Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/01/2018 11:00 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 | |
| Presentation by John Jensen, Chairman, Board of Fisheries | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 1, 2018
11:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Louise Stutes, Chair
Representative David Eastman
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Mike Chenault
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Zach Fansler
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: BOARD OF FISHERIES
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN JENSEN, Chairman
Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF)
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a presentation on the Board of
Fisheries' (BOF) role and process.
ACTION NARRATIVE
11:07:45 AM
CHAIR LOUISE STUTES called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 11:07 a.m. Representatives
Eastman and Stutes were present at the call to order.
Representatives Chenault and Kreiss-Tomkins arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
^Presentation by John Jensen, Chairman, Board of Fisheries
Presentation by John Jensen, Chairman, Board of Fisheries
11:08:47 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the only order of business would be
a Presentation by John Jensen, Chairman of the Alaska Board of
Fisheries (BOF), on the board's role and its general process.
11:09:20 AM
JOHN JENSEN, Chairman, Alaska Board of Fisheries, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game, turned to slide 2, titled
"Presentation Outline" which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Function and composition of Board
?Steps in board process
?Input on board decisions
?Public
?Agency
?Legal and policy factors
?Statutes and regulations
?Policies and findings
?Getting involved
11:10:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked about the Board of Fisheries' (BOF)
workload. Based on Mr. Jensen's experience, he asked if he
thought the board's workload has recently increased or has
stayed the same.
MR JENSEN answered that the workload has "pretty much" stayed
the same during the 15 years he has served on the board. He
explained that the BOF considers a different area of the state
every three years with the Upper Cook Inlet area meeting taking
12 to 14 days to complete. The board recently met in Sitka to
consider Southeast Alaska shellfish and finfish and that meeting
also took 14 days to complete, he said. He concluded that board
meetings seem to be holding steady.
11:11:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that a meeting ranging from 7
to 14 days can be fatiguing for anyone. He asked if the BOF has
discussed the possibility of regional boards to reduce the
workload.
MR. JENSEN answered that he has not heard much about that idea.
He recalled that it was previously discussed. He thought
perhaps Governor Hammond had suggested regional boards to assist
the board, but the idea never went anywhere.
11:11:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked about the idea of having the BOF
operate on a five-year cycle as opposed to the current three-
year cycle.
MR JENSEN said he has heard a lot about that idea; however, he
thought it would cause more emergency petitions and agenda
change requests.
11:12:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked which of the following two options
would be better: changing to a 5-year cycle or establishing
regional boards.
MR. JENSEN answered that he does not like either of the two
options. He said he thinks that the regional board concept is a
good one to consider; however, he would have to know more about
it before he could form an opinion.
11:13:17 AM
MR. JENSEN reviewed slide 3, titled "Main function of the Board:
Allocation" which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
The third element of Alaska's fisheries management
model is the Alaska Board of Fisheries?The Board
members?appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the
legislature, represent a broad array of fishing groups
and other interests. By taking on the task of
resolving fishery disputes, the Board takes the
politically-charged issue of allocation away from the
fishery managers and politicians.?.The separation of
allocation and conservation decisions is critical for
achieving sustainable fisheries in the state and
elsewhere ?
MR. JENSEN said the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
does not want to allocate fish in its fisheries' management
role. Further, the [state's] founding fathers decided to remove
it from the legislature's authority, he stated.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he was curious about the meaning of
the board's determination that "a stock has been fully
allocated."
MR. JENSEN answered that when "a stock is fully allocated" it
means that all the user groups, including commercial,
subsistence, personal use, and sport fishery groups are catching
the amount available to catch.
11:14:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN related his understanding that "fully
allocated" would mean all the fish have been broken down to
various user groups.
MR. JENSEN answered yes; that was an appropriate way to put it.
He acknowledged that salmon runs fluctuate, with big years and
small years. He said that if the available surplus is harvested
it means it has been fully utilized.
11:15:14 AM
MR. JENSEN reviewed slide 4, titled "Board Composition" which
read, in part, as follows:
The Board of Fisheries composed of seven members
appointed by the Governor, subject to confirmation by
a majority of the members of the legislature in joint
session.
The Governor shall appoint each member on the basis of
interest in public affairs, good judgment, knowledge,
and ability in the field of action of the board, and
with a view to providing diversity of interest and
points of view in the membership.
The appointed members shall be residents of the state
and shall be appointed without regard to political
affiliation or geographical location of residence.
MR. JENSEN referred to the graphics on the slide and stated that
the governor appoints board members by April 1, the legislature
confirms members after conducting joint session hearings, with
the BOF comprised of seven members who serve staggered 3-year
terms starting July 1.
11:15:50 AM
MR. JENSEN reviewed slide 5, titled "Major Steps in Proposal
Process" which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
1. Call for Proposals
2. Distribution of Proposals
3. Public Review and Comment
4. Board Regulatory Meeting
5. Implementation
MR. JENSEN explained that individuals must submit proposals by
April 10 or the closest weekday to that date. The proposals are
then compiled, booklets are distributed, and the board's support
staff oversees the public review and comment period. The board
typically holds three to four meetings per year. It takes up to
90 days to implement any regulations [adopted by the board], he
said.
11:16:42 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked whether proposals are accepted at the meeting
or must they be made in advance.
MR. JENSEN answered that the proposals must be submitted by
April 10, in advance of the October board meeting, which is
considered a "work session." The board meets officially in
December. He recalled that this year the board took up Prince
William Sound proposals in Valdez. He described an "agenda
change request (ACR)" as another way to submit proposals for
board consideration. The ACRs must be submitted by August and
each is reviewed during the board's October work session to
determine whether the proposal meets the board's criteria and if
so, the board subsequently schedules the proposal in the meeting
cycle for that year.
CHAIR STUTES asked how far in advance the board's agenda is
posted.
MR. JENSEN answered that typically the board plans its venues
and schedules two years in advance.
11:18:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for further clarification as to the
reason why a proposal would be due by April but not be
considered until the October meeting.
MR. JENSEN answered that this allows time for the board's
support staff to compile and organize the proposals for the
following year; and to allow the public an opportunity to submit
comments.
11:19:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for the number of ACRs and if they
are typically frequent or rare.
MR. JENSEN recalled that this year the board considered 15 ACRs
during its October work session meeting and this year perhaps
six emergency petitions were acted on.
11:19:40 AM
MR. JENSEN reviewed slide 6, titled "Board of Fisheries 3-Year
Meeting Cycle" which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Meeting Cycle: 2017/2018, 2020/2021, etc.
Area (Species):
Southeast/Yakutat Areas (All Finfish, Shellfish)
Prince William Sound Area (All Finfish)
Dungeness Crab, Shrimp, and Miscellaneous
Shellfish (Statewide)
Meeting Cycle: 2018/2019, 2021/2022, etc.
Area (Species):
Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Island/Chignik/Bering
Sea Areas (All Finfish)
Arctic/Yukon/Kuskokwim Areas (All Finfish)
Bristol Bay Area (All Finfish)
Statewide Provisions (Finfish)
Meeting Cycle: 2019/2020, 2022/2023, etc.
Area (Species):
Cook Inlet Area (All Finfish)
Kodiak Areas (All Finfish)
King and Tanner Crab (Statewide)
Board of Fisheries 3-Year Meeting Cycle
MR. JENSEN commented that the board holds its statewide meeting
in Anchorage in mid-March.
11:20:14 AM
MR. JENSEN reviewed the "proposal form" on slide 7. He
explained that the submitter must identify the regulation he/she
would like changed, the user type, the area, the issue the
submitter would like addressed, the reason why, and any
recommended solution. He explained that the form can be
submitted by individuals or groups.
11:20:50 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked whether the form is available online.
MR. JENSEN answered yes.
11:20:54 AM
MR. JENSEN discussed slide 8, titled "Source of Proposal for the
2017/2018 Meeting Cycle" which consisted of a pie-chart graph
depicting the percentage of proposals submitted by group for the
2017/2018 meeting. He reported the number of proposals
submitted to the board, including fishery groups and
associations, 47; federal regional advisory councils, 2; tribal
governments or organizations, 9; and BOF, 5. The BOF proposals
refer to the ACRs considered during the board's work session
that resulted in proposals. He continued identifying the
numbers of proposals submitted, including the ADF&G, 37;
individuals, 112; and local fish and game advisory committees,
20.
11:21:34 AM
MR. JENSEN referred to slide 9, titled "Board Regulatory
Meeting" which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Typical agenda for board meetings
?Introductions
?Ethics disclosures
?ADF&G staff reports
?Oral public testimony (up to two days)
?Committee of the Whole or committees
?Deliberation on proposals
?Miscellaneous Business
11:21:48 AM
CHAIR STUTES referred to the previous slide [8]. She asked for
an example of an "individual proposal."
MR. JENSEN recalled an individual proposal considered at the
Sitka hearing, that a woman requested that the board put annual
limits on non-residents for black cod in Southeast Alaska. The
board deliberated and adopted the proposal, which will limit
non-residents to eight black cod annually, he said.
CHAIR STUTES remarked that the board clearly has a public
process and the public can make a difference.
MR. JENSEN answered yes. He remarked that he likes to allow
everyone an opportunity to speak twice and encourages user
groups to work out solutions. He recalled a meeting in which
the board had anticipated it would be "really in a battle over
the user groups" of seine, troll and gillnet fisheries. By the
time the board got to deliberations, the groups had already met,
resolved issues, dropped some proposals, and had agreed on the
approach to take for the next three years. He remarked that
since he lives in that area, he cannot participate in the
deliberations on any proposals from Sitka.
11:23:36 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked whether board members find conflict of
interest issues difficult. She related her understanding of why
the member declaring a conflict of interest cannot vote;
however, she wondered if excluding board members during
discussions was counterproductive.
MR. JENSEN agreed, noting that his expertise is the reason he
serves on the board. He suggested that Chair Stutes was the
sponsor of a bill that would allow board members who declared a
conflict to deliberate and not vote, which would be beneficial
to the board [if the passed]. He said he was excluded from
participating in 53 of 145 proposals before the board this year
since either he or his family members participate in fisheries
affected by the proposals.
MR. JENSEN continued to the discuss slide 9 and directed the
committee's attention to the fifth bullet "Committee of the
Whole process or committees." He stated that the committee of
the whole process was new during his time on the board and that
it is working well. He continued that the committee of whole
process allowed everyone to speak again, but that it is limited
to new information and intended for the resolution of complex
issues. He recalled at the last meeting eight groups of
proposals were discussed and deliberated. The last item would
be to discuss miscellaneous business, which could be carried
over to the next meeting, if necessary.
11:26:07 AM
MR. JENSEN referred to slide 10, titled "Proposal Outcomes," and
to a chart titled "Board of Fisheries Proposal Outcome 2016/2017
Meeting Cycle." This chart shows the outcome of proposals,
including that approximately 36.2 percent passed, 27 percent had
no action since similar proposals were acted on, and some were
amended, [or failed].
MR. JENSEN referred to slide 11, titled "Sources of Public
Input" which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
?General public
?Local governments
?Tribal groups, village councils
?Fishery groups and associations
?Industry groups
?Local fish and game advisory committees
(84 statewide)
MR. JENSEN said he advises everyone who testifies that their
testimony provides the most valuable input for the board. He
characterized public participation as being paramount for good
outcomes.
11:27:33 AM
MR. JENSEN referred to slide 12, titled "Local Fish and Game
Advisory Committees," and to the table listing local fish and
game advisory committees (advisory committees) by community. He
reported that the 84 advisory committees stretch throughout the
state, including [9] committees in the Arctic region, and [15]
in the Interior region. He commented that he considers the
advisory committees as very valuable resources.
11:27:52 AM
MR. JENSEN referred to slide 13, titled, "Sources of Agency
Input" which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game
Commercial Fisheries Division
Sport Fish Division
Subsistence Division
Dept. of Law
Dept. Public Safety/Division of Alaska Wildlife
Troopers
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
North Pacific Fishery Management Council (federal)
Office of Subsistence Management (federal)
MR. JENSEN remarked that the board also manages a crab fishery
in the Bering Sea for the federal government.
11:28:30 AM
MR. JENSEN referred to slide 14, titled, "Legal and Policy
Considerations (for Board decisions)" which listed the
authorities for board decisions, including the Alaska
Constitution, international treaties, court rulings, board
regulations and policies, and Alaska statutes.
11:28:49 AM
MR. JENSEN referred to slide 15, titled "Alaska Constitution"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other
replenishable resources belonging to the State shall
be utilized, developed, and maintained on the
sustained yield principle, subject to preferences
among beneficial uses
(Article 8, Section 4)
11:29:01 AM
MR. JENSEN reviewed slides 16-17, titled "Alaska Statutes" and
"Alaska Statutes (cont.)" which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
?Board of Fisheries Authority (AS 16.05.221;
AS 16.05.251)
"Conservation and Development"
?Powers and Duties of the Commissioner (AS 16.05.050
?Alaska Administrative Procedures Act (AS 44.62)
Open Meetings Act (AS 44.62.310)
?Executive Branch Ethics Act (AS 39.52)
Alaska Statutes (cont.)
?Allocation Criteria (AS 16.05.251(e) and #91-129-FB),
including -
?history of each fishery
?number of participants
?importance for personal and family consumption
?availability of alternative resources
?importance in local, regional, and state economy
?importance for providing recreational
opportunity
?Management of Wild and Enhanced Stocks (AS 16.05.730)
?State Subsistence Law (AS 16.05.258)
MR. JENSEN pointed out that the board frequently uses the
allocation criteria in AS 16.05.251(e) for guidance.
11:29:53 AM
MR. JENSEN directed attention to the flowchart on slide 18,
titled "Determining Subsistence Uses," which describes the
decision process for determining subsistence uses. He said that
the board uses the flowchart to ensure that the subsistence laws
are applied appropriately.
MR. JENSEN reviewed the first item, which read, "Is the fish
stock or game population in a Nonsubsistence Area?" If the
answer is no, it leads to the next block, which read "Is there a
Customary and Traditional use?" He said there is almost always
customary and traditional use. If yes, it leads to the next
block that read, "Is there a harvestable surplus?" He explained
that the board considers the health of the stock and determines
whether a harvestable surplus is available. The next step is
"What is the amount reasonably necessary for subsistence uses?"
The board makes that finding with the assistance of the
[Division] of Subsistence, noting that the board uses a range
instead of setting a specific amount. He added that subsistence
users were usually within the established range. He read the
next three flowchart boxes, "Harvestable surplus allows for all
or some uses;" "Harvestable surplus allows for only subsistence
uses;" and "Harvestable surplus not sufficient to allow for all
subsistence uses." He directed attention to the third one,
"Harvestable surplus not sufficient to allow for all subsistence
uses," which means that the board must [adopt] a Tier II use.
He recalled that since he has served on the board this has
happened once, in Nome.
11:31:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the last slide, [slide 17]
and asked what it takes to reallocate a harvest to personal use.
MR. JENSEN said that happens whenever the board makes a
regulation or when ADF&G opens or closes a fishery by emergency
order (EO). He explained that generally individuals who are
eligible for a sport fishing license are also eligible for
personal use and subsistence in Alaska. He did not recall
specifically taking that action, to reallocate a harvest to
personal use.
11:32:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what the biggest "roadblock" would
be if the board were to go through the process to reallocate a
harvest to personal use; for example, would the department
recommend not doing it or would it be more likely that the board
would decide not to do so.
MR. JENSEN answered that the department would probably weigh in
on it, although, typically the department has "no opinion" on
allocation issues; thus, the board would decide. He explained
that it essentially means taking the resource from one user
group and giving it to another user group, which is the reason
the board developed the eight allocation criteria.
11:33:49 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked for a definition of subsistence use and how
it differs from personal use.
MR. JENSEN answered that he did not think it was defined in
Alaska unless the board has decided on a Tier II subsistence
allocation. He explained that residents are treated the same
unless they live in a non-subsistence area like Juneau. In
those instances, residents must go outside their area to
participate in subsistence fishing.
CHAIR STUTES further asked whether those residents are eligible
for personal use fishing.
MR. JENSEN answered yes. In further response, he agreed that it
depends on the location; for example, Juneau, Ketchikan, and
Cook Inlet are non-subsistence areas. Residents in those areas
can still engage in personal use fishing; however, he was not
clear on the specifics.
11:34:50 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked for a comparison between fish limits for
personal use as compared to subsistence limits.
MR. JENSEN answered that subsistence fishing requires a permit;
for example, if individuals want to subsistence fish on the
Kenai River, they would apply for a subsistence or personal use
permit, that the limit by permit is 50 salmon per household. In
further response, he offered his belief that the permit would
fall under personal use.
11:35:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT offered clarification on personal use
fisheries for the Kenai and Kasilof rivers. Currently in Kenai,
a household is allowed 25 salmon for personal use. He further
stated that the head of household is allowed a limit of 25
[sockeye] salmon and each additional family member is allowed a
limit of 10 [sockeye] salmon. Further, this year participants
can keep a king salmon. In years in which the king salmon run
is weak, [personal use permit holders] are not allowed to keep
king salmon and must release any they catch. In addition, the
personal use permit allows a certain number other species of
fish, such as flounder.
11:36:41 AM
CHAIR STUTES recalled that a bill was introduced for legislative
consideration that would have prioritized personal use fisheries
over any other fisheries, including subsistence. She wondered
if that would have been based on the individual's geographic
location.
MR. JENSEN responded that it could be so. He recalled that
Southeast Alaska has limits for black cod for personal use
fishing, including limits for gear and for family members
participating in the fishery. In fact, in Petersburg, in
Southeast Alaska, families can participate in a personal use
gillnet fishery for [sockeye] salmon with a limit of 30 fish.
The participants fill out permit cards to inform the department
how many fish they caught in the personal use fishery, he said.
11:37:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how much information the board has
when it determines the harvest allocation. For example, many
people in the Matanuska-Susitna area (Mat-Su) who cannot
participate locally in personal use fisheries drive to other
areas in Alaska to fish, he said.
MR. JENSEN answered yes; the board tries to take into
consideration participants from areas not eligible for personal
use fishing who will travel to fish in other personal use
fisheries. He pointed out that the board recently increased the
gillnet sockeye allocation [for personal use] on the Taku River.
11:40:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the board has specific data
on Mat-Su residents who travel elsewhere to participate in
personal use fisheries.
MR. JENSEN responded that the board obtains its data from the
department. Further, the board listens to the advisory
committees and takes into consideration information from other
sources.
11:40:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how specific the data would be, for
example, how many people from the Mat-Su fish in a different
area.
MR. JENSEN responded that information is available; however, it
is likely data from the prior two years. The information would
include the area the permittee fished in and the number of fish
taken. He commented that members of the advisory committees
also participate in the fisheries.
11:41:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT asked whether there was a specific
figure of salmon allotted for personal use on the Kenai or
Kasilof fisheries. He said he had not specifically heard that a
figure is set aside for personal use, such as designating 600
[sockeye] salmon for personal use fishing on the Kenai River.
MR. JENSEN answered that the personal use fisheries are based on
the amount of time allotted for the opening. He acknowledged
that it is sometimes very difficult to tell when the fish will
be available [in the river].
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT remarked that he wished the board would
pass something because people get upset. He [joked] that he
wished the board could teach the fish to show up late on Friday
and stay through Sunday afternoon. That way, everyone would be
happy, he said.
11:43:26 AM
MR. JENSEN referred to slide 19, titled "Board Regulations and
Policies" which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sustainable Salmon Fisheries Policy (5 AAC 39.222)
Escapement Goal Policy (5 AAC 39.223)
Mixed Stock Salmon Fisheries (5 AAC 39.220 and #93-
145-FB)
Emerging Fisheries (5 AAC 39.210)
MR. JENSEN commented that the sustainable salmon fisheries
policy under 5 AAC 39.222 is lengthy. Although the board has
considered various proposals, it has been difficult to change
the policy. He pointed out that the mixed stock salmon
fisheries policy basically sets the policy to determine "whose
fish are whose" and the timing of the fisheries. It is
difficult to manage fisheries to ensure adequate escapement and
still provide an opportunity for all the user groups to catch
fish. Turning to the bullet point on emerging fisheries, he
said that a fishery for market-type squid in Southeast Alaska
has been developing but it has not yet evolved. Some issues
have arisen, for example, how a winter net [seining] fishery for
squid might also catch king salmon and affect the king salmon
stocks, he said.
11:45:51 AM
MR. JENSEN reviewed slide 20, titled "Procedures for out-of-
cycle actions" which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Board of Fisheries Agenda Change Request Policy
(5 AAC 39.999)
Allows for out of cycle action for:
1. Conservation purpose
2. Correct errors
3. Unforeseen effect
4. Not mostly allocative
(form available)
And for coordination with federal agencies, programs,
and laws
Joint Board Emergency Petition Policy(5 AAC 96.625(f))
Allows for out of cycle action for:
1. Unforeseen event that threatens resource
2. Unforeseen situation that would preclude
biologically allowable resource harvest
Subsistence Proposal Policy(5 AAC 96.615(a))
Allows for out of cycle action:
1. For fish and game populations not previously
considered
2. If expedited review required
Category 2 measures in BS/AI King/Tanner crab
fishery(5 AAC 39.998)
Allows for out of cycle action:
1. For achieving consistency with federal Fishery
Management Plan
11:46:51 AM
MR. JENSEN referred to slide 21, titled "Getting Involved" which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
1) Get on Boards mailing list
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=fisheriesboa
rd.main
2) Submit written comments on proposals
3) Submit own proposal
4) Attend Board meetings and present testimony
5) Join or attend local fish and game advisory
committee
6) Join an industry or stakeholder group
MR. JENSEN urged people to participate and said one way is to
sign up to be on the board's mailing list. People can submit
comments to the board, and comments submitted 15 days prior to
the meeting are considered on-time comments; comments submitted
during the meeting are considered record comments (RC). He
remarked that the board set a record by having over 400 comments
submitted at its Southeast Alaska meeting.
11:47:59 AM
MR. JENSEN referred to slide 22, titled "Things to Remember"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Be respectful of the people and process
Facts to support opinions and new information
Be objective
Avoid adversarial debate
MR. JENSEN referred to slide 23, titled "Summary" which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Structured process
Credibility critical
High level of public participation
MR. JENSEN offered that public participation was the key
element of the board process.
11:48:23 AM
CHAIR STUTES remarked that she admires board members because
this is a voluntary board. She asked how many days per year Mr.
Jensen spends on board matters.
MR. JENSEN answered he spends 365 days per year on board
matters.
CHAIR STUTES acknowledged the significant amount of time members
must dedicate to the board. She expressed her gratitude to
board members for their service.
11:49:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked to echo that comment. He
thanked Mr. Jensen for his service as board chair.
CHAIR STUTES thanked Mr. Jensen for his presentation.
MR. JENSEN offered to assist the committee in the event a matter
arises.
11:50:15 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:50
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Board of Fisheries Presentation by John Jensen.pdf |
HFSH 2/1/2018 11:00:00 AM |
Board of Fisheries |