Legislature(2009 - 2010)BUTROVICH 205
03/30/2009 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR13 | |
| HJR21 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SJR 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 30, 2009
3:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lesil McGuire, Co-Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Co-Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice Chair
Senator Hollis French
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Gary Stevens
Senator Thomas Wagoner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOULTION NO. 13
Urging the United States Senate to ratify the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Law of the Sea Treaty).
HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 21
Requesting the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to cease
consideration of an amendment package that would require a
Pacific cod endorsement for a license limitation program license
holder to participate in the Pacific cod fisheries in the Gulf
of Alaska.
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SJR 13
SHORT TITLE: URGING US TO RATIFY LAW OF THE SEA TREATY
SPONSOR(s): RESOURCES
03/13/09 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/13/09 (S) RES
03/27/09 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/27/09 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/30/09 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HJR 21
SHORT TITLE: GROUNDFISH FISHERIES LICENSES
SPONSOR(s): AUSTERMAN
02/27/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/27/09 (H) FSH, RES
03/10/09 (H) FSH AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
03/10/09 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/10/09 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/12/09 (H) FSH RPT 4DP 3NR
03/12/09 (H) DP: JOHNSON, MILLETT, KELLER, MUNOZ
03/12/09 (H) NR: KAWASAKI, BUCH, EDGMON
03/18/09 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/18/09 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/18/09 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/19/09 (H) RES RPT 6DP 3NR
03/19/09 (H) DP: OLSON, TUCK, SEATON, WILSON,
NEUMAN, JOHNSON
03/19/09 (H) NR: EDGMON, GUTTENBERG, KAWASAKI
03/23/09 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/23/09 (H) VERSION: HJR 21
03/25/09 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/25/09 (S) RES
03/30/09 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
ERIC LUND, Intern
to Senator Wielechowski
Alaska Capitol Building
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SJR 13 on behalf of the sponsor.
JAMES KRASKA, Professor of International Law
Naval War College
Newport, Rhode Island
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided supporting information related to
SJR 13 and the Law of the Sea Convention.
MEAD TREADWELL, Chair
U.S. Arctic Research Commission
Fairbanks, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided supporting information related to
SJR 13 and the Law of the Sea Convention.
JIM FLOYD, representing himself
Tok, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed the Law of the Sea treaty not SJR
13.
STEPHEN TAUFEN, member
Groundswell Fisheries Movement
Kodiak, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SJR 13 and supported HJR 21.
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 21
DON BREMNER
Central Council
Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Described HJR 21 is an opportunity to
influence control over Alaska seafood resources.
SHAWN DOCHTERMANN, commercial fishermen representing himself
Kodiak, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 21.
DJ VINBERG, commercial fishermen representing himself
Kodiak, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes HJR 21.
ALVIN BIRCH, Executive Director
Alaska Whitefish Trawlers Association
Kodiak, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated he has numerous concerns with HJR
21.
PETER ALLEN, commercial fisherman representing himself
Kodiak, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 21.
TONY GREGORIO, commercial fisherman representing himself
Chignik Lagoon, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 21.
FREDDIE CHRISTIANSEN, commercial fisherman representing himself
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 21.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:33:27 PM
CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE called the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 3:33 p.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Wagoner, Stedman, Stevens, Wielechowski and McGuire.
Senators French and Huggins arrived soon thereafter.
SJR 13-URGING US TO RATIFY LAW OF THE SEA TREATY
3:34:00 PM
CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE announced the consideration of SJR 13.
ERIC LUND, Intern to Senator Wielechowski, said that SJR 13
urges the U.S. Senate to ratify the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Seas. The Law of the Seas was established in 1982
to replace outdated laws governing oceans worldwide. This treaty
provides a legal framework to address ocean activities including
economic development, claim disputes, scientific research,
environmental protection, and defense.
The U.S. is the only Arctic nation that has yet to ratify this
treaty, which recognizes a country's right to a 12 nautical mile
territorial sea and a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone
(EEZ). Claims beyond the EEZ are allowed if a country is able to
prove that there is a seabed extension beyond the 200 mile zone.
Because the U.S. has not ratified the treaty, it cannot make any
such claim.
Recent studies suggest that the seabed off the Alaska coast
could be equivalent to the size of California and extend beyond
the 200-mile zone. The Arctic contains significant amounts of
oil and natural gas, which presents tremendous opportunity to
this state, he said. With recent Arctic melt there are new
routes open for maritime activities. Ratifying this treaty would
also help the U.S. defend jurisdiction over a portion of the
Beauford Sea that is currently in dispute with Canada.
Without ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention, the U.S.
is denied the opportunity to make claims and to participate in
future policy decisions.
MR. LUND, responding to a question from Senator Wagoner, said
that Mr. James Kraska, Navy professor of international law; Mead
Treadwell, Chair, Arctic Research Commission; and Buck Sharpton,
Vice Chancellor for Research, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
are online to answer questions.
3:38:02 PM
SENATOR FRENCH joined the committee.
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI said that when General Atkins gave a
presentation to the joint Armed Services Committee he
specifically mentioned the importance of ratifying this treaty.
He asked Mr. Lund if other high-rank members of the military
have voiced support for ratification.
MR. LUND answered yes and distributed a list to the committee.
SENATOR FRENCH recommended an article by Scott Borgerson, who is
a Visiting Fellow for Ocean Governance at the Council on Foreign
Relations, and noted that he makes many of the same points that
Mr. Lund just made. Given the apparent overwhelming support, he
asked who is opposed to ratification of the Law of the Sea
Convention.
3:40:17 PM
SENATOR HUGGINS joined the committee.
MR. LUND answered there are a lot of myths about the Law of the
Sea treaty one of which is that the U.S. would relinquish its
sovereign rights. This is not accurate. If the U.S. were to
ratify the treaty, it could participate in future policy
decisions.
3:42:00 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked for the rationale behind the U.S. Senate
opposition to ratification.
MR. LUND explained that his research found that some members
continue to believe it may threaten U.S. sovereign rights. One
argument is that it will impede military activities, but that
has been proven false. A number of high-rank military officials
say that current laws and treaties protect military practices
and it is a high priority to ratify the treaty.
In 1994 amendments were made to the seabed mining provisions to
address issues that were initially raised by President Reagan.
Now the U.S. has exclusive access to resources within the 200-
mile EEZ and if it ratifies the treaty it could expand that
zone. He clarified that right now the U.S. is in voluntary
compliance with the territorial sea and the 200-mile EEZ. But
that zone cannot be expanded because of non-member status.
3:44:39 PM
SENATOR WAGONER said he wonders who becomes subservient to whom
if the U.S. becomes a signatory. Would the U.S. be subservient
to the United Nations?
MR. LUND answered the treaty serves as a way for countries to
come together to negotiate their position. Since the 1994
amendments, the U.S. has been guaranteed a strong position on
the Council of the International Seabed Authority. Some believe
that signing would place the U.S. in an inferior position, but
that isn't the case. No country dominates but the U.S. would
have a strong position being on the International Seabed
Authority.
SENATOR WAGONER said he sometimes wonders about laying claim to
anything outside of the 200 mile limit. IT already costs a lot
to police out 200 miles.
MR. LUND said the U.S. is at risk of other countries violating
its laws because it isn't an official member. It also gives way
for other countries to make claims within U.S. jurisdiction.
3:48:13 PM
CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE asked Mr. Kraska to comment on why the U.S.
Senate hasn't ratified the treaty.
JAMES KRASKA, Professor of International Law, Naval War College,
said the treaty was opposed primarily because of part 11 on
seabed mining. The treaty is basically a bargain between
maritime and coastal states and the creeping jurisdiction that
some coastal states have pursued for 100 years. This is to close
off large areas of the ocean to the international community.
The Law of the Sea Convention was negotiated in 1970 with the
main provisions protecting all those navigational rights. That
is why the Department of Defense strongly supports it. He noted
that the letter he provided is signed by the chair and vice-
chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as all the service
chiefs.
The opposition to the treaty is to part 11 on seabed mining. The
Law of the Sea Convention sets up the International Seabed
Authority to regulate seabed mining beyond 200 nautical miles
from every country's coastline. Part 11 emerged "out of the '70s
socialist new international economic order and it was pushed by
the group of 77 developing countries at the time." The 1994
amendments eliminated all the major offensive provisions on
seabed mining. By that time the Berlin Wall had come down and
the seabed mining regime had adopted market-oriented principles.
3:51:59 PM
MR. KRASKA said that 1994 was also the year that Senator Helms
was the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He
generally disagreed to a large multi-lateral treaty that was
negotiated by the United Nations and he wouldn't bring it before
the committee. All the objections really demonstrated a lack of
understanding of the treaty and U.S. interests. This was
everything from the environment to fishing to oil and gas and
national security that are promoted by the Convention. After
Senator Helms stepped down, the treaty came before Senator Lugar
and was voted out of committee 19:0. Senator Frisk did not take
it to a full vote of the Senate because it was opposed by some
on the right. In 2007 another attempt was made and it was voted
out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 17:4. That was the
last action taken.
The Law of the Sea Convention is the most comprehensive treaty
in existence after the U.N. charter. Every major ocean interest
in the U.S. government and on the civilian side supports it, but
the opposition is generally related to a fear that the three
international organizations set up under the Convention will try
to assume too much power. Some of the fears are fanciful, he
said.
MR. KRASKA said that the treaty allows the U.S. to make an
extended continental shelf claim and assert sovereign rights and
jurisdiction over the seabed that is co-terminus with the
extended continental shelf. The U.S. would have exclusive rights
to all oil and gas and minerals in that extended area. All the
other areas throughout the seabed would be managed by the
International Seabed Authority. That Authority would charge a
levy in order that multinational corporations or conglomerates
could access seabed minerals and oil and gas. A major problem is
that some people believe that if you find something in the
middle of the ocean you should be able to keep it rather than
going through the International Seabed Authority.
SENATOR WAGONER asked what process Shell Oil would need to go
through if it wanted to drill 285 miles off the coast of Alaska
with or without the U.S. having signed the treaty.
MR. KRASKA replied Shell Oil effectively cannot do so if the
U.S. is not a party to the treaty because it would not have
security of legal tenure. Shell is a multinational country and
it could be sued in the courts of any of the 156 countries and
European Union that are a party to the Law of the Sea
Convention. If the U.S. were a party to the treaty, Shell Oil
could approach the International Seabed Authority with its
proposal. Some marginal fees are associated with claiming a
mining site. The ISA council, which has 36 members, distributes
those funds on a consensus basis. Because of a Convention
provision the U.S. would have a seat on the council and
effectively a permanent veto on how those development funds that
are extracted from the seabed mining fees or levies would be
distributed. Some say that the fees are nothing more than a U.N.
tax that U.S. corporations would be subject to and they don't
like it.
MR. KRASKA acknowledged that this approach to seabed mining
isn't perfect, but 156 countries and the EU have signed on and
the Law of the Sea Convention has already moved into the domain
of customary international law. In other words, it can be
binding even if the U.S. is not a party. In fact, U.S. courts
have viewed it as a binding set of legal regimes even though the
U.S. isn't a party. You'll certainly see that in foreign courts,
he said.
3:58:58 PM
MEAD TREADWELL, Chair, U.S. Arctic Research Commission, said the
Commission has seven members appointed by the President to work
with federal research agencies, the State of Alaska, and other
nations on its $400 million per year Arctic research program. He
said the timing here is interesting. This treaty has come into
force, people are beginning to carve up the extended continental
shelf of the Arctic Ocean, and there is a greater perception
that the Arctic Ocean is an accessible ocean. It was for that
reason that the commission went to the White House two years ago
to ask for a review of U.S. Arctic policy. Bedrock to that new
policy is the need for the U.S. to ratify the Law of the Sea
Convention. If it isn't a member the U.S. is not at the table as
the Arctic Ocean is carved up. If it is a member, the U.S. would
have the opportunity claim land in the extended OCS equivalent
to twice the size of California.
MR. TREADWELL pointed out that the U.S. has unresolved boundary
issues with Canada in the Bering Strait. If the U.S. were
signatory to the Convention it would have the capability to
manage the living resources offshore outside the 200-mile limit
and it would give the U.S. rights to the economic resources on
the ocean floor in the extended OCS. Article 234 of the Law of
the Sea allows the extension of certain environmental
regulations into the EEZ in traditional ice-covered waters. This
may be important to the U.S. in protecting against "rust bucket
ships" that might traverse the newly accessible ocean without
concern for oil spills, he said.
The Commission doesn't normally take a position on legislation
like this, he said, but this has been a driver for Arctic
research and would add significant Arctic resources to the U.S.
The supporting letter that Governor Palin submitted helped the
Alaska congressional delegation mitigate objections to the Law
of the Sea. The Commission is also cosponsoring a conference on
the issue in Seward in mid-May. The Center of Law and Oceans
Policy will bring world experts in to focus on the value of the
Law of the Sea in the Arctic. Without being at the table some of
the minor problems that the U.S. has with the Law of the Sea
can't be fixed. He hopes the resolution passes.
4:04:14 PM
SENATOR WAGONER asked if they can see a "poison pill" on either
side of the issue at this time.
MR. TREADWELL answered no. This will be the largest addition to
U.S. territory since the Louisiana Purchase, and it gives the
U.S. the power to regulate offshore resources instead of
allowing somebody else to do so.
MR. KRASKA agreed. The Law of the Sea has a mandatory dispute
resolution process that includes an international tribunal and
arbitration. Because international tribunals don't necessarily
favor the U.S. some people have expressed concern that other
countries could attempt to regulate U.S. naval activity off
their coast in the EEZ. That zone is open for high seas freedoms
and over flights by foreign military and as a global naval power
the U.S. is dependent upon those rights. He noted the recent
incident off the coast of China over this very issue. Some fear
that a country like China would take the U.S. to one of these
tribunals and the U.S. would lose because of an interpretation
within the Law of the Sea Convention that the U.S didn't concur
with. But if an international tribunal overstepped its bounds,
the U.S. simply wouldn't recognize the jurisdiction. Military
vessels and aircraft have sovereign immune status so a tribunal
would not be entitled to assert jurisdiction over U.S. military
activities. That is one of the claims that really is not a
problem, he said.
MR. TREADWELL highlighted that in his last job Mr. Kraska helped
the military sort through issues of missile defense as it
relates to the Law of the Sea. His work resulted in the joint
chiefs giving this treaty a clean bill of health.
MR. KRASKA said it's correct that the senior Pentagon leadership
has been briefed and every chief of naval operations since 1994
has supported the Convention. It's understood that global
mobility, maneuverability and access beyond 12 nautical miles as
well as the ability to transit through international straits are
guaranteed in the Law of the Sea Convention. Regardless of what
critics say, the U.S. has more authority and expends fewer
resources when it operates under color of law.
4:09:25 PM
MR. KRASKA pointed out that the U.S. has disagreements with
friendly countries like Australia and Canada so it's in its best
interest that this treaty ensures a liberal regime of freedom of
navigation for commercial vessels and military forces. If this
treaty was negotiated today, there likely wouldn't be the same
generous provisions for transiting throughout the world. When
the treaty first came about in 1982 all the major maritime
powers supported those navigational provisions, which means that
at the height of the Cold War both the U.S. and the Soviet Union
were in complete agreement on this. The Soviet Union realized it
was zone-locked and needed navigational freedom perhaps more
than the U.S. did. It was really the U.S., Soviet Union, France,
U.K., and Japan that worked on ensuring navigational freedom
throughout the globe. It's in the treaty. It's unlikely that the
U.S. and Russia today would have as much coastal influence as
they did back in 1982.
JIM FLOYD, representing himself, Tok, said he opposes the treaty
not the resolution. His perspective is that the only people who
don't know about this treaty are the average citizens. He
encouraged the committee to investigate some of the legal
arguments against the treaty because it has a lot of holes. His
understanding is that it would subjugate the U.S. Constitution
to international control.
4:14:43 PM
STEPHEN TAUFEN, Groundswell Fisheries Movement, Kodiak, said he
generally supports U.S. ratification of the Law of the Sea
Convention, but it's important to recognize that it was
established when world trade was conducted differently. It does
not recognize new knowledge in the conduct of trade in an era of
globalized casino-like economics that quickly devolve in times
of financial crisis. He suggested that the U.S. needs to heed
the National Intelligence Council's 2025 report regarding
strategic national resource protections. He asked committee
members to read his written submission that focuses on fisheries
and the international trade aspects of the treaty.
4:18:48 PM
SENATOR HUGGINS commented that he supports international
cooperation, but it's important that U.S. soldiers are not under
U.N. command. He isn't saying that the U.S. shouldn't be a party
but he wants to understand what it is that the U.S. might be
giving up if it signs the treaty.
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI said that is why he is particularly
heartened by the June 26 letter from the vice chair and every
member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President George W.
Bush. They said that becoming a party to the Convention will
ensure the U.S. leadership role in the continuing development of
oceans law and policy. They also stated that the Convention
furthers the U.S. national security strategy, strengthens the
coalition, and supports the President's Proliferation Security
Initiative. He has a high degree of confidence that the U.S.
military wouldn't urge signing a treaty that would threaten the
troops or U.S. sovereignty.
4:25:25 PM
O-CHAIR MCGUIRE announced that she would hold SJR 13 in
committee.
HJR 21-GROUNDFISH FISHERIES LICENSES
4:25:34 PM
CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE announced HJR 21 to be up for consideration.
4:26:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor
of HJR 21, said the resolution is a message to the North Pacific
Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC). [The NPFMC oversees the
management of federal fisheries beyond the three-mile limit] and
it has a history of either giving away fishery resources to
individual fishermen or restricting access. The halibut
Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQ) is one such example. As a result
of quota prices, a young upstart halibut fisherman today would
need to invest up to $1 million to enter that fishery.
The NPFMC was moving the Gulf of Alaska [Pacific] cod fishery in
the same direction until 2006 when the governor asked it not to
rationalize that fishery. To its credit, the NPFMC changed
course and established a limited license program for groundfish
in the Gulf of Alaska. About 800 permits were issued based on
catch history from the 1990s with the primary catch being
[Pacific] cod. Currently about 65 percent of the licenses are
latent and haven't been used for some time.
After 2006 the NPFMC looked at catch histories in a specific
range of recent years for the purpose of placing a cod
endorsement on the LLP license. Without this endorsement an LLP
license would be functionally useless. This works to the
advantage of those who receive an endorsement and creates yet
another barrier for young people to enter the industry.
HJR 21 simply asks the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
not to reduce reasonable access to this fishery. Don't place a
cod endorsement on these licenses and make 500 some latent LLP
licenses non-usable. Part of the goal of the resolution is to
raise awareness on some of the options that the NPFMC may not be
looking at. This includes looking at how to control the growth
in fisheries so the need to rationalize doesn't arise. There are
ways to do that, but the NPFMC is only looking at reducing
access so that just "X" number of boats will fish in that
fishery.
4:33:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said that when he worked for the former
governor on fishery issues it was an eye-opener to learn that
the administration, through the commissioner of the Department
of Fish and Game, and the five Board of Fisheries appointees
make policy calls in federal fisheries that directly affect
Alaskans and put them out of work. The Crab Rationalization
Program is a prime example. Over 1,000 jobs were lost; about
half were lost by Alaskans and the other half were by people
from the West Coast that came to Alaska to fish. Clearly, the
Alaska Legislature should be involved in the policy issues that
affect Alaskans so greatly.
4:37:05 PM
DON BREMNER, Central Council Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of
Alaska (CCTHITA), said HJR 21 is an opportunity to influence
control over the Alaska seafood resources. CCTHITA has actively
opposed steps by the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council
toward rationalization, but has had limited success. When the
Magnuson-Stevens Act passed in 1976 it was designed for the
average Alaska fisherman. Rationalization came as a result of
large open ocean fishermen lobbying their interests at the
expense of inshore fisheries and communities. HJR 21 is a good
idea, it helps the little guy.
4:40:55 PM
SHAWN DOCHTERMANN said he is a second generation Kodiak
commercial fishermen who supports HJR 21. He is opposed to
eliminating LLP licenses and implementation of Pacific cod
endorsements. The NPFMC should stick with the status quo for
Gulf of Alaska groundfish management. He noted that a council
member recently told him the endorsements will go through
regardless and said he has a hard time understanding why the
council doesn't listen to the stakeholders. Over 17 Native
villages or organizations support the resolution.
MR. DOCHTERMANN said the purpose and need statement for the
amendments is flawed. There is no increased market value, there
is nothing wrong with competition, and this will not insure that
active fisherman will be able to participate in these fisheries.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act was brought forward for habitat
protection and sustainability of resources yet the amendments
don't mention that. It's for economic allocation, which violates
a standard in the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996.
Removing the latent licenses from groundfish permit holders will
leave state waters as the dumping ground for new entrants. Why
shouldn't federal waters have a place for active new entry
fishermen to transition to all fisheries? Fishing rights need to
remain with those who go out on boats. Removing the LLPs from
fixed gear fishermen will take rights from active and future
fishermen and give exclusive rights to an investor-only faction
that does not fish.
4:45:03 PM
DJ VINBERG said he is a third generation Kodiak fisherman and he
opposes HJR 21. Morally he agrees with the concept of open
fishing, but without restriction the cod fishery is becoming a
derby not unlike halibut fishing of the past. The cod season
used to last 3-4 months and this year it lasted just 26 days.
This year 30 more boats participated than two years ago. Most
disturbing were the boats that came that have crab IFQs. They
are free to participate in any open fishery at no risk to their
already banked crab money. In an open fishing environment these
highly competitive fishermen will receive a bonus season at his
expense. If unchecked the cod fishery will become over-
capitalized.
There should be more restrictions on access to the gulf cod
fishery including some qualifying years. The more than 800 LLP
licenses in the gulf do nothing to protect people like him who
live in Kodiak and are committed to the fishery. His options are
limited; he is too small to fish cod out west and his business
is jeopardized if his piece of the "cod pie" continues to
shrink. While he doesn't favor further privatizations or IFQs,
he believes that limiting the number of permits is a good
starting tool.
The Legislature should be concerned about Alaska fisheries and
knowledgeable about the situation, but it should respect those
whose sole responsibility it is to make fisheries management
decisions.
4:48:41 PM
ALVIN BIRCH, Executive Director, Alaska Whitefish Trawlers
Association, said he submitted written testimony. He is well
familiar with fisheries management issues and his concerns with
HJR 21 are numerous. In particular he is concerned about the
precedent it sets for the Legislature to make a quick decision
about a fisheries issue that is going through the long and very
public NPFMC process. The stated purpose of the resolution is
far from accurate and is an example of why it is so very
important to have a long decision-making process for fishery
issues. That way all sides and opinions can be weighed against
scientific data. Without scientific data, all fisheries are at
risk. The recent NPFMC amendment package is the result of a long
public process, scientific input, and months of deliberation.
New entrants are allowed into the fisheries and those with a
long history of fishing cod are protected.
4:51:44 PM
PETER ALLEN, representing himself, said he is a fisherman in
Kodiak who has been fishing a small boat for over 25 years. This
has been possible because he's been flexible to adapt as fish
stocks and markets rise and fall. Small boat fishermen need this
flexibility. Currently he has an inactive LP, an inactive salmon
seine permit, an inactive herring gillnet permit, and an
inactive crab permit. All these permits make up his fishing
business. If the federal government takes away his cod fishing
rights and the state takes away other rights he'll be out of
business. This resolution tells the council what a lot of people
feel and it's right on, he said.
4:53:43 PM
TONY GREGORIO, representing himself, Chignik Lagoon, said he has
fished since 1959 and when people talk about rationalization he
thinks back to the time when Del Monte owned all the boats in
Chignik and told the skippers how many fish they could catch
every day. "That's where we're going back to," he said. In the
'50s villages like Squaw Harbor, Unga, and Chignik Lagoon had
private salteries but when the cod fishing died out they went to
somewhere else. Now those villages are gone. He applauds
Representative Austerman for bring this to the Legislature
because "trying to deal with the North Pacific [Fisheries
Management Council] is like trying to tell your wife not to go
shopping anymore."
4:56:02 PM
FREDDIE CHRISTIANSEN, representing himself, Anchorage, said he
was born and raised on Kodiak Island. He has fished his entire
life and believes there comes a time when the state needs to
stand up and say, "Enough is enough." These communities aren't
asking for a handout; they're asking that their needs are
considered when fish are rationalized, he said. When he grew up
his family and others fished many different fisheries and now
participation is very limited. He noted that the new chief of
NOAH recently stated that she knows that what Americans want
from the ocean is clean beaches, safe and healthy seafood,
abundant wildlife, and stable fisheries. This means vibrant
coastal communities for us, our kids, and our grandkids, he
said. He thanked Representative Austerman for bringing the
resolution forward.
4:58:30 PM
STEPHEN TAUFEN, Groundswell Fisheries Movement, Kodiak, said he
agrees with earlier testimony that the purposes and needs that
the NPFMC is basing its action on are inaccurate. The argument
for the cod endorsement eschews efficiencies and makes it clear
that this council "is nothing but hell-bent on
privatizations…even when things become disconnected from
reality." For a lot of reasons the Legislature should be
involved in the council's action. Number one is to ensure that
their problem and purpose and need statements are accurate and
sensible before there is a regulatory review. Also, the state
needs to have a deputy attorney general ensure that coastal
communities, small business people, and other stakeholders are
represented and protected. He applauded Representative
Austerman's efforts.
CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE closed public testimony and held HJR 21 in
committee.
5:01:10 PM
There being nothing further to come before the committee, Co-
Chair Wielechowski adjourned the Senate Resources Standing
Committee at 5:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SJR 13 - Bill Packet.pdf |
SRES 3/30/2009 3:30:00 PM |
|
| SJR 21 - Bill Packet.pdf |
SRES 3/30/2009 3:30:00 PM |