Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/29/1993 08:30 AM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
MARCH 29, 1993
8:30 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl E. Moses, Chairman
Representative Harley Olberg, Vice-Chairman
Representative Gail Phillips
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Irene Nicholia
Representative Cliff Davidson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 218 "An Act repealing the restriction on the maximum
length of salmon seine vessels; and providing for
an effective date."
CSHB 218 (FSH) MOVED OUT WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
*HB 251 "An act relating to the management and allocation
of fishery resources."
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION
(* first public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
Representative Carl Moses
State Capitol, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4451
Position Statement: Prime Sponsor of HB 218 and HB 251
Geron Bruce, Special Assistant
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5526
Phone: 465-6143
Position Statement: Department has not developed a position
yet on HB 251.
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 218
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL 58 FT. LIMIT FOR SEINE VESSELS
BILL VERSION: CSHB 218(FSH)
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MOSES
TITLE: "An Act relating to the maximum length of salmon
seine vessels; and providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/10/93 592 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/10/93 592 (H) FISHERIES, RESOURCES
03/22/93 (H) FSH AT 08:30 AM CAPITOL 17
03/22/93 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/29/93 824 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) NEW TITLE 2DP
1NR
03/29/93 824 (H) DP: MOSES, PHILLIPS
03/29/93 824 (H) NR: OLBERG
03/29/93 824 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G)NEW
TITLE 3/29/93
03/26/93 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/29/93 (H) FSH AT 08:30 AM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 251
SHORT TITLE: MANAGEMENT AND ALLOCATION OF FISH
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MOSES
TITLE: "An Act relating to the management and allocation of
fishery resources.
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/24/93 761 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/24/93 761 (H) FISHERIES, RESOURCES, JUDICIARY
03/29/93 (H) FSH AT 08:30 AM CAPITOL 17
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-18, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN CARL MOSES called the meeting to order at 8:32 a.m.
He noted Representatives Moses, Olberg and Phillips in
attendance and said the meeting would begin by bringing up
once again HB 218 and then hearing HB 251.
HB 218: REPEAL 58 FT. LIMIT FOR SEINE VESSELS
CHAIRMAN MOSES, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 218, informed the
committee they had before them a proposed committee
substitute for HB 218 (CSHB 218 (FSH)) which clarifies that
the 58 foot limit is repealed in state law, but authority
for making restrictions on length goes back to the Board of
Fisheries, to be done on a fishery by fishery or regional
basis. He added CSHB 218 (FSH) incorporates the change
proposed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the
Board of Fisheries, and fishing groups to switch the seine
length restrictions to the Board over a three year period in
order to match their meeting cycle.
VICE CHAIR HARLEY OLBERG MOVED to ADOPT CSHB 218 (FSH) for
discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS asked if limit restrictions
were a factor in other states.
CHAIRMAN MOSES was not aware of any.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS MOVED to PASS out CSHB 218 (FSH)
from the committee with individual recommendations. There
were no objections, and CSHB 218 (FSH) MOVED out of
committee with individual recommendations.
HB 251: MANAGEMENT AND ALLOCATION OF FISH
CHAIRMAN MOSES, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 251, told the committee
HB 251 was introduced at the request of former Governor Jay
Hammond and others who believe the Board of Fisheries needs
a definitive policy from the Alaska Legislature for
management and allocation of fisheries resources. According
to the Chairman, the constitution mandates that these
resources be utilized to the maximum benefit of Alaska and
its residents. Although there are federal constitutional
concerns, he noted it has become apparent to many fishermen
in watching the struggles of the Board of Fisheries over the
years that further policy guidelines are necessary in order
to comply with the constitution to the extent legally
possible.
CHAIRMAN MOSES advised HB 251 would establish such a policy
in statute and make clear the policy of the state is to
maximize benefits for the state's resources consistent with
the sustained yield principle and with the least adverse
impact on the people of the state.
Number 048
GERON BRUCE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT WITH THE ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND GAME (ADF&G), told the committee the ADF&G was
still reviewing HB 251 and had faxed it to members of the
Board of Fisheries for their comments before developing a
position.
MR. BRUCE gave a brief history of the efforts behind HB 251.
Alaska's fishery resources were originally developed by
residents of the Pacific Northwest and California, and MR.
BRUCE noted the long struggle to wrestle control over those
interests and get the resources into the hands of Alaskans.
He said that the ADF&G supports efforts to achieve this
goal.
MR. BRUCE explained that the legislature several years ago
adopted criteria in an attempt to do this kind of thing, and
one of the provisions talk about the number of residents and
non-residents who have participated in the fishery in the
past, and the number that can be reasonably expected to
participate in the future. The purpose of this criteria was
to do what is being proposed in HB 251. However, there are
complications in dealing with federal law, especially the
provisions not to discriminate against non-residents in
matters affecting interstate commerce.
MR. BRUCE informed the committee the Department of Law has
advised the Board of Fisheries not to utilize this
particular criteria when they are making allocation
decisions for Alaska's fisheries resources. It would be
important in reviewing this legislation, he advised, to get
an opinion from the Department of Law regarding whether or
not the approach proposed in HB 251 would be a more
effective tool to have and whether it would fall prey to the
same problems the earlier criteria did.
MR. BRUCE also explained the recent history of this
legislation. Two years ago when the Board of Fisheries took
up proposals concerning the Bristol Bay fisheries, there was
a section of regulation dealing with setnet fishing in the
Kvichak section of the Naknek-Kvichak District. This setnet
section allowed for additional time for setnetters in excess
of what was given the driftnetters, recognizing that setnet
gear was fixed and the driftnetters could move around and
have other opportunities. The only way for the setnetters
to make up for interceptions was to fish some extra time.
MR. BRUCE added the Board took public testimony and decided
to remove section f from the regulation book, primarily
because they were concerned there wasn't specific enough
criteria to the department for implementing section f. The
department believed it was putting them in the position of
making an allocation call instead of the Board. The job of
the department is to manage, not allocate.
MR. BRUCE passed out graphs developed by the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission that showed the consequences of
repealing section f, which caused people to question the
wisdom of the Board's action. In the Naknek-Kvichak, only
30% of the value of the harvest in the driftnet fishery is
taken by the residents of the state of Alaska, whereas in
the setnet fishery, almost 75% is. The argument runs that
by eliminating the section f provision, the opportunity for
Alaskans to maximize benefits from the resources was
reduced. The Board of Fisheries ended up revisiting this
issue this past winter and reinstated the section f
provision.
MR. BRUCE disclosed Governor Hammond's argument is that a
lot of energy and time went into this exercise, and if there
had been something in statute that would have made it clear
that the Board should not do things that would reduce the
opportunities for Alaskans to benefit from the fishery
resources, they would have quickly disposed of the original
proposal as not being in the interest of the state of
Alaska.
Number 140
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS expressed interest in the
percentages in the graphs, noting there was probably a
similar situation in Cook Inlet.
MR. BRUCE affirmed they would be waiting to hear from the
Board of Fisheries and the Department of Law before
completing their analysis. He explained that the original
criteria was sponsored by Senator Vic Fischer in the
mid-1980s. He said the criteria was used, except for the
one provision concerning residents and non-residents, which
they have been advised not to use. He believed HB 251 would
certainly be challenged by residents from outside the state
There was some discussion between REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS
and CHAIRMAN MOSES over who in their districts could be
impacted by this legislation.
CHAIRMAN MOSES noted it was typical of attorneys to be
overly cautious about something that might happen and the
legislature should not always act on something that might
happen.
HB 251 WAS HELD FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN MOSES adjourned the meeting at 9 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|