05/04/2007 08:30 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB16 | |
| HB188 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 188 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
May 4, 2007
8:41 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 16
"An Act providing for an effective date by delaying the
effective date of repeal of the authority of the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission to maintain the vessel-based
commercial fisheries limited entry systems for the Bering Sea
Korean hair crab and weathervane scallop fisheries, and the
effective date of conforming amendments related to the repeal of
those systems."
- HEARD AND HELD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 188
"An Act relating to the authority of the Board of Fisheries to
allocate within fisheries; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 16
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND LIMITED ENTRY SUNSET: CRAB/SCALLOP
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SEATON
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) FSH, RES
04/04/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
04/04/07 (H) Heard & Held
04/04/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
05/04/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 188
SHORT TITLE: BOARD OF FISHERIES' AUTHORITY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WILSON
03/12/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/12/07 (H) FSH, RES, JUD
04/27/07 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
04/27/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/27/07 (H) FSH, RES, JUD
05/02/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
05/02/07 (H) Heard & Held
05/02/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
05/04/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN HILSINGER, Director
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 16, on behalf of
Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
ALAN AUSTERMAN
North Pacific Scallop Coop
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 16.
TERESSA KANDIANIS, President
North Pacific Scallop Cooperative (NPSC),
Bellingham, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 16.
SCOTT MCALLISTER, Member
Sitka Sac Roe Group
Southeast Seiners
Marketing Chair, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 16, on behalf of
the Sitka Sac Roe Group.
BOB THORSTENSON, President
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in neutrality to HB 16, on behalf
of the United Fishermen of Alaska.
SHAWN DOCHTERMAN, Vice President
Alaska Jig Association
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 16.
JULIE KAVANAUGH
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 16.
ALEXUS KWACHKA
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 16.
MAX HULSE
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 16.
TOM GILMARTIN
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 16.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 8:41:54 AM. Representatives
LeDoux, Johnson, Johansen, and Edgmon were present at the call
to order. Representatives Wilson and Holmes arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 16-EXTEND LIMITED ENTRY SUNSET: CRAB/SCALLOP
8:42:12 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 16, "An Act providing for an effective date by
delaying the effective date of repeal of the authority of the
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission to maintain the vessel-
based commercial fisheries limited entry systems for the Bering
Sea Korean hair crab and weathervane scallop fisheries, and the
effective date of conforming amendments related to the repeal of
those systems."
8:43:23 AM
CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony.
8:43:31 AM
JOHN HILSINGER, Director, Division of Commercial Fisheries,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), stated the
department's official support for HB 16, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
ADF&G supported the vessel based limited entry system
for scallops and Korean hair crab when it was adopted
in 2004 because it provided conservation benefits,
both for scallops and for crabs, that were not
provided by an individual based limited entry system
(9 scallop boats versus at least 27; 18 hair crab
boats versus 47).
Scallops
At he current time there are 9 scallop vessels
licensed in both state and federal waters. Four of
those boats actually fish. (Six of the boats have
formed a voluntary co-operative and three of those six
boats fish).
Scallops are long lived slow growing animals that are
not non-migratory as adults. Once the location of a
scallop bed is identified, the same bed is fished year
after year. Occasionally, new beds are discovered.
Population estimates exist for only 2 of the 9
registration areas. Therefore, management must be
precautionary and harvest rates must be kept very low
to prevent over fishing. Harvests are kept well below
estimated MSY levels.
King and tanner crabs are intermixed with scallops and
some scallop beds are closed to protect depressed crab
populations. Areas open to scallop fishing have crab
bycatch limits because mortality of crabs caught in
scallop dredges is high.
Guideline harvest ranges for the scallops are
developed from observer data, catch per unit effort,
and catch sampling. Observers also monitor crab
bycatch and fisheries may be closed if crab bycatch
limits are met. Because of the limited number of
boats fishing and the bycatch data collected, the
vessels have been able to reduce crab bycatch and
avoid premature closures.
Recent average scallop harvests for the state are
somewhat less than 500,000 pounds of meat per year.
Approximately 30%, or about 145,000 pounds, are
estimated to come from state waters. These harvests
are lower than they were in the late 1990s because the
department is lowering guideline harvest ranges in
order to sustain the stocks.
The vessel based limited entry program works together
with the guideline harvest ranges, observer data,
other sampling, closed areas, seasons, and gear
limitations to provide a sustainable management
program for scallops. It is not clear what will
happen if one of those tools is removed, or what
exactly could replace it without affecting the
viability of the fishery.
If HB 16 does not pass, at best the department will
need to seek regulatory changes through the Board of
Fisheries. However, if there is a large influx of
vessels it is possible some state water areas will not
open.
A significant difficulty in implementing this fishery
in the absence of the vessel based limited entry
system is that the state waters boundary line cuts
right cross the middle of many of these scallop beds
requiring the state to consider managing a single
scallop bed essentially as two separate areas.
In anticipation of HB 16 not passing, the department
is considering what additional regulations might be
necessary. These may include, but are not limited to,
separate guideline harvest ranges for state and
federal waters, recording catch separately for state
and federal waters, vessel monitoring systems, shorter
seasons, and pre-registration.
8:48:39 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that a vessel monitoring system (VMS) is
not a requirement for the scallop fleet.
MR. HILSINGER said that VMS would be necessary if the vessel
limited entry program were not in place. The state opposes
requiring VMS, because of the lack of access to the data. The
federal government may make the data available in the future,
which would change the department's outlook on this technology.
The on-board observer is able to provide accurate information,
although when they tow across the boundary line, it is difficult
to ascertain from which area the scallops were dredged.
CHAIR SEATON queried how the tows are recorded, and the data
reported, for tows in state waters.
MR. HILSINGER stated, "That's a good question, ... and I don't
know precisely what they record. I assume that they probably
record the start/stop location of the tow." Electronic data may
not be available, he opined.
CHAIR SEATON asked if it would create a problem, should the
state require electronic data be reported for the location of
the tows.
MR. HILSINGER agreed that such a requirement could be an option.
An alternative, which the department has considered, would be to
disallow the dredging of state and federal waters at one time.
If this program is not extended, the department will need to
develop a complete package of regulations, which may include:
separating the guideline harvest ranges, requiring a VMS,
limiting the season to a shorter period, and imposing a pre-
registration requirement.
CHAIR SEATON established that these are management tools that
are currently available in regulation.
8:53:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired why these regulations were not
considered prior to this program being implemented; a program
that is a departure from the states standard practices.
MR. HILSINGER suggested that the program may have been
implemented based on the traditional harvest levels of the beds.
The technology has not been available to accurately ascertain
the federal and state harvests. The viability of the fishery
may also have been a factor. To a follow-up question, he
deferred to the limited entry witness.
8:55:37 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out the sunset date of HB 16 as being
December 2008, allowing ample time for the department to
implement any necessary regulations, should the program not be
extended.
8:56:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked how long will it take to put
regulations in place, if necessary.
MR. HILSINGER speculated that any necessary changes/actions
could be implemented to coincide with the sunset date and the
2009 season. Responding to a committee question, he said that,
pending a vote on the bill, the department will begin the
process, in order to be prepared.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether the department supports a
change in how this fishery operates.
MR. HILSINGER reiterated the department's support for extending
the program.
8:59:47 AM
CHAIR SEATON inquired if the department would have concern
should the entire allocation be harvested by a single vessel, or
is that regarded as a policy issue.
MR. HILSINGER responded that it would be a policy decision,
which the department would not enter into.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that the number of vessels fishing is not
part of the regulatory process that the state would be concerned
with, as long as goals were being met.
MR. HILSINGER said that the allocation goals would be the
primary concern, and he cautioned that many fishery management
strategies evolve depending on how well they are working;
predictability is not always possible.
9:01:31 AM
MR. HILSINGER continued, paraphrasing from a prepared statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Bering Sea Korean hair crab
Hair crab fishing in the Bering Sea has been closed
since 2001. This stock has declined dramatically
since the early 1980s. Since harvest rates in this
fishery were always low, it is likely this decline is
not related to the fishery.
Hair crab fishing is characterized by vessels fishing
a large number of pots and achieving a relatively low
catch per pot. Male hair crabs average just less than
1.5 ponds each.
Before the department considers reopening this
fishery, the stock size needs to rebound to greater
than 50 percent of the long term average biomass with
adequate numbers of females and a size distribution of
sub-legal and legal males that would ensure
recruitment could replace harvest.
The more boats expected to participate in the fishery,
the higher the bar would be. One particular concern
of having a large fleet in this fishery is that
because of the low catch rates, a larger fleet is
likely to spread out over a larger area. This
increases the likelihood of bycatch, especially blue
king crabs, which are currently very depressed.
The smaller fleet under a vessel based limited entry
program would increase the possibility of reopening
the fishery sooner and it would decrease the
likelihood of incidental catches impacting blue king
crabs.
For these reasons, the Department continues to support
the vessel based limited entry program as an important
element in the overall management strategy to provide,
or bring back, viable fisheries while also
implementing necessary scallop and crab conservation
measures.
9:05:41 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked how many vessels left the crab fishery,
during the crab buy out and consolidation.
MR. HILSINGER responded that loss of vessels is an issue, but he
does not have a count to report. An assessment will be made,
when a pending date for an opening is established.
CHAIR SEATON commented on how a vessel license permit could be
fished by another fisherman; creating a healthy fleet, and
maintaining the value of each permit.
9:08:07 AM
MR. HILSINGER offered that if the vessel based system goes away
then it would become an open system, and any boat could
participate. Prices, harvest limits, and other variables would
then drive the viability of the fishery.
9:09:10 AM
CHAIR SEATON queried whether the department could not
reestablish this as a limited entry fishery; as it was
originally announced.
MR. HILSINGER deferred to the limited entry witness. To a
further question, he said he is looking forward to reviewing the
recommendations contained in the committee packet.
9:10:30 AM
ALAN AUSTERMAN, North Pacific Scallop Coop, responded to the
issues of crossing the state and federal lines, during a pull,
stating that it is his understanding that this is tracked by the
observers. He encouraged the committee to establish policy
guidelines upon which ADF&G could base regulations, and a
management plan. The department needs direction on this issue,
he stressed. The department cannot set policy, and the BOF will
set policy based on legislative action. The industry and
managers need the tools provided by the legislature. The sunset
date needs to timed to allow adequate opportunity for the fleet
to make adjustments, and adapt to any new system. A significant
portion of the fishery occurs in the winter months, following
the December 31, 2008, sunset date, and, if this bill is not
passed, consideration will need to be given as to how the
remainder of that season will be fished.
9:16:45 AM
TERESSA KANDIANIS, President, North Pacific Scallop Cooperative
(NPSC), stated support for HB 16, and paraphrased from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Correction of the CFEC list of Scallop permits
attached to their memorandum of March 28, 2007: The
Permit owned by Future Fisheries, Inc. of New Bedford,
MA is NOT a member of the North Pacific Scallop
Cooperative. The Carolina Boy permit is owned by a
Washington corporation.
The NPSC requires members to maintain Vessel
Monitoring Systems (VMS) on their vessels even though
it not required by regulation.
The NPSC requires members to make available all of
their electronic fishing data to observers and to
ADF&G even though this is not required by regulation.
The NPSC has categorically, absolutely NOT offered to
buy a vessel and/or a scallop permit.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC)
did a recent and thorough analysis of the viability of
various scallop fishing gear configurations. This
analysis is available on line at the NPFMC website and
is included in the Fisheries Subcommittee back up
information.
The 2008 scallop fishing season ends on February 15,
2009. The sunset of the Statewide Weathervane Scallop
License program is December 31, 2008. Not extending
the program beyond that date creates complexities in
management for the 2008 fishing season.
Finally, sustainability and conservation of the
scallop resource is the core of the North Pacific
Scallop Cooperative. Its purpose and by-laws focus on
conservation of the scallop resource and reduction of
crab bycatch.
9:19:55 AM
SCOTT MCALLISTER, Member, Sitka Sac Roe Group, Southeast
Seiners, Marketing Chair, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA),
testified that this is the classic conflict between market and
resource, of who may and who may not participate. Alaska is the
last state with enough resources to manage for abundance base.
A user group has been identified and balanced with the abundance
of these resources. The groups he represents are primarily
interested in how the stewardship of this resource is being
handled, and how the commercial allocations are administered.
CHAIR SEATON asked if he had a position to express regarding the
issuance of limited entry permits to individual fishermen vs.
investors; individual or corporate vessel owners.
MR. MCALLISTER said, "No, we don't have a problem with that."
The regulation occurred at the legislative level. "I think it
works just fine the way it is," he finished.
9:23:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if UFA officially endorses the
passage of HB 16.
MR. MCALLISTER clarified that he is not representing UFA on this
issue.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX queried that neither he nor those he
represents have a concern with individual fishing quotas in
Alaskan waters.
MR. MCALLISTER responded that it does not effect the fishery of
those he represents. Should it enter those waters, it would
become a discussion point in the group. "We don't have a
problem with [HB 16] going forward," he said. To a follow-up
question he reiterated that he represents the Sitka Sac Roe
Group.
9:24:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON affirmed that he is recommending the
passage of HB 16.
MR. MCALLISTER replied, "Yes."
9:24:33 AM
BOB THORSTENSON, President, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA),
provided an official neutral position from the organization.
The legislation was fully vetted by UFA, he reported. The
narrow focus and compelling reasons that this legislation was
enacted has proven acceptable and deemed necessary.
9:27:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that neutral does not indicate an
endorsement.
MR. THORSTENSON said that any of the 36 independent UFA groups
could have chosen to oppose this bill, however, none have.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if the UFA had a board meeting where
this was discussed to arrive at the neutral position.
MR. THORSTENSON responded, "Yes, both in 2002 and in January of
this year."
9:28:53 AM
MR. THORSTENSON named the 18 hair crab fishery permit holders,
and their locations; 33 percent are Alaskan. The hair crab and
scallop fishery are probably the two Alaskan large boat
fisheries that exist, he opined, and provided a brief summary of
the Mr. Big incident. Today the scallops are harvested over a
seven to eight month period, the by-catch is minimal, the
environment is protected, and the catch product represents the
highest quality scallop in the world. Because more fishing time
is involved, more shore landings are made, which provides an
influx of economic support to the ports of call. Additionally,
he said these are programs that have been working. A
philosophical argument exists that the permit must go with the
person, however, there has not been abuse of this legislation,
and he urged passage of HB 16.
9:32:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to the hair crab fishery and
asked whether it has been fished.
MR. THORSTENSON affirmed that is has not been fished since 2001.
9:32:49 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked how many limited entry programs have been
instituted in Alaska, since this legislation was enacted.
MR. THORSTENSON deferred.
CHAIR SEATON noted that if none have been instituted, then no
effect could be observed.
9:33:22 AM
SHAWN DOCHTERMAN, Vice President, Alaska Jig Association, stated
opposition to HB 16. He said that he is not in tune with these
fisheries, however the limited number of vessels that
participate raises a concern. He pointed out the importance of
the limited entry regulations and suggested that issuing the
permit to the vessel is a type of rationalization. He stressed
the importance of having "the boots on the deck, stay on the
boat."
9:35:14 AM
JULIE KAVANAUGH said she is the owner of six limited entry
permits. She stated opposition to HB 16, noting that this
legislation serves a small special interest group. The bill
could be challenged on a constitutional basis, she opined, but
conceded that it has allowed better management of the stocks.
Further, she said that using this as a model for other fisheries
would be detrimental.
9:37:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether she would fish either one of
these fisheries.
MS. KAVANAUGH replied that it would be a possibility.
9:38:46 AM
ALEXUS KWACHKA stated opposition to HB 16, and cited a concern
for corporate ownership of limited entry permits. He said:
Why did we stray so far from the operator to the
vessel, and now we see ... consolidation across the
state ... and it's going to wipe this community out.
... We've lost five or six businesses in the last year
in this community alone. What I see is nine vessels
... consolidated down to three; I want to know what
those other six vessels are doing. Are they off
generating revenue somewhere else, or are they
prosecuting another fishery. ... We have strayed too
far, and we're straying further. Let's get back on
course here.
9:41:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that he stated how this bill is not
bad in itself, but coupled with other things it is bad, and
asked him to elaborate.
MR. KWACHKA restated his concern for moving away from CFEC to
corporate ownership.
9:42:53 AM
MAX HULSE stated support for HB 16, commenting that he would not
be in favor of large corporations owning the permit, or vessel
oriented permits. He opined that the permit should be issued to
the individual fishermen who actively participate in the
fishery. He paraphrased from a prepared statement, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
To open the State scallop fishery to all would greatly
impact our income from the scallop fishery. Looking
at the total scallop quota for Alaska waters and the
small percentage and concentration of scallops in just
State waters, compared to Federal waters, makes the
profit margin slim as is. Then to add more fishing
pressure will surely reduce the profit margin in State
waters to near zero.
When Federal Scallop Permits were issued in 1999 by
the NMFS our vessel and another vessel, the F/V
Kilkenney out of Homer were restricted to the use of
one 6 foot dredge in federal waters, which we felt was
unfair due to our extensive involvement in the scallop
fishery since 1982.
The use of only one 6 foot dredge in Federal waters
made it impossible to make a go of it, even though we
could use two dredges in State waters. With the high
cost of fuel, an onboard observer at $325.00/day++ you
need to be able to fish in both Federal and State
waters with two dredges to make a reasonable profit.
In 2003 we took our 6 foot dredge situation back
before the Council and they reversed our restriction
allowing us to use two 10 foot dredges in Federal
waters starting in 2006.
Of the four vessels now actively involved in the
Alaska fishery, the two Alaska based vessels - the F/V
Wayward Wind and the F/V Kilkenney are much smaller
and more susceptible to bad weather. Thus, during
poor weather the two larger vessels would choose to
fish longer in Federal waters, which have much denser
beds of scallops, letting us fish in calmer State
waters.
Also, it is our feeling that permits should not be
issued to vessels, but to individual fishermen who
have made the investment and actively participate in
the fishery.
If the moratorium is not extended: 1. How would
quota be divided between State and Federal waters? 2.
Would there be a dredge size restriction as to the
length of vessel? 3. How would enforcement handle
adherence to the 2 mile limit - Federal and State
scallop beds are close together. 4. Are moneys
available to cover necessary surveys and enforcement?
9:46:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired whether there would be
environmental damage to the ocean bottom, if this fishery were
opened up.
MR. HULSE responded that he is unsure. However, the four
questions, at the end of his prepared statement also need to be
addressed, he said.
9:48:12 AM
TOM GILMARTIN, resident scallop fisherman, stated opposition to
HB 16, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as
follows:
Because the scallop fishery rules and regulations are
designed around a cooperative of mostly latent
permits. I believe the time has come for the
legislature to step in and open the fishery for the
greater good.
WE need a BILL that:
1) Amends AAC 75.300 definitions in AS 43.75(4)
"processing" does not include decapitating shrimp and
gutting, gilling, sliming, or icing a fisheries
resource solely for ... maintaining the quality of the
fresh resource. And add shucking scallops to this
definition.
2) [Gives] open access for all of those that hold a
small vessel crab permit. This because crab stocks
are most affected by scallop activities. This lets
the crabbers participate and act as good [stewards] by
fishing out of high crab areas. Or they may sell
their scallop permit to any other fisherman if they
choose.
3) Allows only one 12 foot dredge or smaller in state
waters.
4) Imposes 1,000 Pound trip Limits per calendar day or
twice a week on all trips for the small vessel
operations. Possession over 1,000 pounds not allowed.
5) Imposes 15,000 Pound trip limits on the federally
licensed vessels.
6) Require Electronic Vessel Monitoring Systems VMS on
all scallop vessels including the federally licensed
nine.
7) Require digital cameras on all scallop vessels
decks in place of observers.
8) Require 10 percent observer coverage funded by
adding extra pounds to each trip limit an observer is
on board.
9) Stop training observers for regulatory compliance;
they are on board for biology only.
A Bill like this would create lots of jobs.
9:50:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if he is an active scallop
fisherman.
MR. GILMARTIN responded that he missed last season due to lack
of operational funds. His outstanding observer bill has kept
him tied to the dock.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON queried what the benefit would be to have
more scallop fishermen on the water.
MR. GILMARTIN suggested that people should have the opportunity
to fish for 200 or 300 pounds everyday. They could pool their
resources and work as a group. The current cooperative has two
boats fishing.
9:51:37 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony, and announced that HB 16
would be held.
HB 188-BOARD OF FISHERIES' AUTHORITY
[Contains discussion of HB 16.]
CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 188, "An Act relating to
the authority of the Board of Fisheries to allocate within
fisheries; and providing for an effective date."
9:52:14 AM
CHAIR SEATON said that the legal opinions attached to HB 188
state that there is a need for the legislature to make specific
allowances if there is to be a fishery in which a person gains
money without participating. That is the essence of the Grunert
court decision: a person may not benefit from an Alaskan
fisheries entry permit without participation in the fishery.
The extension of HB 16 continues the legislation which allows
someone to be paid for their participation in a coop, without
being active in the fishery. These points are the equivalencies
between these two bills.
[HB 188 was held.]
9:53:22 AM
CHAIR SEATON, under other business, directed the committee's
attention to a letter, in the committee packet, explaining how
fishery participants can currently purchase more than one
commercial fishing permit per year. The question is whether the
committee needs to establish policy on this issue. A
recommendation could be made to not allow for sequential
purchases, or that one of the licenses could not be a short term
license, if two are purchased. Public comment is now being
solicited by the department, and he urged people to send in
comments.
9:55:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if this regulation only applies to
out of state fishermen.
CHAIR SEATON said it applies to anyone. He clarified that this
has come out as a proposed regulation change and needs the
committee's consideration.
9:56:50 AM
CHAIR SEATON reiterated that both bills would be held.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 9:57
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|