Legislature(2015 - 2016)BUTROVICH 205
04/01/2015 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB68 | |
| SB42 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 68 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 42 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 1, 2015
3:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel, Chair
Senator Mia Costello, Vice Chair
Senator John Coghill
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Bill Stoltze
Senator Bill Wielechowski
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 68
"An Act relating to resident big game tags; relating to the
authority of the Board of Game and of advisory committees of the
Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game to effect emergency
closures during established seasons; relating to antlerless
moose seasons; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 42
"An Act providing priority to personal use fisheries when
fishing restrictions are implemented to achieve a management
goal."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 68
SHORT TITLE: ANTLERLESS MOOSE SEASONS; CLOSURES
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) GIESSEL
03/06/15 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/06/15 (S) RES
03/25/15 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/25/15 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/01/15 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 42
SHORT TITLE: PERSONAL USE FISHING PRIORITY
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) STOLTZE
02/04/15 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/04/15 (S) STA, RES
03/10/15 (S) STA AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/10/15 (S) Heard & Held
03/10/15 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/17/15 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/17/15 (S) Moved SB 42 Out of Committee
03/17/15 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/18/15 (S) STA RPT 4DP
03/18/15 (S) DP: STOLTZE, COGHILL, HUGGINS,
WIELECHOWSKI
04/01/15 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
VIVIAN STIVER, staff to Senator Giessel
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 68 for the sponsor.
MIKE TINKER
Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association
Ester, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 68.
AL BARRETTE, representing himself
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 68.
DOUG VINCENT LANG, representing himself
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 68.
STEVE VANEK, representing himself
Ninilchik, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 68.
SENATOR BILL STOLTZE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 42.
STEVE VANEK, representing himself
Ninilchik, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 42.
DAVID HILLSTRAND, representing himself
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 42.
CLAY BEZENEK, representing himself
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 42.
ALEXIS COOPER, Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU)
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 42.
GRANT KLOTZ, representing himself
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 42.
BRIAN MERRITT, representing himself
Wrangell, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 42.
BOB LINVILLE, representing himself
Seward, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 42.
CHUCK DERRICK, President
Chitina Dipnetters Association
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 42.
RICHARD DAVIS, Seafood Producer's Cooperative (SPC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 42.
JOHN MCCOMBS, representing himself
Ninilchik, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 42.
GARLAND BLANCHARD, representing himself
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 42.
MARTIN WEISER, Chief Development Officer
Copper River Seafoods
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 42.
MALCOLM VANCE, representing himself
McCarthy, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 42.
GARY STEVENS
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
Chugiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Strongly supported SB 42.
AL BARRETTE, representing himself
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 42.
JULIANNE CURRY, Executive Director
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 42.
BRENT JOHNSON, representing himself
Clam Gulch, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 42.
WES HUMBYRD, representing himself
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 42.
RICHARD BISHOP, representing himself
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 42.
MIKE MICKELSON, representing himself
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 42.
ARNI THOMSON, Executive Director
Alaska Salmon Alliance
Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage Seafood Processors
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 42.
JERRY MCCUNE, representing himself
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 42.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:30:16 PM
CHAIR CATHY GIESSEL called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Stedman, Costello, Stoltze and Chair
Giessel.
SB 68-ANTLERLESS MOOSE SEASONS; CLOSURES
3:30:52 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced the consideration of SB 68 saying she
intends that this is a conversation-starter on creating a
working document.
VIVIAN STIVER, staff to Senator Giessel, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, explained that SB 68 came about to
start a statewide conversation on the responsibilities of the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), the Board of Game
and the local advisory councils (AC) for antlerless moose hunts.
A meeting was held in Fairbanks in December 2013 regarding cow
hunts, because it had become very controversial in that area.
She explained that antlerless hunts are for cows, yearlings and
bulls that don't have antlers, and there have been ongoing
concerns about the use of antlerless hunts, the philosophy and
the science behind this management tool. Antlerless hunts
benefit Alaskans by enhancing public safety and they also allow
Alaskans to put moose meat on their tables.
3:32:53 PM
SENATOR COGHILL joined the committee.
3:33:30 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee.
MS. STIVER explained that currently when one applies for an
antlerless moose hunt, the hunt can be cancelled after
applications have been taken and fees received. This bill
prohibits the closure of an antlerless moose hunt by a local
advisory council (AC) once the applications and fees have been
accepted, but it would still allow for the commissioner or his
designee to close that hunt for an emergency. She said it is
only a $5 fee to apply for this drawing, but people still are
disenfranchised when a hunt is closed. So, the bill addresses
that while still allowing for the very important ability to
close it for an emergency.
SB 68 also removes the yearly requirement by local advisory
committees and the Board of Game for proof of the antlerless
moose hunts and the approval of yearly elimination of the
resident brown bear tag fee. These approvals were changed to
from annually to every three years at a Board of Game meeting.
SB 68 retains the right of local advisory committees to approve
these hunts but limits this approval to regularly scheduled
board meetings occurring every three years.
3:34:30 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN asked if language on page 3, lines 4-5, means
the season or area may not be closed until the next regular
scheduled Board of Game meeting.
3:34:51 PM
MS. STIVER answered that it means that once the area has been
opened and the applications have been sold for it, it cannot be
closed by the AC until the regular season of the following year.
She checked with the department to see if that biology is
prudent and found that leaving an area open for one year should
not have a big negative impact on an intensive management tool.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked her to elaborate more on the timing.
MS. STIVER answered that ACs will approve a hunt after the first
of the year, but a person can apply for these hunts from
November to December 15. But then the hunt can be cancelled. SB
68 says once the opportunity has been sold, an AC may close the
hunt but not until the following year. That means the following
November/December applications will not be collected and the
hunt will not occur in that unit or subunit.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if a regularly scheduled meeting for that
region would be within the next year.
MS. STIVER replied that the bill proposes having these meetings
with the Board of Game cycle at three-year intervals. So, they
would approve hunts on a three-year basis.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for examples of times when an AC had
closed an antlerless moose hunt and the reasons for it.
MS. STIVER said she couldn't give him an example, but folks on-
line could answer that question.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked what problem SB 68 is trying to fix.
MS. STIVER answered that the first part of the sponsor statement
talks about philosophy, especially about killing cows, but it is
one of the options under intensive management to keep the
biology at the best it can be.
3:38:33 PM
MIKE TINKER, Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association, Ester,
Alaska, said the Interior had been involved in these issues for
a long time, and provided a brief history of changes to AS
16.05.780, the one title that prohibits taking of antlerless
moose. He said antlerless moose are only hunted by residents,
only hunted for meat, are used in most of Alaska's youth hunts
and are subject to either registration or drawing permits.
MR. TINKER explained said if the Board of Game changed to
authorizing antlerless moose hunts in cycle (every three years)
rather than annually, both time and energy would be saved.
Changing "chairmen" of the advisory committees to "chair" in AS
05.260 is not a problem, but additional language that was added
during drafting can change the intent of making things easier
for the board. New subsection (c) about fees is a totally
separate issue. If the legislature wants to take up the issue of
what happens to permits and/or permit fees when hunts are
cancelled, the field is much larger than for just antlerless
moose hunts. Such language should be considered elsewhere so
that it would encompass all permit hunts.
3:41:12 PM
MR. TINKER said the sponsor statement indicates that there are
always concerns around antlerless hunts not being good for
overall health of moose populations as evidenced by 1970 trials
on antlerless hunts. Those examples begot AS 16.05.780 in the
first place, and they made the local ACs key in the process of
antlerless moose hunting.
As Senator Giessel pointed out, he said there are multiple
benefits to Alaskan resident hunters when antlerless moose hunts
are planned and carried out successfully. Most important to the
big picture of healthy moose populations is use of this tool to
help balance the composition of the moose herd and bring the
total population for a unit or subunit down to the objective
population. Those population objectives are set by the board.
Antlerless moose hunts can be for a small number of moose like
nuisance moose or a large number because habitat can't provide
sufficient nutrition (an example that started the larger hunts
in Unit 20(a) in the Fairbanks area). The population objectives
set in regulation take all those things into consideration.
After a decade or more of careful management, Mr. Tinker said,
antlerless moose hunts are still not popular in some areas, and
the ACs work through some very contentious meetings to make the
recommendations and decisions that are needed.
3:43:15 PM
As an AC member, Mr. Tinker reviewed how the authorizing process
works. The department, through its regional staff, makes an
annual population and composition (number and percentage of
various sects and age classes) estimate. In intensive management
units, the biologists determine that the population is within
the objective range. They bring that information to the affected
ACs for discussion. If the analysis shows that the population is
above the objective and that the annual recruitment (number of
calves added to the population) is affecting the trend upward,
the department may recommend hunting some antlerless moose. He
explained that not all antlerless moose are females; late fall
and winter hunts include bulls that have shed their antlers
under the definition of "legally antlerless."
MR. TINKER said that commonly the department and ACs agree on
where and how many antlerless permits can be given. There is
often a huge amount of public participation in this decision.
The ACs then vote to approve the antlerless component of next
years' hunt in some form, and if they vote to approve, the ACs
and the department bring the proposal the hunt to the board for
final approval. This procedure keeps local hunters in the loop.
This annual review between the department and ACs will somewhat
continue no matter what is done to AS 16.05.780, and that is
because the same information is needed to inform the public on
what to expect in the next season. Even in uncomplicated hunting
situations, the public wants to know about the potential for
season changes, number of all kinds of moose permits, and other
changes to the annual hunt.
3:45:29 PM
ACs should never be taken out of the delegation to be able to
make emergency closures, Mr. Tinker stated. Draft language in AS
68.05.260 to exempt that authority is ill advised in his opinion
and totally unnecessary. The public needs to be kept as closely
involved in these decisions as possible.
MR. TINKER also said that the zero fiscal note from the
administration for SB 68 wasn't considered in enough detail. He
used the February 13-20 Wasilla Board of Game meeting as an
example of taking up these out of cycle antlerless
reauthorizations. The meeting was for Central and Southwest
Regions that has two reauthorizations; then there were five from
other regions not on the agenda. Those five required staff
support, travel, per diem, and at least a full day of the
board's time. (Board members are paid a stipend equal to a Range
20 state pay grade.) The ACs stayed longer than usual or came
extra to support the decisions. At just that one meeting, maybe
more than $15,000 was spent. That money could have been used for
AC communications or even an extra meeting, as some ACs only get
to meet once a year to go over hundreds of proposals.
MR. TINKER advocated for changing only the board's requirement
to take up the reauthorizations annually and leave the
department and AC functions alone.
He said last minute closures after the application process are
always based on biological considerations. The most common one
is that the moose census information is not available until
after the application period. Therefore, recommendations are
made to the board with the idea that the department will fill in
some number of permits when that information is needed. The
legislature should keep in mind accommodations for that late
information, seasonal weather affects and other issues - easy
access because of early freeze up, for example - and not limit
the ACs on when they can discuss the emergency concepts with the
department. The Board of Game doesn't need to get involved in
the emergency process, but it would be nice to keep the public
and department in the various regions talking about it.
3:48:53 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the department uses credible population
count methodology for counting moose.
MR. TINKER answered that the department uses several methods to
estimate the population of moose. The Interior commonly uses
areas that are divided into "UCU" units, which may only have 10
square miles in them, but other areas are much larger. A certain
percentage of the area is counted every year and is analyzed
based on consideration of how many units would be similar to
those counted. That data is compiled into a population estimate
and the probability of that estimate is very similar to the
calculus of how many units are counted. For example, if there
are 200 units and 30 get counted, that is a lower probability
estimate. If 110 units get counted, that is a high probability
estimate, and the population objective given to the ACs as a
range will always reflect that.
He explained that other methods are not as accurate as the area
by area counting and the probability range is bigger. So,
instead of having a range of 2,000 moose, there might be 5,000.
That can be a big consideration in composition counting of
bulls, cows and yearlings, because the numbers aren't exact. In
contrast, the department uses a "hotspot" counting method (GMU
13) where it counts the same few areas every year. As long as
the moose don't move around a lot, that is probably good enough,
but if the moose population starts expanding out or contracting
in, the probability range would be down.
SENATOR COGHILL commented that he learned that an early freeze
impacts access to certain populations so that count can be
dropped significantly.
3:52:53 PM
AL BARRETTE, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska, said the
original problem was going from an annual reauthorization to a
three-year cycle (every region meets every three years). So,
instead of having to go through 18 reauthorizations of
antlerless moose annually, it would be more feasible to do it on
a regional basis on their scheduled three-year cycles.
He liked the bill, but the question was raised about conflicting
language on page 3, lines 2-5, that says an area may not be
closed until a regular scheduled meeting. What if something
happens with the population before the next meeting? The
commissioner can already close it by emergency order (EO). So,
there would be competing statutes.
3:55:39 PM
Also, language in sections 7-12 on page 3 appears to be taking
away the AC's jurisdiction to use EO authority. Language on page
2, line 6, should say the commissioner "may" delegate authority
to ACs for emergency closures instead of "shall." That would
match current Advisory Committee emergency closure regulation in
5 AAC 97.110. He added that no EOs have been initiated by ACs to
date.
3:57:01 PM
MR. BARRETTE said he didn't disagree with the tag fees in the
bill, but felt a clarification was needed. For example, this
year there were stranded musk ox on free floating ice on Nunivak
Island, and language on page 2, line 18, is written to say that
a musk ox floating on ice tag costs $500. However, the Board of
Game currently may, by regulation, reduce or eliminate the
resident big game tag fee for musk ox for all or a portion of a
game management unit. In his example of Nunivak Island one hunt
can be registered for and the fee has been reduced to $25, but
then a drawing hunting costs the winners $500. His point is that
Nunivak Island is a portion of Unit 18, yet there are two
different regimes for tag fees, and the statute doesn't seem to
justify the board being able to do that.
3:58:39 PM
DOUG VINCENT LANG, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska,
supported SB 68. He said he was a former director of the
Division of Wildlife Conservation within the ADF&G, but today he
is testifying as a private citizen. He recognized that
antlerless moose hunts have been controversial for many years.
The controversies center on whether hunters should be allowed to
harvest cow moose. Some believe philosophically that doing that
is wrong, while others believe it is biologically flawed,
because it removes the breeding stock. But many other hunters
believe that these hunts provide important hunting opportunities
for the surplus moose to be had.
Biologists believe the tool is necessary to ensure that moose
populations are properly managed for sustained yield and without
it preventing populations from exceeding their carrying capacity
is very difficult. If the carrying capacity is exceeded the
entire moose population can crash. In those cases, the very
moose you are trying to protect by not allowing cow moose hunts
are being sacrificed due to starvation.
MR. LANG said it may also be necessary to manage moose for
public safety or social concerns in many urban areas such as
Anchorage, and wildlife managers do allow female harvest in many
hunts across the state. To address public concerns regarding
these hunts, the Alaska legislature passed a law that allowed
local ACs to effectively veto them annually. While this sounds
good on the surface, it has created problems. Local ACs have
closed antlerless hunts after they have been approved by the BOG
and scheduled by the ADF&G. This has resulted in these hunts
being noticed in the annual drawing hunt pamphlet and hunters
putting in for them. If they are fortunate enough to be drawn,
they are often kicked out of other hunts because of the permit
limits. If these hunts are later canceled, the hunters cannot be
compensated for their loss as it is impossible for the
department to redraw. This is unfair to the hunters who are
often unaware that the approved hunts can be canceled up to
weeks before the hunts occur or the impact a canceled hunt can
have on their other moose hunt opportunities.
He said this bill aims to find a better compromise between
assuring local ACs have a voice in these hunts while minimizing
the impact to hunters. It allows a majority of local ACs to veto
these hunts at regularly scheduled board meetings for the area,
but prevents them from deleting them in other years. This
preserves their input, but lessens the impact vetoes can have on
unsuspecting hunters putting in for drawing permits. This
occurred this past year when a majority of local ACs failed to
provide the proposed antlerless moose hunts in Kincaid Park in
Anchorage. This veto resulted in the board not being able to
consider this proposal. However, if they had approved the
proposals, the ACs would have been prohibited under this
legislation from vetoing those hunts over the next three years
until the next regularly scheduled board meeting.
4:02:30 PM
Finally, he mentioned a graph that shows how one cow moose can
produce hundreds of moose, and while this is theoretically
possible, it's not realistic. These moose can only reproduce
when conditions are ideal including habitat. If moose exceed
their carrying capacity, the population can crash, killing the
very cows they try to save, through starvation. He supports
putting these moose in peoples' freezers rather than having them
die through starvation.
4:03:28 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL thanked him for speaking to the committee and
opened public testimony.
STEVE VANEK, representing himself, Ninilchik, Alaska, said he
had been a secretary of the Central Peninsula Advisory Committee
in Ninilchik for 40 years. He supported SB 68, except he thought
the ACs should be involved annually to be able to close a cow
season and closures can only pertain to the next season. If
people already have their permits, they should be allowed to
hunt, he said.
4:04:47 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE joined the committee.
CHAIR GIESSEL, finding no further comments, left public
testimony open and held SB 68 in committee.
SB 42-PERSONAL USE FISHING PRIORITY
4:05:36 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced consideration of SB 42.
SENATOR BILL STOLTZE, sponsor of SB 42, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said this measure has been called
the Alaskans First Fisheries Act and it has been muted by the
legislative process since 1999. He explained that there are two
fisheries within Alaska that are for Alaska resident only:
subsistence and personal use (PU). It is surprising how many
people say personal use fisheries are an important part of
Alaskans' food security, but SB 42 simply says in times of
shortage, the Board of Fisheries can set a priority for average
citizens that is reflected in the Alaska Constitution.
He is excited that the ADF&G commissioner has a neutral position
on SB 42, because if it was a bad bill, he would oppose it.
Senator Stoltze said this only affects a small percentage of
fish that are commonly owned by all Alaskans. It would not trump
Pacific salmon treaties or Canadian agreements, and the board
itself is trumped by other higher authorities within the
department and international treaties all the way up to the
federal government.
SENATOR STOLTZE said this is not just about salmon; there are
about 80 PU fisheries in the state, but the bulk of the
contention has been in the Kasilof and Kenai Rivers. Some argue
that people can buy their salmon at the store, but catching
one's own salmon what an Alaskan values.
4:12:28 PM
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) mentioned excessive use by some
Alaskan families and it has been suggested to limit them to 10
per year, but that is not enough to share with family and
friends, which is another Alaskan value.
4:13:52 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL noted the many emails the committee had received
on this issue and opened public testimony.
4:14:36 PM
STEVE VANEK, representing himself, Ninilchik, Alaska, opposed SB
42. It is an innocent idea with unintended bad consequences.
Like the book and movie called "Bridge Over the River Kwai,"
this is a situation in which a short term goal disguises a much
larger long term evil. This bill has many long term consequences
that affect ADF&G management, many that affect the board of
Fisheries process and private businesses.
4:16:47 PM
DAVID HILLSTRAND, representing himself, Homer, Alaska, opposed
SB 42. He is a commercial fisherman in Upper Cook Inlet and is
against personal use fisheries over commercial fishing. He
supports personal use in rural areas that are defined by the
federal government as subsistence areas. He explained that
because of Alaska's continued population growth, especially
since 1972 and Limited Entry, an allocation issue has arisen.
Some people have applied the constitution's "common use" concept
to all 700,000 residents receiving six fish a piece from the
Kenai River. But in his view, limited entry is the way for the
public to participate in common use; just like the oil, timber
and mining industries have a chance to lease land. Once limited
entry was created, participation was limited to a certain number
of people and the way the public can participate in harvesting
fish is by purchasing a limited entry permit. Courts have ruled
against compensating fishermen for the limited entry process.
4:19:31 PM
CLAY BEZENEK, representing himself, Ketchikan, Alaska, opposed
SB 42. He is a coastal guy who survives on salmon and doesn't
have the benefit of any other income in his community. If they
are going to reallocate the resource, it should be reallocated
in a way that benefits someone whose life isn't on the line
because of it. "It's a cavalier regard for coastal economies."
4:23:17 PM
ALEXIS COOPER, Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU),
Cordova, Alaska, opposed SB 42. Cordova is a small coastal
community whose economy depends almost entirely on the
commercial salmon industry. She said SB 42 doesn't represent all
Alaskans or promote a sense of responsibility amongst all
Alaskans to insure the sustainability of the salmon resource.
She said Alaska has set the gold standard for sustainable
fisheries by establishing a system where management decisions
are based on the highest standards of scientific integrity, and
that commitment maximizes opportunities that has afforded all
Alaskans relatively unfettered access to the state's rich salmon
resources and provides residents a multitude of options from
which to choose to harvest or access salmon for their
households. The subsistence, personal use, sport and commercial
opportunities, are all vitally important in providing Alaska and
its resident economic opportunity and food security.
MS. COOPER said that SB 42 would establish a further priority in
an already complex system of allocation and management for
salmon, which already includes a resident only priority, and
rather than uniting all Alaskans to ensure the sustainability of
the salmon resource, SB 42 perpetuates a vision amongst
residents at times of diminished run strengths when conservation
most needs to be a collaborative effort.
4:25:19 PM
GRANT KLOTZ, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, supported
SB 42. As the population in Alaska grows, so does the demand on
the Kenai fishery, he said, and this bill ensures that Alaska
residents will have access to their fair share of this commonly
owned fishery. Unfortunately, this pits commercial fishermen
against personal use fishermen, but not having enough fish
return to the rivers has been a long standing issue.
4:27:09 PM
BRIAN MERRITT, representing himself, Wrangell, Alaska, opposed
SB 42. This bill could tie the BOF's hands. He found some
interesting information about the Copper River situation in
2013. In that 2013, 135,000 sockeye were caught by personal use
fishermen, and most of them came out of urban areas like
Fairbanks, Anchorage, Eielson Air Force Base, Delta Junction,
and Eagle River. The personal use fishery enables rural
residents to get the food they need for the winter, and they
depend on ADF&G to control this resource through the Board of
Fisheries process.
4:29:02 PM
BOB LINVILLE, representing himself, Seward, Alaska, opposed SB
42. He had commercial and personal-use fished for several
decades on the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers. He said the board had
evolved over the years to include all personal use and sport
fishing representation and asked if the legislature thought it
could do that balanced analysis. He concluded saying that all
users need to share in resource conservation.
4:31:26 PM
CHUCK DERRICK, President, Chitina Dipnetters Association,
Fairbanks, Alaska, supported SB 42. The association feels the
best use of Alaska's food resources is to feed Alaskan families.
He explained that prior to creation of the criteria that
identified customary and traditional uses, the Chitina
dipnetters were always managed as a subsistence fishery, but a
clause about "local" turned the Chitina dipnet fishery into
personal use. The clause was later ruled unconstitutional, but
the dipnet fishery remained personal use. In 1999, they
succeeded in convincing the BOF that the Chitina dipnet fishery
did meet customary and traditional criteria. Then it got changed
back to subsistence until 2002 when that decision was rescinded.
MR. DERRICK stated that the board used to always be heavily
weighted with commercial interests and Chitina dipnetters had
never won a proposal that he could remember with that make up.
But using their data, they were able to convince the 2014 board
to increase the bag limit - the fist win he could remember.
4:34:11 PM
RICHARD DAVIS, Seafood Producer's Cooperative (SPC), Juneau,
Alaska, opposed SB 42. The SPC is the oldest and largest
vertically integrated, entirely fisherman owned, harvesting,
processing, and marketing association on the continent, he said.
They began in 1944, and today 560 fishermen member owners
process 10-15 million pounds of Alaskan seafood annually. The
cooperative employs 30-140 people and paid $1 million to the
State of Alaska in fisheries business taxes last year.
He urged them to resist designating personal use fisheries a
priority. SPC's experience is that personal use fisheries are
designated because of limited quantities, or availability, or an
excessive number of citizens vying for finite quantities of
certain fish. "Personal use" to them means residents in
possession of a sport fishing license, sometimes with a permit,
involved in a harvest reserved for Alaskan residents only. If
lawmakers feel compelled to favor personal use fisheries with a
priority distinction and this legislation passes, he warned to
expect other efforts by Alaskan citizens to use the legislature
to manipulate the Board of Fisheries or make a priority for
their particular pet fishery.
4:36:40 PM
JOHN MCCOMBS, representing himself, Ninilchik, Alaska, opposed
SB 42. He commented that currently the personal use fishery
occurs before escapement takes place in front of the counters
and it's never been closed. Expanding a fully allocated fishery
- there are 80 PU fisheries statewide - has never been explained
or rationalized. There are no guarantees in fishing. But when
thoroughly scrutinized, the PU fishery has a priority based on
management defaults and BOF reallocations.
GARLAND BLANCHARD, representing himself, Homer, Alaska, opposed
SB 42. He is a Cook Inlet fisherman and said that everyone
agrees that all residents of this state are entitled to fish.
But, he said, apparently no one on the board had ever been to a
Kenai City Council meeting when they are trying to figure out
the mess at the Kenai. First of all, according to the City
Council, 17 percent of the fish caught on the Kenai River are by
local people and 83 percent are caught by people from the
Valley. According to ADF&G records, 8,000 permits were not
returned from this fishery, so nobody has any idea of how many
fish have been taken out of this fishery. Combined with the
Copper River fishery, it's possible that over half a million
sockeye are being taken.
The issues that the Kenai Council hears are about people
defecating in their backyards, people partying all night, piles
of garbage and rotten carcasses, and zero enforcement because
the Division of Parks doesn't have the authority to write any
tickets. Troopers don't do anything, either.
4:40:21 PM
MARTIN WEISER, Chief Development Officer, Copper River Seafoods,
Anchorage, Alaska, opposed SB 42. "Calling this the Alaskans
first fishing bill is misleading," he said. According to the
Resource Development Council's most recent published statistics
the revenues generated by the fishing industry in 2012 totaled
more than $100 million in state and local taxes. And with the
current fiscal challenges facing the state, Alaskans can't
afford to reduce income to it. This industry pays for services
that all Alaskans benefit from and actually provides a majority
of Alaskans with their seafood.
Copper River Seafoods does not support any single user group
getting priority over any other. The ADF&G and BOF currently
ensure fair allocation of the state's fisheries based on science
and not politics, he said, but SB 42 will restrict their
abilities to do so by prioritizing one single user group. He
said the PU fisheries are healthy and no Alaskan is being
limited in these fisheries as a result of commercial or sport
fishing.
MALCOLM VANCE, representing himself, McCarthy, Alaska, opposed
SB 42. He had lived in McCarthy for 33 years and commercial
fished for the past 35 years. He qualifies for both federal and
state subsistence use and is also an avid sports fisherman.
There is no good reason to put PU fishing above all other user
groups. All harvesters should share the burden and
responsibility of harvesting and conservation equally. The
regulatory process that meets the needs and wants of all user
groups is already being used. SB 42 is another way of creating
chaos in the ever widening gap between the user groups.
4:44:33 PM
GARY STEVENS, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), Chugiak, Alaska,
strongly supported SB 42. He said a 2012 study by the ADF&G's
Division of Subsistence found that recreational, PU fishing,
subsistence and recreational hunting combined amounted to less
than 2 percent of the total fish and game harvested in the State
of Alaska. Commercial fishermen harvested over 98 percent of the
total poundage of fish and game. He said 75 percent of residents
live in non-subsistence areas and the PU fishery for all intents
and purposes is a subsistence fishery for people that live in a
non-subsistence area. If fish were returning to other streams in
Cook Inlet the pressure could be spread out from the mouth of
the Kenai River. Personal use should have a priority over
commercial fishing.
AL BARRETTE, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska, supported
SB 42. All the statutory definitions that pertain to PU and
subsistence and the intent language found in 5 AAC 77.01 make it
clear that the PU fishery has a priority. PU was recognized in
the days of rural priority, but the McDowell decision in 1989
removed that rural priority and made all Alaskans eligible to
participate. Then the legislature and joint boards created the
non-subsistence areas, which is a perfect fit for the PU
fisheries now. PU fisheries are not only for dip nets, as he
personally fishes with a gillnet in the Tanana River.
MR. BARRETTE stated also that at least the PU fisheries are not
subsidized by the state like the commercial fisheries are to the
tune of $60 million.
JULIANNE CURRY, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska
(UFA), Juneau, Alaska, opposed SB 42. UFA care about the
sustainability of Alaska's fishing resources above all else.
They have four primary concerns regarding SB 42. It
unnecessarily pits Alaskans against Alaskans and further
complicates fisheries management and BOF decisions. It does not
establish reasonable expectations for the harvest of a
fluctuating biomass nor does it ensure food security.
She said most Alaskans don't have the time, resources, the
access or the ability to harvest their own fish and the
commercial harvesting sector provides them with critical access
to the resource in fish markets, grocery stores and restaurants
throughout the state. A PU priority would trump the existing
sport and commercial fisheries that resident Alaskans use to
help feed their families.
MS. CURRY said that according to Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC) data, Alaskans hold nearly 77 percent of all
limited entry permits. This bill further complicates complex
fisheries management plans and reduces flexibility. It creates a
one-size fits all approach, whereas these type of allocation
decisions are best left to the BOF that has the ability to take
significant public and scientific input and make decisions on a
fishery by fishery and region by region basis.
Sustainability relies on the premise that resources have limits,
and setting reasonable expectations help perpetuate users'
commitment to sustainability, she said. Establishing a PU
priority will not ensure that salmon run upstream on the weekend
when most individuals choose to participate in the three most
popular salmon dip net fisheries.
4:50:27 PM
BRENT JOHNSON, representing himself, Clam Gulch, Alaska, opposed
SB 42. He put in 49 seasons into the Cook Inlet set net fishery
and the biggest difference he found between living in Chugiak
and living in Clam Gulch is that nobody in Clam Gulch is in
favor of this bill. The reason is that people in Clam Gulch fish
in the summer and have to sustain themselves all year around to
live there. Not one time between 1882 and 1982 was there a
harvest of 3 million sockeye salmon in Cook Inlet, but since
1982, there has been 21 times when over 3 million sockeye were
harvested. The sockeye fishery is in real good shape. The PU
fishery has been harvesting hundreds of thousands of sockeyes in
recent years, so it seems like the PU people are getting a lot
of fish. This bill must want to change something. So, what is it
going to change? The change could put him and his wife out of
business.
He also related that a number of years ago their fish opening
was rescheduled for Mondays and Thursdays to accommodate people
from Chugiak and Anchorage who wanted to fish on the weekends
and to give the fish one day in between to repopulate the river.
WES HUMBYRD, representing himself, Homer, Alaska, opposed SB 42.
He had fished in Cook Inlet since 1966 and raised his family
there. He felt this bill would open up a can of worms. Anyone
in Anchorage who doesn't get enough fish with a dip net can come
to his boat, the Knife's Edge, and he will make "damn sure" they
don't starve. There has to be enough fish (millions of pounds)
for people without having a law.
RICHARD BISHOP, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska,
supported SB 42. He lives in a subsistence use area and fished
in the personal use fishery even before it was called that; it
has been a major source of food for his family for over 50
years, and their experience is not unique.
He said the Alaska Constitution outlines sustained yield and
common use for the maximum benefit of Alaskans. That is how
subsistence fishing has been classified in the past. The Alaska
Constitution also allows for resident preferences. Personal use
fishing is for residents and it should have priority over sport
and commercial fishing when harvestable surplus is low.
MIKE MICKELSON, representing himself, Cordova, Alaska, opposed
SB 42. He is a lifelong resident of Cordova and a subsistence
and commercial fisherman. This is a very allocative proposal and
allocation is what the Board of Fisheries does, he said. The BOF
created the PU fisheries in 1982 so that Alaskan residents could
harvest salmon when there was an available surplus.
There are lots of opportunities for PU fishermen; it is a
valuable opportunity that Alaskans are lucky to have when extra
fish are there. It is not subsistence. Most of his points have
already been brought up by people who are against SB 42, but he
added, if this proposal is really about putting Alaskans first,
you can't believe it. If you are actually out there fishing all
the time you can actually see what is happening in the
ecosystems. Commercial fishermen have a very vested interest in
keeping these fisheries around, because that is their income. He
suggested expanding the loan programs instead of doing the BOF's
job, which is what this proposal attempts to do.
4:58:22 PM
ARNI THOMSON, Alaska Salmon Alliance, Kenai Peninsula and
Anchorage Seafood Processors, Anchorage, Alaska, opposed SB 42.
PU salmon needs of Alaska residents are already provided for
upfront when the ADF&G calculates its annual harvest forecast
for commercial, PU and subsistence fisheries based on Kenai and
Kasilof River stocks. Thus, it is not necessary to create
legislation unless the goal is to further exacerbate the
divisiveness between user groups, he said.
5:00:41 PM
JERRY MCCUNE, representing himself, Juneau, Alaska, opposed SB
42. He said PU fisheries were created for people who didn't
qualify for subsistence. All kinds of fishing are important to
Alaskans, but this bill seems to shut down commercial fishing.
CHAIR GIESSEL apologized to the 26 people left wanting to
testify and invited them to send their testimony to the
committee in writing.
5:03:27 PM
SENATOR STOLTZE thanked her for this opportunity to present his
bill and said his goal is to represent Alaskans' interest.
CHAIR GIESSEL said she welcomed written testimony and announced
she would hold SB 42 in committee.
5:04:39 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL adjourned the Senate Resources Committee meeting
at 5:04 p.m.