Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
05/08/2023 09:00 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 | |
| HB169 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 169 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
May 8, 2023
9:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Sarah Vance, Chair
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative CJ McCormick
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Rebecca Himschoot
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Craig Johnson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 169
"An Act relating to certain fish; and establishing a fisheries
rehabilitation permit."
- MOVED CSHB 169(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 169
SHORT TITLE: FISHERIES REHABILITATION PERMIT/PROJECT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CRONK
04/24/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/24/23 (H) FSH, RES
04/25/23 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
04/25/23 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/27/23 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
04/27/23 (H) Heard & Held
04/27/23 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
05/08/23 (H) FSH AT 9:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
BILL THOMAS, representing self
Haines, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 169.
EMILY ANDERSON, Alaska Director
Wild Salmon Center
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 169.
FLIP PRYOR, Aquaculture Section Chief
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
169.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CRONK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the prime sponsor, answered questions on
HB 169.
ACTION NARRATIVE
9:02:55 AM
CHAIR SARAH VANCE called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 9:02 a.m. Representatives
Himschoot, McCormick, Stutes, McCabe, and Vance were present at
the call to order. Representative Carpenter arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 169-FISHERIES REHABILITATION PERMIT/PROJECT
9:03:32 AM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 169, "An Act relating to certain fish; and
establishing a fisheries rehabilitation permit."
9:03:46 AM
CHAIR VANCE opened public testimony on HB 169.
9:04:11 AM
BILL THOMAS, representing self, testified in support of HB 169.
He stated that this year would be his fifty-fourth year as a
gillnetter. He stated that he had spent eight years in the
legislature. He expressed opposition to Amendment 1 because,
without a time restriction, it would not get done. He expressed
support for Amendment 2 because the bill does not include
clarification for Native Tribes. He noted that as a tribal
council member he has seen incubation boxes, and they work. He
further noted that the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
has an incubation box for king salmon in Haines; however, it has
not been attended and has become plugged.
MR. THOMAS related that 15 years ago [as a legislator] he had
introduced this to the Yukon River people, but they did not want
anything to do with hatcheries. He expressed the opinion that
incubation boxes are not hatcheries, and he urged that people be
made aware of this. He noted that those who run hatcheries do
not like incubation boxes because they do not have a good cost
recovery, as there is no return from using the boxes. He
expressed support for HB 169.
9:07:20 AM
EMILY ANDERSON, Alaska Director, Wild Salmon Center, testified
in opposition to HB 169. She expressed the opinion that
intentions are good behind the bill; however, rehabilitation of
depleted fish populations using hatchery enhancement can have
unintended consequences and make a dire situation much worse.
She specified that while Alaska's careful approach to hatchery
development is not perfect, the state's current fish enhancement
and hatchery development policy seeks to segregate wild fish
from hatchery fish, when possible, to avoid interbreeding,
competition, and harvest management problems. The current law,
she continued, also establishes safeguards to protect wild fish
from disease and inbreeding. She added that Alaska's hatcheries
are managed by professionals who work closely with pathologists
to prevent disease outbreaks and geneticists to ensure
inbreeding does not occur. She acknowledged that HB 169 would
require the commissioner to determine that projects will not
harm indigenous wild fish stocks; however, the problem is the
lack of a requirement in the proposed legislation to segregate
hatchery fish from wild fish. She maintained that HB 169 would
not contain adequate safeguards to protect wild stocks.
MS. ANDERSON said Alaska's policy up to this point has avoided
many of the pitfalls that hatchery schemes in the Lower 48 have
experienced. For example, she stated, hatchery production in
the Pacific Northwest has been used to enhance and rehabilitate
salmon runs. But rather than supporting wild salmon recovery,
she continued, the hatchery-development schemes have decreased
the populations and only continue to drive these depleted wild
salmon populations to the brink. She argued that HB 169 would
depart from Alaska's current policy and set up a scheme that
mirrors the approach taken in the Lower 48, which specifically
targets weak stocks. She said decades of scientific research
indicate that fish rehabilitation projects which seek to restore
depleted stocks only mask the problem and make it more difficult
for wild stocks to recover. Rather than increasing numbers
through hatchery rehabilitation, she urged that efforts be
focused on habitat rehabilitation and strong mixed stock
fisheries management to protect wild stocks and help them
rebound.
9:10:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned the term "inbreeding."
MS. ANDERSON replied that a scientist from the center would be
better at explaining this, as she is not a salmon scientist.
However, she explained, hatchery fish are genetically similar to
each other because usually the same sperm from the male fish is
used on the entire egg take. When these fish come back and
breed with each other, she offered the understanding this is
inbreeding, which is a concern because it reduces the fitness of
the fish. If these fish come back and breed with wild salmon
populations, the fitness of the wild fish would also be
depleted, effecting their reproductive success over the long
run.
9:11:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the opinion that two separate
scientific things are being discussed. He suggested that Ms.
Anderson is talking about big hatchery operations, while HB 169
is "wildly different." He related that at the Kodiak hatchery
for example, [staff] would fly to the Fraser River where an egg
take would be done and then the [fertilized eggs] would be
brought to Kodiak where they were hatched in tanks. After this
the fish were dispersed to different lakes, such as a lake on
Afognak Island. He argued that this is different from what is
proposed under HB 169. He explained that under the proposed
legislation the fish would be taken from the river they have
returned to. The egg and sperm would be taken, mixed, and the
eggs would be buried in the same riverbed to develop.
MS. ANDERSON responded that these are common misperceptions.
She explained that any time fish are taken out of the water and
artificially propagated, it is the same type of situation as
large hatcheries, because in a very short time span, fish are
being artificially helped, in theory, to be more successful in
the rivers, while rapidly changing genetically, and this makes
the fish less fit. She stated that there has been four decades
of research indicating this has the same types of repercussions
as other types of hatchery-enhancement systems. A new about-to-
be-released study, she continued, has synthesized the last 40
years of this scientific information, and it demonstrates and
indicates that rehabilitation of depleted stocks in many
hatchery enhancement systems has not been effective. She
offered to share the new study with the committee and to have
one of the center's salmon scientists come testify before the
committee.
9:15:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE commented that Alaska has used big
hatcheries during the last 40 years, and this is not the kind of
hatchery [being proposed in HB 169]. He related that he was
involved in the transportation of hatchery egg take as well as
dropping hatchery fish in the various lakes in the Kodiak
region. He expressed uncertainty that there are 40 years of
research [on the process described under HB 169].
CHAIR VANCE maintained that HB 169 would not create hatcheries,
rather it would create rehabilitation permits, and these would
be a very different make up.
9:16:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT requested that Ms. Anderson elaborate
on the term "fitness."
MS. ANDERSON answered that "fitness" refers to the state of
captive-born salmon producing significantly fewer offspring
during their lifetime than their wild counterparts. She added
that it has to do with their fitness related to reproduction in
the long term. She explained that the reduced fitness in
captive-born salmon results from rapid genetic adaptation to
hatchery conditions, and this includes the conditions in
incubation boxes outside of the natural conditions. These
salmon would rapidly become more maladapted to life in the wild,
and she suggested that just a single generation of captivity
would produce a significant reduction in reproductive fitness.
CHAIR VANCE reminded committee members that Ms. Anderson stated
for the record that she is not a fisheries biologist.
9:17:42 AM
CHAIR VANCE, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 169.
9:18:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether a biologist from ADF&G
was available to answer committee questions.
FLIP PRYOR, Aquaculture Section Chief, Division of Commercial
Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, confirmed that he
is a fisheries biologist.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT requested that he speak to the fitness
of hatchery raised fish.
MR. PRYOR noted that he is a fisheries biologist, not a
geneticist. He explained that "fitness" is based on the number
of offspring produced, and a "reduction in fitness" would mean
there are less offspring than natural production. The concern,
he said, is that if the returning adults interbreed, this will
lead to even more fitness, and this would drop the whole
population. He stated that HB 169 has provisions to mitigate
this from happening. These mitigations are, as listed: the time
is limited to five years, which is a single generation; the
number of eggs is limited to [500,000]; and the fry would be
released unfed. He noted that in a chum salmon hatchery
project, a reasonable incremental increase is 20 million eggs.
He further noted that the likelihood of an unfed fry returning
as an adult is much smaller than a smolt program, and a smolt
program is where domestication issues with the hatchery are
seen. He stated that these fish keep coming back to the
hatchery generation after generation, and this is how genes get
built into a hatchery broodstock.
9:20:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked how Alaska's hatcheries maintain
their stocks, given there is a loss of fitness in hatcheries.
MR. PRYOR confirmed there is a loss of fish; however, he related
that after 30 years into Alaska's program, the years 2012 and
2013 saw the biggest returns ever. It is a very complex issue,
he stated, and something else is going on besides a simple
domestication issue within the hatcheries. He said results of
the Hatchery Wild Interaction Study will be released within the
next two years, and this may help explain the situation. But,
he surmised, the study will also create more questions.
9:21:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT agreed that science answers one
question while generating more. She asked whether the bill
specifies hand-creating eggs in the streambed or using
incubation boxes.
MR. PRYOR answered that the bill would leave this open to the
applicant to decide. If eggs are taken and then put into the
streambed, he explained, the eggs would be subject to the same
risks as wild fish, such as drought, freezing, or scouring from
a flood. If the eggs are put into an incubation box or an
incubator, he further explained, the fry would need to be
released right away because the bill states that unfed fish must
be released. Incubation boxes and incubators protect the eggs,
he specified, so a higher number of fry will come out of these
projects than if eggs are put in the gravel.
9:23:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked how an incubation box works. She
further asked whether it must be tended by a human.
MR. PRYOR replied that it is gravity fed water through a box and
generally upwellings, and usually they are not attended. Some
sit in the creek, he explained, and in some, when the fry come
up, the fry can volitionally feed into the creek, while others
must be dumped at some point in the spring. He related that the
US Forest Service ran a demonstration project for a streamside
incubator, and this consisted of a five-gallon bucket which was
plumbed to create upwelling. The agency spawned one pair of
adults and put [the fertilized eggs] into the incubator at
Douglas Island Pink and Chum, Inc. (DIPAC) until they "eyed,"
and then these eggs were put in the bucket until [the fry]
volitionally fed out.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT surmised the fry could escape from the
box or bucket without being released.
MR. PRYOR confirmed that in most cases it is volitional escape,
but not when a count of the number of fry released is wanted. A
counter could be used when the fry escapes, he continued, but
these are low-tech programs which would unlikely be set up with
something like this.
9:25:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT drew attention to page 2, lines 27-
[30], which state:
(A) subsistence and escapement goals have not been
met;
(B) there are no established escapement goals and
local stakeholders have identified a decline in the
number of the species of fish; or
(C) the population of the species of fish is limited.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked if she is correct in
understanding that this is not enhancement, but rather
rehabilitation of a struggling population.
MR. PRYOR answered in the affirmative and stated that
"enhancement" means increasing the run higher than natural
production, while "restoration" means trying to bring a run up
to natural production.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked how it will be known which
streams qualify under these conditions listed in the bill. She
further asked whether a biologist will be going to the stream.
MR. PRYOR replied that under HB 169, these permits would be
reviewed by pathologists, geneticists, local biologists, the
[Division of Sport Fish], and the [Division of Commercial
Fisheries]. He said that in some cases the stock may be so low
that ADF&G would not want to go in, or in a case where the stock
is in danger of extinction, then maybe ADF&G would want to go
in. He advised that this is done on a case-by-case basis, and
ultimately the approval would be at the commissioner level.
9:27:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT expressed uneasiness about someone who
is not adept with hatchery regulations going into a struggling
stream. She asked whether it is correct that nothing in HB 169
would require a biologist to ever visit the stream or the
project.
MR. PRYOR confirmed there is no requirement for an on-site visit
in the proposed bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT brought attention to page 2, line 29 of
the proposed legislation and asked whether she is correct in
understanding that this language is looking at how many kinds of
fish are in a stream.
MR. PRYOR responded that this is his interpretation; however,
rehabilitation projects would be addressing specific species
within a stream.
9:29:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned whether the legislature directs
any other requirements for ADF&G biologists. He surmised that
the legislature's directives for such things, as to "monitor" a
stream would be at a much higher management level as opposed to
directing ADF&G biologists to "inspect" certain streams.
MR. PRYOR expressed uncertainty concerning direct requirements,
such as [inspecting certain streams]. He said that the
legislature did direct ADF&G to create the hatchery enhancement
program through AS 60.10.375, and while this statute requires
hatchery inspections, it is otherwise general.
9:30:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the opinion that [Alaska's]
enhancement program involves full-blown hatcheries, which take
the eggs, fertilize them, and put them in a tank. He continued
that scientists then modify the DNA so the salmon cannot
reproduce. He stated that it is a scientific large-scale
program to enhance a run or to create a run, such as returns to
the hatchery. He suggested that HB 169 is different and at a
lower level, possibly done by citizens or local people. It has
been described to him as taking a five-gallon bucket where eggs
are stripped and fertilized. These eggs are then buried in the
gravel bar or put in a box in the river where [the fry] feed,
run, and then return. This is done locally and is
rehabilitation, not enhancement, he asserted, and it is much
closer to "Mother Nature." He surmised that ADF&G biologists
would know how to do this, and Mr. Pryor is well qualified to
establish a program like this without the legislature being
involved in the day-to-day operation.
MR. PRYOR concurred, and he said that [Alaska's] hatchery
programs are designed to enhance fisheries by putting fish on
the fishing grounds to increase harvest above natural
production. Whereas, he continued, HB 169 would create a
restoration project to bring runs up to natural production, and
this would be on a much smaller scale. Regarding the provisions
under HB 169, he said ADF&G is already reviewing and permitting
through a different permit, which is an aquatic resource permit.
This permit is already available to higher education
institutions and to entities by cooperative agreements. He
maintained that HB 169 is not an ADF&G bill. He asserted that
ADF&G is neutral on this issue and does not have any "red
flags," because the department is already doing what the bill
would create.
9:32:43 AM
CHAIR VANCE requested Mr. Pryor speak to the successes the
department has seen concerning rehabilitation of the resource.
MR. PRYOR deferred to Sam Raybung, [Director, Division of
Commercial Fisheries], as he would have examples for the
committee. He said ADF&G has cooperative agreement programs
with different entities that are taking fish and seeing returns.
CHAIR VANCE recommended that the committee be able to connect
with people who have a long history in this business.
9:33:57 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
9:34:03 AM
CHAIR VANCE invited the offering of amendments to HB 169.
9:34:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 169,
labeled, 33-LS0763\A.2, Bullard, 5/4/23, which read:
Page 3, line 1, following "harm":
Insert "local wild"
Page 4, lines 5 - 6:
Delete "If the commissioner fails to act within
that period, the application is approved and the
department shall issue a permit."
Page 4, following line 18, insert a new subsection to
read:
"(j) The commissioner may modify, suspend, or
revoke a permit issued under this section for cause.
If a permittee violates this section, the commissioner
may, after providing the permittee notice and an
opportunity to be heard, suspend or revoke a permit
issued under this section."
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES noted that she worked with the sponsor and
with ADF&G; therefore, Amendment 1 is a friendly amendment. She
explained that Amendment 1 proposes to insert on page 3, line 1,
the words "local wild" after the word "harm". The language
would then read, "will not harm local wild fish stocks". The
second part of Amendment 1, she explained, proposes to delete
the language from page 4, lines 5-6, because the department will
use due diligence to the best of its ability, and she is
concerned that if this language is kept in the bill the
department may automatically say no to issuing a permit if it is
close to the timeline and forced to decide. Regarding the [new
subsection] proposed for insertion on page 4, line 18, she
reiterated that she spoke with both the sponsor and ADF&G on
this.
9:37:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER removed his objection to Amendment 1.
There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:37:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Amendment 2 to HB 169,
as amended, labeled, 33-LS0763\A.5, Bullard, 5/4/23, which read:
Page 4, line 21, following "venture,":
Insert "tribe,"
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE objected.
9:37:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained Amendment 2. She expressed
the understanding that the Native Tribes are, as a rule,
recognized as government or governmental entities. However, she
continued, specifically adding "tribe" to the bill would remove
any question.
9:38:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether the bill sponsor has been
spoken to or has any objection to Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT replied that she failed to speak with
the bill sponsor.
CHAIR VANCE recounted that last year, the legislature passed a
bill to formally recognize the federally recognized Tribes, so
this dispute has been resolved because they are now recognized
by all the branches of government. She asked whether
Representative Himschoot still wants to insert the word "tribe."
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT confirmed it is still her will.
9:39:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CRONK, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 169, expressed the opinion that Amendment 2 is a
friendly amendment.
9:39:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER maintained his objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCormick, Stutes,
Carpenter, Himschoot, and Vance voted in favor of adopting
Amendment 2 to HB 169, as amended. Representative McCabe voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 5-
1.
9:40:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK thanked the committee. He reminded members
that the proposed bill was brought to the legislature a few
years ago but died with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. He
advised that HB 169 would help rehabilitate salmon runs,
specifically king runs on the Yukon River and Kuskokwim River,
where there has been no subsistence fishing for several years.
It is not a scheme, he stressed, and full-blown hatcheries will
not be built on rivers. This would allow the same eggs and
sperm of the salmon already in the river to be put into the
river.
9:41:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES expressed excitement about the bill and
praised the sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK thanked the sponsor for bringing forth
HB 169. He expressed the hope that the projects will be done
responsibly; however, there are some situations this may not
work, he cautioned, and there is some cause for concern. He
urged that the fisheries be treated very delicately.
9:42:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to report HB 169, as amended, from
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 169(FSH) was moved
from the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
9:43:37 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 9:43
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 169 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFSH 5/8/2023 9:00:00 AM HRES 5/10/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 169 |
| HB 169 - v.A.PDF |
HFSH 4/27/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/8/2023 9:00:00 AM |
HB 169 |
| HB 169 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFSH 4/27/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/8/2023 9:00:00 AM HRES 5/10/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 169 |
| HB 169 - Gulkana Incubation Picture.pdf |
HFSH 4/27/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/8/2023 9:00:00 AM HRES 1/17/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 169 |
| HB 169 - Moist Air Incubator Photo.pdf |
HFSH 4/27/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/8/2023 9:00:00 AM HRES 1/17/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 169 |
| HB 169 - Amendment #1.pdf |
HFSH 5/8/2023 9:00:00 AM |
HB 169 |
| HB 169 - Amendment #2.pdf |
HFSH 5/8/2023 9:00:00 AM |
HB 169 |