Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
04/25/2024 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 | |
| HR8 | |
| SCR10 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SCR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HR 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
April 25, 2024
10:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Sarah Vance, Chair
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative CJ McCormick
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Rebecca Himschoot
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 8
Encouraging the Department of Fish and Game to adopt certain
regulations relating to fisheries bycatch.
- HEARD & HELD
CS FOR SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 10(FIN) AM
Establishing the Joint Legislative Seafood Industry Task Force.
- MOVED HCS CSSCR 10(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HR 8
SHORT TITLE: FISHERIES BYCATCH REGULATIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) VANCE
04/20/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/20/23 (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) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/23/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
04/23/24 (H) Heard & Held
04/23/24 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/25/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: SCR 10
SHORT TITLE: JOINT LEGIS SEAFOOD INDUSTRY TASK FORCE
SPONSOR(s): FINANCE
03/01/24 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/01/24 (S) FIN
03/07/24 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/07/24 (S) Heard & Held
03/07/24 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/21/24 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/21/24 (S) Heard & Held
03/21/24 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/17/24 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/17/24 (S) Moved CSSCR 10(FIN) Out of Committee
04/17/24 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/19/24 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP SAME TITLE
04/19/24 (S) DP: STEDMAN, WILSON, KIEHL, MERRICK,
BISHOP
04/19/24 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/19/24 (S) VERSION: CSSCR 10(FIN) AM
04/22/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/22/24 (H) FSH
04/23/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
04/23/24 (H) Heard & Held
04/23/24 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/25/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
CARL HOLMAN, representing self
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided public testimony in support of HR
8.
EDWARD C. JOHNSON, representing self
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided public testimony in support of HR
8.
JULIAN RAMIREZ, Salmon and Clear Water Organizer
Alaska Center
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided public testimony in support of HR
8.
DAVID BOUGHT, representing self
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided public testimony in support of HR
8.
KIRIL BASARGIN, Member
K-Bay Fisheries Association
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided public testimony in support of HR
8.
TONY ARSENAULT, representing self
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided public testimony in support of HR
8.
BROOKE WOODS, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided public testimony in support of HR
8.
ERNIE WEISS, Natural Resources Director
Aleutians East Borough
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided public testimony on SCR 10.
TIM LAMKIN, Staff
Senator Gary Stevens
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Senator Stevens, prime
sponsor, answered questions on amendments to CSSCR 10(FIN) AM.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:03:19 AM
CHAIR SARAH VANCE called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:03 a.m. Representatives
McCabe, Stutes, Carpenter, Himschoot, and Vance were present at
the call to order. Representatives McCormick and C. Johnson
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HR 8-FISHERIES BYCATCH REGULATIONS
10:04:01 AM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 8, Encouraging the Department of Fish and
Game to adopt certain regulations relating to fisheries bycatch.
10:04:21 AM
CHAIR VANCE opened public testimony on HR 8.
10:04:33 AM
CARL HOLMAN, representing self, provided public testimony in
support of HR 8. He shared that he lived and worked in Dutch
Harbor from 1997 to 2004. He stated that he serviced fishing
vessels and handled gear in the pollack fishery. He stated that
the fishery is a midwater fishery and described the gear used.
He stated that after the boats returned from a 30-day opener,
the gear would be shredded. He expressed the understanding that
this was because the gear was scraping the bottom of the ocean;
therefore, he pointed out that this would not be midwater
fishing. After this work, he stated that he went out on a trawl
vessel and witnessed the bycatch going overboard. He described
seeing king crab, halibut, flounder, salmon, and other species,
noting that this is not indicative of midwater fishing. He
argued that this type of fishing is destroying the bottom of the
ocean, creating a dead zone. He expressed the opinion that
action needs to happen now; otherwise, there will not be a
fishery in the Bering Sea.
10:07:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE requested that the testifier submit a
written testimony to the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES requested a written statement from the
testifier on the details of bycatch from different fishing gear
types.
10:08:36 AM
EDWARD C JOHNSON, representing self, provided public testimony
in support of HR 8. He stated that he has been a commercial
fisherman for 42 years. He stated that he has been to Dutch
Harbor many times, where he saw bycatch sorted out, put into
totes at the processers, and then driven to the grinder to be
destroyed.
MR. JOHNSON addressed the state's appointments to the North
Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC). He argued that
these appointments should no longer be a "revolving door" of
trawling lobbyist and big industry players and balance should be
brought back to the board by supporting conservation. He argued
that the governor has too much power in these appointments. He
suggested there be a 10-year moratorium, so lobbyist and
government officials cannot continually participate as returning
board members and be involved in the managerial decisions. He
argued that the [way the fisheries are being managed] is not
sustainable, as the fisheries are "crashing."
10:11:51 AM
JULIAN RAMIREZ, Salmon and Clear Water Organizer, Alaska Center,
provided public testimony on HR 8, on behalf of the Alaska
Center. He expressed support for the removal of the utilization
language from HR 8. He expressed the opinion that other actions
could be taken to remove bycatch at its source, leaving these
fish to be legally caught and utilized in this way. On behalf
of the Alaska Center, he expressed support for the following:
24-hour observer coverage in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea
trawl fisheries; the nomination of a Tribal member to a
designated seat on NPFMC; and a connection between the state and
federal managed fisheries so fishing closures could be
coordinated. He discussed the effects of climate change on
cold-water fisheries; however, he urged that controlling bycatch
could have a positive effect on sustaining these fisheries.
10:13:42 AM
DAVID BOUGHT, representing self, provided public testimony in
support of HR 8. He expressed the opinion that keeping trawlers
off the bottom of the ocean floor would be the most important
action that could be taken. He pointed out that there is a
loophole in the language that protects the gear being used, even
in protected areas. He explained that this type of gear
dramatically affects the ability of fisheries to recover. He
noted that there have been no studies on recovery times of the
Arctic's ocean floor, estimating that this recovery could take
centuries. He stated that often climate change is blamed for
the decline in the fisheries in Alaska; however, he suggested
that this is an excuse for not taking responsibility for
destructive fishing practices. He opined that climate change
may be having an impact, but this would not justify making it
worse. He noted a study that suggested that bottom trawling
puts carbon in the atmosphere. He expressed concern on wanton
waste in the fisheries. He pointed out that the Constitution of
the State of Alaska requires sustainable management of the
state's resources and argued that this does not exist in the
trawl industry.
10:16:35 AM
KIRIL BASARGIN, Member, K-Bay Fisheries Association, provided
invited testimony on HR 8, on behalf of K-Bay Fisheries
Association. He stated that the association represents over 200
fishermen and 600 community members. He discussed the
association's concern about the trawl fleet, as it has exploited
fishing. He expressed the opinion that this fleet has destroyed
Kachemak Bay and the Gulf of Alaska around Seward, as no cod
fishery remains in these areas. He discussed the destruction in
Prince William Sound, as there are no king salmon or shrimp
there. He stated that in January he saw 20-plus trawlers in
Shelikof Strait, which he described as "a sanctuary for fish."
He discussed how trawling is destroying the spawning grounds for
multiple species. He recommended that trawl fishing be banned,
and the trawl fishermen need to be held accountable.
10:19:24 AM
TONY ARSENAULT, representing self, provided public testimony in
support of HR 8. He shared that for 39 years he has run a sport
charter business in Homer. He expressed agreement with the
previous public testifiers. He recommended that the top
priority for the proposed legislation should be to reduce
bycatch. He expressed disappointment with the governor and the
commissioner of ADF&G, as they had informed NPFMC that no action
was needed on bycatch. He discussed the trawl fishery in
Shelikof Strait, pointing out that there are not many observers
on board the trawl vessels there.
10:20:53 AM
BROOKE WOODS, representing self, provided public testimony in
support of HR 8. She stated that she is a Tribal member on the
Yukon River, where the subsistence fishery for king salmon has
been closed for seven years, and the chum salmon fishery is
declining. She expressed concern that bycatch could be a profit
for industry. She stated that the SeaShare program has been
unable to provide bycatch donations to remote villages. She
argued that the state needs to act so wild salmon will return to
impacted villages [indisc.]. She discussed the consequences of
bycatch in the Bering Sea.
10:22:19 AM
CHAIR VANCE, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, close public testimony.
[HR 8 was held over.]
SCR 10-JOINT LEGIS SEAFOOD INDUSTRY TASK FORCE
10:23:12 AM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the final order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 10(FIN) AM, Establishing
the Joint Legislative Seafood Industry Task Force.
10:23:16 AM
CHAIR VANCE opened public testimony on SCR 10.
10:23:54 AM
ERNIE WEISS, Natural Resources Director, Aleutians East Borough,
gave public testimony in support of SCR 10. He stated that the
Aleutians East Borrough include the communities of Akutan, Cold
Bay, King Cove, Nelson Lagoon and False Pass. These communities
are heavily dependent on commercial fishing, and on their
behalf, he expressed support of SCR 10. He described the
decline of the fisheries in the borough, including fishermen not
being paid for last year's catch and the closure of processing
plants. He noted that the King Cove plant would reportedly not
open in the coming year, which is devastating for the community.
He stated that the borough supports an accelerated timeline for
the task force and the inclusion of representatives from the
impacted fishing and processing communities.
10:25:38 AM
CHAIR VANCE announced that public testimony would be kept open.
10:26:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to adopt Amendment 1 to CSSCR
10(FIN) AM, labeled 33-LS1469\S.A.2, Klein 4/24/24, which read:
Page 3, line 11, following "processors":
Insert ", or their designees,"
Page 3, line 13, following "processor":
Insert ", or its designee,"
Page 3, lines 15 - 19:
Delete all material and insert:
"(B) three independent seafood harvesters,
or their designees, who actively participate in state-
or federally managed fisheries off the coast of the
state;"
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER objected for the purpose of discussion.
10:26:35 AM
CHAIR VANCE explained that Amendment 1 would clean up the
language around the members of the proposed task force.
10:26:59 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:26 a.m. to 10:29 a.m.
10:29:39 AM
CHAIR VANCE clarified that Amendment 1 was labeled as A.2, and
it regards the membership of the proposed task force, as seen on
page 3, line 11, 13, and 15-19. She stated that on lines 11 and
13, the language "or designee" would be added, and this is
because the timeline is short, taking place during the fishing
season. She explained that this would allow a task force member
to be a representative of an owner/operator or processor. She
explained that the language on lines 15-19 would expand the
qualifications for commercial seafood harvesters to "three
independent seafood harvesters", and this is so owner-operator
Alaskan fishermen who are actively participating in the state or
federal fisheries, or their designee, could be included.
CHAIR VANCE stated that it is not her intention to consolidate
representatives, rather this would make sure there are different
representatives of the fisheries and there are enough
representatives participating. Per Representative Carpenter's
request, she stated that now the amendment highlights
independent privately owned operators. She added that there was
a request to expand the board to have representatives from state
and federally managed fisheries; not just state, as this would
only represent about half of the fishermen.
10:31:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES questioned whether this would exclude
large processors.
CHAIR VANCE noted that lines 15-19 only address task force seats
for the three independent seafood harvesters. She stated that
lines 11-13 regard the processors.
10:32:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT expressed the hope that individuals who
have actively participated in fisheries, but are retired, would
still be considered as applicants. She noted that if [retired]
individuals have recently fished, and they have the knowledge,
they may have more time to actively participate.
10:33:44 AM
TIM LAMKIN, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Senator Stevens, answered questions on
CSSCR 10(FIN) AM. He noted that setting up and staffing task
forces could be "tricky." He stated that the intent would be
that the task force is fair, broadly represented, and as
balanced as possible, and he noted the time constraints in
setting up the task force.
10:34:32 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
10:34:42 AM
CHAIR VANCE questioned the intent of the language "actively
participate" in the proposed resolution.
MR. LAMKIN explained that individuals who are actively fishing
would be those who are "getting dirty" and directly vested
stakeholders. He added that this would not necessarily preclude
retired fishermen. He offered the advice to reconsider the
language on line 10 of Amendment 1, which refers to "off the
coast", as this could exclude setnetters, who potentially could
be stakeholders in the project.
CHAIR VANCE responded that the intent is not to preclude
setnetters.
10:36:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 1. He stated that the conceptual amendment would
strike the words "off the coast of the state" and add the word
"Alaskan" before the word "fisheries".
10:37:04 AM
CHAIR VANCE, hearing no objection, stated that Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 was adopted.
10:37:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the opinion that the amendment
would make the language on line 9 of the proposed legislation
redundant. He argued that the language concerning the
representatives of processors is broad; therefore, it could be
virtually anyone. He questioned the "designee" language.
CHAIR VANCE explained that if the owner of the processor cannot
be available at the time, a company representative could be sent
to speak on his/her behalf. She stated that the intention is to
make sure someone could speak on the owner's behalf.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE argued that the amendment already
expressed this on line 9, paragraph (8).
CHAIR VANCE concurred with the observation.
10:39:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES expressed the opinion that now would be
the opportunity to clean up the language.
CHAIR VANCE expressed the desire that the language in the
proposed amendment be cleaned up during the meeting. She
recommended that the committee adopt Amendment 1, and then amend
the language with a conceptional amendment that would remove "on
behalf of", and this is because having "or designee" after the
word "processor" would be clearer. She questioned
Representative Mcabe's preference.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed agreement on the way the
resolution was originally written. He expressed the opinion
that the committee is attempting to put "its fingerprints into
it." He suggested that line 1 and line 2 of Amendment 1, as
amended, be stricken.
10:40:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, to
Amendment 1, as amended. He stated that Conceptual Amendment 2
would strike line 1 and line 2 of the amendment. There being no
objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
10:41:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER confirmed that Conceptual Amendment 2
would address lines 1 and 2 but would not change the language
"designee" on line 5 of the amendment. He pointed out that line
5 contains the same grammatical error [as the first occurrence,
which was stricken from lines 1 and 2].
10:41:39 AM
CHAIR VANCE questioned whether Conceptual Amendment 3 should be
entertained.
10:41:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to table Amendment 1, as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER objected.
10:42:04 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:42 a.m. to 10:44 a.m.
10:44:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to withdraw the motion to table
Amendment 1, as amended. There being no objection, Amendment 1,
as amended, was back before the committee.
10:44:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to rescind action on Conceptual
Amendment 2 to Amendment 1, as amended. There being no
objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was rescinded.
10:45:22 AM
CHAIR VANCE stated that Amendment 1, as amended, to CSSCR
10(FIN) AM, was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER removed his objection to Amendment 1,
as amended. There being no further objection, Amendment 1, as
amended, was adopted.
10:46:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK moved to adopt Amendment 2 to CSSCR
10(FIN) AM, labeled 33-LS1469\S.A.1, which read:
Page 2, line 31:
Delete "16"
Insert "19"
Page 3, line 24:
Delete "and"
Page 3, following line 24:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(3) three members who are enrolled
citizens of a federally recognized tribe in this
state, appointed jointly by the president of the
senate and the speaker of the house of
representatives; and"
Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER objected for the purpose of discussion.
10:46:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK stated that the amendment would be a
way to enhance the task force, and it would respond to the
request for more Tribal representation on the task force. He
expressed the opinion that these three representatives would
enhance the task force and bring a perspective that might not
otherwise be presented.
10:46:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES suggested that adding three members would
possibly be too many, and she questioned why this number was
chosen.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK responded that this number matches the
number of the other representatives, which would give equal
balance on the task force.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment [2]. She stated that this conceptual amendment would
add three members from the Senate, appointed by the president of
the Senate, of which one would be in the minority. She
continued that there would also be three members from the House
of Representatives appointed, of which one would be in the
minority. She expressed the understanding that the maker of the
document is supportive, as this would allow the task force to
continue working while vested members are out fishing and unable
to attend. She added that with the legislative members working
on the task force, those out fishing would know that there is a
complement, with a robust discussion continuing.
10:48:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE pointed out that the conceptual amendment
would add 5 members to the 16-member task force. He argued that
this would be a "huge" task force. Reconsidering, he suggested
that this would actually add 9 members, equaling 25 members.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES clarified that Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2 would add three members by each body, totaling six
members.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE clarified that this would be the
equivalent of six legislators. He questioned whether adding six
members would be an issue.
10:50:09 AM
MR. LAMKIN stated that he is neutral on this issue; however, he
added that allowing one member of the minority for each body to
participate would be consistent with previously established task
forces.
10:50:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER clarified that before the committee was
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2.
10:51:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK requested clarification on Conceptual
Amendment 1. He expressed the opinion that to be substantial,
the proposed conceptual amendment would need to be in writing.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES stated that Conceptual Amendment 1 would
add two additional members to Amendment 1, one from the Senate
minority and one from the House minority.
10:52:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON questioned what would be considered
the "Senate minority." He expressed the understanding that
there is not [an organized] minority in the Senate.
MR. LAMKIN explained that one seat would be dedicated to a
member of the unrecognized minority in the Senate and one seat
would be dedicated to the recognized minority in the House.
10:52:50 AM
CHAIR VANCE expressed opposition to Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2. She suggested that its intent is not clear to
members. She added that the existing language in the proposed
resolution would not preclude the presiding officers from
appointing a minority member from either body. She expressed
the hope that any member of the task force would best represent
people in the seafood industry who are experiencing economic
peril, whether these representatives are harvesters, members
from the legislature, seafood processors, Tribal members, or
community members. She noted that because the task force would
only meet for a very short timeframe, those who can best engage
should be members. She argued that this would be "a quick
sharpshooting thing" with the best members. She reiterated that
the language would not preclude minority members from either
body being appointed.
10:54:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK requested clarification on Conceptual
Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES restated Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2, explaining that the conceptual amendment would add
to the task force one House minority member and one Senate
member in the unorganized minority. As the meetings would take
place during the fishing industry's busy summer, she reasoned
that having the extra members would allow the business of the
task force to continue. She expressed the understanding that
the maker of the document is in full support of this idea.
10:55:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT expressed the understanding that the
conceptual amendment would be added on page 3, lines 3-6. She
expressed support for this, as the quorum would be a simple
majority of the task force; however, she added the qualification
that she would only support [Amendment 2] if Tribal members were
appointed, as too many legislators would be "top heavy."
CHAIR VANCE remarked that expressing support for legislation
does not work in this way.
10:56:46 AM
MR. LAMKIN, per Legislative Legal Services, expressed the
understanding that Conceptual Amendment 1 is in regard to page
3, lines 2-6, and it would add six members of the legislature,
two from the majority of both bodies and one from the minority
of both bodies.
10:57:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK argued against having [Conceptual
Amendment 1 intertwined with Amendment 2]. He expressed support
for the conceptual amendment but not as an amendment to
Amendment 2. He expressed the fear that the conceptual
amendment might cause members not to support Amendment 2. He
suggested a motion to split the question.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 2 was withdrawn.
CHAIR VANCE stated that Amendment 2 to CSSCR 10(FIN) AM was
before the committee.
10:58:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned whether this would preclude a
Tribal member from being a member in a seat designated for a
seafood processor, salmon harvester, whitefish harvester,
shellfish harvester, or another representative of fishing-
dependent coastal communities.
MR. LAMKIN verified that Representative McCabe was referring to
Amendment 2. He noted that there was an earlier question on
adding three members, stating he would answer this question
along with the current question.
CHAIR VANCE interjected that the committee is currently only
addressing the Tribal question.
MR. LAMKIN referenced page 3, lines 9-24, as amended, and
pointed out that among these groups there would likely be
someone who is a member of a federally recognized Tribe that
would qualify. However, as a "friendly compromise," he
suggested that on page 3, line 7, after "9 public members", the
language "one of which is enrolled as a citizen of a federally
recognized Tribe" could be added. He pointed out that this
would still provide for specific Tribal representation.
11:00:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK expressed the opinion that this would
not be a compromise, as the voice of Tribal members would be
disempowered. He explained that a compromise would be an
equally balanced task force, and he expressed opposition to the
idea.
11:00:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES opined that none of the other appointments
would prevent the individual from being a Tribal member.
MR. LAMKIN expressed the belief that this statement is correct,
as Tribal member representation would not be precluded.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES confirmed that there would be one
designated Tribal seat, with the potential to have more than
one.
CHAIR VANCE interjected that the committee discussion is on
Amendment 2, which states that there would be three members.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES suggested that without Amendment 2, there
would be the potential of having six Tribal members, depending
on the appointments.
MR. LAMKIN expressed the understanding that this could be
possible.
11:01:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT spoke to the importance of
intentionally having the voice of Tribal citizens, as recognized
by both the state and federal governments. She explained that
these are coequal governments, and the discussion is on
something that "greatly" affects Tribal communities. She argued
that intentionally asking for this voice would be different from
"hoping that maybe somebody might be able to speak from that
perspective;" otherwise, she suggested that the individual would
be asked to wear "two hats." She maintained that there should
be a Tribal voice on the task force, and it should not be left
to chance.
11:02:20 AM
CHAIR VANCE reminded members that the intent of the task force
would be to address the current economic peril the seafood
industry is facing. She continued that this is not a fishery
task force, but one that regards the seafood industry itself.
She argued that this is a "big factor."
11:02:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER, from the perspective of living in a
semirural area, pointed out that many families benefit from
being on the road system; however, these families still rely on
salmon as part of their food source. He opined that families
who live off the road system would consider that going a year
without salmon as an economic hardship. He continued that in a
holistic approach to the economy, rural communities who do not
have access to fish because of state policy would also be part
of the economy and a part of the economic problem that the state
now has. He expressed the understanding that the way the
resolution is now drafted, it is looking at the economy and
making money with the activities of processors and fishermen;
however, it does not consider subsistence as a piece of the
economy. He argued the importance of having representation on
the board with Alaskans whose economic interest is not making
money, but just in surviving. He expressed the understanding
that processing and fishing is necessary to the state, but the
others should not be "left behind." He expressed concern that
those who are just trying to live do not have a voice at the
table.
11:05:22 AM
CHAIR VANCE expressed disagreement and pointed out that there
are three representatives of fishing-dependent coastal
communities outlined in the proposed resolution. She stated
that this would be the communities relying on the income from
the seafood industry, which would represent Tribal members,
members of city groups, mayors, or anyone impacted by the
seafood industry. She maintained that the focus should stay on
the purpose of the task force, as this is not a broad discussion
on fisheries, but a discussion on those who rely on the seafood
industry because of market conditions. She suggested that after
the completion of the work of this task force, there could be a
long-term task force focused on the fisheries as a whole, where
there would definitely be specific Tribal representation. She
opined that the task force formed by the proposed resolution
would only be a short step to address a pertinent issue in the
seafood industry.
11:07:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked Mr. Lamkin whether Senator
Stevens' office has a position on this.
MR. LAMKIN responded that this amendment was just received by
the office; therefore, there is a neutral position on the
matter. He reiterated that a friendly amendment could be
considered on page 3, lines 20-21, by adding, "at least one of
whom is a member of a Tribe".
11:07:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE commented that 20 percent of the people in
Alaska are Alaska Natives. He argued against the point
Representative McCormick made that Tribes are coequal
governments. He said, "That is simply not true." He expressed
the agreement that there would need to be representation from
all facets of the industry, but he questioned where it would
end. He gave the example that cannery workers, such as
Filipinos, could be considered for a seat on the task force. He
reiterated Chair Vance's comment that the task force is tightly
defined for the seafood industry. He noted that there would
likely be a number of Natives based on the representation of
rural areas. He expressed the understanding that it is being
assumed that a non-Native is not capable of representing
Natives. He opined that [having seats dedicated to Natives]
would be driving the board in a political direction. He argued
that this is a task force very tightly designed to do one thing,
and the politics of this should not be involved. He suggested
that the resolution, as originally written, should be followed;
however, if more representation is needed, this should be done.
11:09:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES expressed the understanding that the
resolution is more focused on the issues of marketing seafoods,
rather than the actual sectors, such as sport, commercial, or
subsistence fishing. She continued that her understanding is
for the industry to work together as a whole, and it is not
limited to Native or non-Native processors or fishermen. She
referred to Chair Vance's statement that people who are involved
in the fisheries and seafood marketing should be involved, but
the focus should not be on subsistence. She expressed the
opinion that the Native population should be involved, and it
will be involved because there are opportunities. She expressed
agreement with the chair that the focus of the resolution is
being lost.
11:11:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK said that he has "a mouthful of blood
right now because I'm biting my tongue." He argued that
factually inaccurate information has been stated on the record.
He stated that using "Tribe" would not necessarily indicate
Alaska Native. He explained that a Tribe is a political
subdivision and a government entity, as this was the purpose of
the law passed in 2018. He argued that the statement that
["Tribe"] is a racial designation is inaccurate because it is a
political subdivision. Moreover, he pointed out the assumption
by some members that including Tribal representation would make
this a subsistence issue, but Tribal governments also engage in
the commercial fishing industry. As stakeholders in the seafood
industry, he said, these entities should be part of the
resolution. He stated that the intent of [Amendment 2] is not
racial; rather, it is about including key stakeholders in the
discussion and affording them the opportunity to make decisions
influencing the industry where they participate. For those who
do not support the amendment, he asked, "What are you afraid
of?" He maintained that these entities are made up of
individuals who are participating in the economy, but they have
been argued out of representation.
11:12:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE concurred that many Natives are involved
in the fisheries; therefore, they will be part of the board. He
stated that his question to Representative McCormick is, "What
are you afraid of? Are you afraid they will somehow be
excluded?" He opined that if individuals were a major part of
the fishery, they would not be excluded, regardless of whether
they are part of a Tribe or not.
11:13:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES indicated that valid points have been
made. She discussed the new, expanding processor in Kodiak that
the Sun'aq Tribe owns. She continued that the Tribe is involved
in marketing the product; therefore, by this participation in
Kodiak's fisheries, the Tribe would be included. She voiced
that she has not decided on a stance on the amendment.
11:14:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK responded to Representative McCabe that
he is afraid of "our state's history." He pointed out that it
has taken until 2018 for Tribal representation to happen when
Tribes have been around since before statehood. He said, "It's
history. That's what I am afraid of." He discussed the state's
precedent, in that it has not acknowledged Tribes unless it is
"on the books." He pointed out that there is a history that
indicates that the word of the legislature concerning Tribal
representation cannot be [trusted], as there has been a systemic
and historical rejection of Tribal representation. He argued
that the track record suggests that the state intends to do the
right thing, but in the end it has not. He stated that he is
not trying to exclude anyone and expressed the belief that there
should be more stakeholders at the table, as it would make a
more democratic process. He concluded that the state would be
better with Amendment 2.
11:15:47 AM
CHAIR VANCE questioned whether Tribal members should be
identified as community members who are actively engaged in the
fisheries, or as Tribal members.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK responded that principally his
intention is for Tribal representation.
11:16:36 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 11:16 a.m. to 11:17 a.m.
11:17:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved Conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment
2 to CSSCR 10(FIN) AM, as amended. She explained that
Conceptual Amendment 2 would require that Tribal members [on the
task force] must be involved in the fishing industry.
[Although not stated on the record, the committee treated
Conceptual Amendment 2 as if there was an objection.]
11:18:11 AM
CHAIR VANCE announced that Conceptional Amendment 2 to Amendment
2 was before the committee.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCormick, Stutes,
Carpenter, and Himschoot voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment
2 to Amendment 2. Representatives McCabe, C. Johnson, and Vance
voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2 to
Amendment 2 passed by a vote of 4-3.
11:18:51 AM
CHAIR VANCE announced that Amendment 2, as amended, was before
the committee.
[Although not stated on the record, the committee treated
Amendment 2, as amended, as if there was an objection.]
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCormick, Stutes,
Carpenter, and Himschoot voted in favor of adopting Amendment 2,
as amended, to CSSCR 10(FIN) AM, as amended. Representatives
McCabe, C. Johnson, and Vance voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 2, as amended, was adopted by a vote of 4-3.
11:20:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER moved to report CSSCR 10(FIN) AM, as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. He granted Legislative Legal
Services the authority to make technical and conforming changes.
There being no objection, HCS CSSCR 10(FSH) was reported out of
the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
[Although not stated on the record, the committee treated public
testimony as closed.]
11:21:04 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:21
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HR 8 - Proposed CS v.B (04-24-24).pdf |
HFSH 4/25/2024 10:00:00 AM |
HR 8 |
| CSSCR 10 - Amendment #1 (S.A.2) by Chair Vance.pdf |
HFSH 4/25/2024 10:00:00 AM |
SSCR10 |
| CSSCR 10 - Amendment #2 (S.A.1) by Rep. McCormick.pdf |
HFSH 4/25/2024 10:00:00 AM |
SSCR10 |
| HR 8 - Written Public Testimony (Uploaded as of 04-25-24).pdf |
HFSH 4/25/2024 10:00:00 AM |
HR 8 |