Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/11/1997 03:43 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 COMMITTEE
April 11, 1997
3:43 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Rick Halford, Chairman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Bert Sharp
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
Senator John Torgerson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lyda Green
Senator Robin Taylor
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 40
"An Act relating to management of discrete salmon stocks, to salmon
management assessments, and to the fishery business tax."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 40 - No previous action to be considered.
WITNESS REGISTER
Mr. Brett Huber, Staff
Senator Rick Halford
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Staff to sponsor of SB 40.
Mr. Geron Bruce, Legislative Liaison
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on CSSB 40(RES).
Mr. Bob Clasby, Director
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on CSSB 40(RES).
Mr. Kevin Delaney, Director
Division of Sport Fish
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on CSSB 40(RES).
Dr. John White, Chairman
Board of Fisheries
P.O. Box 190
Bethel AK 99559
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on CSSB 40(RES).
Mr. Grant Miller, Member
Board of Fisheries
P.O. Box 2456
Sitka, AK 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on CSSB 40(RES).
Mr. John Sund
Alaska Seafood Council
P.O. Box 91239
Anchorage, AK 99509
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CSSB 40(RES).
Mr. Jerry McCune
United Fishermen of Alaska
211 4th, #112
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CSSB 40(RES).
Ms. Chris Kelly, Licensing Project Leader
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Department of Fish and Game
8800 Glacier Hwy., Ste 109
Juneau AK 99801-8079
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on CSSB 40(RES).
Mr. Sam McDowell
336 E 23rd Ave.
Anchorage AK 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 40(RES).
Mr. Emmet Heidemann
P.O. Box 770061
Eagle River AK 99577
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CSSB 40(RES).
Mr. Louis Clark
2840 Porcupine Trail
Anchorage AK 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CSSB 40(RES).
Ms. Kathy Tikka
1214 Lilac St.
Kenai AK 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CSSB 40(RES).
Mr. Dale Bondurant
HC1, Box 1197
Soldotna AK 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 40(RES).
Mr. Larry Malloy
Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association
P.O. Box 3407
Kodiak AK 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CSSB 40(RES).
Mr. Dan Winn
North Pacific Fisheries Association
P.O. Box 1272
Homer AK 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CSSB 40(RES).
Mr. Bill Pace
HC 31, Box 5097P
Wasilla AK 99687
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CSSB 40(RES).
Mr. Bruce Knowles
Wasilla AK 99687
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 40(RES).
Mr. Larry Engel, Member
Board of Fisheries
P.O. Box 197
Palmer AK 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CSSB 40(RES).
Mr. Eugene Svetc
1407 W 32nd Ave.
Anchorage AK 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CSSB 40(RES).
Mr. Don Sherwood, President
Alaska Boating Association
1640 Brink Dr.
Anchorage AK 99504
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 40(RES).
Mr. Kenneth Svetc
7715 Highlander Dr.
Anchorage AK 99518
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CSSB 40(RES).
Mr. Bud Hodson
2356 Canary Crt
Anchorage AK 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 40(RES).
Mr. Randy Bjorgan
3038 Donnington Dr.
Anchorage AK 99504
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 40(RES).
Mr. Tom Namtredt
5640 Portage Dr.
Wasilla AK 99654
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CSSB 40(RES).
Mr. Leonard Haire
P.O. Box 879030
Wasilla AK 99687
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 40(RES).
Mr. Cliff Skillings, Executive Director
Southeast Alaska Seiners Association
P.O. Box 23081
Juneau AK 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CSSB 40(RES).
Mr. Dean Paddock, Executive Director
Bristol Bay Driftnetter's Association
P.O. Box 21951
Juneau AK 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 40(RES).
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-26, SIDE A
Number 001
SB 40 DISCRETE SALMON STOCK MGMT AND ASSESSMENT
CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:43 p.m. and announced SB 40 to be up for consideration.
He said they also have a proposed CS.
MR. BRETT HUBER, Staff to Senator Halford, said although fishery
management in Alaska has been very successful in providing
abundance of harvestable salmon on a statewide basis, record
catches alone do not ensure that we are fulfilling our
constitutional mandate for sustained yield. It is incumbent upon
us all to pass along a healthy and diverse resource to future
generations of Alaskans. SB 40 does just that.
CSSB 40(RES) is a great deal different than the original bill.
Gone are the mandates to the Board of Fisheries to adopt and
implement discrete stock management in prescribed areas along
specified time lines. Instead, the bill mandates discrete salmon
stock assessment, leaving to the Board of Fisheries the
determination of stocks for which it is appropriate, applying
criteria such as the biological health of the stock and the
magnitude of user conflicts.
Far too much of our fishery management is being driven by
allocation battles in our most contentious fisheries, instead of by
sound science and pertinent information. In reviewing proposals
for particular fisheries, the Board is often asked to address
allocation disputes among various user groups or to react to a
sudden and unexpected conservation concern. With a great deal of
impassioned testimony on all sides of the issue and no better than
anecdotal information on which to base their decisions, it is
nearly impossible to resolve these issues. Lack of specific
scientific information brings the same issues back before the Board
year after year. CSSB 40 (res) will address those circumstances by
providing a mechanism to gain the stock composition data and
escapement information needed to equitably decide critical issues.
This bill mandates discrete salmon stock assessment that will allow
the Board to target research on stocks and fisheries for which they
most need the information. Passage of CSSB 40(RES) will improve
the management of our diverse fishery resource by assisting the
Board in reaching decisions in the most contentious fisheries.
Decisions supported by sound science are much more likely to be
accepted by the user groups.
MR. HUBER noted that they had an analysis by the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) that describes how the funds
would be apportioned among the permit classifications.
Section 6 provides that the initial discrete stock assessment list
be prepared for submission in the FY 99 budget and that license
surcharges would be imposed beginning 1998.
Section 7 ties the sport fish license surcharge to the passage of
SB 7. It basically repeals section 3 of the bill, the $1
surcharge, providing that SB 7 raising nonresident license fees is
passed and enacted into law this year. The Department requested
this as they believe SB 7 should generate an additional $2 million
- $4 million dollars of Fish and Game Fund revenue that would more
than cover the cost of the equivalent of a $1 surcharge to the
program.
Number 104
SENATOR LEMAN asked why he picked $1 for each license sold instead
of staying with the distribution on resident and nonresident
licenses. CHAIRMAN HALFORD replied that he picked $1 as a starting
point and the Department came back and said that rather than change
twice, they should use the bill that's already passed because it's
going to generate a lot more than that. So they didn't do any more
work on it as it would have been more complicated to spread it
between residents and nonresidents. The other bill they are
following generates most of the money from nonresidents.
MR. GERON BRUCE, MR. BOB CLASBY, and MR. KEVIN DELANEY, Department
of Fish and Game, joined the committee.
MR. BRUCE agreed that CSSB 40(RES) was significantly different than
the original bill and his comments address the CS. He said they
like the changes that have been made to ways in which additional
stock assessment needs would be met and supported them. They know,
however, that some segments of the user community are not
supportive of the bill and the Department hopes that through the
committee process the purpose and impact of the bill can be
clarified and most of the concerns that people don't support can be
answered.
MR. BRUCE said that Alaska has the best salmon management system in
the world and it hasn't come cheaply, but it isn't a cadillac
either. An important element in being able to pay for our
management system is the willingness of the users of the resource
to pay and a review of State revenues and expenditures shows that
the users are contributing more than the State is spending managing
our fisheries. Unfortunately this hasn't always been recognized in
recent times in budgets passed by the legislature and has resulted
in declining general fund appropriations despite some increases in
fees from commercial users.
MR. BRUCE said he thought it was important that the users believe
the way the additional stock assessment is paid for is fair.
However, the department doesn't intend to take sides on this
decision and feel it's up to the users and the legislature.
In reviewing the legislation itself, they asked themselves three
questions: does it promote good science, is good public process
followed in prioritizing which stock assessments to undertake, and
does the legislation strengthen the ability of the department to
make good fisheries management decisions.
They believe the legislation definitely promotes good science.
They also support the public process that is laid out in the bill
for determining the stocks of salmon for which stock assessments
are needed. This legislation provides an opportunity for the Board
to tell the department what information it needs the most to guide
its conservation and development decisions. It allows the members
of the public an opportunity to voice their opinions; and finally,
it promotes a dialogue between the public, the Board, and the
department about these needs. They think this is a logical and
beneficial extension of a historic function performed by the Board.
It allows as open and democratic a process for setting priorities
as could be designed. This seems to compliment the historic roll
of the Board.
Thirdly, the assessment information collected under this bill will
aid in the management of our fisheries resources during their
harvest. This information will help prevent the over harvest of
stocks as well as allow the maximum harvest possible. He inserted
a caution here. The stock assessment provided for in this bill
will be less useful than hoped if the budget cuts to the fisheries
management programs considered by the legislature this year are
carried out. Their worst fear is that the increase in funding
would be viewed by some members of the legislature as a
justification for cutting hard general funds out of another part of
the department's budget, particularly the fisheries management
program. Although they are somewhat reassured on that measure by
the language in the purpose section of the bill that makes it clear
this funding is not intended to replace funds in the commercial
fish and sportfish budget request units. However, as a further
assurance that this would not happen they are requesting that
passage of the governor's designated program receipt bill, SB 55,
be done to insure that any new program receipt revenue provided by
the proposed funding source, or any other funding source, would be
accounted for separately from the hard general fund dollars
appropriated to the department in the operating budget.
They specifically ask them to entertain the possibility of having
an amendment to the bill that would link the effective date of this
bill to the effective date of the bill establishing program
receipts.
Number 215
SENATOR SHARP asked if he understood him to say that if fish and
game funds are reduced, this bill shouldn't be passed because it
would jeopardize the ability to even effect what this bill wants to
do. MR. BRUCE clarified that he said if the field program is cut,
the information on stock assessments will not be able to be used as
effectively as it could be in the field during the season. This is
a research program that this bill funds and to get the most bang
out of the research, you have to also have the management staff in
the field able to use that research in making their in-season
decisions which drives fisheries management.
SENATOR TORGERSON said many of the commercial fishing groups oppose
SB 40 because it would set up the equivalent of a mini endangered
species act. He asked what the CS does to relieve the concerns of
the commercial fishermen that it's not doing that.
MR. BOB CLASBY, Division of Commercial Fisheries, said the concern
they had with the previous bill is that it talked about
establishing discrete stock management plans and it didn't specify
what those were. That raised some concerns in their eyes
particularly if that meant really moving fisheries off of mixed
stock fisheries and into very discrete stocks; and a discrete stock
really means fishing on spawning grounds and they don't think
that's an appropriate thing to do. The CS doesn't direct that kind
of management plan and has been turned around to be a data
gathering problem solving bill.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD commented that the mandate of SB 40 was a plan;
the CS is a mandate to research and the Board decides where the
research goes.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if Commercial Fisheries was already paying
its way; that in 1996 commercial fishing revenues to the State of
Alaska exceeded the fish management by $9 million. Furthermore,
the fishermen are maintaining that the marine fuel tax was
increased last year, that the 1995 vessel fees were increased; and
that there was a one percent marketing tax on seafood. So as all
of these increases are occurring for commercial fishermen, they
have not in the past objected to, because they are (more than)
paying their way. She asked how they say that they need to give
more under this bill.
MR. CLASBY answered that was correct and one could debate whether
commercial fisheries pays its way depending on what you want to
call it, but it does produce enough revenue into the general fund
to cover all commercial fishing related activities throughout all
of State government.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if that included the $19 million that goes
back to the communities. MR. CLASBY replied no it doesn't in their
calculations. He added that if it's $19 million and the net is $10
million for the last two years, then they are only $9 million
short.
MR. CLASBY clarified that their major concern is if the budget gets
cut so low they can't have a basic staff to support the research
programs. Another big concern is that if they take cuts how it
affects the two sockeye escapement measuring programs in northern
Cook Inlet. If they lose the weir, they are losing half of the
basic program in an area in which they have broad concerns. At
some point it may not make good scientific sense if they are
cutting some of those basic stock assessment and composition
projects.
Number 326
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the department supported the CS. MR.
BRUCE replied that the department supported it as it addresses the
stock assessment work, but they are neutral on how they pay for
that.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she didn't know the definition of discrete
stock assessment. MR. CLASBY said it is not defined in statute or
the legislation. Typically in this bill they are talking about
stocks on the level of major system producers, like Susitna River
sockeye salmon or Kenai River sockeye salmon.
Number 354
MR. KEVIN DELANEY, Division of Sport Fish, said he thought the
basis for any successful fishery management comes from habitat
protection, adequate stock assessment, and public involvement in
the decision process. CSSB 40 squarely addresses two of the three
components by establishing a funding stream dedicated to salmon
stock i.d. and escapement work, that would otherwise in many cases
go unfunded, and setting up a funding process that would involve
more sport fishermen in the department in selecting the projects
for funding.
MR. DELANEY said that they stand solidly behind Mr. Bruce's
comments.
Number 366
MR. JOHN WHITE, Chairman, Board of Fisheries, said they supported
the bill's intent regarding the Board's and the Department's
authorities and responsibilities for identifying and prioritizing
discrete assessment projects. He would hope that the assessment
system would be fair and proportionate to the utilization of these
fisheries resources.
The Board also has concerns regarding the breadth and the depth of
the funding vehicle. The Board knows that shellfish, ground fish
and other species are in need of as much research for sustainable
management as the other resources. Because of the comprehensive
research needs of the Board to utilize and allocate Alaska's
fisheries resource, they advise and sponsor a broader tax or fee
system than only sport fish license holders, crew members, interim
use, and limited entry permit holders. The Board suggested it
needs more research than this vehicle can provide and thinks that
others in the secondary and tertiary economies using the fisheries
as a resource should be taxed, like an excise tax on sport fishing
equipment, outboard motor fuel and oil taxes, and a bed tax on
sport fish lodge owners for fisheries research.
Some members of the Board believe that the legislature could match
these increased revenues with additional general fund monies, not
less general fund monies; and that match could be a percentage of
the increased derived revenues, because all Alaskans profit from
Alaska's fisheries resources.
MR. GRANT MILLER, member, Board of Fisheries, said he strongly
supported the effort in SB 40 to establish sound science and it is
an excellent step in the right direction. They see the need for
expansion of research gathering. He felt if they could tax all
users, as Dr. White suggested, in a fair and proportionate way,
they could generate a whole lot of money.
MR. MILLER also urged the legislature to stop cutting the funds to
the Department of Fish and Game and actually match, with some
percentage, the funds they derive from these assessments to the
other users.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if they felt that the assessment was fair to
the commercial fishermen the way the bill is written now. MR.
MILLER replied that it's not fair the way it is written now, that
it isn't broad enough. He thought that ultimately a few people who
commercially fish would bear a higher burden of the cost than
necessary. He thought all users should be taxed, even the
secondary and tertiary users.
DR. WHITE supported Mr. Miller's comments. He reminded them of the
economic study that addresses the Cook Inlet disputes between the
two users cost about $300,000 and it came up with a coin flip as to
who contributed most to Alaska's economy, either the commercial
industry or the sport industry. The breadth of the assessment
should reach into the secondary and tertiary economies and the
vessel owner and individual crew participants in the commercial
industry are disproportionately weighted.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked how the sport fish dollar works and what is
the match. MR. DELANEY replied that the funding for his division
comes from two sources presently: from the sale of fishing licenses
which is deposited into the Fish and Game Fund. The other source
of funding is the Dingle Johnson federal aid funds which are the
result of excise taxes on sport fishing equipment and boat motor
fuels that are levied at the manufacturer level federally and given
back to the states according to a formula that takes into
consideration the number of licenses sold and the land mass.
Alaska receives the maximum percentage of all the states.
There are statutory and regulatory restrictions on the use of those
funds. The Fish and Game Funds must be used to pursue the goals
and objectives of Title 16. The federal funds must be used only in
a manner that is primarily sport fishermen. There is a tie between
the two in that federal funding is only available to them if they
match one state licensed dollar to three federal aid dollars to
form what is called a federal aid contract.
One of the federal aid contractual tenets is that once you enter
into it, you will only use the remainder of the license fees in a
manner that produces benefits primarily for sport fishermen as
well. Using this match, you get a lot of bang for your bucks, but
you then condition the use of the remaining license fees. None of
this precludes them from using the monies on a broad range of
projects and they do. It challenges them to set the proportion of
the funding for the project in a manner that is totally defensible.
They have a lot of experience in doing that and it offers
flexibility, but they are regularly audited by the federal
government to make sure this is taking place. In general, they can
go from area to area and deal with chinook and cohos which are the
most commonly targeted by sport fishermen. If they deal with chum
salmon, they might not be able to pick up much of the total.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he was trying to find what a dollar from the
Division of Sport Fish can generate when it's added to whatever it
can capture in federal funds. MR. DELANEY replied that would
depend on how you structure the bill. As it's presently
structured, there would be a dollar surcharge per license sold. So
what the sources would contribute to this money would be one dollar
for each license sold, or in 1997 approximately $450,000. They
would like to retain the flexibility to use State license fees to
match the federal funds. So on any given year what is likely is
that out of the $450,000 contribution from Sport Fish there would
be $100,000 worth of State license fees they would use to match
with $450,000 of federal money (roughly).
DR. WHITE clarified that it's not the Board's suggestion that the
Dingle Johnson funds be reallocated and moved laterally into a
research fund. It was only to suggest that those were models the
State could use for in-state taxation.
Number 516
MR. JOHN SUND, Alaska Seafood Council, said they are in favor of
good information and good management practices. However, he
opposes SB 40 which he sees has three phases. One is it is a means
and methods to gather information and gather a list of proposed
projects and has a process developed to go out in the field and do
that. The second thing it does is raise taxes on fishermen and
thirdly, it attempts, in the legislative format, to set up as a
dedicated fund as you can, or what is now called program receipts.
He thought there was an easier way to develop a list of projects
than this process. This is not to say the public process through
the Board isn't wide open. He thought it was the most public
process of any situation there is. But there is already another
public process which is the legislature and in this bill alone
there is a list. There is a process in the legislature to make the
list and prioritize it.
Regarding the taxation of fishermen, MR. SUND said that the fishing
industry is in very tough straights and the issue here is how to
cut costs to remain competitive in world. Raising taxes is not a
way of cutting costs. He thought it was quite erroneous to add
taxes to fishermen, especially after he sat in Senate Finance this
morning listening to the ADF&G budget get cut by $1.5 million.
MR. SUND emphasized that the industry has been paying its way. In
1979 when the legislature repealed all the taxes in the State and
we had oil money, three people in the government at that time said
don't repeal raw fish tax - Governor Hammond, President of the
Senate Clem Tillion, and Speaker of the House Terry Gardener. They
said not only didn't they want to repeal the raw fish tax, but they
wanted to increase them and they did. The issue then was let's pay
our own way because when the oil money runs out, we'll be able to
say we paid our way all the way down and we should be able to get
the money that comes out of the industry back to manage it. That's
what's on the table now and it's not happening.
MR. SUND also said he couldn't agree with tying program receipts
into these management projects because there's a stream of money
flowing in and 10 or 15 years from now the priorities will have
changed and the stream of money is still be going into projects
that you may not even think are priorities. He thought it tied the
hands of the legislature and was not in their own self interest to
do that.
MR. SUND said it appeared to him the $1 allocation on sport fish
licenses was added in this bill, but is repealed if SB 7 passes.
Therefore, the whole burden of funding this program is on the
commercial fishermen.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD explained if SB 7 passes, it generates between $2
- $4 million from sport fishermen. MR. SUND said he understood
that, but there's nothing in SB 7 that says any of that money
should be appropriated back into the stock assessment program. He
thought it might be a technical drafting error.
MR. SUND said he was in support of funding the Department and that
they do a tremendous job of managing the fisheries in this State.
He thought the testimony today was a cry from industry for more
scientific information, but more taxes on the industry is a tough
nut to crack.
TAPE 97-26, SIDE B
MR. JERRY MCCUNE, United Fishermen of Alaska, thanked them for all
the work they did on SB 40. He said there is no doubt that they
support science and research, but he thought the fishermen were
paying enough money if the legislature would fund some of the
projects that have been requested by the Department in the past.
He said he personally couldn't squeeze much more money out of his
business. He agreed to the marine fuel tax increase, to increase
vessel fees, and they are now looking at another 1% marketing tax;
and he thought it was unfair to be taxing the fishing industry over
and over. There is extra money in the budget to be used for some
of these projects.
MR. MCCUNE said he was against giving an open check book to the
Board of Fisheries and the ADF&G to do what they want with. He
said they don't always agree on science and he has a problem with
the discrete stock management assessment which he thought should be
just salmon stock assessment. He also thought the funding of the
$1 was very unclear.
MR. MCCUNE said the problem they have with using the discrete stock
term is identifying what it is because there are many different
definitions.
Number 554
SENATOR LINCOLN asked him to respond to the Board members comments
about spreading the costs more equitably. MR. MCCUNE replied what
he understands is that we are lacking scientific money to do crab
assessments, not only in the Bering Sea, but in Prince William
Sound. He said what drives bills like this is allocation which is
not always solved by science. He assumed Dr. White meant to bring
in the other users, the crabbers and the longliners.
MS. CHRIS KELLY, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, noted there
was a memo they did on a few different scenarios in terms of how
the Entry Commission would assess the surcharge. They did one view
where it was assessed just to salmon interim use and entry permit
holders. This can vary from year to year and surcharge would range
from $17 for the lowest fee class and up to $85 for the higher fee
class. She said there is a $0 fiscal note.
MS. KELLY said she assumed this fee schedule would stay in effect
and they based it on 1996 permit counts and fees and assumed that
the fishers who qualified for the reduced permit fee would be
included in this assessment. She said it would be impossible to
predict what the surcharge would have to be to generate exactly
$500,000. The statute right now allows for the annual renewal fees
to be waived if a fishery doesn't open during the year and they
didn't know if the surcharge would still be assessed if the annual
permit renewal fee was going to be waived.
Number 493
MR. SAM MCDOWELL, Anchorage, supported CSSB 40(RES) provided they
could get some consideration on what happens in the Upper Cook
Inlet escapement. He said he has been in fisheries management for
49 years. He was very concerned that chum salmon are being totally
wiped out there.
MR. EMMET HEIDEMANN, Eagle River, supported the science and
research and the study of fish wholeheartedly. He thought this
area is overlooked and does not have enough funding. He thought
that "discrete stock management" is a term that has no definition
and the plan needs to be defined. He didn't think the way SB 40 is
written provides good science. It's a good idea. He said the
funding was very improper. The ADF&G should be able to give them
the figures on what it would cost and they should be funded.
MR. HEIDEMANN noted also that there were no commercial dive fees
mentioned in the funding allotment. He said there was no mention
of commercial guides who should be considered as part of the
commercial fleet. He also said there was a large number of non-
resident guides that are making a living off of Alaska.
MR. LOUIS CLARK, Anchorage, said he is already paying 2% of his
gross for aquaculture, 1% for salmon marketing, and in the last
five years he has lost 50% of his income. He thought they should
put a few more dollars into enforcement on the rivers and the State
biologists, they wouldn't need to have any of this. They do real
well.
MS. KATHY TIKKA, Kenai, said she has been a resident of Alaska
since 1959 and is pretty frustrated because we are just taxed to
death. She has 13 years of background in the commercial fishing
industry and she feels that the biologists have done an excellent
job. SB 40 is just another tax for the working man and woman who
carry the burden of government spending. She said that Alaska is
not broke. She asked that this bill not be moved from committee.
MR. DALE BONDURANT, Soldotna, said he thought the constitutional
requirement of sustained yield also requires management of all the
streams' stocks on the same guidelines. He supported full funding
of this program and considers it an allocation of the resources.
He said it is his opinion that the goals of the current management
systems are not realistic for effective management of Kenai and
Kasilof escapement goals. He thought it was time to have
information on the discrete stocks of the Cook Inlet.
MR. CARL KIRCHER, Kodiak Regional Fishermen's Association, opposed
the present form of CSSB 40(RES), although they are not opposed to
increased research to improve scientific management of Alaska's
salmon resource. Their opposition is that the research generated
by SB 40 will be driven by political and special interests as
opposed to genuine needs identified by the Department. Leaving the
Board of Fisheries to determine which stocks of salmon for which
discrete stock assessments are needed takes away from research
aimed at scientific needs.
He agreed with Senator Halford's statement that fishery management
is being driven by allocation battles in our most contentious
fisheries. Certainly the discrete stock assessment programs
generated by the Board as a result of SB 40 will also be driven by
the most contentious issues, not the most pressing scientific needs
of the Department. However, user group pressure may be more
persuasive than ADF&G testimony.
MR. KIRCHER said they also thought this could be another endangered
species act. Section 2(b)1 says that research projects must
include development of escapement objectives for discrete salmon
stocks and without a definition these fears could be realized.
Further political manipulation is possible because of language in
section 2(c) stating that the individual projects contained on the
list should be included in allocation under the appropriation for
discrete salmon stocks. This would make each individual project a
separate allocation that may or may not be approved by the
legislature and would surely leave room to further politicize which
projects go forward.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if he was reading the CS to SB 40. MR.
KIRCHER replied that he was.
MR. LARRY MALLOY, Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association, opposed
CSSB 40(RES) because they feel it is redundant and unnecessary when
considering the potential costs and the targeted revenue sources
versus the actual need for this type of legislation. They feel
that ADF&G currently has an active enough salmon data base to be
able to develop a reasonably thorough listing of salmon [indisc]
systems and probably in descending order of production by species
that would address concerns about sustained yield production
potential for any of the systems or species identified on the list.
In those cases where there is an identifiable shortage of
information, it seems to be more associated with collection of in
season stock data information for certain terminal fisheries where
there may have been short falls in meeting conservation objectives.
These should be obvious to most people, especially ADF&G who report
them to the Board of Fisheries who can deal with them.
MR. MALLOY noted there already exists in most areas of the State
regional comprehensive salmon plans which, in essence, are long
term strategic planning documents that address a region's salmon
production potential.
In conclusion, MR. MALLOY said that this legislation is not
necessary and Alaska's long term sustained yield salmon production
is more closely related to funding existing salmon programs that
ADF&G currently has on line that they are in jeopardy with because
of proposed budget cuts.
Number 301
MR. DAN WINN, North Pacific Fisheries Association, agreed with many
of Mr. Malloy's comments about the Board of Fisheries and Game,
ADF&G, and good science for all of our fisheries. He opposed CSSB
40(RES). He said it would basically undermine the Board of
Fisheries and ADF&G and put fisheries, especially salmon issues
more in the realm of the legislature. For instance on page 2, B(1)
it mentions annual development and you can't work on an annual
basis. It has to be at least a three, four, five or six year
program to even get an idea of what your stock assessment is
because salmon don't come back on an annual basis. MR. WINN again
said this proposal is supposed to be submitted to the Governor who
then submits it to the legislature on an annual fiscal year basis
and you can't do good science on salmon on an annual basis.
MR. WINN said that commercial fishermen are already paying their
own way and he would like to see more funding going to ADF&G.
MS. JUNE BURKHART, Willow resident, said she is a consumptive user
of Alaskan fish and game and has done so for a number of years.
She represents herself and one half of the Legislative Affairs
Committee for the Alaska Voting Association. She supported SB 40
and said all users would benefit from sound decisions based on good
science. She thought the taxation was fair to everyone.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if she would support the bill if they
increased the surcharge for the sport fishing licenses. MS.
BURKHART replied yes as long as it was an equitable increase to
everyone, including commercial fishermen.
MR. BILL PACE, commercial fisherman from Wasilla, said one of the
problems with this bill is that it will further divide the Board of
Fisheries and the commercial fishery user groups. If this bill
passes, user groups will by vying for research on pet projects as
well as traditional allocation of stocks. He realizes the Board
tries to be impartial, but it is still a political body driven by
the agenda of the various groups it represents.
If the research is so valuable, why can't the legislature fund
through the general fund which already has a generous contribution
from commercial fishermen, MR. PACE asked. If research projects
are determined by the Board of Fisheries, they are allowing science
to be controlled politically and thereby diluting the value of the
research.
Another issue is that the days of testimony before Board of
Fisheries meetings now would be multiplied drastically because each
user group would testify for their pet projects.
He said that the bill is ambiguous in that it doesn't say which
division in ADF&G will do the research - or a separate group. He
said that there was no stated goal for the research.
MR. PACE said if the other users groups feel this research is
needed, let them fund their fair share and not just a token $1
charge per license.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if he knew what the percentage of fish was
taken by commercial fishermen versus non-commercial. MR. PACE
replied that commercial fishing took a large percentage. CHAIRMAN
HALFORD said he thought it was over 90%. MR. PACE disagreed.
Number 179
MR. BRUCE KNOWLES, Wasilla fishing guide, said Alaska is one of the
most effective fish harvesting machines in the world. When you
couple this with Alaska's growth and expanded entry into the
consumptive user groups, much greater demand has been placed on our
salmon stocks. The Alaska Constitution directs that all salmon
stocks are managed for sustained yield. This is not happening in
many areas of Alaska and runs are dwindling in many areas, like the
Yetna River and Cottonwood Creek and Wasilla Creek. He said it's
not just an isolated area in the Cook Inlet.
MR. KNOWLES said that until we know the stream of origin, we cannot
make decisions and this bill gives us the ability to do that. He
said once the small streams start to disappear, the larger ones
start to disappear. He said the Attorney General's opinion in the
Carlson case said that the State is paying an average of $975 per
household to support commercial fishing in the State of Alaska.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if that was the case on resident versus non-
resident differential. He replied yes.
MR. LARRY ENGEL said he is a member of the Board of Fisheries and
would defer to others in the room. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked him if
he agreed in general with the testimony of the two Board members
who testified before him. MR. ENGEL said he supported their
comments.
MR. EUGENE SVETC said he thought the original SB 40 was a disguised
fish allocation bill. Reducing the budget on the ADF&G and then
reallocating the money by SB 40 is putting political pressure on
the ADF&G and the Board of Fisheries. He said to leave the
biologists and other trained personnel do their work. If money is
needed to support the various needs of fish management, let it be
collected fairly and from everyone involved in fishing. Fish
guides should be listed as commercial fishermen because they are
selling fish to tourists the same as commercial fishermen sell
them. They should be listed on a limited entry basis.
He concluded saying that commercial fishing is the major revenue
producer in the State and don't kill the goose that laid the golden
egg.
Number 50
MR. DON SHERWOOD, President, Alaska Boating Association, supported
SB 40. He said there are many good points in this bill, but he
knows some will have to be changed. His association supports
requiring the Board of Fisheries to annually identify salmon stocks
for which discrete stock assessment is needed. This offers the
Board the opportunity to have a say in what information the
Department will gather under this program which will help insure
the Board gets information it needs to address fisheries management
decisions.
Another plus is that this is paid for by users of the resource,
both sport and commercial fishermen.
MR. KENNETH SVETC, Anchorage, opposed CSSB 40(RES) because he
believes ADF&G should determine research projects and determine
their priorities. They should be funded by revenues that are
already generated from the commercial fishermen.
TAPE 97-28, SIDE A
Number 001
MR. SVETC said he opposed discrete stock research because he
thought it was a cover for an allocation issue.
MR. BUD HODSON, lodge owner, supported CSSB 40(RES) because the
additional data collection and stock assessment is greatly needed
to assist ADF&G and the Board of Fisheries in managing our
fisheries. For many years the Board has made management decisions
not founded on good, if any, science.
This bill allows the Board of Fisheries to identify how the term
will be used for the purpose of discrete stock assessment. He
encouraged them to look at the long term benefit from the
additional science and data in managing our fisheries, not how and
if stock assessment might affect allocative decisions. He said
this bill is good, although the funding mechanism can be debated.
SENATOR LEMAN asked what he thought of guide owners like himself
participating in the funding. MR. HODSON responded that he thought
the industry would be willing to pay its fair share as long as it
was equitable. SENATOR LEMAN asked what mechanism would do that
equitably. MR. HODSON replied that guide owners didn't have any
licensing, yet.
MR. RANDY BJORGAN supported CSSB 40(RES) saying it would enhance
our fish resource and would provide the defined mechanism for ADF&G
and the Board of Fisheries to work together in a successful
management plan. It also provides a viable payment source and also
thought that secondary and tertiary sources needed to be examined.
He thought the number of fish extracted from the resource would be
a good measure of what fees should be.
Number 113
MR. TOM NAMTREDT, Prince William Sound crabber and gillnet
fisherman and a former fisheries biologist, said he opposed CSSB
40(RES) because it appears to be just a modified version of an
earlier discrete stock management bill which was designed to reduce
the commercial catch and increase the sport catch under the guise
of protecting biodiversity. He also questioned whether the three
projects listed so far are technically feasible and worthwhile. He
has problems with the funding logic. He said mark and recapture
projects were employed in the Susitna River during the late 70s and
early 80s and in his opinion this method overestimated the spawning
population due to the fact that some tagged fish drifted downstream
after tagging and were devoured by belugas.
The Upper Cook Inlet genetic stock identification project appears
to be a business as usual project formerly funded by federal aid,
general fund, and the trustee council. This project may sort out
which fish are headed for the Kenai, Kasilof, Susitna, and maybe
Crescent Rivers, but he doubted that it would generate useful
information on any further defined stocks.
The third project, the genetic stock identification of indicator
stocks project, will in theory track two sockeye salmon stocks,
Upper Susitna and Russian River, to the marine environment. If the
individual stocks in the Upper Susitna have been small, a few
thousand fish, this is akin to looking for a needle in a haystack.
It is possible that a thousand samples from the entire commercial
fishery could be processed without finding one single fish from one
of these stocks. The proposed budget he saw was $50,000 which
would not fund much sampling and analysis. SB 40 mandates that an
additional $500,000 be collected from commercial fishermen, but he
didn't see any mention of sport fish guides in the bill other than
the dollar increase in sport licenses.
Discrete stock assessment will lead to discrete stock management
and from a practical standpoint there are only so many stocks that
can be managed. He thought that the Director of Commercial
Fisheries' definition of discrete stock to be drainage stocks needs
to be defined in law if this bill passes.
Number 187
MR. LEONARD HAIRE, said as a member of the user group for 20 years,
he knows the process isn't working. He supported CSSB 40(RES) and
hoped it would solve some of their problems.
MR. CLIFF SKILLINGS, Executive Director, Southeast Seiners, said
they do not support CSSB 40(RES) and one reason is because of the
funding structure. He said they thought it was the intention of
the majority to balance the budget by reducing spending and not
imposing new taxes. This bill is contradictory to those beliefs.
The commercial fishing industry is continually being taxed and can
make the statement that they pay their way. The additional taxes
they impose on his fleet in Southeast will pay for sport fish
studies in the southcentral and AYK areas. At a time when state
officials are looking for tax incentives to increase Alaska's
foothold in world markets and the legislature is vying for a
balanced budget without further taxation, he asked how can a bill
providing for additional industry tax even be contemplated.
MR. SKILLINGS asked if these studies are truly required, why was it
not an ADF&G budget item. He also noted SB 7 increases the fee
structure for out-of-state sport fishermen and lowers it for in-
state sport fishermen. Commercial fishermen in SB 40 have no such
tiered structure of taxes differentiating between in-state and out-
of-state commercial fishermen. Section 7 implies the commercial
fishermen will provide the majority of funding for these sport fish
projects, exonerating the in-state sport fishermen from funding
those projects.
MR. SKILLINGS concluded asking them not to forget the original
intent of this bill, the on-going allocation battle in the Cook
Inlet area. It is no different this year. They do not oppose the
use of ADF&G biological studies for our fisheries resource. He
said these studies help his area, particularly with the North
Pacific Salmon Treaty. They are opposed to legislation promoting
the use of political science funded by an industry that continues
to pay its way to resolve allocation issues.
Number 238
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if there was a difference in the in-state
and out-of-state cost for limited entry permit renewals. MR.
SKILLINGS replied that there is a difference, but there's no tiered
structure in this bill; it's a flat rate.
MR. DEAN PADDOCK, Bristol Bay Driftnetter's Association, supported
CSSB 40(RES. He said the issue is ignorance versus knowledge. He
said they have heard ADF&G plead ignorance many times. He said
there is a relationship between the numbers of spawners and the
subsequent return. To quantify any return, the manager must be
able to determine the catch within acceptable limits.
Limited Entry brought a problem where now there is a situation
where fishers in one area can harvest stock bound for another area
and the terminal fishermen are stuck with whatever remainder
reaches them. There has been much frustration in Bristol Bay by
the situation where interception has occurred outside of our
limited entry area and the ADF&G have not only refused to work
toward a solution, but have insisted on denying that a problem
might be occurring, upon occasion.
MR. PADDOCK said that the status quo is an allocation and in many
instances that kind of allocation isn't acceptable any longer. He
said he feels that most of our biologists have been doing a great
job, he feels in recent times some of our scientists have been more
adept at analyzing public opinion than they have in defining fish
stocks. Users have become very adept at lobbying their interests
before the Board and, incidentally, with the local area management
staffs.
MR. PADDOCK said it's not perfect, but he supports SB 40 because he
firmly believes it would restore a scientific rationale to many
critically important management decisions which have too often
fallen by the wayside of late.
Regarding the taxing in this bill, its criticism strikes a
sympathetic note with his libertarian tendencies because he regards
the management of public resources as one of the few legitimate
government functions and he believes the public should help pay.
He is also concerned by taxes because he agrees we are already more
than adequately taxed. He personally pays 11% off the top of his
gross. The figure for this bill quoted by the Limited Entry
Commission doesn't even make a blimp on his radar screen.
Number 358
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if he supports the mechanism for paying for
this bill. MR. PADDOCK replied that it isn't perfect, but the
figures sighted by the Limited Entry Commission are so
insignificant compared to the 11% he already pays, they don't
really distress him.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said there were a number of people on the
teleconference they wouldn't be able to get to and they would have
to adjourn at this point. He apologized and said the bill will
come back before them again. He then adjourned the meeting at 5:45
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|