02/04/2002 03:39 PM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 4, 2002
3:39 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gary Stevens, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Co-Chair
Representative Drew Scalzi
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Coghill
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 286
"An Act allowing a person to hold more than one commercial
fishing entry permit for a fishery; relating to the power of the
Board of Fisheries to establish fishing periods and areas for
subgroups of commercial fishing permits and commercial fishing
permit holders and to establish limits on the amount of fishing
gear that may be used by certain commercial fishing permit
holders; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 288
"An Act relating to commercial fisheries limited entry permit
buy-back programs."
- MOVED HB 288 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 286
SHORT TITLE:OWNERSHIP OF MORE THAN ONE FISHERY PERMIT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)SCALZI
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/14/02 1949 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/02
01/14/02 1949 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/14/02 1949 (H) FSH, RES
01/30/02 2100 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FATE
02/04/02 (H) FSH AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 288
SHORT TITLE:LIMITED ENTRY BUY-BACK PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)SCALZI
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/14/02 1950 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/02
01/14/02 1950 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/14/02 1950 (H) FSH, RES, FIN
01/16/02 1991 (H) COSPONSOR(S): STEVENS
01/18/02 2015 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HUDSON
01/30/02 2101 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FATE
02/01/02 2128 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
02/04/02 (H) FSH AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
DON JOHNSON (ph)
P.O. Box 876
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified about changes and improvements
that could be made to HB 288.
MARY McDOWELL, Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
8800 Glacier Highway, Suite 109
Juneau, Alaska 99801-8079
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the department.
JERRY McCUNE
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
211 Fourth Street, Suite 110
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the UFA.
BOB THORSTENSON, President
United Fishermen of Alaska
211 Fourth Street, Suite 110
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the UFA.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-1, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 3:39 p.m. Representatives Wilson,
Scalzi, Dyson, Kerttula, and Stevens were present at the call to
order. Representative Kapsner arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 286-OWNERSHIP OF MORE THAN ONE FISHERY PERMIT
CO-CHAIR WILSON announced that the first matter before the
committee would be HOUSE BILL NO. 286, "An Act allowing a person
to hold more than one commercial fishing entry permit for a
fishery; relating to the power of the Board of Fisheries to
establish fishing periods and areas for subgroups of commercial
fishing permits and commercial fishing permit holders and to
establish limits on the amount of fishing gear that may be used
by certain commercial fishing permit holders; and providing for
an effective date."
Number 0128
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI, speaking as the sponsor, told the
committee that HB 286 was what was referred to as a "stacking
bill" for people who made the presentation at the fish caucus.
He said it has gone before the United Fisherman of Alaska (UFA)
board and had revisions made that he concurred with. He said
over the weekend, he and the board reviewed those revisions; a
proposed CS is in progress.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said that despite the changes made to the
bill, it still remains a bill with a primary function of
"reducing gear in the water." He said this aim is achieved by
allowing an individual to own up to two permits per area. He
said provisions allowing more gear or extended fishing time for
holders of multiple permits had been deleted from the bill so
that a majority of permit holders could have a vote on it. [HB
286 was held over.]
HB 288-LIMITED ENTRY BUY-BACK PROGRAM
Number 0325
CO-CHAIR WILSON said that the next matter before the committee
was HOUSE BILL NO. 288, "An Act relating to commercial fisheries
limited entry permit buy-back programs." She deferred to
Representative Scalzi, the sponsor of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said the "buy-back bill" is a simple one.
He said it takes what is currently in statute - allowing for a
buy-back program - and simplifies it by having less requirements
to impose a buy-back. Under current statute, if a buy-back
program is implemented, the industry must buy back the boat,
gear, permit, and other miscellaneous equipment. He told the
committee that it would be cumbersome to evaluate "everybody's
whole operation," and there would be funding appropriation
problems as a result of that evaluation.
Number 0463
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said there has not been a buy-back since
the implementation of commercial limited entry. He said some
attempts may have been made, but he was not sure. Allowing
fishermen to buy only the permits would streamline the process
and make the buy-back, or buy-down, provisions more palatable.
He said there is also the removal of language stating that
"there would be a collection of fees, up to 7-percent."
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said that the 7-percent provision was
illegal as written. He said there would still be fees collected
in a buy-back program, and those fees would be disseminated by
the legislature. He said that the way the fee provision was
written, there was an assumption that they were dedicated funds,
which are illegal. The legislature would have to collect fees
into the general fund and reappropriate them to administer a
buy-back program.
Number 0639
DON JOHNSON (ph), Soldotna, Alaska, testified before the
committee that he had a question about the 7-percent funding
mechanism. He said it sounded as if Representative Scalzi was
talking about another bill to establish the 7-percent as coming
from the industry. Mr. Johnson asked, "Why not just put it in
this bill?"
MR. JOHNSON said he also had a question about the time limit.
He said originally there was a ten-year time limit for a buy-
back program to be completed. He said he would rather see about
a five-year limit, and asked if the time limit had changed in
the new bill. He said HB 288 leaves the perimeters of when a
buy-back is established "open-ended to what the commission
wants." He said as it stands, if the commission did not want to
perform a buy-back, it would not have to. Mr. Johnson said he
would like to see the word "shall" replace the word "may" on
line 6 of the bill.
MR. JOHNSON then voiced some of his concerns about public
protections. He said the original buy-back program was not
concerned about the way the limited entry system affected
"common users" or subsistence users. He called for wording that
would require the commission to address whether or not a limited
entry area was affecting the public. Mr. Johnson suggested that
there be a clause saying that "the commission shall maintain the
number of permits to impinge as little as possible on common use
of fisheries." He said that this wording comes from the Alaska
Supreme Court's intent on "a couple of major cases" including
McDowell v. State and Owsichek v. State.
MR. JOHNSON said that the Alaska Supreme Court's intent behind
limited entry was to not impact common users by entering into an
"optimum number procedure" that would reduce the number of
permits in an area. He said that when a limited entry fishery
overwhelms a public fishery, it "brings on the wrath of the
public, the federal government, and everybody else." He said
the state has not been listening to the public, and that the
public has gone beyond the state to the federal government, as
in the case of federal management of subsistence. Mr. Johnson
briefly mentioned the issue of taxes and dedicated revenues.
Number 1066
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI reported that the reason the bill says
"may" on line 6 was so that the industry would be "onboard" with
a buy-back. He said that there is no "dedication of the
allocation of the fish to pay that back." If the entry
commission mandated a buy-back in every fishery, the state would
be forced to promote buy-back programs where it might not be
economically feasible. Representative Scalzi said "that
flexibility must be in there."
Number 1199
MARY McDOWELL, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission, Alaska Department of Fish and Game testified before
the committee. She said that the statute talks about "an
optimum number" as the provision that keeps the program
constitutional. She said that there is a balance between
limited entry and the risk of exclusivity. She said that the
optimum number provision gives a mechanism with which the
commission can make an evaluation of whether there should be
more or fewer permits in a fishery to allow the aforementioned
balance to be struck.
MS. McDOWELL said if an optimum-number analysis is performed and
the determination is that the optimum number is lower than the
current number of permits, the commission is obligated to
initiate a state-run buy-back program. She said that is
problematic because many in the fishing industry are interested
in exploring federal and self-funded buy-back programs, as well
as state-funded buy-backs. She said they want the commission to
perform the optimum-number determination, but would prefer a
choice in the source of the funding for a buy-back. She said
that was the "problem with the may-shall issue."
MS. McDOWELL said that the Johns [v. Commercial Fisheries Entry
Comm'n] case points out that a fishery cannot become too
exclusive, and if it does, the state is required to put permits
back into it. She said fishermen want to know that if they do
go into a buy-back program, there will not be court challenges
saying the fishery is too exclusive. Under that scenario, the
state is obligated to put permits back into the fishery. She
said that people want there to be the opportunity for an
optimum-number determination before there is a decision about
instituting a buy-back.
Number 1400
MS. McDOWELL said she understood that if there is a state funded
buy-back, the commission would work with the industry, and
develop a program. It would then be brought to the legislature,
allowing the commission to "custom-make a buy-back" for a given
fishery. She said at that point, an assessment could be made
about whether members of the industry wanted to assess
themselves, seek an appropriation from the legislature and
assess themselves to pay it back, have a self-funded program, or
use some other option. She said any kind of assessment would
involve coming back to the legislature with specific provisions.
She said it eliminates the dedicated-fund problem. She added,
"This leaves the funding mechanism open."
Number 1541
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said he believed that there was still the
option of buying back both gear and permits with the new bill.
MS. McDOWELL said she believed that the bill would remove the
obligation of buying vessel and gear, but would allow the "whole
package" buy-back option if needed. She said she was under that
impression, but it would be best to ask an attorney for
clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA agreed that it would be best to have an
attorney take a closer look at it.
Number 1695
JERRY McCUNE, representing the United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA),
said that UFA supports the legislation. He said he thought that
if the commission could design a buy-back, it could include
vessel and gear. He said "we left out the percentage also,
because every fishery is different," giving the example of small
setnet fisheries that might only require "4 percent". He said
the bill offers options and flexibility for the differences in
fisheries around the state.
Number 1820
BOB THORSTENSON, President, UFA testified before the committee.
He said this was a very important bill for both the state and
the commercial fishing industry. He said it changes language
that would have caused hesitation because of the "shall"
wording, it saves on administrative costs in determining value
in the buying back of miscellaneous gear, and it gives fishermen
the option of exercising self-determination in their businesses.
Mr. Thorstenson made note of the tight fiscal situation in the
state, and said that this bill is one way to help Alaska's
fishermen help themselves.
CO-CHAIR WILSON said that she appreciates the way that fishermen
are trying to help themselves instead of "asking for money" in
the current fiscal situation. She asked for a motion to move
the bill.
Number 1963
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON moved to report HB 288 out of committee
with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she was not objecting, but the
wording on buy-backs should be looked at more closely.
There being no objection, HB 288 was moved out of the House
Special Committee on Fisheries.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 4:15
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|