Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/13/1996 05:04 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
March 13, 1996
5:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Chairman
Representative Carl Moses, Vice Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Kim Elton
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members were present.
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Presentation: Dr. Andrew W. Trites, North Pacific Universities
Marine Mammal Research Consortium on Steller Sea Lions and
Commercial Fisheries in Alaska
* HOUSE BILL NO. 514
"An Act repealing the ban against finfish farming."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 514
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL BAN ON FINFISH FARMING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MULDER, Kelly
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
02/12/96 2729 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/96 2729 (H) FSH, RESOURCES, FINANCE
03/13/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
DR. ANDREW W. TRITES
The North Pacific Universities
Marine Mammal Research Consortium
c/o The Fisheries Centre
The University of British Columbia
Hut B-3, Room 18
6248 BioSciences Road
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4 Canada
Telephone: (604) 822-8181
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented information on Steller sea lions.
ELDON MULDER, Representative
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol Building, Room 411
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2647
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 514.
GEORGE UTERMOHLE, Legislative Counsel
Legal Services Division
Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska State Legislature
Goldstein Building, Room 408
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2450
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 514.
ROGER ANDERSON, President
New Hope Industries, Incorporated
5601 Samoa Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Telephone: (907) 563-3352
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 514.
THEO MATTHEWS, Executive Director
United Cook Inlet Drift Association
P.O. Box 389
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 514.
CHRIS BERNS
P.O. Box 26
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-5291
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 514.
ANDY GOLIA
P.O. Box 663
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-5307
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 514.
ROBIN SAMUELSEN
P.O. Box 412
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-5335
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 514.
AL JORGENSEN
P.O. Box 876154
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 376-5114
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 514.
JACK HOPKINS
P.O. Box 343
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907) 424-7632
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 514.
RICH DAVIS
Seafood Producers Co-operative
2347 Kevin Court
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-2696
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 514.
GEOFF BULLOCK
United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters
204 North Franklin, Suite 2
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-5860
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 514.
KELLUS SEWELL
3475 Meander Way
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 790-4477
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 514 if certain objectives could
be met.
KARL OHLS
Resource Development
Division of Trade and Development
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110804
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0804
Telephone: (907) 465-5467
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 514.
RICHARD HOFFMAN, President
Board of Directors
Alaska Trollers Association
5025 Thane Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3451
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 514.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99811-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-6143
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 514.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-13, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN ALAN AUSTERMAN called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 5:04 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Austerman, Davis and Elton.
Members absent were Representatives Moses and Ogan.
Presentation: Dr. Andrew W. Trites, North Pacific Universities
Marine Mammal Research Consortium on Steller Sea Lions and
Commercial Fisheries in Alaska
Number 0067
DR. ANDREW W. TRITES, The North Pacific Universities Marine Mammal
Research Consortium, gave a slide presentation discussing the
puzzle of declining stocks of Stellar sea lions in the Aleutian
portion of their range. Most of the information presented was
included in the four-page newsletter entitled Marine Mammal
Research, No. 1, 1996, available in the committee packets. Maps
referred to were in slide format only.
Number 1125
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN, following the presentation, asked about
progress in the past year in figuring out the problem.
DR. TRITES replied that with this kind of research, it was a long-
term investment. The progress was incremental.
Number 1192
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS referred to the concern about birthing
problems and asked if that was new this year, with research just
beginning.
DR. TRITES indicated that had been documented in the past at one
site. However, this past year, they had realized it needed a
closer look. It appeared that 40 percent or more of the animals
did not give birth each year. Fetuses did not remain long on a
beach, which Dr. Trites attributed to there being little for eagles
to eat during winter.
Number 1238
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked how the decline in sea lions in the west
correlated with increases in fisheries.
DR. TRITES indicated that despite three other attempts, to date, no
one had found anything that related fisheries to the decline of sea
lions, except for one study just completed that showed a possible
link to winter catch of pollock. Researchers believed a large-
scale experiment was needed where pollock would be depleted in one
area, for example, and left alone in another area to compare
effects. However, to date, every attempt made to try to find a
connection between fisheries and decline had come up more or less
empty-handed.
Number 1299
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked about the difference between the eastern
and western groups of Steller sea lions, and whether the western
group was endangered at this time.
DR. TRITES replied, "At this point in time, the entire population
is considered threatened. And what was proposed was to split that
stock, based on the genetic evidence, into two, leave one of them
as threatened - the one that has been increasing - and the other
one, to change that to endangered." He noted that the comment
period had closed January 2 and the university researchers were, to
his knowledge, the only ones to comment on the biology. "I gather
that Congress has instructed the National Marine Fisheries Service
to spend no further dollars or man-hours on this until the ESA is
re-ratified," he said. Although the process had been moving "full
speed ahead" until January 2, it was not clear where the process
now stood.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if Dr. Trites anticipated anything
happening soon.
DR. TRITES indicated it was out of his hands. "But I've been given
to understand that nothing's going to happen in the immediate
future," he said.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN thanked Dr. Trites for his presentation and
noted that the issue was of great concern to commercial fishing
interests. He recessed the meeting at 5:28 p.m.
HB 514 - REPEAL BAN ON FINFISH FARMING
Number 1400
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN called the meeting back to order at 5:30 p.m.
and noted the next item of business was HB 514, sponsored by
Representative Mulder.
REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER, sponsor of HB 514, presented the bill,
indicating it had been six years in process. He noted that the
committee substitute he had prepared was in the committee packets.
He read from the sponsor statement:
"HB 514 would repeal Alaska's current ban on finfish farming and
will allow Alaskans to participate in the economic benefit of a
growing worldwide industry. HB 514 will allow Alaskan processors
and entrepreneurs to participate in a business that could provide
thousands of year-round jobs in areas of the state that otherwise
are limited to seasonal employment.
"In 1987, the state of Alaska chose to insulate itself from the
world salmon market, first by placing a moratorium, and later by
enacting an outright ban on finfish farming. This ban was intended
to protect long-standing Alaskan wild salmon markets from pen-
reared salmon. At the time, Alaska controlled, for the most part,
the world salmon market and initially the ban, in part, had its
desired effect. Over the years, fish farmers began to improve
their product and started to nip away at Alaska's share of the
world market. In 1984, Alaska held approximately 44 percent of the
world's salmon market, while farmed fish contributed only 5 percent
to the world market. Just ten short years later, Mr. Chairman,
members of the committee, in 1994, Alaska held approximately 30
percent of the world's salmon market while fish farmer held 35
percent."
Number 1515
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER noted that back-up information contained
charts and graphs showing Alaska production, as a percentage, had
decreased while farmed salmon increased, so that, in fact, in 1993,
production of farmed salmon surpassed the production of Alaska wild
stock salmon.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER continued with the sponsor statement:
"Norwegian fish farmers produced 414,000 pounds of salmon in 1994
and say that they are planning to produce 2 million pounds in
2010." Representative Mulder made some comments, then continued:
"That would almost double the amount of salmon they produced in
1994. Alaska's market share has been reduced by 32 percent in only
10 years and can be attributed, almost entirely, to the success of
fish farms. Fish farmers are continuing their rapid expansion and
there appears to be no end in sight.
"Clearly, the intent of the ban has not been successful in
protecting Alaska salmon markets. Put simply, Alaska residents and
businesses have been banned from participating in the economic
growth of this industry. In fact, we may well be so far behind the
curve in salmon farming that we may never be able to catch up and
our share of the world salmon market will continue to dwindle.
"Fish farmers, unlike the harvesters of wild fish, are able to
provide a fresh product to consumers on a year-round basis as well
as taking great care in the handling of the product to ensure a
high-quality product. The ability of fish farmers to provide a
consistent year-round product is the single most important
advantage that fish farmers have over the harvesters of wild fish.
While fish harvesters have been unable to respond to the market
demand of providing a fresh product on a year-round basis, they
also have had difficulty in matching the aesthetic quality and the
handling of farmed fish due to the nature of their fishery.
"Fish farmers are now beginning to produce a variety of species,
other than salmon, in significant numbers and will, in the near
future, be capable of significantly impacting the world market. It
is reasonable to expect, Mr. Chairman, that fish farms are going to
continue to erode Alaska's share of the world fisheries market
unless we choose to recognize and address market trends on a
worldwide basis.
"HB 514 will allow Alaskans to share in the opportunity for
economic growth of this developing industry while providing year-
round employment in rural Alaska. HB 514 will help to ensure that
Alaska continues as a leader in the world seafood market."
Number 1665
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER noted that the packets included articles,
graphs and diagrams. He expressed that while Alaska had possibly
missed the window of opportunity for salmon farming, a new
opportunity was developing for bottom fish, Arctic char and other
species. He thought farmed fish were not a threat to current
commercial fishermen in Alaska. This value-added industry would
provide year-round jobs in locations that were otherwise suffering,
he said. He mentioned an Alaska processor that currently imported
farmed salmon in order to stay open year-round.
Number 1774
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER discussed the committee substitute and noted
there was a zero fiscal note. He referred to an article about fish
farming in Chile, where no government subsidies went into the fish.
He suggested that Chilean farms posed the greatest threat to
Alaska.
Number 1860
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted that the committee substitute was version
C, dated 3/11/96. He stated he had an additional amendment,
version C.3, dated 3/13/96.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS moved that the committee accept the work draft
for CSHB 514, version C, dated 3/11/96. There being no objection,
it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN explained that the CS from Representative Mulder
included all fish. His own amendment excluded salmon from finfish
farming.
Number 1910
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1 but
wanted an objection for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES objected.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked whether salmon was being removed,
leaving opportunities for halibut.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN clarified that the amendment left in every other
species of finfish for the possibility of being farmed in Alaska,
including halibut, trout and others.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if the amendment was based on a strong
opposition to finfish farming for salmon.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN affirmed that.
Number 2025
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER emphasized that he thought Alaska had for the
most part missed the window of opportunity for salmon. However,
there was a booming industry beginning with other species, he said,
citing examples. He stated acceptance of the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES removed his objection.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there were further objections to
Amendment 1. There being none, Amendment 1 passed. Chairman
Austerman asked George Utermohle to describe the CS section by
section.
Number 2214
GEORGE UTERMOHLE, Legislative Counsel, Legal Services Division,
Legislative Affairs Agency, said the key operative provisions of
CSHB 514 were Sections 1 and 10, which provided for regulation of
finfish farming. Section 10 replaced the existing prohibition
against finfish farming with an authorization to the commissioner
of the Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to issue finfish farming
permits. The remainder of the bill contained technical revisions
and conforming provisions so that regulation would occur on
essentially the same basis as for aquatic farms.
Number 2266
MR. UTERMOHLE explained Sections 2 through 4 provided for
regulation of activities of finfish farms and products by the
commissioner of the Department of Environment Conservation (ADEC).
Section 5 amended the powers of the commissioner of ADF&G to
provide power to regulate finfish farms on the same basis as for
aquatic farms. Section 6 provided that the Board of Fisheries
would not have a regulatory role except for management of stocks.
The same provision applied to aquatic farms, which dealt with non-
finfish species, primarily shellfish.
Number 2331
MR. UTERMOHLE said Section 7 exempted finfish farming activities
from commercial fishing statutes, the same as for aquatic farms.
Section 8 amended the current definition of fish and game farms in
the fish and game code; with the introduction of this bill, the
fish farming section of that definition was no longer necessary.
Section 9 was a technical amendment to exempt finfish farming
activities from laws governing sale and purchase of fish taken in
a commercial fishery, clarifying that finfish stocks and products
would be treated differently from commercially caught fish.
Number 2378
MR. UTERMOHLE reiterated that Section 10 was a key provision
eliminating the prohibition on finfish farming and replacing it
with authority to issue permits. Section 11 was a technical
conforming amendment. Section 12 provided that finfish farming was
not subject to regulation by the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC), as also applied to aquatic farms. Section 13
amended the definition of seafood as used in AS 16.51, the Alaska
Seafood Marketing Institute Act; currently, aquatic farm products
were excluded from provisions of that act.
Number 2424
MR. UTERMOHLE said Section 14 made a technical change to food
labeling requirements in Title 17, amending the definition of
farmed salmon so that finfish products and aquatic farm products
were both defined to mean farmed salmon products for purposes of
that statute if the product was derived from salmon. This was
primarily directed at out-of-state operations, Mr. Utermohle said.
Sections 15 through 19 made technical changes to Title 38 to
provide that state land could be made available for use as finfish
farming sites on the same basis as for aquatic farms.
TAPE 96-13, SIDE B
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN referred to page 2, line 14, and noted there had
been a question as to whether the language "issuing the permit and
operating" should not be "issuing the permit and managing".
MR. UTERMOHLE replied, "In this case, I think `operating' is
intended to allow the department to charge a fee that covers its
costs in administering its finfish ... regulatory program."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked Mr. Utermohle if he felt, with
Amendment1, that the wording of the bill was strong enough to stop
salmon from being farmed in Alaska.
Number 0050
MR. UTERMOHLE said the language just adopted was strong enough to
prohibit finfish farming of the five species of Pacific salmon
found in Alaska. It also included Atlantic salmon and other
species of salmon.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if anything else in the bill would
conflict with the amendment.
MR. UTERMOHLE said he was aware of no other provision of the bill
that would conflict with that prohibition.
Number 0095
ROGER ANDERSON, President, New Hope Industries, Incorporated,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage in favor of HB 514. He
was interested in the indoor raising of tiliapia, a tropical fish
that he said would not be reared in or released into state waters.
He wanted provisions for that species included in the bill.
Number 0244
THEO MATTHEWS, Executive Director, United Cook Inlet Drift
Association (UCIDA), testified via teleconference, noting that he
had been active as the United Fishermen of Alaska vice president
during the original mariculture debate. He said UCIDA opposed
HB514, even with the amendment, citing concerns over non-salmon
species, exotic fish, high costs to the state, water-borne disease
and conflicts over water use and land use. Mr. Matthews thought
the burden of proof that something had changed should be on the
sponsor. He objected to HB 514 being introduced so late in the
session.
Number 0313
CHRIS BERNS testified via teleconference from Kodiak that he had
been a commercial fisherman since 1970. He suggested exotic
species should not be mixed up with what we already have. "Alaska
doesn't have any problem producing fish," he said. "We're the
fifth largest seafood producer in the world." He voiced approval
of salmon being removed from the bill but thought producing fish of
any kind would create direct competition with Alaska's commercial
fishermen. He suggested HB 514 was not in the best interests of
rural Alaskans.
Number 0431
ANDY GOLIA testified via teleconference from Dillingham, saying he
opposed HB 514. He thought that until domestic and international
markets were developed, the legislation would hurt Alaska's salmon
industry and fishermen.
Number 0486
ROBIN SAMUELSEN testified via teleconference from Dillingham. He
opposed HB 514 both as amended and in its original version. He
thought tropical fish would be Bristol Bay's worst nightmare. Even
with the exclusion of salmon from the bill, halibut fishermen under
a quota would be affected by farm-raised fish, he said. If there
were to be fish farming, Mr. Samuelsen wanted to ensure that
Alaskans and not just multi-national corporations would benefit.
He suggested that Japanese interests controlled the Chilean fishing
industry and had heavy investment in Russia; he feared the same
would happen here.
Number 0557
AL JORGENSEN testified via teleconference from Mat-Su. He read a
portion of a letter he had submitted to The Frontiersman, a local
paper. He said AS 16.40.210 should be repealed. He cited reasons
for looking at fish farming, including effects of overfishing;
rising prices of boats, which favored big corporations; the good
product that fish farming produced in other nations; and favorable
effects that it would have on small communities.
Number 0621
JACK HOPKINS testified via teleconference from Cordova that he
opposed HB 514. He suggested that people who thought they could
salmon farm as a "mom and pop" operation were kidding themselves
and cited high costs and risk as factors. He believed that other
countries often went into salmon farming because they did not have
any fish to jeopardize, whereas Alaska had a whole spectrum of
species that could be ruined. He referred to a symposium of
scientists who had discussed disease from escaped salmon; that had
resulted in having to kill wild fish and Mr. Hopkins expressed
concern about that.
Number 0720
RICH DAVIS, Seafood Producers Co-operative, testified that he was
a 35-year resident of Juneau and a commercial fisherman. He said
he represented the 370 members of the Seafood Producers Co-
operative, a harvesting/marketing/processing association based in
Sitka that opposed HB 514, as they had opposed similar legislation
six years ago. "We appreciate your efforts to amend the bill to
remove the most contentious part of it, which is the salmon farming
end of it," he said. "Salmon comprises the bulk of what we produce
and it also is probably the issue that would divide people the most
at a Board of Fish[eries] level."
Number 760
MR. DAVIS recalled a presentation made six years ago to the Senate
Resources Committee, which had included a video segment made by a
company that advocated fish farming for two reasons. First, the
world's waterways were degraded to where they no longer sustained
a harvestable surplus of fish. Second, resources had been
exploited to the point that they could not sustain a harvestable
surplus of fish. "Those two conditions do not exist here in
Alaska," Mr. Davis said, "... and it's our effort in the fisheries
to see to it that they don't."
Number 0793
MR. DAVIS suggested that his organization, which had produced and
marketed $22 million worth of seafood resources last year, should
have the opportunity to examine an accurate, comprehensive model of
what fishery species in Alaska were thought to be economically
viable to farm. "Our problem with that," he said, "is that you
have to farm fish with a close proximity to a travel link." Those
were the most congested and popular waterways in the state, he
said.
Number 0830
MR. DAVIS emphasized that his organization had two primary
objections to the legislation. First, the state's constitution
prohibited private for-profit ownership of fish and game resources.
Second, no matter which of Alaska's commercially viable resources
was chosen for farming, there would be a new user group created
that would make an appearance at the Board of Fisheries asking for
allocations of those resources, despite having thus far not having
been a player or contributed financially to the management of the
state's resources, as others had through aquaculture assessments.
For example, Alaska's salmon fishermen had spent $200 million in
the last 20 years seeing to it that those resources were kept
healthy and that populations were suitable for successive harvest
years. Mr. Davis reiterated opposition to the bill.
Number 0883
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked Mr. Davis if he had done any research on
economic viability.
MR. DAVIS replied, "Not recently, because we ... just now got the
picture that somebody has introduced legislation that would open
the door to farming. But if our organization could make money
raising the fish and there was an economic plus for our members,
we'll be the first people to tell you so."
Number 0917
GEOFF BULLOCK, United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters, provided hand-
outs to the committee. He indicated many gillnetters had recently
spent a lot of money on IFQs, spending a lot of money to be able to
harvest the halibut out there now. Allowing farmed halibut on
shore would greatly reduce that. He said he had, just that day,
telephoned some meat and fish markets in Miami, which received
Chilean salmon for $2 per pound. "I talked to a couple of
processors and priced out silver salmon," he said. "We can't touch
that. You can't get a silver salmon in Alaska down to Miami for $2
a pound unless you lose money on it." He complimented
Representative Mulder for trying to fix the problem but emphasized
his association opposed making a quick decision.
Number 1009
KELLUS SEWELL read testimony which he provided to the committee,
saying he was testifying in favor of the bill if certain objectives
could be met. He provided a personal history, which included
fishing, consulting, marketing and trading. He believed farmed
salmon would take over the American market and thought value-added
opportunities were many. He thought likely non-competing species
were steelhead, Arctic char and innoco or sheefish. He said the
growth in Chilean and Canadian farmed salmon production was
expected to be 100 times the number of pounds produced in 1985,
with an increase from 25,000 to 300,000 metric tons in Norway. He
said the Norwegian industry, which employed almost 15,000 full-time
workers, was approximately $1.5 billion as compared to $240 million
for the Alaska seafood industry.
Number 1264
MR. SEWELL discussed expectations for the future. He said Alaska
had resources for feed, which constituted about 50 percent of
finfish aquaculture expenses, and a perfect environment for a
healthy industry. He asserted that the time is now to start
developing the industry, given certain conditions.
Number 1360
KARL OHLS, Resource Development, Division of Trade and Development,
Department of Commerce and Economic Development, said he had
provided the committee with written testimony based on the earlier
version of HB 514. He indicating he needed to review the new
version of the bill and discuss it within the department before he
could offer the department's position on it.
Number 1398
RICHARD HOFFMAN, President, Board of Directors, Alaska Trollers
Association, testified in opposition to HB 514, expressing concern
about the escape hazard. "No matter what kind of laws we put in
place, accidents occur," he said, noting that there had been a
large number of farms in British Columbia that were destroyed a
couple of years ago, with their fish getting loose. "And we're
catching them out there now," he said. "I'm catching two or three
of these Atlantic salmon out here on our coast every year, now.
And I'm just one of a couple thousand trollers out there." He
thought bringing tropical fish in would bring tropical diseases.
With recent budget cuts, ADF&G was unable to monitor programs. "If
we add another industry that they're going to have to take control
of, somebody's going to lose," he said, "whether it's sport fish or
commercial fish." He suggested that fish farm jobs would pay
minimum wage and would replace businesses that had been in Alaska
a long time.
Number 1501
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), emphasized that HB 514 was
major legislation and the department wanted time to put together an
outline of what their regulatory and permitting systems would look
like. The original zero fiscal note was for the original version
of the bill. "Even though I understand the sponsor's intent that
this program would be self-funding," he said, "there would be,
certainly, some significant fiscal implications to it and we would
be developing a fiscal note that would lay out the costs for
permitting, regulating and the other factors that would have to be
covered under such a program like this."
Number 1577
MR. BRUCE suggested that ADF&G's concerns would include questions
that had been addressed six years before in the earlier debate. In
both fisheries and wildlife, the department had discouraged
importing exotic species into the state. As a general policy, that
importation not allowed. Furthermore, ADF&G had genetic and
disease concerns that needed to be addressed. Even working with
natural species, ADF&G would be concerned about protecting the
natural stocks and would require a system in place to monitor the
situation and take necessary action. There were also brood stock
acquisition issues because stocks would be required from the wild.
Number 1663
MR. BRUCE noted that a mariculture industry, currently centered
around oysters, was just beginning to develop in the state.
Looking at all the time and effort that had gone into developing
that program, which involved species like oysters that were already
successfully cultured elsewhere, pointed out that developing a
major new industry would take time. It would not happen overnight
and would require a major involvement by state government. "And we
just want to make sure that all the policy decisions are identified
during the legislation discussions, that you make them consciously
and that all the costs that can be anticipated are also identified
and the decision to incur those costs and cover them are also
consciously considered and decisions made," he said.
Number 1784
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS stated, "I don't think there's any question
about the questions that this bill brings up and they certainly
haven't been answered here. There is another committee but I would
prefer to listen to them here." He mentioned ADF&G's concerns.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN rescheduled the hearing on HB 514 for Monday,
March 18.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct, CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN
adjourned the House Special Committee on Fisheries meeting at 6:33
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|