how best to constrain the charter sector's harvest
still remains with NPFMC. In fact, [ADF&G] is involved in the
final action on a moratorium for new entrants to the charter
fishery. There are also discussions with regard to a long-term
solution, including IFQs, a limit on angler days, or a license
limitation scheme.
9:13:14 AM
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD, in response to Chair Seaton,
confirmed that the skipper and crew restriction is an emergency
order by the state in both areas.
CHAIR SEATON asked if there has been any question or problem
about the applicability of the state regulation of charter
vessels when fishing for halibut.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD highlighted that because halibut is
managed by an international treaty and through the federal
government, the state doesn't have the direct authority to
manage halibut. Therefore, the emergency order restricting the
skipper and crew on charter vessels from retaining fish applies
to all sport fish. In a related effort, the department has
requested from the state's congressional delegation statutory
language that would allow NPFMC to delegate certain management
authority for halibut through NPFMC to the state. However, that
hasn't been successful.
9:14:40 AM
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD, in response to Representative
Johansen, clarified that the decision to ban skippers and crew
from retaining fish was based on the need to reduce the harvest
of halibut. He related that there was concern regarding the
retention of fish by skippers and crew when clients were on
board. Therefore, the department viewed the ban as an
acceptable mechanism, although it applied to species beyond
halibut.
CHAIR SEATON inquired as to whether there's a restriction on a
commercial fishing vessel that has any commercial fish on board
such that it can't participate in any sport fishery.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD answered that he believes that's the
case.
9:15:49 AM
CHAIR SEATON returned to questions related to NPFMC. He then
highlighted the conflict in the allocation schemes of the
federal government, which is based on the allocation of fishing
privileges/rights to investors versus the state's allocation
scheme that's based on participation by the individual holding
the permit. Chair Seaton inquired as to the commissioner's
philosophy as related to the NPFMC process, specifically with
regard to fisheries that cross the state and federal line.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD said that both the investors and
participants should be recognized. For the most part, NPFMC has
recognized the investors more so than the participants.
However, in the halibut program some efforts have been made to
require that eligible participants have some background
operating vessels and being at sea. He commented that it's
arguable whether the aforementioned is sufficient. He also
noted that there are some leasing provisions for those who were
initially issued quota that bear review. Acting Commissioner
Lloyd opined that this administration will scrutinize the
existing and any future rationalization programs to bring more
aggregate benefits to communities versus to individual
harvesting or processing groups.
CHAIR SEATON, noting that six of the eleven voting members of
NPFMC were selected by the state, expressed hope that the
state's philosophy would prevail in any fishery that takes fish
in state waters.
9:20:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX highlighted that the next meeting of NPFMC
will be to review the crab rationalization program. She asked
if Acting Commissioner Lloyd or the administration believes the
crab rationalization program should be changed. If so, she
asked how should it be changed.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD answered that at this time the
department doesn't have specific recommendations for change. He
informed the committee that at the upcoming April NPFMC meeting,
the 18-month review of the crab rationalization program will be
provided. He estimated that by June, ADF&G will begin to
articulate what, if any, changes should be promoted in order to
address the items identified in the discussion paper.
9:21:34 AM
CHAIR SEATON turned to the bycatch and waste problems in the
fisheries. He asked if Acting Commissioner Lloyd supports
mandating changes of gear if that accomplishes a reduction of
bycatch and waste or should the primary species be reallocated.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD confirmed the goal of reducing bycatch
to the extent that bycatch is unutilized. Although forcing
people to change gear types is too simplistic a solution, that
doesn't mean such shouldn't be reviewed. Still, one must
consider what gear types are most useful for harvesting certain
resources. Therefore, he said he would be happy to review
possibilities to achieve the overall goal of bycatch reduction.
9:23:16 AM
CHAIR SEATON highlighted the state water Pacific cod fishery,
which in 1993 changed its trawl and longline gear to pot gear
and saved about 2.5 million pounds of halibut per year. There
hasn't been any further move toward such a change.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD noted that during his time with the
Aleutians East Borough he participated heavily in creating the
state water Pacific cod fishery in the mid to late 1990s. The
gear types were limited to those with de minimis bycatch. The
aforementioned made it easier for the BOF to create fishery
opportunities while setting a standard for bycatch. Acting
Commissioner Lloyd clarified that he would look for such
opportunities, but he wanted to stop short of mandating it. For
example, there are some fisheries for which that gear type
wouldn't work well.
CHAIR SEATON turned to the sable fish industry, which is
experiencing a 50-70 percent loss of the catch to whales. He
then related his understanding that at this point although the
sable fish fishery is a quota fishery, those losses aren't being
subtracted from the quotas. He recalled that [the sable fish
fishery] switched from longline pot fisheries gear a number of
years ago due to competition, although they were extremely
effective. He asked if the [department] would assign the loss
bycatch as a reduction in the quota or provide the alternative
of switching gear.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD said that he would be happy to
entertain such a discussion.
9:26:27 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there were any questions regarding
subsistence, sport, and personal use fisheries. He then
requested that Acting Commissioner Lloyd address the sport fish
hatcheries, and whether those will be effective and affordable.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD answered that the department is on
track with the ground work and future construction of the
hatchery in Fairbanks. Ground will be broken for the Fairbanks
hatchery this summer. He noted that there are some increased
costs associated with the Fairbanks hatchery that the department
can cover under the current bonding structure. For the
Anchorage hatchery, the department needs to determine how best
to backfill the funding in order to construct it. He emphasized
that the department fully intends to build both hatcheries, for
which he hasn't heard of any fatal flaws for either.
9:28:06 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved on to the personal use dip net fishery on the
Kenai River where there is no constraint for fish waste, which
is dumped on the beaches. He inquired as to whose concern this
would be.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD stated that the department is
concerned, but it's not within its authority to address the
disposition of the waste. He characterized it as a Department
of Environmental Conservation (DEC) or a local municipal
problem. Perhaps, he suggested, the aforementioned authorities
should be engaged about this problem.
9:29:09 AM
CHAIR SEATON then highlighted that there are a number of efforts
for rehabilitation enhancement of various aquaculture stocks in
the Cook Inlet area as well as in Prince William Sound and
Cordova. He inquired as to Acting Commissioner Lloyd's stand on
those enhancement projects.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD said he isn't familiar with those
permits.
9:30:11 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to the committee packet, which
includes a booklet produced by ADF&G titled, "Success in
achieving salmon escapement goals in monitored systems." He
pointed out that the chart on page 1 specifies that 55 percent
of monitored streams were above their escapement goal, which
isn't the course desired. However, the chart on page 3
illustrates that 51 percent of the salmon escapements in
Southeast Alaska are within the escapement goal range and that
from 2001-2006 those stocks below the minimum escapement goal
have been reduced. On page 6 the chart relates that the stocks
above the escapement goal in South Central Alaska have risen to
55 percent. The stocks above the escapement goal in the Arctic-
Yukon-Kuskokwim region have risen to 71 percent as related on
the chart on page 9. The chart on page 12 relates that the
Westward region seems to be "holding its own." It appears from
these charts that there is a large economic loss to the state,
which he requested Acting Commissioner Lloyd discuss in regard
to whether the department needs more tools to address the
problem.
9:33:58 AM
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD specified that the department's first
goal is to meet the minimum escapement goal in order that there
are sufficient fish in the creeks so that the spawning objective
is achieved. More recently, the department has realized that
there are upper bounds to the desirable biological number of
fish desired in any of these systems. Placing up river users'
concerns aside, it appears that Chair Seaton is focusing on what
he views as a significant number of fish, in some cases, that
are foregone harvest opportunities. However, these instances of
foregone harvest occur for a number of reasons. For example, in
the Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim region there are many areas in which
the market wasn't available to take advantage of the harvestable
surplus. He said he didn't believe it's a regulatory problem in
terms of fishery harvest control but rather it's a market
problem. He suggested that perhaps the aforementioned could be
addressed by the Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic
Development (DCCED). However, there are other situations which
may be a fishery regulatory matter, such as in situations where
there are conflicting objectives. For instance, in Bristol Bay
where the department is attempting to ensure that the minimum
escapement goal is being achieved in the Kvichak sockeye system,
many sockeye have been allowed in the branch river system.
Although the department hasn't determined how to parse that out
in order to take full advantage of that harvest opportunity, it
has taken some steps with the BOF to create an in-river fishery
in the branch to capture some of it. Furthermore, there are
less precise difficulties such as in Southeast where in some
instances the escapement threshold is achieved, but fleet
movements and other aspects of the fishery contributed to a
higher escapement. He said that he would be happy to further
investigate the specifics of this report.
9:38:05 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted that several attempts have been made to
remedy some of these issues, such as the direct market ability
and transporters. However, concern still remains with regard to
the openers when there aren't enough boats/fishermen around. He
suggested that the department scrutinize the situation and
offered to entertain necessary changes in statute to provide the
department the ability to better manage these escapements.
9:40:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN turned to dive fisheries and
mariculture. He recalled that in 1994 there were efforts to
start mariculture in Southeast Alaska. However, since then it
has been a band-aid approach to these fisheries. He asked if
Acting Commissioner Lloyd or the department has any intention of
creating a statewide management plan for the expansion of these
fisheries.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD said that there isn't a statewide
management policy or plan to expand the dive and mariculture
fisheries. These fisheries provide an opportunity for the state
to invest in fish and wildlife management that would yield some
identifiable returns. In fact, past efforts to have a cost
assessment and cost recovery program with Southeast Alaska
Regional Dive Fisheries Association (SARDFA) has been an
innovative effort to provide base level funding for inventory
and quota-setting processes. However, part of the difficulty is
the department's long-standing core program that was derived
from salmon and expanded into shellfish and groundfish. To move
into the dive fishery requires additional funding and re-
programming. He remarked that there are probably a number of
opportunities in the state in which more investment could yield
some attractive identifiable returns. Those discussions will
occur within the administration through the budget process.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN encouraged the department to work on
[the dive and mariculture fisheries] and come forward and
request necessary funding.
9:45:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON requested that Acting Commissioner Lloyd
speak to his vision with regard to genetic stock identification.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD said that genetic stock identification
holds a tremendous degree of promise. For salmon there are many
questions, including exactly which stocks are being harvested in
which areas. The answers to the aforementioned would be helpful
in biological terms as well as for allocation decisions. He
recalled the rudimentary tool developed in the mid 1990s to
identify chum salmon from major geographic areas. The
aforementioned was very helpful in halting the practice of high
seas gillnetting of salmon. Although such a tool was utilized
locally, the department would like to know more specific
information to do run reconstruction for major rivers out of
Bristol Bay, for instance. He informed the committee that the
department has developed a statewide baseline study for sockeye,
king, and chum using DNA analysis, which is one of the best
means to accomplish this task. However, it's a fairly expensive
endeavor, he noted.
9:49:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON related his understanding that [genetic
stock identification] could be utilized in a broader context
beyond its use as a management tool to include the development
of other fisheries outside of salmon.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD said that genetic stock identification
techniques may be utilized to track animals utilized in
enhancement efforts in order to gauge the success of those
efforts. Therefore, if it's found that the enhancement of king
crab can be done and those transplants can be monitored in the
wild, it could lead to enhanced fishery opportunities.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON recalled that this committee and the House
Resources Standing Committee had discussions on geoducks from
which he understood the department to say that there isn't a
good enough understanding of geoducks to place it in a non-
native area. However, he further recalled information that
British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon utilized genetic stock
identification efforts for geoducks.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD said that he doesn't know how genetic
stock identification pertains to the transplant of an animal to
an area to which it isn't indigenous. Even if the technique
could distinguish between geoducks from various regions, it
doesn't address whether these species should be introduced in
locations where they don't normally occur.
9:52:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN expressed concern with discrete stock
management practices versus mixed stock management practices.
He recalled that in the 1990s legislation addressing discrete
stock management was introduced. In Southeast Alaska there are
hundreds of streams with various runs. He opined that in a
situation in which a stock identified to a specific stream has
problems can impact the entire mixed stock. In such a
situation, a fleet may be restricted from harvesting when only
one stream is having problems.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD characterized the aforementioned as an
important public policy question. He then stated that all of
the commercial salmon fisheries are mixed stock fisheries. In
fact, although the Bristol Bay sockeye fishery is considered a
terminal fishery, fish bound for other areas to spawn are being
harvested. He emphasized that in any discrete stock management
discussion, one must keep in mind the maximum benefit tenet of
the Alaska State Constitution. Therefore, the protection of one
stock shouldn't necessarily require the elimination of fishing
of other stocks. The aforementioned means that opportunities to
protect that stock biologically while taking advantage of other
harvestable surpluses should occur.
9:54:59 AM
CHAIR SEATON reminded the committee of testimony it heard from
high-level staff from the prior administration who questioned
whether shellfish mariculture would best fall under ADF&G,
DCCED, or the Division of Agriculture. He expressed concern
with testimony from a mariculture specialist that read as
follows: "Unfortunately we don't have a mandate for this, doing
research for shellfish. Most of the monies are going for other
commercial endeavors. We have to do it on an opportunistic
basis." Chair Seaton asked if mariculture is going to be part
of ADF&G's mission or should it be transferred to an agency such
as the Division of Agriculture.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD stated that to the extent that there
are biological concerns with what happens with mariculture,
ADF&G should maintain some authority. "If it's a question of
promoting further opportunities, shy of biological difficulties,
I'm not sure I would mind having the Department of Commerce of
some other department be the permitting agent," he said. He
likened the aforementioned to how the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) is responsible for permitting the use of tide
lands for some of these [mariculture] activities. Acting
Commissioner Lloyd specified, "It's not a zero priority within
the department, and I would hope that's obvious. But, it is the
new kid on the block and so, is suffering growing pains and
that's something we have to deal with."
9:57:43 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the committee would now take public
testimony.
9:57:59 AM
BEAVER NELSON, commercial fisherman, began by noting that he is
a past ADF&G employee. Mr. Nelson characterized himself as an
avid sport fisher and hunter who is fairly involved in the BOF
process. Drawing upon his various experiences with Acting
Commissioner Lloyd, Mr. Nelson reported that Acting Commissioner
Lloyd's depth of experience is very valuable and he is easy to
work with. Mr. Nelson said that what he likes most about Acting
Commissioner Lloyd is that he listens before speaking and is a
thoughtful, analytical individual who maintains a good working
relationship with his fellow employees. Mr. Nelson opined that
Acting Commissioner Lloyd is the best candidate for
commissioner.
9:59:19 AM
JOHN JENSEN related that he has known Acting Commissioner Lloyd
for a number of years, both as a commercial fisherman and a
member of the BOF. Mr. Jensen said that he highly recommends
Acting Commissioner Lloyd for the position of commissioner.
9:59:53 AM
CHAIR SEATON, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
10:00:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX made a motion to advance the confirmation
of Denby Lloyd as Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish
& Game to the joint session for consideration.
10:00:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON objected to comment. She related that she
hasn't received any negative comments about Acting Commissioner
Lloyd. She further related her understanding that Acting
Commissioner Lloyd is known for his fairness and accountability.
She then removed her objection.
10:01:23 AM
There being no further objections, the confirmation of Acting
Commissioner Lloyd was advanced.
10:01:38 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 10:01:48
AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|