Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/28/2017 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR12 | |
| HB107 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 107 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 28, 2017
10:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Louise Stutes, Chair
Representative Zach Fansler
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative David Eastman
Representative Mark Neuman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 12
Opposing the United States Food and Drug Administration's
approval of AquaBounty AquAdvantage genetically engineered
salmon; and urging the United States Congress to enact
legislation that requires prominently labeling genetically
engineered products with the words "Genetically Modified" on the
product's packaging.
- MOVED CSHJR 12(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 107
"An Act relating to certain fish; and establishing a fisheries
enhancement permit."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 12
SHORT TITLE: OPPOSING GEN ENGINEERED SALMON
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TARR
02/22/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/17 (H) FSH, RES
02/28/17 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 107
SHORT TITLE: FISH ENHANCEMENT PERMITS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TALERICO
02/06/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/06/17 (H) FSH, RES
02/28/17 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE DAVE TALERICO
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 107, as prime sponsor.
ELIJAH VERHAGEN, Staff
Representative Dave Talerico
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 107, on behalf of
Representative Talerico, prime sponsor.
BRUCE CAIN
Glennallen, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 107.
ERIC GEBHART, Superintendent
Nenana City School District
Nenana, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 107.
WILL MAYO
Tanana Chief's Conference (TCC)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 107.
NANCY HILLSTRAND
Katchemak Bay, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 107.
PETE VELSKO
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 107.
MIKE MANN
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 107.
SAMUEL RABUNG, Section Chief
Private Non-Profit Hatchery and Aquatic Farming and Planning and
Permitting
Division of Commercial Fisheries (DCF)
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
107.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:02:34 AM
CHAIR LOUISE STUTES called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. Representatives
Stutes, Chenault, Fansler, Tarr, and Neuman were present at the
call to order. Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins and Eastman
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HJR 12-OPPOSING GEN ENGINEERED SALMON
10:03:32 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 12, Opposing the United States Food
and Drug Administration's approval of AquaBounty AquAdvantage
genetically engineered salmon; and urging the United States
Congress to enact legislation that requires prominently labeling
genetically engineered products with the words "Genetically
Modified" on the product's packaging.
10:03:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, as prime sponsor of HJR 12, began by saying
the proposed resolution would support efforts by Alaska U.S.
Senator Lisa Murkowski at the federal level. She began a
PowerPoint presentation and referred to Slide 2, entitled "Why
the need for HJR 12?" She stated that in November 2015, the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allowed genetically
modified (GM) salmon, which is the first time a GM animal has
been approved for human consumption. She expressed that she is
strongly opposed to this. The approval process used by the FDA
was the "veterinary drug" approval process. She maintained that
since the product is for human consumption, it is questionable
whether the veterinary drug approval process is the appropriate
process for considering this use of technology. She mentioned
that traditionally a different regulatory route would have been
utilized.
10:03:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR turned to Slide 3, entitled "What is GM
salmon?" She explained that the GM salmon approved by the FDA
is produced by adding the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) from two
different species of fish to Atlantic salmon. She identified
the two fish as follows: the ocean pout, shown on the left side
of the slide, is an eel-like fish that offers continuous growth
due to its natural life cycle; and the Chinook salmon, shown on
the right, is selected for its size. Consequently, the GM fish
grows bigger and faster.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR turned to Slide 4, entitled "How does it
work?" to illustrate the different growth rates. The goal is to
produce a salmon that grows to full size twice as fast.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved on to Slide 5, entitled "Why GM
Salmon?" She cited statements on the website of the company who
proposed GM salmon, AquaBounty, to point out that the actions of
the company were "never really about sustainability; this has
always just been about profit." She relayed the information on
the website, which read [original punctuation provided]: "The
innovative faster growing AquAdvantage Salmon, which would
shorten production cycles by half and drastically reduce feed
costs, could finally make land-based fish farming economically
viable." She commented that "we have to question ... the
difference between what's healthy for an ecosystem versus what
is an economic opportunity."
10:06:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to Slides 6 and 7 to illustrate
Alaskan salmon. She moved on to Slide 8, which portrays the
production environment of GM salmon: it is grown in an
industrial warehouse setting with land-based pens. She stated
that the proposal from AquAdvantage includes making the GM
salmon fish eggs on Prince Edward Island (PEI) in Canada;
growing them to size in Panama; and shipping the fish back to
the U.S. for market. She asserted that three different
countries are involved because of opposition [to GM salmon] from
other countries and the United States.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to Slide 9, entitled "Concerns
about GM salmon," and listed the concerns: threats to wild
salmon, risks to human health, and risk to the state economy.
She turned to Slide 10, entitled "Threat to Wild Salmon," and
relayed that escapement is always an issue. She mentioned that
the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) solicits reports
from fisherman who have caught farmed salmon, and she added
there have been many such reports.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to the map on Slide 11. She
relayed that she was invited by residents of PEI to the site
where the AquaBounty eggs would be produced; the residents were
concerned about the negative effects of being known as the home
of the "Frankenfish." She said the AquaBounty site was on the
bay leading to the St. Lawrence Seaway and on to the Atlantic
Ocean. She maintained that there are concerns about escapement
at that location, because of its proximity to a water body.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR turned to Slide 12 showing photographs of
her visit: the AquaBounty facility, which appears to be low
technology ("low-tech"); meeting with the Premier of PEI to ask
his opinion of the proposal; and local residents who have
expressed opposition to the proposal.
10:09:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved on to Slide 13, entitled "Threat to
Wild Salmon," and relayed the threats: GM salmon can spread
disease; GM salmon are more aggressive and can outcompete wild
salmon; and GM salmon can cross breed with wild fish. She
continued with Slide 14, which displayed screenshots of several
articles on the results of scientific studies on GM salmon. She
referred to the headline, "GM salmon can breed with trout and
harm ecosystem," and explained that scientists learned that GM
salmon can breed with trout, and the new fish which results can
outcompete both the GM salmon and the wild relative. She added
that the new, more aggressive fish could be very damaging to
natural ecosystems.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR continued with Slide 15, entitled "Risks to
Human Health." She mentioned that no long-term studies have
been conducted on the safety of human consumption of GM salmon.
Since the FDA used the veterinary drug approval process, it was
not necessary for it to consider the safety of human
consumption.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to Slide 16, entitled "Risk to
State's Economy," and reminded the committee of the dramatic
drop in the price of Alaskan wild salmon when farmed salmon came
onto the market. The state responded by creating the
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) and investing
tremendously in branding Alaska's wild salmon. She stated that
the state's marketing efforts have been very successful; Alaska
wild salmon is a widely recognized brand; and people consider
Alaska wild salmon to be a healthy source of protein. She
declared, "That creates a lot of value." She added that another
economic risk is the risk to Alaskan jobs, since the seafood
industry is the largest private sector employer with over 70,000
jobs.
10:11:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated that Alaskans are not alone in
opposing GM salmon and named the various sources of opposition
listed on Slide 17: Alaska's congressional delegation oppose GM
salmon; Senator Murkowski has been a leader and will be
introducing additional legislation on this matter; more than 40
members of the U.S. Congress oppose GM salmon; more than 1.5
million comments opposing GM salmon were received by the FDA in
the comment period; more than 90 percent of Americans support
labeling of GM foods reflecting greater public interest in the
source and healthfulness of food; and 65 retailers, many of them
major, will not sell GM salmon.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to Slide 18, "International
Opposition," to report that there have been lawsuits regarding
GM salmon; there is concern for the damage to wild salmon
populations on the East Coast of the U.S.; and there have been
dam removal projects on the West Coast of the U.S. to restore
traditional fish passage areas. She concluded that people are
working hard to support and sustain wild salmon populations.
10:14:01 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 10:14 a.m.
10:14:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to Slide 19, entitled "US Lawsuit
filed March 31." She mentioned the various groups and efforts
opposing GM foods and imposing regulations, especially on the
West Coast: legislators; Pacific NorthWest Economic Region
(PNWER); ballot initiatives in Canada, Washington, and Oregon;
and local ordinances opposing GM foods. She relayed that a
lawsuit was filed in the United States in March 2016; the
lawsuit went to court on Election Day last year; and no
judgement has been issued yet. The lawsuit claims the approval
process was not adequate in considering GM salmon a food source
for humans, and there are unanswered questions about ecological
impacts. She asserted that since salmon is so important to
Alaska - to its culture, its tradition, its communities, and to
the health of Alaskans - "we should stand together as we have in
the past and say 'No' and stand together in opposition of GM
salmon."
10:16:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT asked if HJR 12 addresses only GM fish
and no other products.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied, "Yes, that is correct."
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT relayed that the proposed resolution
states that more than two million Americans are opposed to the
FDA approval [of GM salmon]. He mentioned that Representative
Tarr testified that about 1.5 million people had submitted
testimony during the FDA comment period.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that one of the numbers reflects
the individual comments received, and a single comment may
represent many signatures on a petition.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT asked for confirmation of his
understanding of the GM salmon production process: the eggs are
incubated on PEI, then moved to Panama for rearing.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered, "That is the proposal that's been
approved. It requires the three countries' involvement: the
eggs in one location; the growing the fish in Panama; and then,
for sale in the United States."
10:18:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT asked for more clarification regarding
the danger a [fish] egg poses. He mentioned that the discussion
has addressed concern for the eggs growing into bigger fish and
destroying what is left of the [wild] Atlantic salmon. He said
eggs are not usually released into the wild and grown, thus he
questioned the concern about the facility being on PEI, the
movement of eggs to Panama, and the shipment of the fish back to
the U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied that the concern is that the process
includes early stage development, and there is opposition to
interbreeding with wild [salmon] populations. She maintained
that there is concern that Panama environmental standards would
not be the same as those in the U.S. She asked, "Is the
likelihood of escapement low?" She attested that it probably is
low because of the [prevention] measures put in place. She said
she didn't want to suggest negligence on the part of Panama;
however, she maintained that the threat is real. She stated
that the McGill [University] study that she referred to on Slide
14 [Oke KB, Westley PAH, Moreau DTR, Fleming IA. 2013
Hybridization between genetically modified Atlantic salmon and
wild brown trout reveal novel ecological interactions. Proc.
Royal Society B] was published just after the closing of the
comment period for the proposal. She relayed that she wrote to
the FDA asking that it consider this recent research report.
She asserted that the dynamic of the conversation on the
proposal changed once there was research showing that
interbreeding occurred, and that interbreeding was problematic.
10:20:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if the sponsor would consider
adding "salmon" after the word "engineered" on line 3, page 1,
of the resolution. He stated that the resulting phrase would
read, "urging the United States Congress to enact legislation
that requires prominently labeling genetically engineered salmon
products". He maintained that "GM products" is difficult to
define; if the resolution was limited to salmon, it may receive
more support.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that is a great suggestion, which
had been considered. She explained that the proposed resolution
reflects the broader labeling legislation efforts by Congress;
however, since the intent of Alaska's resolution is to be
specific to salmon, she said she did not have a problem with
limiting the resolution to salmon.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for more information about what
happens if a fertilized salmon egg escapes the PEI facility:
Would the salmon egg grow naturally and result in a salmon or
would that be less likely due to the genetic engineering?
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that the way the proposal is
written, it is specific to certain life stages, and that is what
has been approved by the FDA. She added that the PEI facility
has more than just the eggs that will be used for the GM fish,
which is the concern of the local residents. She stated that
AquaBounty has proposals for several other species. She
maintained that there is a lack of confidence in their work, and
the people she contacted want to take every precautionary
measure.
10:23:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that based on the public concern
for the proposal, placing the facility near a water body was
particularly unreceptive to that concern. He maintained that
there are more appropriate locations.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said that she totally agrees with
Representative Eastman. She stated that AquaBounty was at one
time based in Massachusetts and wanted to locate the facility in
that state. She relayed that the local community refused, which
lead to the company changing locations. She opined that having
three countries involved in the production of a product makes
regulation more challenging and the public less comfortable with
the process.
10:25:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1,
which would be to limit the proposed resolution to GM salmon.
He opined that due to the many definitions of "genetically
engineered," it would be subject to additional criticism.
10:25:23 AM
CHAIR STUTES objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR declared that she is not opposed to the
offered conceptual amendment. She suggested that the proposed
resolution specify "genetically engineered salmon or salmon
products".
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he concurred with Representative
Tarr's suggestion.
10:25:50 AM
CHAIR STUTES removed her objection to Conceptual Amendment 1,
[as amended]. There being no further objection, Conceptual
Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted.
10:26:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT clarified that the committee's action
was the adoption of Representative Eastman's conceptual
amendment, as amended by Representative Tarr's addition of
"salmon or salmon products".
10:26:24 AM
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony on HJR 12. After
ascertaining that there was no one who wished to testify, she
closed public testimony.
10:26:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his appreciation of the
action and advocacy on the issue addressed by HJR 12.
10:27:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER moved to report HJR 12, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR
12(FSH) was reported from the House Special Committee on
Fisheries.
10:27:51 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:28 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
HB 107-FISH ENHANCEMENT PERMITS
10:30:13 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 107, "An Act relating to certain fish; and
establishing a fisheries enhancement permit."
10:30:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DAVE TALERICO, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 107, stated that HB 107 is a fish fertilization
enhancement bill. He maintained that the permit proposed in HB
107 could boost fish egg fertilization rates - from the 5
percent occurring in nature to 95 percent using incubation. He
mentioned that fish eggs would be collected, fertilized,
incubated, hatched, and released back as unfed fry into the same
water from whence they came. He opined that releasing the fry
into the original water would make the process as natural as
possible. He stated that fish incubation is not new; it has
been done in many areas for 40 years. He maintained that the
proposed legislation would clarify the statutes regarding permit
requirements. He offered that HB 107 would facilitate fish
fertilization enhancement projects as a collaborative effort -
undertaken by the private sector, but under the auspices of the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G). He maintained that
there would be quite a few requirements for the permit and the
permit holder that would preclude an unqualified person
receiving a permit.
10:32:55 AM
ELIJAH VERHAGEN, Staff, Representative Dave Talerico, Alaska
State Legislature, presented HB 107 on behalf of Representative
Talerico, prime sponsor. He referred to AS 16.05.050(a)(5),
which states that one of the duties of the commissioner of ADF&G
is to propagate fish and fish populations. He relayed that
ADF&G has offered fish enhancement permits like those proposed
under HB 107: permits for educational purposes in schools and
universities, and for scientific research. He said that these
permits are available to tribes, government agencies, and
various other entities through cooperative agreements with
ADF&G. He stated that none of the education or science permits
are outlined in statute. He maintained that the proposed
legislation would outline in statute a fish fertilization and
enhancement permit and put these permits under the management
and scrutiny of ADF&G.
MR. VERHAGEN stated that pages 2 and 3 of HB 107 list the
information that would be required on the application for a
permit: the reason the applicant wishes to conduct fish
fertilization; the type of fish that would be collected; the
number of fish that would be collected; and the agreements that
are in place with local shareholders around fish collection. He
maintained that the information requested on the application is
very similar to that which is required for the education and
science permits; however, HB 107 would allow people and
corporations to obtain permits for the simple reason that they
need more fish. He relayed that in many of the rivers in State
House District 6 in the Interior, ADG&G does not have the
resources to perform fish counts and does not have escapement
goals; however, local residents have reported a great reduction
of fish over the years.
MR. VERHAGEN related that meeting all the conditions of the
application would be difficult; therefore, permits would not be
readily available to everyone. He reiterated that the fish
propagation process addressed in HB 107 would be a natural
process: it would not involve fish farming; it would simply
boost the fertilization rate from the 5 percent in nature up to
roughly 94 percent; the unfed fish would be released back into
the water; there would be a ten-day window for them to become
emergent fry fish; and they would return to the same watershed.
He claimed that the fish would be "as natural as possible." He
maintained that the process would boost the salmon population
and maximize the resource, as called for in the Alaska State
Constitution.
10:37:40 AM
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony on HB 107.
10:38:00 AM
BRUCE CAIN testified that he works for Ahtna, Incorporated
(Ahtna) as special projects manager, serves on the Prince
William Sound Aquaculture Corporation (PWSAC) board of
directors, and is president of the Copper Valley Chamber of
Commerce, but he is speaking on his own behalf. He expressed
his support for HB 107. He relayed an incident that occurred in
1971 when he was 14 years old: He was working on the docks in
Auke Bay in Juneau at a fish buying station. The business
served hand trollers and a fleet of commercial fishermen. It
was before limited entry, before the 200-mile limit, and before
any hatcheries. He mentioned that at the time, there were no
fish. He relayed that a gentleman, about 70 years old, returned
to the dock with three fish after having fished all week. The
man earned about $23 for his fish. When he put 100 gallons of
diesel fuel into his boat for $30, there wasn't enough money
from the fish to pay for the fuel. It was a very sad, but
defining moment for Mr. Cain as a 14-year-old boy and inspired
him to be committed to increasing fish populations.
MR. CAIN relayed that much was done in that regard: setting the
200-mile limit; forming the Division of Fisheries
Rehabilitation, Enhancement, and Development (FRED) in ADF&G;
building the hatchery system; and enacting limited entry. He
mentioned that he could not have imagined back then that there
would be so many fish one day that people would worry about the
effects of hatcheries. He relayed that he has lived in
Glennallen in the Copper River Basin for many years,
participated in the commercial fishery, participated in the
personal use fishery, sport fished, and subsistence fished. He
asserted that the Gulkana Hatchery is a "big blessing" for his
region, which uses incubation boxes. The facility was built by
Ken Roberson, a state biologist, from donated fish totes,
gravel, and plywood. This large sockeye salmon facility keeps
the river healthy. This year there has been a very low king
salmon run on the Copper River, which has prompted state
restrictions. He maintained that the incubation system has
worked well on the Copper River for many years.
MR. CAIN encouraged the committee to support HB 107. He
maintained the [incubation] process could be used to restore
salmon that has been lost due to highway construction and other
activities, and he mentioned that it would be good to try it on
the Yukon River.
10:44:46 AM
ERIC GEBHART, Superintendent, Nenana City School District,
testified that he supports HB 107. He mentioned that he had
experience with fish enhancement in Kake. He relayed that his
current school district has the capacity through the education
permit to engage in fish enhancement projects, but he asserted
that HB 107 would encourage more people to participate in these
activities and the schools could provide an education component.
He maintained that the impact of education is greater through
partnerships with science and fisheries; increased fish
enhancement projects would have a positive effect on the fish
populations; and education of youth would help to sustain the
enhancement projects into the future.
10:47:09 AM
MR. VERHAGEN relayed that his office is excited that Mr. Gebhart
has had experience in fish enhancement and is working toward
doing more of this in his school district. He emphasized the
value of youth participating in the incubation and fertilization
of fish eggs and observing the entire process from beginning to
end. He expressed his hope that for these young minds, the
"excitement and potential" that could stem from this education
would culminate in pursuing education and careers in the field
of fish propagation.
10:50:03 AM
WILL MAYO, Tanana Chief's Conference (TCC), testified that he
supports HB 107. He relayed that he has spent much time on the
Yukon River and the primary "eating" fish in the area was the
king salmon. He stated that due to depletion of the king salmon
population, there have been limitations placed on king salmon
harvest. He maintained that he has witnessed no activity in the
fish camps along the river, which deprives the young people of
the education that the salmon harvest offers them. He stated
that TCC wants to help maintain robust wild salmon stocks; it
employs a scientific program; and it wants to develop the
capacity to address future needs. He said that as resources
diminish, the people diminish, because they are dependent on
their rural economies; the rural economy is the wild resource
economy.
MR. MAYO maintained that discreet salmon populations need
assistance in most regions of the state; a permit process
tailored to restoring wild salmon is what is needed and what is
lacking today. He said that ADF&G permits are not adequate for
the task of restoring wild salmon: they are designed for
research and education; they are limited; or they are for
conventional hatcheries. He maintained that HB 107 would create
a process for restoring discreet wild salmon populations using
guidelines and clear oversight by ADF&G based on good science
and proven practices. He asserted that HB 107 represents a
conservative approach to assure that wild salmon are kept wild:
they are not pen-fed fish; they are not conventional hatchery
fish; and they are returned to their river of origin. He added
that HB 107 speaks to the importance of collaboration, data
collection, and education within the process of restoration of
wild salmon stocks. He said that TCC finds the proposed
legislation necessary to fill a niche that is currently not
filled; the current permits have been unreliable for this
effort. He asserted that HB 107 would allow the state to
proceed with a program to assist wild stocks.
10:54:59 AM
NANCY HILLSTRAND testified that she has 21 years' experience as
a fish culturist of five species of salmon and two species of
trout, and she opposes HB 107. She said that although it is
well intentioned, Alaska can "go wrong" with enhancement and has
multiple times. She asserted that HB 107 would be dangerous
legislation for Alaska's wild spawning salmon resource. She
maintained that the danger lies in multiple people handling the
fish with no oversight. She mentioned that ADF&G does not have
the resources to do the proper oversight that would be needed.
She stated that the simple act of "adding fish" has
consequences. She claimed that HB 107 is a "Band-Aid" approach
to underlying symptoms affecting distinct stock.
MS. HILLSTRAND referred to an excerpt of a sentence in the
sponsor statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]: "Although the Dept. of Fish & Game is currently not
counting the fish population in many rivers in our interior
district such as the Nenana, Tanana and upper Yukon rivers ... "
and testified, "That's what we need." She asserted that Alaska
needs more focus on these areas to learn "what is going on" and
to get the Board of Fisheries "on-board" to make sure it is
aware of what is transpiring in these areas.
MS. HILLSTRAND stated that in the last couple years, Chinook
salmon has been slowly rebounding; the North Pacific [Fishery]
Management Council (NPFMC) has placed caps on the huge bycatch
of Chinook in the Bering Sea. She relayed NPFMC's statement as
follows: "The majority, 64 percent, of Chinook salmon bycatch
in the Bering Sea is from aggregate coastal Western Alaska
stock, which includes rivers from Norton Sound to Bristol Bay,
including Yukon and Kuskokwim." She expressed that these are
symptoms and there are multiple symptoms causing problems with
salmon. She offered that the bycatch caps do seem to be helping
the salmon rebound, but she opined that Alaska needs to monitor
the distinct stocks in the upper tributaries and take care of
its wild fish before altering them with any type of enhancement.
She stated that as a fish culturist, she is very concerned; she
witnessed fish hatcheries evolving from what was considered an
enhancement to a factory production costing the state millions
and millions of dollars. She emphasized that the state needs to
"slow down," look at the habitat, determine why ADF&G is not
paying more attention to the habitat and the food web
interactions. She reiterated that Alaska does not need a Band-
Aid but needs to study the symptoms.
10:57:53 AM
PETE VELSKO testified that he supports HB 107 and referenced a
letter sent to the committee detailing his experience. He
mentioned that he began working with ADF&G at the Tutka Bay
Hatchery in Homer in 1976. He said when the hatchery was
transferred to the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association (CIAA), he
was transferred to Nome, which was having problems with chum
salmon. He was sent to Nome to test in-stream incubation boxes
to determine the feasibility of putting them in area streams to
help rebuild the run. He worked from 1991 to 1997 under FRED in
Nome. His job was to try to implement small scale salmon
restoration enhancement projects for 15 villages in the Norton
Sound area and it included educational programs in the schools.
Nome had a very active high school incubation project.
MR. VELSKO stated that in 1993-1994, FRED was combined with the
Division of Commercial Fisheries (DCF) [ADF&G] due to budget
cuts. As a result, the salmon restoration and enhancement
projects in Nome became very low priority and were abandoned.
He stated that the need for these projects was real and people
wanted to see them continued. He maintained that the
disappearance of FRED left a void not readily filled by the
private non-profit (PNP) aquaculture associations or by CFD. He
maintained that the PNPs are in the business of producing large
numbers of fish, primarily for commercial fisherman located
along the coast, and DCF focuses on managing fish, as opposed to
producing fish. He said that his question is: "Who's out there
to assist the more rural villages who might want help increasing
salmon opportunities in those areas?" He opined that HB 107
might be a "step in the right direction."
MR. VELSKO summarized by saying that he was doing the kind of
work in Nome that he believes HB 107 would do. He said that all
the villages in the area were very enthusiastic and helpful in
providing him with good information. He maintained that to
check the feasibility of chum salmon in Nome, "you've got to
complete the experiment." He added that when FRED was combined
with DCF, the project was not finished. He stated that the
incubation boxes did produce salmon - as much as 70 percent on
one incubator - but because the experiment was never completed,
he does not know the return of fish. He maintained that more
than one life cycle is needed to see if such an experiment is
working.
11:03:22 AM
MIKE MANN testified that he has been fishing for 55 years
throughout Southeast, Bristol Bay, Cook Inlet, and areas outside
of Alaska; he was a board member of the Douglas Island Pink and
Chum (DIPAC) Macaulay Salmon Hatchery for ten years; and he was
president of the United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG)
Association. He stated that he supports HB 107 because he
supports the actions by DIPAC and the Northern Southeast
Regional Aquaculture Association (NSRAA). He expressed his
belief that the communities can prove, with the help of the
experts at the hatcheries, that the fish enhancement is being
done correctly. He maintained that one can identify the run
entry program where it is being intercepted. The personnel at
DIPAC invented a way to identify the specific fish from a
specific area, so that fish following the Japanese current and
coming into Icy Straits or by Noyes Island can be easily
identified. They know where the fish are going, where they
belong, and who is catching them; therefore, appropriate
regulations can be put into place for commercial fishing.
MR. MANN mentioned that he was involved with incubation boxes
for sockeye salmon, spawning channels on the Chilkat River, and
incubation boxes throughout the tributaries of the Chilkat
River. He maintained that these activities have been very
successful [for fish enhancement] and asserted that fish
enhancement is important for other communities. He said that
once there are large numbers of fish coming back to the river
systems that can handle it, the state will do well not only in
commercial fishing, but in sport fishing and personal use
fishing, as well. He suggested that GM fish are emerging
because of the popularity of salmon in the world and the desire
to make money from that. He maintained that Alaska is becoming
the "number one place in the world" [for salmon] and should
recognize and take advantage of that.
11:07:55 AM
CHAIR STUTES, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 107.
11:08:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked for someone from ADF&G to respond to
the concern that an unqualified individual might do fish
enhancement and to speak to the qualifications of someone
receiving a permit.
11:09:01 AM
SAM RABUNG, Section Chief, Private Non-Profit Hatchery and
Aquatic Farming and Planning and Permitting, responded that the
provisions [for receiving a permit] are stringent and the
requirements are designed for applicants who are not amateurs.
He stated that the permits would be subject to ADF&G genetics
policies, fish health policies, sustainable escapement goal
policies, sustainable salmon fisheries policies - all the
existing guidance ADF&G currently has for permits; therefore,
nothing amateurish would be allowed to proceed.
11:09:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked if Mr. Rabung regarded HB 107 as an
opportunity for a public-private partnership because more work
is needed to have more fish, but the state is not able to
support that work alone. The state would still regulate the
activity, but private dollars would infuse the effort.
MR. RABUNG answered that there is nothing in HB 107 that gives
ADF&G a permitting authority that it does not already have. He
said that ADF&G crafts the enhancement or restoration projects
as research under the Fish Resource Permit (FRP) policy, which
is for scientific and educational objectives; this research
involves studying the efficacy of this technique to restore
salmon runs. He opined that the supporters of the proposed
legislation want it clearly defined in statute that they can
conduct this fish enhancement activity. He added that he did
not expect a rush of applicants for new projects; the proposals
would be well thought out; and there are provisions in the
proposed legislation that require considerable pre-work before
permits are awarded. He offered that a permit would only be
awarded if stakeholders and ADF&G deemed it appropriate.
11:11:53 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked if ADF&G has the funds to oversee this
program.
MR. RABUNG replied that ADF&G views the proposed legislation as
having a zero fiscal note, because the permits fall within a
category that ADF&G already processes. He offered that the
proposed legislation requires the permit holder to be
responsible for collecting the data; it is a stakeholder-driven,
user-paid approach.
11:12:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated that Alaska's current fish
enhancement and hatchery development policy seeks to segregate
wild fish from hatchery fish to avoid interbreeding, and
activity under HB 107 would not. She asked Mr. Rabung for his
response to that concern.
MR. RABUNG responded that the PNP program is a different model
altogether; it is large scale fishery enhancement designed to
enhance fisheries, not fish populations. He said that by
definition, it is designed to produce additional harvestable
surplus paid for by the commercial fleet and for the benefit of
the commercial fleet. He added that the PNP programs were
designed to have terminal harvest areas; the fish would return
to where they would not have significant interaction with
natural spawning stocks. He reiterated that fish enhancement
under the proposed legislation is a different model; it is
referred to as rehabilitation or restoration, as opposed to
fishery enhancement; and it is designed to restore existing fish
populations to the higher levels of the past.
11:14:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER asked the sponsor of HB 107 if he would
be opposed to a friendly amendment substituting the term
"enhancement" with the term "rehabilitation".
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO agreed that "rehabilitation" would be
the correct term.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER suggested that the change may make the
intent of the proposed legislation clearer and avoid a
misunderstanding among the public.
11:15:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked if ADF&G supports HB 107.
MR. RABUNG answered that ADF&G's position on HB 107 is neutral.
11:16:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed his concern that the use of the
term "rehabilitation" might fail to communicate to ADF&G that
the committee supports anything that would help increase maximum
yield of the resource. He said that even if Alaska's fish
production level has never been at the point Alaska wants it to
be, that doesn't mean Alaska should not try to achieve it.
11:16:55 AM
CHAIR STUTES stated an amendment would be drafted to accommodate
all [suggestions].
11:17:14 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced HB 107 was held over.
11:17:26 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:17
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR012 Sponsor Statement 2.22.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 ver A 2.22.17.PDF |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Fiscal Note LEG-SESS-02-23-17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - Alaska Trollers Association 2.27.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - Southeast Alaska Fishermen's Alliance 2.27.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - Petersburg Vessel Owners Association 2.27.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - Southeast Alaska Seiners Association 2.27.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - United Fishermen of Alaska.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters 2.27.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document-Alaska Dispatch News Article 2.22.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document-Reps. Young and Defazio 2.22.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document-Sen. Murkowski 2.22.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HB107 Sponsor Statement 2.8.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Sectional Analysis 2.8.2017.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB107 Ver O.PDF |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Fiscal Note DFG-DCF-02-24-17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Additional Documentation. Considerations for Salmon Restoration Planning.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Additional Documents, Josephson Permitting process letter.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Additional Documentation. Egg Survival Rate Comparrison.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Gulkana Incubation Picture.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Moist air incubator picture.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Support ADN Article.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Support Copper Valley Chamber of Commerce.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Support Doyon 2.14.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Support Mentasta Council.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Support Nenana City School District 2.16.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Support Pete Velsko.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Sectional Analysis 2.8.2017.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 107 |
| HJR012 Support UFA.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document - Presentation House Resources Committee 3.12.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |