Legislature(1993 - 1994)
01/28/1994 08:00 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
January 28, 1994
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Williams, Chairman
Representative Bill Hudson, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Pat Carney
Representative John Davies
Representative Joe Green
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Eldon Mulder
Representative David Finkelstein
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SB 153 "An Act relating to the exchange of certain
fish for seafood products, custom processing
of certain fish, and use of certain fish for
charitable purposes."
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION
WITNESS REGISTER
JOE AMBROSE, Staff
Senator Robin Taylor's Office
State Capitol, Room 30
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-3873
Position Statement: Read sponsor statement and answered
questions
MARY MCDOWELL
House Resources Committee Aide
Representative Bill Williams
State Capitol, Room 126
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-3715
Position Statement: Gave an overview on SB 153 and proposed
amendment and answered questions
PAUL KRASNOWSKI, Director
Division of Sport Fish
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Phone: 465-4180
Position Statement: Expressed no position on SB 153 but
answered questions
BILL VALENTINE, Director
Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection
Department of Public Safety
5700 E. Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507-1225
Phone: 269-5509
Position Statement: Supported SB 153 with proposed
amendment
and answered questions
PAUL JOHNSON
Charter Boat Operator
P.O. Box 22
Elfin Cove, Alaska 99825
Phone: 239-2211
Position Statement: Supported SB 153
KEN DOLE, Managing Partner
Waterfall Resort
P.O. Box 6440
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Phone: 225-9461
Position Statement: Opposed SB 153 and proposed amendment
BILL FOSTER, President
Sitka Charter Boat Operators Association
2810 SMC
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Phone: 747-8883
Position Statement: Expressed no position on SB 153
JAMES HESTON
P.O. Box 331
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Phone: 835-5115
Position Statement: Supported SB 153 and expressed concerns
regarding the proposed amendment
ED DERSHAM, President
Anchor Point Charter Association
P.O. Box 537
Anchor Point, Alaska 99556
Phone: 235-5555
Position Statement: Supported SB 153 and opposed proposed
amendment
BILL HEARD, Representative
Alaska Resident Sport Anglers Association
Box 210291
Auke Bay, Alaska 99821
Phone: 789-9126
Position Statement: Supported SB 153 with proposed
amendment
ROD BERG
266 Redwood Court
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Phone: 262-6064
Position Statement: Opposed proposed amendment
JOHN GOODHAND, Vice President
Valdez Charter Boat Association
P.O. Box 218
Ester, Alaska 99725
Phone: 479-5562
Position Statement: Opposed proposed amendment
ROBERT CANDOPOULOS
P.O. Box 241225
Anchorage, Alaska 99524
Phone: 277-3223
Position Statement: Supported SB 153 and opposed proposed
amendment
DAN MCQUEEN, Owner & Operator
Salmon Busters Charter Service
3222 Tide Avenue
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Phone: 225-2731
Position Statement: Opposed SB 153 with or without proposed
amendment
JEFF KING, Representative
Fishing Guides in Soldotna Area
P.O. Box 2711
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Phone: 262-4564
Position Statement: Opposed proposed amendment
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 153
SHORT TITLE: EXCHANGE OF RAW FISH FOR SEAFOOD PRODUCT
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/09/93 691 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/09/93 691 (S) RESOURCES, FINANCE
03/24/93 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTRVICH RM 205
03/24/93 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/29/93 (S) RES AT 04:00 PM BUTRVICH RM 205
03/31/93 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/02/93 1063 (S) RES RPT CS 1DP 3NR SAME TITLE
04/02/93 1063 (S) LETTER OF INTENT WITH RES
REPORT
04/02/93 1063 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (DEC)
04/02/93 1063 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G)
04/06/93 (S) FIN AT 08:00 AM SENATE
FINANCE 518
04/10/93 (S) FIN AT 10:00 AM SENATE
FINANCE 518
04/12/93 1305 (S) FIN RPT 3DP 1NR (RES)CS
04/12/93 1305 (S) PREVIOUS FN (DEC)
04/12/93 1305 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (F&G)
04/12/93 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/27/93 1837 (S) RULES 3CAL 1NR 4/27/93
04/27/93 1839 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/27/93 1840 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/27/93 1841 (S) ADVANCE TO THIRD READING
FAILED Y11 N9
04/27/93 1841 (S) THIRD READING 4/28 CALENDAR
04/28/93 1890 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME
CSSB 153(RES)
04/28/93 1890 (S) (S) ADOPTED RES LETTER OF
INTENT
04/28/93 1890 (S) HELD IN THIRD READING
W/PENDING AMS 4/29
04/29/93 1954 (S) HELD IN THIRD READING
W/PENDING AMS 4/30
04/30/93 1989 (S) HELD IN THIRD READING
W/PENDING AMS 5/1
05/01/93 2016 (S) HELD IN THIRD READING
W/PENDING AMS 5/2
05/02/93 2033 (S) MOVED TO BOTTOM OF CALENDAR
05/02/93 2039 (S) HELD IN THIRD READING
W/PENDING AMS 5/3
05/03/93 2049 (S) HELD IN THIRD READING
W/PENDING AMS 5/4
05/04/93 2060 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1-6
UNAN CONSENT
05/04/93 2061 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y10 N10
05/04/93 2061 (S) AM NO 2 NOT OFFERED
05/04/93 2062 (S) AM NO 3 FAILED Y9 N11
05/04/93 2062 (S) AM NO 4 MOVED AND WITHDRAWN
05/04/93 2063 (S) AM NO 4A ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
05/04/93 2063 (S) AM NO 5 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
05/04/93 2064 (S) AM NO 6 FAILED Y9 N11
05/04/93 2064 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
05/04/93 2064 (S) PASSED Y17 N3 CSSB 153(RES) AM
05/04/93 2065 (S) DUNCAN NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
05/05/93 2079 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
05/05/93 2079 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/06/93 1660 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
05/06/93 1661 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
01/28/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-5, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by
Chairman Bill Williams at 8:15 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Williams, Carney, Davies,
Finkelstein, Green and Mulder. Members absent were
Representatives Bunde, Hudson, and James.
CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS called the committee's attention to a
packet each member had which contained information the
committee had requested from Phil Smith at a prior meeting
on SB 132. Chairman Williams advised that SB 132 will be
taken up the following Friday.
SB 153: EXCHANGE RAW FISH FOR SEAFOOD PRODUCT
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the meeting was on
teleconference with Anchorage, Cordova, Fairbanks, Sitka,
Ketchikan, Homer, Valdez, and Kenai-Soldotna. He stated the
committee would be hearing the committee substitute for SB
153 resources amended, a version of the Senate Bill 153
which passed the Senate, and noted this was the first public
hearing on SB 153 in the House.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS pointed out that his office has drafted a
proposed amendment to SB 153 for consideration by the
committee. He said he worked closely with the sponsor,
Senator Robin Taylor throughout the drafting process of the
amendment and noted that although Senator Taylor could not
be present at the meeting, he assured Chairman Williams he
supports the amendment.
Number 025
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS advised the committee that work on SB 153
will take more than one meeting, and stressed the proposed
amendment will generate much discussion and debate. He
proposed the amendment, in an effort to address concerns
expressed about existing situations, and how those might be
aggravated by passage of SB 153 unamended. He said everyone
recognizes there are some problems, or perceived problems,
but added there will be differing ideas on how to best
address them.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS thought it to be worthwhile to get
concepts and ideas on the table to discuss, and hoped the
committee will begin constructive dialogue on whether there
are things which the committee can do to address the
problems without negative impacts. He expressed he is open
to ideas about modifications to the amendment or the
approach it proposes.
Number 047
JOE AMBROSE, STAFF, SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR, read Senator
Taylor's sponsor statement: "The nonresident sport fishery
has experienced phenomenal growth. There were 132,008
nonresident sport fishing licenses issued in 1987. By 1992,
that number had swollen to 208,516. A large percentage of
that fish is boxed up and sent home. Some anglers take
advantage of the cumbersome custom processing offered by a
limited number of facilities, which must track an individual
fish through the process. It's a time consuming and
expensive form of processing that discourages value-added
processing right here in Alaska.
"This legislation was introduced at the suggestion of
commercial processors, Native corporations, economic
development groups and other interested parties. It would
allow for modification of current regulations and should
have a positive impact in both the seafood processing and
tourism industries. SB 153 would allow the sport fisherman
to exchange raw fish for processed fish of the same species.
Such an exchange program would generate new jobs in the
processing industry, adding to the economic base of coastal
communities throughout Alaska.
"SB 153 contains provisions to maintain the separation of
sport caught fish from commercially and personal use caught
seafood. Only in the initial round would processors be
allowed to exchange commercially caught processed fish for
raw sport fish. After that, the sport fish received in the
exchange would be processed and used only in future
exchanges. SB 153 contains language assuring the quality of
both the raw and processed fish used in the exchange
program. SB 153 would provide a mechanism by which fish
currently being shipped out raw can be processed in Alaska,
with all of the inherent economic benefits that go along
with adding value to an Alaskan resource before it leaves
the state. This bill passed the Senate in a 17-3 vote last
May."
MR. AMBROSE advised that Senator Taylor indicated he had no
objection to the consideration of a proposed amendment, and
in fact, supports the concept. He said Senator Taylor does
object to the consideration of the proposal if it raises
questions about SB 153 itself. Senator Taylor still
believes in the original merits of the bill as it passed the
Senate and asked that consideration not be lost in any
debate.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES expressed concern about potential
health hazards in the exchange of raw fish and asked what
kind of measures will be taken to assure that fish exchanged
and fish going to market is wholesome.
MR. AMBROSE responded the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) was involved in developing SB 153. He
said much of the bill addresses quality issues, and added
that DEC will have oversight responsibilities. He stated
the bill was amended at the request of DEC and referred the
committee to page five, line ten. The definition of
wholesome was debated for an extended period of time in the
Senate Resources Committee.
MR. AMBROSE noted there was a legitimate concern on the
quality issue, as not only does the person doing the
exchange need to be assured the product he takes home is of
high quality, but the processor also needs to be assured
that the product being delivered and processed is top
quality. The processor will be reluctant to take fish not
up to normal standards in the exchange.
Number 108
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said line seven, on page six
stipulates the exchange does not constitute a sale or barter
and he wondered how the process will work. He expressed
concern that the state may lose the opportunity in the
future to tax a value-added effort.
MR. AMBROSE responded the processor will be allowed to
charge for the service, so it is not a barter. He stressed
SB 153 calls for regulations which establish the volume of
raw fish to processed fish.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if that exchange is meant to
reflect simply the loss of weight in processing.
MR. AMBROSE responded that is correct.
Number 126
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE
HUDSON joined the committee at 8:20 a.m.)
MR. AMBROSE again emphasized that Senator Taylor supports
the proposed amendment and does not want the bill to get
lost in the debate.
Number 140
MARY McDOWELL, HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE AIDE TO
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS, explained SB 153 makes the
transformation of raw fish into processed fish quicker,
simpler and less expensive for sport fishermen, which is
convenient but may also have potential drawbacks. The main
concern is its potential for encouraging the taking of
larger and larger quantities of fish per fishermen,
particularly by nonresidents. She added that another
concern is whether SB 153 will open the door for abuse by
making it simple to circumvent bag and possession limits
which now pertain only to fresh unprocessed fish.
MS. McDOWELL stated there is growing concern from resident
sportsmen, subsistence and commercial fishermen, and even
charter guides about the rapid growth in the guided sport
fishery and the often unknown impacts of that growth on the
resources. She noted that everyone has heard complaints
about the huge stacks of boxes containing sport fish in
airports. Ms. McDowell said although the quantities may not
really be as large as many fear, there is a perception among
many Alaskans that visitors are taking home more fish than
is necessary to fulfill their own needs and to keep Alaska's
guided sport fishery and tourism industry healthy and
growing.
MS. McDOWELL explained SB 153 does not create those
concerns, but it does intensify concerns by removing a
current disincentive to taking maximum bag limits for the
maximum amount of available time. She said that in turn,
may cause increased concern and bad public relations for the
guided sport fishery, and increased pressure and hassles for
guides whose clients may demand more and more fish.
MS. McDOWELL stated the goal of the amendment is to take the
negatives of the exchange provisions and turn them into
positives. The amendment proposes to adopt the provisions
regarding the exchange of raw fish for processed fish, but
delay their implementation until regulations have been
established to set the limit of raw and processed sport fish
that a person may have in their possession in the field or
in transient to their permanent place of residence.
Number 163
MS. McDOWELL continued that once fish reaches a person's
home, it no longer counts in their possession limit enabling
them to go back out for more. She said these newly defined
possession limits are not mandated by the amendment, but if
the Board of Fisheries does not expand possession limits to
include processed fish, the provisions regarding the ability
to trade in raw fish for processed fish do not take effect.
MS. McDOWELL pointed out that the Senate recognized the
problems mentioned and although they did not choose to amend
the bill to address the problems, they did pass a letter of
intent asking the Board of Fisheries to consider adoption of
export limitations and the redefinition of possession
limits. She stressed an "export" limit is often discussed
as a means of addressing the question of large quantities
being taken out of state, but added that an export limit is
probably impossible to do without violating federal
interstate commerce laws.
Number 175
MS. McDOWELL said even if export limits are possible, the
use of "in transit to one's permanent place of residence"
has several advantages. Primarily it would ease the
concerns about the Board of Fisheries setting possession
limits which are too restrictive. She noted although export
limits as low as one daily limit of each species has been
proposed, the Board of Fisheries has never adopted it. She
said all Alaskan sport fishermen would have to operate under
the same limits as those taking their catch out of state.
Therefore, the Board would have every reason to make the
limits high enough to satisfy the majority of Alaskans.
Number 182
MS. McDOWELL explained while many people fear the Board
process, a determination of appropriate possession limits,
as proposed by the amendment, would not be a sport versus
commercial issue; or a sport versus guided sport issue. The
Board's job would be to set a limit reasonable to users,
while preventing abuse and exploitation. She pointed out
that the amendment is not likely to be embraced by guides or
lodges who cater to people who want to pay for their trip
with fish and added in the long run, reasonable caps on what
fishermen can take home will be good for everyone.
MS. McDOWELL stressed there will still be no limit on
boating, sightseeing, or catch and release fishing, nor on
how many fish people can catch and eat while on a fishing
adventure. It only relates to a determination of the
quantity a fisherman can take home at the end. She noted
the amendment relates only to sport caught fish, so
possession limits would not pertain to fish caught under
personal use or subsistence.
MS. McDOWELL stated there is an argument that enforcement of
possession limits, including processed fish, would be
difficult to enforce which is probably true. She felt,
however, most people are law-abiding and will comply,
meaning quantities would be more under control immediately.
She noted there will always be those who will take more than
allowed, just as there are laws on possession of narcotics
and other difficult to enforce laws. Occasionally, a
blatant violation will be discovered and prosecuted which
serves as a deterrent to others.
MS. McDOWELL continued that under Alaska law, sport fish
guides are not allowed to assist a client in any action
contrary to Alaska sportfishing regulations, and are not
likely to risk aiding someone in exceeding their legal
limits. She told members it is important to note that most
coastal states and Canada have possession or export limits,
and most are very stringent. Many places have learned by
spreading the quantity out, more boats and guides are
sustained, serving more tourists.
MS. McDOWELL summarized that the amendment is intended to
mitigate potential concerns regarding instant exchange of
raw sport fish for processed fish, and to address related
policy issues. She said Representative Williams knows that
any suggestion which is not business as usual will require a
lot of discussion and consideration, but felt that it is the
legislature's responsibility to provide leadership in
ensuring the orderly, sensible development of sport
fisheries in Alaska.
Number 220
REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER recalled Ms. McDowell had said
without a proposed amendment, SB 153 could not take place.
MS. McDOWELL responded as SB 153 is written, it takes effect
immediately. However, with the amendment the effective date
will be delayed and the exchange provisions will not go into
effect until after possession limits are redefined to
include processed fish.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER affirmed the amendment will delay the
effective date but otherwise, the current bill will take
effect immediately.
MS. McDOWELL replied that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY asked if there were any
indications the Board of Fisheries is willing to consider
the matter in a timely manner.
MS. McDOWELL responded the Board has had versions of export
limits put before them in the past, but never passed any of
them. She said one of the provisions of the proposed
amendment is the Board can consider the limit definition out
of cycle. The board is currently on a three-year cycle, so
every subject is considered once every three years. She
said sport fish regulations in each region will be
considered over the next three years. Therefore, the next
time the board is in a region for any reason, they could
discuss that region's possession limit.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY noted the board is dominated by
commercial fishermen who may not be in favor of the
amendment and may decide not to consider it in a timely
manner.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stressed the commercial fishermen do
support the amendment. There is a letter from the Alaska
Trollers Association supporting the amendment in committee
member's packets.
Number 261
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON felt the commercial fishermen
would support the amendment as it will limit the meat
hunters. He thought the proposed amendment will achieve two
goals. First, it attempts to set up more value-added
processing in the state which gives a better accountability
of the catch and ensure the quality of seafood products
leaving the state; and at the same time, through the
amendment and Letter of Intent, will stop the discriminatory
overtaking of fish.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON expressed concern about tying the
requirement for limitations of raw and processed fish in the
amendment to the bill, because he is not certain the Board
of Fisheries will be able to do that. He felt perhaps the
limitations issue should be considered by itself but
regardless, Representative Hudson wants to see SB 153
passed, as he thinks value-added processing is the right
idea.
MS. McDOWELL responded that is the reason the amendment
addresses the subject as there is already a feeling that SB
153 aggravates the concern more by pushing it more in that
direction. She stated it seemed an appropriate time to
address the problem, a quality for quantity trade off. In
exchange for the convenience, ease and an increased
incentive to take more fish, a cap is attached.
Number 290
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said his concern relates to whether
the Board of Fisheries is prepared to set up the complicated
controls and enforcement process necessary to limit the
amount of fish shipped.
MS. McDOWELL told members that other states have managed
this issue, and although she has not talked to other states
her understanding is, it usually is discussed as a
possession limit--what a person has with them. She said
people are currently spending extra money to ship fish. She
pointed out SB 153 mainly creates an incentive for people
because it is less expensive to have fish processed on the
spot and take it with them, than to have the fish custom
processed and shipped.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked if there was a fiscal note
attached to the amendment
MS. McDOWELL replied a fiscal note has not been requested.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER felt there would be a substantial
fiscal note because of potential enforcement costs.
Number 324
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS commented there are many current laws
which are not enforceable, and this bill is an attempt to
contain fish leaving the state. He said in past years, he
flew to Seattle often and would have to walk around a large
number of boxes containing hundreds of pounds of sport fish
at the airport.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN observed that currently people can
sport fish and convert the fresh fish to processed fish. He
asked what the bill and amendment will do to alter the fact
that people catching fish have the opportunity to have it
processed, but are not required to.
Number 359
MS. McDOWELL stated currently, people who sport fish take it
home fresh or frozen and at some point, say they can only
use so much fresh or frozen fish. She said the disincentive
currently is that people believe fresh or frozen fish is
somewhat self limiting and there is a concern that if it is
extremely easy to trade in for cans or smoked filets, etc.
it is also easier to sell.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented people can do that now.
MS. McDOWELL said people can have fish custom processed and
pay for the shipping.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said people can exchange fish for cans
right where they catch it.
MS. McDOWELL responded people cannot do that currently, as
it is illegal.
Number 381
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated there seems to be a resistance
to putting the bill and amendment together because of the
delay in implementing value-added processing. He asked if
dropping the restriction and allowing the Board of Fisheries
to put the limitations in place when possible had been
considered. He felt by doing that, it would not only enable
SB 153 to pass, but also enable industry to develop the
processing.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated sport fishermen are not
permitted by law to sell their catch as they do not have
commercial licenses. He felt the bill provided a legal
ability for sport fishermen to exchange fish on some equal
basis. He said the amendment adds a new element by
attempting to control ongoing violations of the overtaking
of fish and is very similar to the game limitations law
currently in effect.
Number 442
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER mentioned the control limit is based
on bag limit and he felt it is inconsistent to allow a
person to catch three fish a day, or two fish a day, but
only allow that person to take out three or four of those
salmon if the person stays for ten days.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said that was incorrect. The person
could take out twenty.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER felt it was not realistic to believe
the Board of Fisheries will set up regulations allowing a
person to take out twenty fish if the person stays twenty
days.
Number 456
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN noted the Board of
Fisheries would be able to set limits lower than the twenty
fish. He said earlier it was mentioned that the state
currently has a possession limit on unprocessed fish, but he
could not find the authorization for any possession limit in
current law.
Number 465
MS. McDOWELL responded the current law does not pertain to
what a person can take with them. A person can have two
daily bag limits in possession at one time.
MS. McDOWELL commented that one additional concern had been
expressed by commercial fishermen regarding SB 153 itself.
That is under the exchange provisions of the bill, sport
fishermen who currently often buy canned and smoked fish,
which is commercially caught, would now exchange sport
caught fish instead. This potential loss of a small market
seems to be only a minor concern to commercial fishermen.
Number 500
PAUL KRASNOWSKI, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SPORT FISH, ALASKA
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (ADF&G), commented the
department views SB 153 as other than a resource management
issue. He stated the bill and proposed amendment are
extremely timely, based on the degree of public contact the
division has had on the issues and through the Board of
Fisheries process. Mr. Krasnowski said he has been involved
with a number of Board of Fisheries meetings on the topics
currently being discussed where regulatory action was
proposed. He added that ADF&G does not currently have a
formal position on SB 153 or the proposed amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if there are existing
possession limits in the law.
Number 530
MR. KRASNOWSKI responded in current regulations the
possession limit, which is the number of sport fish people
can possess, is set and may or may not be different than the
daily bag limit. A fish is considered in possession until
such time it is processed, and processed is defined in such
a way that it includes canned, smoked, hard frozen, not iced
in a cooler, not lightly salted, but in some way put in a
state of preservation. He said once the fish is processed,
it no longer counts under the possession law.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked where in current law does
the regulations come from.
Number 559
MR. KRASNOWSKI replied Title 16 gives the Board of Fisheries
the authority to set bag and possession limits dealing with
raw or unprocessed fish. He said the Board then promulgates
regulations under Title 5 that set the specific bag and
possession limits for a particular species in a particular
area of the state.
MR. KRASNOWSKI remarked his understanding of the proposed
amendment is, it would add an additional category, that
being field limit. He explained the daily bag limit is the
number of fish a person can take on a specific day; the
possession limit is the number of unprocessed fish a person
can have in his possession in total in the field; field
limit is the number of fish processed and unprocessed a
person can have in total, away from his permanent residence.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Title 16 is what is before
the committee in the proposed amendment and stated he still
cannot find where it says the Board is allowed to adopt
possession limits.
Number 598
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON pointed out that if subsection three,
under section 4 in the draft amendment is reviewed, "setting
quotas, bag limits, harvest levels, and sex and size
limitations on the taking of fish," is essentially the
authorization for the Board of Fisheries to do all the
things being discussed, and the proposed amendment will add
"setting limits on the amount of raw and processed fish
taken in a sport fishery that may be in possession." He
added that the "taken in a sport fishery" may be causing
Representative Finkelstein to believe the Board is being
given some extraordinary powers, but the intent is not to
upset the establishment the Board already has for setting
quotas, but rather to try and control the amount of fish
which can be in possession in the field or transit.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Representative Hudson was
correct, but it still was not clear to him that the Board
can base possession limits on that because a quotas, a bag
limits, harvest level, and a sex and size limitations are
all different.
Number 633
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated Ms. McDowell had earlier
indicated that a person cannot exchange fresh fish for
processed fish under current law, and asked when that law
had been enacted.
MR. KRASNOWSKI was not certain when the present law was
enacted but under that law, a person can take a fish into a
custom packer or processor and have his fish processed, but
the custom processor is required by law to give the person
his fish back. Therefore, it would not be an exchange, but
rather a service provided to process fish.
Number 685
BILL VALENTINE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, stated although he
had just seen the bill and amendment that morning, he could
answer questions.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Valentine to respond to
Representative Mulder's concern about a fiscal note.
MR. VALENTINE responded it will be no different than what
the division has now, and it would be difficult to say it is
going to cost a lot more as the cost could not be
determined. He felt SB 153 and the proposed amendment will
further address existing problems.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked how the bill and amendment will
solve existing problems.
MR. VALENTINE replied the amendment defines the possession
limit in the field.
TAPE 94-5, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. VALENTINE continued that currently, processed fish are
not counted in the possession limit and under this amendment
they will be. He noted there will be record keeping by
processors, which will give the division the opportunity to
go back to the processors and determine the amount of fish
going out.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked Mr. Valentine if he preferred
the proposed amendment to the letter of intent because the
amendment requires the Board of Fisheries to act before the
law will go into effect.
MR. VALENTINE responded that he did.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON questioned if bag limit is the amount
a person can have in the field.
MR. VALENTINE responded, until the fish is processed.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON clarified the amendment will require
the Board of Fisheries to set up regulations on determining
the quantity of processed fish which can be shipped. He
noted that major grocers throughout the state sell whole
fish and expressed concern how SB 153 and the amendment
will affect them.
Number 021
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked currently people do take
advantage of the amount of fish taken out and asked if SB
153 and the amendment will be creating more of a problem.
He noted that a person can conceivably go out with more fish
than what he was entitled to convert and could simply say he
bought extras. He said a person can take a lot more canned
than fresh.
MR. VALENTINE responded that could happen, but he felt the
amendment and the bill are better than current law.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted that commercially caught fish in
cans would be labeled.
Number 047
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES advised members to look at the bottom
of page four, and the top of page five, where the bill does
specify that the exchange to product will be labeled
prominently "Not For Sale".
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY commented if the concept of SB 153 is
a good idea, the quicker it takes effect the better it will
be, and added that the Letter of Intent asks the Board of
Fisheries to consider regulations, but does not require
regulations to be established before the law is effective.
He questioned again, if the committee adopts the amendment
which is dependent on the Board of Fisheries setting
regulations, is the committee willing to wait the length of
time required for the Board to act.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON expressed his support of SB 153,
because it is obvious there is illegal commercialization of
the sport fisheries ongoing, and the bill gives options for
sports and commercial fishermen to legalize a practice which
is already happening. He said whether or not the committee
wants to modify the bill by controlling the amount of
illegally caught fish being shipped out of the state through
an amendment of the bill is a question yet to be answered.
At this time, he is not convinced the bill and the amendment
should go together.
Number 090
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN commented on his earlier
confusion and stated there is no difference between a
possession limit and a bag limit in terms of raw fish.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS remarked in regard to getting the Board of
Fisheries to act on regulations, it is not the committee's
intention to put any pressure on the Board at this time. He
said hopefully, the Board will agree SB 153 is good
legislation and will act on it accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY commented SB 153 with the Letter of
Intent becomes effective immediately, with the benefits of
the bill, without the necessity for the Board to act. He
felt it might be better not to do the amendment.
PAUL JOHNSON, CHARTER BOAT OPERATOR, ELFIN COVE, requested
to clarify several statements made earlier. He said
presently, a person can take a fish into a processor and get
the same fish back. What the bill does is expedite the
exchange, enabling a person to take a fish in and
immediately get something back. He explained the difference
is, a person can take their bag limit in and get processed
fish back immediately.
MR. JOHNSON stated the people in Elfin Cove have watched the
lodge industry grow extensively. He said one lodge out of
the five there, has established its own limits for customers
which are realistic and essential. He stated a person who
is allowed two halibut and a couple of king salmon a day and
takes home 300 pounds of product, that is a major export.
MR. JOHNSON expressed his support of SB 153 and felt it was
good for several reasons, including having a quality fish
product in the lower 48 for people to eat, but felt it
important that people not do it on a 300 pound level. He
pointed out that Canada has an export limit and felt if
Alaska's export limit was smaller, the charter industry
would be impacted. Mr. Johnson stated it is not unrealistic
for the state to have at least the same export limits as
Canada.
MR. JOHNSON pointed out that fish is a public resource no
different than oil. He did not believe the state would
casually give away barrels of oil. He felt the Board of
Fisheries will be reasonable and timely. He said having
some kind of nonresident export limit is imperative.
Number 164
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER agreed with Mr. Johnson, but expressed
concern on what the effect of an export limit will have on
those living in Alaska. He asked if it was possible to have
an export limit for nonresidents only.
MS. McDOWELL responded export limits violate interstate
commerce law and that is where the "in-transit to place of
residence" comes into play. She said most Alaskans catch
several days of fish, take it home and put it in the freezer
and it does not count anymore; enabling that person to go
out again.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated Mr. Johnson implied an export
limit would only pertain to nonresidents.
MS. McDOWELL replied the limit will not pertain to residents
if they get home every few days.
Number 187
KEN DOLE, MANAGING PARTNER, WATERFALL RESORT, testified via
teleconference and informed members his resort manages up to
84 customers a day, operates 25 guided charter boats and
offers (indiscernible) rates of $745 a day per person. He
stated his company contributes $2 million annually to the
local economies.
MR. DOLE noted there has been a lot of discussion on the
rampant violations on going in the sport industry,
specifically targeted toward the guided sport industry. He
requested ADF&G to verify the violations being discussed.
He stressed his resort does not violate bag limits, and has
had no violations in their ten year history. Mr. Dole said
people continually talk about the large number of boxes of
fish in the airport which he has never seen.
MR. DOLE noted the Board of Fisheries already has the
ability to establish possession and export limits. He said
there is no proof that sport take will increase due to SB
153, and felt the whole concept appears to be an effort to
solve a current perceived problem. He felt it is an issue
which should be solved by the Board of Fisheries, and added
that the issue has been brought before the Board many times.
The Board has determined a limit is not necessary.
MR. DOLE stated based on the information received from
Chairman Williams office on this SB 153 and recent memos
related to moratoriums, it is obvious there is an effort to
further limit guided sport fishing. He recommended trashing
the entire bill and leaving the guided sport industry alone.
Number 235
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS responded that no one is trying to
restrict limits in the bill, but only trying to contain the
limits.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Mr. Dole if he believed,
especially from Silver Lining's point of view, that a legal
ability to immediately exchange a fresh frozen fish for a
comparable quantity of processed fish is a constructive and
positive measure.
MR. DOLE replied that SB 153 will provide some benefits for
the guided sport, the resident sport and the commercial
processors. He said the undertone of the amendment is an
attempt to further restrict the amount of fish that guided
sport can take, and felt there is no reason to tie the two
together. If there is a desire to further limit guided
sport fishing, then develop a new bill and let SB 153 stand
on its own merits. Mr. Dole noted there is no proof that
the guided sport industry and take will dramatically
increase because of the ease in exchanging fish for value-
added fish.
Number 270
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said in trying to understand what
the new limits on guided sport fishing may be, he asked Mr.
Dole if the new limit will be on the export of processed
fish.
MR. DOLE said currently, possession limits only apply to
unprocessed fish and the act of processing fish means
cleaning and freezing the fish. Therefore, as long as fish
is brought back every day, processed and put in the freezer,
it no longer counts against the possession limit. He
stressed when all product, including processed product, is
contained in a possession limit, the amount a person can
take is going to be further limited, if they cannot take it
to their place of residence. He noted the Board of
Fisheries is and has been controlled by commercial fishing
interests.
Number 303
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated he understood the concern
in theory, but asked Mr. Dole in practice, under status quo,
if there are a significant number of his clients exporting
large amounts of processed fish.
MR. DOLE replied his clients stay an average three and one-
half days and during that time, especially at the peak of
silver season, it is not unusual for a guest to limit out
each day of their stay. He said therefore a guest could
take six silvers, six pinks and two halibut per day, but
felt no one gets all of their limits every day. He stated
90 percent of the resort's guests are repeat or referral and
as guests continue to come back, they begin limiting
themselves.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he appreciated Mr. Dole's
comments, but the question asked was a little different. He
asked if current clients are taking out the same volume in
processed fish.
MR. DOLE said the amendment will include all fish in
possession limits, and noted that currently there are
possession limits on a variety of species and cited the
current one a day king salmon possession limit. He
explained if the one a day possession limit remained in
place with the redefinition of possession limit to include
both processed and unprocessed fish, his guests could only
take two king salmon during their entire trip.
MR. DOLE responded many of his guests custom process fish
through Silver Lining. He believed more of his guests would
use custom processing if they were able to exchange at the
resort. He does not believe the exchange opportunity will
increase clients desire to catch more fish.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN clarified the only change which
will be made is a limit on the export of processed fish and
stated that all of the other aspects are already allowed
under existing law.
Number 368
MR. DOLE affirmed there currently are possession limits on
raw fish and the change proposed, as he understands it, is
the possession limit will now apply to all fish whether
processed or unprocessed. Again, he reiterated that a fish
is processed merely by cleaning and freezing a fish.
BILL FOSTER, PRESIDENT, SITKA CHARTER BOAT OPERATORS
ASSOCIATION, testified via teleconference and stated his
group has not met and therefore has not taken a stand on the
issue at hand. He thought perhaps SB 153 could increase the
export of fish as it will be cheaper. He stated he could
not remember a client who did not want his own fish and felt
the bill would give some options to processors. Mr. Foster
expressed concerns regarding export limits. He said the
North Pacific Council is also talking about similar issues.
Number 448
JAMES HESTON, VALDEZ, testified via teleconference and
expressed his support of SB 153, but said he has concerns
relating to the amendment. He stated the amendment will
only allow a client to fish for two days during a three day
stay and also gives the Board of Fisheries the authority to
adopt regulations without input from user groups. He felt
placing possession limits in the export arena will do more
damage to the tourist and sport fishing industry rather than
solve the problem of meat hunters.
Number 495
ED DERSHAM, PRESIDENT, ANCHOR POINT CHARTER ASSOCIATION,
testified via teleconference and stated the large quantity
of fish leaving the state is a perceived problem, not a
documented one. There is no documented evidence to support
the claim that there is any widespread abuse of this nature.
He said, on the contrary, the ADF&G statistics support the
opposite contention. During a recent meeting of the North
Pacific Fisheries Management Council, Halibut Charter
Working Group, ADF&G biologist Doug Vincent-Lang stated that
a suggested annual limit on halibut of eight, ten or twelve
would have a negligible effect on the overall sport harvest
in Alaska.
MR. DERSHAM pointed out that in Cook Inlet, an annual limit
on king salmon of five per angler, protects the fishery from
this perceived problem. He said the current bag limits on
salmon and halibut in the state adequately protect the
resource from any biological problems. He added that if any
biological problems do arise, the ADF&G deals with them via
emergency orders regulations.
Number 521
MR. DERSHAM stated this is not a biological issue but a back
door attempt to reallocate fish from sport to commercial
fishing interests via an export proposal that is thinly
veiled as something other than an export proposal. He said
Ms. McDowell stated to him that the Board of Fisheries can
be trusted to set reasonable limits under the amendment
because they would have no motivation to do otherwise. Mr.
Dersham pointed out that past export proposals before the
Board of Fisheries, backed by commercial fishing interests,
have sought to set export limits at one daily bag limit of
sport-caught fish. He felt, given that fact and that the
Board of Fisheries is still dominated by commercial fishing
interests, sport fishermen and charter operators in Alaska
cannot support the amendment with the unreasonable hope that
any limits set would be fair to sport fishermen.
MR. DERSHAM remarked as a lodge owner, his business is based
on clients who stay four to seven days. Each fisherman
returns home with no more than five king salmon and ten
halibut. He said his clients pay approximately $250 a day
per angler for the package. Any export limit set lower than
these amounts of fish would severely impact his business.
He stressed his fishing packages reflect an economically
sound utilization of the resource and any restrictions that
damage the business without biological justification are
unreasonable.
Number 545
MR. DERSHAM stated the goal of SB 153 seems to be a sound
one, as creating a situation encouraging a value added
factor to the fisheries resource makes good economic sense.
He felt the proposed amendment does not and has potential
for unreasonable harm to sport fishermen, charter operators
and lodge owners. He asked since there is no biological
problem and the raw fish for processed fish trade makes good
economic sense to the state, why is the amendment needed and
why shorten the number of days a nonresident angler would
choose to stay and fish in the state. He stressed every day
a person stays, he contributes to the state's economy in
many different ways, and every fish he catches represents a
wise economic utilization of the resource.
MR. DERSHAM concluded that the provision in the amendment
allowing the limit to be set by the Board of Fisheries
statewide without regard to regulations regarding scheduling
of areas of the state is unfair and further raises the
suspicions of sport fishermen. He stressed it seems to
encourage the Board to take up the issue in a meeting at a
site and time that limits access to the process for those
most affected by it.
Number 572
BILL HEARD, AUKE BAY, said he was speaking on behalf of a
nonprofit group of concerned citizens primarily of
traditional sport fish anglers, the Alaska Residence Sport
Anglers Association. He stressed a matter of much concern
to the group is the rapid growth of the commercial guided
sport industry and the vast quantities of sport caught fish
the industry is helping to export from the state. He stated
SB 153 concerns the exchange of raw fish legally caught in
sport fisheries for processed fish.
MR. HEARD remarked that SB 153 contains many good points and
if enacted into law, could provide a very useful service
that many in the sport fishing community, including both
guided and unguided anglers, would appreciate and use.
However, he believed that by itself, SB 153 could create a
mechanism which could be abused under current legal
definitions of possession limits. By itself, SB 153 might
cause even greater amounts of sport fish to be shipped from
the state by greedy, misguided anglers. He stressed the
proposed amendment is an essential component which must be
included in the bill.
MR. HEARD noted one of the main reasons he chooses to live
and work in Alaska is the access to participate in
recreational sport fishing as a resident angler. He
stressed his family all have strong dependence on access to
sport fishing in Alaska's waters and to the frugal and wise
use of their catch as an important part of their lifestyle,
diet and deep appreciation and respect for the fishery
resources. He said current definitions of the sport fish
possession limit allow clients of a fishing lodge or charter
operation, with freezing or other facilities for preserving
fish, to ship home an amount of fish limited only by the
number of days fished. A ten day trip would allow a client
to take home ten daily bag limits often amounting to several
hundred pounds of fish.
MR. HEARD pointed out that sport angling for king salmon in
Southeast Alaska is currently under tightly controlled catch
quotas and there is strong and growing competition between
guided sport and nonguided sport anglers for access to the
limited number of fish. He said with a two day fish bag
limit, a ten day lodge trip could involve shipping up to
twenty large king salmon out of the state by one client. He
stressed many resident Alaska anglers spend a lifetime of
satisfied and highly rewarding sport fishing and never catch
half that amount of king salmon in total.
MR. HEARD told members there are anecdotal accounts of
guided sport operators stockpiling sport caught fish for
present and future clients and accounts of vacation cost
recovery schemes through the illegal sale of sport caught
Alaska fish in other areas. He summarized that SB 153 could
provide a useful and welcomed service to the recreational
fishing community of Alaska, only if the proposed amendment
regarding possession limits on raw and processed fish taken
legally in a sport fishery is included in the bill.
Number 641
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE
BUNDE joined the committee meeting at 9:40 a.m.)
ROD BERG, SOLDOTNA, testified via teleconference and
expressed his opposition to the proposed amendment and said
he is opposed to possession or export limits. He said the
amendment appears to be a back door approach by commercial
fishing interests to stymie the sport fishing entity
particularly the sport charter industry. He felt the state
had no business dictating the amount of fish a resident or
nonresident chooses to possess as long as that amount is
within biological limits set within ADF&G regulations and
added that this is the United States, not Canada. He stated
if the amendment was reviewed by the Attorney General, it
would be found to be unconstitutional.
Mr. Berg respectfully requested that the proposed amendment
be removed from SB 153.
MR. BERG felt the amendment is an attempt to create a new,
unenforceable law and for those individuals who eat a lot of
fish, it will force them to buy commercially caught fish.
He said it seems to be a price fixing scam promulgated by
greedy commercial interests. He stressed his guests request
a professionally processed vacuum sealed product and this
service is rendered by a commercial cannery in the Kenai
area. He said he can prove that over 50 percent of his
guests also purchase additional commercially caught
products.
MR. BERG stressed if the export limit becomes a law there
will be much confusion and the liability to the state of
Alaska will be great. He said with the present Alaskan
economy, anyone supporting this type of legislation ought to
have their motives closely scrutinized.
TAPE 94-6, SIDE A
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON felt the primary goal of SB 153, not
including the amendment, is to legalize something which is
already happening. For example, many tourists now illegally
go to a custom processor and receive another person's fish
in return for theirs. He asked Mr. Berg if he felt SB 153
does something beyond that.
MR. BERG responded that if the amendment were left out he
felt SB 153 does what Representative Hudson described. He
stressed he was not positive the present law actually reads
that the current situation is illegal.
Number 024
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS reminded Mr. Berg that the Committee is
scrutinizing both SB 153 and the proposed amendment as well
as taking public testimony, and hopefully will go in the
right direction.
JOHN GOODHAND, VICE PRESIDENT, VALDEZ CHARTER BOAT
ASSOCIATION, testified via teleconference and stated SB 153,
with the proposed amendment, will be another law that cannot
be enforced and suggested if the state wants to spend money,
give it to ADF&G Wildlife Division to enforce current laws.
He felt the proposed amendment will not just affect
nonresident tourists and Alaska coastal communities but also
people in the interior. He advised the committee if they
want to protect the resource, whether it be halibut or
salmon, they should look at personal use fishery first.
MR. GOODHAND felt maybe charter fishermen and guides in the
interior should be allowed personal use fish. He said with
the price of oil down, the state had better look at tourism
as a viable economic resource. He expressed opposition to
the proposed amendment and said SB 153 could possibly
provide benefits to certain areas including jobs, although
he cannot support trading fresh sport caught fish for
commercial fish. Mr. Goodhand stressed the boxes of fish in
airports is a problem occurring more in Southeast Alaska
rather than other parts of the state. He felt restrictions
on the sport industry should be based on biological reasons
only.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES told Mr. Goodhand his points in regard
to fisherman in the state who live away from the coast and
issues related to the tourism industry are well taken.
ROBERT CANDOPOULOS, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference
and expressed his opposition to the proposed amendment. He
felt possession limit is a fragile issue which should be
researched and decided upon only after data is collected.
He said the only fish boxes he sees in Seward are boxes
coming off commercial boats. Mr. Candopoulos expressed
support of SB 153 without the amendment. He also felt the
charter and tourism industry are industries Alaskans should
give attention to. He asked if there is any available data
from ADF&G which asserts there is a large problem with the
export of fish in Alaska.
(TELECONFERENCE DISCONNECTED)
Number 128
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE told members in his past work as an air
taxi pilot, he has personally carried many 120 quart coolers
full of king salmon fillets out of the Susitna River
drainage, which went with Europeans back to Europe. He
suspected those people paid for their trips with that fish.
(TELECONFERENCE BACK ON LINE)
Number 145
DAN McQUEEN, OWNER & OPERATOR, SALMON BUSTERS CHARTER
SERVICE, testified via teleconference and expressed
opposition to SB 153 with or without the proposed amendment.
He stressed his customers want their own fish as they paid
to catch it, caught it, and saw it was properly iced and
cleaned. He recalled the large increase in nonresident
license sales and pointed out that the nonresident catch
rates were not included. He believed ADF&G data will show
nonresident anglers actually catch less than residents.
MR. McQUEEN said enforcement and costs associated with
enforcement of the amendment would be better used to grow
more salmon. He felt the only way SB 153 will work is to
require each and every sport caught fish be processed. He
stated SB 153 and the proposed amendment should be
considered individually not together.
Number 166
JEFF KING, REPRESENTATIVE, FISHING GUIDES, SOLDOTNA AREA,
agreed with Representative Hudson's comments regarding the
value and quality of fish, nurturing tourism, etc. relating
to SB 153. He said in regard to the proposed amendment,
nonresident anglers are affluent people and do not need to
be greedy as they can go to the store and buy all the fish
they want. He felt those people should not be treated with
that kind of mentality. He stated he believes and felt
others believe that legislators should not be involved with
allocation. Mr. King stressed if the issue does go to the
Board of Fisheries, there are creative ways to accomplish
the goal not yet discussed.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS advised that SB 153 and the proposed
amendment will be heard again and those wishing to testify
will have additional opportunities.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee will meet Monday,
January 31, 1994 at 8:15 a.m. to hear HB 384 relating to
financial responsibility for conducting noncrude oil
operations.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House
Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting
at 10:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|