02/11/2002 03:40 PM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 11, 2002
3:40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gary Stevens, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Co-Chair
Representative Drew Scalzi
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative John Coghill
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 283
"An Act relating to appointments to the Board of Fisheries and
to the ex officio secretary of the Board of Fisheries."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 284
"An Act relating to participation in matters before the Board of
Fisheries by members of the board; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
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."
- MOVED CSHB 286(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 264
"An Act relating to commercial fisheries test fishing operations
of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 283
SHORT TITLE:APPOINTMENTS TO BOARD OF FISHERIES
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
01/14/02 1949 (H) REFERRED TO FISHERIES
01/16/02 1991 (H) COSPONSOR(S): STEVENS
01/30/02 2100 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FATE
02/08/02 2191 (H) COSPONSOR(S): WILSON
02/11/02 (H) FSH AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 284
SHORT TITLE:BOARD OF FISHERIES CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
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
01/14/02 1949 (H) REFERRED TO FISHERIES
01/16/02 1991 (H) COSPONSOR(S): STEVENS
01/18/02 2014 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HUDSON
01/30/02 2100 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FATE
02/01/02 2127 (H) COSPONSOR(S): LANCASTER
02/08/02 2191 (H) COSPONSOR(S): WILSON
02/11/02 (H) FSH AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 124
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
01/14/02 1949 (H) REFERRED TO FISHERIES
01/30/02 2100 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FATE
02/04/02 (H) FSH AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 124
02/04/02 (H) Bill Postponed
02/11/02 (H) FSH AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
LANCE NELSON, Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section (Anchorage)
Department of Law
1031 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1994
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the administration
in opposition to HB 283 and HB 284.
SUE ASPELUND
Cordova District Fishermen United
P.O. Box 939
Cordova, Alaska 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Cordova District
Fishermen United in support of HB 283 but suggested changes;
testified in support of HB 284.
WOODY WIDMARK, Tribal Chairman
Sitka Tribe of Alaska
456 Katlian Street
Sitka, Alaska 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 283 on behalf of the Sitka
Tribe of Alaska; suggested that there be two subsistence seats
on the board.
BRUCE SCHACTLER, Fisherman
P.O. Box 2254
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 283, HB 284,
and HB 286.
GORDY WILLIAMS, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the department on
HB 283, expressing concern about term limits; testified in
support of the basic intent of HB 286 but voiced some concerns.
JERRY McCUNE
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
211 Fourth Street, Suite 110
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1143
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the UFA in support
of HB 283, HB 284, and HB 286.
CHERYL SUTTON, Commercial Fisherman
P.O. Box 39214
Ninilchik, Alaska 99369
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of herself and her
family on HB 283 and HB 284.
BILL CRUMP, Salmon Purse Seiner
P.O. Box 688
Valdez, Alaska 99686
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 286.
BRENNAN EAGLE, Southeast Alaska Commercial Fisherman
P.O. Box 576
Wrangell, Alaska 99929
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that he supports the concept of
HB 286 but said that the bill needs to receive more work.
DAVID BEDFORD, Executive Director
Southeast Alaska Seiners Association (SEAS)
526 Main Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of SEAS on HB 286.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-2, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR GARY STEVENS called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Scalzi, Dyson, Coghill,
Kerttula, Wilson, and Stevens. Representative Kapsner joined
the meeting in progress.
HB 283-APPOINTMENTS TO BOARD OF FISHERIES
CO-CHAIR STEVENS announced that the first bill before the
committee, HOUSE BILL NO. 283, "An Act relating to appointments
to the Board of Fisheries and to the ex officio secretary of the
Board of Fisheries."
Number 0082
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI, speaking as the sponsor of HB 283,
mentioned the recent fish caucus and said there were a great
many bills presented there. He said all of the bills were
approved and worked over by the United Fishermen of Alaska
(UFA). He said the bills are in response to some needs in the
industry for legislative change. He said that HB 283 asks that
the Board of Fisheries have designated seats. Representative
Scalzi said currently all of the seats are at large.
Historically, the board was greatly influenced by commercial
fishermen. Currently, there is a shift away from that influence
towards more of a lay board. He said that this shift has
brought about a loss of much knowledge and history of the
industry.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said with the consent of UFA, this bill is
asking for three designated seats for commercial fishing; three
for sport, charter, and personal use; and one for subsistence
use. He said that there are good arguments for why there should
be a lay board, but said that the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council and the International Pacific Halibut
Commission - large and prominent bodies that manage federal
fisheries - both have designated seats. He said that those
commercial seats would require active fishermen who hold fishing
licenses. Representative Scalzi brought up the issue of retired
fishermen who will be excluded from the board as a result of
this. He said he would leave that issue open to discussion. He
conveyed the position of the UFA as one of wanting to see a
stronger commercial fishing presence on the board.
Number 0408
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if members of the board were meant
to have five years' experience "right before they go on the
board, or just five years of experience, period."
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI answered that "five years' experience,
period, would be sufficient."
Number 0453
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked how this bill would apply to people
retired from the fishing industry.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said they would be excluded, but said he
thinks that is an issue in need of more discussion. He voiced
his concern that there is a pool of resources that should be
considered. He gave the example of Clem Tillion as a person
with a type of experience that could be excluded from the board
if retired fishermen were excluded. Representative Scalzi spoke
of a need for a progressive, new direction in the fishing
industry, and said this would require "active participants" and
those with a vested interest in the industry.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER expressed her concern about the
subsistence board member. She said she could envision this
person being an elder, because "most active subsistence hunters
cannot afford to be a professional meeting-goer." She asked
about that in terms of retirement.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said he wanted a bill "that works for
everybody," and said he would be open to the bill's amendment.
Number 0648
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked how active permit holders in an
area with a poor commercial fishing industry - like Bethel -
would be regarded in light of the retirement issue. She gave
the example of Dr. Bob White.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said he assumed if he were an active
permit holder, he would be considered an active fisherman.
Number 0718
LANCE NELSON, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section (Anchorage), Department of Law, testified via
teleconference. He said the administration is opposed to the
bill. He said the current standards of knowledge, diversity of
interests, and points are sufficient to field good candidates.
He said the administration's view is that the bill conveys a
lack of importance of subsistence "just by the numbers." He
said it does not provide for the diversity that the
administration is looking for, since all of the members could
possibly be drawn from the commercial fishing industry. Mr.
Nelson also voiced the administration's concern about the
knowledge and experience of retired commercial fishermen, along
with retired biologists and others being lost.
Number 0924
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked if the administration had a problem
with the concept of designated seats like those on the other two
bodies he had mentioned.
MR. NELSON said he thinks the administration feels that the
current standards, combined with the confirmation process,
should allow diversity on the board.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked if the administration felt that the
designated seats of the International Pacific Halibut Commission
or North Pacific Fishery Management Council did not provide
adequate representation.
MR. NELSON said that he was not sure how the administration felt
about that particular issue.
Number 1008
SUE ASPELUND, Cordova District Fishermen United, testified via
teleconference. She said her organization was in full support
of the bill, but added that there were some changes that could
make it more useful. She said the scope must be broadened for
representation of the commercial interests. Ms. Aspelund said
that commercial fishing issues are very complex, and that they
comprise a great deal of the time the board spends deliberating.
She said for this reason, hands-on knowledge is very important.
She said that part of the reason for poor representation is the
limits placed on board members who have a conflict of interest.
She said that her organization supports term limits.
Number 1165
WOODY WIDMARK, Tribal Chairman, Sitka Tribe of Alaska, testified
via teleconference. He said the Sitka Tribe appreciates the
effort to address subsistence, but does not feel it is adequate.
He suggested that the change be two commercial seats, two sport
seats, two subsistence seats, and one at large seat.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked if Mr. Widmark's group supported the
idea of dedicated seats on the board.
MR. WIDMARK said that he did support the idea but would also
like to see more equal representation in the board's makeup.
Number 1348
BRUCE SCHACTLER testified before the committee. He said that he
has been an active participant in the Board of Fisheries process
for the last 20 years. Mr. Shactler said he supports the bill.
He said today's board is much more complicated than before, with
all of the added environmental issues and other varied
interests. He said that the expertise and ability to relate to
different fisheries is now lacking on the board. The board
needs a little help, and dedicated seats could provide that
help, said Mr. Shactler. He said the definition of a commercial
fisherman is broad, and gave the example of a commercial clam
digger.
MR. SHACTLER said that the board takes so much time in meetings,
it is difficult for a young, active fisherman to take part in
it. He called for the opportunity to see recently retired
fishermen on the board to bring their knowledge and experience.
He said the bill is a step forward at a time when "we're going
backwards real fast." He said that subsistence has enough
support from statutory and federal authority, and that if the
board is dealing with the resource in a sustainable manner,
subsistence is being taken care of automatically. He said one
subsistence board member is enough. He said HB 283 is a good
bill, but the committee might want to add a few things.
Number 1636
GORDY WILLIAMS, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Department of Fish &
Game, testified before the committee. He said the department is
concerned about term limits. With the board operating on a
three-year cycle, the preponderance of issues only come up every
three years. Mr. Williams said that with only two terms, it is
not easy to learn all of the complexities of all the regions in
the state.
Number 1732
JERRY McCUNE, United Fishermen of Alaska, testified before the
committee. He said the UFA had a long conversation over HB 283
and supports the bill. He said that the UFA knew there would be
a great variety of viewpoints on the matter. In order to clear
up the problem of board members with multiple interests, Mr.
McCune suggested that members appointed as either a sport or
subsistence member should not hold a commercial permit.
MR. McCUNE said that people are tired of fighting with the
governor and legislature over board appointments. He said
dedicated seats would ensure equitable representation, and cut
down on the strife associated with appointments. He said the
UFA was open to discussion on the makeup of the board including
the "two, two, two, and one" scenario of sport and charter,
commercial, subsistence, and at-large interests, respectively.
Number 1940
CHERYL SUTTON, Commercial Fisherman, testified before the
committee. She said this bill is intended not to usurp
authority from the executive or legislative branch, but rather
to make the lives of those involved easier. It would also
encourage qualified people to put their names forward to be
considered for appointment to the board. She agreed that
representation for everyone is important. She said that she
would be open to adjusting the makeup of the board to the
proposed two, two, two, and one, or whatever worked best. She
said that she does not believe in adjusting its size, because
the small number on the board can deal with very complex issues
if there are qualified people on it. She commented that the
bill is not intended to harm anyone; it is intended to be a
useful tool. Ms. Sutton said she wants qualified people on the
board, not "my guy." She said the board needs people with a
vision for the whole state.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said that he had planned to move the bill
out during the meeting, but he had decided that it is "a
fisheries bill." He said he wanted to hear some more discussion
on the matter. [HB 283 was held.]
HB 284-BOARD OF FISHERIES CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
[Contains discussion of HB 283]
CO-CHAIR STEVENS put before the committee HOUSE BILL NO. 284,
"An Act relating to participation in matters before the Board of
Fisheries by members of the board; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 2222
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI, Sponsor of HB 284, explained that this
bill was a companion to [HB 283]. He said regardless of whether
HB 283 goes through, it is imperative that this bill move
forward. He gave an example of a board member on the Board of
Fisheries being "conflicted out" of an issue because he was a
charter boat operator. Representative Scalzi said reconsidering
the state's boards and commissions would be a good idea because
it is counterproductive to excuse those people with the most
knowledge and experience in a given area. He said that it is
important for a board member to declare any potential conflict
of interest, but said that knowledge is lost when those people
are "conflicted out." He asked that the bill go through without
being amended.
Number 2384
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked how this bill would change the
Board of Fisheries from other bodies.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said that he did not want to make blanket
changes for all of the other boards. He said it was a one-board
issue.
Number 2438
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said if a person has a conflict under the
current regime and states it, the board could give the member
consent to participate. He said the bill is "kind of throwing a
check and balance out."
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said that the chairman on a board should
have the same criteria as the legislature. In the case of an
overwhelming conflict, a board member could be excused, but
under the current system it is mandatory.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said HB 284 is giving a lot of latitude.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said that the bill gives only the amount
of latitude enjoyed by the legislature, the North Pacific
Fisheries Management Council, and the International Pacific
Halibut Commission. He gave the example of a halibut commission
meeting where a member stated a conflict, but was asked to
remain and add to the knowledge of the area in question. He
spoke of the familial ties in the Bristol Bay area, and said the
stringent guidelines could hamstring the board by exempting
valuable information and viewpoints.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made the clarification that members would
not be able to participate unless they declared their conflict
and were accepted.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said that under the current regime, "if
you have a conflict, you're excused - end of sentence."
Number 2613
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked if currently one could be forced to
vote despite a conflict.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said there are some circumstances in
which that could be the case, but she deferred to Lance Nelson.
Number 2647
LANCE NELSON, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section (Anchorage), Department of Law, testified via
teleconference. He said the way the process works with the
board is, the members are expected to declare areas where they
would have a conflict with the ethics Act [Alaska Executive
Branch Ethics Act]; the chairman then rules, and the board can
then vote - with a majority - to overturn the chairman's ruling.
He said the board generally does not require participation if a
member declines. The board can also defer to the Department of
Law if there is a question. He said board members can always
abstain, and they can always participate as members of the
public by not sitting at the table or voting.
MR. NELSON said the administration opposes the bill. He said
that the administration feels the exemption from the ethics Act
is too broad. He pointed out the difficulty in applying the
ethics Act to some boards and not others. Under this bill, a
conflict of interest cannot be considered a violation of the
ethics Act, even though a board member could be in a position to
use state resources for personal and financial benefit. Mr.
Nelson said that under the bill, the member could disclose the
conflict on the record, but there is no board vote or other
control over actions that would benefit significant interests of
the board member. He said board members would no longer be
required to disclose potential violations arising from personal
or financial interests in writing to the Office of the Attorney
General or a designated supervisor. They would just have to
declare it on the record. He said officials and members of the
public might not know about a potential conflict unless they
were attending the meetings.
MR. NELSON said, "It is not as much of an issue as it may seem
to be." He told the committee that there were no votes by the
board where the conflicts would have made a difference in the
outcome of the vote, and there is usually only one member
conflicted at a time. Other members of the public who are
equally as informed as the member can also testify.
MR. NELSON said current requirements do not slow the board or
make it less informed. He said another concern is that the
"purpose" provision says one thing, but the bill appears to do
another. He said that the effect of the bill is not clearly
what the drafters might have intended. Mr. Nelson told the
committee that the purpose says, "Board members are required to
participate, even if they have a conflict by virtue of their
participation in the fishery." Mr. Nelson said the language of
the bill differs from the purpose because it does not require
members with a conflict to participate, and also allows board
members to have personal and financial interests in matters
before the board without any restriction or qualifications.
Number 2944
SUE ASPELUND, Cordova District Fisherman United, testified via
teleconference. She disagreed with Lance Nelson on the matter
of conflict-of-interest issues "bogging down the process." She
said she has sat through 22 years of board meetings where
valuable information was lost because members were "conflicted
out." She said it is unfair to withhold a permit holder's
testimony, but not a lodge owner or processor's.
TAPE 02-2, SIDE B
MS. ASPELUND expressed her organization's support for HB 284.
Number 2920
BRUCE SCHACTLER, Fisherman, testified before the committee. He
expressed his complete support for the bill, and likened it to a
brother or sister of HB 283. He said this bill is one of the
many ways to get the fishing industry moving forward again. Mr.
Shactler said that the board system is outdated. He said that
public testimony is not where the discussion and debate takes
place on the Board of Fisheries. He said that an exempted board
member's expertise is lost when that member is not allowed to
take part in the discussions that occur outside of the public
hearings. He said he would like to see the committee move the
bill out. He said the fishing industry needs a lot of help, and
that help can only come with positive change.
Number 2822
JERRY McCUNE, United Fisherman of Alaska, testified before the
committee. He said that in his experiences with the board, he
had seen processors, lodge owners, and guides not be conflicted
out, but commercial fishermen were conflicted out regularly. He
characterized the Board of Fisheries as the most powerful
regulatory board in the whole state. He said that all the
members on the board should be able to vote, as long as they
disclose any potential conflict.
Number 2730
CHERYL SUTTON, Commercial Fisherman, testified before the
committee. She said that any decision she makes for her
business depends on the decisions of the board. She said that
the board has been given authority by the legislature to govern
a multibillion-dollar industry, and it is a big responsibility.
MS. SUTTON said that those members who may be commercial
fishermen, and who bring with them a certain amount of
expertise, should not be excluded. She said permits and vessels
are tangible assets. She said, "Declare them; participate;
vote. Name your relatives, name your associations.... People
can connect dots." She said what troubles her more are the
conflicts that arise where there are no tangible assets. Ms.
Sutton said in these cases, bias and prejudice are what the
board is forced to operate on.
Number 2618
MS. SUTTON said the administration professes that the board
members are not elected officials and should not be held to the
same standard. She added that the legislature has delegated a
portion of its authority; therefore, the board has a larger
responsibility than others in the state. She asked the
committee "why would we want to conflict out folks who have
expertise, when it is very important to formulating sound
regulations." She urged the committee to support the bill along
with HB 283.
Number 2562
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said that HB 284 was a companion bill to
HB 283, and asked that the committee should also hold it for
consideration. He said he wanted more dialogue with the
administration. He said that the testimony concurred that the
bill is the direction that commercial fishing has to go. He
said fishermen must rationalize their industry with the most
expertise available. Representative Scalzi said he hates to see
personal attacks on the issue. He said there is a need for
consideration of a more broad representation for the industry.
He asked that the bill be held. [HB 284 was held.]
HB 286-OWNERSHIP OF MORE THAN ONE FISHERY PERMIT
CO-CHAIR STEVENS announced that next order of business 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 2420
[Although there was a motion to adopt HB 286, Version O, it was
already before the committee. Representative Scalzi spoke to
the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 286, Version B.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI, sponsor of HB 286, characterized the bill
as another avenue for consolidation of commercial fisheries
permits. He said there are many permits throughout the state
that are currently dormant. In the last three decades, the
efficiencies of the fleets have grown greatly due to factors
such as bigger and faster boats, stronger nets, and more
knowledgeable people with "higher-tech" equipment. He said
there is an oversupply of harvesters in many areas. He said the
bill would allow individuals to hold two permits per area. This
would allow more fishing time, by attrition.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said the bill was initially a Bristol Bay
bill that would allow multiple permit holders to benefit with
more fishing time or the use of more gear in the water. He said
that the UFA did not support the stacking measures.
Number 2220
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI made a motion to adopt the CS for HB 286,
22-LS1099\B, Utermohle, 2/7/02. There being no objection,
Version B was adopted as the work draft before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said Version B was different from the
original bill in that it is a "consolidation bill more than a
stacking bill." He said the two new provisions in the bill are
that salmon fisheries can form associations and collect revenue
up to 5 percent, and that it allows people to hold up to two
permits per area.
Number 2193
BILL CRUMP, Salmon Purse Seiner, testified via teleconference.
Mr. Crump said he was just listening in as an interested permit
holder. He said he was glad to see the legislature trying to
inject some "synergies of efficiency" into the salmon fishery.
Mr. Crump said there are approximately 270 seine permits in
Prince William Sound. He added that he did not believe the
fishery would ever support that number of permits again, perhaps
not even half that number.
Number 2055
BRENNAN EAGLE, Southeast Alaska Commercial Fisherman, testified
via teleconference. Mr. Eagle said he has been a commercial
fisherman for 25 years, and that he is currently involved in
four fisheries. He expressed support for the concept of the
bill, but said there are important issues to be fixed in it. He
said he would like to see the other fisheries included. He has
lobbied the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission to allow a
similar process in the shrimp fishery. He said fishermen would
like to solve the problem of oversaturation of permits on their
own, as an industry.
MR. EAGLE said there needs to be an economic incentive to buy
multiple permits. As written, the bill offers no return on the
extra money spent on multiple permits. He gave the example of
those in the pot shrimp fishery who bought extra permits when it
instituted a limited entry program. The fishermen put their
extra permits in the names of their spouses or children and did
not fish them, thinking it would be a good way to remove permits
from the fishery. He said there was nothing that could be done
by holding the extra permits. When those permits went up in
value, they sold them because there was no economic incentive to
hold them. Mr. Eagle said it is important to consider an
incremental gear increase, or a fishing-time increase so that
there would be some kind of return on the investment.
MR. EAGLE said that he did not think it prudent for the new
associations to tax themselves to raise money for new permit
loans. He said there are already two good places to get money.
He said it would result in another small bureaucracy. He gave
his support for the concept of the bill and urged them to
consider the additions he'd suggested.
Number 1872
DAVID BEDFORD, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Seiners
Association (SEAS), testified before the committee. He said
that in his view and the view of the board of the UFA [of which
SEAS is a member[, this is an important piece of legislation.
Mr. Bedford said that these are hard times for the salmon
industry. Bristol Bay permits are selling for ten cents on the
dollar compared to what they commanded ten years ago.
MR. BEDFORD spoke of the hard situation for people who made
investments in that fishery ten years ago. He addressed the
dire situation for Southeast purse seiners and their lack of
markets. The prices for salmon are declining statewide. He
characterized salmon fishing as the lifeblood of coastal Alaska
economies. Mr. Bedford said that many fishermen are involved in
a number of different fisheries, "but there are darn few of them
who are not, at a minimum, salmon fishermen." He told the
committee that HB 286 is an important part of Alaskan
fishermen's efforts to try to help themselves. He said that it
would help the salmon industry become viable again by reducing
the fleet.
Number 1682
Mr. BEDFORD said there were a number of concerns expressed by
fishermen and fishing communities about doing things that would
modify their fisheries. He said it is important for fishermen
to be able to "shoulder the responsibility for this." He said
it is important that the program be voluntary and regional, and
that the associations be accountable.
MR. BEDFORD gave an overview of the bill. It allows an
individual to hold two permits in a fishery for purposes of
consolidation. It allows fishermen to set up a nonprofit
association to help with the consolidation program, in their
fishery, in their region. He said that it allows fishermen to
vote on taxing themselves. Mr. Bedford also pointed out how the
bill contains a great number of administrative procedures to
protect the process from takeover by powerful individuals and
groups, and to assure transparency.
Number 1575
MR. BEDFORD said that if fishermen "choose this route," they
would have to pay the setup costs. He said that two-thirds of
participants in a fishery would have to agree on a buyback. He
said fishermen would tax themselves, set up the association, and
administer the program. Mr. Bedford said that the two-thirds
provision will help to ensure that whatever program is put
forward will be acceptable to the majority. He said that there
are provisions within the bill that repeal the tax. A 25-
percent petition and an ensuing vote would accomplish this.
Number 1482
MR. BEDFORD said only permit holders of a given geartype, in a
given region would vote on an association in their fishery. He
said that the associations would have to set up an annual
business plan in conjunction with the Alaska Department of Fish
& Game. There is an annual reporting responsibility to both the
fishermen in the region, and the state. He said there is also
the ultimate responsibility: "If the fishermen don't like it,
they get together and vote it out of existence, and it's gone."
He said, "These are hard times in the salmon industry." He
urged support of the bill.
Number 1385
CO-CHAIR STEVENS asked whether there was any economic incentive
to buy the extra permits.
MR. BEDFORD said that it would be up to regional fisheries to
come up with "great ideas." He gave an example that had a
fisherywide tax; holders of more than one permit would be paid
not to fish them. Mr. Bedford also raised the possibility of
loaning money to purchase permits and hold them. He said there
are probably a great many ideas out there.
Number 1268
CO-CHAIR WILSON asked who would own the permits.
MR. BEDFORD said an association might want to help people to buy
a second permit. He said that in the current legislation,
ownership is restricted to individuals. It might be possible
for a fishery to assess a fisherman, collect an amount of
revenue, and then go out and contract with people who own one or
two permits to not fish one or both of them. It could be that
someone might devise a plan to assist people in buying a second
permit. Whatever plan is devised must stand up to the vote of
at least two-thirds of the members of any given fishery.
Number 1163
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI brought up the question of why this was
only for salmon fisheries. He asked Mr. Bedford to comment on
that issue.
MR. BEDFORD said that many people in other fisheries wanted to
be included in this bill, but the UFA felt it had a high level
of expertise in the salmon fisheries all around the state. He
said that the UFA did not feel as comfortable with the shrimp
fishery because it is of a more regional nature; there are no
shrimp fisheries in Cook Inlet or Kodiak, for example. He
suggested that non-salmon fishermen interested in this type of
program should support this bill and then ask that the
legislature amend the legislation for their fishery.
Number 1040
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI surmised that there was no opposition from
the UFA to including other fisheries, but that they just felt
they could not endorse the other fisheries when the bill was
being drafted.
MR. BEDFORD confirmed Representative Scalzi's interpretation.
Number 1020
CO-CHAIR WILSON asked how someone could pay for a permit that
was not being fished. She asked whether, if someone wanted to
sell a permit, the sale would be carried out on a regional
basis.
MR. BEDFORD said that the bill would not make any changes to the
way permits are transferred. He also said the bill would be
blessed with the "infinite flexibility of contract." He said
that contracts between people could take myriad different forms
to accomplish something. He said that the bill would "leave it
up to people within the regions to sort of invent whatever they
can come up with," but added that those arrangements must fall
within the requirements of statutes that are in place. He gave
the example that a holder of more than one permit could be paid
to keep a permit dormant. He said that market forces could
bring permits out of dormancy if the fishery were to rebound and
raise the value of the permit to a level that would make it more
valuable being fished than remaining dormant.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL raised the issue of overlapping areas.
He said that there would be a problem of what area would get the
authority and who would be included in the association. He said
that there would be one more tier of groups to get consent from.
Representative Coghill said there would be a plethora of new
commission issues as well.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked why the Board of Fisheries is not
involved in the legislation.
Number 0730
MR. BEDFORD said the UFA feels that the "Board of Fisheries is a
very risky process." He said that members of the UFA get "kind
of nervous" when the board becomes involved in an issue. He
gave the example of the Chignik Co-op. He said there is a
concern that there is a lack of expertise on the board to deal
with the "fine-tuning" that would be involved with the stacking
program that the original form of the bill would have
implemented.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if the UFA had considered the
overlap in fisheries.
MR. BEDFORD said that it is set up so that regions of the state
are defined as administrative areas, and within that they are
broken up into particular gear types. He gave the example of
Southeast Alaska. He said Southeast Alaska begins at Cape
Suckling and runs south from there. Within Southeast Alaska
there is a purse seine fishery, a gillnet fishery, a troll
fishery, and a set-net fishery near Yakutat. He said that the
fisheries do not overlap geographically or administratively with
adjacent fisheries of the same gear type.
Number 0571
GORDY WILLIAMS, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, testified before the
committee. He said the department supports "the providing of
tools to the industry." The department also appreciates
flexibility in the approaches to problems. He said the
department supports the basic intent of the bill, but it has not
had an opportunity to review it. There is concern over the role
of the department and whether the department would be the
appropriate entity for the administration of such a program.
MR. WILLIAMS said that the bill is based upon some Southeast
Alaska dive fisheries where the department had a similar role,
but he said that the monies raised in that case were
predominantly for management of the fisheries. He said that in
the case of Version B, the department is responsible for
administering elections and establishing associations. He said
that the department is not given the same connection with
management as for the dive fisheries. He said the department
has not had time to look within the administration and find
which department is most appropriate to deal with the functions
it has been given in the bill. Mr. Williams said the department
also needs to look at how the administrative costs would be
handled in the case of several regions wanting to form
associations.
Number 0280
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said that the management of the fishery is
still under the Alaska Department of Fish & Game with the bill,
and he said that he did not think it necessary to indicate that
in the bill. He asked Mr. Williams if any of the fisheries
bills would be supported by the administration.
MR. WILLIAMS said he was supporting the bill, but added that the
department only first saw it recently. He said that in the
instance of the dive fisheries, there was no management money
available. He said the funds raised will stay with the
department, and they will be used for things other than the
management of the salmon fisheries. Mr. Williams said that the
department already manages the salmon fisheries.
Number 0128
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said that because the department is
responsible for fishery management, it should not require more
money to carry that management out.
MR. WILLIAMS said that he was not lobbying for the department to
keep any money, apart from some administrative costs. He said
that he was not sure that the department is the appropriate
agency to certify ballots, bylaws, and registration and voting
procedures. He said the department supports the concept, but it
wants to take time to talk to sister agencies and see if one of
the others might be able to carry out the functions in a more
efficient manner.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI agreed that Mr. William's was a fair
assessment.
Number 0045
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked if the two-thirds vote would be
attainable considering low voter turnout and the high number of
out-of-state fishermen in fisheries such as Bristol Bay.
TAPE 02-3, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. WILLIAMS said it would be a big educational burden to try to
inculcate the diverse groups of fishermen as to the intricacies
of the voting process.
Number 0109
BRUCE SCHACTLER, Fisherman, testified before the committee. He
said he supported the bill and called it a step forward. He
suggested the administration be involved as little as possible,
and added that the program probably would cost little to
administer anyway. He said that if the fishermen vote for an
assessment, "it will be our money." He said this has little to
do with management, and that it would make management easier by
having fewer permits.
MR. SCHACTLER said that getting 66 percent to vote would be
quite easily done in the fisheries he is involved in. He said
this is the case because at least that percentage will not be
involved in the fishery after this year. He said those leaving
the fishery would be happy to tax someone else to buy their
permits from them. He said a lot of the "new thinking" is a
result of the industry's being down so far. He gave the example
of the purse seine fishery in Kodiak where he lives. He has not
fished there since 1995. He said over 50 percent of the permits
there are no longer being fished. He said he has had many
conversations with the limited entry commission over the last
decade on the issues of stacking and consolidation. He said he
is glad to see it finally come to the forefront, and that it is
a "very doable thing."
Number 0399
MR. WILLIAMS said there were a lot of financial considerations
given to the people who would make the investments in
consolidating permits with their own money. He said that it was
cautious thinking that took the incentives out of the bill
because it is a "pilot project." He said the bill is
conservative so that it is not exposed to a great deal of risk.
From that conservative baseline, incremental changes and
improvements can be made. He said the bill gives everyone a
voluntary chance to participate with a low risk factor. He
urged the committee to give the bill the consideration it needs.
CO-CHAIR STEVENS asked Representative Scalzi if the two-thirds
vote would be two-thirds of eligible permit holders or two-
thirds of those who vote.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said that the two-thirds applies to the
absolute number of permit holders, adding that it "is a very
high bar." He brought up the "Chignik issue," saying that it is
important to have support from all permit holders.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked if the two-thirds applied to two-
thirds of all members of a fishery voting "yes."
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI replied that Representative Kapsner was
correct: two-thirds of all permit holders must vote yes.
Number 0614
JERRY McCUNE, United Fishermen of Alaska, testified before the
committee. He said the UFA did not want to create two classes
of fishermen. He said that they did not want to see groups with
the means to buy multiple permits "ramming through" stipulations
that would force economic hardships on those who could not
afford more permits. He said that fisheries need to get
themselves in order. After that, ideas can be worked through.
He made it clear that all of these changes must be voluntary.
He said that there will have to be cooperation within the
fisheries to implement these programs. Mr. McCune warned that
next year will see some fisheries in worse shape than they are
this year. He said that this will force more cooperation.
MR. McCUNE said it never occurred to him to talk to those in
other fisheries when he began working on the legislation. He
said if all shrimpers came in, UFA would probably work to get
them included in the legislation; however there are myriad
fisheries in the state.
MR. McCUNE addressed the earlier question about who would own
the permits and who would be in charge of selling them. He said
that individuals would make the decision to sell or not sell.
He told the committee that the association would be a vehicle
for getting money, and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game
would be an advisory group for that money's disbursal. He said
the UFA felt the department would be the most appropriate agency
for that oversight.
MR. McCUNE said that not everyone will be in agreement. He is
"dragging 10,000 people along, and some of them don't want to
come along." He said the UFA is doing its best to do what is
best for the salmon fisheries of the state by consolidating
them. He said it will be painful for some of the fisheries. He
said the UFA is trying to keep the tax bases up in salmon-
dependent communities.
Number 1043
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said his initial intent in having the
department involved was because it makes the determination of
whether the number of permits is appropriate for the harvest
capacity. He said that the dialogue on this bill should be
carried on in the next committee, along with HB 284.
Number 1135
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked Representative Scalzi if it
mattered to him whether or not there would be permit stacking by
out-of-state permit holders. She said that Bristol Bay had the
concern of more consolidation coming from out-of-state
fishermen.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said the commerce clause would not allow
restriction of out-of-state permit holders from consolidating.
He said Alaskan residents are the ones promoting the bill.
Number 1204
CO-CHAIR WILSON expressed her pride in the fishing industry as a
whole for "thinking outside the box" and using a lot of caution.
She said the selfless caution was commendable, as was the "66
percent" clause.
Number 1277
CO-CHAIR WILSON moved that CSHB 286 [version 22-LS1099\B,
Utermohle, 2/7/02] be moved out of the House Special Committee
on Fisheries with individual recommendations and zero fiscal
notes.
Number 1301
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA raised a question of how this would help
economically. She expressed concern about the broadness of the
bill. She said that she could see how taking permits out of the
fishery might work, but she emphasized that she wants to
understand the economics of the bill. She said it is "a pretty
amorphous thing," and that there must be a lot of work before it
goes to the floor.
Number 1385
CO-CHAIR STEVENS asked if there were objections to moving the
bill out of committee. There being no objection, CSHB 286(FSH)
was moved out of the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1420
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 5:35
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|