Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/01/2002 01:06 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
May 1, 2002
1:06 p.m.
RESOURCES MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Drew Scalzi, Co-Chair
Representative Hugh Fate, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Beth Kerttula
FISHERIES MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gary Stevens, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Co-Chair
Representative Drew Scalzi
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative John Coghill
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 30(RES)
Relating to Alaska Salmon Day.
- MOVED CSSCR 30(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Board of Fisheries
Gerry Merrigan - Petersburg
Arthur N. Nelson - Anchorage
Brett Huber - Soldotna
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SCR 30
SHORT TITLE:ALASKA SALMON DAY
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/18/02 2450 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/18/02 2450 (S) STA,RES
04/09/02 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/09/02 (S) Moved Out of Committee
04/09/02 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/10/02 2709 (S) STA RPT 4DP
04/10/02 2709 (S) DP: THERRIAULT, DAVIS,
STEVENS, HALFORD
04/10/02 2709 (S) FN1: ZERO(S.STA)
04/17/02 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/17/02 (S) Moved CS(RES) Out of
Committee
04/17/02 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/18/02 2837 (S) RES RPT CS 6DP SAME TITLE
04/18/02 2837 (S) DP: TORGERSON, HALFORD,
STEVENS,
04/18/02 2837 (S) WILKEN, LINCOLN, ELTON
04/18/02 2837 (S) FN1: ZERO(S.STA)
04/22/02 (S) RLS AT 9:30 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
04/22/02 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/24/02 2924 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/24/02
04/24/02 2934 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/24/02 2934 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/24/02 2934 (S) PASSED Y20 N-
04/24/02 2936 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/24/02 2936 (S) VERSION: CSSCR 30(RES)
04/25/02 3122 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/25/02 3122 (H) RES
05/01/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KRISTY TIBBLES, Staff
to Senator Ben Stevens
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 119
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SCR 30 on behalf of the Senate
Labor and Commerce Standing committee, sponsor, which Senator
Stevens chairs.
GERRY MERRIGAN, Appointee
to the Board of Fish
Box 1065
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as an appointee to the Board of
Fish; provided background information and answered questions.
BRETT W. HUBER
P.O. Box 822
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as an appointee to the Board of
Fish; provided background information and answered questions.
ARTHUR N. NELSON, Appointee
to the Board of Fish
2132 Clark Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as an appointee to the Board of
Fish; provided background information and answered questions.
VIRGIL UMPHENOUR, Member
Board of Fisheries
878 Lynnwood Way
North Pole, Alaska 99705
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation
of Mr. Huber and Mr. Nelson.
ED DERSHAM, Chairman
Board of Fisheries
P.O. Box 537
Anchor Point, Alaska 99556
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
Mr. Huber, Mr. Merrigan, and Mr. Nelson.
MARVIN PETERS, Chairman
Homer [Fish and Game] Advisory Committee
P.O. Box 2623
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Mr. Huber to the BOF.
DAVID MARTIN, Chairman
Central Peninsula [Fish and Game] Advisory Committee
71605 Sterling Highway
Clam Gulch, Alaska 99568
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Mr. Huber to the BOF.
IRV CARLISLE
P.O. Box 2349
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Mr. Huber to the BOF.
HERMAN FANDEL
702 Lawton Drive
Kenai, Alaska 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
Mr. Huber to the BOF.
IRENE FANDEL
702 Lawton Drive
Kenai, Alaska 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
Mr. Huber to the BOF.
BIX BONNEY
P.O. Box 3292
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
Mr. Huber to the BOF.
ELLIE SNAVELY
61113 Deer Valley Drive
Bend, Oregon 97702
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
Mr. Huber to the BOF.
SAM McDOWELL
P.O. Box 149
Sterling, Alaska 99672
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
Mr. Huber to the BOF.
BRUCE KNOWLES
P.O. Box 873206
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
Mr. Huber to the BOF.
DON JOHNSON
P.O. Box 876
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
Mr. Nelson and Mr. Huber. However, he noted that was in
disagreement with a lot of things about them, but remained
supportive because they are common users.
CARL ROSIER
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
8298 Garnet Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
Mr. Huber to the BOF.
DAVID BEDFORD, Executive Director
Southeast Alaska Seiners Association (SEAS)
526 Main Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
Mr. Merrigan.
BILL SULLIVAN
United Cook Inlet Drift Association (UCIDA)
PO Box 943
Kenai, Alaska 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Mr. Huber to the BOF.
LES PALMER
P.O. Box 631
Sterling, Alaska 99672
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Mr. Huber to the BOF.
DALE BONDURANT
31864 Moonshine Drive
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
Mr. Huber to the BOF.
DON McKAY
32992 Johnson Drive
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
Mr. Huber to the BOF.
TERRY SAPPAH
P.O. BOX 1253
Sterling, Alaska 99672
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
Mr. Huber to the BOF.
BUD HARRIS
P.O. BOX 7013
Nikiski, Alaska 99635
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Mr. Huber to the BOF.
PAUL SEATON
58395 Bruce Street
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Mr. Huber to the BOF.
JERRY McCUNE
United Fishermen of Alaska
211 4th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
Mr. Nelson and Mr. Merrigan to the BOF.
PAUL SHADURA
Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association (KPFA)
PO Box 1632
Kenai, Alaska 99610
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Mr. Huber to the BOF.
ROLAND MAW
P.O. BOX 530
Kasilof, Alaska 99610
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Mr. Huber to the BOF.
RUBEN HANKE
P.O. BOX 624
Kenai, Alaska 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
Mr. Huber to the BOF.
RONDI McCLURE
P.O. BOX 2263
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
Mr. Huber to the BOF.
STEVE McCLURE, Vice President
Kenai River Professional Guide Association (KRPGA)
P.O. BOX 2263
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
Mr. Huber to the BOF.
RYAN HOWLETT
P.O. BOX 1647
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
Mr. Huber to the BOF.
RON RAINEY
P.O. BOX 2004
Kenai, Alaska 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
Mr. Huber to the BOF.
CHRIS GARCIA
P.O. BOX 203
Kenai, Alaska 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
Mr. Nelson and Mr. Merrigan to the BOF and in opposition to the
confirmation of Mr. Huber to the BOF.
DAVE LOWERY
34715 Keystone Drive
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
Mr. Huber to the BOF.
BOB MERCHANT, President
United Cook Inlet Drift Association (UCIDA )
43961 K-Beach Road
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Mr. Huber to the BOF.
PAT CARTER
P.O. Box 3805
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of all three
appointees to the BOF.
GREG BRUSH
P.O. Box 4278
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the nomination of
Mr. Huber to the BOF.
MURRAY FENTON
P.O. Box 2594
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the nomination of
Mr. Huber to the BOF.
STEVE TVENSTRUP
4928 Beaver Loop
Kenai, Alaska 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the nomination
of Mr. Huber to the BOF, but in support of the nomination of Mr.
Merrigan and Mr. Nelson.
DREW SPARLIN
37020 Cannery Road
Kenai, Alaska 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the nomination
of Mr. Huber to the BOF, but in support of the nomination of Mr.
Merrigan and Mr. Nelson.
RAY DeBARDELABEN
P.O. BOX 4357
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the nomination of
Mr. Huber to the BOF.
CHERYL SUTTON
PO Box 39214
Ninilchik, Alaska 99639
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the nomination of
Mr. Merrigan and Mr. Nelson.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-41, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR DREW SCALZI called the joint meeting of the House
Resources Standing Committee and the House Special Committee on
Fisheries to order at 1:06 p.m. Representatives Wilson, Dyson,
Kerttula, Stevens, Fate, McGuire, Green, Chenault, Masek, Scalzi
were present during the call to order. Representatives Coghill
and Kapsner arrived as the meeting was in progress.
SCR 30-ALASKA SALMON DAY
CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced that the first order of business
before the House Resources Standing Committee would be CS FOR
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 30(RES), Relating to Alaska
Salmon Day.
Number 0035
KRISTY TIBBLES, Staff to Senator Ben Stevens, Alaska State
Legislature, presented SCR 30 on behalf of the Senate Labor and
Commerce Standing committee, sponsor, which Senator Stevens
chairs. She explained that SCR 30 proclaims June 30, 2002, as
"Alaska Salmon Day." This proclamation recognizes the salmon
industry as a huge part of all of Alaskans' lives and raises
public awareness of one of Alaska's most important industries.
She said its passage will also support the Alaska Seafood
Marketing Institute (ASMI) and its efforts to market Alaskan
salmon in the United States in the coming summer.
Number 0242
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to report CSSCR 30(RES) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSSCR 30(RES) was
moved out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
Number 0356
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Board of Fisheries
CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced that the next order of business would
be hearings on the confirmation of the appointments of Gerry
Merrigan, Brett Huber, and Arthur N. Nelson to the Board of
Fisheries (BOF).
Number 0492
GERRY MERRIGAN, Appointee to the Board of Fisheries, informed
the committee that he has been a resident since 1979 and has
been fishing off and on since that time, including power
trolling for salmon and fishing halibut IFQs [individual fishery
quotas] in Southeast [Alaska]. Mr. Merrigan explained that in
the winters he has worked on fishing policy issues, including
the U.S. - Canada [Salmon] Treaty in the early 1990s and some
Bering Sea issues with the North Pacific [Fisheries Management]
Council (NPFMC). He noted that for the past three years he has
been the director of Petersburg Vessel Owners Association.
MR. MERRIGAN reviewed his work experience, which includes
crabbing, tendering, seining, and being a crewmember. He
mentioned that although he may not have a lot of experience in
some fisheries, he knew enough people to steer him in the right
direction. Mr. Merrigan related that he owned a 35-foot wooden
troller that he had been fishing since 1985 and has 6,000 pounds
of halibut IFQs. He informed the committee that he was exposed
to the diversity of some of the BOF issues through a vessel
owner's association. The association included everything from
150 freezer longliners down to 26-foot Dungeness crab skiffs,
and vessels fishing from the Bering Sea down to Tree Point. He
noted that he attended quite a few BOF meetings as the director
of the vessel owners. He said he started going to BOF meetings
in 1988, and has seen several boards at work. With regard to
why a person would want to be on the BOF, Mr. Merrigan said he
was sure he'd be asking himself that over and over again.
However, he related that he may be able to add something to this
[process].
MR. MERRIGAN characterized himself as a nuts-and-bolts person
who is good with numbers. "I think I can help make things
work," he said. Furthermore, he indicated that he helps move
along good ideas. "I don't have an agenda ... other than ...
I'd like to see the meetings get shorter," he remarked. He
explained that the shorter meetings could help keep the public
involved. Mr. Merrigan expressed the desire to keep things real
simple at the BOF and maintain a board that is viewed as fair.
Above all, resource conservation is the priority because that's
what the constitution specifies. Without the resource, it's
moot.
Number 0833
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if Mr. Merrigan would have a
predisposition in favor of commercial fishing if there were
commercial fisheries issues at odds with other fisheries.
MR. MERRIGAN talked about regulations and policies of the board,
including the allocation criteria. He noted subsistence
priorities, as well as commercial, sport, guided sport, and
personal use [priorities]; he said a good board member would
have to review those to establish that allocation. He hoped
that his decisions would be justified by the allocation
criteria. He noted his belief that personal use is an important
fishery. He mentioned doing things to get along with neighbors
and in that regard, trollers have done things such as not
opening up close to town until the [local] salmon derby has
concluded.
Number 1028
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked Mr. Merrigan how familiar he is with
the inland personal use and commercial fisheries, and also
inquired as to his perception of the management of the Interior
fishery in the scheme of the total management of the allocation
in the fisheries.
MR. MERRIGAN explained that he probably has the least amount of
experience with the inland [fisheries]. He noted that [fishing
in] Bristol Bay was about as close as he got to [inland
fisheries]. However, when he worked for the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game (ADF&G) in the early 1980s, it gave him an idea
of the complexity of "rearing habitat" depending on water
heights. Mr. Merrigan remarked that although these are complex
issues, he said he has always felt everyone agrees with
escapement goal, and therefore the fish have to be delivered
first, and then the in-river allocations can occur. He noted
that there's a conservation issue and if you have a subsistence
priority, the conservation issue is proportional to the impact
of each group. Therefore, fishermen are encouraged to keep
participating in conservation because they will receive the
benefits at some point. "If it's done ... equitably and
proportionately, ... the end result is the fish have to end
upstream with the ... end river user as well," he pointed out.
MR. MERRIGAN emphasized:
The management's got to start from the outside in, and
you have to know how much to deliver escapement, plus
the in-river goal. I understand some of your
fisheries aren't maybe getting the necessary returns
that you'd like and there may be some information or
data shortages as well. ... My knowledge of those
systems is probably weak, and ... [as] one previous
board member commented ... he realized how little he
knew until he put his name in for the [Board of
Fisheries], and I am realizing that just as well.
Number 1204
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS turned to the conflict-of-interest issues
that seem to affect the board occasionally and asked Mr.
Merrigan if he would have a conflict. If so, would that
conflict preclude him from being involved in issues or would it
be [acceptable] for [a board member] to state a conflict and
continue to participate in the debate.
MR. MERRIGAN offered his belief that a [board member] with a
conflict should be allowed to participate in the debate, because
the reason that person is on the board is to include his or her
expertise [on the issues]. In terms of voting, he thought [that
member] should declare his or her conflict and [allow] the
chairman to establish whether that member would financially
benefit from [voting]. He mentioned that if something benefited
the Southeast [Alaska Commercial] Troll [Fisheries Management]
Plan, he might receive an infinitesimal gain as one of 1,500
trollers. However, he was unsure as to whether that would
constitute a conflict. Mr. Merrigan said if the issue was
regarding some area where he fished that spot, he would have to
declare a conflict. He opined that people should be allowed to
participate in a debate and state their conflict, unless there's
a real direct financial gain. He suggested that having the
[conflict] on the record might be sufficient.
Number 1328
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON turned to the Bristol Bay fishery as soon
and pointed out that when the end river users, particularly
subsistence and personal use, obtain their allocation, ... the
run may be gone for the commercial fishermen located at those
river of origin fisheries. He inquired as to how that problem
could be managed.
MR. MERRIGAN said he wasn't suggesting curtailing fisheries so
those fish are delivered. He explained:
It's active management, and I think the system the
state has of in-season emergency order using the gut
judgment of the area biologists; ... the pulse
fishing; you're going to try to deliver 'X' amount and
they got to do their best judgment to it. If you wait
to measure those fish 20 miles upstream, ... you've
missed the bulk of the run and you've missed the
intent of Bristol Bay management, which is to sample
all run segments of that.
Bristol Bay gets complicated between the in-river, the
set[net], the drift[net] ..., but I think you have to
take your best cut at trusting the area management
system. But they need to know how much they're trying
to deliver, get that quantified .... They enter the
system, but they don't advance, so escapement's kind
of there but hasn't got up to that river system. ...
I would have to just go with our area management and
EO authority that we have, and trust [ADF&G] in the
best judgment; ... we all learn from our errors.
Number 1477
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON mentioned that the Kvichak [River system]
has not been getting its escapement for several years and is an
area of contention. He explained that the commercial fishermen
cannot fish that area, but that there are still in-river
fisheries, sport fishing, and other fisheries. Representative
Dyson asked Mr. Merrigan if he thought all of the fisheries
should be shut down until the escapement goals are met.
MR. MERRIGAN answered, "I think it would have to be ...
proportionate." He said he would have to look at the magnitude
of the impact in the sports fishery, however he didn't think it
necessarily meant everyone gets shut down. There could probably
be catch-and-release, he opined.
Number 1561
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE told Mr. Merrigan that he struck her as a
no-nonsense kind of guy that speaks his mind, and that she
appreciated that. She asked Mr. Merrigan if he could be "king
for a day," what kind of a make-up he would [envision] on the
BOF. She also asked him how the make-up of the BOF relates to
the future of the salmon industry and resource protection.
Number 1605
MR. MERRIGAN responded that there would be another [board
member] from Southeast, including several fishermen other than
him. He that one can't go by categories a lot of times because
it's a mix of personalities with a variety of expertise,
experiences, and skills. He said Ed Dersham is one of the best
BOF members he has seen.
Number 1739
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested perhaps there are more commercial
fishermen fishing [than revenue being generated to] support them
all. He noted that the state and some fishing groups have
considered buy-back [programs]. He asked Mr. Merrigan his
thoughts on this issue.
MR. MERRIGAN related his belief that each fishery would have to
be reviewed. He noted that the web site of CFEC [Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission] web site provides a good picture of
each fishery. Perhaps [the fishing industry] needs to make
itself more efficient and determine where the business should
go. Mr. Merrigan said he wasn't sure it's the BOF's job to
develop innovative solutions because those should come from the
task force and the people bringing proposals forward. He
reiterated the need to review the situation fishery by fishery
because it depends on the level of participation.
Number 1870
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Merrigan why would he want to
[be on the BOF]. She asked him about his goals.
MR. MERRIGAN said that he has a lot of knowledge of [fisheries
issues], and although he has never really done a lot of public
service, he thought this was the [right] time. Mr. Merrigan
mentioned that if he didn't make it on the BOF, it wouldn't be
that disappointing after having [witnessed what previous BOF
members] go through. He remarked, "The long meetings, high
anxiety, and low pay were simply irresistible."
Number 1960
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI pointed out that the BOF had been
reviewing proposals concerning Local Area Management Plans
(LAMPs). Furthermore, [the BOF seems to be] working with the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) closer than he
has seen in the past to develop fisheries that relate to both
federal and state waters. He inquired as to how Mr. Merrigan
would deal with U.S.-Canada relationships and he also inquired
as to what BOF's approach should be with mixed interception
fisheries within Alaska.
MR. MERRIGAN explained that international treaties trump some of
BOF's actions. Although the king salmon number for Southeast
comes from a treaty, the BOF determines the allocations between
the [various fisheries]. Mr. Merrigan also pointed out that
some of the restrictions placed on the seine and gillnet
fisheries come from treaties and can't be changed by the BOF
either. He suggested that the board is going to be working more
frequently with [NPFMC] on issues such as crab management,
LAMPs, and paralleling with sea [indisc.] devices. Mr. Merrigan
mentioned that he thought "the big ticking bomb" is going to be
on sea lion issues. He discussed intercepting stocks and
suggested that interception is in the eye of the beholder. He
echoed his earlier testimony regarding the need to share the
burden of conservation. Mr. Merrigan also discussed the need
for data in determining how best to conserve. The more data
there is the simpler [and more accurate] the job is.
Number 2192
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked what the responsibility is of the
BOF to try and utilize resources that are not currently being
used.
MR. MERRIGAN related his understanding that at the last
fisheries meeting he attended there was a new fisheries policy
in draft [format], which he believes is currently in place. Mr.
Merrigan said he believes the difficulty was that a new fishery
couldn't be developed without a management plan. The Southeast
dive fisheries got around that by assessing themselves enough to
do the research to develop a management plan. Mr. Merrigan said
that initially he was concerned about groups paying for
research; however, he doesn't have a better idea.
MR. MERRIGAN said:
I think the board's job is to maybe allow a fishery to
get going in a limited way to gain their resource
information before you endanger it, but not just to
take precautionary approach and slam the door until we
have everything we need to know. I think most of the
fisheries management is done in small steps ....
Occasionally, you have to step backwards, ... but
you've got to keep moving ahead; you don't make giant
leaps; you've got to go with what you know or what you
think you know and move ahead on that basis. I think
... it's a process.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN recalled Mr. Merrigan's mention of the need
for good data and related that he has heard in the past that
there may be a lack of really reliable data on one of the
[state's] more popular rivers. He mentioned that Mr. Merrigan
had indicated that U.S. Senator Stevens might be helpful in
getting funds for more data. Representative Green asked Mr.
Merrigan how he would feel about [using that] information [for]
discrete stock management.
MR. MERRIGAN remarked:
Stock ID work: I know we've got U.S.-Canada money for
Southeast. We don't necessarily have that for ... the
rest of ... Alaska outside of the treaty area, but
it's really hard to make ... decisions without the
data, and I think stock ID work and just escapement
numeration, to me, is a big issue .... If you don't
have an escapement goal everybody agrees with, ...
it's pretty tough. ...
Sometimes we experience ... U.S.-Canada ... escapement
goals with a little bit of something else mixed in.
... They had never readjusted ... escapement goals in
the Columbia River since they built the dams, 'cause
people were using them as a benchmark of what they
used to get. ... I didn't want to lose those numbers;
... those ... had some other reference other than
biology. ...
I think the biological escapements goal has got to be
arrived at. Hopefully, if you can get the information
to do a spawn - a recruit curb, that's great. If not,
then you have to start taking some historic
references. ... Sometimes leak-stop management can be
used in a harmful way and it also has its merit, and
there are chinook abundance; for example, in Southeast
we have an aggregate abundance index. ...
It's also tempered by if you have "X" number of stocks
that aren't performing and then you have a couple that
are doing great; you don't get the full magnitude of
that abundance; it's reduced a bit. ... They have a
little bit of that built in. ... On the negative side,
I would say [the] Endangered Species Act; when we were
reduced through the Snake River, and here you are
taking hits of 40,000 king salmon to deliver three
quarters of one fish back on the spawning ground.
That'd be like the worst, ... discrete stock
management; it would use a schedule to deliver fish to
other places and really didn't accomplish anything.
... I think you have to look out for protecting, like
we do in our wild stock policy; if you've got a strong
hatchery run and a weak wild run. Well, we're not
going to be fishing on those hatchery fish if it's
going to endanger the wild ones. ...
In a sense, we protect our wild stocks; we have to
protect our stock segments. I can see that going too
far when people started identifying every little
valley in Southeast as a ... discrete stock segment,
then you're kind of in trouble; you won't be able to
harvest anything. ... I think it's something you'd
take in consideration, but it can be taken too far.
Number 2500
BRETT HUBER, Appointee to the Board of Fisheries, related that
he has been a resident of Alaska for 18 years and lives with his
wife and four children on the banks of the Kenai River. He told
the committee that he thinks it is an honor and a privilege to
be appointed to the BOF. Mr. Huber said the question that he is
most frequently asked since being appointed is, "Why in the
world do you want to do that." He noted that as an observer of
the board process throughout the years, he himself had asked
that same question of numerous people. Mr. Huber explained that
his reasoning is that the states' fisheries are an integral part
of Alaska, its residents, economics, and culture.
MR. HUBER suggested that [serving on the BOF] is a huge and
important responsibility as well as a great opportunity for
public service. Serving on the BOF is an opportunity to return
something that he's so enjoyed to the fisheries and the state.
Furthermore, it's an opportunity to ensure that these
opportunities are available for future generations of Alaska's
children. Mr. Huber said he thinks he brings some skills and
tools to this position such as his familiarity with the
constitutional, statutory, and regulatory framework on which
fishery management decisions are made. Mr. Huber suggested that
his service as staff to the legislature has given him some
insight into the process and the interaction between management,
regulators, and legislators. He noted his familiarity with
management agencies and suggested that he could bring some
personal skills to this position, such as the ability to listen
and help facilitate discussions. He mentioned that he's had a
long interest in management and resource management issues
because he's been a resource user. Mr. Huber explained that he
became the most actively involved about 10 years ago when he
realized that if he cared about the resource, wanted to
participate, and continue to have the opportunity, then he would
have to be involved in the regulatory process.
MR. HUBER turned to constitutional common property ownership and
said that along with the right to harvest their fish comes a
commensurate stewardship responsibility. Mr. Huber related his
view that if it's a common property resource and belongs to all
[Alaskans], then it's not just about harvest; it's about taking
care of those fish, and that helped him get involved in the
process. He explained that he started out by participating in
BOF meetings and serving in various committees during meetings,
task force mediation groups, and he also noted his experience in
serving on a couple of committees on [NPFMC]. He mentioned that
he doesn't have as much experience or as good of an
understanding of the process with NPFMC as he does with the BOF.
Mr. Huber noted that his participation also prompted him to run
for office in 1994. Although he was defeated by Representative
Masek, his help with her general election campaign led to staff
positions with Senator Lyda Green, Senator Rick Halford, and the
Senate Resources Standing Committee.
MR. HUBER explained that his experience dealing with the Senate
Resources Standing Committee offered him an opportunity to look
at fisheries and resource issues, as well as agency legislative
regulative interaction, which had been one of his ways of
becoming involved. He said another way he's become involved is
by being affiliated with or by being appointed to other
positions, entities, or organizations, which is listed on his
resume. Mr. Huber pointed out that one position that doesn't
appear on his resume is that he is an ex officio director of the
Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation.
MR. HUBER informed the committee that he is the executive
director of the Kenai River Sportfishing Association (KRSA),
which is a nonprofit member-based conservation organization
whose mission is the preservation of the Kenai River through
protecting habitat, providing education, and promoting
responsible sport fishing. He explained work is done in three
main areas: habitat improvements and angler access projects;
fishery conservation work, underwriting and studies
participating in research work; and public education, outreach
through the schools, state agencies, and the general public.
Mr. Huber specified that his job as executive director of KRSA
is an annual salaried position; he handles the administrative
functions of the association; supervises the staff and
volunteers; and implements the programs and policies that are
established by the board. He said he had a lengthy discussion
with the 13-member policy board prior to applying for the BOF
position. Mr. Huber remarked:
One of the things that I wanted to make sure was taken
care of or discussed early on is the policy board - if
I have 13 directors that believe one way on an issue
and they bring that to the board of fish. Would I be
on that [Board of Fisheries], I would look at that
advice as I would advice from another user group,
another entity, another advocate. Another advocate
would weigh and balance that advice. And from all of
the information, if my conclusion differed with that
opinion, they could expect me to vote against their
position. I not only told them that, I told them if I
couldn't say that, and if I didn't mean it, I had
absolutely no business applying for this position;
they have no problem with that.
So, again, I do not have a policy-making role in KRSA,
and my position or the association generally is not
either conditioned or dependent on the [Board of
Fisheries] decisions. ... There are potential
conflicts with any candidate or any member of the
[Board of Fisheries]. ... My understanding of the way
that's solved is, we're required to ... disclose any
potential conflicts, and the chairman ... makes a
ruling on whether a conflict exists and what level of
participation you can have. I have no problem with
that process, and would obviously abide by those
decisions and rulings.
MR. HUBER noted that other affiliations listed on his resume do
have policy roles and a potential conflict. Those include:
vice president, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC); vice president,
Alaska Outdoor Council Political Action Committee; and ex
officio, Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation. Mr. Huber
said he had informed all three of those entities of his intent
to resign his positions upon confirmation to the BOF. He
informed the committee that he is also vice [president] of the
Kenai River Special Management Area (KRSMA) Advisory Board,
which is as advisory in capacity and gives advice to state parks
on the management of the KRSMA land [indisc.] that the
legislature designated. That's not a policy role, it's an
advisory role in which the decision maker is [the Division of
Parks & Outdoor Recreation], he explained. The Exxon Valdez Oil
Spill (EVOS) Trustee Council Public Advisory Committee is also
advisory in capacity, and the decision makers are the trustees.
Mr. Huber explained that he enjoys service on those groups and
doesn't see a conflict, but rather he sees a benefit from
crosspollination of ideas and information. He remarked:
As it's not uncommon with the Cook Inlet sport fish
appointment to the board of fish, my appointment's
generated some interest. Representative Berkowitz
told me yesterday that he thinks I may have actually
headed out daylight savings time. I let him know
today I called 100 of my friends, asked them to send
emails on daylight savings time and I was hoping to
push them back over the [indisc.]. We'll see how that
goes.
MR. HUBER acknowledged that since his appointment he has been
characterized as everything from the devil to the best thing
since sliced bread. The truth lies, he said, somewhere in
between those two, and it's up for [the legislature] to decide.
He turned to the accusations of being against consumptive use
and said that would come as a huge surprise to his wife, kids,
friends, and family who participate in the fisheries with him.
He said that although he is a consumptive user, it doesn't mean
that he kills every fish he catches. However, consumptive use
of Alaska's fishery resources for Alaskan families is obviously
a priority use. "I don't oppose consumptive use," he said.
MR. HUBER then turned to the accusations of ignoring science and
even worse, advocating against good biological information.
"That's just patently wrong," he stated. He explained that
there are always socioeconomic considerations that come into
play with the biology when making resource management decisions.
However, he opined that when there is good biology that points
to a conclusion, no amount of public testimony or haranguing
ought to ask [a board member] to ignore that biology. [Biology]
is the basis of managing and regulating these fisheries. It
would be a lot easier if all the biological answers were
available. The difficulty comes when a board is tasked with
addressing conservation and development of Alaska's fishery.
"If you had to do just one or the other, it'd probably be pretty
easy," he remarked.
TAPE 02-41, SIDE B
Number 2965
MR. HUBER pointed out that oftentimes, there isn't clear,
concise biological information that points to an answer. In
that case, the best biological information and the best advice
from managers, stakeholders, and others that know about the
resource is obtained and the best decision is made.
Number 2950
MR. HUBER said:
Regardless of what I say today, [I] will not convince
some people that this is not the case. But I am not,
nor have I ever been, an advocate for the demise [of]
commercial fisheries in Alaska. That makes no sense
to me at all. The commercial fisheries in Alaska are
incredibly important to individual fishermen, to
fishing families, the coastal communities, and to the
general welfare of the state.
MR. HUBER commented that one of the reasons he wants to serve on
the board right now is because it's an incredibly dynamic time
with real opportunities. Some ideas are coming forward from the
industry, which is where he believes they should. He related
his belief that having a [member] with a sport fish perspective
makes real sense; sport fish and [commercial] fish are not
mortal enemies, he opined. He expressed the need to find
answers to overcapitalization issues; product issues; delivery
issues; competition issues; [and] farmed salmon issues. "We've
got to figure out how to do things better in order to take that
important industry into the future, have it viable and
sustainable, and I think I can help in that discussion," he
said. Furthermore, Alaskans deserve a BOF that listens to all
the users in the gear groups; relies on sound science; manages
conservatively if good information is lacking; and seeks advice
from the managers. The BOF should fully consider the
implications of its decisions and utilize a transparent and
understandable process. The public and the users have to be
involved in the regulatory process.
MR. HUBER concluded:
Should you choose to confirm my appointment, ... I'll
do my level best to meet those expectations; I look
forward to the opportunity to work with other new
board members and the four dedicated individuals that
are continuing service on the board, and I'll do the
job to the best of my ability. I do my homework; I
try to be thorough; there's a huge learning curb, I
think, for anybody ... appointed to the board ...
regardless of their background. It's a board; it's
not an individual, and the dynamics of that board say
if you bring differing perspectives; differing view
points; and differing expertise from areas; as a whole
you're probably going to do a better job than making
decisions in the myriad fisheries throughout the
state.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Huber to explain his position on
the hook and release of king [salmon].
Number 2756
MR. HUBER indicated Representative Green was referring to
actions by BOF at its most recent upper Cook Inlet meeting and
the position taken by Mr. Huber's association at that meeting.
He explained that the issue began with a department biologist
managing the Kenai River king fisheries who began to see a trend
in decline of the numbers of "five ocean fish" - seven-year-old
fish, and the largest of the Kenai kings. Concern over that
decline has been increasing from year to year. Although there
was some internal debate in the department about whether it was
going to bring a proposal forward, it did not.
MR. HUBER explained that the biologist met with the local ADF&G
advisory committee and presented his information and concerns.
The ADF&G advisory committee drafted a proposal calling for
protection of five ocean fish and a non-retention slot limit.
[The biologist] suggested that fish of this size shouldn't be
retained. [The biologist] noted that the proposal had come
before the board meeting and received a lot of testimony. A
number of options were discussed, including a non-retention
limit. However, it couldn't be decided what size range
shouldn't be kept. Mr. Huber explained that currently, there is
a two-fish annual limit on the Kenai [River] and one option was
the possibility of reducing that limit to one fish annually or
to make that two-fish annual limit happen outside of a specific
time period. Another consideration was limiting the number of
days on the river that would be available for fishing. The
association, KRSA, reviewed that issue and provided what
management technique could be used to continue participation,
yet drastically reduce the harvest. The association favored a
catch-and-release fishery for the first run for a life cycle of
the run. As far as that being a benefit to the guides, Mr.
Huber related his belief that slightly over 70 percent of the
first run fishery is guided clientele, which he indicated
consisted of a high percentage of Alaskans using guides to
access the fishery. "You either have to drastically reduce
participation or reduce harvest because you have more demand
than you have supply of the resource," he said.
Number 2607
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned his belief that [obtaining
accurate] data in regard to the Kenai River is very difficult.
He mentioned the number of salmon in the river versus the amount
being efficiently caught. He asked if the reason it takes so
much longer on average [to catch a salmon] was because there are
more anglers on the river or are the harvest numbers down. He
also asked how it is determined if there are fewer "five-year
fish" in the river.
MR. HUBER explained that the department uses a number of
techniques to try to determine how many fish are entering [the
river]; what escapement levels are; and what river entry
patterns are. Sonar is one of the primary tools utilized but
other methods include a creel census; trips along the river;
observations along the river; and harvest sampling data. Mr.
Huber said there are a number of reasons why it can take longer
to catch a fish, such as poor water condition. He said the
escapement range for the early run Kenai kings is 7,200 to
14,000 fish, and has fallen in that range in most years. He
explained that it has required some type of restriction to meet
those ranges in 6 of the last 12 [years], and there's been some
kind of in-season regulatory change in 9 of the last 12 years
either to restrict or to localize. He said the components of
the run itself really come from creel census and from a
determination made about what percentage component exists and
what those numbers are relative to run size and a percentage of
the run itself. That's what's dwindled, he noted. He said it
was about biological concern - the loss of or diminishing of
large fish.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE recalled that last year the Yukon River was
closed to commercial fishing. Basically, he explained, the
cooperation between ADF&G and the federal subsistence board only
went as far as the subsistence board wanted it to go because
[ADF&G] wanted to wait until the fish had entered [the river]
before it had an emergency closure in case there wasn't enough
fish. However, the subsistence board wanted to close [the
river] regardless of the number of fish that came in. As it
turned out, the run was not too bad and yet there was no
commercial fishing of king [salmon]. Representative Fate asked
Mr. Huber what he thought should or could be done to form a
better cooperative agreement between the federal government and
Alaska. He also asked Mr. Huber what he could do to mitigate
the problem if there is a decline in the number of salmon.
MR. HUBER said the relationship between the federal subsistence
board and its management and the state BOF and its management
are really quite different. The federal subsistence board is
tasked with providing subsistence for federally qualified users,
whereas the state BOF is tasked with providing subsistence as a
priority, but also is concerned about all of the other user
groups. He said in regard to the Yukon [River], the department
and board have taken a lot of time and effort trying to come up
with some management protocol and memorandums of agreement and
understanding. He mentioned that the first [effort] entailed a
two-year process [which was rejected].
MR. HUBER said the state's position in the [Yukon] fishery was
to commence the fishery and then close it if numbers deemed that
it was reasonable to do so. He added that the state felt it had
the "tools" to be able to assess that run strength and make that
call. He pointed out that the issue was dealt with specifically
in cycle, right after the federal subsistence board came in and
the federal managers said they were shutting everything down and
starting with a subsistence only fishery.
MR. HUBER turned to the question of how to make it better and
related his belief that the state board has to look to what the
state constitution and legislature specify [that the board
should do]. Furthermore, the BOF has to act in the state's best
interest whether that means going along with the federal board
or not. "I think we need to make sure that we're the ones that
have the best information that our managers are on the ground
and know more than [the federal] managers do," he said. As long
as co-management and jurisdictional issues exist, the process
will continue.
Number 2314
REPRESENTATIVE FATE reiterated his question about mitigating the
problem of the lack of kings and chum [salmon] on the [Yukon]
River. He noted that there had been some talk about hatcheries
and other conservation methods.
MR. HUBER answered that everyone's still trying to determine
what's happening with those fish. "When a run is depressed to
that point where it's met a level of ... a stock of concern, I
think you have to manage very conservatively," he remarked.
Furthermore, the burden of conservation must be borne equitably
among the user groups. He explained the need to obtain better
science and better information in order to understand more about
the fish and develop answers with regard to rebuilding those
stocks. Mr. Humber noted his hesitation with regard to planting
hatchery fish in a system containing as much wild genetic
integrity as it does. "You can't disregard wild fish and
replace them with hatchery fish," he said. The mandate is to
make sure the wild fish are sustainable and being conserved.
The wild fish must be managed conservatively, he opined.
Number 2232
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT, referring to the Kenai River, talked
about catch-and-release and the opportunity to keep the larger
king [salmon]. He mentioned a past implementation of the "52
inch rule" in times of shortage or short escapement, either
during the first run or the second run. He said the rule
allowed one to keep any fish over 52 inches in times of
shortage. He asked if it was a good management skill to
advocate keeping the larger fish, when now the concern is not
having the big fish in either run. He remarked, "Not being a
biologist I would feel that if you take the big fish out of the
river, pretty soon what you're going to end up with is little
fish."
MR. HUBER explained that the department has managed the fishery
kind of with a fishery as a restricted fishery in which one
restricts a catch-and-release and allows trophy retention or
full closure depending on the level of the run and the in-season
call the [department] makes. The 52-inch [came into play]
during times of catch-and-release when the [department] projects
that there isn't enough fish to allow a normal harvest pattern
and still make minimum escapement levels. One of the options
available is to go to a catch-and-release fishery that reduces
the level of harvest. However, in that catch-and-release
fishery there was a trophy retention of fish over 52 inches.
Mr. Huber specified that the discussion on the catch-and-release
provision occurred when it was initially instituted and then it
was reinstituted. He recalled that department staff said in the
years when catch-and-release retention occurred in the early
run, there were 60-66 fish harvested. The department
characterized that number was statistically insignificant.
MR. HUBER said:
The majority of the five ocean fish fall in a size
range, and there's ... some disagreement on it. Some
say 40 to 55; some say 42 to 52; some say 45 to 55. I
guess as I've thought about it and as I've reflected
on it, I'm not certain that it does make sense to
retain. As I've talked to people they say, 'Okay but
if there's that few of them but they're statistically
insignificant with the catch and the total harvest,
then isn't it all the more reason to protect those
fish,' and I'd have to say that's a pretty convincing
argument.
MR. HUBER suggested staying off of those largest of the large
fish for a life cycle to see the impact. However, the concern
with that is the possibility of the Kenai River losing research
monies because of the lack of opportunity to yield the next
world record. He pointed out that the Kenai River has had more
management dollars spent and more information gathered on it
than any other, because it is a world-class king salmon fishery.
Number 1973
MR. HUBER recalled that only a couple years ago the department
said that size is probably not even a heritable characteristic
and now it seems the department is saying, at this last meeting,
that size characteristics are at least partially heritable.
However, there might be other things that contribute to the size
such as competition for spawning beds. He explained that KRSA's
position is very different than the BOF's decision because the
board saw information that KRSA didn't. However, Mr. Huber said
he has been swayed; "I think those big fish probably need to
just be laid off of for a while."
Number 1939
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE commented on the number of e-mails, which
tended to focus on the catch-and-release issue, received in
regard to Mr. Huber's [pending appointment] to the BOF. She
asked if he believes catch-and-release has been used in Alaska
or other states as an effective management tool for fish
resources.
MR. HUBER replied yes and related that catch-and-release
management practices have been used in a number of fisheries
where the level of participation won't allow a harvest in
sustained populations. The upper Kenai River rainbow fishery is
an example of a catch-and-release fishery. Although there was a
lot of consternation and concern regarding whether it would work
and whether participation would continue. He noted that
participation in that fishery is up as well as the population of
the trout in that fishery. Mr. Huber highlighted that catch-
and-release fisheries have been used in other areas of the Lower
48 in that same type of situation. "Certainly, it's a viable
management alternative; is it the right management alternative
for all fisheries, no; is it an option, yes," he remarked.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said she was most disturbed by the letter
from the Kenai-Soldotna [Fish and Game (F&G)] Advisory
Committee, which claims that Mr. Huber is a non-consumptive
advocate because he is in support of the concept of catch-and-
release. Representative McGuire asked if that concept stemmed
from Proposal 297, which was brought up by that advisory
committee.
Number 1822
MR. HUBER explained, in that situation, that management
biologists had an initial concern with big fish, which they
brought to the local advisory committee. However, the proposal
that the local advisory committee drafted was not a catch-and-
release proposal, rather it was advocating a non-retention slot.
Therefore, it was a catch-and-release proposal only within a
certain size limit that allowed catch and retention of the other
fish. He pointed out that the "laundry list of options" - such
as fewer fishing days, change in annual limits, catch-and-
release, non-retention, and elimination of trophies - spawned
from a discussion that began with [Proposal 297].
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked Mr. Huber if the Kenai-Soldotna
[F&G] Advisory Committee ever invited him to come before their
committee to explain his position before the non-recommendation
was issued.
MR. HUBER responded no, adding that he'd found out about the
decision made at that meeting the following day. He said he
didn't know the [Kenai-Soldotna [F&G] Advisory Committee] was
planning to take that action, and he hadn't been asked to
participate in the discussion. "Certainly, that's their
opportunity, however; I'm not suggesting that they can't hold a
meeting and take that kind of action," he remarked.
Number 1708
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Mr. Huber how important he believed
the in-season emergency order authority is for local managers.
MR. HUBER answered that adaptive management - the ability to
react to changes in fishing conditions in season - is
imperative; fishery forecasting is just as much of an art as it
is a science. He likened fishery forecasting to a crystal ball.
Still, the ability for managers to react in season is very
important.
Number 1662
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON commented that he was most disturbed by
some of the comments that talked about Mr. Huber's being
arrogant, not listening, and being inaccessible. Representative
Dyson asked Mr. Huber to comment about what may have prompted
those kinds of observations.
MR. HUBER responded, "Certainly, we all have our times that we
are probably more abrupt than we ought to be and that we
probably should have listened more intently than we were
supposed to, but I certainly try to be a good listener; I
certainly try to be a productive participant in discussions or
things that I'm involved in." He said he had no idea what to
say about what motivates or makes a person feel like that's the
case and to act out on it. Mr. Huber noted that he had seen a
variety of comments "from the worst thing in the world, to the
best thing in the world" and he suggested that he was probably
somewhere in between those two.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said his friend Bob Penny (ph) has made an
eloquent case for how much more a sport cod fish makes economic
sense to the economy of Alaska and how much more dollars that
fish attracts and brings to the economy as opposed to the
commercial fish. He said some folks make the case that fishing
has been a part of their family tradition or heritage for a long
time, and others say, "If I can't fish, I'd go nuts and I'd end
up ... being in one of your mental hospitals or wherever else
...." He said there's a lot of benefit that fish bring, some of
which is difficult to quantify. He asked Mr. Huber how to begin
to evaluate what is the best way to use renewable resources such
as the fish in [Alaska].
Number 1504
MR. HUBER noted that some people make arguments about the per-
pound value of sport caught fish and those [arguments] are kind
of made from extrapolated general dollars and the amount of
fish. However, when the value of commercial fisheries are
looked at, it's a lot easier because it's always reported next
vessel value. Mr. Huber related that he views the sport
fisheries as adding value. However, that doesn't mean that the
sport fishery has the harvest power and ability to turn all of
the renewable resource fisheries into money through that value
added process; there is no way that the sport fishery can
harvest all of the fish that are available to harvest.
MR. HUBER said there's no way that a sport fish economy that's
very important in one region will necessarily be the answer in
another region that's virtually dependant on the commercial
fishery for its cash economy. He suggested that it's not a
"one-size-fits-all" and each region and each fishery must be
looked at individually with the allocation criteria being
applied individually. He mentioned not looking at just direct
pound-for-pound value but value to the local economy; the
availability of other resources; and other cash economy in the
area. Mr. Huber remarked, "I don't think you can do it as a
cookie cutter, ... I think you have to make those calls on a
fishery by fishery basis."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON turned to the Cook Inlet fishery, where
allocation issues are "butting heads" most noticeably. He noted
that Mr. Huber has been representing one of the user groups in
the Cook Inlet fishery, and, if confirmed, would sit in a
position that would very keenly affect those allocations.
Therefore, [Mr. Huber's confirmation] is problematic.
Representative Dyson inquired as to the results of the board's
vote on the catch-and-release issue.
Number 1351
MR. HUBER responded that the board voted on and adopted a
modified kind of non-retention slot. He explained that there
are no fish between 40 and 55 inches for the beginning of the
run through June 10; catch-and-release of fish other than 55
inches in the last 20 days of June, and then back to management
with no changes in the second run. Mr. Huber said it was a
compromise that was offered by one of the participants and was
adopted by the board with a vote of 7-0.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Huber if he was on the board.
MR. HUBER replied no, and said if he is confirmed, his
appointment would not take effect until July 1.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT, referring to Upper Cook Inlet, said
there are currently more than 30 management plans for the area.
He noted that at a recent BOF meeting, Mr. Huber had supported
the development of several new management plans that would
basically limit the EO authority of local managers.
MR. HUBER answered that he did not think that was correct
[information] and that he had, in fact, participated in the
drafting and submittal of Proposal 216, which called for the
adoption and development of a management plan for the Kasilof
River. He explained that there were several other proposals
that weren't management plan proposals, but instead were changes
to the management plan. He noted that one of the things that
was proposed was linking a fishing time to abundance, and he
said "they adopted an abundance-based method of a below 2, 2 to
4, and over 4 million fish in the past cycle."
MR. HUBER said it wasn't specified and was, in fact, linked to
hours and was [recommended to be] at the discretion of the
managers. He noted support for a mandatory Friday window in the
king plan and a mandatory 24-hour window in the sockeye plan.
He explained that the idea was to tie it to abundance, but leave
the managers the flexibility to determine when they use those
additional hours, whether it's extending a period or opening a
period. Depending on the tides, the winds, or the push of fish,
24 hours can make a huge difference, he said.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI mentioned there were a few things of concern in
regard to the BOF request, one of which was the agenda change
request - "the board taking things out of cycle." He noted that
there's legislation regarding the agenda change request. Co-
Chair Scalzi turned to Mr. Huber's support of biological science
for concerns raised to the board and asked Mr. Huber if he
agreed that ADF&G is the best suited [department] to make those
biological decisions, for instance, for endangered runs.
MR. HUBER, in response, said certainly, managers of the
resource, the "folks on the ground," and the people that have
the data are going to be able to provide the best biological
advice on those fisheries. Furthermore, the aforementioned
folks would be able to give their judgment with the information
to say whether they believe there's some type of conservation
issue that exists; they would be best equipped to provide that
advice to the board.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI, referring to aquaculture, said it produces 40
percent of salmon in state; currently, there are aquaculture
associations throughout Alaska. He asked Mr. Huber if he was in
support of the aquaculture program as long as it doesn't
conflict with natural runs.
Number 1040
MR. HUBER said the mandate to the BOF, generally, is to protect
the wild runs first and foremost. Basically it comes down to
knowing what the wild run is and having some kind of management
assessments of the wild run. Mr. Huber said he would be in
support if the situation is such that the wild run is known in a
way that an aquaculture association can participate in enhancing
runs or providing additional fish that don't do harm to the wild
runs and that make economic sense. He said enhancement
aquaculture works in some areas; however, in some areas of the
state, aquaculture has struggled significantly. Mr. Huber
remarked, "I think the aquaculture in how we use hatcheries and
what makes sense for hatcheries is a legitimate part of the
discussion that the industry needs to have ... looking at how
we're going to move forward with a successful, sustainable
salmon industry." Some projects may make sense, some projects
may not, he said. He reiterated that he thought individual
circumstances need to be reviewed.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI noted his belief that the Cook Inlet Aquaculture
Association (CIAA) has been very successful in promoting a lot
of the runs throughout the area. Furthermore, it seems to have
created a greater opportunity for commercial and sport
[fishing], generating about $7 million statewide. He asked Mr.
Huber if he was supportive of the aquaculture association in
Cook Inlet and the continued funding for it.
MR. HUBER asked if the funding in question was generated by the
industry.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI explained that funding is completely generated
by the industry, although other funds from federal agencies have
been sought; for example, the Kenai Borough successfully lobbied
for $1.5 million from U.S. Senator Stevens to help during some
of these low-cost times.
MR. HUBER acknowledged that there are projects that CIAA is
involved in that have been successful and haven't been
detrimental. He said in looking at the situation found in the
Big Lake system and Fish Creek, it can be seen that the run has
reached a level of stock that is of concern. There are some
habitat considerations and some fish migratory considerations.
Additionally, a large consideration is the enhancement program
that took place in the area without having very good information
on the wild run; without having wild-run escapement data;
without having a very good way of setting escapement goals. He
opined that the aforementioned was detrimental to where that
fishery is today. He clarified that he didn't believe "you
ought to just shut their doors and send them away," but each
individual project should be scrutinized and everyone
participating in aquaculture should be held to a high standard.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI noted that the committee has dealt with both the
EO and the aquaculture associations throughout the state with
agenda change requests. In regard to the conflict of interest,
it would be his purview to make it broad, similar to what the
legislature has. He noted his personal belief is that
knowledgeable people involved in the industry should be on
boards throughout the state. Co-Chair Scalzi expressed concern
with Mr. Huber's appointment because of his involvement with
KRSA. He asked Mr. Huber if he thought he will have a conflict
on a lot of Cook Inlet issues that specifically pertain to the
Kenai River because of his employment and associations.
Number 0707
MR. HUBER reiterated that he doesn't have a policy role in KRSA.
"What I've told Kenai River Sport Fishing [Association] is, ...
this either takes you out of the proposal business or you know
that obviously I'd be conflicted out on voting on any proposals
that Kenai River Sportfishing Association brings forward," he
related. However, he didn't believe that his conflicts would
not allow him to participate on any issues that deal with sport
fishing in Cook Inlet. He noted that his position or
association is not conditioned upon how that sport fishery is
conducted or what the board decisions are. Mr. Huber said it
would be hard for him to suggest that he knows where a potential
conflict would arise, but he said he would certainly disclose
any time he felt a conflict existed and he would abide by the
ruling of the chair.
Number 0561
ARTHUR N. NELSON, Appointee to the Board of Fisheries, told
members that he moved to Alaska in the early 1980s and settled
in Anchorage where he graduated high school. He explained that
he grew up spending quite a bit of time on his parents gillnet
boats in Prince William Sound. He noted that a lot of the other
summers were spent in his bicycle shop building and selling
bikes. Mr. Nelson said he had spent a summer trolling in one of
the last derby halibut openers out of Elfin Cove and has had an
extensive fisheries advocacy career. He explained that he
worked for the regional native non-profit Kawerak, Inc., based
in Nome as a fisheries specialist advocating subsistence and
small boat commercial fishing as well as trying to help them
assess and rebuild the chum salmon stocks in the region. He
said he also worked for the Bering Sea Fishermen's Association
in a similar capacity, but across a broader region from Bristol
Bay all the way North to Kotzebue Sound, including the Yukon
River into the Interior. Mr. Nelson said most recently he's
working for the At-Sea Processor's Association, which is a
sector of the Bering Sea Pollock Fishery. Although he didn't
really know why he wants to be on the board, he said he has
wanted to pursue it for a while and has been active in board
issues for a number of years.
MR. NELSON stated that is fairly familiar with certain areas of
the state and has always loved fishing and fisheries in the
state. He said he is an avid sport fisherman and spends every
free moment he can get during the summertime on his boat out of
Whittier or Seward, and that he would like to learn more about
other fisheries in the state and help them with their problems.
He mentioned his desire to ensure that the resource is taken
care of and help deal with allocation issues. Mr. Nelson
offered his belief that within the next five to ten years the
board is going to have some monumental tasks, especially dealing
with rationalization or revitalization for the commercial salmon
fisheries. He noted that there isn't going to be a one-size-
fits-all solution for the state; there might be fisheries that
don't need or want any change right now, and it's not the
boards' role to be forcing "anything down people's throats."
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked Mr. Nelson to address the conflict
of interest issue, how that would impact him, and how he would
foresee it actually working if he had a conflict. He noted that
Mr. Nelson would have some conflicts due to his current
employment and asked him if that meant he would not be able to
participate in those related areas.
MR. NELSON said he didn't know, but noted that he approached his
employer about his interest in pursuing a seat on the BOF and
the possibility that he that he could be "conflicted out." He
pointed out that a lot of the issues for these companies
represented by At-Sea Processor's Association are related to
fisheries that are largely addressed in the NPFMC arena; only
every few years do a handful of proposals with a direct affect
on the companies in the association come before the BOF. He
said that if he, the Department of Law, or the BOF's chairman
has the opinion that he's conflicted, then he is conflicted.
Mr. Nelson explained that he would certainly like to have the
opportunity to bring the perspective and understanding for some
of the other fisheries into the arena and into the discussions.
Whether voting would be allowed is ultimately up to the chair,
he said.
Number 0095
CO-CHAIR SCALZI noted that currently, the BOF has adopted more
of the old federal-type management where the opening and closing
dates are more restrictive. He asked Mr. Nelson his opinion of
in-season management and emergency order authority.
MR. NELSON said he thought it is an incredibly valuable tool to
have, and that it is necessary to trust the department because
they are the experts who know these fisheries just about as
intimately as the people participating in the fishing. Mr.
Nelson suggested the [number of fish] is never really known
until the fish show up. He said if there is a highly prescribed
management plan that really ties the department's hands, "the
fish are either going to go through or they're going to get
nailed, so you really need to have that flexibility."
TAPE 02-42, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR SCALZI mentioned interception fisheries and some of the
conflicts that arise between False Pass, Chignik, Kodiak, and
Cook Inlet.
MR. NELSON said in some fisheries it's simply an allocation
issue between different commercial fishing registration areas or
it might be an issue in which true escapement needs are not
being met or subsistence, which has a higher priority under the
law, might have to be looked at differently. Basically, most
cases "boil down to sharing the burden in your relative
proportion on the stock of concern," he said.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked Mr. Nelson what he thought about
aquaculture programs throughout the state.
MR. NELSON related his belief that [aquaculture programs] have
provided some tremendous benefits to many areas of the state,
and therefore he is supportive of the program.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI inquired as to Mr. Nelson's thought on the role
of the BOF in relation to what comes out of the salmon task
force. He also inquired as to Mr. Nelson's thought of the
legislation that was put forth in an effort to stimulate the
industry.
MR. NELSON said it's not up to the BOF to necessarily come up
with the answers. The stakeholders, fishermen, and user groups
need to come up with suggestions and it's the boards job to make
them fit, such as with conservation needs or certain allocations
between different groups.
Number 0232
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked Mr. Nelson how he felt ADF&G's role fits
in with the conservation agenda changes that often take place.
MR. NELSON said he thought [ADF&G] does have a very important
role in deciding which agenda change requests should be brought
up. He mentioned the board's criteria for accepting agenda-
change requests, a rather stringent set of requirements.
"However, you can always ... massage things a little bit to get
something in under a certain thing, but the authority of the
department or the recommendations of the department and the
conservation needs should be one of the primary reasons for
accepting something out of cycle," he remarked. Mr. Nelson said
that oftentimes issues arise that are much larger than the
surface value of the agenda-change request, which really puts a
much higher burden of time and effort on the BOF.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI said he thought a lot had to do with the
stability that the various fishing entities feel they would like
to see in the board process. He said he thought those were most
of the concerns that he'd heard about why the board needs to
"stay on its course and maintain that."
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked Mr. Nelson what he thought the
ideal make-up of the board should be and if he thought there
should be something such as a sport fish versus [commercial]
fish categorization.
Number 0468
MR. NELSON opined that the board should consist of [members]
from a variety of regions across the state and a range of
experience in different fisheries. The experience of the board
members along with public interaction can bring a lot more
information into the process than might otherwise be available.
Ideally, it really wouldn't matter who was on the board, he
remarked, as long as the appointees are willing to be fair and
consistent and make sure that when the resources of this state
are managed right that there's enough fish for everybody. As
long as there are members willing to appreciate the value of
each of the different fisheries and the importance of them to
the residents of the state and the people that use those
resources, it doesn't really matter where they're from or
they're fishing interest.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE turned to the aforementioned notion that
sport fishing added value to the salmon resource and she asked
Mr. Nelson for his response to that notion.
MR. NELSON said it is an interesting way to look at it and he
would agree to some extent. However, he said he wouldn't want
to say that sport caught fish are more valuable than fish in
another fishery because there are a lot of other factors to
consider, such as family history or culture.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE mentioned the inland fisheries and said he
didn't know if there was a appointee or current board member
that represents the "brown water" fishery, which is in trouble.
He asked Mr. Nelson where he would turn for expertise on the
board to deal with the brown water fishery problems.
MR. NELSON pointed out that he is somewhat familiar with issues
of the Yukon [River] and the Interior through his work while
living in Nome and working for the Bering Sea Fisherman's
Association. He noted that he is certainly not as knowledgeable
as residents and fishermen in the region, who would be one of
the primary groups from whom to obtain information, as well as
the department. He said he certainly understands the crisis of
the fisheries right now; the fact that there wasn't any
commercial fishing last year; and that on the Yukon River
subsistence and commercial fishing are integrated. Mr. Nelson
said ultimately those resources need to be returned to a healthy
status so that everyone can enjoy the fruits of it all again.
Number 0908
VIRGIL UMPHENOUR informed the committee that he was a BOF member
for eight years and has worked with both Mr. Huber and Mr.
Nelson on committee work dealing with a lot of different issues.
Mr. Umphenour announced his support of the confirmation of both
Mr. Huber and Mr. Nelson.
Number 0960
ED DERSHAM, Chair, Board of Fisheries, said he supports all
three confirmations and does so based on the process that the
BOF has. Mr. Dersham explained that one of the biggest
responsibilities of the chairman of the board is to get the
board through its workload in each cycle and meet the budget
requirements. He said a good reason that's been done the last
couple of years is because of the experience of the board
members and the ability of everyone to understand exactly what's
happening so as to work quickly through the workload.
MR. DERSHAM related his belief that the three [appointees] all
have experience that will serve them well in the board process.
For instance, Mr. Nelson and Mr. Merrigan have extensive
experience with NPFMC, an organization that the board works with
frequently. Furthermore, the experience of Mr. Nelson and Mr.
Merrigan with the BOF will give them a "jumpstart" on that
learning curve.
MR. DERSHAM characterized Mr. Huber as having some experience
with NPFMC and extensive experience with the BOF process, in
fact Mr. Huber probably knows the process better than anyone who
is not currently a sitting member of the board. He remarked,
"From that perspective of having three out of seven new members
and being able to get through our workload in the allotted time,
which is a big concern of mine, ... I think that all three of
these gentlemen will be the best -- if you're going to have new
members, these will probably be some of the best we could ...
have to accomplish that goal."
Number 1140
MARVIN PETERS, Chair, Homer [Fish and Game] Advisory Committee,
provided the following remarks:
I would ... agree with Ed [Dersham] that Brett Huber
knows the system probably better than anybody;
sometimes I think he knows the system better than some
of the sitting board members, but I don't consider
that a plus. I think that there are other things more
important than expediency .... [In] the Homer area,
we see Mr. Huber as a serious threat; we don't see him
as the devil, but we sure don't see him as the best
thing since sliced bread.
I noticed he ... questioned ... why none of the
advisory committees asked him to come speak and it's
because we've heard him over the years; it's a matter
of record, we don't need to hear his opinion because
it's in writing, and it's almost always contradicting
ours; he's doing our sport and commercial fisheries
damage when he proposes ... extensive management plans
every cycle. ...
He mentioned that haranguing and public testimony
don't necessarily provide the best information, but
often the haranguing and public testimony are asking
the board and people like Mr. Huber to listen to the
biologists. Instead, they've been known to hire
biologists ... from outside to tell the local area
biologists how to do their job and explain why the
extreme measures they ask for should be taken at the
expense of the local people who are trying to make a
living either sport or commercial fishing.
We have to strongly oppose Mr. Huber and it's with
some trepidation that we do it because there's always
a very good chance he'll be confirmed. ... We'll see
what happens, but anyway, we oppose him.
Number 1297
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked that criticism be kept constructive and
"above board." He mentioned that the [confirmation hearing]
would be conducted in a proper manner.
Number 1329
DAVID MARTIN, Chair, Central Peninsula [Fish and Game] Advisory
Committee, informed the committee that he has 30 years of
fishing experience in Cook Inlet. He provided the following
remarks:
It was talked about in-season abundance based
management and EO authority of the ... biologists
here, and that they need those tools to perform their
job. I think we have a real good tool, you guys down
there for this confirmation hearing on Brett Huber. I
heard him talk and he sounds good; he sounds great,
but unfortunately or fortunately the tool that we have
on the confirmation is his past history - past
performance.
I've been at the board of fish meetings for the last
25 years and this last 10 years I've seen Mr. Huber
drafting proposals and supporting proposals that do
exactly the opposite of what he testified today and
what he's representing. And that's taking away EO
authority from the managers that'll manage the
fisheries; ... disregarding the reliable science and
data; and, in fact, hiring outside biologists to
dispute the local biologists' and scientists' data;
putting mandatory closures in.
He's was talking about abundance-based in-season
management; he was in favor of 48 windows in a fishery
that used to be ran by the hour, so now the fish can
steam in the river for 48 hours - two days - and the
biologists have their hands tied and they can't do
anything. He supported the closures on the silver
fisheries where you can't retain a silver on October 1
for the local sports fishermen. These are all
controversy for what he stated. ...
There's a lot of people in this state that are
qualified and the controversy of the board of fish
will just continue and probably escalate under Mr.
Huber's confirmation. ... I think it's the best
interest of the state, the fisheries, and the people
that depend upon these fisheries both for recreation
and for their livelihood to have a person that will
truly represent the fisheries and biological
management and using the science available. ...
Please consider all of the information that you guys
have received ... in the last several weeks on this
'cause this is serious business for fisheries here
that [have] been basically, almost regulated out of
business ....
Number 1547
IRV CARLISLE explained that he was originally a Kenai River
fishing guide in the mid-1970s, when the only requirement was to
have a business license. He said he's been a businessman in
Soldotna for more than 30 years and has served two terms as
president of the Soldotna Chamber of Commerce, and has served on
a lot of boards both nonprofit and profit. Mr. Carlisle said he
has been involved in fisheries for more than 30 years, including
13 years as the secretary of the Soldotna Fish and Game Advisory
Committee and has been appointed by 5 different governors to
fisheries issues around the state. He explained that he was on
the original Kenai River task force and was vice chairman of the
original Kenai River special management area board as well as
vice chairman of the BOF.
MR. CARLISLE announced his opposition to Mr. Huber's
confirmation to the BOF. He explained that because of his
involvement over the years, he gets a lot of phone calls and
conversations with people regarding fisheries issues, and in the
past has never opposed nor promoted a nominee to the board. He
said his phone and his email have been clogged with people
calling him about Mr. Huber and their opposition, and the term
that is consistent throughout all of these is arrogance. Mr.
Carlisle said he knows from his experience on the BOF that one
has to be a good listener. He commented that if he were taking
everything Mr. Huber said at face value he'd be suggesting Mr.
Huber be the commissioner of ADF&G. However, Mr. Carlisle said
he doesn't feel Mr. Huber has the qualities to be a good board
member.
Number 1694
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked Mr. Carlisle his thoughts on
whether the subcommittee process is working.
MR. CARLISLE responded that he doesn't like the committee
process because an open process during which everyone in the
public can [participate] is the best process. Mr. Carlisle
pointed out that the fisheries statewide are so complex and no
one can understand all of them. During a committee meeting
people can say things that never get challenged. However, when
meetings are held in an open forum before the public people will
offer corrections. "I think it's a much more open process; I
think the public gets to participate a great deal more and I
think everybody is served better by an open process. I don't
like the committee," he said.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked Mr. Carlisle if Mr. Huber did a good
job of administering the process that the board that he worked
for promulgated.
MR. CARLISLE said he could not answer that because he wasn't
present during all of Mr. Huber's actions. He remarked, "If I
was there, I could say whether or not - I know of certain things
that I ... did hear him say; I question when I've read written
testimony contrary to what he said he supports." He said he
believes wholeheartedly in Mr. Huber's statement that he'd given
during this hearing, and he couldn't disagree with anything that
was said. "But having not been there present, I don't want to
rely on somebody else's second-hand information to make my
judgment; I'd rather make it by being present and I wasn't, so I
can't make that judgment," Mr. Carlisle remarked.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE pointed out that Mr. Carlisle had stated
that he'd received numerous calls and letters opposing Mr. Huber
and took that as a reason to object. He asked Mr. Carlisle if
the reason he objected to Mr. Huber's confirmation is because he
thought Mr. Huber was arrogant.
MR. CARLISLE replied that [Mr. Huber's arrogance] is one of the
reasons and the other reason is because he has been in meetings
with Mr. Huber and concurred with [the opposition's] assessments
of [Mr. Huber].
Number 1876
HERMAN FANDEL informed the committee that he is a 34-year
resident of Alaska; the owner of a commercial fishing permit; a
sport fisherman; and a licensed guide in Alaska. He said he is
the owner of 3 businesses in Alaska that rely on fish in Alaska.
Mr. Fandel said he and his family have known Mr. Huber and his
family for many years, and he knows Mr. Huber to be a fine,
honest, hardworking person. He said Mr. Huber is confident, not
arrogant. Mr. Fandel suggested Mr. Huber will do an excellent
job on the BOF because he knows how the board works and is very
knowledgeable with regard to Alaska fisheries. He said he
highly recommends the confirmation of Mr. Huber to a position on
the BOF and he truly believes that all Alaskans would benefit
from Mr. Huber's being on the BOF.
Number 1929
IRENE FANDEL noted that she is a 34-year resident of Kenai, a
sport fisher, and a sport hunter. She said she is the owner of
Irene's Lodge, and fish are why her business prospers. She said
she recommends Mr. Huber's confirmation to the BOF because Mr.
Huber has worked hard in the past for Alaska's fisheries and
will be a knowledgeable addition to the group. She commented
that she would feel secure in knowing Mr. Huber is looking out
for all [Alaskans'] interests. She urged the committee to
confirm Mr. Huber to the BOF.
Number 2000
BIX BONNEY mentioned that he has been a resident of Alaska for
51 years and is a past member of the BOF. He is also the owner
and operator of North Star Adventures Incorporated, which is a
guiding institution. Mr. Bonney said he supports the
appointment of Mr. Huber to the BOF. He explained that he and
Bob Penny (ph) created Kenai River Sportfishing Association a
number of years ago, and as executive director of that
organization Mr. Huber has been highly successful in carrying
out the goals of the organization, which are the conservation of
the species, the preservation of the river banks, and the
education of the public in accomplishing these goals.
MR. BONNEY characterized Mr. Huber as having an in-depth
knowledge of fisheries management, and furthermore Mr. Huber has
proven to be a very effective leader in that field. He said he
has never known Mr. Huber to involve himself in any action that
would be other than beneficial to the fisheries in the state.
Mr. Bonney said Mr. Huber is a strong leader and like any strong
leader he has those that take "pot shots" at him. "But if you
investigate the adverse statements of some, you will find that
just about all of them have no basis in fact, but rather, basis
in personal interest," he charged. Mr. Bonney urged the
committee to look with favor on Mr. Huber's appointment to the
BOF.
Number 2077
ELLIE SNAVELY explained that she is a resident of Oregon and for
the last seven years has traveled every summer to the Kenai
River for its wonderful fishing and truly beautiful scenery.
She stated support for Mr. Huber's appointment to the BOF. Ms.
Snavely said she has observed the diminishing numbers of king
and silver salmon and has been extremely happy to see Mr. Huber
taking the lead in effectively carrying out the conservation of
the salmon species. Speaking as a tourist to Alaska, she
believes that if there were more efforts made in this area, it
would be for the betterment of "us all". Ms. Snavely highly
recommended the appointment of Mr. Huber to the BOF.
Number 2131
SAM McDOWELL informed the committee that he came to Alaska in
1948 and has been involved in fisheries for at least 50 years.
He said Mr. Huber has spoken out many times regarding his
support of habitat, resources, users, and what needs to be done.
Mr. McDowell suggested that Mr. Huber knows if the BOF does not
support habitat, resources, and users, then there will be no
resources for the users, which is really important. He said he
has been deeply involved in fisheries and had, in fact, come to
Juneau years ago and testified at the request of the House and
Senate Resources Committees. Mr. McDowell told the committee
that Mr. Huber supports sustained yield.
MR. MCDOWELL suggested that resources in Cook Inlet are in
trouble. He said that Mr. Huber realizes there are no
hydroelectric dam problems, no stream pollution, and no "Judge
Boldt decisions." Furthermore, Mr. Huber doesn't want the Kenai
River to end up like the Columbia River. He said he would bet
that if something is not done now, the king salmon fisheries and
sport fishing in the Kenai River will be over. He recalled that
in 1951, commercial fishermen took 158,000 kings and the fishery
was only opened for five and a half days a week. Mr. McDowell
said 20 years later that same fishery was down to 10,000. Mr.
McDowell mentioned that Mr. Huber has a copy of the records from
1893 to 2001 that he'd prepared years ago.
Number 2265
BRUCE KNOWLES informed the committee that he serves on the
Matanuska Valley [Fish and Game] Advisory Committee. He said
the committee had voted earlier in the year to support Mr.
Huber's appointment to the BOF, which was maintained during a
more recent poll of the members. He noted that the committee
has worked with Mr. Huber on numerous occasions. Mr. Knowles
stated that the runs in his area have been in trouble for 10 to
15 years, and in working with Mr. Huber, he has helped the
committee overcome some of the problems; he has helped create
new plans that are getting the fish back into the Valley. He
said he has personally known Mr. Huber for 10 years and knows
him to be an honorable person. Mr. Knowles said he feels like
Mr. Huber is getting pot shots that he doesn't deserve, and that
he knows Mr. Huber will do the right thing on the BOF. He urged
members to approve Mr. Huber's appointment to the BOF because
Mr. Huber's knowledge will keep Alaska from losing the runs in
the way that Oregon and Washington did.
Number 2336
DON JOHNSON announced support, in general, of all confident
common-user representatives to the BOF. However, he said, he
does oppose some of Mr. Huber's management ideas for the Kenai
River. He suggested that sometimes Mr. Huber is difficult to
approach with opposing ideas. Mr. Johnson remarked, "The hook
and release mentality may sound like an effective way to manage
fisheries, but carried out to it's basic, ultimate ...
destination, you end up basically taking fish away from ...
fishermen ...."
MR. JOHNSON, noting that he is a 20-year sport fishing guide,
remarked, "I actually could stand to make a lot of money off of
turning everything into hook and release, but I can't see
actually sacrificing that catch and release mentality to people
putting something on the dinner table." Mr. Johnson stated that
although he was in support of Mr. Nelson's and Mr. Huber's
appointment to the BOF, he disagreed with them on quite a few
things. However, he said, he can't disagree with any common
user's being appointed to the board, since it has been so
lopsided from the other side - from the limited entry
perspective - for so many years.
Number 2436
CARL ROSIER, President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), testified
that AOC strongly urges the confirmation of Mr. Huber to the
BOF. He said he's had the pleasure of working with Mr. Huber
for a number of years through the AOC. Mr. Rosier remarked:
He's been characterized as a real leader here today,
I'd like to say I agree with that description as well;
I also agree with the fact that ... he said I'm no
angel, and I would certainly vote for that, but
nevertheless, anytime that you're in a leadership role
... there's going to be some pot shots at you.
Especially, if you've been effective in terms of
getting your views across and getting it worked
through the system, and Brett has been very, very
successful in terms of working with the board on this.
He's made it a point to ... learn the board process
and he brings a great deal of knowledge and capability
to that board process. He'd be a good board member
for the entire state, and I think that's exactly what
the board of fish needs.
Number 2528
DAVID BEDFORD, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Seiners
Association (SASA), began by noting that he is also licensed to
practice law in Alaska. Mr. Bedford said he's known Mr.
Merrigan for about 25 years and had met him fighting a forest
fire outside Kake. He stated that both he and SASA strongly
recommend Mr. Merrigan's confirmation. Mr. Bedford talked about
his expectations of Mr. Merrigan as a BOF member and said he
would expect to see Mr. Merrigan work to protect the resource
and foster effective fisheries. He also noted his expectation
that Mr. Merrigan would put in the hard work necessary as a
member of the BOF. Mr. Bedford recalled Mr. Merrigan digging
through "absolutely remarkable" reams of technical information
and staff analysis, when working on the Pacific Salmon Treaty,
in order to deal with complex international negotiations on a
coast wide chinook resource, and he was remarkably effective in
doing that, he said.
MR. BEDFORD related his belief that Mr. Merrigan will take those
kinds of talents to the BOF, and also in his deliberations,
"shine a bright light" on all of the issues that come in front
of the board. He said another expectation would be that Mr.
Merrigan use his incisive intellect and keen mind to try to work
towards reasonable solutions to problems that the board
confronts. Furthermore, he expected Mr. Merrigan will work
toward reasonable solutions to the problems that the board
confronts, and that he will make decisions that are good public
policy for the people of this state, and for the resources upon
which the people depend. He said during Mr. Merrigan's tenure
on the board if confirmed, he doesn't expect to see a
representative for commercial fishermen, but instead, he expects
to see someone who is knowledgeable of the commercial fisheries
and who will bring that kind of knowledge into the board's
deliberation to help enlighten them and bring them to good
decisions.
Number 2645
BILL SULLIVAN, United Cook Inlet Drift Association (UCIDA),
encouraged the confirmation of Mr. Merrigan and Mr. Nelson, but
requested that the committee deny such consideration for Mr.
Huber. Mr. Sullivan noted that he attended a salmon summit
forum held in Kodiak a few weeks ago. During that meeting U.S.
Senator Stevens and Alaska Senator Allen Austerman challenged
the industry to come together to think creatively to [address
fisheries issues]. "These two visionaries, as well as other
state leaders offered government as the entity to facilitate the
evolution of this whole industry," he highlighted.
MR. SULLIVAN related:
With careful consideration of the challenges put forth
at this event, as well as our organizations discussion
of it's past experience with Mr. Huber, we find him
lacking the leadership maturity necessary to foster or
to contribute to a salmon industry of tomorrow that
would compliment the industry which endowed this state
for such a length span of our history. Mr. Huber
aggressively pursues catch-and-release play with your
food fisheries that afford scant opportunity for other
resource users. Mr. Huber has chosen to promote
arguments and regulations that compromise ...
emergency order authority given to the department of
fish and game by the legislature to such an extent
that managers trained in biology and steeped in
experience claim their mandate's unattainable. Salmon
runs are fluid and dynamic and demand the flexibility
of in-season emergency order authority by their very
nature.
Mr. Huber advocates escapement goals of ... salmon
that beget fry of a size that incur mortality rates at
up to 95 percent. Mr. Huber personally complained
about the venue for the fish and game advisory
committee meetings in his area. With the venue of
alternating meetings changed to accommodate him, Mr.
Huber has attended not 1 of approximately 12 meetings
held in over a six-month period.
When queried by a Kenai Peninsula reporter about the
Kenai-Soldotna advisory committee's rejection of his
nomination Mr. Huber expressed a veiled surprise that
the advisory committee met to discuss his nomination
.... This sort of unwillingness to take
responsibility for ones own actions, we feel, is
consistent with Mr. Huber's style and level of
leadership maturity that is all too evident in his
present interactions with the board of fisheries and
would ultimately serve to impede rather than to
facilitate the evolution this great state is now
encouraging the salmon industry to embrace. Please
afford us leaders that will assist our industry and
its difficult task of adapting to changes already well
underway.
Number 2855
LES PALMER announced that he doesn't believe Mr. Huber should be
on the BOF either, mainly because of his obvious attraction to
politics. He informed the committee that Mr. Huber has run for
the state House, worked on election campaigns, worked as a
legislative aide, has close ties to Juneau, and has friends in
the legislature. Furthermore, Mr. Huber is the executive
director of KRSA, one of the politically influential sport
fishing organizations in the world. Mr. Palmer predicted that
as a BOF member, Mr. Huber is certain to remain more interested
in politics than biology. "We can't risk Alaska's fisheries in
the political arena. Please vote no on Brett Huber's
confirmation to the board," he said.
Number 2893
DALE BONDURANT informed the committee that he supports Mr.
Huber's appointment to the BOF. Mr. Bondurant noted his respect
for Mr. Huber and KRSA's efforts to habitat protection and
reclamation along the Kenai River. Mr. Huber is well aware of
the fishing issues in the entire Cook Inlet area and is a very
capable communicator with a well-rounded background in the way
that the administration's and legislature's processes work. Mr.
Bondurant characterized Mr. Huber as a well-organized
representative of the common personal users at the BOF in
Anchorage - the first hearing at which the common user had a
presentation equal to past "monopoly control by the commercial
fish interest in Cook Inlet." Mr. Bondurant noted that the
credibility of the Kenai Peninsula [F&G] Advisory committees
have been questioned by past board of fisheries, which is one of
the reasons many folks don't attend their meetings.
Number 2959
DON McKAY informed the committee that he doesn't make a living
on the river, isn't a guide, and isn't in the hospitality
business.
TAPE 02-42, SIDE B
Number 2970
MR. McKAY continued by announcing his enthusiastic support for
the confirmation of Mr. Huber to the BOF. He emphasized that if
the BOF is to best serve the interests of all Alaskans, there
should be balance with adequate representation of the sport
fishing community. Mr. Huber has demonstrated that he is
balanced, fair in demeanor, and has a vast knowledge of the
resource. Most importantly, if there's any question of the
viability of a given run, Mr. Huber would put the fish first.
Number 1950
TERRY SAPPAH, a lifelong Alaskan, informed the committee that he
is a fishing guide on the Kenai Peninsula and he owns a small
fish camp business in Sterling. He said he supports Mr. Huber's
nomination because he will do a great job and puts the resource
first.
Number 2887
BUD HARRIS noted that he has attended the BOF meetings for the
last 20 years and in the last 12 years it has really changed.
He reminded the committee of the fish initiative, which was
voted down by the voter's in the state. However, the [fish
initiative] group found a way to put one of its members on the
BOF and "we just got done with six years of him, and now we're
going to get a disciple of his on the board of fish," he said.
As a commercial fisherman in the upper Cook Inlet, Mr. Harris
has a major problem with another person from Cook Inlet being
put on the BOF, let alone, a highly active sports advocate. Mr.
Harris said he has a lot of respect for Mr. Huber and believes
he would do a really good job on one of the other boards.
However, he asked the committee not to put Mr. Huber on the BOF.
Number 2818
PAUL SEATON suggested that Mr. Huber's nomination creates a
concentration of expertise on the BOF because both he and
Chairman Dersham represent Cook Inlet salmon sport fisheries.
He urged the committee to reject Mr. Huber's nomination because
Mr. Huber's nomination does not maintain the adversity of
experience that is a requirement for the BOF. Mr. Seaton
mentioned his experience working with the BOF over the years,
including work on a Cook Inlet salmon allocation plan, on the
Alaska state water Pacific cod fisheries, and most recently on
an attempt to develop a Cook Inlet directed dogfish shark
fishery. He said he thought it is vital that a board member be
willing to work beyond single-issue focus and he suggested that
Mr. Huber will further pulverize the board between users groups.
Mr. Seaton urged the committee to reject Mr. Huber's nomination
in order to maintain the healthy diversity that is necessary to
represent all of the geographical areas of the state.
Number 2756
JERRY McCUNE, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA), voiced UFA's
support for the names of Mr. Merrigan and Mr. Nelson to the BOF,
and suggested they'd be really good statewide candidates.
Number 2728
PAUL SHADURA, Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association (KPFA),
related KPFA's commitment to the legislative review process that
allows it to inform and educate legislators of the complexities
on the BOF appointments. Mr. Shadura said, "We would like to
start a discussion with a realistic approach to assessing the
current direction to the Board of Fisheries." He turned to the
last ten years of fisheries returns to the Cook Inlet area,
where the Kenai River and the Kasilof River are approximately 12
miles apart. The rivers have similar glacier-fed lake systems
that are supportive of immature sockeye salmon. In reviewing
the systems and one sees the production of the Kenai declining
at an alarming rate while it's smaller sister, the Kasilof, is
showing a strong, sustained return. The Kasilof system is a
spawning limited and rearing limited regime while the Kenai
watershed is spawning rich and has rearing limitations much
higher than the Kasilof.
MR. SHADURA offered one explanation in which the fish leaving
the systems are traveling to different areas in the ocean and
thus are being affected by different factors. Although the
North Pacific and Gulf of Alaska are large by any definition,
the fluctuations in salmonids populations due to weather or
current patterns affect the individual species as a whole rather
than part of the whole. There is also a regional perspective.
He explained that the entry pattern of the typical Kasilof red
salmon is early in the summer and the late run of Kenai sockeye
is later. However, there was a definite mixing of stocks that
happened in the middle of July, which is the primary fishing
season for salmon for all primary users. Mr. Shadura mentioned
that the other main factor determining future returns of salmon
is the management of returns for spawning and allocated
decisions by the BOF.
MR. SHADURA pointed out that the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game has a very knowledgeable staff that administers regulatory
changes in policies that the board directs the department to
initiate. In years past, the expertise of area managers was of
great importance to the board; unfortunately, this respect has
not been afforded to local managers who have been, in some
instances, denied from entering into any decision-making
discussions of several current regulatory cycled meetings. In
order to determine what is creating these changes one must look
at the attitudes and agendas of this strong arm of the
legislature for the answers.
MR. SHADURA turned to the BOF as a corporate board and inquired
as to the economic, social, and productivity factors that one
would assess. Mr. Shadura said this board has taken a very
shallow view for the future of Alaskan salmon fisheries and its
development. "Our state's fisheries are in a mess," he stated.
The emphasis and direction of the current board has been to
micromanage the Cook Inlet area fisheries. He noted that a
current member on this board commented in February that it would
be his final Cook Inlet meeting because he joined the board with
the purpose of reallocating the fisheries in Cook Inlet and he
felt that had not been accomplished. Mr. Shadura then turned
attention to [AS] 16.05.221 and urged the committee not to
support Mr. Huber's nomination to the BOF. "We'd ... prefer
that a new board be appointed that will view the state's
resources with a statewide vision; a board that is knowledgeable
about the fisheries around the state," he said.
MR. SHADURA said:
A board that cares for all of its people, Native and
non-Native; that will protect the rights of the
residents and respect the (indisc.) that our pioneers
have sacrificed; that can understand the word
commitment; that are selfless in their views; that do
not wish to manipulate the system or intimidate others
into submission; that does not have a preconceived
agenda that benefits one group over another; a board
member who respects the professional expertise of our
ADF&G staff and willingly enjoins them with decisions
on regulatory and policy issues; that truly
understands the term sustained yield and biological
management.
This board must have new blood that signifies the
vision of an Alaskan sunrise; not the darkness and not
the controversy and divisiveness that this current
board has shown us.
Number 2441
ROLAND MAW informed the committee that he has been a blue water
charter out of Seward, but is currently a commercial fisherman
for salmon and halibut in the upper Cook Inlet. He stated
support for Mr. Nelson's and Mr. Merrigan's confirmations to the
BOF. However, Mr. Maw noted his grave concerns about Mr. Huber,
whose nomination he cannot support. He turned to the issue of
emergency-order authority and said one of the geniuses of Alaska
salmon management is in-season abundance-based management. Such
management hires biologists that can be trusted and given
emergency order authority to manage our fishery resources using
their best biology and judgment. On several occasions, he said,
Mr. Huber has given public testimony to the BOF suggesting that
local biologists should have restricted emergency-order
authority.
MR. MAW pointed out that past legislators directly and
specifically gave emergency order authority to the commissioner
and his local biological staff in order to conduct in-season
abundance-based management. However, he said, Mr. Huber is in
opposition to the statutory direction of the legislature, and
therefore he should not be confirmed. Furthermore, he offered
that Mr. Huber has consistently advocated escapement policies
that have resulted in smaller smolts with very poor freshwater
and ocean survival rates. These high escapement goals have
resulted in small returns of adult salmon to Southcentral Alaska
and especially to the Kenai [Peninsula].
MR. MAW said there is the loss of an economic opportunity of
about $12-$22 million dollars annually. The aforementioned loss
has resulted in lost harvest and economic activity worth
hundreds of millions of dollars over the last few years, which
he partially attributed to Mr. Huber's view and public testimony
on salmon management. For biological and economic policies, Mr.
Maw said he believes Mr. Huber is an unacceptable candidate to
the BOF. The legislative-sponsored salmon task force, the eight
regional fishery areas, and the BOF all need individuals who are
multi-dimensional and have mediation and problem-solving skills
and abilities, he specified. Mr. Huber is a part of the
problem, not a part of the solution, which is evidenced by the
public outcry and heightened level of conflict concerning this
candidate.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE recalled Mr. Maw's testimony that Mr. Huber
provided adverse testimony to the BOF. He asked Mr. Maw if he
thought it was Mr. Huber's fault or the BOF's fault that the
aforementioned [biological and economic issues] occurred.
Number 2281
MR. MAW opined that the testimony was given and that the BOF
chose to follow it.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if the BOF's actions were the cause.
MR. MAW replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE interpreted Mr. Maw's testimony to indicate
that Mr. Huber's testimony was the cause.
MR. MAW agreed that [Mr. Huber] certainly entered that debate.
Number 2243
RUBEN HANKE voiced strong support for Mr. Huber and related his
belief that Mr. Huber is an honest man. He said he has seen Mr.
Huber involved in the BOF process for about 10 years and that
Mr. Huber is very active and understands the process. He
suggested that Mr. Huber is very well versed in fisheries in the
state and thus would make an excellent board member.
Number 2186
RONDI McCLURE noted that she has been a resident of Alaska for
16 years, has lived on the Kenai Peninsula for 10 years, and
makes her living as a fishing guide. She said she has worked
with Mr. Huber on several volunteer activities and is in support
of his nomination to the BOF.
Number 2057
STEVE McCLURE Vice President, Kenai River Professional Guide
Association (KRPGA), informed the committee that KRPGA has over
200 members, the majority of whom strongly and enthusiastically
support Mr. Huber's nomination to the BOF. He remarked, "We
believe it all just comes back to believe in what you stand
for."
Number 2136
RYAN HOWLETT noted that he is a lifelong resident of Alaska and
is a guide on the Kenai River. He voiced his support for Mr.
Huber.
Number 2114
RON RAINEY, a sport fisherman, mentioned that he is an 18-year
resident of the Kenai area. Mr. Rainey informed the committee
that he has been on the Kenai River Sportfishing Association for
many years. During the discussion of Mr. Huber's appointment to
the BOF, the question regarding what Mr. Huber would do if his
views differed from the KRSA. To which Mr. Huber answered,
without hesitation, "I will do what's best for the fish and the
resource." Therefore, Mr. Rainey said he strongly supports the
appointment of Mr. Huber.
Number 2054
CHRIS GARCIA, who has been in Alaska since 1946, voiced his
strong support of Mr. Nelson and Mr. Merrigan to the BOF and his
strong opposition to Mr. Huber's appointment. "I think it's a
fallacy that Mr. Huber supports sport fish; Mr. Huber supports
guided sport fish," he remarked. Mr. Garcia informed the
committee that he also runs a bed and breakfast on the Kenai
River and the salmon that run up and down that river are
important to his business. The policies that Mr. Huber is
trying to create will finish killing the salmon on the Kenai
River, he charged. Control needs to be returned to the ADF&G in
order to get this resource working again. Since the present BOF
took over in the 1990s, it has nearly killed the Kenai River.
He reiterated opposition to Mr. Huber's appointment to the BOF.
Number 1972
DAVE LOWERY informed the committee that he has been a resident
of Alaska for 27 years and of Kenai for 4 years; he and his
family have used the fisheries resource for the entire 27 years.
Mr. Lowery noted that he has no business ties and is retired.
He said it is obvious to him that the governor, in his wisdom,
has recommended Mr. Huber's appointment. He offered his belief
that Mr. Huber's extensive knowledge in the Alaska fisheries,
his keen intellect and integrity, and his tenacity and undying
efforts would make him a valuable asset to the board and to the
resource. Despite the negative press, he said, Mr. Huber
continues to enjoy widespread support throughout the state. Mr.
Lowery voiced his strong support for Mr. Huber.
Number 1907
BOB MERCHANT, President, United Cook Inlet Drift Association
(UCIDA), announced that UCIDA is opposed to the confirmation of
Mr. Huber to the BOF, but is in support of the appointments of
Mr. Merrigan and Mr. Nelson. He suggested that Mr. Huber has
consistently proven, by his actions and statements, that
commercial sport fishing and tourism promotion must take
precedent over and grow without limits at the expense of every
other historical use. Such one-dimensional thinking about
resource uses displayed by Mr. Huber comes at a particularly bad
time given the statewide effort to help the commercial salmon
industry recover and compete with farmed salmon. He remarked,
"We at UCIDA ask you to think long and hard about who you
confirm to serve on the board; it is our contention that anyone
appointed to the board must take into account the consequences
of their actions, whether those consequences be to the resource,
it's habitat, or the toll it may take on other residents lives."
Mr. Merchant stated that disregarding the damage done to people,
especially residents, should never be justified in the name of
economic development. He asked the committee not to confirm
Mr. Huber.
Number 1807
PAT CARTER noted that he has been involved in the BOF process
for the past 12 years and has been a guide on the Kenai River
for the past 6 years. He said that he is in support of all
three appointees to the BOF. Mr. Carter explained that he has
served on the board of directors of KRSA for the past 11 years,
and is currently serving as co-chair of KRSA's Fisheries
Committee. He explained that the fisheries committee very
actively interacts with a number of agencies, including the BOF,
regarding fisheries research and management practices. He
echoed earlier testimony that serving on the BOF is a tireless
and thankless job.
MR. CARTER characterized fisheries management as more art than
science because often the scientific information available is
less than exact. Furthermore, the board is often scrutinized by
individuals who neither attend the board meetings nor fully
comprehend the reasoning for the proposed regulatory change.
Therefore, consternation is created with some of the user
groups. A lot of people believe the conservation of fisheries
is a good idea until it impacts them, he remarked. Such a
mentality has destroyed many a fishery throughout the world.
Mr. Carter related his belief that one must look beyond one's
own self-interests if Alaska's fisheries are to be preserved.
MR. CARTER said that the main quality he looks for in a board
member is a willingness to put the protection of the resource
ahead of all user groups. Mr. Huber is such an individual and
his skills, abilities, and integrity speak well for him. Mr.
Carter described Mr. Huber as a bright, objective, and
articulate individual who can grasp complex issues with ease.
Most importantly, Mr. Huber is curious. Perhaps Mr. Huber's
best asset is that he is uncompromising when it comes to
protecting the resource. With regard to the comments that Mr.
Huber has made decisions and pushed a certain agenda, Mr. Carter
clarified that Mr. Huber doesn't make policy; the KRSA makes
policy, and its board of directors directs Mr. Huber to
implement that policy. For instance, the early-run king salmon
plan was a decision Mr. Carter made after consulting the board
of KRSA. Mr. Carter concluded by reiterating his support of all
three candidates.
Number 1608
GREG BRUSH spoke in support of the nomination for Mr. Huber to
the BOF, relating his belief that Mr. Huber's knowledge of the
process is unquestionable. The debate seems to revolve around
whether Mr. Huber can remain objective because the perception is
that Mr. Huber has a conflict of interest, being anti-commercial
fishing and anti-consumptive use. However, Mr. Huber
consistently puts the fish first, which should be the intent of
every BOF member. Thus far, Mr. Brush has heard testimony that
people either support or oppose Mr. Huber because he has hurt
one particular industry or user group. There has been little
testimony about the fish, which Mr. Brush said seems wrong to
him. With regard to the question of Mr. Huber's arrogance, Mr.
Brush said Mr. Huber can be as arrogant as he wants provided
that he keeps an open mind, listens well, considers the data
provided, and does what's in the best interest of the fish. Mr.
Brush stated that he fully believes Mr. Huber is capable of the
aforementioned, which is why Mr. Brush supports and encourages
Mr. Huber's confirmation to the BOF.
Number 1513
MURRAY FENTON also spoke in support of Mr. Huber's nomination to
the BOF. He related his belief that Mr. Huber will represent
all user groups fairly. Although Mr. Huber is a confident
individual, he isn't arrogant. He characterized Mr. Huber as
conservation- and habitat-minded. It seems to bother some that
Mr. Huber wants some fish to get into the fresh water to spawn.
Number 1429
STEVE TVENSTRUP noted that he agrees with all of the opposition
to Mr. Huber. He expressed concern that [with the confirmation
of Mr. Huber] the Cook Inlet area would have a political person
on the BOF. Mr. Tvenstrup informed the committee that he has
attended the BOF for 20 years; in the last 12 years, he said, he
has seen the downfall of the commercial fisheries. He noted
that he owns land on the Kenai River and has watched his banks
wash away due to boat wakes. Mr. Tvenstrup mentioned that he
has been at odds with Mr. Huber before, most recently at the
last meeting during which it was decided that the trophy-sized
rainbow trout in the middle section of the Kenai River couldn't
be kept because they need to be protected. However, when the
king salmon fisheries needed to be protected, it wasn't done, in
his opinion. With regard to the confirmation of Mr. Merrigan
and Mr. Nelson, Mr. Tvenstrup related his belief that those two
should be confirmed.
Number 1260
DREW SPARLIN informed the committee that he is a 36-year
resident of the Kenai Peninsula who has participated in
commercial fishing for halibut, herring, and salmon. Over the
years, Mr. Sparlin has served on various boards, task forces,
and fishing organizations and has attended nearly every BOF
meeting concerning Cook Inlet. Mr. Sparlin recognized the value
of remaining active, but pointed out that while participating in
resource discussions and actions credibility is of the utmost
importance. He acknowledged that there is nothing wrong with
being an advocate of one's position or occupation, however there
is no place for a member of an organization such as the BOF to
have a member who has been in open opposition to an important
industry, such as commercial fishing, in Alaska.
MR. SPARLIN pointed out that if the current slate of appointees
are confirmed, the BOF would contain four members who would
predominantly reside in the Cook Inlet drainage and three of
those four members would be associated with sport fishing.
Therefore, the regions of Kodiak and Prince William Sound, which
are a huge economic value to the state, would remain without a
representative. Furthermore, he pointed out that there hasn't
been a Cook Inlet commercial fishermen on the BOF for more than
20 years. For these reasons and others, Mr. Sparlin announced
support of the confirmations of Mr. Merrigan and Mr. Nelson, but
not Mr. Huber. Mr. Sparlin recalled Mr. Huber's earlier
testimony that the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association initiated
[the Big Lake Project] and clarified that it was initiated by
the state. Mr. Sparlin said, "It's time that you people send a
message to the governor that no nominees should be forwarded
that carry an agenda."
Number 1082
RAY DeBARDELABEN announced his support of Mr. Huber's
appointment to the BOF. He noted that he has fished in Alaskan
waters for over 16 years and has been involved in the BOF
process for over five years. The BOF members need to keep in
mind all of the user groups and, most importantly, the fish.
Mr. DeBardelaben characterized Mr. Huber's appointment to the
BOF as a crucial part of salmon fishing in Alaska.
Number 1007
CHERYL SUTTON noted that she is a commercial fisherman from Cook
Inlet. After listening to the testimony of Mr. Merrigan and
Nelson, she said she supported their confirmation. Ms. Sutton
said that she couldn't speak to the nomination of Mr. Huber,
however, because she has no knowledge of him or the
circumstances that have been alluded to today. Ms. Sutton
emphasized the importance of the board, which creates
regulations for a multi-billion dollar industry. She noted that
she has often said it matters little to her who sits on the
board so long as those individuals receive and assimilate the
information from ADF&G, and ultimately make decisions that are
beneficial to all users in the state.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI, upon determining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony.
Number 0521
CO-CHAIR MASEK moved that the House Resources Standing Committee
forward the names of Mr. Huber, Mr. Merrigan, and Mr. Nelson to
the full body for consideration. There being no objection, the
confirmations were advanced.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved that the House Special Committee on
Fisheries forward the names of Mr. Huber, Mr. Merrigan, and Mr.
Nelson to the full body for consideration. There being no
objection, the confirmations were advanced.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the joint meeting between the
House Resources Standing Committee and the House Special
Committee on Fisheries was adjourned at an unspecified time.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|