Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 124
05/06/2005 08:00 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB113 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 113 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
May 6, 2005
8:11 AM
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas, Co-Chair
Representative Jim Elkins
Representative Peggy Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Harris
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Woodie Salmon
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 113(RES)
"An Act relating to entry into and management of Gulf of Alaska
groundfish fisheries."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 113
SHORT TITLE: GULF OF ALASKA GROUNDFISH FISHERY
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) STEVENS B BY REQUEST
02/23/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/23/05 (S) RES, FIN
03/09/05 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/09/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/09/05 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/16/05 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/16/05 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/23/05 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/23/05 (S) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/01/05 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/01/05 (S) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/18/05 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/18/05 (S) Heard & Held
04/18/05 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/23/05 (S) RES AT 10:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/23/05 (S) Work Session to take <Public Testimony>
04/25/05 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/25/05 (S) Moved SB 113 Out of Committee
04/25/05 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/26/05 (S) RES RPT CS 5DP 2NR SAME TITLE
04/26/05 (S) LETTER OF INTENT WITH RES REPORT
04/26/05 (S) DP: WAGONER, ELTON, SEEKINS, STEDMAN,
STEVENS B
04/26/05 (S) NR: DYSON, GUESS
04/27/05 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/27/05 (S) Heard & Held
04/27/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/28/05 (S) FIN RPT CS(RES) 3DP 3NR
04/28/05 (S) RES LETTER OF INTENT WITH FIN REPORT
04/28/05 (S) DP: WILKEN, GREEN, STEDMAN
04/28/05 (S) NR: HOFFMAN, OLSON, DYSON
04/28/05 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/28/05 (S) Moved CSSB 113(RES) Out of Committee
04/28/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
05/03/05 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/03/05 (S) VERSION: CSSB 113(RES)
05/04/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/04/05 (H) FSH, FIN
05/06/05 (H) FSH AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
CHERYL SUTTON, Staff
to Senator Ben Stevens
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 113 on behalf of Senator Ben
Stevens, sponsor.
JULIE KAVANAUGH
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 113.
TIM TRIPP
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 113.
MIRANDA KAVANAUGH
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 113.
MITCH KILBORN, General Manager
Western Alaska Fisheries
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 113.
JEAN FRANQUILIN, Fleet Manager
International Seafoods
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 113.
ENRIQUE PEREZ
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 113.
GLENN CARROLL
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 113.
MATT STOVER
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 113.
ALAN PARKS
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 113.
ART NELSON, Chair
Board of Fisheries
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 113, and
provided comments during discussion of SB 113.
MICHAEL EBELL
Gulf of Alaska Coastal Communities Coalition (GOAC3)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 113.
ALEXUS KWACHKA
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 113.
DARIK LARIONOFF
Old Harbor, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 113.
DONALD J. LAWHEAD, Jr.
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 113.
STANLEY MACK
Aleutians East Borough, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 113.
WESTON CARROLL
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 113.
SYLVIA KAVANAUGH
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of SB
113.
NEIL RICKMAN
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 113.
LOCKE FINLEY
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 113.
KIP THOMET
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 113.
LEIGH THOMET
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 113.
JAY STINSON, President
Alaska Draggers Association
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 113.
SHAWN DOCHTERMANN
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 113.
RALEIGH EAGER
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 113.
JULIE BONNEY
Alaska Groundfish Databank
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 113.
ANDY LUNDQUIST
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 113.
DAVE KUBIAK
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 113.
MIKE BOURAY
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 113.
DON GALLAGHER
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 113.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR GABRIELLE LEDOUX called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 8:11:02 AM. Representatives
LeDoux, Thomas, Elkins, and Wilson were present at the call to
order.
SB 113-GULF OF ALASKA GROUNDFISH FISHERY
8:11:26 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the only order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 113(RES), "An Act relating to entry
into and management of Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries."
8:11:45 AM
CHERYL SUTTON, Staff to Senator Ben Stevens, Alaska State
Legislature, presented SB 113 on behalf of Senator Ben Stevens,
sponsor. She said that the bill would provide statutory
authority for the Board of Fisheries (BOF) and the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) to jointly develop a dedicated
access privilege (DAP) program for Gulf of Alaska (GOA)
groundfish. She continued:
They will develop this [program] by species, areas,
and gear types as the fisheries are presented to them
from the industry side desiring to have a DAP in their
fishery. The legislation provides for a full public
process and grants appropriate authorities to the
commission and board for development and
implementation of a form of fisheries limitation for
state water Gulf groundfish fisheries reflective of
historic involvement in these fisheries. It does not
predetermine whether a fishery will become a DAP
fishery or how it will be managed.
MS. SUTTON continued:
The Alaska [BOF] has lead a joint effort to explore
how best to respond to the changes facing [GOA]
groundfish fisheries. A diverse fishing fleet
utilizing different gear types and vessel sizes
harvest multiple species of migratory groundfish from
zero to three miles off the Alaska Gulf coast. The
GOA groundfish fisheries of the state waters from zero
to three miles are comprised of two distinct
components: a state water fishery managed under an
established guideline harvest level, and a parallel
fishery managed under a federal total allowable catch.
Efficiency has increased in many of these fisheries
resulting in shortened seasons, an increased race for
fish, decreased quality, and lost opportunities for
value-added products. The consequences are lower ex-
vessel values. In addition, the federal government
through the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
(NPFMC) is rationalizing the groundfish stocks and
fisheries under its jurisdiction in three to two
hundred miles. This is likely to result in additional
fishing effort, exacerbation of existing problems in
the zero to three [mile] state water fisheries.
8:13:44 AM
MS. SUTTON continued:
Senator [Ben] Stevens was approached by the Gulf work
group comprised of the [NPFMC], [BOF] members, and
industry, and asked if he would sponsor this
legislation, and you can see this legislation is by
request. And these are the folks who requested this
legislation. And because the [GOA] groundfish
fisheries in state waters are managed by harvest
limits, a [DAP] program may be feasible and
appropriate for managers to meet harvest objectives.
It may better serve the goals of resource conservation
and prevention of economic distress among fishermen
and those dependent upon fishermen for livelihood. It
will also [promote] the safety of those involved
prosecuting these fisheries....
8:14:33 AM
MS. SUTTON continued:
With the passage of SB 113, a length public process
will ensue. The [Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G)] collects and CFEC holds all the fisheries
harvest and vessel participation information. This
information will have to be compiled and analyzed for
a fishery being considered as a potential DAP fishery.
Both the CFEC and the [BOF] have extensive public
hearing processes, and the public will have ample
opportunity to participate in the development of any
potential DAP program for [GOA] groundfish fisheries.
Senate Bill 113 protects the state's interests, it
provides an important new tool for insuring our state
water groundfish fisheries can be developed to
maximize the state's interest and protect the resource
and those who depend upon it. ...
I know that there's been a lot of concern in industry
that this bill will put in place a [DAP] program, and
that's not true; this bill simply provides statutory
authority to the entities that are charged by the
legislature with managing our fisheries and the ...
[CFEC] with limiting entry into fisheries if it
warrants. And that's all the bill does.
8:16:11 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked if there would be any problem with adding
language to the bill requiring the BOF and the CFEC, upon
completion of their [analysis], to report back to the
legislature before implementation.
MS. SUTTON replied that Senator Ben Stevens would not support
that. She said:
The legislature is the policy body and what [SB 113]
does is it creates policy and you have already
delegated your authority to the [BOF] and to the
[CFEC]. You've created the statutes; you've outlined
what their responsibilities are, and Senator [Ben]
Stevens believes that they are the entities who should
be developing the programs, with the industry coming
to them rather than the legislature developing
fisheries management plans or ratifying them.
8:17:28 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked:
How about an overview ... at least to the [House
Special Committee on Fisheries] and the [House
Resources Standing Committee] before it's put into
place? We want to know ... how you're going to do it,
what's going to happen. [The legislature will] take
the heat one way or the other: if we kill this thing
or if we go forward. And I think it would be good
protocol that we see what happens to this....
MS. SUTTON replied, "Senator [Ben] Stevens doesn't believe
that's the correct process."
CO-CHAIR THOMAS reiterated his request. He commented that when
the limited entry program was put into place, he found that what
the [CFEC] was saying "in the field" did not match what actually
happened. He restated that he'd like an overview of the
[analysis].
8:18:45 AM
MS. SUTTON asked if Co-Chair Thomas was requesting that the CFEC
and the BOF return to the committee for ratification, or just to
give a presentation.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS replied, "I just want to know what they've done
and what they're going to do, so that people have a clear
understanding...."
MS. SUTTON commented that she didn't think the process would go
very quickly. She stated, "I'm sure that the [BOF] and the CFEC
would have no problem presenting to you any findings that they
have developed."
8:19:45 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked how long Ms. Sutton expects the process to
take.
MS. SUTTON deferred to the CFEC and BOF. She said:
It has to come from industry side to them; CFEC has
never imposed a limited entry program on any fishery
unless the fishery has asked for them to look at that
fishery. And Senator [Ben] Stevens felt very strongly
that he join CFEC and the [BOF] together in this
process, which we've done through the Memorandum of
Understanding [MOU], so that they're in joint hearings
on the issues that will be before them. I would
envision it's going to be quite a long process, and a
very detailed public process.
8:20:21 AM
CO-LEDOUX asked if there is any guarantee in the bill that
hearings will be held in the affected communities. She noted
that the BOF likes to hold meetings in local communities, but
due to budgetary constraints lately have not been holding local
meetings, and instead have had the meetings in Anchorage.
MS. SUTTON responded:
This is not a [BOF] meeting, ... this is a public
hearing process involving [BOF] members and CFEC
members. CFEC has a consistent track record of
holding hearings in communities where they're dealing
with issues affecting the fishery of that area, and
holding multiple hearings in that area. And that's
clearly the intent of the MOU....
8:21:44 AM
CO-CHAIR opened the meeting for public testimony.
8:22:53 AM
JULIE KAVANAUGH stated:
DAP is a system where the resource is specifically
identified and reserved. Under Article 8, Section 15
[of the state constitution], "No exclusive right or
privilege shall be created or authorized in the
natural waters of the state." Any system can have a
potentially well-developed plan, but if it has a bad
foundation, it should not be built upon or
implemented. This bill creates claim to the resource
while it remains in the waters of the State of Alaska.
This section also speaks to limiting access, not
allocating resource. While the DAP program may
potentially be more inclusive, it does create
ownership. We limit access for conservation and
economic [reasons]. We do not under our constitution
identify and reserve for anyone. Article 8, Section
15 does not provide for creating an exclusive right or
claim to the resource. The word that "specifically
identified and reserved" are sourced from an
explanation of the DAP program submitted by supporters
of this bill, and can be viewed on the [indisc.] web
link.
8:24:10 AM
MS. KAVANAUGH continued:
Let's talk about opportunities. A limited entry
system, which we have seen being upheld in the court,
is a restrictive access, but it does not guarantee
opportunity. When we guarantee the right to retain
the resource, we exclude like fishermen from
opportunity. Limited entry does not reserve fish if
your gear fails or if your skill lacks. Limited entry
doesn't reserve fish. Dedicated access privilege
reserves fish. It creates a special privilege which
provides exclusive opportunity to the resource. Let's
consider that lost opportunity by one is an
opportunity for someone else, and this is the
placeholder for retaining the resource for common use.
When we talk about restricting access, we need to
speak to viability. The DAP system has been discussed
as likely to be more inclusive than limited entry. It
should be pointed out that a fisherman who's given an
allocation in a smaller boat operation would be
marginalized disproportionately to a larger operation.
It would then be logical to conclude that the small
boat, or fixed gear fleet, would be unfairly
disadvantaged, and unwanted consolidation would occur.
Interestingly enough, conditions to prevent
consolidation ... may very well compound the problem
for the small boat fleet, preventing them from
reversing their marginalization. Creating a more
inclusive limited entry access through a DAP
allocative program, in reality creates a less
economically viable fleet.
8:25:18 AM
MS. KAVANAUGH continued:
In this plan for rationalization, we should intend
that the winners are the independent coastal fishers
and the communities they support. Over this last week
there has been much discussion about the Chignik
[Cooperative (Co-Op)] and the [BOF] need to implement
a plan to fix the dilemma arising from their actions,
which the [Alaska] Supreme Court found to exceed the
board's authority. This co-op was formed by the board
in the face of much controversy, similar to what you
will see happen today. And still they move forward
with the co-op's inception.
An interesting detail came out of this last week's
decision to reinstate a co-op for 2005: the [BOF]
recognized the need to incorporate active
participation requirements. I would ask the board how
they are going to require active participation from
vessel owners, associations, co-ops, or other entities
- all words that are found in SB 113. ... Will we be
speaking to this in this [House Special Committee on
Fisheries]? Or are we required to have faith in the
board to address this concern, one that they have
neglected in the recent past. Owner-on-board
provisions or active participant provisions: let's
hear this committee discuss that.
8:27:13 AM
TIM TRIPP stated that he is a jig fisherman from Kodiak
testifying on behalf of himself and his wife, Peggy O'Leary.
They have lived in Kodiak for 12 years. He said:
I'm against SB 113. However, if the bill does go
through the House, it's very important that jig
fishermen be included in the bill. We need to be able
to have a say in the rationalization process when it
goes to the [BOF]. There's a lot of things I don't
understand about this bill. I've spent a lot of time
recently looking at its wording and talking to people
about what it means and where it might go. I haven't
been able to figure it all out. And that makes me
wonder if everyone on this committee knows what it
really means. It sure seems to have a lot of
potential to harm a lot of Alaska fishermen as well as
the communities they live in. It seems only fair that
it should be looked at closer to make sure that it
fairly meets the needs of everyone involved. If the
members of this committee aren't comfortable killing
this bill now, I think it should at least be put off
until next year, or send to the [House Resources
Standing Committee], so that everyone has time to
think about the consequences that would allow everyone
who would be affected and all the legislators who need
to vote on it enough time to get fully informed at
what it means, whether it's really needed, what it
will do, and who it might hurt.
8:28:47 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked Mr. Tripp if he had testified at previous
meetings regarding this bill.
MR. TRIPP replied that he had.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS commented that he just wanted to make sure that
Mr. Tripp had "been around it."
8:29:19 AM
MIRANDA KAVANAUGH stated that she is a sixteen year old high
school student in Kodiak. She testified in opposition to SB
113. She said:
I am against the privatization of a state resource. I
don't want to see any person, entity, or cooperative
have exclusive harvest rights to our fish. Over the
last 10 years [Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs)] and
impending rationalization has changed our fisheries.
Fishermen no longer compete for the best sets or a
good trip; they compete for history. The idea of
future ownership has ravaged our fleet. Compromised
safety promoted the race for fish and handicapped our
state's management abilities. If you remove the idea
of ownership and return to a discussion developing a
constitutionally sound plan, our fisheries and our
fishermen will return to more rational practices.
Just because a group of people have anticipated
ownership for years does not necessitate that we
follow through in state waters.
MS. KAVANAUGH continued:
I urge the [House Special Committee on Fisheries] to
stop SB 113 and send a strong message to the governor
and the [BOF] that we do not want dedicated access
privilege for our state waters fishery. We want
control of our resource for the people of Alaska. It
is the [BOF] job to protect our fisheries for the good
of all its fishermen. SB 113 was written to reward
overcapitalization of the trawl fleet and reward their
bycatch. This bill does not address bycatch
reduction; it encourages bycatch maximization. By
owning their bycatch, they will no longer need to set
lower goals; they will expect to harvest 100 percent
of their untargeted species. This ownership concept
is written specifically for trawl needs. It has no
place in the state fishery and the trawl fleet should
be required to stay outside three miles for
conservation concerns. There would then be an
abundance of fish for the small boats and fixed gear
fleets. Entry-level fisheries would be guaranteed to
remain viable and the race for fish would immediately
halt.
Please do not create larger, more complex issues for
[GOA] coastal communities. Let's work together to
provide a solid state program that does not buy into
private ownership; that rewards hard work, not
overcapitalization; that recognizes environmentally
friendly fisheries, not high bycatch; and supports
fishermen instead of forming millionaires. ... The
stability of State of Alaska depends on the protection
of its natural resources, and I ask that you refer
this bill to the [House Resources Standing Committee].
8:32:42 AM
MITCH KILBORN, General Manager, Western Alaska Fisheries,
testified in support of SB 113. He said:
I have been living in Kodiak for the past 19 years. I
have seen the fishing industry change dramatically in
those 19 years. When I first came here, it seemed
that we processed year round. I remember processing
pollock on Christmas Eve so we could have Christmas
Day off. We had lots of experienced crew back then.
Western Alaska Fisheries had over 300 full-time
employees. Today we have around 120. We are at a
point where we have to bring workers in from Outside
to help process fish during the peak times. The
people that suffer the most are the workers; they're
the people who live here, send their kids to school
here, and buy their groceries here. We need to
protect these people. Rationalization is a way to
protect those workers. We need to make our seasons
last longer, make products that are more value to us
as well as our fishermen, make more value-added
products. This will keep the workforce that we have
in Kodiak more stable and prevent us from having to
bring in transient workforce that takes their money
out of the community and some out of the state.
8:34:01 AM
JEAN FRANQUILIN, Fleet Manager, International Seafoods, stated,
"I think rationalization is going to be good for everyone." He
shared an anecdote about how halibut prices have risen
substantially over the past 20 years. He compared the present-
day groundfish fishery with the old halibut fishery when, he
said, there were too many fish caught too fast.
8:38:13 AM
ENRIQUE PEREZ stated that he has worked for Western Alaska
Fisheries in Kodiak for 25 years. He said that he was
representing himself and his 180 co-workers. He commented that
he supports SB 113 because it will create more work for him and
make him more money. He noted that groceries are very expensive
in Kodiak. He remarked that the season is currently very short
and the company has to bring in extra workers to help out in the
plant. He asked the committee not to forget the cannery
workers.
8:40:15 AM
GLENN CARROLL stated that he has fished for 40 years in Cook
Inlet, Kodiak, Prince William Sound, and Southeast Alaska. He
said:
My interest in this bill is in cod. I have fished cod
with pots since 1994, ... and have done a small-scale
fresh and direct market product out of Homer, because
of the road system, for fresh fillets and fresh cod to
Kodiak. I also participate in the federal fishery as
well. My concern is for the rapid decline and the
continually shortening season. Each year the federal
season closes a week earlier. The real impetus for
this bill that I see, however, and by the way I am
speaking in favor of it, is in the state waters.
Please do not miss the picture that I am going to give
you in these facts. It is this: In the year 2000,
the state waters fishery for pots for cod in Kodiak
was 10 months long. In the year 2005, it was 11 days.
In my opinion, unless we stop the race for fish, there
is little future in groundfish. We do not have the
luxury of putting this off for years to come. ...
The second reason I support this bill is from the
standpoint of marketing. As long as we are racing for
our fish, we simply will not compete in markets around
the country and the world. The same fish that we get
30 cents for in Alaska sells to the boat for a dollar
in Boston and Iceland and more. When we harvest a
great proportion of our cod in a matter of weeks, it
is like all the ranchers butchering three quarters of
their cattle on the fourth of July and expecting the
market to receive them. From the standpoint of
marketing 101, this is absolutely the most regressive,
backward system that we could have. And I believe
this bill will address this....
MR. CARROLL continued:
One comment about the [BOF] process out of which this
bill came: I participated in the ground fish task
force with the [BOF], and contrary to what some have
said, this was a very public process. There [were]
representatives from all around the state. ... The
general tone and attitude that [BOF] Chairmen [Ed]
Dursham and [Art] Nelson had at this was continuously
soliciting good, visionary ideas, and even from the
public that was there beyond the task force members
that were there. And there was a great deal of
discussion that brought up the necessity of this bill.
I believe the DAP program will begin the process of
addressing these things.
8:43:40 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS commented that he has been a halibut fisherman
for 30 years. He noted that he used to catch an average of
50,000 to 60,000 pounds of halibut [per year], but he was given
an IFQ of 15,000. He remarked, "This is just a note to the
people who are sitting out there: if you think you're going to
get more when there's more boats showing up, you're going to get
less." He related that [before IFQs], the halibut fishery
openings got shorter and shorter each year.
8:45:12 AM
MATT STOVER, a small boat owner and operator from Homer and a
long-time deckhand in several fisheries, testified in opposition
to SB 113. He remarked that he thinks SB 113 is headed towards
IFQs, which he commented have become a commodity to be bought
and sold, often by nonfishermen. He pointed out that the boat
he has fished on for years was recently sold to an Anchorage
lawyer, and that the lawyer will receive "all the benefits for
[which] my skipper and myself and the rest of the crew fished."
He stated that the IFQ owner usually isn't on the boat to help
fish.
8:47:42 AM
ALAN PARKS of Homer testified in opposition to SB 113. He
stated:
I have been involved in harvesting Alaska fisheries
resource for over 30 years. My sole income is derived
from harvesting and promoting sustainable community-
based fisheries. I have been a member of North
Pacific Fisheries Association for the past 20 years.
I am a stakeholder of state groundfish resources. I
oppose SB 113 because it hurts fishermen, processors,
coastal communities, and drastically changes state
policy. I have faxed to you a petition of over 25
Homer fishermen who also oppose SB 113. I have many
concerns about SB 113, but I will limit my comments.
[Senate Bill] 113 is a consolidation bill and will
result in less processing jobs, less workers' hours,
and the closing of some processing plants. Some
groundfish resources will be frozen in blocks and
shipped to areas in the nation and foreign countries
where labor is cheaper. Already we are seeing Alaskan
pink salmon being shipped to Thailand for processing.
Alaskan sea urchins are being shipped to Mexico. And
Alaska halibut is being shipped to Canada. All these
practices are happening today and will only increase
under SB 113 because co-ops will be formed and linked
to a specific processor and the processor will make
the business decision to schedule deliveries to
minimize labor and will plan to ship to destinations
where primary and value-added processing can occur
with cheaper labor. In competitive markets, we expect
the processors to work to maximize profit, and that's
why we look to you the legislature to protect Alaskan
jobs in the working waterfront. [Senate Bill] 113
reflects what's commonly referred to as outsourcing,
and it means fewer jobs for Alaskans [and] reduced tax
revenues for local communities already struggling
under the weight of recent cuts to revenue sharing.
...
MR. PARKS continued:
[Senate Bill] 113 proposes drastic changes to Alaska
policy. [Senate Bill] 113 will change the way
communities interact with each other. [Senate Bill]
113 will change the way communities interact with
state government. The whole basis of SB 113 is how
the state and federal government will interact with
each other. [Senate Bill] 113 will change how state
commerce will be conducted between communities.
[Senate Bill] 113 will reduce the governor's ability
to manage through his administration the policies of
the State of Alaska and his ability to prevent federal
preemption.
8:50:23 AM
MR. PARKS continued:
It is very important, in fact it is imperative, that
the Alaska State Legislature establishes clear
policies for Alaska and how communities will interact
with each other and establish clear policies for
interaction between state and federal governments.
... I am very concerned that SB 113 is not being
heard by other committees. I appreciate the work by
the [House Special Committee on Fisheries] but feel
that the sweeping policy changes that SB 113 will
enact and the impacts it will have to communities,
state commerce, and state government, ... that other
committees should hear this bill. Or you [can] let
this SB 113 take a rest for the year; let the
stakeholders come to agreement on some of the more
controversial elements and produce a bill that
reflects Alaska's strong fishing heritages and protect
Alaska jobs and coastal communities. There's just too
much work that needs to be done to this bill before it
becomes a piece of good legislation.
8:51:39 AM
ART NELSON, Chair, Board of Fisheries, stated that he served on
the groundfish task force that has been working on this issue
for the last year and a half, and he testified in support of SB
113. He said:
I think one of the most important distinctions that
some folks are confused about is [that] I hear them
drawing a lot of parallels or comparing [DAPs] to
IFQs, and that is definitely not the case. The
mechanics of how the fishery may take place may be
similar to IFQ fisheries, but at the fundamental
level, a DAP is not an IFQ. And there's numerous
places in the bill where it talks about whether or not
they expire or attenuate over time, and the terms and
conditions in which they may be renewed or reissued,
and that's been a subject of much discussion
throughout the stakeholder task force.... And one of
the things that I think a number of us agree on is
that these should be nonpermanent access privileges.
Now they'd have a term and then perhaps be renewed,
but there's numerous conditions that we may look at
that would spell out whether the full quota gets
renewed or a portion of it. And that's all things
that are yet to be developed, but what we have
discussed quite a bit in our meetings.
8:53:40 AM
MR. NELSON continued:
And I know one of the previous testifiers referenced
one of the documents that some of the stakeholders on
our panel have brought forward, that lays out their
suggestion for it, and I think they brought some very
valid points forward. But we have no predisposed
program at this time. It's going to be a lengthy
process and I know there was a question earlier about
how long this may take, and I'd wager to guess that
we're looking probably at a year to two years probably
to have the first fisheries ready to be implemented if
we proceed with this. And as the MOU spells out ... a
number of meetings that we fully intend to hold out in
affected communities, numerous more meetings of our
stakeholder task force to flesh this out, joint
meetings of the board and the CFEC to gather public
input, and so it's been a very open process to this
point, and if the legislature passes SB 113 ... it's
going to continue for some time and be a very open
process.
8:55:05 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that in the MOU, there is no
requirement that meetings and public testimony be held in
affected communities.
MR. NELSON replied:
You're correct. I don't believe the MOU explicitly
states that meetings are going to be held in affected
communities. That was certainly our intention, and
I'd be happy to speak with [CFEC] commissioner [Bruce]
Twomley who worked with us in developing this and see
if there's agreement to put that in there. However,
the fiscal notes attached to this bill outlaying some
additional funds for the board and the CFEC specify
that ... a reason for these fiscal notes is so that we
can go hold these meetings in affected communities.
8:56:16 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked if there would be any objection from the
BOF if it was explicitly stated in the bill to require that
meetings and public testimony be held in affected communities.
MR. NELSON responded that it was the board's intent all along to
hold such meetings. He said:
I guess it would depend on how specific you get. If
you wanted to just perhaps put in there that we will
hold meetings in affected communities, I personally
don't see a problem with that because we intended it
all along. But I guess if you get into too much
specifics and exactly how many meetings, then that may
be more troublesome.
8:57:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked for further confirmation that the
process would take about two years to finish [establishing the
DAPs].
MR. NELSON answered that that was just a guess. He commented
that the MOU requires that the BOF prioritize which fisheries
"may need to get looked at first." However, he said, "this is
something that we're not going to charge forward with on our
own, and we're going to be looking for users and stakeholders to
bring these requests to us before we jump in to looking at any
particular fishery." He noted that the MOU has stated that
there will be many meetings of stakeholder panels and community
meetings. He estimated that the process would take at least a
year and perhaps two years.
8:58:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS asked what would happen if [the
legislature] slowed down the process to wait for the BOF to
complete its findings before passing the bill.
MR. NELSON replied:
I just personally have a little concern about ...
something coming back to the legislature for
ratification, and I have a couple reasons for that.
One is that, you know, we're a volunteer board, don't
get paid very much, and it's already a very large
commitment of time. And this is going to be a much
larger commitment of time for a number of us and the
public, and to have something come back and ...
potentially not get legislative passage for reasons
totally aside from the merits of the bill, ...
depending on what the hot issue of the day or the week
is at the legislature, you know, things can get
sidelined.
Another aspect is that the timeliness of needing to
move forward is that if the [NPFMC] goes forward with
their rationalization and we aren't able to react on
the state side, then I believe we're going to see some
very strong impacts, negative impacts, to ... state
water fishermen.
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS remarked, "If this goes south on us
anyway, the legislature ends up being the ones that caused the
problem."
9:00:14 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked Mr. Nelson:
How will you determine if enough of the fishermen want
a DAP program in their fisheries? In other words, are
you going to look at how many people have licenses for
fishing a particular fishery and then a certain
percentage of those people would have to come to you
with a request to set up such a program?
MR. NELSON answered:
It's very similar to the way we judge a lot of our
other decisions, through our regular proposal process
that we go through. Any single individual can submit
a proposal to the Board of Fisheries. But we always
weight the relative support and/or opposition for it
just rather subjectively, and many times when it's
something somewhat controversial and stakeholders ask
me for advice on how to bring something towards the
board, I recommend that they get a list of signatures
so that we can get ... a relative measure of support
and/or opposition for something. But I guess I'd be
leery of spelling out a certain threshold level.
9:01:42 AM
MICHAEL EBELL, Gulf of Alaska Coastal Communities Coalition
(GOAC3), pointed out that the GOAC3 passed a resolution in
opposition to SB 113, and a copy of that resolution is in the
committee packets. He said:
This bill puts the cart before the horse. And any
time that you are seeking to change a fishery system
in the State of Alaska, we all know it's going to be
controversial, but it's a particularly weighty
decision when the discussion involves the potential
distribution and privatization of a public resource.
And these decisions have to be made with adequate
information about the impacts on our coastal
communities. And the information has to be there at
the very beginning of the process; it can't come in
the middle and it can't be gathered to come at the
end. And we haven't seen the economic impact studies
necessary for this decision at this time. The data
and the discussions need to be available to Alaska's
elected officials before this authority is handed over
to make these important decisions.
MR. EBELL continued:
And I do want to make it clear that the GOAC3 is not
inherently opposed to DAPs, to a system like them, or
to any of the stated goals in the sponsor statement
from [Senator Gary Stevens, Alaska State Legislature].
I think that the resolution makes it clear that this
is in fact in opposition to this decision at this
time; that it is in fact detrimental to open the door
for such a program that tries to meet these goals
without knowing the details of the program, and trying
to open that door in a hasty manner. Once this
discussion leaves the legislature, not all interested
parties in the fishing industry are going to have an
equal seat at the table; that's just the way things
are. And there is no reason not to wait until next
year in order to insure that we move forward with all
the information that we need and that you need in
order to make sure that this system works for Alaska's
fisheries well into the future and for Alaska's
communities.
9:04:34 AM
ALEXUS KWACHKA testified in opposition to SB 113. He stated:
I own my own boat. I hold limited entry permits in
salmon, herring, and crab. I've been fishing out of
Kodiak for 18 years. I grew up in Fairbanks. I also
run the [F/V] Major for Walter Sargent, whom I have
fished with and for for 15 years. I pot fish and
longline for [Pacific cod], halibut, and sablefish on
the [F/V] Major. I'm a working fisherman.
I'm not a lobbyist. I'm not a politician. ... And
I'll make it really clear: I'm not supporting SB 113.
This bill will not be good for coastal Alaska working
fishermen. Proponents of the bill claim this will
create more jobs and more stability. My question is:
how will giving ownership rights and the ability to
create co-ops create more jobs? Ownership of a
resource will enable consolidation, which means less
jobs for the fishing sector. Co-ops mean less
competition, and also leads to consolidation of the
processor sector. This means less jobs for the
processing workers.
[Regarding] the consolidation in Dutch Harbor, where I
am right now: Royal Aleutian [Seafoods] was just
bought by Unisea - that was an entirely American-owned
company; it's gone. ... The workers there will be
consolidated ... there will be no more overtime for
cannery workers.
9:06:33 AM
MR. KWACHKA continued:
I'd like to move on to limited entry since I'm a big
participant in it. Every trade magazine I read [says
that the value of] every salmon permit in the state is
on the rise. ... I saw 17 Bristol Bay boats sold
recently. I'm also a Bristol Bay fisherman, and I can
tell you, I bought in at the bottom end and it's
penciling out good. I can't work that fishery for six
weeks and make a living on it for a whole year, but it
sure helps my income, and I have a good time doing it.
I provide two jobs [to crew members] and I keep
cannery workers going there too. Woodbine cannery:
boy, they had some bad news last year, but it seems
that Icicle Seafoods just stepped to the plate and
bought them. I think that's optimism and it's really
good for our state.
9:07:25 AM
MR. KWACHKA continued:
What would have happened if you guys came in and tried
to ... correct the problems that were in Bristol Bay a
few years ago, with creating co-ops, as in Chignik,
and allocated to a handful of people that were fishing
in the bay, and when things were down? You wouldn't
see the excitement; you wouldn't see the optimism that
we're seeing there now. So my question on the
groundfish is the same. You know, the proponents are
the trawl sector and the processing sector. And we're
talking about ownership here, and I don't see how
you're going to get it by the constitution, and it
really concerns me.
9:08:03 AM
MR. KWATCHA continued:
I have some recommendations if you do move forward
[with this bill]: 100 percent owner on board, no
access right in the state fishery of any kind should
be given to anybody who doesn't pull on a pair of
rubber boots; legislative review ...; strike lines in
Section 1, [lines] 12, 13, 14, and 15; and Section 2
it's either lines 3, 4, 5, and 6, or 33, 34, 35, and
36 - I can't tell from the internet [copy of the
bill]. This bill started in the [Senate Resources
Standing Committee] and I think it should get to the
[House Resources Standing Committee].
9:08:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS asked Mr. Kwachka to submit his testimony
to the committee in written form as well.
9:09:27 AM
DARIK LARIONOFF, from Old Harbor, testified in opposition to SB
113. He said:
I believe that if this bill is passed, it will do more
harm than good to the coastal communities. In places
like Old Harbor fishing provides the majority of our
income, and if this bill passes it will mean fewer
jobs in an already economically troubled community.
Our community has seen a drastic cut in jobs due to
the halibut IFQ program and low salmon prices. I
personally have been forced to find a fishing job
outside of my village. To allocate access rights to
our natural resources would be detrimental to the
small boat fishing fleet from my village. The
resulting consolidation would force even more crewmen
to compete for an already limited number of jobs. In
a community where a good portion of its residents are
on some form of government aid, I feel it is necessary
to create jobs for more people and not make a few
people more wealthy.
9:11:00 AM
DONALD J. LAWHEAD, Jr., from Kodiak, stated that he has been a
commercial fisherman for 14 year, fishing for salmon, gray cod,
black cod, halibut, and crab, and he has three limited entry
permits. He testified in opposition to SB 113. He stated:
I'm against SB 113. This is a blank check that allows
anything to be formed. That is too much power to give
someone. Section 1, [paragraph] 7 [of the bill], it
states the board or the [CFEC] or both have the
authority to give exclusive harvest shares to persons
or vessel owners as members of harvest associations.
In the state constitution, Article 8, [it says that]
no exclusive rights or special privilege of fisheries
shall be created or authorized in the natural waters
of the State of Alaska. This section does not
restrict the power of the state to limit entry into
any fishery.
Key words here: no exclusive right or special
privilege. That's what this bill creates. The
constitution gives equal access to everyone. The
Limited Entry Act changed fisheries, but if you buy a
limited entry permit, you have equal access to that
resource. Senate Bill 113 would give each fishermen
unequal shares; this is too exclusive.
"Association" is just another word for a co-op. Co-
ops are bad for the people of Alaska. Jobs will be
lost. The Chignik Co-op was ruled illegal by the
Alaska Supreme Court. The working assumption since
statehood has been that individuals operate Alaska
commercial fisheries, not corporations or
associations. Look at the Bering Sea: huge foreign
owned corporations own the resources. The fishermen
have to deliver to them. That's what the federal
government has done out there. The state should not
do what the federal government is doing. If you want
this, it should be for all state waters, including the
Bering Sea and Aleutians. Millions of dollars are
leaving the state by out of state fishermen. If you
want equal access, first thing you should do: you must
be a state resident to harvest state fish. That way
the money stays home.
MR. LAWHEAD continued:
There also should be an economic study on SB 113
before it's considered. There will be fewer fishing
jobs, fewer processing jobs in the state [if SB 113 is
passed]. When the state banned fish traps in 1960, it
created 6,000 jobs. We're going backwards. That's
the wrong way to go. We can slow fisheries down by
restricting gear and time fished. I'm for a limited
entry permit. We already have the tools - we don't
want to open Pandora's box. This bill should go to
the [House Resources Standing Committee] also.
And on a side note, the reason why the state pot
season in Kodiak has progressed faster is because of
the sea lion closures in the federal waters. It is
[indisc.] 60 percent of the fish is caught in the
winter, 40 percent in the fall. It's left millions
and millions of pounds of uncaught fish in Kodiak
waters [indisc.] for the state fishery.
9:14:29 AM
STANLEY MACK testified in opposition to SB 113. He said that he
was born and raised in the Aleutians East Borough and he has
fished all his life. He stated:
I'm 66 years old. I've seen the process of this
system work and I've seen it fail. Two questions:
One is, "What does SB 113 do?" My answer: Nothing -
it destroys a fishery; it destroys everything that
we've worked so hard for. I'm opposed to this
legislation. It's so ambiguous that it would take a
group of attorneys weeks to figure it out and then
you'd have to have a judge to administer a decision.
Earlier testimony gets right to the heart of the
matter in regard to the ambiguity of the bill. From
what I can gather, from all that I've read in here,
they've identified two species of fish that are of
major concern, that being pollock and cod. They've
left out all the others. There're several other
species of bottom fish out there that we could
probably harvest as soon as the markets become
available. We've been able to do that out here now
that we've been connected to the road system, and
transportation and communication is becoming better
available. We're able to move laterally; that was the
way of life out in this area for years. We're able to
move from one fishery to the other. But that's slowly
being taken away from us.
MR. MACK continued:
The allocation that the state gets from the [NPFMC] is
what we'll have to worry about, I believe. And
they're the holders of all the chips in this game, the
way it looks to me. Until the state can come up with
a better idea or a better way of a larger allocation
of that fishery, (and I believe it's ours, the State
of Alaska's), we're going to have to be fighting that
quota system. I think we've got a wonderful system in
place now called limited entry. That gave a
crewmember a chance to work his way up the ladder.
This dedicated access takes that away from him. ...
All the folks out here, locals, have families.
They've been born and raised out here, as did a lot of
the other communities on the coast. There were some
communities that were left out of the limited entry
program for salmon simply because they didn't have a
means of processing. Now they do: with the
transportation corridors now being linked together
better, they're able to do a little bit of processing
of the bottom fish and being able to ship them out to
domestic markets and make a little bit of money. But
you take that away from them, you're going to kill a
community. Some of the communities only have one
processor out here. That's scary. ... They chucked
competition out of the entire equation. I just see
this on a downward spiral, and I think there's got to
be some more research. If there's got to be a program
put in place, let's do some research in it,
particularly in the areas that are going to be
dramatically affected by it.
9:18:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS asked Mr. Mack if he agreed with the
opinion that if SB 113 was passed, there would be less Alaskan-
owned boats and less Alaskan skippers than there are today.
MR. MACK agreed with this.
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS commented that there is a pretty high
percentage of non-Alaskan boats already.
9:19:27 AM
WESTON CARROLL testified in support of SB 113. He said that he
is a second-generation fisherman in Homer, and he derives all of
his income from fishing salmon and cod. He stated:
I support this bill because I have concerns about the
current direction of the groundfish fishery for cod.
My biggest concern is how the season is getting
shorter each year, which increases the safety risks
and decreases the profitability. There are definitely
things I see with the IFQ program and with dedicated
access, or privatization of fisheries, which concern
me. But I trust the [BOF] process we have in this
state to improve upon these programs and create a
program that will benefit those involved. I feel we
have no choice but to pursue rationalization of
groundfish because it is one of the only fisheries
that is left unregulated and unrestricted. To be
involved in one of the only unrestricted fisheries
leaves you open, and leaves you no ability to have
confidence in the future of what your fish will
provide for your family. I support this bill and
trust the [BOF] process to do a good job in the future
of creating a program that will benefit those
involved.
9:20:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Mr. Carroll what he predicted would
happen if the bill didn't pass.
MR. CARROLL replied that his biggest concern is that each year
the fishery season is shorter. He noted that he fishes in an
area where the volume of fish caught each day is fairly low, so
as the season gets shorter, his total catch for the season is
drastically reduced. He said that since other fisheries such as
crab and halibut are restricted, it leaves cod as the only open
fishery; therefore when new people decide get involved, they
have no choice but to fish for cod. He added:
As more people get involved, it becomes less
profitable for those who've been doing it for years.
So it's kind of like I'm left in the only fishery
unrestricted, and I can't really predict what next
year's income will be from it because a whole bunch of
more boats jump in since it's the only open fishery,
[and] I could see my income significantly reduced.
9:22:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS asked Mr. Carroll, "So you're saying that
if this legislation passes, there should be more Alaska-owned
boats and less non-Alaskan-owned boats, is that right?"
MR. CARROLL said that he didn't know, but that he is definitely
in favor of seeing more of the fisheries controlled by the state
and coastal communities.
9:23:15 AM
SYLVIA KAVANAUGH, from Kodiak, said that she is 13 years old.
She gave the following [sarcastic] testimony:
My dad is a commercial fisherman and we are 100
percent dependent on fishing for income. I would like
to thank the sponsor, ... and governor for supporting
SB 113. I see this bill as a great opportunity for my
future. Senate Bill 113 will do several things. My
mom says that if the bill goes through, Dad will get
to be home more. He will be able to have someone else
fish for him. We might not have a boat, but that's
okay, especially if Dad gets to stay home. Then
there's the best part: someday when I take over the
family affairs, I will get to have my dad's fishing
history. Then I will have other people fish for me.
Plus, I won't even have to help catch the fish. See,
I don't think I'll stay in Alaska. So SB 113 is
perfect for me: I'll have extra income even though I
live somewhere else. This is a great opportunity. I
can do other stuff and these DAP-things will just keep
on working for me. It's only fair, you know - my dad
worked really hard. He's a great fisherman. People
tell him all the time that this DAP-thing will set him
up and that it was made for guys like him. So thanks
{BOF], and oh, by the way, I wouldn't put any extra
stuff in this bill; that would just make things more
difficult, if you know what I mean. You know, owner
on board junk, or public meetings. Sideboards sound
kind of crazy to me. Let's get this thing through so
I can sit back and relax. Senate Bill 113 is great -
even if you don't want to fish.
MS. KAVANAUGH continued:
To finish up, my dad says that you guys don't have to
worry because this bill is written really good. You
don't have anything to worry about in this bill -
that's all left up to the other guys that fix it all
up later. So even if it gets messed up or somebody's
not happy, it won't be your fault. That's a win-win
deal for you and me. Give me my DAPs and I'm out of
here.
9:26:17 AM
NEIL RICKMAN, from Sitka, said that 100 percent of his income
comes from jig fishing in Alaska. He explained that he fishes
for rockfish near Sitka and for cod near Kodiak and the
Aleutians. He stated:
My worry with this bill is that it's going to change
the idea of why the state waters fisheries was set up
to begin with, with open access, entry level fishery
for people exactly like me who didn't have anything
and starting building on that. Now I own my own boat
and I'm doing fairly well at it; I'm happy with my
income. The problem is, my first three years of my
catch history was through a leased boat, and I don't
know if I'll see any of that catch history in these
DAPs. Art Nelson said earlier that the IFQ and the
DAP programs were completely different, but the
implementation of it is if I don't get any DAPS, even
though that they may come up for review later on, it
doesn't do me any good because next year I've got to
go fishing again to make my living, and if I don't get
any DAPs, I can't go fishing, even though there might
be some open access available.
I'm just worried that it's going to change it and I
think ... right now, the way it's working, it's
working fine for me. ... I'm just concerned about the
ambiguity of what's not being talked about here and
just leaving it up to the [BOF] later on to come up
with all the details - it's the details [that are]
going to affect my livelihood.
9:28:14 AM
LOCKE FINLEY said that he has been involved in fishing most of
his life. He noted that he is the secretary/treasurer, Alaska
Jig Association. He stated:
I feel that SB 113 would give too much power to the
processors. If they got ownership of the DAPs, they
could begin to sell their halibut bycatch, and thus
marginalize the value of IFQ halibut shares and ex-
vessel value. Also, fishermen would not be able to
market their own fish. The rationale given for
rationalization is that currently the fishery is
unsafe. That's not true for the fixed gear group; we
don't risk life and limb for the fish currently. The
fixed gear group has the highest quality product
caught in the most ecologically friendly manner with
the least bycatch and zero mortality rate of that
bycatch. You can't say that about trawling. Indeed,
we should keep fixed gear fishing going because, with
environmental concerns growing, the trawl fishing may
be cut back, and we could use fixed gear to harvest in
their place.
In the jig sector, we have 144 registered vessels and
we are catching the cod at a rate of [200,000 -
800,000] pounds a week. We are in an open access
fishery and anyone can buy a jig license for $60 a
year and go fishing. That was a good way to get the
fishery going, but now it's time to limit the entry
and maybe the catch rates too in order to equalize the
opportunity amongst the jig fleet, or other fleets;
maybe the pot fleet too. We have the tools to tailor
the fishery to the greatest good for the greatest
number of people, so don't rationalize us. That would
just cause a lot of consolidation and major loss of
jobs.
One final thought: aquaculture is a loathsome idea to
begin with, forcing nature to perform to our standards
and upsetting lifecycles of various ocean habitats.
I'm referring to the feeding of fish in pens, and
those fish contaminating an area of the sea. Could
rationalization assist the aquaculture movement? So I
ask you to examine the bill in the light of just who
is benefiting and is it in the best interest of the
state. If not, let's table the thing, hold public
hearings, and let's be the stewards of this great
state instead of the usurpers of it.
9:30:54 AM
KIP THOMET said that he is a Kodiak resident and has been a
fisherman for the past 21 years. He stated:
You're going to hear from a lot of people today both
for and against this bill. You're going to hear from
the paid lobbyists and the consultants hired by the
drag boat owners. You're going to hear from the
managers of some of the foreign and Outside owned
processing plants. And you're going to hear from a
number of boat owners who no longer believe in the
value of the free enterprise system and competition in
the marketplace now that they have the chance of being
one of the lucky winners in this public resource
giveaway plan. And they're going to tell you that
this new DAP program is the best thing since sliced
bread.
You're also going to hear from a bunch of working
fishermen and women, deckhands, skippers, small boat
owners, the small business owners. And they are what
a certain [BOF] member referred to as, "losers," in
his "any plan will have winners and losers" statement.
Now these folks, they're going to tell you that SB 113
is the worst thing for this state since fish traps.
Now the proponents of this bill are going to tell you
that these "losers" or opponents are just misinformed;
that all this bill will do is give a tool to the [BOF]
to better manage our state water fisheries, and that
the board and CFEC would never use this tool unless it
was requested from "industry." They'll also tell you
that this bill will protect the state water fishermen
from Outside fishermen, and will also tell you that we
need this bill to slow down the rates for fish. These
are all debatable points.
What they won't tell you is this: it's the biggest
proposed change in state fisheries management in the
last 30 years. Instead of requiring active
participation from the access holders, it encourages
nonparticipation and absentee ownership. When the
feds went down this road with halibut and black cod,
there was an exodus of wealth from this coastal
fishing town, and Kodiak is suffering the effects of
that now.
MR. THOMET continued:
They also won't tell you about the elimination of jobs
through the use of harvesting co-ops, and the
inevitable consolidation of access rights that this
bill will allow. There [are] a lot of things they
won't tell you, but there's even more that they don't
know - none of us know. I've read this bill numerous
times. I've read the MOU. I've read the committee
substitute. And I've come here to the [Legislative
Information Office (LIO)] for just about every
committee hearing there has been on this bill, and I
still don't know what this is all about, and how it's
going to work, and how this plan is going to actually
benefit this state.
I would like to ask that if you don't just stop and
kill this bill now, that you at least sit on it until
you and I and everybody else gets a better
understanding of how it will affect our coastal
fishing towns and our working fishermen. I think you
owe that to the fishing families of this great state.
9:34:50 AM
LEIGH THOMET, from Kodiak, stated that her family is 90 percent
dependent on commercial fishing for living, though they do not
participate in the jig or parallel fisheries. She stated:
We are against [SB 113] for many reasons. This bill
clearly goes against our state constitution in two
ways. First, it bypasses our basic right to our
legislative process by allowing the {BOF] to make
decisions that should be made on the legislative
level. And second, it allows the allocation of our
state fishery resources, ... equating to privatization
of public resources. Both of these issues are
seriously impendent to my rights as an Alaskan
citizen. It has been eluded to that this will benefit
coastal communities, [but] the benefit to specific
user groups is outweighed by the economic loss to our
local residents and our communities. We do not see
this as beneficial to the majority of the
stakeholders, that being our fishermen, their
families, and our local communities. The Senate bill
will only benefit a select few, and the bill itself is
not even clear as to who those are - however, my
thoughts are [that it would benefit] the trawl fleet.
If our state is in need of a new program to address
issues within the fishery, they should follow the
normal process of starting at the local level to see
what would be the most beneficial to the communities
and those that are involved. Any program that is
implemented needs the support of all those that will
ultimately be affected.
9:36:44 AM
JAY STINSON, President, Alaska Draggers Association (ADA), said
that he is the owner and operator of the F/V Alaskan, a 73-foot
trawler, longliner, tanner crab pot boat, and occasional
research vessel. He commented that the ADA is a local
organization representing approximately 35 vessels in the GOA.
He stated:
I am in support of [SB 113] for a myriad of reasons,
one of which [is that] all of the groundfish fisheries
except probably arrowtooth flounder are fully
exploited in the {GOA]. Now the question is not "can
we catch the ... resource," but "who's going to catch
the resource and how is that going to be allocated."
Those are difficult decisions. For every winner
there's going to be a loser. And you're hearing a lot
of that debate today. This is a question of who has
access to the resource.
What used to be a year-round groundfish industry here
in Kodiak has been reduced to an industry that now is
prosecuted in the course of several months. In order
for the state to optimize the value of its resources
and make the best use of those resources, we really
need to figure out a way that we can reduce this race
for fish so that we can concentrate on increasing the
value of that resource so that we can increase
employment opportunities for community members.
Certainly, as we move through this process, there may
be fewer jobs, but the jobs that remain will be better
jobs and longer jobs - more days at sea versus more
fishermen on the water for a shorter period of time.
If that's what you want, if you want to create more
jobs, I would suggest status quo. But if you want to
compete and look at who our competition is coming from
the Bering Sea and Canada, they've gone through
processes that try to optimize the value of the
resource, address issues of bycatch, etc.
MR. STINSON continued:
One of my concerns as a pollock fisherman is that
approximately 17 percent of the pollock in the Central
Gulf is harvested in inside waters. The Prince
William Sound has a pollock fishery that is completely
state waters oriented. That particular fishery is the
last open access fishery on the west coast.
9:40:16 AM
SHAWN DOCHTERMANN said that he is a jig fisherman from Kodiak
Island. He noted that he has fished statewide for 28 years, and
has halibut IFQs, a Bristol Bay drift permit, and he fishes for
crab in the Bering Sea. He added that he is on the board of
directors of the Alaska Jig Association. He stated:
I have addressed this bill with opposition since it
was submitted in early March. After careful review of
the sponsor statement in the bill, I wrote a three
page summary analysis of its flaws, and it has been
submitted with other testimonies. We in opposition of
this bill have asked numerous pertinent questions
about the [DAP] program, but why it is that any of our
significant questions have never been addressed? Any
responses to our questions that have been answered
have been elusive. There is no true direction of what
the bill will actually do except create a new program
that impinges on many fishermen's rights to equal
access.
The memorandum that was produced for April 25, 2005
[Senate Resources Standing Committee] meeting by the
[CFEC] is only agency drafted, not a legal document
that is proof of DAPs constitutionality. The
Department of Law would need to produce the legal
document that would assume that DAPs could be legal.
This bill uses the word "allocation" and then in
another context says it's not a resource allocation,
so which one is it? The sponsor of this bill just
wants you to pass this bill without it being fully
examined. Instead of looking at this bill with a
telescope, shouldn't it be inspected with a
microscope? Now I ask you, will this bill be in the
best interests of the state, its communities, its
businesses, its fishermen, and its citizens? Can you
the representatives say that you reasonably understand
this bill? What are the consequences of this bill?
How can we know without an economic impact statement
what that will be? Will it affect our economy
adversely? If you don't fully understand this bill,
then how could you vote anything but "no"? We have
time to work on a democratic rationalization, and we
can start right after this session is finished. What
is the hurry to push this bill? Since ex-governor
Hammond has weighed in on this issue, shouldn't we be
examining this bill further than this committee?
9:42:49 AM
MR. DOCHTERMANN continued:
The economic stability of the State of Alaska is
dependent on the protection of its natural resources,
therefore this bill next must referred to the [House
Resources Standing Committee]. I encourage you to
review my Senate testimonies that I have provided. I
would also appreciate it if all you would take great
care in reviewing this bill from stem to stern. I
hope that all of the members of the House Special
Committee on Fisheries would contact me at any time in
the future. In closing, if a CFEC commissioner writes
an editorial in a newspaper and signs it with their
credentials about this bill, is this a conflict of
interest?
9:43:40 AM
RALEIGH EAGER said that he is a Kodiak deckhand and he has
earned all of his income from commercial fishing for the past 10
years. He stated:
There's some issues that I would like you to consider
before deciding on SB 113. First, this [DAP] would
impinge on my rights to equal access and clearly
allows for special privileges to be issued in
contravention of the first sentence of Article 8,
Section 15 of the Alaska State Constitution. Also,
allocating apportionment to associations, co-ops,
and/or processing groups is in direct violation of the
Limited Entry Act amendment of 1972, "Rights to fish
can only be issued to an individual to prosecute a
fishery."
Secondly, public hearings will have no meaning if the
[BOF] and the [CFEC] have no mandates or guidelines.
Without full disclosure of the plan for DAP, this bill
should not be passed into law. Likewise, most of the
groundfish stakeholders group, appointed by the
[NPFMC] does not constitute a legitimate cross-section
representative of the harvesting sector interests. A
new stakeholders group must be appointed through a
democratic process, including full representation from
the harvester sectors and small business end whose
livelihood depend on them.
MR. EAGER continued:
I have heard the halibut and black cod IFQ programs
used as an example. This program has improved the
fishery in many ways. However, it has promoted a
trend towards absentee ownership of the resource to
the point where it is now possible for investors to
purchase shares in IFQ mutual funds - profiting from
the fisheries with no direct involvement. How many
non-producing interested parties can our industry
support? There seems to be a serious danger that
future generations of fishermen will be relegated to
sharecropper status. I think that such consolidation
of control over the resource will lead to a less
dynamic community and much less opportunity for future
fishermen.
Please ask yourselves these questions: Is it prudent
to pass such wide-sweeping changes to the industry
without thorough examination of its effects on the
community? Have all relevant impact studies been
conducted? How will it affect the financial health of
our community in the future? Does it allow
opportunity for the next generation of independent
small businessmen seeking to make their homes and
businesses in coastal Alaska?
9:46:15 AM
JULIE BONNEY said that she represents the members of Alaska
Groundfish Databank, including shore-based trawl catcher vessels
and shore-based processors. She noted that she has lived in
Alaska for 22 years. She stated:
The reality is [that] the management system that we
have for groundfish fisheries in the State of Alaska
is broken. There is a race for fish. And because of
that we lose economic value. I've seen one report
that suggests that the groundfish fisheries in the
[GOA] could increase from $60 million on an annual
basis to over $80 million just by moving away from a
race to fish to a dedicated access approach. I think
people are misinformed when they suggest that a [DAP]
will lead to all of the second generational problems,
absentee ownerships. All those issues are going to be
addressed in the [BOF] process.
I believe that the State of Alaska, with this
particular legislation, has the ability to drive what
happens on the federal side in terms of the definition
of an access privilege. Working for the trawl fleet,
I think it's important for people to realize that the
Central Gulf trawlers only have 2 percent of their
history for cod inside three miles. The issue for
them is pollock. And when you look at what the
eastern seaboard does for their fisheries, they have
what they call "input controls" which is gear
restrictions, trip limits, days at sea. That fishery
has been totally decimated because of the management
structure. When you move to an output control, which
in an allocation to an individual, when that
individual owns that fish, then they're going to do
everything they can to maximize the amount of money
that they make from the fish, and also to take the
fish in the most conservation-friendly way.
For the trawl sector in the Central Gulf, we want to
move forward with bycatch controls and do a better job
with stewardship of the resource, but the only way we
can get there is through some kind of a
rationalization plan.
MS. BONNEY continued:
I served on the [BOF] task force. I believe that a
dedicated access approach can be built that meets
constitutional muster, especially the least
impingement portion of the constitution. I also think
it's important for you to realize that if the state
doesn't react to federal rationalization, State of
Alaska fishermen are going to be disenfranchised
because the federal folks will have allocations, and
then they can jump into the state pool at their whim
and take away from Alaskans.
9:49:32 AM
ANDY LUNDQUIST said that he is a 20-year business owner from
Kodiak. He noted that he has participated in the halibut and
cod jig fishery, but he was primarily speaking as a concerned
business owner and a resident of Kodiak. He stated:
Senate Bill 113 is a bad bill. I'm here to state
opposition to it. Our present method of
constitutionally mandated open access has operated
successfully for the last 50 years. Senate Bill 113
turns the system on its head and allocates groundfish
harvest rights to persons, vessels, corporations, co-
ops based on historical catch histories.
My opposition centers on three areas: consolidation,
e.g. pressure for fewer and fewer boats and crews to
process the same amount of product. You hear of
people buying up share quota or DAP, or through
cooperative agreements whereby fishermen, in essence,
retire vessels and only use a few boats and crews to
harvest quota. Fewer boats, fewer crews mean less
resultant economic activity for the coastal
communities which home port these boats.
One of the stated goals of this legislation is to
prevent economic stress to those dependent upon
fishermen for a livelihood. Certainly those
businesses located in communities such as Kodiak would
qualify for this consideration. ...
[Regarding the two other areas of concern]: one of
them is resource conservation. Ninety percent of this
groundfish is going to be allocated to trawlers.
Currently the State of Alaska does not have any kind
of [an] observer program for these boats. And it's
impossible for any of us to really discuss clearly or
accurately what the extent of the bycatch problems
are. But clearly any time that you're going to
allocate 90 percent of a resource to this segment of
fishermen, that you ought to be talking about what
some of the problems are with that type of harvesting.
MR. LUNDQUIST continued:
Third area of disagreement: ... the sponsor of this
bill has dropped jig fishermen out of it. Currently
they only harvest 2 percent of the groundfish; what
you're doing is putting unreasonable pressure on that
segment of fishing for new entrants.
In conclusion, I'm against SB 113. I'd like for you
to vote against it. However, if you're going to pass
it, please, we'd like an amendment in the following
areas: delete all references to co-ops, include
language in the bill that would require 100 percent
trawl, State of Alaska managed observer program paid
for by a tax on the catch; the inclusion of the jig
fishermen in SB 113; and ... make this thing an
experiment - prohibit the sale of DAPs for about three
years, and have the bill reauthorize after three
years.
9:53:17 AM
DAVE KUBIAK said that he is a jig and longline cod fisherman,
and has been fishing out of Kodiak since 1965. He stated:
I'm opposed to SB 113 for the innumerable reasons that
have come before me, and I'm not going to go through
my laundry list.... I'd like to go to a subissue of
being left out.... Let me speak plainly: leaving out
the jig fishermen in SB 113 is a kind of political
terrorism. Let me explain. Many of us in coastal
Alaska see the open-ended nature of this bill as a
huge threat. The particular concerns have been
pointed out again and again, so I'll not reiterate
them to you. But it concerns us enough that we
engage, participate in the political process. And the
early part of these testimonies occurred during our
jig season, which was rather inconvenient, but you
saw, there were lots of us here testifying.
MR. KUBIAK continued:
We object to the language, we object to the design,
and we object to the potential of the bill. Instead
of winning or losing or even modifying the debate on
the issue, we are simply left out of the legislation
entirely. This is obviously part of the realpolitik
designed to wreck us because it leaves our fishery as
the only open access fishery in the Gulf, which
ultimately results in ballooning participation and the
crowding out of legitimate jig fishers. It is much
like saying that if you resist our assault on your
fishery, we will simply kill you off economically.
Feigning innocence in one's intent does not represent
the true nature of the sophisticated politician, so
let's not pretend. This is a very dirty way to treat
the citizenry of the coastal communities. It's a real
declaration of political warfare on those of us who,
for whatever reason, choose to disagree with our
senators or representatives and their backers. This
reminds me of the politics we might expect of El
Salvador.
I expect the honest intention and forthright
representation of the whole community will ... return
us to the process by amending SB 113 to include the
jig fleet and not relegate us to be marginalized out
of our livelihoods for participating in this important
debate. If we are included in the legislation,
perhaps we can still have some influence on the
ultimate outcome. If not, then SB 113 in its passage
will prove we have no reason to believe that the
current political system works for coastal Alaska.
I have two side comments as well: Much has been made
out of public process. Being an open process doesn't
make it public. We are busy with our lives;
participation demands that the process must always be
local. And the other side comment I have it to
shortened seasons: [in] 2005 the tack was much smaller
than it had been in the past - how could the season
not be shorter?
9:57:12 AM
MIKE BOURAY said that he has been in Kodiak since 1979, and he
fishes near Kodiak and out west. He stated:
I do not believe in this SB 113. Our natural
resources should not be owned or divvied up by anyone.
There is a lot of concern about this bill, that
there's nothing set yet [and] nobody quite understands
what's going to be the outcome. There's a great deal
of questions that need to be answered before any
decisions can be made on this. It seems to me that
this SB 113 is pretty much running hand in hand in the
same way the crab rationalization out west is going,
and there's a lot of downsides to that: these forced
co-ops, control by processors, and individuals being
forced out of the business. And there is way too much
concern over people losing jobs, people having to
leave town, income being lost, so I would like to see
this SB 113 slowed down, maybe turned over to the
[House Resources Standing Committee] and take a change
to study this bill a lot more before any decision is
made on it.
9:59:01 AM
DON GALLAGHER stated:
This is a huge, huge deal going on here in coast
Alaska, and it really needs to be heard by the [House
Resources Standing Committee]; I don't see how it
can't be. ... This while DAP program is just wrong. I
know that SB 113 doesn't exactly say that that's what
we're going to have, ... but I think that's the way
they're trying to go. And it certainly is not a very
good way to go. There's better tools through gear
restrictions, ... trip limits, you could stagger your
openings, a lot of things we could do to slow down
these fisheries and create more jobs for the processor
workers. But rationalization and consolidation of the
resource is not the way to go. As we've just seen
happen with the crab fishery out in Dutch Harbor: that
giant Japanese processor just bought out a smaller
American processor; many jobs lost. I don't know what
those processor workers for Royal Aleutian are going
to do....
10:00:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS commented:
I have a little bit of a problem with wanting to send
this to [the House Resources Standing Committee]. I
sit on [the House Resources Standing Committee]; there
are no fishermen on [that committee]. We have
commercial fishermen on the subcommittee. I just
think overall you'd get a better shake with this
subcommittee than you would in [House Resources
Standing Committee]. We have one packer on the
resource committee, but I find it strange that
everybody thinks it should be in resources.
MR. GALLAGHER responded that this is a natural resource issue
and so he thinks it should go to the House Resources Standing
Committee.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS said that the bill is definitely a fisheries
issue, and that it should be heard thoroughly in House Special
Committee on Fisheries.
10:02:08 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that she was not closing public
testimony.
[SB 113 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
The House Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was [recessed]
at 10:02:26 AM to a call of the chair. [The meeting never
reconvened.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|