Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/15/1995 08:09 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 15, 1995
8:09 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative John Davies
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Eileen MacLean
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Irene Nicholia
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HJR 25Relating to a ban on trawling in the Eastern Gulf of
Alaska.
PASSED CSSSHJR 25(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 141"An Act relating to the appointment of members of the
Board of Fisheries."
HEARD AND HELD
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE BEN GRUSSENDORF
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 415
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-3824
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor HJR 25
DAN FALVEY, Representative
Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association
P.O. Box 6083
Sitka, AK 99835
Phone: 747-8710
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 25
BETSY KNUTSON
2039 Halibut Point Road
Sitka, AK 99835
Phone: 747-5691
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 25
DENNIS HICKS
726 Siginaka Way
Sitka, AK 99835
Phone: 747-3465
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 25
DONALD WESTLUND
P.O. Box 7883
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Phone: 225-9319
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 25 and HB 141
DEAN PADDOCK, Representative
Bristol Bay Driftnetters' Association
P.O. Box 21951
Juneau, AK 99802
Phone: 463-4970
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 25, no position on HB 141
JERRY MCCUNE, President
United Fishermen of Alaska
212 4th Street, Ste. 211
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 586-2820
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 25 and HB 141
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 434
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-2487
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HB 141
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802
Phone: 465-6143
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 141
MIKE MARTIN
P.O. Box 889
Kodiak, AK 99615
Phone: 345-0349
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 141
DORNE HAWXHURST, Representative
Cordova Fishermen United
P.O. Box 939
Cordova, AK 99574
Phone: 424-3447
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 141
MIM ROBINSON, Representative
Port Alexander Fish & Game Advisory Committee
Port Alexander, AK 99836
Phone: 568-2236
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 141
DAVID BRAY
2729 Tongass Avenue
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Phone: 225-2626
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 141
ROYCE RANNIGER
P.O. Box 702
Ward Cove, AK 99928
Phone: 247-2606
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 141
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-33, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by Co-Chairman
Williams at 8:09 a.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Green, Williams, Ogan, Austerman, Davies and Kott.
Members absent were Representatives Barnes, MacLean, and Nicholia.
HRES - 03/15/95
HJR 25 - BAN TRAWLING IN EASTERN GULF OF ALASKA
REPRESENTATIVE BEN GRUSSENDORF, PRIME SPONSOR, said this resolution
is a petition or a statement to the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (NPFMC) to consider as part of their management
plan for the fisheries off Southeast Alaska. He pointed out on a
map the area, east of 140 degrees west longitude, which the
resolution refers to. The area runs from Yakutat Bay down through
Southeast Alaska, and involves a very narrow continental shelf with
very few smooth areas. He stated the area contains many
communities which depend on fishing as their livelihood through
longlining or the hook and line fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUSSENDORF stressed that the people in this area
have fished for at least 100 years and many of the economies are
based on fishing. He said the economies are based locally, with
gear purchased locally, crews hired locally, taxes paid locally,
and the boats are moored locally. He stated a concern was
expressed with the trawling industry (factory trawlers) coming up
with everything. He pointed out the factory trawlers are self-
contained, they do not pay the raw fish tax, and there is no
economic activity gained from them in Southeast. The concern is
not only for the economics but also for a viable fishery. He noted
all stocks are allocated on how many fish can be taken out of a
given area. He stated a factory trawler can come into the area and
in a short period of time, do what 3,000 people participating in
the longline fisheries can do and destroy a viable fishing industry
off Southeast Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUSSENDORF said over the years, everyone has tried
to keep the area as a hook and line fisheries. He stated the
concern is that there are some species of fish, such as the
rockfish, which are not migratory type creatures. The fish stay in
a given area, their production rate is low, and they have a very
long life span--over 100 years plus. Because of this, the fish do
not mature very rapidly. He pointed out there are so few smooth
bottom areas along the narrow continental shelf that if trawlers
came in, they could really work the area over. He added there is
video documentation of the destruction the trawlers can cause.
Number 120
REPRESENTATIVE GRUSSENDORF noted there has been concern expressed
in regard to the scallop fisheries around Yakutat. He said that
classification is called dredging as opposed to trawling. The
NPFMC is studying that issue as well and is trying to make
recommendations. He stressed this resolution is to encourage the
NPFMC to look at the fisheries off Southeast Alaska to keep it a
very viable industry. He noted if any rockfish should become
overharvested, the fear is the whole area may have to be closed
down to all fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUSSENDORF told committee members the stellar sea
lion is claimed to be endangered but stressed that is not the case
in Southeast Alaska due to the great biomasse of feed, etc. He
noted that sea lions can survive through the hook and line
fisheries as opposed to trawling. He urged the committee to make
the NPFMC aware there is concern and then allow them to work out
the management scheme between the dredgers and trawlers.
Number 179
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN noted the ban is east of the 140 degrees
west longitude. He asked if the problem does not exist to the west
or has the problem not been studied to the west.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUSSENDORF responded the trolling industry is
confined by that line down--no trolling is allowed above that line.
He said the ban area is due to the narrowness of the continental
shelf in Southeast. He stated all of the communities in the area,
some of which are totally dependent upon the fishing industry, make
it a little more sensitive there. In other areas, there are broad
continental shelves and smooth and sandy or rocky gravel bottoms
where trawlers can do this. He added the trawlers get into the
crab bycatch sometimes which then becomes a problem.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that was why he asked the question. He
said the crab industry has almost been decimated and asked if
trawlers do adversely affect crab.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUSSENDORF responded the trawling industry does.
However, the trawlers are getting better at it.
Number 219
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN noted that the committee has a letter
in their folders from Mark Kandianis of the Kodiak Fish Company, in
reference to scallops. He said Mr. Kandianis is requesting the
committee to specifically say the resolution does not refer to
scalloping. He wondered how Representative Grussendorf feels about
that request.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUSSENDORF stated that is possible. He said his
understanding is that NPFMC is already looking at a management
scheme for the scallop dredgers and there might be some overlap.
He noted from the information he has gathered, this resolution
would not affect the scallop dredgers.
Number 259
DAN FALVEY, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA LONGLINE FISHERMEN'S
ASSOCIATION, testified via teleconference and expressed support for
HJR 25. He said designating Southeast Alaska as a hook and line
zone is an appropriate response to the needs of the area. He noted
one of the big changes which has occurred in the fisheries
management in the last two years is that regional needs are being
looked at. He gave several examples. He stated Southeast is
unique and he thought perhaps as he talks about that uniqueness, he
will answer the question why this ban is being requested east of
140 degrees west longitude and will not apply to other places.
MR. FALVEY explained east of 140 degrees west longitude is its own
socioeconomic unit. The communities there are wholly dependent on
the fisheries in this zone and do not tend to travel to other parts
of the Gulf to fish. He said the reason they can do this is
because in Southeast the shelf is close enough to the shore and
small boats are the dominant fleet. He noted that is not true in
other parts of the Gulf. He pointed out as one gets further west
of 140, the bottom shifts but east of 140 involves fair weather
grounds and the rocky habitats of Southeast. He stated from a
political and ecological standpoint 140 is a good dividing line.
MR. FALVEY told committee members another factor making Southeast
unique is the species assemblage. He said that assemblage is at
risk of being caught by both trawl and longline fisheries.
However, that species assemblage is only recognized east of 140 and
does not exist as its own separate grouping of species in other
parts of the Gulf. Therefore, the potential impact of the
crossover of trawl bycatch shutting down an entire region fisheries
does not exist anywhere else because Southeast has different
species assemblages to make the area more uniquely vulnerable.
MR. FALVEY stated Southeast has 4,300 commercial fishing licenses
and employs over 6,000 crew members. In addition, 1,400 people are
employed in the shore-based processing industry. He added that the
fishing industry gives $547 million a year to the Southeast economy
and returns over $5 million to the region in raw fish taxes. He
explained currently one to five trawlers prosecute fisheries very
briefly off of Southeast each year. These trawlers are factory
trawlers not home ported anywhere in Alaska and contribute nothing
to the region or the state, and gain only a small portion of their
annual income from the fisheries they prosecute off of Alaska. He
stressed there is a real potential for the trawlers to make a
mistake and catch enough bycatch of these species, resulting in a
shut down of the entire region. He noted that would put 3,000 to
6,000 fishermen out of business and devastate the entire area.
Number 313
MR. FALVEY felt the resolution is very timely now because the NPFMC
is currently considering a licensed limited entry program or some
kind of comprehensive rationalization. He said if that goes
forward without this kind of Southeast trawl (indiscernible) or
hook and line zone, then it would institutionalize most of the 10-
15 factory trawl vessels and give them permanent rights to fish in
Southeast. The fishermen in Southeast would be put at even a
greater loss because they will not have a history of fishing
anywhere else. He pointed out that this resolution is supported by
the entire region. He stressed there is a real threat to the
fishermen who live the area and taking this action is probably one
of the single greatest things to do in terms of the long term
stability and fishing economy in the region. He clarified it is
not the intention to apply this resolution to the scallop
fisheries. The scallop fisheries have a different bycatch species
and do not pose the same threat as factory trawlers in regard to
crossover bycatch.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if this resolution is passed, would it
essentially affect fishers coming from Seattle. He also wondered
if the British Columbia coastline offers the same opportunity as
what is present in Southeast.
MR. FALVEY responded this resolution is targeted toward the factory
trawlers, which are 100 percent based out of Seattle. He stated to
his knowledge there are no shore-based or Alaska resident trawling
in the zone being discussed. He said he did not know the answer to
the question regarding British Columbia. He did comment that the
narrow continental shelf does apply to British Columbia as well.
Number 363
BETSY KNUTSON, SITKA, testified via teleconference and expressed
support for HJR 25. She and her husband participate in the hook
and line fisheries. She stressed allowing trawling in the Eastern
Gulf could destroy the habitat and place undue pressure on the fish
stock. She said these trawlers have a potential to severely damage
the rockfish stock and potentially shut down the fishery which
people in the area depend on for up to 30 percent of their annual
income. She pointed out that trawlers contribute nothing to the
economies of the local coastal communities. Instead, the trawlers
leave the area with not only the fish but also the livelihoods of
the local fishermen and cold storage workers, which has an effect
on the economy for all those residing in small communities. She
expressed to the committee the importance of the resolution because
there are so many fishermen in Southeast who depend on the hook and
line fisheries.
Number 383
DENNIS HICKS, SITKA, testified via teleconference and stated he
feels very strongly about the problem. He said ever time there are
trawlers around, there is one problem or another, such as the few
times the trawlers are tied up and people view lots of corals
stacked up on their boats. He felt Representative Grussendorf's
comments were very appropriate. He explained the area has a very
narrow continental shelf and a very fragile ecosystem and stressed
trawling is destructive to that. He noted the rockfish are long-
lived and very susceptible to overharvest. He pointed out that
almost everyone in Southeast is against trawling in Southeast.
MR. HICKS said the trawl fleet has become too efficient. Years ago
the fleet could not fish in rocky and boulder areas but now they
are so efficient they can. He stated trawlers do not help the
local economy and are bad for the ecosystem. He noted that to the
west the situation is quite different. There are thousands of
square miles of ground, much of which is not rocky ground. He
pointed out it would be a small thing for the trawl industry to
have a ban east of 140, but would be a big matter for the people
who live there.
Number 429
DONALD WESTLUND, KETCHIKAN, testified via teleconference and stated
Representative Grussendorf should not only include the hook and
line fishermen in the resolution but also all the sport and
subsistence fishermen who depend on those fisheries also. He noted
there is also no mention of the bycatch of the fisheries that would
come into the area. He explained when looking at bycatch, two
different things are looked at--regulatory discards and economic
discards. He stressed there are many different species that cannot
be retained by commercial fishermen. He felt it would be
detrimental to the ecosystem for trawlers to be in Southeast
because of the narrow continental shelf.
MR. WESTLUND said if just two fisheries are included in the whole
state of Alaska (rock sole and yellow fin sole) when talking about
bycatch, bycatch would be reduced by 50 percent. He stated if
trawlers moved into Southeast, he would not be able to catch his
sport halibut or rockfish. He also felt trawlers would be very
detrimental to the area.
Number 474
DEAN PADDOCK, REPRESENTATIVE, BRISTOL BAY DRIFTNETTERS'
ASSOCIATION, endorsed the remarks of the sponsor, Mr. Falvey, and
Mr. Hicks. He said Southeast Alaska does not need any expansion of
the trawl fishery. He stated trawl fishing will disrupt existing
fisheries and will further disrupt the economy of Southeast. He
explained in Bristol Bay, there is a concern about the conduct of
the trawl fishery. There seems to have been little incentive on
the trawler's part to do what could be done to improve their
bycatch of prohibited species. He noted he is not totally opposed
to trawling but feels trawling has its place. He did not think
that place is in Southeast.
MR. PADDOCK spoke on the situation regarding the sea lion
population. He said sea lions are endangered everywhere in the
state except Southeast. He passed out pictures showing there is an
abundance of sea lions in Southeast. He stressed that is not the
case elsewhere. He noted in 1991, there was a lot of publicity in
the Anchorage Daily News about a big conference on the sea lion
decline. He told committee members he was moved by the publicity
and wrote a letter to the editor, which the editor chose not to
publish, pointing out that scientists never talk about the bycatch
of sea lions in the trawl fishery and the role it might play in the
decline of the species. In that letter, he called attention to the
fact that people involved in studying the problem have themselves
published in scientific literature, comments and reports to the
effect that observers on these vessels have documented catches of
over 100 sea lions in a single trawl.
Number 542
MR. PADDOCK noted he has had observers share their experiences with
him and, on occasion, have made photographs they have taken
available. He passed out a photo showing a walrus caught by a
trawler. He asked that trawler about sea lions and was told the
bycatch of sea lions is so common they do not take pictures of
that. He stressed that kind of problem is not needed in Southeast.
He urged the committee to pass HJR 25 out of committee.
Number 554
JERRY MCCUNE, PRESIDENT, UNITED FISHERMEN OF ALASKA (UFA), stated
UFA supports HJR 25. He said UFA is 100 percent behind keeping the
local fisheries and economy going.
REPRESENTATIVE EILEEN MACLEAN asked Representative Grussendorf to
explain where the area is which the ban will affect.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUSSENDORF responded that earlier he showed on the
map the 140 degrees west line. He said the area is the narrow
continental shelf running east of that line, down along Southeast
Alaska, and involves a hook and line fisheries or what is sometimes
called longline fishery. He stressed many people live and work in
that area. All the taxes and revenue, through the fish processors,
rolls out through that economy. He pointed out a factory trawler
could come into the area, take the same amount of fish or more,
there would not be a dime that would touch shore there, and there
would be a great devastating effect upon the local fishing fleet.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN made a MOTION to MOVE CSSSHJR 25(RES), with
the following amendment, page 2, line 15, after the second
occurrence of the word "the", insert "North Pacific Fishery
Management Council through the" and page 2, line 19, after the word
"the" insert "North Pacific Fishery Management Council; the" out of
committee with attached zero fiscal note, with individual
recommendations.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
Number 615
HRES - 03/15/95
HB 141 - TERM OF FISH AND GAME BOARD MEMBERS
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN, PRIME SPONSOR, stated HB 141 had
gone through the Fisheries Committee and a committee substitute,
CSHB 141(FSH), is before the committee. He said HB 141 is an
effort to clean up the problem the Board of Fisheries faces in
having members seated on the board, taking action and then having
to come up later for confirmation. He noted in some instances,
because of some action board members may have taken, their
confirmation has run into a problem. He stated if the majority of
board members could be confirmed prior to sitting on the board, a
better board and process would result.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN noted it will take a couple of years for
the transition to take place. He said the end result will be a
board member will be confirmed by the legislature but will not be
seated on the Board of Fisheries until July 1.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked Representative Austerman to clarify
the phrase contained in his written sponsor statement, "With CSHB
141, legislators will confirm an appointee based on qualifications,
not voting record."
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN responded that phrase means the board
members would be confirmed by legislators before they sit on the
Board of Fisheries and make a vote. The objective is to confirm
the board members before they sit on the board. He noted there
have been several instances, in the past, where board members have
been appointed by the Governor, have sat on the board and made
decisions before being confirmed by the legislature, and then their
voting record is held against them in the confirmation hearings.
He felt it was not fair to put board members in that position.
Number 645
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES asked the reason for applying these
changes only to the Board of Fisheries and not the Board of Game.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN responded because he is a fisheries
person.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN agreed with Representative Davies.
TAPE 95-33, SIDE B
Number 000
GERON BRUCE, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME (ADF&G) stated the same problem has not occurred with the
Board of Game. He pointed out there have not been any instances in
the Board of Game where highly politicized issues have caused a
board member, who took a vote on specific action, to then face
difficulties in confirmation because of that vote. He said HB 141
mirrors a recommendation which came from the Fisheries Policy
Transition Team. He noted the Natural Resources Policy Transition
Team, which looked at wildlife issues, did not make a similar
recommendation. He observed it did not appear there has been a lot
of public concern about the same problem existing on the Board of
Game as it does on the Board of Fisheries.
Number 025
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if there is any reason to not have the
same process apply to the Board of Game.
MR. BRUCE said from a technical standpoint, there would not be a
problem. He stated whether or not the change would have the same
level of support in the wildlife constituency, that the proposed
change to the Board of Fisheries has in the fisheries constituency,
is an important question which he cannot answer. He felt there
might be public opposition or a lack of public support for a change
in the Board of Game. He stressed there is clearly public support
in the fisheries area.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said legislators are accountable for their voting
record every two years. He stated if this change is made there
will be no prior voting record, which has been controversial in the
past, and a confirmation will take place. Then that person is on
the board for four years unless removed for cause. He asked if
there should be concern about a runaway--confirming a board member
who legislators know little about.
MR. BRUCE stated the terms of the Board of Fisheries members would
be three years. He thought Representative Green's comparison to
legislators is a good one. Board members serve one term and if
their performance over the course of that term is unsatisfactory,
the Governor has the opportunity to not reappoint them and the
legislature has the opportunity to decline to confirm them. He
said presently, when a person is appointed in February, and
confirmed later that spring, there is no opportunity to see their
performance on a wide range of issues.
MR. BRUCE noted the argument is that it is not a fair judge of a
person's decision making abilities and ability to perform on the
Board of Fisheries by just looking at his or her vote on what might
be some of the most controversial issues in the state and then be
judged on that vote, rather than looking at the board member's
performance over the course of a full term.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN reiterated the sponsor should also consider
including the Board of Game. She stated if the boards are not
treated equally, problems will result in the future.
Number 117
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN responded he is not necessarily opposed to
including the Board of Game in HB 141, although he would like to
have the opportunity to research that suggestion to determine how
communities, the industry and people involved feel about the
inclusion. He added he would not have a problem with an amendment
on the house floor if appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN said an amendment on the floor on this
issue would be highly inappropriate. He felt the issue should be
a separate bill and should be heard through the public process.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN disagreed. She felt the Board of Fisheries
and the Board of Game should be treated equally. She stated she
has a problem with HB 141 as written because it does not include
the Board of Game.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 141(FSH).
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said Representative Ogan's point is well
taken. He agreed sensitive areas are being discussed and he felt
there should be an adequate hearing on the issue of whether or not
the Board of Game should be addressed in the same way. He
maintained what is good for the moose is good for the flounder.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said he does not object to addressing the
issue of the Board of Game. He felt the two boards are distinct,
different groups which handle totally different aspects of the
state's resources. The people involved with fishing are quite
different than the people involved in hunting just based on the
commercial aspect. He stated he did not want to see HB 141 killed
just because someone in the hunting industry does not want to see
a change with the Board of Game. He preferred the issue be taken
up as a separate issue. He noted he would not hesitate to
introduce a bill if it is something needed to be done.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN maintained that someone needs to address the
Board of Game to do the same thing.
Number 212
MIKE MARTIN, KODIAK, testified via teleconference and stated in the
past, he served as Chairman of the Joint Board of Fisheries and
Game. He said if HB 141 passes, it is extremely important the
legislature maintain a consistent confirmation process for the
board members appointed. The check valve in the past has been that
a board member is held responsible for his or her voting. If that
board member was not necessarily looking at the facts but rather
voting on an issue that had a strong bias, the check valve in the
past has been the legislature would bring pressure upon that board
member and that board member not being confirmed.
MR. MARTIN said anyone serving on the Board of Fisheries or the
Board of Game should be held responsible for their vote and should
be a strong enough person in light of making a lot of people mad,
as long as that person is voting with good conscience and is
honestly doing what she or he feels is correct. As a past board
member, he was not offended at the pressure brought upon him by
other people who did not like the way he voted, as long as he voted
with good conscience. He stated the politics involved now are so
detailed, it makes it very difficult, especially if the board
member is appointed during the time of a Cook Inlet or False Pass
meeting. He stressed the legislature's responsibility will need to
be expanded. He felt the legislature is going to need to do a much
better job at looking at the qualities of each potential board
member. He felt the questions asked of the potential board members
will need to be more detailed.
Number 268
MR. MARTIN commented on why problems are being experienced
currently with the board process. He said one of the main reasons
for the problems is the polarization of two main issues--False Pass
and Cook Inlet. He stated many people feel the result of those two
issues is the fault of the Board of Fisheries. He contends it is
not the board process at fault for not being able to resolve the
two issues, but is the way Alaska goes about doing its planning for
state fisheries. An example is Cook Inlet. He explained Cook
Inlet has no plan on where the sport fishery is going to be taken,
there is no understanding of the growth in the different kinds of
river systems and where to head for the maximum effort for the
maximum benefits of that resource into the sport fisheries.
MR. MARTIN stressed until the state starts planning on where it is
going to be with commercial, sport and subsistence fisheries five
to ten years from now, the state will always be dealing with issues
like Cook Inlet and False Pass in a volcano fashion--the volcano
erupts, the lava flows, and then board members are asked to deal
with people who fear for their livelihood and are extremely mad
because of the circumstances taking place.
MR. MARTIN stated the other reason there have been such difficult
times, especially in resolving the commercial and sport fishing
issues for Cook Inlet, is the tool box available. When allocations
are dealt with, there has always been the ability to look at the
historical perspective on catch and how people fish. He observed
when looking at commercial fisheries, it is much easier to look at
the historical perspective and come up with some kind of allocation
based on that information. He said when dealing with commercial
and sport fisheries in Cook Inlet, if the historical perspective is
used, the Cook Inlet sport fisheries would end up with hardly
anything because their trend has been in more recent times.
MR. MARTIN said when board members are trying to be consistent and
fair throughout the state, and the allocation decisions between
commercial fishers have been based on a traditional sense and all
of a sudden they get into a sport fishery, it is much more
difficult. He hoped the legislative bodies will begin to
understand that the state has to do a better planning process for
the state's fisheries. The state needs to support ADF&G, with
money, to do a better job managing and protecting itself from a
possible federal takeover. He felt if the state does not get
someone to do the studies and put groups together to look at some
of the issues he mentioned, the commercial, sport and subsistence
fisheries are headed for trouble.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked Mr. Martin how long he has lived in
Alaska.
MR. MARTIN responded he is 33 years old, was born in Kodiak and
lives in Anchorage.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked Mr. Martin if he supports HB 141.
MR. MARTIN replied yes. He added there is no reason not to also
include the Board of Game in the bill. He felt a separate bill
might make it easier.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN recalled that Mr. Martin had talked about
sport fishing but also talked against commercial fishing. She felt
his comments were very confusing.
MR. MARTIN responded he was not speaking against commercial
fishing. He said he was trying to explain the fact that commercial
fishermen are trying to be reasonable with sport fishermen and
sport fishermen are trying to be reasonable with commercial
fishermen, but putting them in the arena after the volcano has
erupted is the most difficult way to resolve a problem. He
reiterated the state needs a plan.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS reminded everyone to keep their testimony and
questions directed to HB 141.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN stressed to Mr. Martin that she prefers
federal management of fish and game over state management.
Number 380
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT recalled that Mr. Martin had indicated he
would like to see the inclusion of the Board of Game in HB 141. He
asked him to further comment on that issue.
MR. MARTIN responded in the past, he chaired the joint boards which
included seven Board of Fisheries members and seven Board of Game
members. He said the issues dealt with in a joint board are much
different than what the Board of Game deals with. He felt the two
boards should fundamentally be run the same way. He said adding
the Board of Game to HB 141 should not be a problem.
Number 398
DORNE HAWXHURST, REPRESENTATIVE, CORDOVA FISHERMEN UNITED (CFU),
testified via teleconference and expressed support for HB 141. She
said CFU is a big supporter of the Board of Fisheries process as it
exists currently and does not believe the board needs extensive
modifying. Rather, CFU believes the board process only requires
some minor adjustments. She stated HB 141 presents the opportunity
to make some of those adjustments, adjustments that CFU has been
requesting for years.
MIM ROBINSON, PORT ALEXANDER, REPRESENTATIVE, PORT ALEXANDER FISH
AND GAME ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAF&GAC), testified via teleconference
and expressed support for HB 141. She stated PAF&GAC has watched
some very good people not being confirmed to the Board of Fisheries
due to their voting record. PAF&GAC feels strongly that during
the confirmation process, the legislature should look at the
potential board member's personal integrity and ability to be
objective rather than how a person votes on what fishery takes
place where.
MS. ROBINSON said PAF&GAC has a concern regarding the committee
substitute version. She stated Southeast will have two seats open
in January, 1996, and the board cycle for Southeast starts in the
fall of 1996. The committee substitute provides that the Southeast
members would be done in January, and then someone else would be
appointed at the end of January. She said that person would be
seated on the board, making decisions in the spring and then would
be confirmed, probably in April. She pointed out it would not hurt
to have the Southeast seats be done at the end of June, as the
original bill said, because they would not be working on Southeast
issues until the fall anyway.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked why it would be damaging for Southeast
to stagger their terms.
Number 443
MS. ROBINSON responded there are two appointees who had to go
through the rigorous process of confirmation in the legislature and
the desire is to avoid that in the future. She said the committee
substitute delays the process for Southeast people.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked Ms. Robinson to be more specific. She
questioned how does the committee substitute delay the process.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN explained the different aspects of the
transition of board members was reviewed. He said there was a
choice of either cutting off people from the board and shorten
their terms or lengthen the terms by five or six months. He stated
in talking with legal counsel, they suggested strongly that rather
than getting into questions about cutting off a board member from
their appointed term, the term should be extended. He noted that
some of the board member terms will go three and one-half years
rather than two and one-half years. He stressed it is going to
take three or four years to get the transition completed.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN commented that staggered terms are good and
stated perhaps staggered terms would also be good for the Board of
Game.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN reminded everyone that the Board of Game is not
up for discussion at this time.
Number 473
DAVID BRAY, KETCHIKAN, testified via teleconference and stated he
liked the idea of HB 141. He felt the Board of Fisheries term
limits should be linked to the Governor's term. He felt that would
take some of the politics out of the board. He said past board
members have set their agenda and appointments to the Board of
Fisheries (indiscernible) appointment and confirmation should be
done all in one legislative session. (Indiscernible) appointed in
one legislative session and then confirmed the next year.
ROYCE RANNIGER, KETCHIKAN, testified via teleconference and said HB
141 is a step in the right direction to help remove the politics.
He felt the Board of Fisheries is nothing but a political program.
He expressed support for HB 141. He would like to see the board
expanded to a nine member board to better address the issues
throughout the state. He also felt regional appointments should
always be there.
Number 507
DONALD WESTLUND, KETCHIKAN, testified via teleconference and
expressed support for HB 141. He reminded committee members that
the board was previously the Joint Board of Fisheries and Game. He
felt there should be equality in the way board appointments are
confirmed. He noted that confirmation of a board member before he
or she sits on the board is like appointing someone before the
election, saying that person should make legislation and then it
will be determined if people really want that person to be in
office. He encouraged Representative MacLean to look back in
history on the federal management of fisheries--there used to be
one day openings in Southeast and the fisheries were in decline
because of federal policies. He pointed out when the state took
over, the fisheries improved and now the state is fighting with the
Pacific Northwest.
Number 531
DEAN PADDOCK, REPRESENTATIVE, BRISTOL BAY DRIFTNETTERS'
ASSOCIATION, stated he is concerned with what HB 141 accomplishes,
not because it is going to make things better or worse, but because
it comes down to some of the personalities involved during the
transition. He felt HB 141 will not accomplish what is desired.
He said everyone is familiar with the strong battles which have
occurred in regard to Board of Fisheries confirmations. He pointed
out on a number of occasions an individual was not confirmed very
early on because otherwise presentable, intelligent people
displayed an inability to work effectively in a board context.
MR. PADDOCK said his concerns with HB 141 could be removed very
easily. His concerns are focused on page 1, line 12 and could be
removed by substituting 1996 for 1995 on page 2, lines 10 and 11.
He believed, after having been a student of the process for 39
years, that many of the problems being seen today revolve around
personalities of members of the board. He stated he takes
exception to the remarks of Mr. Martin who advised the committee
there are two issues which have produced the problems. He felt
there is only one issue and that is the inadequately controlled
interceptive fisheries which has divided the state ever since
Alaska first took responsibility for managing its fisheries in
1959.
MR. PADDOCK stated the problem is exacerbated somewhat by limited
entry which was necessary and desirable. He said now fishermen in
terminal areas are prohibited from fishing anywhere else and are
moving out, competing in areas to which they were given the
impression they had every right to fish in. He stressed fish are
being intercepted and harvested far beyond the original intent when
limited entry started.
Number 588
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Paddock to comment on whether or
not the changes contained in HB 141 should also apply to the Board
of Game.
MR. PADDOCK responded there is no difference between the two
boards.
TAPE 95-34, SIDE A
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked Mr. Paddock to further expand on his
comment that the real issue is the interception of fisheries.
MR. PADDOCK responded the interception of fisheries applies almost
exclusively to salmon fisheries and the state has two major
situations where the existing definitions of fishing districts
allow the fishermen in those districts to impact the migratory
movement of fish bound for their terminal, natal areas where they
were traditionally harvested.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked for an example. She also asked Mr.
Paddock if he supports HB 141.
MR. PADDOCK said the False Pass fishery is an example. The June
False Pass fishery on red salmon, the July North Peninsula fishery
on Bristol Bay red salmon are other examples.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked that everyone only speak to HB 141,
which relates to the appointment of members of the Board of
Fisheries.
MR. PADDOCK said in response to Representative MacLean's second
question, he cannot decide whether or not he can support HB 141.
He did not feel the bill, other than in the short term, is going to
make much difference.
Number 084
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated the issues which gave rise to HB 141
are relevant to the discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Paddock if HB 141 passes, would it
make the board less contentious in regard to different interest
groups.
MR PADDOCK stated he wished he could believe that. He said HB 141
will lock in a board member for his or her full term when the
collective wisdom of the legislature would otherwise not have
confirmed that particular individual.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said he did not understand Mr. Paddock's
comments.
MR. PADDOCK responded the legislature is going to get stuck with a
board member for the full three years and the collective wisdom of
the legislature might otherwise have decided to dispose of that
board member when his or her confirmation came up. He said the
legislature presently has the opportunity to observe a board
member's performance and can decide whether or not they want that
individual to serve the remainder of his or her term, which gives
the legislature the option of not confirming that person.
Number 138
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said the legislature also has the option
of doing their job in the first place--reviewing the potential
board member's background, ability, their past performance and make
a determination as to whether or not that person would make a good
board member.
MR. PADDOCK agreed. He said his personal experience has shown that
his judgement on occasion has been faulty based on the research he
has been able to do. He felt perhaps that is typical of others.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN agreed that HB 141 would lock the
legislature into not having the ability to make a decision on a
board member's removal, after confirmation, until that board
member's term is up. She felt the legislature should be able to
decide whether or not a board member should be removed. She did
not want the legislature to be locked up.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated the window in which the legislature
gets to review a potential board member is relatively short. He
said if a new appointment to the board is called upon to make a
couple of votes and those votes happen to be in very controversial
areas where there is a lot of pressure and publicity attached to
them, the argument is that it is unfair to judge that person on the
basis of how they came down on that one vote. He pointed out that
person might have voted in a certain way with a great deal of
integrity but just happened to come down on the wrong side of the
issue from a bunch of people's political point of view. He
stressed asking that person to stand for confirmation after one or
two controversial votes provides no opportunity to weigh the
person's ability to serve on the board.
MR. PADDOCK responded in his experience watching the process, he
does not believe that any of the major confirmation fights have
been over anything other than the issue of allowing the fish to get
back to the terminal areas, whether it is for commercial or sport
use. The question is are the fish being allowed to get back to the
rivers for harvest, escapement, subsistence, etc. He felt the non-
confirmations have come about because of input from constituents.
Number 224
JERRY MCCUNE, PRESIDENT, UNITED FISHERMEN OF ALASKA (UFA),
expressed support for CSHB 141(FSH). He said this bill is one of
the recommendations of the Governor's Transition Team on Fisheries,
which was made up of commercial, sports, charter, and subsistence
users. He stated UFA feels that moving the appointments, times and
term dates of the Board of Fisheries encourages future appointees
to put their names forward for consideration. He stressed the
present system does not encourage future appointees and does not
put an appointee in a favorable position when he or she is asked to
serve prior to being confirmed.
MR. MCCUNE stated he has been to many Board of Fisheries meetings
and has been a fisherman for the last 46 years. He agreed there
are many issues involved but those issues are for the Board of
Fisheries to take up. He pointed out that allocation issues are
always going to be there. He stressed what is being discussed is
the process of putting people on a very important board. He felt
the last two years have been very difficult for the legislature,
fishermen or anyone who would like to have someone be put on the
Board of Fisheries. He noted the confirmation of two Southeast
people in the last two years got very ugly and personal. He noted
it was very embarrassing for the appointees to sit through those
meetings with legislators and others who trashed them over one
vote, which was their opinion about the way the member voted.
MR. MCCUNE stressed everyone in the state will benefit from the
passage of HB 141. He said the bill does not have anything to do
with the Board of Game. He stated if everyone does their homework
and reviews the potential appointees thoroughly, the system will be
bettered.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN clarified that Mr. McCune is in agreement to
lock up the legislature so a board member can remain for a full
term.
MR. MCCUNE responded there are ways to remove a board member for
cause. He did not see cause as one vote or someone's opinion about
a board member's vote. He stressed if a board member is not acting
in good conduct, the Governor has the right to remove that board
member. He added the legislature can also complain to the Governor
about a particular board member.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stated HB 141 does not change the way the
present or future boards will serve. He said HB 141 does not
change the removal process for any of the board members. He
explained HB 141 contains the identical language as what presently
exists in regard to appointing a person other than the time frame.
He did not feel the legislature is being locked up any more with HB
141 than in the past. He pointed out that board members are
appointed and serve for three years unless they are removed for
cause.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stated he would prefer to hold HB 141 to
give him the opportunity to meet with Representatives Davies and
MacLean.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he was glad to hear the sponsor is willing
to hold the bill. He recalled that including the Board of Game in
HB 141 has been discussed and felt anytime the appointee process
can be depoliticized, the legislature is heading in the right
direction. He stated testimony did not object to the inclusion of
the Board of Game. He noted the sponsor had indicated he would be
willing to change the bill on the floor. He felt this is the
committee which should be changing the bill. He requested the
prime sponsor to look into including the Board of Game in HB 141.
Number 316
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated if the Board of Game is going to be
included in HB 141, then it is appropriate to publicly notice that
fact and give the appropriate people the opportunity to have input
on the change.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated HB 141 would be heard again on Monday,
March 20. He announced the committee would meet on Friday, March
17, to hear HB 59.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House Resources
Committee, Co-Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 9:47 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|