SJR 22-FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF SALMON MANAGEMENT  10:18:38 AM CHAIR EDGMON announced that the first order of business would be SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 22, "Opposing litigation that seeks to eliminate the Kenai, Kasilof, and Chitina sockeye salmon personal use dip net fisheries; and requesting the governor to re-examine the disproportional influence of the commercial fisheries industries on fisheries management in the state." 10:19:25 AM SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS, Alaska State Legislature, presented SJR 22, and explained the importance, and necessity, of the dip netting tradition in Alaska. The resolution seeks to maintain, and restrict dip netting as a resident-only fishery. A suit is being brought by the United Cook Inlet Drift Association (UCIDA), and an individual, Herbert T. Jensen, to have the federal government find this traditional use fishery unconstitutional. He pointed out that other commercial fishing associations have kept a distance from the issue. The areas involved directly are Kenai, Kasilof, and Chitina, where the nonresident commercial fishing permit holders insist on being granted the right to dip net. There is not an argument to allow other nonresidents to dip net, however. He stressed that as a state's rights advocate, this fishery belongs under state management and should not be placed under the purview of a federal department. He deferred to the House co-sponsor for further comment. 10:23:36 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt the HCS for CSSJR 22, Version 26-LS0866\S, Kane, 2/5/10. 10:23:41 AM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH objected for discussion. 10:24:46 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON observed that the changes in the House Committee Substitute (HCS) are nonsubstantive. 10:25:08 AM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH removed his objection. CHAIR EDGMON, hearing no further objection, announced that Version S was before the committee. 10:25:23 AM REPRESENATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature, presented the HCS and said the lawsuit arose as an attempt to engage federal courts for the purpose of overthrowing the establishment of personal use fisheries, originated under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA). Although defendants are seeking suit against the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, he maintained this is a state's rights issue. If any other Alaska fishery was being subverted in federal courts, he opined that the state attorney general would become involved. He stated his belief that the most important fish is the one that feeds an Alaskan family, and residents should not be restricted from the use of Alaskan salmon. Although it does not affect fisheries in every part of the state, dip netting is an important, duly established fishery. 10:28:30 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON declared a conflict of interest, indicating that he is a permitted participant in the Chitina dip netting fishery. 10:28:57 AM SENATOR HUGGINS added that the tradition being challenged extends back to the 1980's. In one area the volume of permits issued ranges up to 2,300, which indicates that it is a popular fishery. REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE interjected that he supports more people everywhere eating wild Alaskan salmon. 10:30:08 AM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT stated a conflict of interest as a permitted fishery participant, and stated support for the resolution. 10:30:48 AM CHAIR EDGMON opened public testimony. 10:31:23 AM ROD ARNO, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), stated support for SJR 22, and said the Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC) is a strong advocate for state's rights. He opined that there is no justification for these suits to be filed. 10:32:08 AM MELVIN GROVE, Member, Mat-Su Fish and Game Advisory Council, Board Member, Alaska Outdoor Access Alliance, stated support for SJR 22, and reminded committee members that fish resources are held under the public trust doctrine. Further, he said: The citizens are entitled to catch their own, and cook it fresh. I would have thought that it was common practice to manage our fish resources to favor the citizens of the state. ... I have nothing against [the] commercial fishing industry; they should be allowed to take the harvestable surplus after the citizens have harvested their own. 10:33:54 AM BYRON HALEY, President, Chitina Dip Netters Association, Board Member, Alaska Fish and Wildlife Conservation Fund, stated support for SJR 22. He then related that the recent board meeting voted unanimously in favor of the resolution. 10:34:24 AM KEN LARSON, Representative, Prince William Sound Charter Boat Association, stated support for SJR 22, and said: We have been living through the disenfranchisement of the Alaska sports fishermen, subsistence fishermen, and the halibut arena, for the last many years. We've seen the results of federal takeover of the [halibut] fishery, and we would not like to see the same thing happen to the dip netting and salmon industry. The passage of this joint resolution, and the house bill, will certainly set a precedent on other fisheries. 10:36:12 AM RICKY GEASE, Executive Director, Kenai River Sport Fishing Association, stated support for SJR 22, and said: We think it's important ... when issues of fisheries management [arise] between the federal government and the state government who's managing the salmon fisheries, and a case goes to federal court, ... that the State of Alaska be represented ... through the [Office of the] Attorney General. 10:37:03 AM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH inquired about departmental direction, or administrative support, for the resolution. 10:37:45 AM REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE reported that the point of the resolution is to bring attention and involvement. The attorney general has been made aware of the situation through the resolution process. Officials at ADF&G are aware of the situation and the commissioner has had legal papers filed in conjunction with the issue. REPRESENTATIVE BUCH maintained interest in hearing comment from ADF&G. 10:39:01 AM CHAIR EDGMON closed public testimony. 10:39:09 AM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked about the title of the bill, and why it is restricted specifically to sockeye salmon. SHARON LONG, Staff, Senator Charlie Huggins, Alaska State Legislature, deferred. 10:39:54 AM BRIAN KANE, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Affairs Agency, indicated that there is no specific reason for stipulating sockeye. He noted that the BE IT RESOLVED statement, page 3, line 25, does not reflect similar language, which is unusual. CHAIR EDGMON surmised that sockeye salmon are specified as the species targeted by dip netters. MS. LONG confirmed the chairman's understanding. 10:40:47 AM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI offered that dip netting in the Chitina has included king salmon. He then asked why this species is not included in the resolution. MS. LONG refrained from commenting on the king salmon question. She said: Remarkably the UCIDA are able to keep, for their personal use, an unlimited number of fish from their commercial catch .... The case is viable. The parties have been very active, filing motions and briefs. Just last week the plaintiffs moved to go forward to oral arguments. So this is a live wire. MS LONG directed attention to a response letter from the United States Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service [not dated], and paraphrased from page 11, paragraph 4, which read: Therefore, NMFS lacks authority to regulate the State's personal use fishery conducted within State waters and the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act do not apply to the personal use fishery. 10:43:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if the case involves more than one species of salmon. MS. LONG responded that it speaks to the fishery in general. She deferred to Legislative Legal Services for further comment, adding that there is some difficulty getting documents from the court. MR. KANE agreed that documents have been spare, and lacking the briefs he could not speak to the question. He said he would provide the committee with the information when the paperwork becomes available from the courts. 10:44:32 AM REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said the basis of the suit is contained in one statement, which he read: Members of UCIDA consist of resident/nonresident commercial fishermen who rely predominately upon the harvest of sockeye salmon to earn their livelihood. REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said the point made, regarding king salmon, is valid. Kings are not allowed in many of the dip net fisheries, although it is a big part of the Fairbanks culture. The litigants have referred specifically to sockeye in the law suit. 10:46:26 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled the statement that a commercial fisherman can keep an unlimited amount of their catch for personal use, and asked if that is correct. REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE deferred to the department. MS. LONG responded affirmatively. 10:47:18 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if it would be appropriate to refer to dip net salmon, rather than specifying sockeye salmon. MR. KANE answered that the goal of SJR is to directly impact a particular lawsuit, which specifies sockeye salmon. He opined that it would not be of benefit. 10:48:44 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HCS for CSSJR 22(RES), out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS CSSJR 22(FSH) was moved from the House Special Committee on Fisheries. The committee took an at-ease from 10:49 a.m. to 10:52 a.m.