03/15/2004 09:05 AM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 15, 2004
9:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Dan Ogg
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Cheryll Heinze
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 19
Relating to the support of fisheries education, training, and
research and encouraging collaborative efforts between the
state, the University of Alaska, and other educational
institutions to provide fisheries education programs.
- MOVED SCR 19 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 396
"An Act relating to management of salmon and other fish stocks
and salmon fisheries and to the use of funds received by an
enhancement facility from the sale of fish."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SCR 19
SHORT TITLE: SUPPORTING FISHERIES EDUCATION
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) STEVENS G BY REQUEST OF SALMON INDUSTRY
TASK FORCE
01/23/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/04 (S) HES
02/25/04 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/25/04 (S) Moved SCR 19 Out of Committee
02/25/04 (S) MINUTE(HES)
02/27/04 (S) HES RPT 2DP 2NR
02/27/04 (S) DP: DYSON, WILKEN; NR: GUESS, GREEN
03/03/04 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/03/04 (S) VERSION: SCR 19
03/04/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/04/04 (H) FSH, HES
03/15/04 (H) FSH AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 396
SHORT TITLE: MANAGEMENT OF SALMON STOCKS AND FISHERIES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) CHENAULT
01/23/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/04 (H) FSH, RES
03/15/04 (H) FSH AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
CHERYL SUTTON, Staff
to the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to support SCR 19.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 396.
KEVIN DUFFY, Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with HB 396.
DOUG MECUM, Director
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 396, answered
questions.
DOUG BLOSSOM, President
Cook Inlet Fishermen's Fund
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that HB 396 places existing state
fishery policies into regulation.
CHRIS GARCIA, Drift Fisherman
of salmon, halibut, and herring
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that he is totally in favor of HB
396.
RICKY GEASE, Executive Director
Kenai River Sportfishing Association, Inc.
Kenai/Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 396.
JOHN EFTA, Commercial Drift Fisherman
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in favor of HB 396.
RON RAINEY, Member
Kenai River Sportfishing Association, Inc.
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 396.
ROLAND MAW, Executive Director
United Cook Inlet Drift Association (UCIDA)
Kasilof, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 396.
TEAGUE VANEK
Cook Inlet Fishermen's Fund
Ninilchik, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to pass HB 396.
NORBERT MILLER, Commercial Drift Fisherman
Ninilchik, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to pass HB 396.
CARL ROSIER, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Related AOC's opposition to HB 396
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-14, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. Representatives Seaton,
Wilson, Ogg, and Samuels were present at the call to order.
Representative Guttenberg and Gara arrived as the meeting was in
progress. Representative Heinze was excused. Representative
Chenault also attended the meeting.
SCR 19-SUPPORTING FISHERIES EDUCATION
Number 0070
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 19, Relating to the support of
fisheries education, training, and research and encouraging
collaborative efforts between the state, the University of
Alaska, and other educational institutions to provide fisheries
education programs.
Number 0121
CHERYL SUTTON, Staff to the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry
Task Force ("Task Force"), Alaska State Legislature, explained
that Senator Gary Stevens had introduced this resolution at the
recommendation of the Task Force. She said no educational
institutions in the United States offer a seafood business
degree. In Alaska it is believed the future of the industry is
wrapped up in fisheries education, training, and related support
industries; that is exactly what SCR 19 recommends. She said
this resolution urges the education providers in Alaska to
collaborate in developing and providing fisheries education
programs. Ms. Sutton pointed out that there are zero fiscal
notes attached. She urged members to support SCR 19.
Number 0281
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked what the University of Alaska has
said about this proposal.
MS. SUTTON deferred to Representative Ogg, given his long
history with the university.
Number 0343
REPRESENTATIVE OGG explained that he'd served on the University
of Alaska Board of Regents and attended the School of Fisheries
[and Marine Sciences] advisory council meetings, usually held
twice a year. This has been an ongoing issue with the
University of Alaska, he pointed out. There have been times
when the university would create a fisheries program, but then
students found no job available upon graduation. Representative
Ogg said the educators believed a fisheries program would be a
good way to proceed, but no one would sign up for the program;
he believes that is because the program wasn't designed in such
a way that students would come out of it with the necessary
education to be employable.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG noted that currently there is a School of
Fisheries and Oceanography. A new dean was just hired from
Mississippi, the first change since 1987, so he expressed hope
that there will be positive changes. Representative Ogg said
since 1987 there have been 135 undergraduates in the fisheries
program, and last year there were only 3. The school's focus
has shifted more toward oceanography and away from fisheries.
There has been constant pressure from the fishing industry to
try to get the school to address and focus on Alaska's fishing
industry, however. He said he believes SCR 19 is a strong
statement to the university to focus on a program such as this.
Number 0496
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON suggested some kind of quality-control
certification through the university would be helpful.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG replied that many fishermen don't see that
kind of certification as a way of increasing income. Many
things fishermen need to do to ensure quality control are simple
and don't require attending a class to learn. He explained that
the university's focus is on developing businesses in fisheries.
MS. SUTTON emphasized that the fisheries program should be
designed so students have employable skills when classes have
been completed.
CHAIR SEATON acknowledged the arrival of Representative
Guttenberg. He also noted that Representative Chenault was in
the audience and offered him a seat at the table.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON agreed that the fisheries program should
result in employment for the students.
Number 0776
CHAIR SEATON said he hopes the University of Alaska School of
Fisheries and Oceanography is at a turning point. In the past,
the school has focused on research and oceanography, but this
resolution recommends moving toward some vocational components
with respect to fisheries. It is important that students who
graduate have employable skills, in high-paying quality jobs
within this industry, he said. Chair Seaton commented that he
believes this resolution comes at a perfect time to dovetail
with the hire of the new dean of the School of Fisheries and
Oceanography.
Number 0915
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if these comments or specific
recommendations came from the Task Force. He said the
University of Alaska has a process for determining needs for new
programs, and he believes these changes usually come from the
industry itself; for example, the nurse-shortage problem was
brought to the attention of the university from the health care
industry. He asked if there is supporting documentation from
the Task Force on these recommendations.
CHAIR SEATON responded that the committee doesn't have the
supporting documentation, but the Task Force has that
information. Specifically, there was input from people from the
fishing community, the processing community, the Board of
Fisheries, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G),
many of whom served both on the subcommittee and committee; all
saw this as a need to address. Chair Seaton emphasized that
this issue came not only from the industry, but from the
legislature as well.
Number 1038
REPRESENTATIVE OGG commended former Representative Adelheid
Herrmann for her unswerving advocacy in addressing this issue.
He told members this is important for the future of Alaska,
particularly the fishing industry.
CHAIR SEATON agreed that former Representative Adelheid Herrmann
was a force behind this resolution.
Number 1111
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON read the following portion of the sponsor
statement:
Currently, there are no educational institutions in
the United States that offer a seafood business
degree; therefore, this resolution recommends that the
education providers in this state collaborate to
develop and provide fisheries education programs in
Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to report SCR 19 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
notes. There being no objection, SCR 19 was reported from the
House Special Committee on Fisheries.
HB 396-MANAGEMENT OF SALMON STOCKS AND FISHERIES
CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 396, "An Act relating to management of salmon and
other fish stocks and salmon fisheries and to the use of funds
received by an enhancement facility from the sale of fish."
Number 1210
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor
of HB 396, provided the following statements:
This bill is intended to put into law successful
fisheries practices utilitized by the department and
the Board of Fisheries. These practices have been
developed since statehood and have generally resulted
in healthy salmon stocks and salmon fisheries
throughout the state. Nothing in this bill seeks to
radically alter any existing departmental management
practice, fishery, or regulatory function. Instead,
it is intended to put into law current practices and
combine the many regulatory policies developed over
the years into a single statute to facilitate
efficiency within the department and board, and
clarify for the public why actions are being taken in
the fisheries. It also, hopefully, will clarify where
the lines of authority lie for both the Board of
[Fisheries] and the commissioner. That simply stated
is that the department manages the fish stocks and the
Board of [Fisheries] allocates the fish surplus to
escapement needs.
Some of the questions I've had asked of me is: why
introduce the bill? Simply, this bill is introduced
... in order to delineate where the commissioner's
authority granted in AS 16.05.060(a) and the Board of
[Fisheries] authority granted under AS 16.05.122(a)
overlap and to clarify that the Board of [Fisheries]
allocates fishery resources and the department manages
these resources and is responsible for setting and
achieving conservation or escapement goals.
CHAIR SEATON announced that the committee would first take
testimony.
Number 1510
KEVIN DUFFY, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G), paraphrased from the following written statements:
House Bill 396 would result in a fundamental
diminution of the ability of the Board of Fisheries to
allocate benefits from salmon fisheries. Under this
bill, the commissioner is directed to manage a mixed-
stock fishery to achieve escapement goals for some
stocks such that the long-term average catch in that
fishery will be maximized (page 4, line 1-8). The
board is then directed to allocate this catch among
users according to historical norms (pages 4-5, lines
23-7).
Section 6 of the bill, proposed AS 16.05.740(c)
removes conservation from the purposes of Board of
Fisheries' salmon regulations. This is fundamentally
inconsistent with the Board's enabling statute, AS
16.05.221(a), which creates the Board of Fisheries for
"purposes of the conservation and development of the
fishery resources of the state," and AS
16.05.251(a)(12), which authorizes the Board to adopt
regulations "regulating commercial, sport, guided
sport, subsistence, and personal use fishing as needed
for the conservation, development, and utilization of
fisheries." If the legislature wanted to remove the
Board's authority to recognize and regulate for
conservation concerns, perhaps these two statutes
should also be amended to expressly authorize the
Board to regulate for "conservation (except in the
case of salmon fisheries)."
Under the proposed AS 16.05.740(c), the following
policies in regulations made through a lengthy public
process would be rendered moot or require extensive
changes:
5 AAC 39.220. Policy for the management of mixed-
stock salmon fisheries.
5 AAC 39.222. Policy for the management of salmon
sustainable fisheries.
5 AAC 39.223. Policy for statewide escapement
goals.
HB 396 attempts to lock fisheries management into the
status quo, limiting the commissioner's and board's
ability to adapt to changing resource and economic
conditions. Board actions could only be based on
utilization and development (page 4, lines 23-25).
The board's only duty would be to determine and
maintain historic levels of use (page 4, lines 30 -
page 5, line 11). Intercept fisheries would be
protected regardless of the economic impacts on
terminal fisheries (page 5 lines 8-11).
In order to comply with court precedent on regulatory
law, the commissioner would have to adopt all
escapement and harvest goals into regulation, since
the commissioner would be mandated to achieve those
goals during the season. So instead of the public
discussions before the board, these actions would take
place in the commissioner's regulation process. This
might require a regulations specialist to work on that
process full-time, since they would have to do a
written analysis of all public comments before the
commissioner could adopt each regulation. That is not
required for board procedures under the Administrative
Procedures Act.
The bill directs the commissioner to manage for MSY
[maximum sustained yield] from important and dominant
stocks and to maximize benefits to the people of
Alaska. Depending on the definitions of yield and
benefits, these directives may be mutually exclusive.
Provisions of this bill direct the commissioner to set
goals according to MSY regardless of the allocative
effects while the "AS 16.05.258(b) Subsistence Use and
Allocation of Fish and Game" directs the board to
provide for opportunity for subsistence harvest while
maintaining sustained yield. In years of poor returns
these may be mutually exclusive directives.
There are conflicting or inconsistent directives
regarding allocation of harvests, i.e., the
commissioner is directed to meet escapement and
harvest goals regardless of allocative consequences
and yet the board is charged with maintaining harvest
allocations for and among traditional users.
HB 396 adds a new statute, AS 16.05.740 and amends AS
16.05.251 and AS 16.05.730. Some confusion occurs
because amendments to the latter two statutes concern
salmon fisheries and salmon stocks exclusively, while
the statutes themselves pertain to fish stocks in
general, which could be groundfish, shellfish, and
resident fish species as well as salmon.
This bill adds a lot of legal ambiguity to management
decisions that will probably result in litigation.
Terms describing directives for management in the
bill, such as "historic uses," "historic level of the
harvest," "highest social as well as economic
benefits," "over harvest", "over escapement", "yield",
"benefits", "depressed stock", "harm to stocks",
"conservation goals", "commercially valuable", and
"stability of fisheries", are undefined.
One important definition is inconsistent. By the
definition of "dominant stock", the order of dominance
would be pink salmon, sockeye or chum salmon, coho
salmon, and chinook salmon, based on the productivity
and abundance of these species in most parts of the
state. That order is often just the reverse of the
economic value of the harvest from these species. The
ambiguity occurs if "commercially valuable" means
economic value. No guidance is given when we don't
know how abundant or productive a stock may be
relative to another one. In addition, in the
definition of "dominant stock", such a stock is
commercially valuable to whom? Who makes that
decision? The board? The commissioner?
Number 1911
COMMISSIONER DUFFY said that this legislation seems to more
directly involve the commissioner in the day-to-day fishery
management decisions. In his opinion, it's a movement away from
a system that works effectively as currently structured.
Although he acknowledged that the current system isn't perfect,
it has withstood the test of time, which he attributed to the
relationship between the commissioner, the department, and the
Board of Fisheries ("the board"). He said that HB 396 creates
"undefined confusion". Mr. Duffy highlighted that the
department prepared a fiscal note for HB 396 that would require
a regulatory specialist to perform much of the public input and
regulatory development process that currently exists with the
Board of Fisheries.
Number 2017
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired as to the ramifications [of HB
396] to the fisheries.
COMMISSIONER DUFFY replied that HB 396 would reduce the role of
the board in allocating among the beneficial users in the state.
Furthermore, this legislation make the commissioner more
directly involved in the allocation of fish resources among
users, which is currently a primary responsibility of the board.
Mr. Duffy viewed this legislation as a fundamental shift in
responsibility from the board to the commissioner of ADF&G.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG directed attention to page 5, line 8, Section
3, which he surmised is discussing an intercept fishery. He
inquired as to how the aforementioned language would impact the
existing regulations concerning the intercept fisheries in Area
M, Chignik, and Kodiak.
Number 2150
DOUG MECUM, Director, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), clarified that "we're"
speaking hypothetically. The provision [page 5, line 8] takes
the regulatory process during which allocation decisions are
made through the public process and reduces it to a formulae
calculation that maintains historical harvest levels.
Therefore, the board's hands would be tied with regard to
redistributing economic or social benefits and the board would
be forced to manage for these historical and traditional shares
of the harvest. In the False Pass fishery, the last board
significantly reduced the False Pass fishery and three years
later a new board decided it was appropriate to significantly
increase the fishing time in that fishery. The aforementioned
doesn't seem to be allowed under this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG inquired as to how far back in time the
"historical" reference refers.
MR. MECUM said that he couldn't answer that because the
legislation doesn't specify the base time period. He pointed
out that one of the important elements of the US-Canada Pacific
Salmon Treaty is the maintenance of some historical fisheries.
There is nothing wrong with the concept and the board does
review historical fisheries precedence. However, this
legislation mandates such would be in place without specifying a
base time period.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG commented that he could foresee a very heated
battle with regard to the definition of "historical." It would
be something the board would wrestle with for years, he opined.
COMMISSIONER DUFFY related that HB 396 would impact the board's
subcommittee because debate would shift significantly under his
authority.
Number 2377
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS recalled that there was a comment
regarding the economic value of king salmon that was caught in
the sport fishery versus a batch of red salmon caught in a net.
He related his understanding that the value of the sport fishery
wouldn't be a factor because once escapement is reached
commercial fishing would be open under HB 396. Representative
Samuels said that he was trying to determine the specific goal
with this legislation.
MR. MECUM said he believes those [proposing] the legislation
wanted to address the idea that there are large sockeye stocks
and the board's decisions to protect incidental species or to
provide more conservative management has resulted in situations
in which the regulations haven't allowed the department to
manage strictly for the sockeye escapement goal. Therefore,
there has been the complaint that there is an excess escapement
of sockeye. Mr. Mecum related:
Some people would say that's kind of how the
department does manage already in that we try to focus
our efforts in terms of our management and stock
assessment on the largest stocks, the most dominant
stocks, the most valuable or important stocks and that
for the other stocks, which we obviously don't have
all the resources in the world to monitor, we try to
maintain some kind of sustained yield as best that we
can. That's true, that is the way that a lot of the
fisheries are managed around the state, but this bill
tries to lock that down in stone. And I just don't
think that that's a good idea. And also, I think, it
would throw out some of the other issues that the
board has wrestled with on the considerations that
they've made to even allocate to different fisheries
or to be more conservative and to protect other
smaller, less dominant, less commercially important
stocks.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked if the issue is really about the
Kenai River.
MR. MECUM answered that this has arisen from all of the issues
and battles in Cook Inlet. However, the same issues arise in
other parts of the state. For example, in Southeast Alaska
there is a very large purse seine fishery, which he supposed
would be considered the dominant stock. Over the years the
board has made restrictions and the department has implemented
restrictions to be as conservative as possible with the
management of the large purse seine fishery in order to avoid
over harvest of some of the smaller stocks such as sockeye. The
board has limited the purse seine fisheries' ability to harvest
coho salmon late in the season. Therefore, there have been a
number of restrictions that the department or the board has
implemented in order to focus the purse seine fishery on the
larger, more dominant, and more commercially valuable pink
salmon.
Number 2606
CHAIR SEATON informed the committee that in Cook Inlet last year
the escapements were fulfilled in all streams, but the board's
policy prevented the commissioner from opening the fishery to
take the stocks. The aforementioned wasn't to protect the stock
or the weak streams, although Chair Seaton opined that the
original idea behind the closures was conservation/protection of
the weak stock. Therefore, last year the commercial fishermen
felt that the commissioner was locked into a policy that wasn't
addressing the current situation. He requested that the
aforementioned be addressed such that when a stock isn't being
protected that the return for the people is maximized by
[allowing] harvest of the available fish. Chair Seaton,
reviewing the situation last year in Cook Inlet, said that
something was wrong and he viewed this legislation as an attempt
to fix it.
COMMISSIONER DUFFY agreed with Chair Seaton's general
description of last year, except that he did approve additional
commercial fishing time in the drift gillnet and the setnet
fishery in the Cook Inlet, over and above the board-approved
management plan. He said he did move outside the board-approved
management plan because of the circumstances that arose last
year. However, the discussion became that it should've been
done earlier and more of it should've been done. Commissioner
Duffy said that it's difficult to predict exactly how those
issues will be addressed because those aren't the current
situation. Furthermore, salmon forecasting is flexible and once
the fishery starts in-season information is utilized to do the
management program. He noted that he isn't directly involved
with the management program on a day-to-day basis, but did so
last year because of the decision to go outside of the board-
approved management plan. With regard to how to address this
long-term, Commissioner Duffy has encouraged folks to bring
issues and concerns on this matter in the Cook Inlet to the
board meeting in February.
MR. MECUM turned to Chair Seaton's earlier remark that what
happened in Cook Inlet indicates that something is broken.
Although that would be the perspective of some, it isn't the
perspective of everyone. He clarified that he means to say that
politics is involved in the management and regulation of the
fisheries of this state. Mr. Mecum related his belief that the
commissioner has discretionary authority to deal with new
information that develops during the season and biological
emergencies. However, it's left to the board and the
stakeholders to determine whether the system is broken or not.
CHAIR SEATON noted that the Board of Fisheries adopts some
escapement guidelines with regard to upper and lower limits. He
asked if Mr. Mecum sees it as his job to manage within the goals
or is it considered a successful management regime even when
well above the maximum [limit is harvested] as long as it's over
the minimum escapement goal.
MR. MECUM responded that he believes the [division's] mission is
to manage for sustained yield first and foremost and then
maximize the benefits to the people of the state. Therefore, it
translates into maximum sustained yield and trying to harvest
all the fish available for harvest in a sustainable way, while
being subject to preferential allocations among beneficial uses.
Number 2914
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG directed attention to page 5, and
asked if the definitions listed are new.
MR. MECUM answered that all of the definitions are new or
amended definitions of existing definitions.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired as to what the changes [in
definition] achieve. He surmised that "maximum sustained yield"
is a constitutional phrase.
MR. MECUM said that he wasn't sure that "maximum sustained
yield" is a constitutionally defined term, although some have
interpreted the constitution to mean such. He specified that
the constitution discusses sustained yield and maximizing
benefits.
TAPE 04-14, SIDE B
Number 2947
DOUG BLOSSOM, President, Cook Inlet Fishermen's Fund, informed
the committee that he has fished the Cook Inlet for 55 years in
various capacities. He explained that HB 396 was introduced in
order to bring together a lot of state fishery policies into
regulation because policies seem to veer off course every so
often. He estimated that approximately 90 percent of this
legislation comes from the sustainable salmon fisheries policy
for the state. The mixed-stock policy is almost verbatim, he
said. This legislation, he said, protects Kodiak and Area M
under the present policy in the state. Mr. Blossom emphasized
that this legislation wasn't proposed just for the Kenai River,
rather it has been introduced to place state policies in
regulation. He informed the committee that last year more fish
were put in the Kenai River than Skilak Lake (ph) could hold.
This is a lake that state biologists have studied for years and
said it can only hold so many fish. He explained that although
the returns from this past year will probably be fine, the fish
placed in the lake this summer will probably have nothing to
eat. Mr. Blossom reiterated that HB 396 merely places all these
policies across the state into regulation, and he didn't see how
it could hurt anyone. He noted that this legislation has [been
reviewed by Legislative Legal and Research Services] as well as
fish biologists in order to ensure that it's drafted properly.
He concluded by emphasizing that it's time for policy to be
turned into regulation.
Number 2751
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked if Mr. Blossom is one of the prime
proponents of this legislation.
MR. BLOSSOM replied yes. In further response to Representative
Ogg, he reiterated that it's time for policy to be turned into
regulation without changing anyone's power. The department
wouldn't have to be concerned with allocation, it would merely
run the fishery.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG turned to page 5, lines 5-11. He asked if
Mr. Blossom could project the next 10 years when, perhaps, there
is a much higher increase of sport fish and dipnet fish in the
streams. He inquired as to how the aforementioned would relate
to the history of the commercial fishery. "Will the commercial
fishery be affected if there's a lot more users up there or will
they now have this priority and not allow that fishery to grow,"
he inquired.
MR. BLOSSOM related his belief that the language used in HB 396
was taken from the state's existing mixed-stock policy. This
policy has been used for about as long as Alaska has been a
state. This legislation will merely place the policy into
regulation. With regard to what it would do to the Kenai River,
Mr. Blossom pointed out that it's up to the board to allocate
and if the board decided to allocate more fish to one user over
another, that would be the board's prerogative. The department
is left to manage the fishery.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG pointed out that on page 5, line 5, the
language specifies, "the board shall give priority consideration
to the history of use of a salmon stock by a fishery and to the
stability of fisheries when fishery management decisions are
adopted". Therefore, the board is being directed to give this
priority whereas now the board can perhaps balance that.
Furthermore, the language on page 5, line 10, mandates that the
board "maintain harvests". These mandates are a bit different
than the board's present regulations, which he understood to
have a bit more flexibility.
MR. BLOSSOM opined that this mixed-stock policy has been used
for 35-40 years and it has worked. He reiterated that he
believes Alaska's mixed-stock policy should be placed in
regulation.
CHAIR SEATON requested that the department provide the committee
with a copy of the mixed-stock policy and the sustainable fish
policy.
Number 2497
CHRIS GARCIA, Drift Fisherman of salmon, halibut, and herring,
announced that he is totally in favor of HB 396, which he opined
would keep much of the current controversy from happening. The
legislation basically places management policies under "maximum
sustained yield," which works for everyone. When the
aforementioned policies aren't followed, an economic disaster
results. For example, when Icicle Seafoods' plant burned, it
said that if the board couldn't manage for MSY, the company
couldn't afford to rebuild its plant. The aforementioned cost
Homer approximately 300 year-round jobs. Ward Cove and Dragnet
closed in Kenai under similar situations. When these tax bases
are lost to the [local government] and the state, the private
citizen's tax increases because all the services still have to
be met. Mr. Garcia noted his disagreement with Mr. Mecum, whom
he understood to prefer the board to manage [the fisheries
stocks]. Mr. Garcia questioned the point of hiring biologists
if they aren't allowed to do their job. Furthermore, he opined
that most of the fisheries biologists are concerned about
maintaining this resource. He mentioned that if over-escapement
of a fishery occurs continuously, the resource is killed.
Therefore, he opined that the management of these fisheries is
far better left up to the data collected by the biologists.
Number 2335
RICKY GEASE, Executive Director, Kenai River Sportfishing
Association, Inc., began by noting his agreement with
Commissioner Duffy that HB 396 is written by the commercial
fishing industry in Cook Inlet and it would radically change the
balance of power between the board and ADF&G. The board's
process is a deliberative public process. With regard to claims
that this legislation merely places the current mixed-stock
policy into statute, it isn't the existing mixed-stock policy
found in regulation. As stated earlier, HB 396 prioritizes
within the salmon stock species and places weighted averages
based upon abundance, which he felt was wrong. If the
aforementioned, management for the dominant stock, is adopted,
he predicted that the Endangered Species Act will be implemented
in 10-20 years because of the failure to have conservation for
"weaker" stocks. Therefore, the federal government will step in
and there will be another layer of regulatory process. He
further predicted that the federal government will close some
fisheries in order to protect the "weaker" stocks. Moreover, HB
396 takes the policy decisions from the board and dictates what
the commissioner can and cannot do and implements new
definitions for various terms.
Number 2210
MR. GEASE informed the committee that currently included in the
processes of a sustainable fishery is the concept of "windows"
and management for a terminal fishery. He said that "section" 3
of the legislation specifies that no matter the effect of an
intercept fishery, it will continue. He then turned attention
to page 5, [paragraph] (4) and the concept of over-escapement,
for which there is some scientific debate. In some realms of
science some people believe that having more fish periodically
move up river systems is beneficial for the overall health of
the river systems. Furthermore, this legislation cuts off some
policies for in-river user groups, which he opined wouldn't be
beneficial. Page 4, paragraph (5) specifies that "the
commissioner shall conserve depressed salmon stocks", which will
be how it's managed under this dominant stock. He returned to
the issue of over-escapement and inquired as to where the
science is to support the [provisions in the legislation].
Tying everything to historical use changes the current concept
of a deliberative public process. This legislation, he opined,
sets in stone allocation and eliminates the public policy
concept. Mr. Grease said he couldn't disagree more with this
legislation.
Number 2087
CHAIR SEATON inquired as to how the commissioner conserving
depressed salmon stocks as specified on page 4, paragraph (5) is
detrimental.
MR. GREASE explained, "What's going to happen is ... this one
little section here: 'we're going to conserve for a depressed
salmon stocks' and that's what you're going to have, you're
going to implement in that we're going to have depressed salmon
stocks." For example, if on the Kenai River management occurs
only for pink salmon and sockeye salmon and to prevent over-
escapement of salmon into Skilak Lake (ph). Therefore, he
interpreted that to mean that no concern will be given to coho,
king salmon, and chum stocks and thus the prioritization of the
over-escapement of reds occurs to the detriment of the other
stocks. Mr. Grease stressed that there is already a workable
and sustainable management plan in place based on the concept of
"windows." He explained that the "windows" concept is such that
it allows for the reproductive capacity of all salmon stocks to
maintain them through time. The aforementioned is the meaning
of sustainability. Therefore, to say that this legislation is a
simple change from regulation to statute is wrong, he opined.
CHAIR SEATON surmised then that Mr. Grease didn't have a problem
with paragraph (5) on page 4. He further surmised that Mr.
Grease's concern is in regard to the balance between paragraphs
(2) and (5) on page 4.
MR. GREASE replied yes. If there is merely management for the
dominant stocks, soon there will be depressed stocks in the
"weaker" fisheries. The aforementioned has happened in the
Pacific Northwest, where biologists and policy-makers of that
area would say that the Endangered Species Act has basically
killed the commercial fishing industry. Therefore, he said he
didn't understand why [the state] would want to create a
situation in which the federal government will involved in 10-20
years.
CHAIR SEATON remarked that he didn't believe this legislation is
doing that. He opined that there is a question with regard to
the weight given to ensure harvests and the protection of weak
stocks. However, he didn't believe the department could use the
provisions of this legislation to run any fish stock into the
endangered status. Although [a balance] is necessary, he said
he didn't believe conservation would be overridden in the
legislation.
Number 1865
JOHN EFTA, Commercial Drift Fisherman, spoke in favor of HB 396.
He opined that the fisheries need to be managed biologically.
For example, in 2000 there was a fair amount of red salmon.
However, following the red salmon run there were 30-40 million
humpies. The Board of Fisheries said there was a "silver
conservation problem," the 30-40 million humpies went to waste.
The commercial fishermen asked the commissioner to issue an
emergency exception and open the fishery to which the
commissioner declined. In 2002 there was again the "silver
conservation problem," although there was no scientific data to
back it up. Based on the test data from that year from the
seine boat, there were 2.7 million silvers and 3.9 million dogs
- the vast majority of which weren't harvested. For the
aforementioned reasons, these policies need to be codified.
Number 1724
RON RAINEY, Member, Kenai River Sportfishing Association, Inc.,
turned to the term "dominant stock," which is the sockeye salmon
in Cook Inlet. He predicted a local biologist will say that
"we" don't want to over escape Skilak Lake (ph), and therefore
say that the dominant stock should be fished 24 hours a day for
two weeks straight, without a good way for other stocks to enter
the Kenai River. Placing the aforementioned in regulation is
one thing while passing legislation [placing it in statute] is
another. He opined that the aforementioned is totally wrong
because the charge of the local biologist is to harvest the
sockeye salmon rather than meet the needs of the sport
fisherman, of which there are over 1,000 in the Cook Inlet
Basin. For the growing [sport] fishery to be ignored and
allocated on historic data eludes the public process.
Therefore, Mr. Rainey announced that he is very much against HB
396.
Number 1593
CHAIR SEATON posed a situation in which the board, through
policy, has indicated that there should be days lost during the
season, without biological data. If all the rivers are having
good escapement such that a sport fishery has been allocated
extra harvest, he asked if Mr. Rainey would have a problem with
the commissioner having the ability to go outside the management
plan and open for one or two days and not have additional
closures. He noted that the aforementioned would be based on
the biology of that run for that year.
MR. RAINEY emphasized that the current management plan allows
the commissioner and the biologist to open the fishery earlier.
Furthermore, the commissioner could add extra fishing time if
there are windows during which king salmon and a genetically
diverse run of red salmon could enter the river. The windows
are for the aforementioned. He reminded the committee that back
in the 1980s and early 1990s, one could commercially fish 24
hours a day, 7 days a week for 2 weeks straight on many
occasions. The aforementioned really impacts the diversity and
the escapement for the king salmon and the coho salmon in the
river.
Number 1435
ROLAND MAW, Executive Director, United Cook Inlet Drift
Association (UCIDA), informed the committee that he's been
commercial fishing for halibut, salmon, and cod for 30-plus
years. He remarked that he didn't believe everything that's
happened in the fishing industry on farmed salmon because
Alaskans are part of this problem. Mr. Maw said that he
supports HB 396 because there has been a differential
application of the statewide policies depending upon the region.
He indicated that perhaps that's a good reason to place [the
statewide policy] in statute. With regard to the historical
context of Cook Inlet, he saw two contradictory things occurring
with salmon fishing. Ward's Cove closed down in Cook Inlet and
it was the first closure of a Ward's Cove plant in Alaska. [Due
to other closures] over the past 10 years, about half of the
processing capacity has been lost. The aforementioned raises
the question regarding why that capital left. Mr. Maw then
turned to the fact that over the last 10 years in Cook Inlet at
least 100 million fish have gone to waste, and, again, inquired
as to why the processing capital went to waste. Mr. Maw
remarked, "I find it real interesting, here we are the year 2004
and neither the Board of [Fisheries] or the department has ever
come up with a definition of "conservation" rather it's come
from fishermen." Mr. Maw concluded by noting his support for HB
396.
Number 1183
TEAGUE VANEK, Cook Inlet Fishermen's Fund, began by informing
the committee that he's a lifelong commercial fisherman in Cook
Inlet. Mr. Vanek turned to the issue of the waste of fish,
which he believes this legislation addresses on page 5, line 12.
The waste of salmon, he opined, is the most important issue of
HB 396. He related his belief that the Board of Fisheries has
abused the conservation allocation issue and has caused undue
waste in Cook Inlet. He noted that the board closed the fishery
at the beginning of the silver run. In 2002, Mr. Vanek's last
delivery was worth $1,200, it was the fist day that silvers
showed up, and it was the last day of the season. However, it
was a huge run that year and fish were wasted. The silver
season was [closed] during an out-of-cycle meeting without
public testimony under the auspices of conservation and an
agenda change request. There was no involvement of the public
or the commercial fisheries at that meeting. Furthermore, this
winter the board refused to hear an agenda change request on
this issue, even with new information regarding the strength and
health of the run of silver stocks. The refusal was presented
on the basis of an allocation issue whereas [the closure was
announced] as a conservation issue. He questioned why the board
changed its stance. The aforementioned is addressed by this
legislation, he said. Mr. Vanek concluded by urging the
committee to pass HB 396.
Number 0993
NORBERT MILLER, Commercial Drift Fisherman, said that he likes
HB 396 because it separates the issues of allocation and
escapement, and therefore harvest. The aforementioned, he
opined, will go a long way in regard to taking the politics out
of setting allocations for various groups. Furthermore, the
legislation obligates someone to allow the harvest of fish that
are over and above escapement, which he believes is necessary.
Mr. Miller urged the committee to pass HB 396.
Number 0839
CARL ROSIER, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), informed the
committee that he spent about 40 years managing fisheries
resources in the state. Mr. Rosier related AOC's opposition to
HB 396, which seems to move toward the slippery slope of
regulations being adopted by the legislature. The
aforementioned has occurred in other states. This legislation
attempts to freeze the policy areas of management in the state
that are in place today. He emphasized that there have been
policy changes over the years, including changes in the
fisheries themselves. In fact the Cook Inlet fishery is a much
different fishery than it was at statehood. "You cannot freeze
yourself into a ... legislated fisheries policy that doesn't
permit the flexibility of management," he stated. The
terminology in the legislation referring to major, minor, and
lesser stock is similar to the situation at statehood, which had
the state on a downward spiral with regard to salmon production.
Once the flexibility of policies was implemented through area
management biologists having regulatory authority and the
commissioner having emergency authority, the recovery of the
salmon stocks in Alaska began. Mr. Rosier opined, "There isn't
a single salmon stock ... in the state ... at the present time
that isn't important and should not be taken seriously, as far
as the management program in the state is concerned. Only then
are you, in fact, going to protect it." At statehood, the state
was down to a handful of major systems that were carrying the
fisheries. He recalled the year he was the director of
commercial fisheries when there was a statewide total catch of
27 million fish. However, currently the catch in Southeast is
more than three times that. Mr. Rosier reiterated that HB 396
is a slippery slope, and urged the committee not to proceed down
this path.
Number 0442
CHAIR SEATON related his belief that the impetus behind HB 396
is flexibility. Those in Cook Inlet have seen that the
flexibility and management has been taken away from the
commissioner's office and the local biologist by the board
adopting things "during a window you must take away a commercial
fishery opening, even though it is totally independent from what
the run strength is." The area biologist is limited to no more
than 36 hours of fishing within seven days. Chair Seaton
related that it seems that the flexibility that Mr. Rosier wants
is what is behind HB 396. He requested that Mr. Rosier comment.
MR. ROSIER remarked that he "was a veteran of the Cook Inlet
'fish wars' for a good many years." He acknowledged that there
were times when the commissioner had to step in and make
decisions, but basically there has been a polarization of the
various user groups regarding the issues involving Cook Inlet.
Mr. Rosier said:
If you could retreat ... back to ... the way most of
the areas of the state are in fact being managed on
this thing and get over this ... calling my local
legislator, calling the mayor, calling whoever on
this, and holding public demonstrations whenever
decisions are, in fact, being made in good faith on
these things, then you might be able to return to
that. But what you're seeing here now is ... a
reaping of what happens when people become so ...
paralyzed by polarization on the management decisions
and how they're, in fact, made that the system can't
work effectively. And I would agree with that as far
as Cook Inlet is concerned, ... the system cannot work
in Cook Inlet. It works everywhere else in the state,
but it doesn't work in Cook Inlet. I think that in
itself tells you something. From the standpoint of
the resource, this is ultimately what's going to lose
in this particular scenario on this thing. Yes, it's
flexible at the present time, but on the other hand as
changes are made in the fishery and as better
information is available to everyone and your ability
to harvest runs, your ability to harvest over a broad
spectrum of the run not just ... take your escapement
out of the heart ..., you're looking for a spread as
far as your ... escapements are concerned, then you
might get somewhere with Cook Inlet. But until such
time as the ... social structure ... of Cook Inlet -
the competition between the various user groups up
there on this thing and the hate and discontent that's
been spread - ... then I think you'll be getting
somewhere and you might be able to get back to a
flexible program that ... they're trying to set in
statute at the present time. But this is not the
avenue, in my view, to get there.
MR. ROSIER, in further response to Chair Seaton, confirmed that
he believes the commissioner and the local biologists need
flexibility.
Number 0050
REPRESENTATIVE OGG noted that he participated in some of the
"interactions" between different areas of the state, some of
which while Mr. Rosier "was on board and driving."
Representative Ogg expressed concern with Mr. Rosier's statement
that the legislation freezes current policies. However,
Representative Ogg read parts of the legislation to "actually
open [it] up". He related his understanding that the
legislation would open up, in other areas of the state [tape
changes midspeech].
TAPE 04-15, SIDE A
MR. ROSIER responded that he read it the same way as
Representative Ogg. For example, in Southeast Alaska the
balance is good. He opined that what is being discussed here is
the protection of the cape mixed stock fisheries policy versus
the minimal escapement policy of management for the weakest
runs. Mr. Rosier further opined that the management policies of
the state have been between the aforementioned. He acknowledged
that some cape fisheries have been impacted, they deserved to be
due to the changes in the fisheries themselves, such as bigger
and more powerful boats. Fishermen and equipment have adapted,
and therefore fishermen can't expect to have a set situation.
"When his efficiency changes, then the management program has to
adjust for that," he said.
Number 0280
REPRESENTATIVE GARA inquired as to why Mr. Rosier believes the
resource will ultimately lose under HB 396. Representative Gara
highlighted that there are places in the state where there are
minor, but important wild salmon stocks. For example, on the
Kenai River the state has done an amazing job of protecting a
winter run of silver salmon. Representative Gara asked if Mr.
Rosier saw this legislation as detrimental to wild fish stocks
that aren't economically dominant, but are worthy of protection.
MR. ROSIER, in response to whether this legislation would have a
detrimental impact on nondominant wild fish stocks, replied yes.
He explained that it comes down to the implementation of this
[legislation] because, over time, there will be different views
as far as the board is concerned and as far as the commissioner
is concerned. "Because of those changes, ... I don't think
you're going to have the consistency that ... the group that has
put this forward ... would like to see because the
implementation is ultimately ... going to affect the resource,"
he said. He predicted that if there is a political situation
within the board or the department on this matter, then
decisions could be made that would negatively impact minor
stocks. He reminded the committee, "It's that cumulative
production of all of the systems in the state that, in fact,
puts us up there at 140 million fish or 150 million fish or
wherever we're at the present time." For example, the
rebuilding process of king salmon stocks in Cook Inlet took over
10 years.
Number 0664
CHAIR SEATON asked if Mr. Rosier saw anything in HB 396 that
mandates the director or the commissioner to over harvest weak
stocks.
MR. ROSIER replied no.
CHAIR SEATON said, "So, ... if you have the political situation
where the Board of Fisheries changes so that they're going to
allocate differently, ... the situations that you're talking
about where you have a commissioner that says I'm going to
harvest every fish in the state, they could expend that kind of
energy right now and the Board of [Fisheries] could do those
allocation decisions based on those kind of criteria right now,
regardless of this. ... you don't see that happening with the
legislature letting that happen either, do you?"
MR. ROSIER answered that he hoped not.
Number 0752
REPRESENTATIVE GARA returned to Mr. Rosier's earlier concern
that this legislation would have a detrimental impact on the
resource.
MR. ROSIER reiterated that it's a matter of the implementation.
He surmised that if this type of management approach is taken,
there will be many suggestions for additional amendments and
activity by the legislature in terms of assuring stability.
Ultimately, the politics of this would become much larger than
the conservation of the resource. The aforementioned isn't
desirable, he opined.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked if, from a biological standpoint, it's
possible that sustaining the maximum yield of a dominant fish
stock would impact the spawning area or habitat of a minor fish
stock.
MR. ROSIER answered that there's always danger and the
management folks have to determine what risk they are dealing
with during the in-season management. For instance, in many
stocks there is an overlap because there is an early and a late
[run]. He offered that there should be a chunk of escapement
from both [the early and the late run]. However, when there are
specifications in regard to continuous fishing time, the risk
that some lesser fish stocks will be impacted is higher.
Therefore, there is the desire to have flexibility in the
management program. He expressed the need to "give the benefit
of the doubt to the resource." Moving away from the
aforementioned will mean that the current salmon stocks in the
state won't be maintained, he opined.
Number 1032
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked if there are biological problems
with the over-escapement of Skilak Lake(ph).
MR. MECUM answered that it depends upon which system is being
discussed. He reminded the committee of the oil spill during
which fisheries were closed and there were very large
escapements over a couple of years. After much research it was
found that back-to-back large escapements into systems like
that, which are "rearing limited," can create a brood-year
interaction in which the fish from the first brood are eating
all the food available and the fish from the second brood year
don't have anything to eat. Therefore, it can lead to a serious
depression in yield and economic yield, although he said he
wouldn't go as far as saying it threatens the sustained yield of
the stock. Mr. Mecum said the question is whether the
aforementioned is a conservation problem or an economics and
yield problem. He pointed out that different species in
different systems have different problems, but the over-
escapement has been the biggest problem in the rearing-limited
sockeye systems. In response to Chair Seaton, Mr. Mecum
confirmed that some or the areas in Cook Inlet are rearing-
limited [sockeye systems].
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked if a commercial season can be
opened in the middle of the season for a short period of time in
order to deal with over-escapement.
MR. MECUM answered that there is some flexibility to provide
additional openings. He noted that within the deliberative
process of the department there are discussions with regard to
how to do better than what happened last year. He related, "We
do want to try to be more aggressive based on the forecasts that
we've got and we've got some ideas on how we're going to do
that." In further response to Representative Samuels, Mr. Mecum
said that there is some flexibility [to open a season in the
middle [of a run]. He surmised that those pushing this
legislation are concerned with the reduction in some of the
opportunity once available to harvest the more abundant sockeye
salmon. This legislation really discusses the reduction of the
flexibility of the board to allocate. Over the past 10-15 years
in Cook Inlet, the board has essentially truncated the
commercial season and has allocated the chinook salmon upfront
and the coho salmon at the end [of the season], both primarily
for the benefit of recreational users. Therefore, the managers
have been forced to fish more aggressively in the middle, which
has lead the board to say that it's been too aggressive and
specifying the need for "windows" and less effort in the middle
[of the season].
Number 1394
CHAIR SEATON recalled that in the past the local area biologist
had the ability to open it every day if it was necessary for
escapement. However, that was changed to two days a week and
then the board has made a decision that during the peak of a
season, at least one period has to be lost, which is one of the
two days a week. Therefore, there is a large restriction on the
ability of the local area biologist and the commissioner to
utilize management flexibility to harvest the stocks when
present. The aforementioned is the reason for this legislation.
The Board of Fisheries has limited the flexibility of the
department to harvest fish. The commercial fishery sees this
limitation that is regardless of the number of fish and the
biological return of the run. The commissioner doesn't have the
flexibility unless the commissioner goes outside the management
plan.
MR. MECUM clarified that "we" took some actions that "on their
face" were inconsistent with some of the regulations adopted by
the board. However, the management plan for the Kenai River is
built around the sockeye salmon escapement into the Kenai River.
There's an abundance-based management program that essentially
specifies that the results of the managers' actions should
result in escapements that fall within 500,000 to 1 million fish
range. There is data that specifies high sustained yields can
be maintained within the aforementioned range. He pointed out
that during the peak of the season last year, it became obvious
that the escapement goal range couldn't be maintained unless
some action was taken, and therefore some action was taken.
Although one can argue that the department went outside of the
plan, Mr. Mecum said he would argue that the department was
trying to remain within the constraints of the plan and balance
the various competing elements of the plan.
Number 1604
REPRESENTATIVE GARA pointed out that the department can't
regulate perfectly because the department doesn't know how many
fish will return. Therefore, the department can err on the side
of over fishing or under fishing. He opined that the department
has properly erred on the side of under fishing in order to
prevent an under-escapement. Representative Gara related his
understanding that even before the minimum escapement is
achieved, the commercial red fishery has been opened a certain
number of days a week.
MR. MECUM remarked, "I wouldn't characterize that as how we
actually manage the fishery." Some chances have to be taken on
the front end because the forecast is questionable sometimes.
One way to test the [forecast] is to do test fishing and allow
some limited openings, which the department does before the
minimum escapement is guaranteed. "We try to implement a
fishing schedule that's not going to cause us problems to go out
there and see if our forecast is accurate," he related.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether this legislation imposes any
dangers that would impede achievement of the minimum escapement
early in the season.
MR. MECUM agreed with Mr. Rosier and Chair Seaton in that this
legislation isn't going to threaten salmon stocks. This
legislation is about allocation and maintaining historic harvest
shares and stability. He said although he didn't object to the
notion, it's probably a mistake to lock it down in the manner
specified under HB 396, which also removes the flexibility of
the board to change based on differing economic and resource
conditions, et cetera. He echoed Mr. Rosier's comments with
regard to the view that this depends upon the implementation.
Trying to focus all management on achieving MSY has, to some
extent, resulted in some of the battles in Cook Inlet. Mr.
Mecum opined that it would be a stretch to say that HB 396 would
threaten resource conservation. He highlighted the department's
concern with regard to how HB 396 would impact subsistence uses.
CHAIR SEATON reminded the department of the need to provide the
committee with the sustainable fish policy, the mixed-stock
policy, and any thoughts for avenues to achieve [the goal] of HB
396.
COMMISSIONER DUFFY indicated that his testimony addressed [his
thoughts for achieving the goal of HB 396], specifically that
there is a structure in place that can be utilized to address
some of the concerns leading to this legislation. Through the
board cycle one can address concerns, still he agreed to discuss
other options with the committee.
CHAIR SEATON reiterated his belief that the impetus for this
legislation is the inability to manage within the ranges. He
specified that he is interested in ideas from the department
with regard to achieving management flexibility in order to
manage for sustained yield for the benefit of all citizens of
the state.
COMMISSIONER DUFFY agreed to provide such suggestions to the
committee.
Number 2022
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked if the department and the board already
have the ability to achieve what the proponents of the
legislation are seeking.
MR. MECUM recalled that there has been testimony that this
legislation merely pulls together all of the existing policies
and regulations and places them in one place in statute. He
said he wasn't sure he agreed with the aforementioned.
Certainly, the Board of Fisheries has the authority to do all of
the things contained in HB 396 because the board is the ultimate
management authority in the state with respect to conservation
and allocation. The commissioner's authority with respect to
allocation is very limited with discretionary emergency order
authority.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG returned to the earlier discussion regarding
Cook Inlet's [brood] cycle. He asked if people have the ability
to approach the board on an important issue when the board is
out of cycle.
COMMISSIONER DUFFY explained that there is an agenda change
request, which is a process by which the board can be
approached. The agenda change requests come in the fall.
Furthermore, there are emergency petitions.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked if anyone approached the board
requesting that this particular philosophy be before the board
out of cycle.
MR. MECUM said that it seems that every year Cook Inlet issues
surface and people have approached the board. Earlier
testifiers were correct in that the board rejected the most
recent agenda change request that was submitted.
[HB 396 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at
11:10 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|