02/16/2010 10:15 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR43 | |
| HB266 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 43 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 266 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 16, 2010
10:25 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Chair
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Craig Johnson
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Michael "Mike" Kelly
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 43
Urging the federal government to provide funding for domestic
seafood marketing and promotional activities.
- MOVED HJR 43 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 266
"An Act providing for a priority for a fishery that is
restricted to residents when fishing restrictions are
implemented to achieve an escapement goal."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 43
SHORT TITLE: FED. FUNDING: DOMESTIC SEAFOOD MARKETING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) EDGMON
02/10/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/10/10 (H) FSH, RES
02/16/10 (H) FSH AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 266
SHORT TITLE: PERSONAL USE FISHING PRIORITY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) STOLTZE, KELLER, NEUMAN
01/08/10 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/10
01/19/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/10 (H) FSH, RES
02/09/10 (H) FSH AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
02/09/10 (H) Heard & Held
02/09/10 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/16/10 (H) FSH AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
TIM CLARK, Staff
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 43, on behalf of
Representative Bryce Edgmon, prime sponsor.
JULIE DECKER, Representative
United Fisherman of Alaska (UFA)
National Seafood Marketing Coalition
Wrangell, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 43.
BRUCE WALLACE, Representative
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
National Seafood Marketing Coalition
Board Member
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 43.
JENNIFER YUHAS Public Communications Director
Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions, during the hearing
on HB 266.
JOHN HILLSINGER, Director
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions, during the hearing
on HB 266.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:25:13 AM
CHAIR BRYCE EDGMON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:25 a.m. Representatives
Edgmon, Keller, Millett, and Munoz, were present at the call to
order. Representatives Buch and Kawasaki arrived while the
meeting was in progress.
HJR 43-FED. FUNDING: DOMESTIC SEAFOOD MARKETING
10:25:30 AM
CHAIR EDGMON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 43, Urging the federal government to
provide funding for domestic seafood marketing and promotional
activities.
10:26:13 AM
TIM CLARK, Staff, Representative Bryce Edgmon, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HJR 43, a resolve to promote Alaska
harvested seafood, paraphrasing from the sponsor statement,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
HJR 43 communicates to the Obama Administration, the
Alaska Congressional Delegation, and Congress the
Legislature's support for using a portion of federal
revenues generated from duties on imported seafood and
fish products for marketing American seafood-including
that harvested in Alaska.
Since the 1990s, well over fifty percent of the fish
consumed annually by American families is the product
of foreign countries. And every year the governments
of many of these countries bankroll multi-million-
dollar campaigns to market their seafood to Americans.
While the Alaska seafood industry as well as the state
of Alaska contribute millions in funding for marketing
purposes, the amounts are not adequate to finance the
vigorous, consistent, and innovative promotion that
our products require in the face of foreign
competition.
Meanwhile, each year hundreds of millions of dollars
are derived from duties on these imported fish and
fish products that so aggressively compete with
American seafood. Yet only an insignificant fraction
of this revenue has ever been employed to promote
domestically produced seafood.
HJR 43 endorses putting a portion of these revenues to
work in developing and maintaining the robust domestic
markets that healthy, sustainable Alaskan seafood
deserves. The resolution urges Congress to pass
legislation dedicating such funding for the effective
domestic marketing of American seafood. And it asks
the Alaska Delegation in Congress to work together
with representatives from other seafood producing
states to accomplish these goals
10:29:31 AM
JULIE DECKER, Representative, United Fisherman of Alaska (UFA),
National Seafood Marketing Coalition, stated support for HJR 43,
and said that United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA), and the Alaska
Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI), have identified a spectrum
of areas that the derived duties could be directed towards:
marketing of seafood products; funding for regions to improve
product value; economic growth and job creation. UFA has begun
the process of building a coalition to present the need for
these funds to Congress.
10:32:14 AM
BRUCE WALLACE, Representative, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA),
National Seafood Marketing Coalition, Board Member, Alaska
Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI), stated support for HJR 43,
and said the aggregation of marine states will produce a
decision on how to take the steps to create the relationship
that is called for. He stressed the important position that
Alaska holds, as a standard for state government working hand-
in-hand with the fishing industry.
10:34:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if there are other boards similar to
ASMI, elsewhere in the nation.
MR. WALLACE answered no, and reported that six states are
building legislation, and ASMI is the model being cited.
10:34:55 AM
CHAIR EDGMON asked for an elaboration on regional organizations,
and what type of funding could be expected.
MS. DECKER responded that the concept being put forward is to
create nine regional boards across the nation. Funding is
targeted at $100 million, with half coming from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) duties on imported fish, and
fish products, and the remainder from anti-dumping
countervailing duties. To a follow up question, she said the
idea has been well received in the lower states and it was seen
as a bright star on the horizon for many of the organizations
involved.
MR. WALLACE interjected that the expectation is to bring federal
money into regions and allow spending discretion at that level.
General spending rules will not be applied across the board, but
the structure used will be standardized.
10:38:05 AM
CHAIR EDGMON opened public testimony, and hearing none, closed
public testimony.
10:39:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to report HJR 43, 26-LS1432\R, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
There being no objection, HJR 43 was reported from the House
Special Committee on Fisheries.
The committee took an at-ease from 10:39 a.m. to 10.42 a.m.
HB 266-PERSONAL USE FISHING PRIORITY
10:42:00 AM
CHAIR EDGMON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 266 "An Act providing for a priority for a
fishery that is restricted to residents when fishing
restrictions are implemented to achieve an escapement goal."
10:43:12 AM
JENNIFER YUHAS Public Communications Director, Legislative
Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, acknowledged the questions
from a February 9, 2010, hearing on the bill regarding the use
of sonar to establish escapement numbers on certain salmon
streams, and assured the committee that this is not the sole
method used on such streams, or the sole source on which
decisions are made.
10:43:55 AM
JOHN HILLSINGER, Director, Division of Commercial Fisheries,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), reported that sonar is
the last resort for counting fish, and used only in the most
challenging situations. In clear rivers or small streams, other
methods are employed, such as a weir. However, for wide, turbid
type rivers, sonar is used due to the inherent challenge of
enumerating fish in those types of systems.
10:45:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked in what orders the fisheries are
currently prioritized.
MR. HILLSINGER said state law requires that first priority be
afforded to the subsistence fishery. A complex system is used
to determine how large of a run must be present, prior to
opening other fisheries. The Board of Fisheries (BOF) will
often, through management plans, set area priorities. For
instance, he said, the late Kenai sockeye salmon run is
typically managed primarily for commercial uses, while the early
Cook Inlet runs may be managed for recreational purposes.
However, as far as the state as a whole all other fisheries are
equal in priority, following subsistence needs.
10:46:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER requested further information on the
current sonar technology; a brief history and update of the
state's usage.
MR. HILLSINGER explained that the original fish counting sonars
were developed in the late 1960's, by the Bendix Corporation
working with ADF&G staff largely on the Kenai River. An ADF&G
employee developed and built the devices for the Bendix
Corporation. The devices are not without limitations, one being
that there is no means to extract a savable data file. All of
the information is contained within the sonar box, which prints
out the data. Additionally, the Bendix counters have a limited
range of about 60 feet. This works well for sockeye and, in
some systems, chum, which are bank oriented species, however, in
larger systems, and with other species, the department sought
other means for counting. A series of other types of counters
were tried, and again depending on the limitations, proved
helpful. The most recent generation is the Dual Frequency
Identification Sonar (DIDSON), designed for the Navy to locate
objects on the ocean floor. These devices are replacing the
Bendix counters in the various river systems. The DIDSON uses a
series of projections, 96 beams, that provides a real picture of
a fish, size, and possible species identification, via the
computer interface. Sonar cannot generally range to the bottom
of a river, but with the DIDSON it is possible, and where a
concave bottom exists it is a valuable tool. The device has
provided a great amount of flexibility to achieve better
accuracy. In some areas a split beam sonar may be set up on one
side of a river, and the DIDSON on the other, to produce good
results. The next generation of sonar may be even better, and
the ability to establish accurate counts will continue to
improve. He said the main problem is determining the species
apportionment. Sonar provides a fish count, but the department
must determine the species, and differentiate the number
represented. In some systems fish are caught to determine the
species apportionment. To determine the proportion of king
salmon, mixed in with the chum salmon run on the Yukon River,
for instance, the 4 million fish sonar count must be
scrutinized, and the correct apportions determined, prior to
making an estimate. Other systems have similar mixed run
challenges.
10:53:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER surmised that, despite the various
limitations, it appears that Alaska leads the globe in utilizing
this technology, and commended ADF&G for doing a good job with
the sonar counting abilities.
MR. HILLSINGER agreed, and reported that it is a well developed
program, which, under the most challenging situations, has
proven to be valuable and provided consistent data. As a
reminder, he said, that due to high debris levels, silt, and
other obstacles, estimates are still within 20 percent of a true
value.
10:55:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER recalled the director's statement
regarding the possibility of managing certain runs for specific
user groups, and asked for further details.
MR. HILLSINGER referred to the Upper Cook Inlet runs, for an
example of how this takes place. The salmon stocks that arrive
prior to July 1st are primarily managed for recreational
purposes. Commercial fisheries take place concurrently on a
limited basis, or late in the period. The August coho salmon
runs are managed for recreational use also, and closures
typically occur in the commercial fishery. To a follow-up
question, he said the initial management plans were established
in the early 1970's, and are still being implemented. In some
situations, if stock assessment is uncertain, by default more of
the run may go to recreational users than to commercial users.
10:58:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT surmised that some fisheries have more
historical data available. However, she questioned whether
there was enough data accumulated for relatively recently
developed personal use and recreational fisheries for the
department to balance allocations for those uses with commercial
use fisheries allocations.
MR. HILLSINGER said probably what varies the most is the
complexity of the fishery, rather than the amount of data.
Bristol Bay may have the oldest data, ranging from the 1950s.
Cook Inlet has historical information, regarding commercial
fisheries that occurred in the 1800s. There is an active stock
identification program and good escapement estimations on many
of the major runs. The Susitna drainage and much of the
northern district could be characterized as having the poorest
history of data. Early use of Bendix sonars in the Yetna River
and the Susitna drainage provided inaccurate information that is
now being revised. The legislature recently provided the
department with funding to study the Susitna area, and much is
being learned. He said, if asked whether the department has the
right tools to manage changes in allocation, the answer would be
that it has some, but it is difficult due to the mixed stocks
and uses. Metaphorically speaking, it is akin to performing
surgery using a meat cleaver instead of a scalpel, and hitting
specific management targets is a challenge. The Susitna is a
particularly complex and difficult system to manage, due to the
nature of the runs.
11:03:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked if the department has confidence in
the data being received for personal use dip net fisheries. She
also asked how the information is attained.
MR. HILLSINGER said the Cook Inlet personal use fishery requires
users to turn in documentation of their catch. Compared to some
personal use fisheries that don't have this type of requirement,
it appears to be working well. He opined that requiring a
permit provides a level of accountability. When fishermen leave
the dock without filling out the report, data becomes less
accurate, hence, ADF&G positions staff to help minimize this
situation. The public has expressed continued concern regarding
the need for additional enforcement. He characterized the data
received as good, with a high return rate, providing the
department a level of confidence.
CHAIR EDGMON asked if the department is satisfied with the
information received on the dip net fishery.
11:06:56 AM
MR. HILLSINGER responded that the numbers appear to be
increasing, with 29,000 permits issued, up from 23,000. The
harvest is becoming more effective, with an increasing use of
boats being witnessed, indicating a notable growth.
CHAIR EDGMON inquired whether the users are Alaskan residents.
MR. HILLSINGER responded that the users are presumably
residents, as they are required to hold a resident sport fishing
license to participate.
11:07:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI referred to a previous statement
regarding the confidence level of sonar numbers. He asked
whether the sonar station at the Yukon River is within 20
percent accuracy, and if that is a typically acceptable
variable, or does it represent a huge amount of error.
11:08:36 AM
MR. HILLSINGER responded that, in terms of estimating a fish
count, it is considered good. The tower count allows a 10
percent error, which is excellent. The Yukon River users are
demanding more precise management, and the department is trying
to do a better job. Efforts to improve the Yukon River count
include: a new site for improved count accuracy, use of a side
scan sonar on a boat mount, and other considerations are getting
attention. Moving sonar sites up the river is not always the
best idea as it takes longer for fish to move up river, and
therefore there is a greater delay in using these numbers for
management of the fishery occurring at the mouth of the river.
It is a challenge to determine how many fish will enter the
river and pass the sonar station. The Eagle sonar station,
provides a more accurate count due to fewer species. Confidence
intervals, margins of error, from the different locations are
factored in, and uncertainty does exist.
11:12:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI stated his appreciation for the
complexity of gathering this data, but he maintained his concern
that 20 percent is a large variance for achieving accurate
management. He asked how the department would approach
complying with HB 266.
MR. HILLSINGER said the department will look to the BOF to set
management plans, to meet the requirements of the bill. He
cited areas near Fairbanks, which do not have the same
contentiousness as the south central locations.
11:16:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH relayed his experience fishing the Russian
River and [receiving] the routinely accurate predictions
provided by the department on the sockeye runs. In some ways
the department has done a terrific job of accounting for the
fisheries involved. He expressed amazement with the
department's management of specific areas, and praised the
expertise brought by the director to serve the individual
fisheries. He asked how the bill relates to what the department
is trying to accomplish.
MR. HILLSINGER cited the 18 regulatory management plans in the
Upper Cook Inlet, which is due to the number of user groups.
With this type of complexity, challenges ensue for meeting the
targets. Certain constraints in management plans have made it
difficult to provide precise escapement goals, and thus results
in poor returns due to over escapement. Depending on how the
board decides to serve the various interests, it can be
difficult for ADF&G to assure healthy returns. The department
remains neutral on this issue. However, in trying to
accommodate all those different interests, it has become more
difficult for the fisheries managers to hit escapement targets.
11:22:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH stated his interest in providing legislation
that works for the department. The neutral position, taken by
the department is a bit confusing, and knowing whether the bill
helps, or hinders, the department, would assist his decision for
supporting or opposing the bill.
MR. HILLSINGER offered that HB 266 does not present an
impossibility for the department, but it may make the job more
difficult.
11:24:15 AM
CHAIR EDGMON queried whether the concerns addressed in HB 266
are exclusive to Southcentral Alaska.
MR. HILLSINGER said there are number of personal use fisheries
throughout the state, but the largest are in Southcentral. In
addition, there are king crab personal use fisheries in
Southeast Alaska and many personal use fisheries in non-
subsistence fisheries around Fairbanks. The [personal use
fisheries] are an aspect of the fishery that is widespread
throughout the state and as time goes by, he predicted, more
issues may develop related to personal use fishing.
11:25:35 AM
CHAIR EDGMON surmised that, given the uncertainties for
achieving escapement goals, there is an implication that the
department may change how they are approaching fisheries
management.
MR. HILLSINGER said within the non-subsistence areas, HB 266
would give a personal use fishery the kind of priority generally
reserved for subsistence. Fisheries are specifically managed to
provide the subsistence priority, and this bill could result in
problems. Areas such as the Yukon River certainly present
issues for subsistence management. The complexity of the Upper
Cook Inlet presents a question of meeting the priorities, as
well.
11:28:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER commented that the committee packet has
30-40 letters of adamant opposition to the bill. Additionally,
he reported a significant number of contacts in his office to
pass the bill. The personal use fishery doesn't have a lobby,
or a tax, and he stated his feeling of personal engagement in HB
266; it represents a significant part of the Alaskan ethos.
11:30:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked how a personal use fishery is
created.
MR. HILLSINGER responded that the BOF created personal use
fisheries in the early 1980's in response to strong salmon runs,
and Governor Hammond recommended an easier, more efficient,
means for people to attain fish products. Today, proposals are
presented to the board, and a case by case determination is
made.
11:32:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked whether the board could designate
all fisheries for personal use, and what would prevent that from
occurring.
MR. HILLSINGER said the personal use fishery requires a resident
sport fishing license, hence, if every fishery were designated
personal use, non-residents would be eliminated from ever
participating. Public policy interest would prohibit the board
from placing a fishery under one category.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI suggested that if further funding is
needed to make better assessments of fisheries, perhaps action
of that order should be taken. He stated that he is
undetermined on whether to support the bill.
11:37:04 AM
MR. HILLSINGER pointed out that the sonar at Pilot Station also
has an accompanying test fishing program to correlate with the
sonar results. A variety of information is used to arrive at
the closest possible escapement number, he stressed.
11:38:11 AM
CHAIR EDGMON stated that a CS for HB 266 is pending and thus
public testimony would be taken when it is before the committee
[HB 266 was held over.]
11:38:42 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:39
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 266--Eight Emails Opposed.PDF |
HFSH 2/16/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 266 |
| HB 266--Seven Emails in Support.PDF |
HFSH 2/16/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 266 |
| HB 266--Mark King Opposed.PDF |
HFSH 2/16/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 266 |
| HB 266--Wade Buscher Opposed.PDF |
HFSH 2/16/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 266 |
| HJR 43--Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFSH 2/16/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 43 |
| HJR43-HFSH--02-12-10 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HFSH 2/16/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 43 |
| HJR 43--UFA Marketing Coalition Proposal.PDF |
HFSH 2/16/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 43 |
| HJR 43--Salmon Marketing--McDowell Excerpts.PDF |
HFSH 2/16/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 43 |
| HJR 43--CRS S-K Funds Report.PDF |
HFSH 2/16/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 43 |
| HJR 43--ASMI Resolution.PDF |
HFSH 2/16/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 43 |
| HJR 43--Saltonstall-Kennedy Act.pdf |
HFSH 2/16/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 43 |
| HB 266--Jeff Phillips Opposed.PDF |
HFSH 2/16/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 266 |
| HB266--Ken Carlson Opposed.pdf |
HFSH 2/16/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 266 |
| HB 266--Bob Martinson Opposed.pdf |
HFSH 2/16/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 266 |
| HJR 43--UFA Support Letter.PDF |
HFSH 2/16/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 43 |
| HB 266--Sixteen Emails Opposed.PDF |
HFSH 2/16/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 266 |
| HB 266--Bill Black Opposed.pdf |
HFSH 2/16/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 266 |
| HB 266--Ken Adams Opposed.PDF |
HFSH 2/16/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 266 |