02/21/2001 01:10 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 21, 2001
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Drew Scalzi, Co-Chair
Representative Hugh Fate, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 10
Relating to the management of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands
and Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries and the protection and
restoration of the Steller sea lion.
- MOVED CSHJR 10(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 63
"An Act relating to electronic application for and issuance of
licenses, permits, and tags issued by the Department of Fish and
Game; relating to violations regarding a license, permit, or tag
applied for or issued electronically; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 10
SHORT TITLE:GROUNDFISH FISHERIES AND STELLER SEA LION
SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/31/01 0210 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/31/01 0210 (H) FSH, RES
02/12/01 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/12/01 (H) Moved CSHJR 10(FSH) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(FSH)
02/14/01 0313 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) 4DP
02/14/01 0314 (H) DP: DYSON, COGHILL, SCALZI,
WILSON
02/14/01 0314 (H) FN1: ZERO(H.FSH)
02/14/01 0314 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
02/21/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 63
SHORT TITLE:ELECTRONIC FISH & GAME LICENSURE
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/16/01 0096 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/16/01 0096 (H) FSH, RES, FIN
01/16/01 0096 (H) FN 1: ZERO(DFG)
01/16/01 0096 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/12/01 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/12/01 (H) Moved Out of Committee
MINUTE(FSH)
02/14/01 0314 (H) FSH RPT 3DP 1NR
02/14/01 0314 (H) DP: COGHILL, SCALZI, WILSON;
NR: DYSON
02/14/01 0314 (H) FN1: ZERO(DFG)
02/14/01 0314 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
02/21/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
GORDON KRUSE
Marine Fisheries Scientist
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
PO Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 10.
DR. ROBERT SMALL
Marine Mammals Coordinator
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
PO Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 10.
FRANK KELTY, Resource Department
City of Unalaska
P.O. Box 610
Unalaska, Alaska 99685
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 10.
JERRY McCUNE
United Fishermen of Alaska
211 Fourth Street, Suite 110
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1143
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 10.
KEVIN BROOKS, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
PO Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99811-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 63.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-13, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR DREW SCALZI called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Masek, Scalzi, Fate,
Chenault, Stevens, and McGuire. Representatives Green, Kapsner,
and Kerttula arrived later.
HJR 10-GROUNDFISH FISHERIES AND STELLER SEA LION
CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 10, Relating to the management of
the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska groundfish
fisheries and the protection and restoration of the Steller sea
lion. [Before the committee was CSHJR 10(FSH).]
Number 0160
CO-CHAIR SCALZI noted for the record that Representative Green
had arrived. He mentioned that Dr. Gordon Kruse and Dr. Bob
Small would be testifying together.
Number 0278
CO-CHAIR SCALZI said [HJR 10] "is not an attack on the National
Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS], Steller sea lions, nor is it an
endorsement of any particular fishing practice in Alaskan
waters. Rather, this resolution is a strong request to the
United States Congress that any implementations imposed on our
fisheries management plans by the Endangered Species Act are
based on sound and thorough science." He said that today U.S.
Senator Frank Murkowski had spoken to that issue, in general
terms, "but offered the same consideration to all of our
resources, that we take these things out of the political arena
and back to scientists."
Number 0350
CO-CHAIR SCALZI stated that the figures in this resolution are
not exaggerated. He said, "The task before [NMFS], by the
Endangered Species Act, is to prove a negative. They have to
prove that the commercial fishing industry is not the cause of
the decline of the Steller sea lion, and what measures ... are
going to be implemented to mitigate that assumption." He
commented that it would be a difficult task. Co-Chair Scalzi
continued, saying:
There [are] very evident problems trying to reach the
conclusion in proving a negative on something that is
this extensive and far-reaching. Some of the evidence
that you've probably been aware of in the packet, the
documents that you have, is some of the discussions
regarding orca predation, the sustenance of the
fishing -- of the diet for Steller sea lions.
And the conclusions that you read at the end of the
bi-op [biological opinion], one thing that struck me
was that in section 5.21, line 21, in the bi-op,
there's a quote that said, "However, the authors noted
that the results of the simulations are not better
than the assumptions they are built on." This is ...
kind of dramatic to me because it went through a very
detailed analogy of how many animals were here 15
years ago and how many are here today, the percentage
that they estimate that the orcas are [killing]. But
yet, after going through all those pieces of evidence,
they ... say that we can't assume anything; we don't
even believe our own evidence. So, [it's] very
frustrating, particularly with the commercial fishing
industry (indisc.) up to $800 million dollars over the
course of the next few years, just what that is going
to mean dramatically to the ... industry.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI said there is not sufficient data to make
confident decisions, and that HJR 10 is asking for evidence "so
that the delay in restrictions are maintained until we do get
that degree of confidence." He introduced Gordon Kruse and Bob
Small and invited them to begin their testimony.
Number 0565
GORDON KRUSE, Marine Fisheries Scientist, Division of Commercial
Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), spoke as
Chair of the Steller Sea Lion Restoration Team. He offered a
"thumbnail sketch of where we've been and where we're headed":
As you all know, the National Marine Fisheries Service
issued their biological opinion on November 30, 2000.
And, as pointed out, that generated a lot of concern
among the fishing industry and others concerning the
magnitude of the management measures, as well as some
of the science and how it would (indisc.) science was
evaluated in that opinion. The governor formed the
state's restoration team, again, ... of which we are
members.
Principally, our mission, as we hope everyone's is, is
to try to restore Steller sea lions, at the same time
providing some avenues for commercial fishing and
other fishing in Alaska. The main points of [the]
objectives of our committee are to review the
biological opinion, to make research recommendations
as far as particular needs, [in order] to understand
the causes of population changes, to make some
recommendations about prudent management measures, and
some other things. But those are probably the main
highlights.
Concerns about the science, the way the different
alternatives and hypotheses were evaluated, was one of
the main reasons for stemming the creation of the
state's restoration team. In addition, the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council [NPFMC], through a
scientific and statistical committee, also reviewed
the biological opinion, and they have a draft review
of their ... comments at this point in time.
Again, because of concern for the science in the
document, there will be a National Academy of Sciences
review of the biological opinion, and that will take
about 18 months to be conducted. Because of that time
line, the [NPFMC] will also have a ... quicker
turnaround review process, involving three peer review
scientists that can provide information, again, for
the council - a quicker turnaround.
... I can highlight one of the points in our review to
this point, which we articulated in a memorandum to
our deputy commissioner, and that was, given our
initial review, the restoration team feels that the
reasonable and prudent alternative to finding a
biological opinion is not justified based on the data
and analysis provided. ... We plan to have a complete
review from our restoration team of the biological
opinion in the next month or two.
As far as into the future, there ... is ... what's
called an RPA committee - Reasonable Prudent
Alternative committee - essentially, that is the suite
of management measures. Bob Small is on that
committee, and in a moment I'll let him describe a
little of what that committee's up to. They met for
the first time yesterday. But essentially the goal,
then, is through the [NPFMC] to bring forward some ...
alternatives to the management measures that were
proposed by [NMFS] that could be put into place, at
least for the second half of this year, 2001. And
then, later in the fall, there may well be a new
biological opinion prepared, and the council will
consider a set of longer-range management measures
that hopefully would restore the [Steller] sea lions
into the future, as well as provide for fishing.
Number 0875
DR. ROBERT SMALL, Marine Mammals Coordinator, Division of
Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G), said that the first meeting of RPA took place
yesterday, February 20, 2001, and it would meet another four
times in the next six weeks to "look at what application for
fishing restrictions would be in place for the remaining six
months of the calendar year, 2001." He stated that the overall
objective of the RPA will be "to try to determine if there are
alternatives to the RPA that [are] published in the biological
opinion."
DR. SMALL said the RPA meetings will be open to the public. He
stated that membership in the RPA is composed of representatives
from NMFS, ADF&G, and fishing groups. Dr. Small said that the
process for potential revisions through the RPA will begin after
the April council meeting. He said that the RPA's first meeting
served to gather available information and to look for
additional data that may not have been fully disclosed "within
the biological opinion" and that may need further study. He
stated that the next six meetings would be used to dissect the
information gathered and to decide what objective conclusions
are allowed by science and "when do we start making assumptions
and subjective decisions." Dr. Small said that scientific
evidence is limited; there is still the need for the
interpretation and application of it. He commented that the RPA
would be a very "dynamic group."
Number 1032
CO-CHAIR SCALZI noted for the record that Representative Kapsner
had arrived. He opened up the floor to questions.
Number 1055
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said he appreciated the efforts of the
RPA team. He asked where the research dollars were going,
stating his concern that "they are going in the right place."
He mentioned that the House Special Committee on Fisheries had
heard from Dr. Andrew Trites, and he asked Dr. Small for his
opinion on Dr. Trites' research.
Number 1105
DR. SMALL responded by saying that Dr. Trites is highly regarded
and that his argument is very compelling and deserves attention;
however, it is based on theories that are not proven and that
need further scrutiny. Dr. Small continued, saying:
I think Dr. Trites - as far as the research side of it
- he has received, within the last federal
appropriation, $800,000 as an earmark towards the
North Pacific Consortium ... of universities that he
represents. And so that is a specific earmark, as
well. The rider that [U.S.] Senator Stevens brought
across, there's a large amount of money, and I think
some of the ... materials in front of you break down
those funds. And the large portion of the money that
was brought in on that rider will now be going through
a "request for proposal" process. And so, Dr. Trites,
as well as anybody else [who] feels as though they
have the background, the knowledge to try to get at
some of these other questions, will have the
opportunity to go after those funds.
Number 1212
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked whether NMFS or another group would
make the decisions about how the research dollars will be
utilized.
DR. SMALL said, "As of last Friday, I don't believe that final
decision has been made. My understanding is that it will be
outside of the [NMFS], but through what organization, I'm not
sure yet." Dr. Small made a distinction between "the funds and
the rider, and the annual appropriations":
A research funding horizon has been quite low, and I
think now that we see the impact of this issue and the
amount of dollars that are needed to really try to
keep it apart, we're moving into sort of a different
era here now. Whereas the amount of money that's been
available is quite small (indisc.) for the next year
or two we've got some of those sources. And the
department's own research program ... has an earmark
that we go through on an annual basis to try to get
the funds through the [NMFS]. But outside of those
funds, there are no other funds for the state's
programs or for the [NMFS].
Number 1300
REPRESENTATIVE FATE mentioned research being done and expressed
concern about the length of time required to make any decisions
because of the complexity of the issue. He asked Dr. Small and
Dr. Kruse if they had any idea of what the timelines for
decision making would be, taking into consideration not only the
complexity of new research, but the agreement on those differing
research projects. Representative Fate said he has a fear of
the process taking so long that the federal government will step
in to take over.
Number 1391
DR. KRUSE answered:
I think there's a couple levels. And you're right,
the timeline is ... really critical. Certainly, when
new money comes available, you design new studies and
you put them in the water. It can take a couple years
to complete a project, write up results. So, that
timeline can be frustrating to people wanting to make
decisions for fishing later this year and for the next
year. But I think [there are] two things happening.
One is [that] the biological opinion that was prepared
was done so by largely one component within the
[NMFS]. We're on a ... time track now for more of an
open process through the peer reviews of the
restoration team and other committees that I
mentioned, plus this RPA committee on the management
side.
So, I think that might provide a vehicle for more
input to the [NMFS] - which makes the ultimate call
and does write the biological opinion - to have others
involved and looking at alternative hypotheses and the
preponderance of evidence, if you will. So there's
kind of two levels of things: ... One is collecting
new information ... that will pay off in the future
when that research becomes concluded and agreed upon;
the other is evaluating existing evidence, existing
data. And there's still opportunity to do that on a
quicker turnaround with a broader group of scientists,
including peer review scientists. So, I think there's
two levels over which there could be payoffs in terms
of improving our understanding of a situation and the
correct measures to take.
Number 1498
REPRESENTATIVE FATE expressed his concern about the length of
time it will take to consider all the differing sets of data.
He asked Dr. Kruse what his projected timeline is.
Number 1559
DR. KRUSE said:
I guess in terms of the management side, there's a
quick timeline for ... this RPA committee getting in
new measures for the second half of this fishing year.
So, that committee that Bob Small is on will be
delivering some products, in terms of alternative
management measures, to the North Pacific [Fishery
Management] Council in April. And that is as
contracted a possible. My understanding is the
council would hear those, select a subset of them,
recommend it ... to be analyzed, go out for public
review, and then decisions will be made in June.
When councils make decisions, I think it takes a
couple of months for those to be implemented, but the
NMFS can implement an emergency rule, so that those
measures could be implemented July 1, 2001. So, in
terms of management, that's as quick a timeline as
possible. Again, it will be operating on,
essentially, the information that we currently have.
It won't benefit from additional scientific evidence
or ... new studies.
So ... incorporate that into the management process; I
think, essentially, that will happen as new
information comes available that changes the view on
whether it is the orcas or it is climate or it is
fishing. That information, then, would drive the need
for a new biological opinion, and, therefore, a new
set of management measures.
So, ... I expect that there'll be new bi-ops and new
management measures put in place as new information
comes available that changes the opinion of, I guess,
essentially the [NMFS], since they're the ones writing
the biological opinion. But it is frustrating.
Number 1651
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if it would be safe to say that the
new opinions would be available by January 2001, so that the
legislators are able to make some appropriate legislation based
on the new material.
Number 1687
DR. KRUSE responded that it is his understanding that a new
biological opinion may be generated in the Fall of 2001.
Number 1702
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Dr. Kruse and Dr. Small if it is
possible that the data provided by the RPA might conflict with
that of the NMFS to such an extent that a third study would have
to be done, thereby prolonging the whole process, or if the new
study would be so overwhelming as to be unquestioned.
Number 1754
DR. SMALL answered:
I think the distinction that you made earlier is quite
important here. The information that'll take place,
or that will be generated here over the next six
months, or within this calendar year, I think is going
to be more a reevaluation and difference of opinions
of existing data. As for some finality, to say this
is the cause for the decline - whether you're speaking
of the recent decline or the historic decline - that
information will not be here by the end of this year,
unless there's a silver bullet out there that ... all
the scientists have been trying to find for years,
[and] it just shows up. I don't mean to make light of
this situation, but the complexity and the magnitude
of this type of issue is not something that we can
solve within a short period of time. So I think the
timeline that we are all on in the process, the public
process [by which] more people can have a good
thorough look at it, is the best thing that we can do
with the existing data. The research that is going to
be continued this year, and for the next several
years, I think will allow us to begin to tease it
apart more and more. But I ... just want to make sure
that it's not presupposed that there'll be some new
data within [a certain] period of time that will give
us a definitive answer to this issue, because it will
take some time.
Number 1836
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if new research disagreeing with old
wouldn't cause the need for further research, thereby prolonging
the process.
Number 1875
DR. SMALL clarified that the reanalysis of existing data will be
subjective. He said, "There will be a new set of opinions or
interpretations in a much more open process than the biological
opinion was generated this first time through. But in terms of
a long-term recovery and pulling back of some restrictions, the
data that's needed for those types of actions ... will take
additional time."
Number 1909
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Dr. Small how long that would take.
Number 1920
DR. SMALL answered several years to get the different types of
data, but said that the groups involved can make decisions as
they go along. He added, "The reason it's so controversial
right now is because the information isn't there to make a clear
understanding."
Number 1943
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN explained that reading results of research
would be like two people reading a book. If they both disagree
on its intent, they will have to go to the author for answers,
which could turn out to be a long and involved process.
Representative Green asked if NMFS would "continue to create
problems for commercial fishing, or will they maybe resume
pending the outcome of further research."
Number 1984
DR. SMALL said that he could not predict what NMFS will do, but
commented that he thought that the plan would be to limit
restrictions on fisheries, "with the understanding that those
restrictions have to be in compliance with removing jeopardy
under the Endangered Species Act."
Number 2011
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed his concern that if the review of
the existing data supports NMFS policy, there wouldn't be any
possibility to continue with research, knowing that the outcome
may be "at odds with NMFS."
DR. SMALL explained that there is a variety of research being
done on an ongoing basis. Although results will continue to
come in, some will take a long time to be completed.
Number 2084
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS commented on the amount of research being
done in the Seattle area on Alaska's Steller sea lion situation.
He asked Dr. Small for his opinion on the possibility of moving
the scientific research facilities out of Seattle and into
Alaska.
Number 2124
DR. SMALL responded that the NMFS has already increased its
presence in Alaska. It has plans to hire some people in Kodiak,
as well as Anchorage, although the feasibility of moving the
entire research facilities is arguable. He pointed out that
although most of the scientists spend time in Alaska, they are
based out of Seattle. He said that the regional office, run by
Dr. Balsigner and his group, is located in Juneau.
Number 2189
CO-CHAIR SCALZI told Representative Stevens that he had made a
good point. He said that there are facilities in Alaska for
research, and perhaps the legislature could add support to that
idea.
Number 2200
REPRESENTATIVE FATE stated that "conclusion in the scientific
world is hard to come by," and asked Dr. Small if there is
enough evidence to take action now, rather than waiting.
Number 2295
DR. SMALL said, "Actions are being made now, and they will
continue to be made, revised, hopefully more enlightened and
more definitive, as new information comes in."
Number 2320
FRANK KELTY, Resource Department, City of Unalaska, testified
via teleconference. Until recently a long-time mayor of
Unalaska, he spent 30 years working in the Alaska seafood
industry, he said, and 18 years as an elected official in his
community. He urged the committee to move the resolution
forward and specified that the community supports it as written.
MR. KELTY said this issue is of extreme importance to the
communities of the Gulf [of Alaska] and the Bering Sea; in his
30 years of involvement, this is one of the most critical issues
he has seen. There is extreme concern about the problems it
will cause for the second part of the year, because the RPAs
will go into effect in June.
MR. KELTY noted that he had attended the North Pacific [Fishery
Management] Council meeting a week ago; the scientific
statistical committee that works for the council, which is made
up of scientists, gave its report on the [biological opinion].
He stated, "Basically, they said it was scientifically
deficient, and the RPAs weren't warranted based on the science
that was involved."
MR. KELTY said most of the communities have a major problem with
the [biological opinions] and RPAs. Unalaska, the hub of the
fishing industry in the Bering Sea, has been the nation's
number-one commercial fishing port for a dozen years. When the
previous [biological opinion] came out, it was "basically going
into the pollock fishery." Now, he said, the restrictions and
RPAs have moved into "the Pacific cod fishery, the mackerel
fishery, all gear types, large boats, small boats, and will have
a dramatic impact on our community and other communities, all
fishery-dependent communities in the Gulf and the Bering Sea."
Mr. Kelty continued:
We have no state-water fishery here in Unalaska, so
our local-resident small boats that are mostly under
60 feet, there's no way they can drive up to Area 7,
which is north of Unimak Island from Unalaska, to find
a place to fish. ... Our small-boat fleet will
basically be shut down.
Our shoreside vessels are going to be greatly impacted
by this. The reductions of area ... are worse than
what Judge Zilly had in place in his injunction. And
this is going to lead to problems that we saw last
year during the "C and D" season here in the fall, of
many days where the plants here locally had no fish
because the vessels were so far away, you couldn't
keep a rotation together. ... That leads to increased
costs, product problems - the value of the product -
because ... you're getting older fish to work with,
[resulting in a] decreased tax base. It's going to
cost jobs. It's just a major problem.
Some of the other issues I think we're going to see if
these restrictions go in place later on this year are
bycatch issues and gear conflicts. They have opening
dates for June for trawling in the Gulf and trawling
in the Bering Sea, when you have ... salmon migrating
to other areas of Western Alaska. I can see this ...
could have some major problems [because of] bycatch
and gear conflicts. ... I would encourage the
committee to approve this resolution and move it out
and get it to the floor.
Number 2534
CO-CHAIR SCALZI commented that a lot of people think the impact
will be largely on the trawl fleet, but Dutch Harbor, Sand
Point, and King Cove have small-boat fisheries included in this
restriction due to the [biological opinion] saying that the
small "footprint" of pot boats and jig boats will still have an
impact. He asked whether that is correct.
MR. KELTY affirmed that. He said this takes in all gear types
and vessel sizes. He emphasized the importance of cod. With
the decline of crab stocks, a majority of crabbers there have
been involved in pot cod fishing and will be "shoved into the
same area where trawlers are, in that one critical habitat area
that's open north of Unimak, Area 7." Having all three gear-
types in that area will cause major problems. Furthermore, when
the only industry in his own community is affected, there will
be a trickle-down effect to support businesses, schools, and
government. Mr. Kelty restated his appreciation of the
committee's consideration of this resolution and the show of
support for Alaska's coastal communities.
Number 2648
JERRY McCUNE, United Fishermen of Alaska, came forward. He
stated:
One thing that brought this all about is the
litigation from Greenpeace. And so whether we have
[an] answer in science or not, it still can be
challenged in court. ... The way the ESA [Endangered
Species Act] is written, I could pretty much go to a
bay and say, "I don't see sea otters anymore," and
file. ... I don't have to have any scientific evidence
of that. I can file on that; it doesn't mean they'll
take that petition up, but they can.
And so that's part of the problem that we're fighting,
too, ... the way the ESA is written. ... It's not
[so] much [the] intent [of] Congress when [they wrote
about] how to deal with these issues; it's mostly the
environmental groups [that] are dealing with it in
court. If they don't agree with the [biological
opinion] that NMFS comes out with, or the science that
the scientists come up with behind me, here, they can
challenge it, based on I don't know what, because I
haven't seen anything they based ... their science on
yet. So, that's the other equation in this thing.
So, to come out of the science and not be challenged,
and be able to put the fishery back on track -- the
president of the university laid it out to me pretty
good. He said, ... "The question isn't why they're
declining; the question is to find out why ... they
continue to decline, ... when the ones in Southeast
are bouncing back."
MR. McCUNE emphasized that the questions behind the reasons for
the decline, including whether the cause is the climate or the
food, for example, are still out there. He restated that part
of the problem is that it is challenged in court.
Number 2740
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked what efforts have been made to
approach either [U.S.] Senator Murkowski, [U.S.] Senator Stevens
or Congressman Young to introduce legislation that would fine-
tune the ESA so that there are some basic benchmarks that must
be met before one can file litigation.
MR. McCUNE replied, "We've tried it a couple of times." He said
it is a formidable task when opposing well-financed people who
want to keep the status quo. Mr. McCune stated that he takes a
"middle of the road" approach. He believes action should be
taken if a species is endangered, but does not agree with using
an endangered species to stop timber cutting or fishing. Mr.
McCune suggested that the opportunity to challenge the
legislation successfully may exist now, because of the new
[federal] administration. He's heard [U.S.] Senator Murkowski
speaking about revisiting that issue. Even so, it will be a
huge fight.
Number 2808
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE clarified that she believes it is
important that there be balance, and endangered species are
important to protect. Her concern, however, is that "we're
going too far one way or the other." She said that if this may
be used as an abusive technique to stall a process, she thinks
that is wrong. She restated the need for benchmarks.
Number 2832
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he has heard that this is not a new
issue, and that [Steller sea lions] will move to follow the
food.
MR. McCUNE said he could only offer his own experience. In the
past five years, he has seen many changes in his fishing
environment. One year, he won't see birds, and then another
year he will see more birds than ever. He referred to the diet
of the sea lions and said he isn't convinced - from what he has
read thus far from the scientists - that their diet is the total
problem. He said sea lions come into the Copper River for the
hooligan, then stick around for the salmon, which they catch out
of the nets; then they leave. In Prince William Sound, he
noted, a lot of tags from pups have been found in orca whales;
what impact that has, he isn't sure. He noted that orcas have
also learned how to take fish off of longlines. Mr. McCune
stated his amazement at the many changes in the last 25 years.
Number 2915
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked whether anyone else wished to testify.
Hearing no response, he closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS offered an amendment on page 3, line 15.
[The amendment is not on tape at this point but was restated
later.]
TAPE 01-13, SIDE B
Number 2935
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA expressed concern that [the amendment]
might [introduce a separate topic] that might better stand
alone; however, she indicated a willingness to go along with the
consensus of the committee.
Number 2915
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said he understood what Representative
Kerttula was saying, but noted that the title of the resolution
is, "Relating to the Management of the Bering Sea, Aleutian
Islands, and Gulf of Alaska Groundfish Fisheries and the
Protection and Restoration of the Steller Sea Lion." He said an
amendment dealing with the research on the Steller sea lion does
fit within the title.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA indicated concurrence, "if it's only the
movement of the people dealing with that issue; but if it's
dealing with movement of the whole office," then an amendment
would surely be needed. She liked the idea, she added, but just
was not sure it should be included in HJR 10.
Number 2881
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said to that end, he would offer a
friendly amendment to his own amendment, saying, "relocated to
Alaska Steller sea lion research to Alaska." He specified it
would read as follows: "amend to insert after line 15, further
resolve that the Alaska State Legislature respectfully request
the National Marine Fisheries Service relocate its Alaska
Steller sea lion research to Alaska."
Number 2825
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked whether there is the technology for
lab work set up here in the state. "Would we be able to handle
it logistically?" she added.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS replied that as far as he knew, the
answer was yes. He didn't want to get specific about
communities because it might appear self-serving, but he noted
that Kodiak has a large facility, brand new, that is 80 percent
occupied by the National Marine Fisheries Service. There is
space available. The University of Alaska leases part of that
[space], which they are not using, and [the University's leased
space] would be available as well. [Work also is underway on]
developing a facility in Juneau where there would be space
available in time. In addition, there is a facility in Seward.
He thought one of the representatives from ADF&G could speak to
the question more accurately than he could.
Number 2769
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK noted that the word "research" in the
amendment could mean "just about anything," and asked for
clarification of the maker's intent in using that word.
Number 2748
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS replied:
The intent is the biological research on the Steller
sea lion, what their diet is, what their habits are,
... their breeding, the pup activity. So I think it
would [mean] the whole gamut of biological research on
the Steller sea lion. I'm not talking about economic
research or anything like that, but [research
specific] to the biological creature.
Number 2728
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said she liked the idea, and proposed
saying, "We request that facilities relating to the management
of the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Gulf of Alaska
groundfish fisheries and the protection and restoration of the
sea lion be located in Alaska." She said she thought that title
would be a little broader, and explained, "You're looking at the
management of the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, itself; you're
also looking at groundfish studies that might directly or
indirectly link into the Steller sea lion research."
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE further suggested incorporating, "just a
teeny sentence about policy, about why it is that we think
that's important; that the legislature feels that ... being
closer to the region about which the scientific studies are
being conducted is in the best interest of science, or something
like that."
CO-CHAIR SCALZI concurred with Representative Kerttula. He
said, "In all due respect to the attempt at a motion," he
thought the motion is an amendment that warrants a separate
resolution. He thought the idea of moving some of those
[research] facilities to where the ongoing research should be
was very justifiable. He noted that sponsors had gone over HJR
10 with ADF&G, NMFS, and all industry. To now change the title
is certainly within the purview of this body, but a lot of work
has gone into focusing this, particularly, on this issue of the
Endangered Species Act and the ramifications it has. While he
agreed with the intent of the amendment, he did not think he
could support "getting too far off track on this."
Number 2599
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS observed that he had learned something
and believed that a separate resolution might be better. He
withdrew his amendment and indicated his intention to write up a
separate resolution.
Number 2580
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested that he consider making that a
committee resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE suggested the House Resources Standing
Committee consider broadening it beyond just Steller sea lion
research.
Number 2531
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report CSHJR 10(FSH) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR 10(FSH) was
reported out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
HB 63 - ELECTRONIC FISH & GAME LICENSURE
Number 2517
CO-CHAIR SCALZI turned to the next order of business HOUSE BILL
NO. 63, "An Act relating to electronic application for and
issuance of licenses, permits, and tags issued by the Department
of Fish and Game; relating to violations regarding a license,
permit, or tag applied for or issued electronically; and
providing for an effective date." He announced that HB 63 would
be held for a week, because one of the House Resources Standing
Committee members was working on some amendments. He said that
the bill would be open for discussion only, but no action would
be taken on it in today's meeting. Co-Chair Scalzi thanked
speaker Kevin Brooks for the overview he gave in the House
Special Committee on Fisheries and for being present to speak.
Number 2446
KEVIN BROOKS, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), testified in support of HB
63. He said that the bill may sound familiar to some of the
committee members; it was heard last year as HB 164. Mr. Brooks
proceeded to give a description of the electronic fish and game
licensing process.
MR. BROOKS explained that in the last 18 months or so, ADF&G has
introduced an internet system which allows the public to go
online on ADF&G's web site and purchase a fish and game license.
The process is as follows: The applicant signs on, on the
Internet, uses a credit card to pay, and within a day or two
ADF&G sends the applicant a license through the mail, which the
applicant will receive in 7 to 14 days.
MR. BROOKS described the program as successful, saying that in
the first year, over 8,000 items sold over the Internet, which
brought in a revenue of over $700,000. The public likes the
"user friendliness" of the system and the option it provides;
however, they would like to be able to have instant access to
the license through this method, rather than waiting for it to
arrive by mail. Mr. Brooks said that the challenge for ADF&G is
figuring out how to issue the license electronically. He added
that ADF&G has checked to see how other states handle their
licensing, narrowing its inquiries down to the western states
that mirror the types of hunting and fishing opportunities found
in Alaska.
MR. BROOKS backtracked to tell the House Resources Standing
Committee about three things ADF&G uses as "overriding
sideboards" when it takes on a licensing project. First, ADF&G
wants to make improvements that are "an enhancement to public
service". Second, ADF&G wants to make sure that there is an
open line of communication between itself and Department of
Public Safety personnel and those involved in fish & wildlife
protection, so that any decisions made involving licensing will
not negatively impact enforcement efforts. Third, ADF&G doesn't
want to do anything that might diminish its revenue and hurt its
own fund.
MR. BROOKS noted that when ADF&G looked at its sales after the
first year, it found that many nonresidents were taking
advantage of the opportunity to plan ahead and purchase their
fishing and hunting licenses online. He surmised that the
system works well for nonresidents because they are planning
their trips in advance; however, the Alaska resident often wants
to hunt or fish at the last minute, with no store open in which
to buy a license. In order to address this problem, ADF&G has
come up with a "paperless" concept that is used in some other
states. Mr. Brooks said:
I think it's Georgia that uses a number, it's a "smart
number." Part of it's randomly generated. Part of it
is encrypted to identify someone's gender or weight or
hair color, or some other identifying characteristic,
[which] might be included in that sequence of numbers.
MR. BROOKS stated that people who obtain paperless licenses
would have to carry picture identification with them. A number
and identification would be sufficient for enforcement.
Currently there is no requirement for people to carry anything
other than a hunting or fishing license.
MR. BROOKS explained that there is work to do to initiate a
paperless process of issuing fishing and hunting licenses, but
"the statutes as written contemplate a paper process." He
stated that the technology is available for ADF&G to "move into
an electronic arena." Furthermore, ADF&G has written into HB 63
"that it would require a best-interest finding on the part of
[the] commissioner of Fish & Game and [the] commissioner of
Public Safety, and a concurrence of Public Safety that anything
that [ADF&G does] is not going to adversely affect them." He
asked the House Resources Standing Committee to endorse HB 63,
to enable ADF&G to continue looking for ways to improve this
process and respond to the requests of the public.
Number 2145
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked if electronic licensing would
preclude stores from selling licenses or would decrease
administrative help to those stores. She noted that not
everyone has access to a computer.
MR. BROOKS answered that ADF&G has always looked at the
electronic process as complementary to the existing vendor
process, and an option for anyone who wants to take advantage of
it. He cited that ADF&G works with about 1,500 vendors and
sells 700,000 pieces of stock. He said there would always be
people in stores selling licenses.
Number 2102
REPRESENTATIVE FATE noted that there would be a $3 increase in
fees to cover the cost of administration. He asked Mr. Brooks,
"Will this change how fee structures of licenses may be made, or
is this $3 ... the only fee structure that will be changed?"
MR. BROOKS responded that that question had resulted in an
amendment in HB 164 last year. He stated:
Currently, through the vendor compensation process, we
pay a dollar per item sold and 5 percent of the co-
sale. For instance, if someone buys a fishing license
with a king salmon stamp, we would pay $2 in vendor
[compensation] - additional vendor [compensation] -
plus 5 percent of $25, which is a buck and a quarter.
So that transaction translates to $3.25 in vendor
compensation paid on ... that purchase. And so we
came up with the $3 as [a] close approximation of
that. As it currently stands on our Internet sales,
we don't pay any vendor [compensation]. We don't pay
... ourselves vendor compensation. So the entire sale
goes into the fish and game fund for future
appropriation by this body.
What we've found, though, in other states, they've
done competitive solicitation, where they've hired a
third-party vendor ... to handle this process for them
and then they'd charge a transaction fee. ... They
would not get the vendor [compensation]; they would
get a per transaction fee. And that's what the $3 was
meant to do. But it would only occur ... through a
third-party contract. And as it currently stands,
we're writing this with state employees and so it
really doesn't apply, ... the direction we're going,
but it is something that other states have done, and
so we've kind of mirrored ... what other states are
doing.
Number 1990
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked Mr. Brooks to confirm that the
transaction fee is the only change in the fee structure in HB 63
and that HB 63 would not enable any future changes outside of
that transaction fee.
MR. BROOKS answered yes, and added that the transaction fee
would only be on "these electronic kinds of purchases."
Number 1965
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked how much money ADF&G gets from
vendor fees.
MR. BROOKS repeated that it is $1 per item and 5 percent of the
sale. In response to other questions by Representative
Kerttula, Mr. Brooks said that the $3 would not be added on top
of the already existing vendor fee, but would be instead of
that. If ADF&G were to make a contract with a third party, it
would not sign [the third party] up as a vendor. The $3 per
transaction would be the compensation. Mr. Brooks stated that
under the state procurement code, ADF&G would have to
competitively solicit that. In order to clarify the need for
the $3 fee for a process that is done electronically, Mr. Brooks
said:
I'll give you another drastic example: A nonresident
hunter comes up here and spends a couple thousand
dollars on some big game tags. We could easily spend
a hundred dollars on commission on that transaction,
and this would limit it to $3.
MR. BROOKS added that some states add on a "surcharge" because
the ability to apply online for a hunting or fishing license is
viewed as a convenience. He affirmed that the cost of the
license would not increase.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA mentioned language in the bill referring
to the requirement of the applicant to carry identification,
found on page 2, line 17, in Section 2. She asked what the
penalties would be for someone who disobeyed that agreement.
MR. BROOKS replied that ADF&G has discussed that issue with
enforcement, and the answer is that if that person was fishing
with a number, yet was carrying no identification, he/she would
be fishing illegally.
Number 1814
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked what is being done with all the money [from
licensing] that is being put into the ADF&G fund.
MR. BROOKS answered:
All revenue from the sale of fish and game licenses -
last year [it] was nearly $23 million - goes into the
fund and is subject to appropriation by this body. So
it's in the Division of Sport Fish and the Division of
Wildlife Conservation's budget [that] you see those
fish and game fund dollars show up in the operating
budget. And it's subject to your appropriation that
that happens.
MR. BROOKS, in response to a follow-up question by Co-Chair
Masek, stated:
To generate $23 million, we pay approximately $2
million a year in vendor compensation. Those are the
big numbers. To the extent that we sell these
licenses ourselves through the Internet or some other
process like that, we'll forego paying a portion of
that vendor compensation.
For instance, on the 8,000 licenses we sold last year,
we sold over $700,000 in revenue. Five percent of
that was with $35,000, another $8,000 in additional
vendor [compensation], because we pay a dollar per
item sold. So, over $40-45,000 that we would have
normally paid in vendor compensation stayed in the
fish and game fund for future appropriation by this
body. And so to the extent that the state sells
licenses, ... there's foregone commissions paid [that
stay] in the fish and game fund for resource
management or other things that you deem appropriate.
On the flip side of that, we've had a few vendors come
up and say, "Well, you're going to take all our
business," and really, I ... personally don't see that
happening. The vendors that we talk to - and ... we
have 1,500 of them statewide - probably have 80
percent of our sales occurring with 20 percent of
those vendors; it's what we call our "80:20 rule."
So we have ... a handful of big vendors that do a
majority of the sales and then a lot of smaller ones
that we rely heavily on to get license sales out in
very remote areas of the state. I don't ever see that
going away. I think it's always going to be a
partnership, a highbred system, if you will, where we
can take advantage of technology but also heavily rely
on these sales that occur over the counter in stores.
The other thing we've heard, as a follow-up to that,
is no one's getting rich off vendor [compensation]. I
mean, we spent $2 million a year, and that's a lot of
money. Some of the big chain stores, Fred Meyers,
Carrs, and things like that are -- corporations are
making money on that, but they make their money on
outfitting hunters and fishers coming through the
door.
And so, to that end ... we have some projects on the
drawing board where maybe we put a kiosk in the store,
or a person could come in and do a self-serve on their
license purchase, and then they're still in there
shopping in the store. ... We want to approach some
things like that with some of our bigger vendors,
maybe do a pilot project, things like that. So, we
have a lot of ideas out there and we listen to our
vendors, we do surveys with them ... .
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if some of the funding was put back into
"studies" or "improving resource."
MR. BROOKS answered yes. In response to a follow-up question
from Co-Chair Masek, he said that ADF&G is very interested in
hunting opportunities. He mentioned a finance subcommittee
meeting and "performance measures" in the budget, such as
percentage of hunters. He estimated that 20 percent of Alaskan
residents between the ages of 16 and 59 hunt, and, therefore,
need to buy a license. Mr. Brooks said ADF&G wants to continue
reaching out to those who hunt and fish by offering hunting and
angling education programs, as well as opportunity. He said
that there are more people [hunting in Alaska] now than ten
years ago.
CO-CHAIR MASEK said that she is glad to have Mr. Brooks' last
statement on record and she would like to work with ADF&G and
the House Resources Standing Committee on "the game aspect."
She emphasized the importance of assuring a continued flow of
revenue by providing ample opportunity for the public to hunt
and fish. She recommended looking at the hunting programs set
up by other states, which she said are more sophisticated in
some areas than Alaska's.
Number 1407
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT referred back to Mr. Brooks' previous
statement regarding cost savings - the estimated $45,000 in
commissions for the 8,000 transactions made through "one of the
vendors." He questioned whether there really is a cost savings,
since there is someone paid to do all the paperwork involved.
MR. BROOKS replied that there are some specific, measurable
savings. For instance, ADF&G has clerical staff in the
licensing program, and the number of employees on that staff has
not been increased with the implementation of this electronic
process. When a person goes online, the information he or she
provides automatically goes into ADF&G's database. He estimated
that ADF&G currently spends "six figures" on data capturing the
licenses. He said, "Oftentimes those same people [who] 'data
capture' our licenses finish our busy season and go to work for
[the Alaska] permanent fund." Mr. Brooks added that ADF&G would
not do anything to negatively impact the fund, saying, "Even in
a break-even scenario, if [ADF&G] thought [it] was reaching out
and making customer service better and easier for people to
access government, I think there'd still be some positive
benefit there."
Number 1253
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked Mr. Brooks if he was familiar with
[HB 48], which passed out of [the House Resources Standing
Committee] and would exempt the requirement for social security
numbers [on hunting or sport fishing licenses]. She asked Mr.
Brooks if that would be incorporated into [HB 63] as well.
MR. BROOKS answered yes. He said [if HB 63 is adopted], ADF&G
would send out a letter to all its vendors letting them know
that the social security field on the application is optional.
He remarked that it is ironic that ADF&G has made it easier for
online applicants by offering to "populate the field" for them
if they fill in their name and social security number.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said:
I like the concept of it. I guess I wonder if we're
putting the cart before the horse, because what you're
asking us to do in this bill is to give you the
ability to establish a system for doing it, and then
you're going to come back and obtain concurrence from
the commissioner of public safety, but you're not
going to come back and obtain concurrence from the
legislature. And the reason I ask is because I'm on
the [Administrative] Regulation Review Committee, so
we deal with these problems all the time, where we
pass a bill and we think it means "X" and then the
regulations are written, or the plan's carried out in
a way that we never intended it to be. ... I guess I
just wonder whether or not we should have a little
better idea of exactly how the plan will work first
and then ... pass a bill that implements that system,
because of these points of concern, ... the social
security and other things. And has that been looked
at?
MR. BROOKS replied that ADF&G takes all those things into
[account]. He said [the change in social security requirement]
would apply, whether the application is on paper or is
electronic.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked Mr. Brooks why ADF&G couldn't start
studying the new plan now, without having to wait for
legislation to pass.
MR. BROOKS responded by telling Representative McGuire that
ADF&G is already looking at systems used by other states. He
mentioned the "smart number" concept again. He said:
We could do that, but we could lose another year just
in implementing, to have to come back and say, "OK,
we've got all this in place and now we want to go
ahead. But we're not talking about a fundamental
change through a licensing program, in my opinion.
It's offering one more option of how you can buy this
thing. And we will operate directly from the
statutes; all of our fees are set in the statutes. We
don't even issue regulations on administering the
licenses.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE cited [sub]section (d), page 2, line 29,
which read:
The commissioner of fish and game and the Department
of Public Safety may adopt regulations to interpret or
implement their respective duties in this section.
She concluded that there is room for regulatory authority.
Number 0999
CO-CHAIR SCALZI thanked Mr. Brooks for his testimony and asked
him to provide the House Resources Standing Committee with a
one-page synopsis of some of the opportunities of the last ten
years and into the future for hunters and fishermen. He made
reference to the issue that's been discussed about the decline
in the number of Kenai residents who buy fishing licenses. He
questioned whether ADF&G might have a plan to "sweeten the deal
for residents."
MR. BROOKS confirmed that Co-Chair Scalzi was talking about
hunting and fishing opportunities. He said he would talk to
Kelly Hepler [Director, Division of Sport Fish, ADF&G] and Wayne
Regelin [Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, ADF&G] and
follow up on that request. [HB 63 was held over.]
Number 0897
CO-CHAIR SCALZI introduced his own draft letter to Colonel Glen
Godfrey, Commissioner, Department of Public Safety, dated
February 20, 2001, regarding a request by Southeast Alaska
seiners for enforcement against poaching. He said that the
problem was rampant before statehood, but has been under control
until recently, partly due to the "good management of fish and
game." Representative Scalzi listed the reasons for the recent
increase in poaching as due to low salmon prices and some
overcapitalization issues. He stated that his intent was to put
this issue before the House Special Committee on Fisheries, as
well as the House Resources Standing Committee, to ask both
bodies to consider this draft letter of support requesting "some
presence" on some of the islands in Southeast Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS mentioned that he had heard of the use of
"stream guards" in the past. He suggested that in addition to
"brown shirts" or "blue shirts," the House Resources Standing
Committee should consider using "stream guards," which are "less
expensive in terms of personnel costs."
CO-CHAIR SCALZI said that if [Representative Stevens] wanted to
add a sentence to the draft letter, "we would certainly be
amenable to an amendment." He informed the House Resources
Standing Committee members that they had until "springtime" to
finalize the letter.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER pointed out a "typo" in the fourth
paragraph [of the draft letter]. Where it reads, "be an
important detriment to illegal fishing activities," the word
"detriment" should be changed to "deterrent."
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS suggested broadening the language to
include other areas besides Southeast, if applicable.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE noted that the first "with" [in the third
line] of the fifth paragraph should be omitted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|