Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/08/1995 05:05 PM 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
February 8, 1995
5:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Chairman
Representative Carl Moses, Vice Chairman
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Scott Ogan
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Representative Ben Grussendorf
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HB 107:"An Act relating to restrictions attached to certain
commercial fisheries limited entry permits."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HJR 23:Relating to the Western Alaska Community Development
Quota Program and the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council Comprehensive Rationalization Program.
HEARD AND HELD
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE BEN GRUSSENDORF
State Captitol, Room 415
Juneau, Alaska 998701-1182
Telephone: 465-3824
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of HB 107
BILL FLOR, President
Southeast Dungeness Crabbers Association
Post Office Box 262
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: 000-0000
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 107
KRAIG NORHEIM
Post Office Box 878
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: 874-3991
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 107
LEO J. TIM
Post Office Box 2188
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: 543-2314
POSITION STATEMENT: Unclear testimony on HB 107
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 23
JEFF ERICKSON
Post Office Box 53
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: 772-9237
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 107
CHRIS CERIS
Post Office Box 145
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: 772-4602
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 107
DAVID GREBE
Post Office Box 564
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: 772-3512
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 107
DENNIS O'NEIL
Post Office Box 1083
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: 772-3982
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 107
FRANK HOMAN, Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
8800 Glacier Highway, Suite 109
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: 789-6160
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 107
CHERI CRAWFORD
Post Office Box 464
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: 000-0000
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 107
NORMAN COHEN, Executive Director
Coastal Villages Fishing Cooperative
204 North Franklin, #1
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: 586-2360
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 23
MIKE IRWIN, Commissioner Designate
Department of Community and Regional Affairs
Post Office Box 112100
Juneau, Alaska 99811-2100
Telephone: 465-4700
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 23 with Amendment
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Post Office Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99811-5526
Telephone: 465-6143
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 23
KARL OHLS, Executive Director
Western Alaska Fisheries Development Association
725 Christensen Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: 279-6519
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 23
PREVIOUS ACTION
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-7, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Special Committee on Fisheries was called to order by
Chairman Alan Austerman at 5:05 p.m. Members present at the call
to order were Representatives Moses, Davis and Elton.
Number 022
HFSH - 02/08/95
HB 107 - RESTRICTED LIMITED ENTRY PERMITS
REPRESENTATIVE BEN GRUSSENDORF stated, "HB 107 stems out of a
situation that has occurred mainly in Southeast Alaska. In 1991,
there was some concern with the stock and the ability of that stock
to sustain itself. In this case we're talking about dungeness
crabs."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUSSENDORF further stated, "We want to do something
so those people that are in the crab fisheries will be able to make
a living. We could allow more and more people to come in to it but
then people would get fewer and fewer crabs and thus cause problems
with the stock. The bill takes the findings from the moratorium
and they show what would be in the best interest of the stock.
We're not necessarily saying how many pots and how to do this.
This would simply be a tool to give to the Limited Entry Board to
figure out how to work it out. This does not, in any way, alter or
limit the powers of the Board of Fish. It just basically sets up
where people that are in the crab industry right now for dungeness,
would get what their historical use has been in the number of
pots."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUSSENDORF further stated, "Number one, we're
trying to protect the stock so we can have a sustained yield.
Secondly, let those people that are in that particular fisheries be
able to make a living off of it."
Number 084
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted that Representative Ogan arrived at 5:07
p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS asked Representative Grussendorf how long
the moratorium was on.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUSSENDORF responded by saying, "It started in 1990
or 1991. A moratorium can only run for four years and we had a
series of hearings in Southeast Alaska, ranging from Ketchikan,
Wrangell, Petersburg, Sitka and Juneau. We all agreed that it
would be a good idea. Next January, the four years are up and if
we don't do something, its gone and everybody can bail into that
fishery. I personally do not feel that it would be in the best
interest of the stock and certainly would cause problems with those
people making a few dollars out of it now."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked Representative Grussendorf if a
consensus was reached at those meetings and that this bill is the
outcome of those meetings.
Number 110
REPRESENTATIVE GRUSSENDORF said, "The meetings that were held were
whether or not we should have a moratorium. During that moratorium
period, we had the researchers and biologists and fishermen
analyzing what the carrying capacity is. There conclusion was that
something had to be done. What is attempting to be done is to give
the Limited Entry Commission a tool to investigate anything from
tierring to whatever they want to do. Once again, the Board of
Fish has the power to limit the number of pots. I understand that
there is an amendment floating around to that effect."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUSSENDORF said, referring to the amendment, "I
have no problem with it, because the bill is tailored not to
override any of the power of the Board of Fish."
FRANK HOMAN, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
confirmed that was the intent of the amendment.
Number 139
BILL FLOR, President, Southeast Dungeness Crabbers Association
testified via teleconference from Petersburg urging support of this
legislation. He said, "We have been trying to achieve some
protection for the crab resources to limited access to the
commercial users. Because of the nature of this type of fishery,
which uses multiple units of gear, a person can participate very
minimally. This presents serious problems when a traditional
limited entry is considered because of the potential for increasing
the actual number of pots in the water can grow significantly. The
resource can suffer and the managers have no real way of knowing
the actual fishing effort. Mr. Grussendorf stated that in 1991,
the legislature worked with us to pass a bill imposing a moratorium
on new entrants into the Southeast dungeness fishery. This was so
we could study various possibilities for conserving the resource."
MR. FLOR further stated, "HB 107 is a direct continuation of that
process. "(indisc)" held hearings throughout Southeast in
September, of 1994, and the crab industry was fairly united in
trying to solve an inclusive tierred access system. This is by
where fishermen would be given permits tied to gear levels that
would be consistent with their past participation. This is fair
because all participants are included. It gives managers a solid
control over the total number of pots actually fishing and it
efficiently controls growth."
Number 183
KRAIG NORHEIM, testified via teleconference from Petersburg
opposing HB 107 saying, "I think everyone should be treated
equally that met the moratorium criteria. If pot restriction isn't
what were looking at here, if its the permit were trying to get
into the ball park, then either we get a permit or we don't.
Either its wide open for everyone to fish or we are a unique set of
individuals. The ADFG can limit the gear according to what they
feel the biomass and fishing participants in the fishery are
actually doing by registration of pots. I don't think a tierred
system is in the best interest of all the fishermen in Southeast."
MR. NORHEIM added, "A tierred system looks good for me but it
doesn't look good for some of the smaller boats that are getting
into the fishery and building their strings from scratch during a
moratorium or even before. The approximately 75 people that got in
under the last year of this moratorium, should have the same rights
to fish like we do."
Number 216
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON indicated he understood Mr. Norheim's
point and said, "But the danger of imposing limitations is there
with the simple limited entry format. Couldn't a regime be
extended to that fishery which would take out those small boat
fishermen because of a lack of history in the fishery?"
MR. NORHEIM answered that he didn't believe that was the case. He
further stated, "If you had 50 pots five years ago, you may have
250 now, but there isn't a moratorium during the years that you
were qualifying for. Some of us had 300 pots during those and yes
were going to look real good in a tierred system. In reality, the
ADFG look at the number of participants and they determine that
they can use 300 pots and they can fish four months out of the
year. Were under a size, sex and season management, so we can take
all the legal males in a area."
MR. NORHEIM also said, "It doesn't matter if we have 150 pots per
vessel or we have 300 pots per vessel, we still take the same
amount of crab yearly that are legal to take. The little guy can
still become as big as he wants within a 300 pot limit which is the
legal limit. On the Washington coast there is a 600 pot limit, and
up north is a 600 pot limit. In Southeast we have a traditional
300 pot limit. Not everybody fishes the limit, because they may
not financially be able to do that or maybe their boat is not large
enough to handle 300 pots."
Number 257
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked, "The argument that you're advancing in
opposing a tierred system could be a argument that could easily be
advance in opposing limited entry. For example, a person who began
fishing during the moratorium would not qualify for a limited entry
permit. That would have the same deleterious effect on the small
boat fishermen that you're talking about with a tierred system. Is
that correct?"
MR. NORHEIM replied, "I believe that the limited entry would give
every person that fished during the moratorium a license. The
license would be of equal value for everybody."
Number 276
LEO J. TIM testified via teleconference from Bethel against
commercial entry permits in general. He also talked about the
Bering Sea, Togiak and subsistence.
Number 324
JEFF ERICKSON testified via teleconference from Petersburg stating
that he was against the bill as it is written. He said, "The
enforcement of this bill would be harder than it is now. I feel
equal participation is the way it should go. There's a set number
of people that are in the fishery. If 300 pots are too (indisc.)
for each person then I think they should lower the pot limit. That
should be a Board of Fish thing. I really feel that those
(indisc.) don't need to make any amendments to the limited entry,
the way it stands. I'm in favor of limited entry with fewer pots."
Number 371
CHRIS CERIS testified via teleconference from Petersburg indicating
that he was against limiting entry into the dungeness crab fishery.
He further stated, "I do not believe that conservation preservation
of the species is a valid argument for limited entry. I have
reached these conclusions after conversations with our area
shellfish biologist Tim Kieteman (ph)." He explained the size, sex
and season theory and another theory involving elimination of the
large up and down cycle of crab stocks. He stressed that harvest
limits, changing the seasons and limiting the amount of gear in the
water remain viable in a open access fishery. He said, "I would
urge you to consult with biologists. There is a set number of
legal crab, most of which get caught, no matter if its by 200
people with 300 pots each or 400 people with 150 pots each. These
numbers show that twice as many Alaskan's could be benefitting from
the fishery. Limited entry does not make sense for the crab or for
the economy."
Number 417
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that whether this bill passes or not,
limited entry can still be imposed in this fishery.
DAVID GREBE, testified via teleconference from Petersburg. He
said, "I don't think limited entry is the right way to go."
Number 440
DENNIS O'NEIL testified via teleconference from Petersburg stated,
"I'm supporting this bill. It seems like there is already too many
pots in the water. We need some type of limited entry for it.
This tierred system seems like the best one to me. I think any
other limited entry would increase the number of pots."
Number 485
MR. HOMAN testified saying, "The current limited entry system is
a licensing system for a permit holder. Under that licensing
system, it allows them to fish the maximum amount of gear allowed.
The number of pots for the Southeast dungeness crab fishery is 300
pots. The fleet, over the last eight years, has been interested in
limiting the number of vessels because of the impact on the
resource and the increased number of participants. The commission
has been reluctant, in the past, to limit this fishery because the
current number of pots being fished are estimated to be about
45,000 pots. If we go to a limited entry system under the regime
we have now, it would mean that each of the participants in the
fishery, which is approximately 300, would be able to fish the
maximum number of pots. We would then have the potential for
90,000 pots. We think it's counter productive to allow a system
where the capacity would double if you limited it."
MR. HOMAN further stated, "The moratorium that was adopted four
years ago, gave a period of time to look at the fishery and some
public discussion. The proposal before you gained a lot of
interest because it would lead to the diversity of the fleet. You
would have both large and small boats and those that are
participating would remain in the fishery. It would keep everybody
fishing at approximately the current level of the total pots. A
proportional number of pots to the maximum number or what they're
calling a tierred pot system could be the system in the future. It
makes sense on the side of resource conservation because it keeps
the pot level at the existing level."
MR. HOMAN also said, "The bill is forward orientated. It doesn't
apply to any fisheries that are existing. This wouldn't affect any
existing limited entry fisheries. It would not affect the salmon
fisheries at all, since they're all limited. It doesn't affect the
Board of Fisheries ability to change those limitations in the
future. If we had a proportional entry permit, that permit would
fluctuate with whatever the board maximum was. Depending on how
the proportional permit would finally come out, there would be
groupings of pot limits. There would always be a way for people to
sell a smaller number of pot permit to buy up to a larger number of
pots. There would be ways for new entrants or part-timers to come
into the fishery at a lower level and work their way up. We would
also support the amendment that Mr. Grussendorf referred to. On
page two of the bill, lines 22 and 23, there is a sentence that
says, 'The fishing capacity allowed under a entry permit cannot be
changed after the permit is issued.' That could cause a conflict
if we had a limitation on the permit, and the Board of Fishery
later changed that limit."
Number 588
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "If you don't have the ability to tier
the system then there are two things that could happen. The Board
of Fishery might be required to go back in and reduce the 300 pot
limit to 150 pots. Would the other option be, to issue fewer
permits?"
MR. HOMAN said, "They couldn't issue any fewer permits as stated in
the statutes. The options available to us if this bill does not
pass is a limited entry system based on what we have now. That
would be everyone with the ability to fish the maximum number of
pots. Another option would be not to do anything. That means that
on January 2, 1996 this fishery would go back to open access.
There would be no limitations and anybody could come into it.
During the public hearings that we held, there was a lot of
discussion about what kind of limitation system we should have.
The majority wanted a limited entry system of some kind. The
pressure on the resource and the potential expansion of the fleet
under open access was something that even those participating
didn't want to see happen to it."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "Without extending limited entry to the
fishery and without the ability to tier the system, what we're
doing is putting 90,000 pots in the water. A tier system also has
the effect of allowing a person to buy into the fishery at a low
level. That's something that does not exist in limited entry
fisheries now."
MR. HOMAN confirmed, "Representative Elton is correct in what he
said."
Number 640
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if this fishery is too large to gauge
how many pounds of production are sustainable on a year to year
basis.
MR. HOMAN stated, "The ADFG has a very limited ability to manage
and do the research necessary to track the crab and populations.
There is a lack of data in this fishery."
Number 652
CHERI CRAWFORD testified via teleconference from Petersburg stating
she wanted a limited entry program over a tier system. She said,
"We should start with a reduced number of pots and take it from
there."
Number 674
MR. NORHEIM suggested, "Not to limit the gear and see how many pots
hit the water. If it gets to be a problem, then the ADFG can deal
with it at that time."
Number 686
MR. HOMAN responded, "There was a restriction during the moratorium
that those that fish during the moratorium would not be guaranteed
a limited entry permit at the end of the moratorium, because the
limited entry period of time goes back before the moratorium. The
moratorium just stopped everything, so we could wait and see."
Number 700
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS moved amendment number one.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked for discussion on amendment number one.
Without objection, amendment number one passed.
Number 710
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON motioned to move HB 107 out of committee with
individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN upon hearing no objections, moved HB 107 out of
the House Special Committee on Fisheries, with individual
recommendations.
TAPE 95-7, SIDE B
Number 000
HFSH - 02/08/95
HJR 23 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FISHING QUOTAS
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that this resolution would be heard but
the intent was not to move it out of committee tonight.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said, "This resolution asks the North Pacific
Fisheries Management Council to allocate the ground fish and crab
to the Western Alaska Community Development Quota. Currently the
North Pacific Fisheries Management Council is working on it. This
resolution has a sunset clause on it, so if its not renewed this go
around, it will go away."
NORMAN COHEN, Executive Director, Coastal Villages Fisheries
Cooperative said, "They are one of six groups formed to participate
in the Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program. We are made up
of 17 villages along the southern portion of the Yukon-Kuskokwim
Delta. We strongly support this resolution. The CDQ program
started in 1992, and was the first opportunity for residents of
small Western Alaska villages to have any serious entry into the
Bering sea fisheries. The program, if ended, would stop things in
their tracks."
Number 079
MIKE IRWIN, Commissioner Designate, Department of Community and
Regional Affairs (C&RA) spoke on behalf of the Knowles
Administration. He remarked on how important this program is to
rural Alaska. He stated, "The Knowles Administration is offering
a friendly amendment to the resolution that would make the CDQ
program permanent through the Magnuson Act. The program is a model
for resource development and extraction that can be applied to
other portions of the state. Jobs, training and economic
development are accomplished by the CDQ program."
Number 137
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Department of Fish and Game
stated, "The ADFG supports this resolution and the amendment
offered. We have prepared testimony, in writing, that will be
provided."
Number 178
KARL OHLS, Executive Director, Western Alaska Fisheries Development
Association, speaking via teleconference stated, "The pollock
allocation for CDQ's will expire at the end of 1995 and there is a
proposal to extend that for three years. The North Pacific Council
is working on a comprehesive rationalization plan that would create
a allocation system for all the species under management. If your
going to develop this allocation for all the species, then include
a portion for CDQ's."
Number 249
MR. TIM of Bethel spoke via teleconference in support of HJR 23.
Number 292
MR. OGAN moved to adopt amendment number one to HJR 23.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said hearing no opposition, amendment number one
was passed.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN adjourned the meeting at 6:03 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|