HJR 26-SEA OTTER MANAGEMENT  2:05:45 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 26, Urging federal agencies to work with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Southeast Alaska Native leaders, and other interested parties to establish strategies and plans for the sustainable management of the reintroduced sea otter population of Southeast Alaska. [Before the committee was Version B, the proposed committee substitute (CS) labeled 27-LS0717\B, Bullard, 1/27/12, adopted as the working document on 2/3/12.] CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HJR 26, Version 27-LS0717\I, Bullard, 2/6/12, as the working document. There being no objection, Version I was before the committee. 2:06:29 PM ARTHUR MARTIN, Staff, Representative P. Wilson, Alaska State Legislature, explained that the language in Version I is the result of working with the Sealaska Heritage Foundation. During the 2/3/12 hearing on HJR 26 a concern was raised of the ability of Native peoples to sell sea pelts to anyone. Therefore, all mention of the sale of intact sea otter pelts was removed from the resolution and language was crafted in two changes that clarify the issue. The first change is on page 3, line 1, where the language now reads that "Alaska Natives are limited to selling only 'authentic' and 'traditional' Native handicrafts". The second change begins on page 3, line 31, and addresses a previous discussion that the Marine Mammal Protection Act limits the allowable uses of sea otters to only "authentic" and "traditional" handicrafts. Because the definition of authentic and traditional is too restrictive, the change here asks that these terms be replaced with "Alaska Native articles of handicraft". MR. MARTIN reported that the sea otter issue has made headlines and the sponsor is happy that the issue is being elevated to this level and heard by the committee. If current policies of inaction continue it is believed that in just a few years humans will have little share of the dive fishery resources for commercial or subsistence harvesting. Areas that once had an abundance of sea cucumbers, geoduck clams, red sea urchins, and Dungeness crab are being depleted by sea otter predation. 2:08:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI, regarding ecology and the hope that management will include an ecosystem balance, questioned Mr. Martin's last statement because the [first] further resolved clause does not state that managing for a balanced ecosystem is the plan. He understood the resolution to say that the state is not taking a position on whether to start actively managing populations of sea otters, but to urge federal agencies to revisit [the 1994] management plan. MR. MARTIN agreed it is Representative P. Wilson's opinion that the ecosystem is out of balance because of increased sea otter populations. He maintained, however, that the resolution itself does not state an opinion; it just asks that a discussion be had between the appropriate state and federal departments and the Native peoples based on the research that has been done. 2:10:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI opined that the [November 2011] McDowell Group report [entitled "Sea Otter Impacts on Commercial Fisheries in Southeast Alaska"] does not say that sea otters were the major part of the decline of sea cucumbers and a certain shellfish. Responding to Mr. Martin, he said the report clearly states that the declines in sea urchins and other species were not due to sea otter predation. MR. MARTIN recalled reading such a clause in the report, but said he could not remember whether that clause was referencing geoducks, sea cucumbers, or sea urchins. However, he continued, [Appendix 2] of the report does show conclusive evidence that sea otters have had a direct and indirect impact on species such as the sea cucumber and geoduck clams. 2:13:47 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE opened public testimony on HJR 26. GREG BROWN stated that HJR 26 was developed by a special interest group that hired a consultant to substantiate its beliefs. He said he has had many dealings with consultants all over the world through his previous work as CEO of one of the largest companies in Latin American, and consultants get to be big and successful by writing reports that the people who are paying them want to hear. He said that even the title of the McDowell report is misleading and should instead be "The Effect of Sea Otters on a Few Specific Fisheries in Southeast Alaska" given there are dozens of fisheries in Southeast Alaska that are not even mentioned in the report. MR. BROWN said other possibilities should be looked at. For example, sea otters could improve other commercial fisheries and are a keystone species. He noted that the State of Oregon has issued a report regarding ocean acidification that is not covered [in the McDowell report]. Additionally, tourism viewing and wildlife viewing is a $30 billion industry in the U.S. and has grown over 6 percent annually even during this current economic downturn. In the city of Juneau the business of wildlife viewing is worth over $30 million. One whale, over its lifetime, is worth over $32 million to the city of Juneau and a bear at Pack Creek is worth $132,000 annually to the city. The reintroduced wolves of Yellowstone National Park are worth $35 million annually. 2:16:27 PM MR. BROWN maintained that sea otters could be worth as much as $5 million annually in increased tourism. To support his statement he read from a 2005 California study report: "The eventual expansion of southern sea otter populations in range would provide more than $100 million of annual income economic benefit to California households." Allowing that reports can be argued, he pointed to an example of economic benefit in Monterey, CA, which began holding the Sea Otter Classic 22 years ago when sea otters were reintroduced there. He said this extravaganza, which will be running again in April 2012, features amateur and pro cycling events as well as family activities, attracting more than 50,000 bicycle enthusiasts from around the world. The classic also plays host for the largest consumer bike expo in the world. None of these have been considered in the [McDowell] report, he pointed out. MR. BROWN, again allowing that any report can be argued, related that he searched for the most neutral report that he could find and came upon a 2006 Master's thesis by Sarah Poirier of McGill University. The thesis talks about the benefits of sea otters around Victoria Island and the increase in tourism and economic prosperity that can be gained by utilizing that opportunity. The thesis also supports that the keystone species of sea otters is real and provides extreme detail about why it is real and where it comes from. 2:18:52 PM MR. BROWN explained that his point in discussing economics and other alternatives is that if nature was embraced and not fought everyone could become rich because the opportunity is there for this to happen. He said the committee is making a decision based on the recommendations of a financial special interest group and the report paid for by that special interest group is very biased, woefully incomplete, and insulting. He recounted an old rule in business that says to get 80 percent of the information, add judgment, and then make a decision because one can never get 100 percent of the information. In this case, he argued, there is less than 20 percent of the information. He urged the committee to take time to get the rest of the facts and not rush to judgment. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked what keystone species means and how that plays out. MR. BROWN understood from Dr. Mary Willson [of Juneau] and the aforementioned thesis that sea otters control the number of sea urchins and sea urchins are directly related to the amount of kelp. When kelp is healthy other fisheries are also healthy, such as salmon and fisheries similar to salmon. 2:20:52 PM JULIANNE CURRY, Executive Director, Petersburg Vessel Owners Association (PVOA), specified that PVOA has about 120 vessels and businesses and its members are active personal use, subsistence, and sport fishermen who are affected by the species that are affected by sea otters. She said nobody is looking for widespread and unchecked harvest of sea otters; people are looking for a balance, but in Southeast Alaska there is not a good balance with what is happening with resources. She noted that Version I does not include the allowance of Alaska coastal Natives to sell and trade raw pelts to non-Natives. Without that language, she said it will be difficult to support the resolution because that is a time-honored tradition and PVOA feels it is very important for Alaska coastal Natives to be able to sell raw pelts. However, she continued, the rest of the resolution is heading in the right direction. She observed that PVOA's letter is missing from the committee packet, but drew attention to the resolution from the City of Petersburg and the letter from the Southeast Alaska Subsistence Regional Advisory Council (RAC), which has heard hours and hours of testimony about this issue. 2:22:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, regarding the inability of Alaska Natives to sell to non-Natives, asked whether Ms. Curry is suggesting there be a quota for pelt use and that once that quota is reached then pelts could be sold by Natives to non-Natives. MS. CURRY replied that PVOA would be looking for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the U.S. Congress through an amendment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, to interpret the definition of significantly altered differently. She said PVOA would like for coastal Natives, who are allowed to harvest sea otters under current regulations, to be able to sell a sea otter pelt to a non-Native. 2:24:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that she did meet with Native groups to discuss the resolution and it was re-worded to the way that the Native groups wanted. She inquired whether there has been a change since then. MS. CURRY responded that much of the conversation so far about significantly altered and handicraft has been driven by the artisan market and she understood that that conversation has helped in the shaping of the current bill. However, she continued, there is a significant number of just harvesters who would like to be able to sell raw pelts, although she does not know why they are not coming forward with testimony. She shared that she would like to have a raw sea otter pelt to put on one of her two couches to accompany the raw pelt of an arctic fox that she already has. While she understood the concern about the sale of raw pelts potentially industrializing the current artisan market, she remained unconvinced that that should trump the overall good that would come from returning the right of Alaska Natives to sell a raw pelt. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she would be glad to add anything that might help with those concerns as the resolution moves along, but the harvesters will need to call her office. 2:26:58 PM TINA BROWN, President, Alaska Wildlife Alliance (AWA), noted that her non-profit organization, whose board is comprised only of Alaskans, is committed to the preservation and protection of Alaska's wildlife. She said AWA has critical concerns about HJR 26 because the resolution appears to call for the implementation of predator control on sea otters. While understanding this is a resolution and not a bill, she stressed that there would be negative consequences if the resolution is adopted. It is intended to be a foot in the door for those advocating for predator control on sea otters. The sponsor's statement on the Internet seems clear in the call for predator control on sea otters because it says that action must be taken now rather than waiting for studies. Additionally, at a previous hearing the executive director of the United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) testified that HJR 26 is probably not enough to help his fishery, but it is a step in the right direction. 2:29:17 PM MS. BROWN related that at a presentation by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) last week a member of the audience said predator control on sea otter population was necessary and urged that it be opened up to all Alaskans, not just Native Alaskans. This issue is escalating, she continued, and the resolution has not yet been passed. She noted that HJR 26 urges state and federal governments to work with ADF&G to reduce sea otter populations, but said that ADF&G does not have a shining reputation for wildlife management: the department is shooting wolves from aircraft in the Kenai Peninsula; snaring bears, including sows, and then shooting their cubs; gassing wolf pups in their dens; and is allowing non-resident hunting in some active predator control areas. Alaska's reputation for wildlife management is deeply tarnished right now, she said. Imagine the negative press if Alaska started what people would consider predator control on sea otters. Imagine the reaction of tourists and potential tourists. Imagine the reactions of Alaskans. 2:31:06 PM MS. BROWN concurred that sea otters are a keystone species and said that without sea otters there will be no great kelp forests because the otters keep sea urchins under control. She related that a panel of scientists at the recent Board of Fisheries meeting in Petersburg stated that research on sea otters in Southeast Alaska is underway and more research is needed. It was also stated at the meeting that the carrying capacity for sea otters in Southeast Alaska, before they were wiped out, is unknown. At this same meeting, the Board of Fisheries stated that one species should not be placed in higher regard than another and the board specifically referred to sea cucumbers versus sea otters. Prudence is the wisest approach to this issue, she advised. Opening the door for predator control on sea otters also opens the door for predator control on other protected species, such as Steller sea lions and humpback whales, and people are already talking about that. 2:32:25 PM MS. BROWN said the consequences of HJR 26 could be devastating. If the intent of the resolution is to provide greater economic benefits to Native Alaskans via a more liberal use of sea otter pelts, then re-word the resolution to say that. However, if the intent of the resolution is to use Native Alaskans as a tool to start predator control on sea otters, then the Alaska Wildlife Alliance strongly opposes the resolution. CO-CHAIR SEATON noted that the committee has adopted Version I, which would do what Ms. Brown suggests in regard to expanding the usage in handicrafts, such as allowing for a zipper. Since Version I has no expansion of who can hunt and has no sales to non-Natives, he asked whether it would fit the criteria that Ms. Brown has laid out. MS. BROWN pointed out that the resolution has numerous whereas clauses and some of the wording in those clauses need to be changed to not address predator control. She offered to go through the clauses and mark the areas of concern. She said previous oral testimony and the written testimony clearly view the resolution as a step towards predator control on sea otters. 2:34:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked whether predator control in any form is unnecessary. MS. BROWN replied that she did not say that; she said that more studies need to be made, which is what scientists said at the Board of Fisheries meeting. While she is not a biologist, she said she knows that sea otters are good for the marine environment and fisheries. Since sea otters are just making a comeback right now, it seems wise to see what happens and not jump into anything. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON inquired whether it is being said that there is not enough science on wolves and bears. MS. BROWN responded that ADF&G cannot always be depended upon to make wise management decisions. 2:35:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ noted that the Marine Mammal Protection Act is very restrictive in the use of sea otter materials for Alaska Native handicrafts. She asked whether Ms. Brown perceives that a threat could happen on the national level if the act is re- opened, even though the resolution is directed at Alaska Natives and their uses. MS. BROWN agreed that the resolution is directed at Alaska Natives, but stressed that the committee needs to be very precise and specific in the wording so that it does not appear to be a step toward predator control on sea otters. She said she gets nervous when she looks at the sponsor statement and when she looks at some of the wording in the resolution. The Alaska Wildlife Alliance supports the Native community and if that is the sole purpose then the language about sea otter populations increasing and being too much does not have a place in the resolution. If the economic benefit is wanted for the Native community - wonderful, but leave out the idea of reducing sea otter populations. 2:37:32 PM MIKE MILLER, Chairman, Indigenous People's Council for Marine Mammals (IPCoMM), noted that IPCoMM is comprised of 18 organized marine mammal hunting groups in the state of Alaska. His group has a co-management umbrella agreement with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to deal with issues of common concern around the state on the mammals under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. He said it has been interesting to listen to all the different points and he agrees with points brought out by both sides. He offered his support for HJR 26. He understood the concern about the resolution being used for getting into a predator control program and said he does not want the act used for anything along those purposes. He agreed, however, with the resolution's statement about establishing strategies and plans for sustainable management of sea otter populations, which is very consistent with everything the Native community has worked for. 2:39:16 PM MR. MILLER appreciated the changes made to the resolution and said he supports Version I. The resolution is being looked at with two different approaches. The Native community definitely has concern about the impact that sea otters have and wants to conserve the species, but conservation is the wise use of a resource, not preservation. Protection is needed for both the otters and the resources that the communities rely on for subsistence and commercial purposes. He said headway could be made on the root of the problem by dealing with definitions, such as significantly altered, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act would not need to be opened up for that. MR. MILLER stated that he has worked on this issue for about 15 years. He facilitated the harvest management workshop for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a tannery was started in Sitka to promote economic opportunities for tribal members in the community. He expressed his organization's great concern with some of the enforcement actions that have happened and which have created confusion amongst the hunters and artisans. He concluded by supporting Version I with no changes to it. 2:41:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, regarding the current use of sea otters, asked who determines who qualifies as Native and how a Native harvester would know that a buyer is qualified to own it. MR. MILLER explained that there is an exemption in the Marine Mammal Protection Act, Section 101(b), for Alaska coastal Natives to harvest and make use of sea otter for handicrafts, as well as to trade and sell pelts to other qualified Natives. In regulation the definition of Alaska Native for purposes of the act is one-quarter blood quantum or greater who lives on the coast. However, there is some question as to how that is figured out by the different solicitors of the respective agencies, although that is how they say they enforce that. For many people who are one-quarter blood or a bit more it would be hard to determine that they are unless they show identification and that raises questions about how that would be enforced. A lot of this comes back to questions about how things are enforced and there needs to be some clarity on those things before sea otters can really be fully utilized to help Natives. REPRESENTATIVE DICK commented that he is the only non-Native in his family and all his family members have a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) card that shows what fraction Native Alaskan they are. 2:43:57 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE closed public testimony on HJR 26 after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify. CO-CHAIR SEATON reiterated that he thinks Version I cleans up the potential problems in the resolution. He said he would not make a motion to move the resolution if it allowed sale to non- Natives because that would hurt the Native artisan community and the authenticity of sales to tourists and others, as well as have a situation in which one shooter on a boat that was qualified and the rest of the people onboard would be non- Natives. The sponsor has done a good job of expanding the use within the Native community without getting into the situation of less control on the harvest. REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ agreed with Co-Chair Seaton. However, she suggested to the sponsor that some of the editorializing language be toned down so as not to build up hysteria around the issue. She said she agrees with the resolution and thinks it is important. 2:46:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI agreed with the previous two speakers and noted that Version I calls for coming up with local plans. He appreciated the sponsor's willingness to change the language dealing with Alaska Native and traditional artifacts and agreed with the previous speaker about how the resolution should be fixed further. Regarding the McDowell Group report, he maintained that a lot of study has not been done and much more needs to be done for any management plan. Referring to citations in the report that ADF&G has closed seven areas for sea cucumbers presumably for sea otter predation, he said it is inconclusive. He further noted that no geoduck harvests have ever been closed due to sea otter predation, although ADF&G has identified some areas where there could be sea otter predation. Continuing his reference to the report, he said sea otter predation impacts on red sea urchins since 2005 have not been compiled, and the decline of red sea urchin in recent years is related to market factors, not due to sea otter predation. He further noted that the abalone fishery collapsed almost certainly because of excessive harvest in the 1970s and 1980s, not due to sea otter predation. He said he would like to ask ADF&G numerous questions about how it comes up with the various numbers. He urged that there be thoughtful debate about this and offered his appreciation of the sponsor's willingness to continue in this regard. 2:48:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE DICK understood the concern of those people asking for more study and said that if hunting was begun tomorrow it would be premature. He maintained, however, that with predator control for wolves the cry for more study went on for eight years and resulted in no moose populations. He said he is sure that there will be more study on the sea otter issue, given the timing of the resolution. CO-CHAIR FEIGE stated that a good part of the resolution is simply to get the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to come up with a plan. 2:48:54 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to report the committee substitute (CS) for HJR 26, Version I, labeled 27-LS0717\I, Bullard, 2/6/12, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, the House Resources Standing Committee reported CSHJR 26(RES) out of committee.