Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/21/1999 01:11 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 21, 1999
1:11 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chair
Representative Jerry Sanders, Co-Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Morgan
OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS:
Board of Fisheries
Virgil L. Umphenour - North Pole
Grant J. Miller - Sitka
Dan K. Coffey - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 116
"An Act relating to the Board of Agriculture and Conservation, to
the agricultural revolving loan fund, to the disposal of state
agricultural land, and to the Alaska Natural Resource Conservation
and Development Board; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 104
"An Act revising the procedures and authority of the Alaska
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, the Board of Fisheries, and
the Department of Fish and Game to establish a moratorium on
participants or vessels, or both, participating in certain
fisheries; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 116
SHORT TITLE: BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSERVATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) JAMES, Harris
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/26/99 324 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/26/99 324 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
3/10/99 418 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HARRIS
4/14/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
4/14/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/21/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 104
SHORT TITLE: ENTRY MORATORIA ON PARTICIPANTS/VESSELS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) HUDSON, Austerman
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/19/99 260 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/19/99 260 (H) FSH, RES
3/08/99 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
3/08/99 (H) MOVED CSHB 104(FSH)
3/08/99 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
3/10/99 408 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) NT 4DP
3/10/99 408 (H) DP: KAPSNER, MORGAN, WHITAKER, HUDSON
3/10/99 408 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G)
3/10/99 408 (H) REFERRED TO RES
4/14/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
4/14/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/21/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
VIRGIL UMPHENOUR, Appointee
to the Board of Fisheries
878 Lynnwood Way
North Pole, Alaska 99705
Telephone: (907) 456-3885
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Fisheries.
GRANT MILLER, Appointee
to the Board of Fisheries
P.O. Box 6097
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-7870
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Fisheries.
DAN COFFEY, Appointee
to the Board of Fisheries
207 East Northern Lights Boulevard, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 274-3385
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Fisheries.
SUE ASPELUND, Executive Director
Cordova District Fishermen United
P.O. Box 939
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907) 424-3447
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified about imbalance on Board of
Fisheries and spoke in opposition to Mr.
Umphenour's reappointment.
RUSSELL NELSON
P.O. Box 161
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-2370
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of reappointment of Mr.
Umphenour, Mr. Miller and Mr. Coffey to the
Board of Fisheries.
DALE BONDURANT
31864 Moonshine
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-0818
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of reappointment of Mr.
Umphenour, Mr. Miller and Mr. Coffey to the
Board of Fisheries.
ROY ASHENFELTER
P.O. Box 1969
Nome, Alaska 99762
Telephone: (907) 443-5730
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Kawerak, Incorporated,
in support of reappointment of Mr. Umphenour
to the Board of Fisheries; testified on own
behalf in support of reappointment of Mr.
Umphenour and Mr. Coffey but was neutral on
Mr. Miller's.
JERRY McCUNE
211 Fourth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-2820
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as Copper River fisherman that Mr.
Umphenour is biased, Mr. Coffey has done a
great job, and Mr. Miller is organized and
represents commercial fishing interests on the
Board of Fisheries; requested one more person
on the board who understands mixed-stock
fisheries.
TERRY HOEFFERLE
Bristol Bay Native Association
P.O. Box 310
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-5257
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Bristol Bay Native
Association in support of reappointment of Mr.
Umphenour, Mr. Miller and Mr. Coffey to the
Board of Fisheries.
REUBEN HANKE
P.O. Box 624
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-5097
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of reappointment of Mr.
Umphenour, Mr. Miller and Mr. Coffey to the
Board of Fisheries.
JOE HANES
P.O. Box 3132
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-6388
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of reappointment of Mr.
Umphenour, Mr. Miller and Mr. Coffey to the
Board of Fisheries.
ANDY SZCZESWY
198 Hillcrest Avenue
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-9439
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of reappointment of Mr.
Umphenour, Mr. Miller and Mr. Coffey to the
Board of Fisheries.
BARBARA CADIENTE NELSON
1625 Fritz Cove Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-3448
POSITION STATEMENT: During confirmation hearings, testified that
she would like to see two more commercial
representatives on the Board of Fisheries.
JIM ELLISON
P.O. Box 55590
North Pole, Alaska 99705
Telephone: (907) 488-3569
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 116.
ROBERT WELLS, Director
Division of Agriculture
Department of Natural Resources
1800 Glenn Highway, Suite 12
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-7200
POSITION STATEMENT: Informed members that he will work on HB 116
during the interim with Representative James,
sponsor, and Co-Chairman Ogan.
DICK ZOBEL
P.O. Box 872683
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 376-5640
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 116.
BOB FRANKLIN, State President
Alaska Farm Bureau
P.O. Box 75184
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907) 488-7738
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged that HB 116 be pushed through
legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 116.
BRENNON EAGLE
P.O. Box 576
Wrangell, Alaska 99929
Telephone: (907) 874-2162
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged passage of HB 104.
RAY CAMPBELL
P.O. Box 23219
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 247-3626
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 104.
LIZ CABRERA, Researcher
for Representative Bill Hudson and Committee Aide,
House Special Committee on Fisheries
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 108
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6890
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained synopsis of changes in CSHB 104(FSH).
MARY McDOWELL, Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
8800 Glacier Highway, Suite 109
Juneau, Alaska 99801-8079
Telephone: (907) 789-6160
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 104.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-27, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR SCOTT OGAN called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:11 p.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Ogan, Sanders, Harris and Whitaker.
Representative Barnes arrived shortly after the call to order, and
Representatives Joule and Kapsner arrived at 1:14 p.m. and
approximately 2:30 p.m., respectively. Representatives Masek and
Morgan were excused.
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Board of Fisheries
CO-CHAIR OGAN announced that the committee would consider three
appointees to the Board of Fisheries. After all had testified and
answered members' questions, the committee would hear public
testimony on all three. [Committee packets contained a resume from
each appointee, plus documents in support and in opposition, in
varying combinations.]
Number 0167
VIRGIL UMPHENOUR, Appointee to the Board of Fisheries, testified
via teleconference from Fairbanks. A board member for five years,
he believes there is a lot of work to be done, he said, and that
the board has made a lot of improvements in the last couple of
years. He would like to continue to be part of the process.
CO-CHAIR OGAN invited Representative Austerman to join committee
members at the table.
Number 0287
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS remarked that the only negative comments he
had heard were regarding Mr. Umphenour, although he had never met
him. He referred to a memorandum in the packet from Bob Martinson,
dated April 20, 1999, which said Mr. Umphenour's cussing and false
statements in front of the public put the board into executive
session, and that he clearly has a conflict of interest in dealing
with matters of concern to Prince William Sound Aquaculture
Corporation (PWSAC) and/or matters relating to the Copper River
fishery. Representative Harris noted that those entities are in
his district, and he asked Mr. Umphenour to respond.
Number 0453
MR. UMPHENOUR replied that he doesn't know anything about cussing
in public, or causing the board to go into executive session. Nor
has he ever knowingly made a false statement. He said he tries to
have his facts straight, so that what he says is true and correct,
and it is hard to address such a general allegation without knowing
what incident was being referenced.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said he doesn't know the specific incidents,
either, and is just going on information given to him.
Number 0568
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN informed members that he'd also received
several complaints regarding Mr. Umphenour, although his own
relationship with him has been excellent in Mr. Umphenour's years
on the board. The complaints alleged the inability to look at the
overall fisheries in Alaska, particularly the ground fisheries, and
that he had made some brash statements regarding their ability to
do clean fishing, for example. Representative Austerman asked Mr.
Umphenour to state his position on Alaska's ground fisheries.
MR. UMPHENOUR responded:
You've obviously been talking to hard-on-bottom trawlers. I
don't like hard-on-bottom trawling, because it's not a very
responsible means of harvest. If you talk to Duncan Fields,
that represents the villages in Kodiak, you'll find that I've
been very supportive of their concerns, as well as the
concerns of the smaller vessel groundfish fishermen in the
Area M and the Chignik districts.
And I've done everything I can to ensure ... that the
fisheries don't become overcapitalized, and give the small
vessel - which are primarily Alaska resident fishermen - fair
opportunity to harvest the allowable catch, rather than the
big trawlers coming in and scooping up the catch, and, in the
process, having unknown amounts of bycatch, and unknown damage
to the habitat of the crabs, primarily the Bairdi and the king
crab in the Kodiak area.
I think that pot fishing and jig fishing is a much more
responsible method of harvest, and it gives people - the
smaller-vessel fishermen, such as in all the villages around
Kodiak, and many of the residents in Kodiak city, as well as
Chignik, Sand Point and King Cove - a much better opportunity
to participate in the harvest of that resource, in a much more
responsible manner.
Number 0814
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked whether Mr. Umphenour had no problem
with trawl fisheries, then, other than hard-on-bottom draggers.
MR. UMPHENOUR replied:
Trawl fisheries have their place. However, I don't think
hard-on-bottom trawling has its place anywhere, Representative
Austerman. I reviewed all the information that's available to
the board, and to the council, and I just can't see
hard-on-bottom trawling as being a responsible means of
harvest. I have a friend that's a skipper for Tyson on one of
the very large factory trawlers that's operated off Kodiak
waters, and he told me until we eliminate hard-on-bottom
trawling, the crabs will never come back in Kodiak waters.
Number 0868
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES clarified that the information Representative
Harris had discussed came in a letter referencing the 1996 board
cycle meeting in Cordova.
MR. UMPHENOUR explained:
The people in PWSAC don't like me, and there's a good reason
for it. PWSAC owes the state of Alaska in excess of $28
million. Currently, the [division] of investments has
extended their loan with no interest. ... PWSAC I don't feel
has operated in a responsible manner when it comes to the
production of chum and pink salmon. As high as 97 percent of
the harvest - and this was in 1996 - of chum salmon harvested
in Prince William Sound was hatchery-produced.
I feel ... that it's irresponsible to mass-produce salmon from
hatcheries to the detriment of the wild stocks, because the
board is mandated, by the constitution of the state and by the
legislature, to manage salmon resources in such a manner that
the wild stocks take priority over the enhanced or the
hatchery-produced stocks. ...
Number 1043
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Umphenour to comment further on the
accusation that his cussing and false statements had put the board
into executive session.
MR. UMPHENOUR replied that to the best of his memory, the board
didn't enter into executive session during the meeting of December
1996, which was in Cordova. He added:
I do know that some of the driftnet fishermen that fish inside
the barrier islands of the Copper River - and the water is
two-to-ten-feet deep, and they're using drift gillnets that
are 29-feet deep, and they're using them in a manner ... that
you would use a beach seine, and they are seining the king
salmon out - that they are causing a problem with genetic
diversity of the king salmon stocks in the Copper River,
because they kill between 95 and 100 percent of the king
salmon present in the district when they do that.
And knowing that king salmon, whenever they are getting
accustomed to the change from salt water to fresh water, that
they spend seven days to two weeks milling in and out of the
mouth of the river, ... I don't think that's a responsible way
to fish. And because I was one of the people that caused that
fishery to be restrictive a little bit, to allow king salmon
to get up the river unmolested, then some of the commercial
fishermen that are involved in that practice - and actually do
not like me, because they consider me a threat, because they
don't like responsible fish management - they would like to be
able to kill every last fish, and they don't care if the sport
fishermen and the personal use fishermen and the subsistence
fishermen get restricted upriver, as long as they can catch
all they can catch at the mouth of the river first.
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked if there were further questions from the
committee. He then called upon Grant Miller.
Number 1259
GRANT MILLER, Appointee to the Board of Fisheries, testified via
teleconference from Sitka. He said he believes this board has done
a commendable job. He appreciates having been part of this team
for the last three years and would like to continue. Noting his
involvement in the sustainable fisheries committee since its
formation, he concluded, "I would like to see that project through
to completion, and with the development of a sustainable fisheries
policy for the state."
Number 1322
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked why Mr. Miller volunteers for this.
MR. MILLER responded:
Well, I think that the makeup of this board has been such that
... it's been a little bit inspiring to tackle some of these
issues and challenges. I appreciate working with these guys,
and I realize, too, that ... if the three of us did not
continue, I think that some of the things that were left on
the table - such as sustainable fisheries - would have to be
picked up by people new to this board. It would put a greater
burden on Dr. White, who has been, also, a part of the
sustainable fisheries committee since the beginning. And for
those reasons, I think, I chose to go ... another term.
Certainly there's times when I wish I wasn't a part of this
process, but I think that more often than not, when I walk
away from a meeting cycle in one of the communities, I feel
pretty good about what's been done. So, until that changes,
I think that I still look ... towards these meetings in a
positive way.
Number 1409
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS inquired about Mr. Miller's involvement and
expertise in fisheries in Alaska.
MR. MILLER replied that he started fishing 31 years ago. On the
East Coast, he used fish traps, then fished on hard-on-bottom
draggers, scallopers, and did some gillnetting for mackerel. He
moved to the West Coast, where he began trolling and seined for
anchovies for bait. He trolled for salmon first in California and
then in Alaska, where he moved in 1977. He believes it was in 1980
that he began gillnetting for herring. He then diversified,
longlining for halibut and getting into the herring bait business.
Mr. Miller informed members that he has also used his Merchant
Marine license to operate tenders and processors, and to run those
boats back and forth between Dutch Harbor and Seattle, for example.
Number 1524
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked how Mr. Miller feels about the
compatibility of sport fishing and commercial fishing. Commenting
that it seems Mr. Umphenour is fairly opposed to the hatchery
system in the state, he also asked how Mr. Miller feels about that.
MR. MILLER replied that he thinks there is a potential for
compatibility, and it has been demonstrated. He stated:
But I think that ... that compatibility is going to be at risk
if we don't get a handle on the growth of the sport industry.
You can't take a ... fully allocated resource and continue to
have one user group continue to expand, and expect that the
resource, or the others that are using that resource, are
going to continue to exist harmoniously. It's not going to
work that way. We're going to have to either get a moratorium
... on charters, or some kind of ... annual limit on sport
anglers, some way to have a little bit of restriction of
growth in the sport industry, if they're going to remain
compatible on into the future.
In terms of the hatchery, I believe that, of course, each
hatchery ... has developed over time and gone in different
directions and, depending on where they are, have had
different challenges. Some ... have handled the mitigation of
wild stock impacts quite well. ... Others may not have, or ...
circumstances may have changed, ... where perhaps their
production now conflicts with wild stock. But ... I think
it's always been the intent of any hatchery within the state
... to not produce fish in an area where wild stocks are
impacted. ...
I also believe that, due to circumstances, oftentimes beyond
the control the hatcheries, the economics of the state have
been such that they've gotten into debt, and, ... in their
attempts to get out of debt, produced more fish. Of course,
that created [a] downward spiral, in terms of the value
received for those fish, so that more had to be produced, and
they got further into debt.
Somehow or other, we need ... to deal with that debt
situation. And I think we talked to someone from the state
not too long ago, who said that they had ... redone all of
those debts, and every one that was out there now, they felt
that they were going to be able to repay. ... Those are some
of the worst-case scenarios. We still have others, such as
NSRAA [Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association],
who have paid their debt back ... to the state and are
operating in a ... much more fortunate situation. And
possibly they should be an example to some of the others, if
at all possible.
Number 1723
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES read from Article VIII, Section 3, of the
constitution, regarding common use. She stated her belief that
most Alaskan sport fishermen use the fish they catch to fill their
freezers and to feed their families, although there is a commercial
sport fish business. She stated, "I don't disagree with
controlling the commercial sports fish business, or any other, as
long as we maintain the sustained yield principle." She asked how
Mr. Miller can say that one user group should be controlled more
than the other. She further asked whether there isn't an
obligation to control commercial catch, as well.
MR. MILLER responded:
I believe in almost all the situations, the commercial
industry already has ... its limitations, either restrictions
in numbers of permits, or quotas. They're the only group that
... their growth has been stopped. Perhaps their ability to
catch may have increased somewhat, just due to technology.
But as a user group in general, more people that come up here
to use, to utilize, this resource, as a sport fisherman, ...
there is no way to stop that. And when you have an
already-allocated resource, then that comes from someone else.
The commercial fishermen ... catch a lot of fish, but those
fishermen produce fish for the people who cannot afford to
come to Alaska and catch fish, or people who do not live here,
or who live here and cannot afford to go out and catch fish to
put in their freezers to eat. The commercial fishermen
provide fish for all those others consumers. And I believe
this as to be access to the common property.
Number 1859
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES agreed that happens, at a price. She
believes seasons and bag limits are now imposed on all the
fisheries, she said. If not, she asked that Mr. Miller tell her
where that is.
MR. MILLER responded that he doesn't believe there are annual
limits, as such, in every area. This allocation issue comes before
the board because of increased usage - more and more people are
trying to get more and more of the product. Every time that
happens, they must reallocate away from one user group to another
expanding user group, and that is his concern.
Number 1931
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES pointed out that there were problems on the
Kenai River before.
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked if there were other questions from the
committee, then called upon Dan Coffey.
Number 1993
DAN COFFEY, Appointee to the Board of Fisheries, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage, noting that he has been on the board
with the other two appointees for more than three years. A lot of
work done regarding Alaska's fisheries needs to continue, he said,
and three areas will take a lot of board work in the next three
years: sustainable fisheries; a board process that has evolved to
the point where the board is now able to handle the volume of work
which it has; and substantial issues related to the federal
takeover of subsistence fisheries.
MR. COFFEY mentioned the board's diversity, then stated, "Mr.
Miller and I don't agree on all issues, but Mr. Miller is a
thoughtful spokesman for his position. And I listen to him and
find wisdom in some of the things he says, and I believe he finds
it in some of the things I say. And the same with Mr. Umphenour.
What I've found ... over the past three years is that this
diversity of opinion ... has been a benefit. And what I find most
helpful is the willingness to listen, and the willingness to work
together."
MR. COFFEY noted the board's long hours, for concentrated periods
of time. He believes his organizational ability is helpful to
members in having a successful process. "Although there's many who
disagree with our decisions, we do take the process through to the
conclusion, ... with what I hope to be sound and reasoned
regulatory decisions," he said, indicating a desire to continue
because there is still work to be done, to preserve this method of
doing business. He believes the process is valuable. It permits
tremendous public participation, as the people in the fisheries get
to participate in the regulation of these fisheries, and their
interests get heard, balanced and tested against one another.
MR. COFFEY concluded, "Myself and these other gentlemen that I work
with are of the same mind. And so, we wanted to come forward as a
collective, so to speak, because we each bring some diversity and
some different ways of looking at things to this process, but we
all are committed to an open and public process that leads to good
regulatory results. So, I would hope that I would have the
opportunity to finish that work with Dr. White and Mr. Umphenour
and Mr. Miller and others."
Number 2178
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER suggested that the other appointees could
be categorized, one as being in favor or more sport-oriented and
subsistence-oriented fishing, and the other as being in favor of
more commercially oriented fishing. He asked how Mr. Coffey would
classify himself regarding those two categories.
MR. COFFEY replied that his background is mixed, and he was a
commercial fisherman before going to law school. He expounded:
What I try to do is bring a perspective to the fishery, rather
than just a mind set going in. In some areas - many, many
areas of our state - the commercial fishery interests
predominate. There is little or no sport fishery. In other
areas, the subsistence fisheries predominate. In Southeast
and in Southcentral here, where I'm from, in Anchorage,
there's huge conflicts between sport and commercial.
Generally -- and my sense there is the problems come because
the sport fisheries have increased in participation, because
more people are engaged in them, and because businesses have
arisen out of those. And so, you have allocation fights, and
you have to balance the competing interests between the two.
... The end result is ... that frequently the commercial
fisheries, because ... they've harvested the bulk of the
resource over time, they're the ones who must surrender a
portion of that resource. I don't find that to be improper or
inappropriate.
... In Cook Inlet, I have a friend who's a processor, and he
told me 20 years ago the drift fleet had wooden boats,
100-horse-power engines, and if they brought in 2,000 pounds
of fish, they considered it a great day. He said now they've
got high-powered boats, they have their own air force,
although we took that away from them this year, ... and they
expect to harvest two million pounds. So, their technological
abilities have grown tremendously, and their ability to
harvest fish has grown tremendously.
And, at the same time, the department, through its
conservation efforts, has increased the catches tremendously,
particularly in Cook Inlet, so that I have no problem in that
particular fishery saying, "Wait a minute, this is where the
people - a large number of people - live, and we ought to
afford those large number of people the opportunity to harvest
fish for their table, be they personal use fishermen or sports
fishermen." So, in Cook Inlet, I'm more concerned with the
sport fishery than I am with the commercial fishery. And I
think that says it as best I can, sir.
Number 2341
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked if there were further questions, then opened
public testimony on all three appointees.
Number 2402
SUE ASPELUND, Executive Director, Cordova District Fishermen United
(CDFU), testified via teleconference from Cordova, informing
members that CDFU is composed of Prince William Sound and Copper
River families dependent upon commercial fisheries. She said the
United Salmon Association (ph) of Prince William Sound had asked
that the following comments be accepted as representative of their
position, as well. She stated:
These appointments are by far the most critical issue facing
the small, independent fishing families who comprise Alaska's
second-largest income-producing industry. The Board of
Fisheries' actions and decisions affect our daily lives and
... currently have an enormous impact on our abilities to
sustain both our resources and our livelihoods.
As we discuss the many issues that surround the Board of
Fisheries and its function, one of the greatest concerns to
emerge is the composition of the board, an issue that you have
the opportunity to address through your confirmation process.
We felt it appropriate to define the [criteria] required of
any member, and these are as follows: It is imperative that
informed, competent and fair-minded individuals be appointed.
The successful appointee must be knowledgeable of, committed
to, and have respect for the public processes established at
statehood for regulating Alaska's fisheries resources. A
clear understanding of the board's regulatory and statutory
authorities is requisite. The qualified appointee must be an
unbiased decision maker, willing and able to fact-find to make
the best decision possible, based upon available information.
And an appointee, at the very least, should maintain respect
for those people represented by the process.
It is our belief that the current board is imbalanced. Most
of the decisions made by the board are nuts-and-bolts
regulations governing the orderly prosecution of the
commercial fisheries, decisions that affect commercial
harvesters of the resource most intimately, yet only one
person out of seven currently serving on the board has
extensive experience as a commercial fisherman - Grant Miller.
The issues facing the state's largest private-sector employer
are diverse: competing demands on an already fully utilized
resource, global market concerns, quality, cuts to resource
management budgets, interactions between a variety of
jurisdictional authorities, fisheries failure, the pending
federal subsistence takeover and more. These concerns demand
the knowledge, skills and abilities that come from a broader
scope of experience than currently exists on the board.
We are strongly opposed to the reappointment of Virgil
Umphenour to the board. We've not seen the criteria above
demonstrated by Mr. Umphenour during his tenure on the board.
CDFU is certain that after thoughtful application of the
guidelines detailed here, you will come to the conclusion that
the Board of Fisheries process, and Alaska's fisheries
resource users, would benefit from a change in membership.
Mr. Umphenour has just provided you with a perfect example of
why CDFU cannot support his confirmation, when he made
inaccurate and negative assertions regarding the beliefs and
opinions of Copper River fishermen, in the response to
questioning during this session.
Number 2571
RUSSELL NELSON testified via teleconference from Dillingham in
support of all three appointees. He stated:
I found Mr. Virgil Umphenour to be an honest, knowledgeable
and hard-working member of the Board of Fisheries. I'd like
to support for Mr. Umphenour, as I've learned a lot working
with him. I don't recall him ever cussing during a meeting,
and the board of fish has never gone into an executive
session, for any reason, while I've been on the Board of
Fisheries. Mr. Umphenour's a great advocate of conservation
of ... fish stocks, in all areas of the state of Alaska, and
I hope you will support Mr. Umphenour in his bid for
reconfirmation.
Mr. Grant Miller has a wealth of knowledge in the area of
commercial fishing, which I've drawn off of considerably in
this last year. Mr. Miller works well with the Board of
Fisheries, and I'd like to give him my support in his bid for
reconfirmation.
Mr. Dan Coffey brings to the Board of Fisheries his background
as a lawyer. This I have found to be of great value while
making regulations and working with other issues on the Board
of Fisheries. It would be hard to find a replacement for Mr.
Coffey ... in organization and in the writing of regulations.
I would like to support Mr. Coffey in his bid for
reconfirmation.
Number 2642
DALE BONDURANT testified via teleconference from Kenai. He stated:
I support the reappointment of all three members. I have not
agreed with any of the board members all the time, but I do
agree with what the board tried to accomplish in the recent
meeting in Soldotna. It is the first time which they did move
in support of the need to manage all discrete stocks on a
sustained yield basis, and not a continuation of maximum
harvest of the largest stocks. This has been a major failure,
especially in the Cook Inlet salmon fisheries.
In the past years, I observed that the boards were always
weighted in favor of commercial fishing, even when the boards
were combined as a fish and game board. It was time for the
board to be more fairly divided, to represent all public
interest. I believe the present board is more representative
of the general public interest. I think all the men are
sincere and really work hard on this.
Number 2786
ROY ASHENFELTER testified via teleconference from Nome. He first
spoke on behalf of Kawerak, Incorporated, in favor of reappointment
of Mr. Umphenour. He then said he would stay neutral on Mr.
Miller's reappointment, but wants to show personal support for
reappointment of Mr. Umphenour and Mr. Coffey. He said Mr.
Umphenour brings to the board a very candid and up-front point of
view; he supports the Western fisheries; and he has shown support
for subsistence fisheries, which is important for the Nome region.
Mr. Ashenfelter expressed belief that Mr. Coffey, whom he has
watched over the last years, has done a very good job in
organization. He concluded by indicating that all three appointees
have done a good job of following the laws applicable to the board.
CO-CHAIR OGAN called on Mr. Reid in Cordova but was informed that
Mr. Reid had stepped out and planned to return.
Number 2864
JERRY McCUNE came forward on his own behalf as a Copper River
fisherman. He had heard some disturbing things that aren't true
from Mr. Umphenour, he said, then acknowledged how tough the job of
board member is. Mr. McCune told members the Copper River's small
run is protected by the commercial fishermen, who depend on it
heavily; they have sat out many days to ensure that the run is
sustainable. Furthermore, a drift gillnet cannot stay in those
small tributaries, as the water runs out fast in minus tides. Nor
does he believe the king salmon are a problem. Mr. McCune stated,
"We finally proved that after we got some money from sport fish and
the [commercial] fish division to do the ... index studies on king
salmon." He said there was record escapement of kings last year.
There have been record king runs the last three years, and he
believes the managers are very good managers.
TAPE 99-27, SIDE B
[Numbers run backwards because of tape machine]
MR. McCUNE recalled that 40 years ago there were only 800,000 fish,
whereas now the escapement goal is 650,000 "to accommodate all the
other users." He believes PWSAC has done an excellent job for
commercial, sport and subsistence users. He explained, "We run a
hatchery, egg boxes, on the Copper River, that produces about
300,000 reds, which all users have access to, and the fishermen pay
for. Now, we do have a small chum run, that we started years ago.
It started with the earliest chums in the sound, so it would not
conflict with any wild stocks. And that is fished by the drift
gillnetters ... in June, because that's why we picked that stock.
And if you want to know the truth about this whole thing, this all
started with this chum roe, because Mr. Umphenour does sell chum
roe, (indisc.) chum roe. ... I will stand by any statement that
some of the statements Mr. Umphenour has made [have] been very
inflammatory towards the Copper River fishermen and PWSAC, very
biased."
MR. McCUNE said he believes Mr. Coffey has done a great job, is
very organized, and knows his issues when he comes there. Mr.
Miller, a commercial fisherman, is also really organized, he said.
Mr. McCune expressed appreciation for the board and suggested the
system works well. However, he believes the industry is trying to
say there should be one more person on the board, for a total of
two, who could make sense of these mixed-stock fisheries. Although
the other six members may have had past fishing experience, they
are not full-time fishermen and don't understand some of these
fisheries.
Number 2829
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she had never heard the commercial
fishermen beg the legislature for additional representation on the
board, because it was always dominated by them at others' expense.
MR. McCUNE agreed that the board was dominated by commercial
fishermen for a time. He restated his request for another person
experienced with commercial fishing who understands the mixed-stock
fisheries.
Number 2733
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to the Kenai Peninsula Borough
resolution in committee packets, which opposed the confirmation of
all three appointees and suggested the appointment of two
commercial fishermen "who have knowledge in large fisheries such as
Cook Inlet, and that one of the appointees be a Cook Inlet
commercial fisherman." She stated, "We all know that what 90
percent of this about is ... trying to make some fairness out of
what has gone on in the Kenai for all these years." She asked
whether Mr. McCune agreed.
MR. McCUNE replied, "I think that they balanced the things in the
Cook Inlet meeting, and that meeting is over, and they made some
shifts." He said there has been a fundamental shift towards
accommodating sport fishing and personal use, and he has no problem
with that. He added that some of this is probably about
personalities, and some is about how people perceived these tough
issues. He then restated that he believes the industry would like
another representative, as it has flip-flopped the other way from
when the board had a commercial domination.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said the only member she can specifically
identify as being possibly connected to sports fishing is Dan
Coffey. She believes that all the others, in some way or other,
have had ties to commercial fishing. "And even him," she
concluded, referring to Mr. Coffey.
CO-CHAIR OGAN called upon Bill Reid but was informed that Mr. Reid
had had to leave.
Number 2583
TERRY HOEFFERLE, Bristol Bay Native Association, testified via
teleconference from Dillingham, voicing the association's support
for the reappointment of all three nominees. He said this
particular Board of Fisheries has made an excellent start in the
task that they have taken upon themselves, then added, "This is the
most solid board of fish, I think, that I've seen in years of
observing." He pointed out that each of these members is
intelligent, fair, and contributes in his own way to the board's
deliberative process. "Please reappoint them all," he concluded.
Number 2523
REUBEN HANKE testified via teleconference from Kenai, specifying
that he supports the reconfirmation of all three appointees. He
said he had traveled to several meetings over the years, and nearly
all the ones on the list this year. "I've seen these guys work
together," he stated. "They do a fantastic job, and they've made
great strides in improving and working toward better fisheries
throughout the state of Alaska. So, I would be in favor of all
three people - that's Virgil Umphenour, Grant Miller and Dan Coffey
- and I urge you to reappoint."
Number 2489
JOE HANES testified via teleconference from Soldotna, indicating he
has been in involved in a fishery and guided there for over 20
years. He traveled to, he believes, every Board of Fisheries
meeting this past fall. Mr. Hanes urged reappointment of all three
members. Although he has opposed all three on some points in the
past, overall he finds them to be very productive, thoughtful and,
above all, caring for the resource. He suggested that much of the
opposition comes from the tough decisions that they make, pointing
out that in the past, not only in Alaska but in other fisheries,
there have been people unwilling to make tough decisions, resulting
in having no fish left. Mr. Hanes pointed out that in many cases
the opposition comes from people who want to catch fish now and not
worry about tomorrow. "And this board I've found to make very
difficult decisions for the preservation of all fisheries for the
future," he concluded.
Number 2398
ANDY SZCZESWY testified via teleconference from Kenai, stating that
he favors reappointment of all three members. In five years of
participating in Board of Fisheries meetings, he has never seen a
group of individuals work so well together. "I don't agree with
everything that they do, but I think they do the best job that they
can," he added.
Number 2348
BARBARA CADIENTE NELSON came forward. A lifelong resident of
Juneau, she told members she has been married almost 30 years to a
commercial fisherman. They have four children and three
grandchildren, for whom they have provided solely through income
from commercial fishing. She said she was there on behalf of her
father-in-law, Norville Olie Nelson, Sr. (ph) on the F/V Christian;
Norville Nelson, Jr. (ph), her husband, on the F/V Star of the Sea;
and her son, Norville E. Nelson III (ph), on the F/V Aleut
Princess. Ms. Nelson indicated she had testified before the Board
of Fisheries three times in the last nine years regarding king crab
fisheries. While she had found them to be very hard-working
individuals, she had felt at somewhat of a disadvantage in not
having fair representation among the board members.
MS. NELSON said she is in full support of Mr. McCune's comments,
with one exception: She would like to see two more commercial
fishermen added to this board. She reminded the committee of the
recent economic summit, saying she got out of it that the
legislature, and the state in general, need to be more
knowledgeable of how the private businessman does business in the
state, "and how we are major contributors to the state's economy."
She stated, "Our vessels alone employ 12 other fishermen, and you
multiply that by the number of their households, we affect many
lives, and we are major contributors in our community, and in
Southeast Alaska."
MS. NELSON expressed the belief that their limited entry permits
are personal property, suggesting that the Board of Fisheries,
then, is their due process of law in seeing their property rights
upheld or taken away. Therefore, it seems reasonable that the
board be composed of a fair number of fishermen who can relate to
their concerns, she said. "We not only have to deal with Mother
Nature and all the other impacts of our risky business," she told
members, "we have to deal with politics, and state and federal
regulations that limit our ability to feed and clothe our
families."
MS. NELSON pointed out that her father-in-law was a commercial
fisherman before Alaska even became a state. She told members,
"It's amazing, and myself and my husband being indigenous people of
Alaska, that we've even survived many of the impacts that have
negatively affected our businesses. We're still here, and we're
still hanging on. So, I look to the Board of Fisheries to be a
fair and reasonable compromise of men and women who can address our
concerns and represent our concerns when issues come before them."
MS. NELSON concluded, "I came in here not knowing whether or not I
would be in support of Mr. Coffey or Mr. Umphenour. I'd met them.
I've found them to be hard-working. All that set aside, I still
believe that we, as commercial fishermen, are not getting fair
representation among the compromise of the makeup now of the Board
of Fisheries."
Number 2146
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether anyone else wished to testify, then
closed testimony.
Number 2072
CO-CHAIR SANDERS made a motion to move the nominations of Virgil
Umphenour, Grant Miller and Dan Coffey to the Board of Fisheries
out of committee. There being no objection, the confirmations were
advanced for all three appointees.
HB 116 - BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSERVATION
CO-CHAIR OGAN announced that the committee would hear testimony on
House Bill No. 116, "An Act relating to the Board of Agriculture
and Conservation, to the agricultural revolving loan fund, to the
disposal of state agricultural land, and to the Alaska Natural
Resource Conservation and Development Board; and providing for an
effective date." [Adopted as a work draft at the previous hearing
had been version 1-LS0407\N, Cook, 4/8/99. However, members had
been provided with a new proposed committee substitute, version
1-LS0407\S.]
Number 2051
JIM ELLISON testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, noting
that he farms, raises stock and fowl, and publishes the Alaska
Farming Magazine. He has observed Alaska agriculture for more than
30 years, he said. Although it has had ups and downs, today it is
a $53 million business. Although some say it holds the key to
Alaska's future, it also can be damaged by political decisions. He
finds that HB 116 helps to "plug that failure," and he fully
supports it. "I cannot understand anybody that ever studied any of
the history of agriculture in this state that would be against it,"
he concluded, suggesting that HB 116 will help the farmer, the
consumer and Alaska's political future.
Number 1974
CO-CHAIR OGAN turned over the gavel to Co-Chair Sanders and left
briefly.
Number 1947
ROBERT WELLS, Director, Division of Agriculture, Department of
Natural Resources, spoke briefly via teleconference from the Mat-Su
Legislative Information Office (LIO). Noting his availability to
answer questions, he announced that he had committed to work on
this bill during the interim with Representative James, sponsor,
and Co-Chairman Ogan.
Number 1903
DICK ZOBEL testified via teleconference from the Mat-Su LIO. He
agreed somewhat with Mr. Ellison, in that much in HB 116 is
beneficial to agriculture in Alaska. He himself has farmed in
Alaska for 20 years, he said, and although he now works in the
woods, he believes forestry to be an agricultural pursuit. Mr.
Zobel reiterated his concern, voiced at the previous hearing,
regarding inclusion of a soil and water conservation board in this
bill. He said it is obvious, from the testimony of people in favor
of HB 116, that this is a "production-agricultural bill," not a
"soil and water conservation bill." He believes it totally ignores
some founding principles "that most of us in the soil and water
conservation movement are involved in."
MR. ZOBEL referred to another's testimony about how the various
board members would be from agriculture-producing areas of the
state. He called to members' attention that the current statute,
in particular, AS 41.10.65, "went out of its way to make sure that
those areas of the state that are not primarily involved in
agriculture do also have conservation issues." Thus, he said,
there is membership from Southeast Alaska and Western Alaska, as
well as from the prime agricultural areas. He told members:
I think the statement that none of the local conservation
districts would be affected by this bill further clarifies
that somebody's missing the boat. The state natural resource
conservation and development board is a local conservation
district; it is the largest one in the state. And if you
eliminate it, you eliminate a district from the state.
And I think the authors of this bill, or the proponents of the
bill, fail to recognize the unique relationship between the
state board, the natural resource department, and the local
districts. This unique relationship goes on and involves
several federal agencies, through the districts and through
that natural resource conservation board, which is also a
district. ... The bottom line is that this board ignores that
natural resource conservation board participation in being a
local district.
The state association of conservation districts [and] the
natural resource conservation development board recommended
that ... all the conservation references in this bill be
deleted. We don't think this bill addresses those
conservation issues, and, most certainly, two people from a
conservation board could not do the ... current job that it is
being done by five. ...
An inclusion of 41.10 in this current bill - vague as it is,
spotted as it is throughout the bill - simply does not address
what the conservation districts have always done.
Conservation districts have always strove to provide, through
our relationship with several other federal and state
agencies, a service to Alaska private land owners. We also
provide those services to city, borough and state government.
And this inclusion in this bill would not do a thing to either
enhance -- and it is my personal opinion it would decrease the
services that we would offer Alaskans.
CO-CHAIR SANDERS turned the gavel back over to Co-Chair Ogan.
Number 1616
BOB FRANKLIN, State President, Alaska Farm Bureau, testified via
teleconference from Fairbanks, saying it seems there is some
opposition from other areas of the state, outside of the
agricultural community; however, those concerns cannot be addressed
unless it is known what they are. He sees this legislation as an
advancement to the agricultural community.
MR. FRANKLIN stated, "Now, the soil/water conservation district, or
the board, definitely has some valid points in their
representation. I think it remains to be seen whether it's
sufficient or insufficient, because I don't think there's any basic
understanding ... of what that board really, actually, does, and
how it's really financed ...." He suggested that HB 116 needs to
be pushed through, as it can provide the industry continuity and
stability. He referred to SB 136 [which Representative James later
said she believed to be SB 132]; Mr. Franklin said that was
introduced without any knowledge of the industry. He concluded, "I
think we're in a dangerous situation and, realizing that, I think
we need this board of agriculture even more so, to protect the
assets of the ARLF [Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund], the
agricultural lands and the industry."
Number 1441
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
noted that HB 116 would be worked on intensively during the
interim. She understands the concern of the conservation board,
she told listeners, pointing out that this doesn't affect the soil
and water districts at all. The only thing incorporated into this
bill is the resource board that works within the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR). She stated:
And they talked about the large district, that is, the
district of Alaska that's not covered by other soil and water
conservation districts. That board, for the amount of money
that they have been using to operate, has been coming from the
[Agricultural] Revolving Loan Fund. So, this is an
agriculture interest.
And the comment that only two soil and water conservation
district folks on this nine-member board is not going to give
them the same coverage that a five-member board [would] is not
true, because what we have is two representatives on a
nine-member board from the soil and water conservation
districts, to a nine-member board, who will do the same things
that the existing resource board does now, that is five
members. So, I think it's a matter of understanding the
principle and the basics of it.
The issue that I've heard also is that conservation has more
to do with lots of different land issues than agriculture.
And that's true that agriculture is a small part of that. I
think it's in the best interest of agriculture to broaden its
perspective in conservation issues, if they want to be
successful in agriculture in this state, because I think it's
important that they understand all of the conservation issues
around the state, whether or not it directly affects any of
their operations or not, because there's lots and lots of
land, within this state, that is not currently being used for
anything, and might make some good agricultural land. So, I
think broadening the agriculture into agriculture and
conservation is a good idea.
We'll continue to work on this. I urge anyone that has any
questions or comments or concerns to discuss it with me. And
my mind is open, and we want to have something that works in
the end.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she believes Mr. Franklin was talking
about SB 132, which transfers all of the examination from the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to the Division of
Agriculture. Along with that comes some money, she said, but it is
just another opportunity to use more of the ARLF without the
permission of the Division of Agriculture. Although there has
always been the desire to have farm issues, such as meat and milk,
under the Division of Agriculture, they need to discuss whether to
include fish and every other area, and to discuss how it would be
paid for. Representative James said those are the kinds of
concerns she has had since she has been in the legislature. It is
her seventh year, and she has found no sympathy for any agriculture
issues. This bill is to protect agriculture for its future.
Number 1196
CO-CHAIR OGAN stated his intention to work on this over the
interim. As a public comment had reminded him, this is the time
when farmers are getting ready to plant. He suggested focusing on
this after harvest, but perhaps meeting about it during the summer.
[HB 116 was held over.]
HB 104 - ENTRY MORATORIA ON PARTICIPANTS/VESSELS
Number 1036
CO-CHAIR OGAN announced that the final item of business would be
House Bill No. 104, "An Act revising the procedures and authority
of the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, the Board of
Fisheries, and the Department of Fish and Game to establish a
moratorium on participants or vessels, or both, participating in
certain fisheries; and providing for an effective date." The bill
had been heard previously. [Before the committee was CSHB
104(FSH).]
Number 0996
BRENNON EAGLE testified via teleconference from Wrangell. Noting
that he has testified in support of this legislation over the past
couple of years, he emphasized the importance of giving this power
to the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC). He has been
through a convoluted entry process with the Southeast pot shrimp
fishery, he advised members, which ended up with quite a few more
people in the fishery than had historically participated, because
the CFEC had to announce limited entry for the fishery prior to
closing it. Anyone who participated during that small window of
time was eventually allowed into the fishery, he noted, although
since limited entry, those people have not participated. He
believes the CFEC has been stuck with a poor process, which the
power to do a moratorium would have alleviated.
MR. EAGLE noted that this allows the CFEC to choose different
dates, which he believes is a very good addition. However, he
believes it would be a poor decision to disallow transferability of
permits. He explained, "I make my living by fishing, and not
allowing me to enter a fishery after it's been limited would
greatly restrict how I could run my business; and I don't think it
would be beneficial to the commercial fishermen in the state of
Alaska, or to the other people that depend on us, as support
industry." Mr. Eagle urged passage of HB 101.
Number 0848
RAY CAMPBELL testified via teleconference from Ketchikan.
Referring to previous hearings, he said there is an impression that
this bill is directed at Bering Sea scallop and Korean hair crab
fisheries. However, in looking at files, especially for the Korean
hair crab fishery, it seems that the majority of permits in 1998
were held by nonresidents, on the gear license. On the vessel
license, it appears that although many declare themselves
residents, the vessel owners' addresses are out of state. He
expressed hope that a CFEC representative could explain that.
MR. CAMPBELL said he had asked previously how many other fisheries
have been requested to be placed under this moratorium; he would
like an answer to that, as well. He referred to the question of
transferability of moratorium permits in the Southeast dive
fishery. He told members that in looking at the transfers, it
appears there is a tendency for medical transfers to go from
residents to nonresidents; he suggested that committee members get
numbers from the CFEC regarding that.
Number 0643
CO-CHAIR OGAN noted that Liz Cabrera had provided a synopsis, dated
April 20, 1999, of changes to the current moratorium statute under
CSHB 104(FSH). He asked her to explain what is being repealed.
Number 0567
LIZ CABRERA, Researcher for Representative Bill Hudson [sponsor]
and Committee Aide, House Special Committee on Fisheries, Alaska
State Legislature, mentioned that the memorandum was in response to
Co-Chair Ogan's request regarding the repealed section. The
synopsis goes through the entire bill, she indicated, showing the
affected statutes and the applicable bill sections.
Number 0443
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked Ms. McDowell whether any permits under
moratoriums would be transferable.
MARY McDOWELL, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, answered that permits issued
under a moratorium are temporary permits for the length of the
moratorium. The only transferability is if somebody has already,
in a given year, demonstrated intent and ability to fish that year,
has renewed the interim use permit for the year, and then has some
medical condition occur, such as a broken leg. Then that person
can apply for an "emergency transfer of their ability to fish" for
that one year. The process requires filling out an application for
emergency transfer, which comes to the CFEC, as well as submittal
of forms from doctors, and so forth. Those are the only transfers
allowed for a moratorium permit.
Number 0334
CO-CHAIR OGAN stated his understanding that this bill is a
departure from previous legislation: It not only establishes a
moratorium on use permits but also creates a vessel permit system.
He asked Ms. McDowell to explain that.
MS. McDOWELL explained that HB 104 doesn't create a vessel
limitation program, but it allows a moratorium to be put on entry
of new vessels into a fishery. Another piece of legislation speaks
to the issue of creating vessel permits, she noted. This bill, HB
104, allows this process to be used in the same way that the
legislature, in the last few years, has enacted vessel moratoriums
on the scallop and hair crab fisheries.
MS. McDOWELL pointed out that a vessel moratorium would only be
used in a fishery where a moratorium on participants doesn't work.
For example, in the scallop and hair crab fisheries, vessels tend
to be large and to fish the outside waters; the vessels are often
owned by someone who hires skippers, and there may be several
skippers throughout a year. In that case, the legislature chose to
limit the number of vessels, to avoid multiplying the number of
vessels by giving a license to each skipper. In some fisheries,
that system better gets to the purposes of the Limited Entry Act,
which are conservation of the resource and avoidance of economic
distress in the fishery. This moratorium bill would give the CFEC
the ability to implement a moratorium on participants or vessels,
or both, to get a lid on that fishery during the moratorium, while
the CFEC assesses the situation and decides about a course for the
future.
Number 0103
CO-CHAIR OGAN referred to page 3, line 24, which says, "A permit
issued under this section is a use privilege that may be modified
or revoked by law without compensation." He asked Ms. McDowell to
address that issue, as it relates to other limited entry permits.
MS. McDOWELL said her understanding is that it just repeats what is
under the law now for limited entry permits. The legislature had
reserved to itself the ability to alter it, without compensation,
at any time.
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether Ms. McDowell considers it a property
right.
MS. McDOWELL responded that it is not, under law, considered a
property right; it is considered a use privilege. She briefly
discussed the repealer sections, noting that Sections 8, 9 and 10
simply adjust the sunset dates on the existing hair crab and
scallop moratoriums, depending on whether the CFEC [testimony cut
off by change of tape].
TAPE 99-28, SIDE A
Number 0001
MS. McDOWELL said [Section 11] repeals the three sections in
current law that are the old system of doing moratoriums, where
someone petitions the commissioner of ADF&G, who then goes to the
board, which then goes comes back to the commissioner, who then
comes to the CFEC. It repeals those sections and replaces them
with this new system.
Number 0067
CO-CHAIR OGAN commented that this is an important issue, and he
would like to deal with it when all members are present. He
announced that HB 104 would be held over.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0106
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:47 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|