Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/28/1999 01:15 PM 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
April 28, 1999
1:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jerry Sanders, Co-Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chair
Representative Jim Whitaker
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 20(RES)
Relating to the removal of beaver from Washington, D.C.
- MOVED CSSJR 20(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* 2d SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 203
"An Act relating to loans from the agricultural revolving loan
fund; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED 2d SSHB 203 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 104
"An Act revising the procedures and authority of the Alaska
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, the Board of Fisheries, and
the Department of Fish and Game to establish a moratorium on
participants or vessels, or both, participating in certain
fisheries; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SJR 20
SHORT TITLE: SAVE THE BEAVER IN WASH D.C.
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR, Ward
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
4/08/99 828 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/08/99 828 (S) RES
4/08/99 828 (S) RES WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE,
RULE 23
4/09/99 (S) RES AT 3:00 PM BUTROVICH 205
4/09/99 (S) MOVED CS (RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
4/09/99 (S) MINUTE(RES)
4/12/99 884 (S) COSPONSOR(S): WARD
4/13/99 (S) RLS AT 11:40 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
4/13/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/13/99 898 (S) RES RPT CS 3DP 2NR SAME TITLE
4/13/99 898 (S) DP: HALFORD, TAYLOR, GREEN;
4/13/99 898 (S) NR: MACKIE, PETE KELLY
4/13/99 898 (S) ZERO FN TO SB AND CS (S.RES)
4/14/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
4/14/99 (H) <PENDING REFERRAL> SCHU BUT NOT HEARD
4/23/99 1063 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 4/23/99
4/23/99 1066 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
4/23/99 1067 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
4/23/99 1067 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING Y15 N5
4/23/99 1067 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSJR 20(RES)
4/23/99 1068 (S) PASSED Y13 N7
4/23/99 1068 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
4/26/99 1120 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
4/26/99 1120 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
4/27/99 1019 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/27/99 1019 (H) RESOURCES
4/28/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 203
SHORT TITLE: AGRICULTURE LOANS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) HARRIS, James
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
4/16/99 843 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/16/99 843 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
4/20/99 883 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
4/20/99 883 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/27/99 1026 (H) 2D SPONSOR SUB INTRODUCED
4/27/99 1026 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/27/99 1026 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
4/28/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 104
SHORT TITLE: ENTRY MORATORIA ON PARTICIPANTS/VESSELS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) HUDSON, Austerman
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/19/99 260 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/19/99 260 (H) FSH, RES
3/08/99 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
3/08/99 (H) MOVED CSHB 104(FSH)
3/08/99 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
3/10/99 408 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) NT 4DP
3/10/99 408 (H) DP: KAPSNER, MORGAN, WHITAKER, HUDSON
3/10/99 408 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G)
3/10/99 408 (H) REFERRED TO RES
4/14/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
4/14/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/14/99 (H) MINUTE(RES)
4/21/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
4/21/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/21/99 (H) MINUTE(RES)
4/28/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
MEL KROGSENG, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Robin Taylor
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 30
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3717
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SJR 20 on behalf of sponsor.
PETER FELLMAN, Researcher
for Representative John Harris
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 110
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4859
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided in-depth discussion of 2d SSHB 203,
on behalf of sponsor.
TERESSA KANDIANIS
P.O. Box 1547
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-3309
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 104.
LIZ CABRERA, Researcher
for Representative Bill Hudson and Committee Aide,
House Special Committee on Fisheries
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 108
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6890
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed intent of HB 104 on behalf of
sponsor.
GORDON BLUE
P.O. Box 1064
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-7967
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 104.
JOE KYLE
Pacific Associates
234 Gold Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3107
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 104.
JERRY McCUNE
P.O. Box 372
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907) 586-2820 (Juneau)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 104.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-29, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR JERRY SANDERS called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:15 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Sanders, Masek, Morgan, Barnes
and Joule. Representatives Harris and Kapsner arrived at 1:20 p.m.
and 1:27 p.m., respectively. Co-Chair Sanders noted that Co-Chair
Ogan was attending another meeting.
SJR 20 - SAVE THE BEAVER IN WASH D.C.
CO-CHAIR SANDERS announced that the first item of business would be
CS for Senate Joint Resolution No. 20(RES), relating to the removal
of beaver from Washington, D.C.
Number 0090
MEL KROGSENG, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor, Alaska
State Legislature, came forward on behalf of the sponsor to explain
the resolution, noting that Senator Taylor was in Washington, D.C.
She recounted how first one and then three beavers had inhabited
the tidal basin in Washington, D.C., and were gnawing down "alien
cherry trees" planted there that were in bloom. Senator Taylor had
felt that because these beavers apparently had been eradicated from
the area some years ago, they should be allowed to inhabit the
area.
MS. KROGSENG stated, "After all, in Alaska, we've had our timber
industry shut down to protect various birds, and in other areas of
the Western states, there have been many projects that have been
stopped, and people have been removed to protect endangered species
in those areas." Acknowledging the somewhat tongue-in-cheek
aspect, she said there is a serious situation, where numerous
projects have been stopped by the National Park Service. She
concluded, "The feeling is: If it's good enough for Alaska, then
it should be good enough for Washington, D.C."
Number 0259
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked how the beavers may have arrived back.
MS. KROGSENG replied that from the large amount of information
obtained from supporters of the resolution, news articles said the
National Park Service believes the beavers floated down the Potomac
River on some brush during a flood. She added that U.S.
Representative Helen Chenoweth of Idaho has asked the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to begin a study of these animals, to determine
whether this is a unique subspecies that should be placed on the
endangered species list.
Number 0502
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE recounted a trip to New York City, where he
witnessed a gay-rights parade attended by people who were
thoroughly disgusted. He had wondered why, if those people were
really disgusted, they were at the parade. He suggested the best
statement of disapproval would have been not being there. He
equated that situation to this resolution. Noting the important
issues that need to be addressed, he concluded, "We don't need to
be here with this."
Number 0665
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES agreed there are many important issues.
However, she believes it is important to make a point to
Washington, D.C., she said, that Alaska has important issues
relating to the Endangered Species Act and fish and wildlife, for
example. While this is a bit tongue-in-cheek, she believes it does
really send a message.
Number 0792
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move CSSJR 20(RES) from the
committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero
fiscal note; she asked unanimous consent. There being no
objection, CSSJR 20(RES) moved from the House Resources Standing
Committee.
HB 203 - AGRICULTURE LOANS
CO-CHAIR SANDERS announced that the next item of business would be
2d Sponsor Substitute for House Bill No. 203, "An Act relating to
loans from the agricultural revolving loan fund; and providing for
an effective date."
Number 0904
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS, sponsor, explained that HB 203 attempts to
help people in agriculture who have borrowed money from the
Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund (ARLF). It would lower the ARLF
interest rate from 8 percent to 5 percent, to be more in line with
other lending institutions. It would also provide guidelines
regarding drought affecting agriculture for three years, intended
to help individuals meet their loan payment schedules.
Furthermore, Section 5 provides for $50,000 loans by approval of
the board. Representative Harris deferred to Pete Fellman for a
more in-depth explanation.
Number 1053
PETER FELLMAN, Researcher for Representative John Harris, Alaska
State Legislature, came forward, noting that he lives in Delta
Junction. Involved in agriculture in Alaska for 12 years, he said
although agriculture hit bottom in the late 1980s, many farmers
have survived. Not unlike that elsewhere in the world, agriculture
in Alaska is highly volatile and subject to the climate. However,
when the ARLF was instituted, some provisions in statute weren't
understanding of that volatility. Therefore, this bill tries not
only to bring the ARLF in line with other lending institutions, but
also to make it a little more farmer-friendly.
MR. FELLMAN advised members that the Farm Service Agency (FSA), a
federal lending agency that has come into Alaska in the last three
years, has significantly lower interest rates than the ARLF's.
Consequently, many [farmers] have turned to the FSA to borrow
money, both for annual operations and long-term loans. That has
reduced the number of loans made by the ARLF, which may shorten the
life of the fund. Mr. Fellman pointed out that the Division of
Agriculture's operating funds come from the ARLF, which has a
projected life of about five years. Reducing interest rates could
affect that. However, if another drought is suffered in Delta
Junction, or another catastrophic event wipes out a crop, the
likelihood of farmers' inability to make payments would greatly
increase, which could significantly shorten the life of the fund.
Number 1240
MR. FELLMAN told members they are looking at a reduction to no less
than a 5 percent interest rate. A provision would also raise
emergency loan amounts from $25,000 to $50,000. Furthermore, there
is an important provision whereby loans can be restructured. In
statute now, a farmer who has a problem for up to three years can
roll a loan over, although that doesn't reduce the interest rate,
stop the interest or reduce the principal; after that three-year
period, there are no options. In all likelihood, the state would
lose that money in a bankruptcy court. What HB 203 does is make it
possible that if there are three disastrous years out of five, the
ARLF could restructure loans, thereby saving the state's interest
in agriculture.
Number 1333
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked what the balance is in the ARLF.
MR. FELLMAN said he believes it is $5 million.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES recounted that when the Delta barley/rape
seed project was first before the legislature and the ARLF was
enhanced, she believes that farmers had only agricultural rights,
not fee simple title to the lands. They therefore could not go to
a bank to borrow money. To her recollection, Senator Lyda Green's
bill had changed that, to where the land is now owned by the
farmers in fee simple title. She asked if Mr. Fellman knows
whether that is the case.
MR. FELLMAN replied, "Somewhat." He said the changes in Lyda
Green's bill, which he believes was SB 109, have not attracted
commercial lenders; he knows of only one loan to date by a
commercial bank, National Bank of Alaska (NBA), based on those
changes. The intentions were good, he said, and it did change the
agricultural designation on land. However, it also attached an
agricultural covenant that still ties up many aspects of mineral
rights, water rights, and so on, and also makes restrictions on
buildings. It has enticed the FSA, however, by making it possible
for that agency to lend money to farmers.
Number 1495
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES suggested that those covenants are similar to
those for any land in Alaska owned by individuals, because of
inability to own the subsurface mineral rights; many subdivisions
have restrictive covenants, as well. She said at her last count,
investments in Delta Junction were in excess of $200 million,
perhaps closer to $300 million. Furthermore, the investment in
Point MacKenzie was something like $350 million. Much of that
money has been lost, she stated, and she has serious concerns about
all loan programs like this. She further suggested that if farmers
keep going broke and declaring bankruptcy, this will have to be
recapitalized in the future. She expressed concern about rewriting
the program to lower the interest rate, and said these people could
probably borrow money from the banks for the same amount.
Number 1612
MR. FELLMAN pointed out that the ARLF has received no funding since
1988. Although the fund revolves and the payback has been good,
its life has been shortened by general fund expenditures from the
ARLF, not by farmers going broke. He agreed that the state lost
lots of money, partly, he said, because of restrictions put on land
clearing and time limits. He said it has nothing to do with the
inability to grow barley in Alaska or lack of a market, because
there is a market. Without the general fund expenditures from the
ARLF, it would be solvent and last indefinitely, he concluded.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said that begs the fact of what has been put
into the fund through the years. She asserted that the barley
project in Delta Junction will never be commercially viable outside
of Alaska because the bison eat most of the barley, although she
believes there is a market in Alaska.
Number 1745
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked whether, under the restructuring, a
person could take out a series of $50,000 loans in successive bad
years.
MR. FELLMAN explained that to qualify to restructure under this
bill, there would have to be three out of five years of suffering
a disaster. After restructuring in any given year, there would be
three more years before qualifying to restructure again. There are
a variety of loans available, including operating loans and
so-called chattel loans for equipment and cattle. Each has a
specific limit, and it would be up to that limit.
Number 1854
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE recalled dealing with loans relating to bad
years for commercial fishing, and he asked whether the percentage
rate for those loans is comparable to those under HB 203.
MR. FELLMAN said he doesn't know, although he knows that the FSA
rate is 5 percent, and, in some cases, 3.75 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES told members she had acquired the information
[from Jerry McCune, who was present]. She said it is 8 percent,
plus 1.5 percent over the prime rate, whatever that may be.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE suggested that up to this point, at 8 percent,
they are equal for fishing and agriculture. He restated concern
about parity in those two industries.
Number 1999
CO-CHAIR SANDERS asked if there were questions or comments, or if
anyone else wished to testify; there was no response.
Number 2034
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move 2d SSHB 203 from the
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
notes; she asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, 2d
SSHB 203 moved from the House Resources Standing Committee.
HB 104 - ENTRY MORATORIA ON PARTICIPANTS/VESSELS
Number 2082
CO-CHAIR SANDERS announced that the next item of business would be
House Bill No. 104, "An Act revising the procedures and authority
of the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, the Board of
Fisheries, and the Department of Fish and Game to establish a
moratorium on participants or vessels, or both, participating in
certain fisheries; and providing for an effective date." Before
the committee was CSHB 104(FSH), heard previously.
Number 2125
TERESSA KANDIANIS from Kodiak came forward, advising members that
she and her husband own and operate the F/V Provider, a scallop
boat. She specified that she was also representing the interests
of John Duty (ph), who owns the F/V Pursuit. Both boats have
fished in the Alaskan scallop fishery for a number of years. Ms.
Kandianis spoke in favor of moving HB 104 forward, explaining that
the state needs a complete set of tools to manage fisheries. She
believes that if there had been a tool available to the
administration in 1993, when there was a huge incursion of East
Coast vessels into the scallop fishery, it would have cut back
dramatically on the number of nonresident vessels that entered and
stayed in the fishery.
MS. KANDIANIS explained their chief concern: If the legislation
were to fail, and the fishery were to revert to open access when
the current moratorium expires, a number of new vessels would enter
the fishery again. Virtually every fishery in the state is limited
now, and when a new area is opened, people move in, to do so-called
portfolio building. She noted that although the fishery is fairly
limited in Alaska, with only 20 percent occurring inside state
waters, those grounds are very important.
MS. KANDIANIS pointed out that the rules since 1993 have managed
their small fishery conservatively and effectively, more so than
before that time. However, with a new influx of vessels in the
limited area inside three miles, she believes that the department
would have a difficult time managing it. If the department closed
the area inside three miles, for example, that would be disastrous
for the fishermen.
MS. KANDIANIS said they are barely making it now, especially since
1995, when the Mr. Big incident closed the entire fishery for about
18 months. They are waiting for the fishery to settle down, and
for some of the conservation tools to bring the resource back up.
They are also learning to fish more wisely and more conservatively,
she indicated, to be able to break even with their vessel again.
MS. KANDIANIS pointed out that theirs is a highly specialized
fishery. If there is another influx of boats, the owners will
probably mostly be nonresidents, and she believes that what
happened in 1993 would happen again. She emphasized that those in
the fishery the longest don't have "deep pockets" and couldn't wait
it out as well as some who are merely portfolio building, or who
want to "get a leg into the fishery" and then ultimately get
something out of it.
MS. KANDIANIS told members that both boats and crews have become
specialized. Their crews have spent 25 years in this fishery, and
although highly skilled, they don't know how to do other fisheries.
She asked for consideration that HB 104 provides another two years
to get a permanent system in place, to replace this temporary
moratorium and to let this fishery survive.
Number 2404
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she has looked at the list of boats
holding permits in that fishery, and the lion's share of owners
live outside of Alaska. She emphasized that she won't support
anything that allows Alaska's resources to be controlled by people
outside the state. She suggested that there are many ways to
manage under the sustained yield principle without establishing a
moratorium that grandfathers in all of these out-of-staters. She
will oppose this bill going out of committee, she said, and will
oppose it on the floor. She added that she had supported the first
moratorium, and she believes that lasted long enough to get this
fishery under control.
MS. KANDIANIS responded that if the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC) had had a tool in 1991, when boats first started
heading to Alaska from the East Coast, all those out-of-staters
wouldn't be on the list. She emphasized that there is nothing she
can do about what already happened. However, she asks that the
legislature give the scallopers another couple of years, because
the moratorium's expiration will make the fishery unmanageable
inside three miles, and more nonresidents will come in. The people
who will go bankrupt will be Alaska residents who don't have deep
pockets.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES restated that the Board of Fisheries is
charged by the legislature to manage those resources under the
sustained yield principle, which she believes they must do through
limiting the harvest amounts, making it more difficult for
out-of-state boat owners to come to Alaska to harvest the resource.
She said she is tired of Alaskans' paying to manage the resources
through the Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), while nonresidents
reap the benefits. She restated concern that by allowing another
moratorium, they will be in the same place after another two years.
Number 2601
MS. KANDIANIS replied that she didn't want to be back here. She
noted that the board made some major conservation changes in the
fishery; it is 100 percent observer-covered, and there are very
restrictive TACs [total allowable catches] and bycatch limits.
Furthermore, the industry has voluntary programs to monitor the
fishery and bycatch. "If a permanent system were in place now,
that would be our preference," she concluded. "But it's not, and
the only other alternative is this expires and it goes back to open
access."
Number 2648
LIZ CABRERA, Researcher for Representative Bill Hudson and
Committee Aide, House Special Committee on Fisheries, Alaska State
Legislature, came forward on behalf of the sponsor to clarify what
the bill does or doesn't do. First, it doesn't establish any
moratorium for any fishery, she said. The scallop fishery
moratorium, for example, was established by the legislature several
years ago. And second, it doesn't extend a moratorium. Rather, it
gives the CFEC the authority to extend a moratorium, if necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES responded that if this is passed, the new
moratorium will be adopted the day after it is signed into law.
Number 2688
MS. CABRERA explained that part of the reason for the extension is
that when the legislature passed the moratorium on scallops, they
did it as a vessel-based limited entry. However, the CFEC doesn't
have authority to limit a fishery based on vessels. Therefore, the
legislature has to pass another statute establishing a vessel-based
program, but it hasn't done that. As the moratorium ends, this
bill is an effort to prevent that fishery from going into open
access before new statutes are put into place.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated her belief that there is enough
limited entry in Alaska's fisheries now. She said the boards
should find a better way to do it.
Number 2787
GORDON BLUE from Sitka came forward, noting that he is co-owner and
manager of two vessels that fish Korean hair crab in the Pribilof
Islands; he sometimes operates those boats, as well. He said the
vessels are "partners with the community development quota holder,
the association for Saint Paul Island, Central Bering Sea
Fishermen's Association, and with the village Native corporation,
the TDX Corporation." Mr. Blue explained that the fishery for
Korean hair crab takes place almost entirely in the waters around
Saint Paul Island, so it is very much of interest to the locals
there. He stated:
We came to you several years ago and asked you to establish a
bill for limited entry for these fisheries, to try to help
protect us and others in the fisheries. We also were very
cognizant of the desire of people on Saint Paul to try to
develop a small-boat fishery for the area. Unfortunately, the
biology of the crab is such that they've been unable to do
that, because when the crab are in a fishable condition, it's
winter months, and that's definitely not a time or a place
where small boats can be utilized. So, they've done the
next-best thing and participate in these vessels with us.
I hear the passion in Representative Barnes' position, and the
statement ..., by and large, I agree with. I also support the
fisheries that we develop bringing the most benefit to us in
this state. ...
In 1981, my vessel, the Ocean Cape, made some of the first
deliveries of brown king crab from the Dutch Harbor area. And
we stayed with that fishery until 1989. In the interim, we
fished in Dutch Harbor and the Aleutian Chain, helped to
develop the techniques that are used there to fish nowadays,
using longline/pot systems, and so forth. And the vessel is
a hundred-foot vessel, and by 1989 we were run out by larger,
better-financed operations, most of them from outside the
state.
We moved our operation to the Pribilofs, and in 1990 we - with
one other vessel, which was owned in-state at that time -
helped to develop this hair crab fishery which is under
discussion today. We two vessels, I think were the only ones
in '91 that actually targeted that fishery. '92, the fleet
began to build up a bit, and by the time there were 12 vessels
involved, about half of them were actually Alaskan-registered
and Alaskan-owned vessels.
What happened then is pretty illustrative of ... the features
of our fishery management system ... that frustrate us. We
had a big influx of boats, most of them larger,
better-financed, and from outside the state. Now, these boats
came into the fishery because we were making some money at it.
And so, it was a very attractive opportunity. By the time
there were 22 boats, we'd hit a critical ... [ends mid-speech
because of tape change]
TAPE 99-29, SIDE B
[Numbers run backwards because of tape machine]
MR. BLUE reported that during the time in which all this effort
built up, a number of in-state vessels left the fishery. Two sank:
one, the Pacesetter (ph), sank with all hands, and one sank en
route to Kodiak. As far as he knows, the moratorium permits are
still in the estates, he added. In addition, one of the two
vessels that helped start the fishery was bankrupted because of
being a smaller, less competitive vessel.
MR. BLUE noted that a major fishery involving the Bering Sea crab
fleet is the Opilio crab fishery, with harvests of up to 333
million pounds. In contrast, the hair crab fishery has had a
maximum harvest of 1.8 million pounds. "Real small potatoes," he
said. "When you get this huge influx of effort, represented by
only 22 to 25 vessels, it overwhelms that resource." He pointed
out that there have been diminishing catches, even during the
moratorium. They support a vessel limited entry bill that would
establish a reasonable-sized fleet and also stabilize it. He
believes it is necessary to reduce the number of vessels for a
long-term sustainable fishery, and such a bill would enable that to
occur. There is no tool to do that today.
MR. BLUE mentioned efforts through the Board of Fisheries, as well
as trying to resolve these sorts of difficulties for the federally
managed fisheries, and stated, "We've been getting trashed." He
would love to see the state maximize the benefits from this, he
said, but doesn't know how. He requested help in this endeavor,
asking for suggestions if a moratorium won't do it. He pointed out
that a moratorium is not intended as a long-term solution; it is
just a freeze while they try to work out details of vessel limited
entry or whatever program will establish this stability.
MR. BLUE told members there aren't too many fisheries left to
develop out there. He recounted going after a sea snail fishery,
using pots, in the mid-1990s, noting that it had been self-limiting
because of a weak market. He concluded:
I don't know what utility this general moratorium may have in
the larger scheme of things, but I know, from my experience,
that had we had it, we would have well-managed, stable
fisheries in the interim to a more permanent solution. And
so, I share your frustration, and ... rather than propose any
particular solution, I ask you to help us to solve that. I
think this is, in prospect, one of the tools that may do that.
But without it, I despair.
Number 2787
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES responded that rather than making a bad
situation worse, the committee ought to invite the ADF&G to the
Capitol to sit down and work out a plan that will not grandfather
in all of these out-of-state boats. She restated her earlier
concerns, saying there must be another way around it.
MR. BLUE replied that he would welcome that, and would love to
participate in that process, should it occur. He would also like
to see, when they go out there with their boats to try to develop
the next little niche fishery, a rule in place that will help keep
it for Alaskans, which he believes this bill will accomplish. He
acknowledged that the bill won't roll back the damage already done
to these fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES reiterated her concern that continuing these
moratoriums will give nonresidents increasingly stronger footholds
in the fisheries.
Number 2698
MR. BLUE agreed. "That's not what we're asking for with our
vessels," he added. "What we're asking is when we do the next
fishery development project, we have protection in place, so that
you can put the brakes on when the time arrives. And we're asking
that you solve this other problem with the hair crab and the
scallop fisheries, possibly through a vessel limited entry bill,
such as the one that has been introduced in the Senate." He said
there are two separate problems.
Number 2650
JOE KYLE, Pacific Associates, came forward. He said he represents
quite a few fishery clients, primarily who work in the "federal
fisheries." Although a voting member of the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council, he specified that he wasn't speaking on the
council's behalf. As "an Alaska resident who happens to have a lot
of interest and insight into the way the federal fisheries are
managed," he sees this bill giving the CFEC the tools to keep what
Representative Barnes is concerned about from occurring in state
water fisheries.
MR. KYLE explained that right now, the major problem in fisheries
throughout the world is overcapitalization; there is way too much
effort out there. That is happening in the federal fisheries, and
those participants are looking for other places to go, including
state water fisheries. Likewise, some nearshore state water
fisheries in Oregon and Washington are being shut down and "pushed
out," and those participants are starting to come to Alaska to get
into new and emerging state water fisheries here.
MR. KYLE stated that while this bill has something in it about the
hair crab and scallop moratoriums passed a couple of years ago, the
main thrust is preserving the state water fisheries for small-boat
Alaska operators, before the influx from out of state occurs. He
believes the legislature needs to give the ADF&G and the CFEC this
tool to manage the nearshore state water fisheries, to close the
door before it is too late. He urged that HB 104 be moved out.
Number 2554
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS noted that he had heard this in the House
Special Committee on Fisheries, as well. He expressed his
understanding that under this bill, a moratorium established now
may be extended for two more years. However, after that there can
be no moratorium for five years. He asked if that is correct.
MR. KYLE said that is how he understands the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if Mr. Kyle believes that two years is
enough time.
MR. KYLE responded that the Board of Fisheries and the ADF&G
certainly have their hands full in being able to do that. "My
short answer is yes," he added.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated that the answer to Representative
Harris is that one legislature cannot bind another. Therefore, it
isn't true that it couldn't be done again for another five years.
Number 2445
JERRY McCUNE came forward. He recounted how he had pioneered the
herring gillnet fishery in Cordova, pointing out that in such
cases, word soon gets around that there may be limited entry on a
fishery, or that a fishery is a potential money-maker. Therefore,
there is a big influx of people. He emphasized the need for the
ability, whether vessel-based or person-based, to close these small
fisheries off quickly enough so that resident-owned boats are
included, but before outside boats can get there. Unfortunately,
in the scallop fishery the big boats jumped in, and now it will be
difficult to resolve. He suggested that without a moratorium, the
scallop fishery won't be able to function with that amount of
boats, which will also cut out state residents.
Number 2312
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES responded that, admittedly, the board might
have to close it to everybody for a short time, but they could
limit who comes back into it, by limiting the size of boats coming
into the fishery, for example, once these permits are no longer
valid under the moratorium.
MR. McCUNE replied that it depends on how the program is structured
by the CFEC. He agreed that those large-boat owners may perhaps
lose interest if it closed, leaving a handful of locals to reenter
the fishery, which could then be closed again quickly.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES restated her earlier concerns about managing
the fishery for primarily out-of-state operators. She also
restated the desire to get with the ADF&G to find a way to manage
these programs for the benefit of Alaskans first.
MR. McCUNE said he is all for that. He again emphasized the need
to close off developing fisheries fast enough so that residents
retain "ownership" within the three-mile limit.
Number 2112
CO-CHAIR SANDERS asked if anyone else wished to testify. He
announced that HB 104 would be held over.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:22 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|