02/26/2009 10:15 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB43 | |
| HB143 | |
| HCR6 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 143 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HCR 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 43 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 26, 2009
10:19 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Chair
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 43
"An Act relating to aquatic farm permitting involving geoducks
and to geoduck seed transfers between certified hatcheries and
aquatic farms."
- MOVED HB 43 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 143
"An Act repealing the termination of licensing and regulation of
sport fishing operators and sport fishing guides and licensing
and registration of sport fishing vessels; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 6
Recreating the Cook Inlet Salmon Task Force as a joint
legislative task force.
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 43
SHORT TITLE: GEODUCK AQUATIC FARMING/SEED TRANSFER
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SEATON
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) FSH, RES
02/24/09 (H) FSH AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
02/24/09 (H) Heard & Held
02/24/09 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/26/09 (H) FSH AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 143
SHORT TITLE: NO REPEAL OF SPORT FISH GUIDE LICENSING
SPONSOR(s): FISHERIES
02/23/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/23/09 (H) FSH, RES
02/26/09 (H) FSH AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
BILL: HCR 6
SHORT TITLE: COOK INLET SALMON TASK FORCE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOHNSON
02/02/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/02/09 (H) FSH, RES, FIN
02/18/09 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/18/09 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
02/26/09 (H) FSH AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 43, as prime sponsor.
RON JOSEPHSON, Section Chief
Fisheries Monitoring, Permitting, and Development
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified officially neutral on HB 43,
stipulated department concerns, and responded to questions.
RAYMOND RALONDE, Professor of Fisheries
University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)
Alaska Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program Participant
State of Alaska Aquaculture Specialist
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 43, and provided
information regarding intertidal mariculture of geoduck clams.
TIM CLARK, Staff
to Representative Bryce Edgmon
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented CSHB 143 on behalf of the House
Special Committee on Fisheries, chaired by Representative
Edgmon.
CHARLES SWANTON, Director
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 143, and
responded to questions.
DICK ERKENEFF, Member
Board of Directors
Kenai River Sportfishing Association, Incorporated
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 143.
RICK SIKMA
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to CSHB 143.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG JOHNSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
ACTION NARRATIVE: Testified on CSHCR 6, as prime sponsor.
10:19:58 AM
CHAIR BRYCE EDGMON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:19 a.m. Representatives
Edgmon, Millett, Buch, Munoz, Johnson, and Keller were present
at the call to order. Representative Kawasaki arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 43-GEODUCK AQUATIC FARMING/SEED TRANSFER
10:20:43 AM
CHAIR EDGMON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 43, "An Act relating to aquatic farm permitting
involving geoducks and to geoduck seed transfers between
certified hatcheries and aquatic farms."
10:21:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, clarified
two aspects of the bill: it does not provide for indiscriminate
transfer of geoduck/seed between farms, or override transport
requirements as permitted by the Alaska Department of Fish &
Game (ADF&G); and it stipulates that the farm must be subtidal.
10:22:51 AM
RON JOSEPHSON, Section Chief, Fisheries Monitoring, Permitting,
and Development, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), restated the pending
committee question as to the type of research the department
would propose implementing in order to alleviate specific
concerns for the bill. He suggested that a study using sterile
shellfish would be a direction to consider, and cited the Alutiq
Pride Shellfish Hatchery research on salmonids, and certain
shellfish, employing the technique of triploid induction.
Introducing a sterile animal outside of its zone would be
acceptable to the department. Additionally, ADF&G would like to
see basic research conducted regarding the viability of subtidal
mariculture farms in northern climates. Existing thermographs
could be placed in the substrate of proposed farm areas, and
existing Southeast mariculture farm locations could be used as a
parallel study, to generate data for determining growth rates.
10:25:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked for a restating of the department's
position.
MR. JOSEPHSON said the department is officially neutral, with
stipulated concerns. The concerns are for: introducing a non-
native species into the larval drift zones of Southcentral
Alaska, with minimal information available on the possible
impacts to the natural eco systems - analogous to an invasive
species; and lack of demonstrated benefits for economic
development of geoduck farming in Southeast Alaska. He opined
that it would be premature to branch out to other areas of
Alaska, and taking the inherent risks, without substantiating
data to indicate an economic benefit.
10:28:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON acknowledged that the department is
taking a neutral position, and requested Mr. Josephson's
scientific opinion.
MR. JOSEPHSON opined that the unknown economic viability weighed
against the untested risk, does not provide a compelling reason
to prematurely expand this type of mariculture development.
Geoduck farming is an emerging industry in British Columbia,
Canada, and southeast Alaskan waters, but has not produced a
tangible benefit, to date.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON noted that there exists a difference of
opinion within the department, which needs to be explored.
10:29:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT allowed that the colder waters of Alaska
may retard the grown rate of the geoduck, and asked whether this
type of mariculture could ever prove to be economically viable
for the state.
MR. JOSEPHSON described intertidal farming as being relatively
cheap and simple, however, subtidal mariculture requires more
effort, is effected by more variables, and is comparatively
expensive. He predicted that the geoduck could be economically
farmed, despite these constraints. In response to
Representative Buch, he agreed to provide a written statement to
the committee, prior to further hearings on HB 43.
10:32:38 AM
CHAIR EDGMON announced that further departmental comment would
be brought to the committee.
10:33:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT cautioned that many private sector
ventures in Alaska would not have occurred, had the state stood
in judgment of the economic viability prior to allowing
development; including arctic drilling. She requested further
scientific analysis from ADF&G versus economic viability
opinions.
10:34:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI held that economic viability was not
being judged. The department, he defended, is showing
appropriate concern for existing industries that may be effected
by taking the risk of introducing an invasive species.
10:36:24 AM
CHAIR EDGMON reopened public testimony, stipulating that it
would be limited to the individual before the committee.
10:36:32 AM
RAYMOND RALONDE, Professor of Fisheries, University of Alaska
Fairbanks (UAF), Alaska Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program
Participant, State of Alaska Aquaculture Specialist, said that
it was his 1992 published research document that served as the
basis for establishing the larval drift zones in Alaska. The
zones were necessary for creating a formal shellfish transport
policy that would ensure minimal genetic impact. Blue mussels
and scallops were utilized in the study. Drifting patterns were
computed based on considerations for water temperature, surface
water velocities, and species developmental growth rates. A
delineation was made for Southcentral and Southeast because
there appeared to be a probability that larva could drift
between these areas and survive. Historically, he said this is
why the policy was established. Regarding the economic
viability of geoduck, he stated support for the right of
independent developers to take business risks. Throughout the
years, applied research activities have been jointly conducted
with the university and private sector farmers, regarding
aquaculture development, utilizing the "try it and see"
approach. These studies have paved the way for protocol to be
established regarding mariculture of certain species, such as
the purple hinge rock scallop and littleneck clam farming. He
cautioned that falsely represented economic information may be
an issue, if factors particular to the geoduck are not
considered. For instance, the slow maturation of the geoduck,
or the market price expectations may be misconstrued, and the
realistic values lost on an eager entrepreneur. He reported
that he is currently in the fifth year of a systematic grow out
study specifically on survival and growth rates of geoduck
clams. The study, located on Annette Island, is being conducted
in an intertidal zone. In the 4th year the clams are slightly
less than 1/2 pound, en route to becoming a 2 pound, mature,
harvest size clam, which he predicts will take another six or
seven years. The survival rate is 48 percent, but the growth
rate is 20 percent slower than what occurs in the warmer waters
of Puget Sound. He remains cautiously optimistic that geoduck
clam farming will become a viable industry in the state. In
reading the bill, it appears to ban intertidal aquaculture
statewide, and he pondered if that was the intent. He
acknowledged that Kachemak Bay poses a unique concern, but
considers this an exception to the remainder of the state. In
other regions, the industry is appealing for several reasons:
it appears to be viable; an orderly permitting process already
exists; the common man can enter the field without special
training - such as diving; the effort does not require a large
capital outlay - no boat or equipment to purchase; and it does
not conflict with common property fisheries - harvestable stocks
of geoduck do not naturally exist in the intertidal zone.
Finally, he said:
It can be done by the people who live there and supply
the income and the employment for that community. ...
I'm concerned that the bill might prohibit that, based
upon what's happening in Kachemak Bay. Kachemak Bay
is an entirely different argument ... relative to
intertidal aquaculture.
10:45:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked if he is a proponent or in opposition
to the bill.
MR. RALONDE opined that risks exist in every enterprise. He
noted that in this instance the risk factor is high given the
potential problem for separation of stock, and the transport
distance required for a single stock. These factors are unknown
in regard to geoduck, although other species that have been
similarly transported have had unintended consequences. He
opined that a population of geoduck may already exist in Prince
William Sound, but it is one of the unknowns. He provided an
example of the purple hinged rock scallop. This scallop is
indigenous to Southeast, however, their transport and
introduction for cultivation was denied in Southcentral.
Scientists expended effort to find a local, Southcentral,
population to draw on, but to no avail. Six or seven years ago,
however, juvenile purple hinged scallops began to show up on the
ladder nets of the mariculture farmers in Kachemak Bay.
Further, in the last year he has discovered the scallops on gear
at his mollusk grow-out site for oysters. This proves that a
local purple hinged scallop reproductive stock exists, but it
could not be located by scientists. If a local geoduck stock
exists, and seed is transported in, the genetics of the
indigenous species could be swamped by the transported seed.
The economic viability research aspect is also an unknown. He
stressed the need to provide accurate, adequate information to
potential farmers.
CHAIR EDGMON closed public testimony.
10:49:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that on page 1, lines 8 and 9,
it is stipulated that geoduck will not be introduced where a
native stock exists. He cited the oyster mariculture, in
Southcentral, as a success story of introducing a non-native,
and non-reproductive, species to an area and creating an
economically viable business opportunity. Additionally, he
pointed out that an intertidal study will not provide
information to assist the subtidal farmer. He stressed the
importance of providing the possibility to create an economic
base in coastal villages. The bill has been structured to
eliminate conflicts with subsistence and sport users by
situating these farms in subtidal areas. Neither does the bill
prevent or effect farming in Southeast; a separate management
area with wild geoduck stock. To a question from the chair, he
cautioned that the product price is subject to fluctuation and
investors will need to exercise their own due diligence for
proposal purposes. He said that the bill allows any interested
party to enter into the due diligence process, and apply for
appropriate departmental permits; private individuals or village
corporations. An exception, in the bill, is for a policy that
disallows the taking of geoduck from the Seward area, where they
are raised as seed and planted in specific Gulf locations.
10:55:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER noted that the bill prohibits intertidal
permitting, and asked if that was the intent.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that it is the intent for areas
in the Gulf of Alaska, but not for the southeastern region.
10:56:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER commented on the need to exercise caution
when introducing an invasive species to an area, however, the
release of a bilge pump can release any number of unintended
hitchhikers.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HB 43, Version 26-LS0227\A
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 43 was
reported from the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
10:58:07 AM
The committee took a brief at ease from 10:58 to 11:03.
HB 143-NO REPEAL OF SPORT FISH GUIDE LICENSING
11:03:44 AM
CHAIR EDGMON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 143, "An Act repealing the termination of
licensing and regulation of sport fishing operators and sport
fishing guides and licensing and registration of sport fishing
vessels; and providing for an effective date."
11:03:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI moved to adopt committee substitute (CS)
for HB 143, Version 26LS0622\R, Kane 2/24/09, as the working
draft.
11:04:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH objected for discussion.
11:04:13 AM
TIM CLARK, Staff, to Representative Bryce Edgmon, Alaska State
Legislature, directed attention to Amendment 1, which will serve
to bring the licensing fee schedule to a self-sustaining level.
It will become essential, if the CS is adopted.
11:05:43 AM
MR. CLARK proceeded to introduce CSHB 143, paraphrasing from the
sponsor statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
CSHB 143 (FSH) will ensure the continuation of
Alaska's sport fish guide licensing and reporting
program, which has proven beneficial to both the sport
fishing industry and resource managers. Also, the
amended license fee schedule included in the
legislation will generate funding for the program to
pay for itself.
Legislation authorizing the program was passed in 2004
for a number of purposes. The Department of Fish &
Game sought more comprehensive and credible
information on guide numbers and guiding activities.
The Department also wanted to create basic standards
for sport fish business operators and guides,
including minimum liability insurance coverage, first
aid certification, and in some cases U.S. Coast Guard
vessel licensing.
Many stakeholders who were initially skeptical of
these measures now acknowledge their role in advancing
the guiding profession. This increased level of
professionalism has helped raise the standing of the
sport fish industry across the state.
Many also agree that data collected through the
program is an important tool in ADF&G's mission to
develop and sustain healthy sport fisheries. The data
is of great value not only to the Department's
fisheries biologists but also to the Alaska Board of
Fisheries, the International Pacific Halibut
Commission, and the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council.
Sport fish data collection also contributes to
Alaska's exemption from the recently instituted
National Saltwater Angler Registry. NOAA exempts
states from this federal registry and data collection
system if they have programs in place to provide
angler information. Sport fishers would otherwise be
required by 2011 to purchase a certificate of
registration for $15 to $25.
Passing CSHB 143 (FSH) will permit the Department of
Fish & Game to continue to foster high standards in
Alaska's sport fishing industry. It will also enable
the Department to carry on collecting important data
for management decisions to benefit both fisheries
resources and their stakeholders. And it will
increase license revenues to a level that will allow
the program to operate without need of a funding
subsidy.
11:09:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if the proposed raise in fees will
offset the cost of the electronic log reporting program.
MR. CLARK explained that such a system does not exist, although
the department has indicated that it is considering implementing
one.
11:10:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ pursued her interest regarding the intent
of the department to upgrade the log program.
11:11:31 AM
CHARLES SWANTON, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), testified in support of CSHB
143. In response to Representative Munoz's question, he said
that an electronic reporting system does not currently exist;
however, Commissioner Lloyd has prioritized instituting a
technologically based reporting system that includes the log
program. One of the first steps to this goal is the point of
sale license program. The component for this will be launched
July, 2009, and is the precursor to electronic reporting. Time
lines have been established to introduce further components, and
the intent is to have a full system that will allow
comprehensive data comparisons. Further, he said, the new fee
structure will be adequate to make the program self supporting,
although the complete costs of the electronic reporting program
are not yet fully known. A portion of the fee structure could
be utilized for this purpose, but no definitive decision has
been made regarding the complete funding of this upgrade.
11:15:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER noted the general support for the fee
structure to cover the cost of the program. With the new
figures being proposed, he asked what benefits the user guides
should expect to receive in exchange for the fee increase.
MR. SWANTON related that a number of categories exist in the fee
structure, such as owner/guide licenses versus guide only.
There are about 1,600 businesses/guide combinations and
approximately 2,000 guides who participate in the industry.
Services relate primarily to data collection, that has a return
benefit to the guides through the management process.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER opined that a program audit should be able
to reveal accountability for specific return benefits to the
user.
MR. SWANTON explained that the associated costs are for program
administration, printing/distribution of the log books, vessel
licensing, and license decals. The current administration
requires intensive data entry and information distribution,
utilizing an antiquated, paper based system, he reported.
11:20:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked if a fiscal note would be
forthcoming.
MR. CLARK responded that an updated fiscal note, formulated to
provide a self supporting program relating to the CS, has not
been distributed, and is relevant to the bill pending the
adoption of Amendment 1 [which cannot be considered until the
objection to adoption of CSHB 143 is removed].
11:21:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI established that there are approximately
1,600 licensees.
MR. SWANTON reiterated that 1,600 is the combination of
businesses/guides; guide registration averages 1,900.
11:22:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI noted the highlights of the program as
reported by the director, regarding the program's performance
for the years leading to the sunset date. However, he pointed
out the lack of tangible results and he asked the director to
comment.
MR. SWANTON relayed that prior to the inception of this bill
concerns existed regarding the professional standards for
guiding. Negotiability existed regarding the collection of
comprehensive data, mandatory insurance, professional
identification, and related practices for the industry. The
program has allowed for business activity to be tracked, species
harvest/catch data collection, and provided information utile to
related management agencies for marine waters.
11:25:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI acknowledged that the department is
interested in creating/maintaining business standards. He
questioned the fiscal responsibility for first aid certification
and insurance coverage for operators.
MR. SWANTON specified that the individual participants pay their
own costs for these benefits.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired whether first aid training and
insurance is mandated due to a regulation propagated by this
bill. Further, he asked if the licensed operators are required
to hold a business license as well.
MR. SWANTON replied yes, they are required to hold a business
license.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI commented that the CS effectively
doubles fee costs for small businessmen. He maintained his
interest in knowing the original intent, and for accountability
of the accomplishments gained during the five year life of the
bill. To support the CS, he said, he would like to have the
department demonstrate how the license fees have been/will be
utilized in an efficient, effective manner, and without harm to
the user. Basic mathematics indicates a fiscal note will be
about $500,000, he estimated.
11:27:36 AM
CHAIR EDGMON interjected that the bill is sponsored by the
committee on behalf of the department, and based on departmental
information.
11:27:59 AM
MR. CLARK said that the program currently operates on deficit
funding and the increased fee structure is not designed to
bolster the program, but with the intent to have it operate in
the black.
11:29:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ stated her support for repealing the sunset
on the bill, however, she agreed with the previous committee
member's comments, that an increase of the fees has not been
substantiated.
11:29:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT requested testimony from the guide
associations as to what benefits they have gleaned, if any, from
the original inception date of the bill.
11:30:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed concern for where the bill
resides in regard to the budget process, and whether a fiscal
request has been made in a timely manner.
MR. SWANTON explained that the budget shortfalls, to date, have
been filled by funds acquired through the sale of fishing
licenses and game harvest stamps. The intent of the department
was to have this program be solvent, via a funding increase at
the sunset anniversary.
11:33:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked what ADF&G programs were affected
by the diversion of $500,000 to keep this program solvent.
11:34:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT noted that the program has been operating
in a deficit for five years, at the cost of $250,000 per year.
MR. SWANTON said the amount has varied depending on the number
of individuals participating, but the average has been
approximately $175,000. The projection for FY 09-10 is about
$200,000.
MR. CLARK interjected that the revised fiscal note indicates an
amount of just over $200,000, with the total operating costs of
the program anticipated to be $462,000.
[The appropriate fiscal note was made available to the committee
(prior to the adoption of CSHB 143 and Amendment 1).]
11:36:55 AM
MR. CLARK reiterated that this fiscal note relates to Amendment
1, and otherwise is not relevant to the CS.
11:38:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON reviewed the fiscal note and asked how it
is being considered in the budget.
MR. SWANTON explained that the request from the department for
FY 10 will cover the existing shortfall. An increase of fees
will apply to the FY 11 budget.
11:42:45 AM
CHAIR EDGMON acknowledged that confusion exists regarding the
fiscal note. The bill will be brought back before the
committee, with more clarity, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked to have information provided regarding
impacts to the budget, and budget requests reflected by the
sunset of this bill, as well as the updated fiscal note.
11:44:53 AM
DICK ERKENEFF, Member, Board of Directors, Kenai River
Sportfishing Association, Incorporated, stated that the Kenai
River Sportfishing Association officially supports CSHB 143. He
said that the guide management program is essential, and should
continue without sunset. The bill provides sport fishing guides
with minimal standards that are important to the industry, as
well as gathers essential data for the continued management of
the industry. The timeliness of the data is an issue, and
setting up the electronic reporting component is also supported
by the association.
11:47:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT noted that the association letter of
support was written prior to the fee increase to $200.00, and
asked if that has changed membership opinion of the bill.
MR. ERKENEFF said no, the membership still stands in firm
support of the bill.
11:48:38 AM
RICK SIKMA stated opposition to CSHB 143, and reported that many
guides will have a difficult time meeting the raised fees, given
the overall operational costs.
CHAIR EDGMON closed public testimony, and stated that the bill
would be held.
11:50:11 AM
HCR 6-COOK INLET SALMON TASK FORCE
11:50:40 AM
CHAIR EDGMON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 6, Recreating the Cook Inlet
Salmon Task Force as a joint legislative task force.
11:50:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG JOHNSON introduced HCR 6 as an extension of
the Cook Inlet Salmon Task Force, which originally formed due to
constituent complaints. The task force had a specific mission:
to investigate the causes of low salmon returns to the Cook
Inlet area. He reported that the task force met four times,
without conclusive results.
11:52:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT moved to adopt committee substitute (CS)
for HCR 6, Version 26-LS0395\E, Kane, 2/4/09, as the working
document.
11:52:22 AM
CHAIR EDGMON objected for discussion.
11:52:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said that the CS adds public members to
the task force, in concert with the legislative members.
Community participation will be further encouraged by
integrating the publicly appointed members. The task force will
be reduced in size by this action, but the expectation is to
have private sector representation from commercial and sport
fishing entities. He opined that recreating this body as a
joint task force will provide a means to avoid continued pit
falls, allow a neutral stance to address issues, and opined "I
think we would be ahead of the game."
11:55:24 AM
CHAIR EDGMON announced that the bill would be held for further
review, and public testimony.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:56
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB143(FSH)--Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFSH 2/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 143 |
| DraftCSHB143(FSH).PDF |
HFSH 2/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 143 |
| Work Draft for HCR6 CS.PDF |
HFSH 2/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
|
| HCR6-KPFALetter.PDF |
HFSH 2/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
|
| DraftCSHB143(FSH).PDF |
HFSH 2/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 143 |
| HB143-KRSASupportLetter.PDF |
HFSH 2/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 143 |
| HB143--ProgramRegs.PDF |
HFSH 2/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 143 |