Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/24/1995 03:36 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE
Anchorage Legislative Information Office
February 24, 1995
3:36 P.M.
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Loren Leman, Chairman
Senator Lyman Hoffman
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Drue Pearce, Vice Chairman
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 49
"An Act relating to the Board of Fisheries; and providing for an
effective date."
PREVIOUS ACTION
SB 49 - See Resources minutes dated 2/20/95.
WITNESS REGISTER
Kay Andrew
P.O. Box 7211
Ketchikan, AK 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Ken Erickson, Legislative Aide
Senator Drue Pearce
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 49.
Nevin May
P.O. Box 3160
Ketchikan, AK 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Geneneiva Pearson
P.O. Box 669
Kodiak, AK 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Chris Berns
P.O. Box 26
Kodiak, AK 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Donald Fox
P.O. Box 2971
Kodiak, AK 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
John Bocci
Cordova District Fishermen United
P.O. Box 1312
Cordova, AK 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
James Mykland
P.O. Box 1214
Cordova, AK 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Jack Hopkins
P.O. Box 343
Cordova, AK 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Deborah Lyons
P.O. Box 296
Petersburg, AK 99833
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Gordon Jensen
Petersburg Vessel Owners
P.O. Box 264
Petersburg, AK 99833
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Chris Sharpsteen
Petersburg Advisory Committee
P.O. Box 1255
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Drew Scalzi
41685 Redoubt Circle
Homer, AK 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Larry Smith
1520 Lakeshore Drive
Homer, AK 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 49.
Dan Winn
North Pacific Fisheries Association
P.O. Box 1272
Homer, AK 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
John Foster
P.O. Box 225
Sand Point, AK 99661
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Joseph Carr
P.O. Box 294
Sand Point, AK 99661
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Peggy Osterback
P.O. Box 61
Sand Point, AK 99661
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Leonard Efta
P.O. Box 353
Kenai, AK 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Dale Bondurant
HC 1, Box 1197
Soldotna, AK 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Joseph Jolly
HC 2, Box 753
Soldotna, AK 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Charles McKee
P.O. Box 143452
Anchorage, AK 99514
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Don Mitchell
1335 F Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 49.
Chip Trien
18011 Golden View Dr.
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Drew Sparlin, Jr.
P.O. Box 283
Kenai, Ak 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Richard Andrew
P.O. Box 7211
Ketchikan, AK 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Royce Ranniger
P.O. Box 702
Ward Cove, AK 99928
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Ken Duckett
P.O. Box 23178
Ketchikan, AK 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Andy Rauwolf
7942 South Tongass Hwy
Ketchikan, AK 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Kris Norosz
P.O. Box 232
Petersburg, AK 99833
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Oscar Dyson
P.O. Box 1728
Kodiak, AK 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Virginia Adams
620 Hemlock Dr.
Kodiak, AK 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Al Burch
P.O. Box 991
Kodiak Draggers Association
Kodiak, AK 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Bruce Schactler
Area K Seiners
P.O. Box 2599
Kodiak, AK 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Mike Milligan
SR 9121
Kodiak, AK 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Ralph Lohse
P.O. Box 14
Cordova, AK 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Charles DeVille
P.O. Box 632
Cordova, AK 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Dennis Randa, President
Trout Unlimited
P.O. Box 3055
Soldotna, AK 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
Ben Ellis
Kenai River Sport Fish Association
P.O. Box 1228
Soldotna, AK 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported concept behind SB 49.
Theo Matthews, Executive Director
United Cook Inlet Driftnetters Association
P.O. Box 69
Kasilof, AK 99610
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 49.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-13, SIDE A
Number 001
SRESSUB 2/24/95
SB 49 RESTRUCTURE BOARD OF FISHERIES
CHAIRMAN LEMAN called the Senate Resources Subcommittee meeting to
order at 3:36 p.m. and announced SB 49 to be up for consideration.
KAY ANDREW, commercial fisherman from Ketchikan, said she was very
surprised to see this kind of legislation. She stated she is
totally against it. She had served on the Board of Fisheries and
lost her seat because of a political conflict in the Northern part
of the state. She did not think it right for the Governor to
appoint three people who would be responsible strictly to the
Governor. She thought it was important to specify qualifications
for people who can be on the Board. She was confused about the
length of the terms for the three appointees.
Number 56
KEN ERICKSON, Legislative Aide for Senator Pearce, explained that
Section 7 deals with setting up the initial staggered terms. The
person appointed to the first term would serve for two years, a
person who is appointed to that seat in succeeding years would
serve four year terms. He thought the appointees would be from
throughout the state with varied backgrounds.
Number 99
NEVIN MAY, Ketchikan commercial/sport fisherman and a sport hunter,
said he doesn't see anything in this bill that he likes at all.
The system we now have might be refined a little, but it is the
envy of the rest of the Pacific Coast as far as management goes.
He thought there would be just as much politics, but just fewer
people under SB 49.
GENENEIVA PEARSON, Kodiak resident, said her family has been
involved in the commercial fishing harvest since 1944. The
industry is too complex to have a Board that doesn't have deep
knowledge of the fisheries. It doesn't make any more sense to have
lay people regulating fishermen than it does to have lay people
regulating dentists, doctors, engineers, and lawyers. She noted SB
49 does not prohibit people who have interests in commercial sport
fishing from participating.
Number 175
CHRIS BERNS, Kodiak commercial fisherman since 1958, said this bill
is an attack on the fishing industry. To suggest that the Board
have people with no commercial fishing experience is irresponsible.
This resource is now one of the few remaining solely controlled by
the State and should be managed in a responsible way. A
professional Board would not lead to a less contentious process,
but it would carry all the pitfalls of a lay Board. A Board should
be made up of a group of peers who have an in-depth knowledge of
the industry. A Board member should be more of a fisherman than a
dentist or a lawyer.
MR. BERNS pointed out a contradiction between language on page 1,
lines 7 - 9 and on page 2, lines 1 - 2 which describe the
qualifications of the Board members.
Number 244
DONALD FOX, Kodiak commercial fisherman and a member of the local
Advisory Board for ten years, said there are problems within the
Board of Fisheries the way it is constituted, but he thought it
would be better to try to fix it than to totally change it. He
sees SB 49 as, "an attempt by the sport fishing interest, the
Railbelt, and Mat-Su Valley legislators to get total control of our
Board of Fish." He suggested just increasing the Board from seven
to nine members according to specific geographic areas - with
representation for everybody.
JOHN BOCCI, Cordova District Fishermen United, said he had problems
with understanding the word "commercial" as it is used in SB 49.
It is also a blatant attempt to put control where it doesn't belong
and it certainly isn't going to cure any perceived problems in the
boards of Fisheries and Game. He commended HB 141 which confirms
members before they serve and said this should be applied to all
boards and commissions. He strongly suggested gradually changing
the existing system rather than gutting it. He added that he is
also an avid sports fisherman and hunter.
Number 293
JAMES MYKLAND, Cordova commercial fisherman, strongly opposed SB
49. The Alaska commercial fishing industry is the state's largest
private employer, providing jobs for 75,000 people during the peak
of the season. He thought more funds needed to be allocated to
fisheries management. The present structure of the Board seems to
be working. "How else can you explain record harvests of salmon in
Alaska during the last five years?" he asked.
MR. MYKLAND said he would like to see higher funding for the staff
of the Board of Fisheries and for the local Advisory Boards which
help identify the specific problems each area is having. He does
support HB 141 which would help depoliticize the confirmation
process. He also agrees with the Knowles/Ulmer transition team
recommendation to create regional management panels.
Number 330
JACK HOPKINS, Alaskan resident, said he is opposed to SB 49. He
felt the current system is working, and any changes would be a
great injustice to the state, the people, and the resource.
Number 348
DEBORAH LYONS, Petersburg, said she is a former member of the Board
of Fisheries and was on the Governor's transition team, she is
currently helping the Salmon Commission, and is a member of the
Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association. She noted
that some very wise legislators created the entire board process,
recognizing how much of our State is out of the eyes of the
enforcement people. People have to make individual decisions
whether or not to obey the regulations. We don't have the
enforcement capability or the funding for the ADF&G to observe
everything that goes on in this State. Legislators realize that
public involvement in creating regulation are important to have
effective fish and game management.
MS. LYONS said that the board process isn't working very well at
the present time, and it needs to in order for people to respect
the regulations enough to obey them.
She didn't really see how this bill could make the situation any
better.
GORDON JENSEN, Petersburg Vessel Owners Association, said he spent
20 years on the Board of Fish and Game and he thought it was
probably the best system. He said people need to have the ability
to participate, but this bill would minimize their input.
CHRIS SHARPSTEEN, Petersburg Advisory Committee, opposed SB 49. He
said we have a system in place that works when it's not fiddled
with. Now people have access to the process, and because of that
access, believe in the process. The input is incredible as long as
it is acted upon. If you put three bureaucrats in charge of the
Board of Fisheries, you're going to alienate entirely the users of
this resource.
DREW SCALZI, Homer commercial fisherman, opposed SB 49. He was a
member of the transition team and was surprised that this came up
in the Legislature so quickly. He looked at the makeup of the APUC
and AOGCC, and the background required reflected what their jobs on
the commissions were. He said there is nothing wrong with the
process the way it is now.
Number 453
LARRY SMITH, Homer, said he spent a number of years on local
Advisory Committees and he thought that was an important part of
the process that has suffered over the years. He thought the
concept of the bill was good, but it needed a lot of work,
especially with public input, in all the phases. He thought,
however, that the Board should be organized so that it could avoid
going to the Legislature to accomplish its goals.
DAN WINN, North Pacific Fisheries Association, said they usually
don't get involved in the Board of Fisheries process. They use the
NPFC. One of the reasons is because they have such diverse user
groups that they don't want it divided up. In SB 49 they find the
"who may not be a member" section quite offensive and they voted
today to oppose this legislation. He didn't think a professional
board would be any better than the current organization. The other
fisheries on the west coast that have professional boards have
declined because of it.
JOHN FOSTER, Sand Point commercial fisherman, opposed SB 49,
because it prohibits the members of the Board from having an vested
economic interest in the fisheries resources. There is nothing
about sport fishing interests being prohibited. He, therefore,
thought it was discriminatory.
He is aware of the problems in the Area M fishery; most of which
are caused by political meddling. No other area has been hit as
hard by board politics, but he still believes in the board process.
It is very important to have people who are knowledgeable about the
fishing industry making the decisions for the fishing industry.
JOSEPH CARR, Sand Point commercial fisherman, concurred with Mr.
Foster's testimony.
PEGGY OSTERBACK, Sand Point commercial boat owner, opposed SB 49,
because it is discriminatory in nature, because it keeps people who
have a financial interest in the fisheries from being on the Board.
It implies that a person does not have the integrity to serve on
the board just because they have an interest in fishing. Looking
at the other state boards and commissions you'll find those people
still have a vested financial interest in the businesses they
regulate. She used the Board of Education, the Board of
Chiropractic Examiners, the Medical Board, and the Judicial Conduct
Commission, as examples.
A person who participates in the fishing industry brings experience
and knowledge to the board that cannot be acquired in any other way
than by participating in the industry.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that Senator Georgianna Lincoln was on line in
Delta Junction.
LEONARD EFTA, Kenai commercial fisherman, opposed SB 49. He said
in a board with only three members that two people would have
complete control of the fishery which could be a disaster. With a
seven member board there is representation from various user groups
which he thinks is real important.
DALE BONDURANT opposed going to a three member board. He said the
reason the boards were separated in the past was because it's a big
job and the diversity and knowledge was needed. He agreed that it
would be likely for "sweetheart deals" to happen with a three
member board. He said the playing field needs to be leveled on the
existing board, though. There should be some sort of economic
requirements to get back to fair representation. He said this is
a common resource and all people in Alaska should be represented on
it.
Number 532
JOSEPH JOLLY, commercial fisherman and board member of United Cook
Inlet Driftnetters Association (UCIDA), opposed reducing the number
of people on the Board of Fisheries.
TAPE 95-13, SIDE B
MR. JOLLY pointed out that while SB 49 proposes paying a board the
Legislature is having a hard time finding money to pay for other
things. People have to remember that all user groups use the fish
out there, he said, and they need to look at the habitat concerns
that are happening on the rivers. Commercial fishermen put a
portion of their income into renewing the resource; he thought it
was time that everyone else did, too.
Number 571
CHARLES MCKEE, Anchorage resident, said it would be difficult to
restructure the board. He said there is a meeting on March 15
between Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Alaska on salmon recovery.
He thought it was wiser to work in that direction rather than to
put energy into a new board structure.
DON MITCHELL, Anchorage attorney, said he had represented clients
on both boards over the last 20 years. He said Governor Cowper
appointed a Task Force to look into this issue. He said anyone who
knows about the regulatory process knows that its time has come and
gone and it is more than inefficient. It is morally and ethically
corrupt. Senator Pearce, in this bill, attacks only one of three
components.
First, there is no way to test the quality of information provided
by the public and ADF&G and there is no record of supporting
evidence for decisions that are made.
Second, there are no standards for coming up with a decision. He
said that people complain about too much politics in the board
process. Consulting the Alaska Constitution, one will find that
the Congress of the State assigned the Legislature, not the Boards
of Fisheries and Game, the responsibility for making these
decisions. They recognized that who gets to use fish and game has
a very important social and economic policy consequences. In 1958,
when the board process was created by the Legislature, there was no
sport fishery and no one cared about the Native people. He said
the only statutory guide to decision making is the subsistence
statute. The Legislature needs to ask questions like, are mixed
stock fisheries good or bad for the State of Alaska. Then the
Board, based upon the facts, should make decisions.
The third issue, which Senator Pearce is addressing, is the issue
of the composition of the board itself. He said people are
appointed to the board now, because of their conflicts of interest.
That is why people are tired of this board process.
MR. MITCHELL noted that the Natives are becoming more attracted to
the Federal Subsistence Board and it's because most people are not
"mobbed up" with their decisions.
CHIP TRIEN, commercial and sport fisherman, said he didn't think
regulating fish was as complicated as rocket science. But it
requires a great deal of deliberation and consensus building. It
should be compared to that kind of thing. Public trust is a very,
very important part. The board process requires a great deal of
public input and should be considered seriously. A three member
board doesn't allow for the same kind of public input that a seven
member lay board has.
MR. TRIEN was also concerned that a three member board could be run
by just two people. He thought it was insulting that commercial
fishermen and anyone with a commercial interest is excluded and
other people with self serving interests are not excluded.
Number 422
DREW SPARLIN JR. said he has been involved in the Board of
Fisheries process for many years. He said this bill is
interrupting the board process. There is a consensus of minds
working together right now to solve issues between many groups. No
one is being excluded. This bill would allow only special interest
groups to gain control over Statewide management.
Number 370
RICHARD ANDREW, Ketchikan fisherman, opposed SB 49. He said he
couldn't think of anything to add to what had already been said.
ROYCE RANNIGER, Ketchikan commercial fisherman, opposed SB 49. He
said it's heavily weighted down with politics. We have the last
great fishery in the United States. The responsibility is awesome
and it should be managed accordingly. Any Board can only be
effective if it represents all the interests which it governs.
MR. RANNIGER suggested that the Boards of Fisheries and Game should
be as far removed from the political arena as possible. Treat it
like the Supreme Court, he said, with life-time appointments. The
board makeup would be from all user groups in each area and when a
member quits or retires, a replacement must come from that area and
group.
Due to the vastness of our State, there should be two separate
Boards of Fisheries and Game, a Northern Board and a Southeast
Board, he concluded.
Number 337
KEN DUCKETT said he served nine years on a local Advisory Board.
He is a long-time commercial fisherman and resident of Ketchikan.
He is adamantly opposed to SB 49 for all the reasons the
subcommittee has heard. He said the people who use the resource
are the ones who are most concerned with preserving it.
ANDY RAUWOLF, President of the Herring Coalition, opposed most of
this bill. The Board of Fisheries does need some overhauling, but
a three-member Board is not the answer. After sitting in on the
last few Board meetings, he thought there was too much power
generated among people who are unfamiliar with specific areas of
Alaska. He thought it advisable to give each local Advisory
Committee a vote on the proposal affecting their area. He thought
this would generate a lot more public interest on the local level.
Six or eight Advisory Committees in a specific area would make the
Board of Fisheries pay more attention to what they are
recommending. He has seen Advisory Committee recommendations
totally ignored by the Board of Fisheries, he added.
KRIS NOROSZ, Petersburg Vessel Owners Association, opposed SB 49.
They support the present system of a seven-member lay Board,
although it's not without its problems. Historically, it has
served the State quite well. The Governor's Transition Team on
Fisheries fully supported the lay board and made some excellent
recommendations for improvement to the present system. One of the
recommendations is in HB 141 which would allow for a change in the
dates in terms of board members. This would help depoliticize the
confirmation process by holding confirmation hearings prior to the
appointee making any board decisions. A professional board would
lack the important knowledge and experience of Alaska's fishing
industry. This would alienate the public and erode the credibility
of the board.
The present board system needs more funding to ensure greater
participation by local Advisory Committee chairmen at the board
meetings and to provide increased staff support for the Local
Advisory Committee and the public.
Number 263
OSCAR DYSON, 48 year Alaskan commercial fisherman, opposed SB 49,
because it wouldn't be any better than what we have. Looking at
the historical record of management, we still have good healthy
runs of fish and he would not want to endanger that with a board
that doesn't have knowledge of the fisheries.
VIRGINIA ADAMS, Vice President of the Northwest Setnetters
Association, said she had been a commercial fisherman for 20 years
and was very much against this bill. She spent many years gaining
the knowledge to fish in a number of fisheries and she personally
would like individuals on the Board who have knowledge of
commercial fishing.
AL BURCH said he started fishing in 1946 and then the population
was 146,000. We are now at 600,000. He has spent 13 years on the
Board of Fisheries. In the early days when we had a small
population, they addressed all problems of fish, game, and
trapping. He said the people who serve now should get a medal for
all the flack they take. One suggestion he had was to form a third
board to take some of the pressure off the people. He said he knew
most of the people who testified today and they represent thousands
of years of accumulated fishing experience - a corporate memory.
He urged that they kill SB 49 in committee.
Number 221
BRUCE SCHACTLER, Area K Seiners, said there has been so much
testimony against this bill, that there isn't anything left to say.
He wrote a letter last week and pointed out that the Legislative
Research Agency has not been able to find a board like Senator
Pearce is proposing. It doesn't exist anywhere in the United
States or Canada. He didn't see any reason for Alaska to be the
guinea pig when we have the best resource in the nation.
MR. SCHACTLER said the problem comes from the Governor not
appointing the right people and from people in the Legislature that
threaten the public with lack of funding for the most needed
program in the State unless their people get put on the board.
MIKE MILLIGAN, Kodiak, said he was concerned specifically with
going to a three-member board. He thought it would be a big
mistake. The thing that has made this country great is our ability
to compromise and to build consensus in times of controversy.
Going to three members would disenfranchise vast segments of
Alaska. The second problem is with no vested interest in the
fisheries. He thought having a vested interest in the resources is
what still gives us the fish to fight over.
RALPH LOHSE, Cordova commercial/sport/commercial sport fisherman,
opposed SB 49 and supported HB 141. He said the current board
process gives all people with a direct interest a say in the
management. That is what good government is all about. It also
makes for good resource management. It should be left as it is; it
has worked in the past; it will work in the future.
MR. LOHSE asked why there was only one user group that was excluded
from the board in SB 49. He said they needed as much
representation as anybody else.
Number 92
CHARLES DEVILLE, Cordova fisherman, was dead-set against SB 49,
because he wants to be represented on the Board by fishermen. He
thought commercial fishermen could also represent subsistence and
sport fishermen, but he didn't see how sport fishermen can
represent commercial fishermen.
DENNIS RANDA, President, State Council of Trout Unlimited, said
last year the Council took a position against the Board of
Fisheries as being flawed and not responding to the social and
economic needs of people across the State of Alaska. He said that
politics has been the art of compromise and there hasn't been much
compromise between sport and commercial users on the Board of
Fisheries.
MR. RANDA said he was on the Knowles/Ulmer Transition Team and they
did agree that the board process wasn't working, but that they
didn't want a professional bBoard. He noted that the board
continually uses historical uses as a priority in allocation
without regard for social or economic considerations.
TAPE 95-14, SIDE A
BEN ELLIS, Executive Director, Kenai River Sport Fish Association,
said they prefer the current lay Board structure being maintained.
If Governors and lawmakers continue to appoint and confirm board
members who have direct conflicts of interest and would eventually
be "conflicted out," the Board could very easily come to a grinding
halt. So he supported the concept behind the bill, but not the
bill itself. With the growing emergence of non-commercial users in
the State, conflict over the allocation must be addressed in a
positive form. There must be a level playing field where decisions
are made which are in the best interests of all Alaskans. If that
cannot be accomplished by a lay Board, maybe some form of SB 49 is
the answer.
He commended Senator Pearce for addressing the issue in this bill.
Number 54
THEO MATTHEWS, Executive Director, United Cook Inlet Drift
Association, opposed SB 49. They support the current lay board
process. The proposal in SB 49 would not produce any better
results than are made now. Their primary objection is going to a
three-member board. He said there would be even more battles over
confirmation, because there will be a smaller "pot" to work with -
two people could dictate any outcome.
This process does not recognize the inherent conflicts that non-
commercial users have. For people concerned with reallocation, no
board process is going to be fair until they get what they want.
MR. MATTHEWS suggested they get better pay for the current board
members. They need adequate staff for the current board members
and they also need a historian, because too often board members
don't know what deliberations went into the original regulations.
They need better representation by the Advisory Committees. He
emphasized that better pay, better staff, and better participation
has been curtailed by this Legislature as they cut funding over the
years.
Number 129
SENATOR LEMAN thanked everyone for their participation and
adjourned the meeting at 5:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|