03/18/2009 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR21 | |
| HB70 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HJR 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 70 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 43 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 18, 2009
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Craig Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Chris Tuck
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
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.
- MOVED HJR 21 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 70
"An Act establishing the farm-to-school program in the
Department of Natural Resources, the Alaska grown fresh fruit
and vegetable grant program in the Department of Education and
Early Development, the farmers' market technology improvement
pilot program in the Department of Environmental Conservation,
and the farmers to food banks pilot program in the Department of
Commerce, Community, and Economic Development."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 43
"An Act relating to aquatic farm permitting involving geoducks
and to geoduck seed transfers between certified hatcheries and
aquatic farms."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 21
SHORT TITLE: GROUNDFISH FISHERIES LICENSES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(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
BILL: HB 70
SHORT TITLE: ALASKA GROWN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GATTO
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/16/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) RES, FIN
03/18/09 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HJR 21.
ILIA KUZMIN
K-Bay Fisheries Association
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 21.
ALEXUS KWACHKA
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 21.
OLIVER HOLM
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 21.
SHAWN DOCHTERMANN
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 21.
LINDA KOZAK
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 21.
JULIE BONNEY
Alaska Groundfish Databank
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 21.
FRANK MILES
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 21.
DONALD "DJ" VINBERG
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 21.
RYAN JOHNSON
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 21.
STEPHAN TAUFEN
Groundswell Fisheries Movement
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 21.
TONY GREGORIO
Chignik Lagoon Village Corporation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 21.
FREDDIE CHRISTIANSEN
Gulf of Alaska Coastal Communities Coalition
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 21.
REPRESENTATIVE CARL GATTO
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HB 70.
SANDRA WILSON, Staff
Representative Carl Gatto
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sponsor statement on behalf
of Representative Gatto, sponsor of HB 70.
JESSICA LAZAR
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 70.
GAIL EASTWOOD
Petersburg and Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 70.
ZOE FULLER
Alaska Youth for Environmental Action
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 70.
MYKALA RICE
Tanana District 4H
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the idea of HB 70, but suggested
some friendly amendments.
JENNA ARMSTRONG
Tanana District 4H
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Agreed with parts of HB 70, but urged that
it be amended.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:05:07 PM
CO-CHAIR MARK NEUMAN called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Representatives Neuman,
Johnson, Seaton, Wilson, Olson, Guttenberg, and Kawasaki were
present at the call to order. Representatives Edgmon and Tuck
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HJR 21-GROUNDFISH FISHERIES LICENSES
1:06:27 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN announced that the first order of business would
be 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.
1:06:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor
of HJR 21, said the resolution is an effort to slow down the
process of taking away access to some of the fisheries. He
maintained that the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
(NPFMC), which handles fisheries outside of three miles in the
federal waters, has a history of restricting access to fisheries
or giving them away, one example being Individual Fishing Quotas
(IFQs).
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stated that one remaining fair access
fishery is the Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod fishery, which is
composed of three fisheries: trawling, where the fishermen are
known as draggers; fixed gear, where pots or longlines are used;
and jigging. The Pacific cod fishery in the gulf also occurs
inside the three-mile limit, he said, and there the fishery is
basically unlimited. Anyone can get one or more jigs for their
boat, the only cap on the jig fishing industry being a limit of
25 percent of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC).
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN inquired whether fishermen are happy with the
management within the three-mile limit.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN answered that he thinks the management
is fine within the three miles. There are no problems other
than sometimes decisions must be made between the federal
fishery, called the parallel fishery because it includes fishing
within the three miles, and the separate state water fishery.
1:09:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN continued his statement, noting that in
1995 or 1997, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
decided to slow entrance into the fixed gear cod fishery by
establishing a license limitation program (LLP) similar to the
limited entry program for salmon. At that point in time, the
council took the history of those who had been catching cod,
whether it was one cod or 10,000, and gave them a license. This
resulted in about 883 fixed gear licenses within the Central
Gulf of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN maintained that as with most fisheries,
the NPFMC had been heading down the line of rationalization or
the giving away of the resource. He said there are different
opinions as to what rationalization is, and his opinion is that
any change in the structure of a fishery is rationalization; for
example, he considers the limited entry program for salmon to be
a rationalization program. Some people consider rationalization
to be similar to the halibut IFQ, he continued, where the
resource was given to certain fishermen who now have control of
that IFQ. It is not an access issue, it is ownership, although
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
allows for IFQs to be taken back. He acknowledged that many
people do not consider salmon to be a rationalized issue, so
discussion of this issue in the Gulf of Alaska always turns into
a donnybrook because everyone is talking on different terms.
1:11:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said the NPFMC implemented the Pacific
cod LLP for federal waters in 2000, then talked about how to
rationalize this program in its problem statements. After
Governor Palin was elected in 2006 the council accepted her
position that there be no more rationalization in the Gulf of
Alaska. Now the council is engaging in a discreet method of
rationalization by talking about the economic issues dealing
with trying to protect participants currently in the fishery.
In 2006, about 300 out of [883] Pacific cod licenses were being
fished, and the council initially discussed eliminating the
latent licenses. He explained that the original LLP license was
a groundfish license under which anything could be caught. For
example, draggers catch about a dozen different species as
bycatch when fishing for Pacific cod, while 98-99 percent of the
fish caught using fixed gear are Pacific cod.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN asked whether the non-cod species caught by
draggers are bycatch or a useable product that is processed.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied that some are bycatch and
useable, so they are brought ashore. A certain percentage of
bycatch is normally allowed for certain species. However, some
are prohibited, such as halibut and those must be thrown back.
In further response, he confirmed that the halibut that are
thrown back are probably dead.
1:14:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN returned to his presentation, relating
that there was an outcry when the NPFMC discussed eliminating
the more than 500 latent licenses. People urged the council to
retain the licenses so there would be access to the fishery on
an ongoing basis by fishermen wishing to move up into the
industry. The council then took another look and decided to
require a Pacific cod "endorsement" for those licenses that were
fished over a range of certain years. The number of cod that
could be caught under an endorsement would be determined by the
number of cod the license holder had caught historically over
that range of time.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN allowed that a stepping stone can take
place in the three inside fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska,
whereby a fisher could start with a skiff and jig and then
expand to a bigger boat with pots. However, if the council
adopts the proposed endorsement requirement, the fisher would be
unable to go into the fishery in federal waters without buying a
license from one of the 300 fishers who were simply given that
endorsed LLP.
1:17:05 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired what might be the future cost for
purchasing this license.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN responded that this is hard to answer.
When the halibut IFQ system was first put in place the quota was
simply given to the fisher, and the value at the time was $2-$3
per pound. However, last week a 2,000 pound IFQ was advertised
for sale in the newspaper at $26 per pound. He estimated that
one of the 883 LLP licenses would probably sell right now for
about $2,000, but he does not know how much that value would go
up once the access became restricted.
1:19:10 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN asked whether the 883 permits were initially
sold or given away.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN answered that for every one of these
LLPs, whether halibut, cod, or salmon, the license was initially
just given to the fisher.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN surmised that the fishers will be receiving
quite a large value should the Pacific cod fishery become
limited to just 300 licenses.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied that the value depends on the
fishery and how important it is. The price of fish goes up and
down on a constant basis, and right now the price of cod is down
so some people are not fishing it.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that licenses are based on the
size of the vessel. For example, a separate license is issued
for boats under 60 feet. Under this license a vessel can be
expanded up to 20 percent, but it cannot be expanded beyond 60
feet. In addition, the license is either for trawl or fixed
gear, with the fixed gear including longline and pot. The value
of the license is therefore determined by the fishery, type of
gear, and fishing area. He agreed that restricting the number
of LLPs would increase their value when they are sold.
1:21:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired whether an LLP can be acquired
and held in perpetuity even if it is not used.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said he does not know and deferred to
Representative Seaton.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON disclosed that he has two LLPs for two
different vessels. He explained that there is no annual fee for
an LLP and an LLP is assigned to a vessel, but is owned by the
person and not the vessel. The LLP can be transferred back and
forth from one vessel to another. There is no time limitation
and the LLP owner is not required to participate in the fishery.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN concluded his statement by saying that
reasonable access to the federal fishery within the Gulf of
Alaska needs to be kept, particularly for Alaskans. He said he
is asking the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to quit
giving away these resources and controlling the access based on
fishing history. Right now, people are coming into the cod
fishery to make their history, even though they may be losing
money at it, because they know the endorsement will have value.
However, they are making their money at the moment on crab and
other fisheries. The council needs to stand up and say it is
not going to give a fisher history on cod. A little over 70
percent of the federal LLPs that are fished are being fished by
small boats that live in Alaska, he said. This resolution is
for those people, as well as young Alaskans who may want to step
into the fishery some day.
1:25:06 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN surmised that the focus on reasonable access
will provide competition and that competition will improve the
quality of fish and the pricing.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN responded that there are many different
ways to look at the economics of how a person gets into
business. Each fishing boat is a business venture that is no
different than someone buying a grocery store as a business.
The difference is that the federal side does not look at this
from the business aspect. The free enterprise system has worked
and should be continued. While he understands why current
fisherman want to protect themselves from competition, he said
this should not be done in the federal fisheries any more than
it should be done on shore with any other business sector. The
supporters of this endorsement program say it will give them
more stability, but it is not the government's job to give
someone an access right and then narrow it down so hardly anyone
else can get into the industry, he maintained.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN opened public testimony.
1:27:35 PM
ILIA KUZMIN, K-Bay Fisheries Association, stated that he is a
long-time cod participant in the Central Gulf of Alaska. He
said the race for fish must end, primarily for safety. He said
the 44 members of the K-Bay Fisheries Association oppose HJR 21
because it is not productive for the legislature to insert
itself into complex fishery management issues. The resolution
contains misrepresentations and incorrect assertions, such as
consolidation of vessels, reduction of participants, and
elimination of crew jobs. He urged the committee to let the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council do its job to complete
this process of the LLP recency action. With the current final
action that the council is considering, there will still be
anywhere from 110-306 permits that will qualify. The recency
action will actually save crew jobs, protect long-time local
Alaska fishermen who are dependent on the Pacific cod fishery,
and protect small boat owner/operators from being pushed out of
the fishery by the big 58-foot vessels that have just started
fishing and are taking a bigger chunk of the TAC.
1:29:50 PM
ALEXUS KWACHKA offered his support for HJR 21, saying that from
what he has seen these federal fisheries all basically end in
IFQs, and IFQs are having serious repercussions for coastal
communities. The LLP reductions will lead to sector splits
which will ultimately lead to IFQs, he argued, so it is all
rationalization. Despite this being a contentious and emotional
subject, he said there needs to be a plan for what people want
Alaska's communities to look like and how people will access the
fishery. It does no good to be in a fishing community and be
unable to get to the fish. Legislators need to look at what is
going to happen to Alaska's coastal communities and whether they
will be sustainable and allow new entrants into the fishery.
The 25 percent of cod allocation in state waters will lead to a
limit on that fishery because it will put the burden of new
entrants inside of the three miles and this will perpetuate the
limited resources.
1:31:39 PM
OLIVER HOLM stated that he is a third generation Alaska
fisherman and he supports HJR 21. He testified as follows:
I have an inactive LLP for the Central Gulf fixed gear
based on cod landings that qualified quite a few years
ago. Last year I caught over 10,000 pounds of cod,
but it was in other fisheries. My LLP has been
inactive because I have been Tanner Crab fishing
during the federal cod season. There are
approximately 150 inactive Kodiak Tanner Crab permits,
but these licenses will be available for those
fishermen to use whenever they want to come back into
the fishery based on economics. Many of these
inactive crab permits have been people that have been
fishing cod in the federal season instead of crab. If
the crab season were closed again, I or my son would
need to fish cod instead of crab. But the NPFMC is
headed to eliminate my cod endorsement. I am 61 years
old and my son is 21 and recently purchased a boat. I
would like my LLP to be available for his use, as a
jig fisher [close] to home would be marginal for him.
Early in the year, pots are the preferred way to fish
cod and an endorsed LLP would be necessary. If the
inactive LLPs are eliminated, the cost of ...
remaining permits will likely be pretty high and
pretty much of a barrier to entrance.
1:33:18 PM
SHAWN DOCHTERMANN supported HJR 21 and noted that he is second
generation commercial fisherman with over 30 years of fishing
experience. Fifty years ago, he said, statehood forced fishery
processers to start sharing profits of the resources extracted
from the state. But this is now going the other way with the
federal economic allocations of quota that prevent fishermen in
Alaska from having access to the fisheries. In the 1970s,
limited entry in state waters began for salmon and herring, but
this type of rationalization was somewhat acceptable because the
owner had to personally catch and deliver those fish, making it
an owner-on-board fishery. Then the NPFMC implemented IFQs for
the federally managed halibut fishery, and thus began an
absentee-owner fishery where the vessel owner to whom the IFQ
was allocated did not even need to step aboard.
MR. DOCHTERMANN continued, saying rationalization next occurred
in the federally managed Bering Sea pollock fishery when
exclusive rights were given to processors and vessels, many of
which were foreign owned. In the Bering Sea crab fishery, over
$1 billion in quota rights were given to about 100 individuals
and corporations. The processing rights were given to 7 major
processing companies, of which 40-50 percent of those processing
rights were owned by Japanese trading companies. These IFQs
were given to the quota owners for forever, consequently there
is no program to get fishing privileges back in the hands of
active fishermen. He said the next generation of fishermen have
had enough of fisheries access removal by the factions of
fisheries lobbyists.
MR. DOCHTERMANN said rationalization in the Gulf of Alaska was
attempted in 2005 and 2006 under Senate Bill 113, but fishermen
successfully fought that bill. Now the NPFMC is trying to push
through Gulf of Alaska groundfish rationalization by other means
to suit trawlers who want to secure the high value of bycatch.
Removing the latent LLPs from the groundfish permit holders will
leave state waters as the dumping ground for new entrants.
"Removing LLPs from fixed gear fishermen will simply take rights
from active and future fishermen and give exclusive rights to
investor-only factions who do not fish," he said
1:37:29 PM
LINDA KOZAK related that she grew up salmon fishing in Bristol
Bay and that she works with longline and pot fishermen who fish
cod in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea Aleutian Islands.
She opposed HJR 21, saying it is a limited entry proposal, not
rationalization.
MS. KOZAK noted that the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
actively looks at limited entry programs for state waters
fisheries. Six [of the eleven] NPFMC members are Alaskans, she
pointed out, and any proposal that goes through the council is
usually spearheaded by the State of Alaska, its administration,
and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game commissioner. She said
she has submitted a proposal to the state and NPFMC that would
give a cod endorsement to anyone who has demonstrated a
dependence on the fishery by making at least one landing of cod
in the directed cod fishery since 2000 or purchasing a permit
for the intent purpose of fishing cod. This proposal is very
lenient and will provide protection for those people,
particularly Alaskans, who are either involved in the fishery
now or want to be involved by having purchased a permit.
MS. KOZAK expressed her concern regarding the latent groundfish
licenses. Given the cost of purchasing a vessel and license,
she feared that only outside fishers and processors with large
sums of money would be able to get into the fishery, which would
devastate Alaska's coastal communities. She urged that HJR 21
not be moved and that the NPFMC be allowed to do its job.
MS. KOZAK, in response to Co-Chair Neuman, clarified that the
proposal she submitted was for at least one directed landing of
cod, meaning it would not be an incidental landing during a
fishery for another species. She said this is lenient because
one landing in nine years is not much to ask. She further
clarified that this pertains to the approximately 300 licenses
that are currently being fished.
1:41:41 PM
JULIE BONNEY, Alaska Groundfish Databank, said she works for
harvesters that fish out of the Central Gulf of Alaska and many
of the vessels she represents have both trawl endorsed licenses
and fixed gear endorsed licenses. She said she and her
organization's members oppose HJR 21 even though the majority of
members have not done directed Pacific cod and would lose their
endorsement if this action moves forward for fixed gear.
MS. BONNEY argued that this is not rationalization in terms of
quota share, but rather a licensing permit similar to limited
entries in the state fisheries. To manage fisheries, one must
look at the resource and develop a management regime that works
for the fishery. Between 1992 and 1995, the NPFMC created a
licensing program with 883 licenses for the Central Gulf of
Alaska. To get a license a fisher had to deliver two groundfish
[for vessels under 60 feet] or three groundfish [for vessels 60
feet and larger]. The idea in creating this huge number of
licenses was to provide fishers the opportunity to invest into
the fishery. Only 300 people have made at least one landing
since the year 2000, and the other 500 licenses have had no
participation at all. While this is removing licenses, she said
it is a way to take care of those participants that invested
large amounts of money to be involved in this fishery instead of
others.
MS. BONNEY pointed out that once the 883 licenses were created,
the state took 25 percent of the cod quota and gave it to a
state fishery. Thus, the federal fishery is operating with 75
percent of the pie, which means there is less cod to go around
while the number of licenses is the same. She reported that the
National Marine Fisheries Service has said that if all 883
licenses were active in the fishery it would be unmanageable and
the agency would have no choice but to close it. Access must be
balanced, she said, as must be the resource and management of
the resource.
MS. BONNEY said the endorsement proposal includes a provision
for entry opportunities, a tradeoff for the reduction of the pot
and longline endorsement. All vessels with five jig machines
would be exempt from any LLP requirements, meaning they would
have access from zero to 200 miles.
1:45:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether limiting federal licenses
will result in new entrants going into the state fishery inside
the three miles, thus creating pressure to raise the state quota
allocation above 25 percent in this area and creating a need to
manage the state fishery and parallel federal fishery as one
fishery within the three-mile limit.
MS. BONNEY replied that right now under the federal season
people fish from zero to three miles with a federal LLP. There
has always been that open entry where someone could fish inside
three miles in the parallel fishery, she said. The reality is
that only two percent of the actual cod catch in the federal
quota has been taken by non-LLP holders. She guessed that the
potential is there, but said it has not become a reality under
the present system. She cautioned that re-allocation and
forcing of more harvest within the three miles by increasing the
state quota above 25 percent could run into problems with the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements for the Steller sea
lion because the most critical habitat for the sea lions is
within 3 miles.
1:48:09 PM
FRANK MILES said he is a 39 year resident of Kodiak and he has
been fishing cod out of Kodiak since 1988. His history
primarily involved hired skipper activities until 1998 when he
bought a 35-foot boat and fished with longline gear. Because
there were issues with trying to fish in the winter on a 35-foot
boat, he fished another person's boat whose owner was no longer
actively fishing. However, when LLPs were issued, it was the
boat owner, not him, who was given the LLP based on his history.
To get his own program going, Mr. Miles said he had to
personally invest in the fishery by purchasing gear, a boat, and
an LLP on the open market. When he upgraded to a 45-foot boat
for safety reasons, his LLP with all his history could not be
used because only a 15 percent increase in vessel size is
allowed under the federal program, so to fish the 2009 season he
had to purchase another LLP.
MR. MILES pointed out that the federal proposal, as written,
would completely leave him out even though he is a long-time
participant. In the state water fishery, pots and jig gear are
the only gear groups that get to participate. Longliners do not
get the option of state waters, he said. The LLP program leaves
out a whole group of guys that made modest upgrades, and their
LLPs could be taken away from them regardless of their long-term
investment or participation. The length overall issue does not
stop the bigger boats from sponsoning, he pointed out. While
his modest upgrade increased his catch ability to 5,000 pounds
overall, the bigger boats can sponson 12-15 feet wide, and go
from a 150,000 pound capacity to over 300,000. He said he
supports HJR 21 because it sends a good message to the council
to not close the door on small boat fishermen.
1:52:22 PM
DONALD "DJ" VINBERG said he has fished in the Kodiak area for 40
years and is a third generation fisherman operating the same
boat as his father. He paraphrased from the following written
statement [original punctuation provided, but some formatting
changes included]:
I am opposed to HJR 21. Morally I agree with the
open fishing concept, but I live and fish in a real
world and have felt the impact of rationalization for
14 years. The race for history is on. Pandora's Box
is open and those of us with a long history in the
Kodiak area are not protected.
With relatively no restrictions, our cod fishing
is rapidly becoming a derby-style fishery, not unlike
Halibut fishing of the past. A Cod season used to
last 3-4 months; this year it was 26 days and
preseason estimates were 75-100 more participants.
Boats came from the West Coast due to the depressed
Dungy economy. A large proportion were long liners
from the peninsula and most disturbing to me were the
larger boats from out West who have crab IFQ's ... who
now are free to participate in any open fishery at no
risk to their already "banked" crab money.
The Cod fishery represents 50 percent of my
yearly income. In 2009 the length of time for fishing
the Federal Cod season was reduced to 26 days and the
State Cod season to 14 days. This has put me [in]
survival mode. If left unchecked, our cod fishery
will be over capitalized with emphasis on quantity and
not quality in a 30 day period. This will allow for a
more depressed price and more risky fishery, as a day
missed due to weather is a missed opportunity with the
clock ticking.
I personally feel that there should be more
restrictions on access to our cod fishery and
definitely some qualifying years set in place. The
[over] 800 LLP permits in the Central Gulf is a joke
and does noting to protect me, or boats like me, who
live in Kodiak and are totally committed to the
fishery. My options are limited to Kodiak - I am too
small to chase cod out West, and my business is in
jeopardy if my piece of "The Cod Pie" continues to
shrink.
Some hard choices have to be made. You can't
privatize big chunks of our Alaskan fisheries, thus
protecting those participants, and leave the rest of
us who are not so lucky totally exposed.
MR. VINBERG added that while he is not in favor of further
privatization, IFQs, he thinks a limited number of permits is a
good tool to start with and throw out any LLPs with no recency.
He said the other half of his income is from salmon, which is an
example of a well-structured fishery. He continued with his
prepared statement:
While I appreciate the opportunity to express my
concerns about the future of my livelihood, I am also
concerned about the Alaska Legislature's ability to
undermine The North Pacific Fisheries Management
Council. I think you should be concerned about our
fisheries and knowledgeable about our situation, but
at the same time be respectful of those whose sole
responsibility is to make fishery management
decisions. If you do not trust them, why should I?
1:56:29 PM
RYAN JOHNSON testified that he has been fishing cod since 1997
on his 38-foot boat. He purchased an LLP for his boat in
approximately 2002 and earned history in the fishery that will
qualify under the proposed plan. After numerous years of winter
fishing on this small boat he upgraded to a 48-foot boat. His
boat payments are expensive and cod fishing is very important to
him, he said. This larger boat required that he purchase a new
LLP because the one for his smaller boat did not qualify for
transfer. There are not yet deliveries on his new LLP, he said,
but it is an important part of his business plan if he is to
survive. He said he spent $30,000 this past year on pots and
cod fishing gear, and he will be forced to incur more debt if he
is excluded from cod fishing or forced to buy a new permit under
the proposed reduction.
MR. JOHNSON acknowledged that having over 800 permits fishing
would be a bad thing, but he said this is unlikely to happen
because of the economics of the fishery. People fished this
winter and lost money, but they fished to gain the history. He
expressed his frustration at seeing wealthy boat owners sitting
on the couch while sending out their crews to work for almost
nothing so that the owners would gain the history. These
wealthy owners then hire lobbyists to go before the NPFMC and
come up with schemes that leave the working fishermen of Alaska
behind, he contended. If the council would leave it alone, the
economics of the fishery would be self-regulating, as it should
be. He said he therefore supports HJR 21.
MR. JOHNSON, in response to Co-Chair Neuman, stated that many of
the people who would benefit from this own the larger boats, so
their LLPs would be worth more money. He guessed that an 85-
foot pot boat with a cod endorsement would be worth $300,000-
$500,000, conservatively, under the proposal. These are the
very same people who received halibut and black cod IFQs for
free, he said.
2:00:44 PM
STEPHAN TAUFEN, Groundswell Fisheries Movement, stated that this
is an economic issue and it is a fight that is on the pathway to
more rationalization. It is important to slow down this process
of removing access, especially absent a biological concern, he
said. Some people are trying to make safety an issue, which is
what happened for crab rationalization. But, that, too, was
solely about economics, which is prohibited under federal law.
These other concerns are simply distracters, he contended.
MR. TAUFEN said job creation is all about opportunities of
preserving access under free enterprise rights. Further
consolidation and concentration will not serve the preservation
of these of jobs. He urged that a deputy attorney general
attend all NPFMC meetings to represent small fishermen and to
keep state bodies informed. When prices are low, it makes sense
to leave the fish in the water to propagate and grow. It is
important to send a message that there will be no more giving
away of history under a specially chosen set of qualifying
years. This is the pathway to rationalization, otherwise the
council's measures would not talk about catch history and
stacked licensing provisions. He pointed out that the council
has the alternative to choose no action and HJR 21 sends the
message that no action is a viable position. Because the
council takes public testimony, the legislature's weighing in
does not undermine the council's actions.
2:04:17 PM
TONY GREGORIO, Chignik Lagoon Village Corporation, said he has
fished in Chignik since 1959. He noted that a fisherman can no
longer make it by only fishing for salmon. His organization has
tried to work with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
to slow down these deals because they hurt the small
communities, he related. Chignik is the worst possible place to
fish for cod in the winter due to constant winds of 60 miles per
hour. The coast communities must be addressed, and taking away
latent LLPs is closing the door little by little. This is
running down the road to rationalization, which is why he
supports HJR 21, he said.
2:06:16 PM
FREDDIE CHRISTIANSEN, Gulf of Alaska Coastal Communities
Coalition, said he was born and raised on Kodiak Island and he
has fished in most of the fisheries since he was six years old.
He said he is opposed to any kind of rationalization or limited
entry program, whether state or federal, because it takes away
access and opportunities for people in the coastal communities
who have depended on these resources for millennium, as shown by
the presence of cod bones in archeological sites. There is no
need to give away the resource to an elite group of people. He
said he supports HJR 21 for the purpose of slowing this down and
trying to come up with measures that will protect communities.
This is the last possible rationalized fishery and there needs
to be a way to protect the small boat fishermen like the ones he
is representing. There are other ways of limiting the boats
that are coming in and fishing just for the purposes of history.
He urged that the state stand up and take the lead in protecting
communities.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN closed public testimony.
2:09:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said the testimony indicates that no
matter what one does there are always two sides to an issue, but
in this case he believes it is purely economics that is driving
the movement for these endorsements. This economic drive will
leave other people out and there are Alaskans that need to be
protected from being blocked out by this excessive access.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN, in response to Co-Chair Neuman, said
some people consider rationalization to be only those programs
where the resource was actually given way and rationalized into
ownership. Every fishery in Alaska is going to be rationalized
in one form or another over time as more and more entrants come
into the fisheries and create races for the fish. He said he
does not have a problem with giving out IFQs like was done for
halibut, but what he disagrees with is giving ownership of the
IFQ to the fishermen instead of some other method of rolling it
over so it is available for others wishing to get into the
program. Whether or not it is rationalization or limited entry
depends on who you are talking to and how they interpret it.
2:12:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired how effective these types of
resolutions have been in the past in influencing the NPFMC's
decision-making process in the past.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said he does not know. He explained
that during his four years as Governor Murkowski's fishery
policy advisor, he attended the council's meetings and, in his
opinion, the policy decisions of the NPFMC were not necessarily
favorable to Alaskans. He said this convinced him that Alaska's
legislature needs to stand up and have a voice in the policy
decisions that affect Alaska's communities.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON added that this is a license limitation
program on the federal side, just like salmon license limitation
on the state side, but an attempt is being made to cut more than
half of the licenses. Many of the licenses are not currently
being fished in Cook Inlet because the economics are not there.
It is a good decision to have participation based on economics
and not building a history, he opined. The groundfish license
covers all species and that license will be zeroed out if cod is
removed because things must be done in combination; if the most
profitable fishery of a unit is taken out, the rest of it goes
away. While he has friends on both sides of this issue, he said
he is worried that communities will be affected if there are not
enough licenses available for residents should processing
opportunities arise in a community in the future, and this is
one of the reasons why he supports HJR 21.
2:16:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked why this issue is happening now.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said he thinks the real problem is how
the NPFMC is made up, and the council is mostly made up of
industry people, so industry is speaking at every level. The
only people who can afford to go to every one of the eight one-
and-a-half-week-long council meetings held each year are those
who have money. Half the people who spoke today are tied to
that big industry and were paid to come and speak. Every
community in the Gulf of Alaska will be affected. Members of
the North Pacific Fishery Management Council are appointed, not
elected, and some are from Washington and Oregon.
2:19:19 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON surmised that the Pacific cod fishery is not
overfished and what is going on is an economic decision, not a
biological decision.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said that just about every sentence in
the council's [Environmental Assessment on the proposal to add
Pacific cod endorsements] is about economically protecting those
who are currently fishing. Right now the fishery is not
biologically threatened at all, he maintained, but there are
areas of economic threats within the three miles where the state
and parallel fisheries are located. Stocks can be protected by
management schemes that limit the number of pots, limit the
number of hooks that can be fished, and that limit boat size,
width, and tonnage. Limiting the number of licenses to 300 does
not protect the resource because each of the 300 could lengthen
their boats or increase their number of pots. In further
response, he said he would not phrase it as a political
decision, but rather an economics decision.
2:22:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that while he has constituents on
both sides of this issue, the consequences of this proposal on
coastal communities and the future consequence of the allocation
between state water and federal fisheries have not been
addressed. If access to the federal fishery is reduced for
coastal Alaskans, pressure will be put on the Board of Fisheries
to take control of more of the fish within state waters for
state water access, he opined. The ramifications will go much
further than which boats will be in and which will be out.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to Co-Chair Neuman, stated
that if the availability of federal licenses to coastal
fishermen is reduced, the result will be pressure on the Board
of Fisheries to take control of more of the cod fish that are in
state waters. The impact of this will be a shifting of the
current gear types that are used to the gear types that are
allowed in the state water fishery, which he does not think is
good for the mix of Alaska fishermen. In further response, he
agreed that this will create more impact on the three-mile area.
2:25:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON commented that today's vote will result in
making half of each member's constituency happy and half upset.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved to report HJR 21 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HJR 21 was reported out of the
House Resources Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:27 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
HB 70-ALASKA GROWN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
2:30:21 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 70, "An Act establishing the farm-to-school
program in the Department of Natural Resources, the Alaska grown
fresh fruit and vegetable grant program in the Department of
Education and Early Development, the farmers' market technology
improvement pilot program in the Department of Environmental
Conservation, and the farmers to food banks pilot program in the
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development."
2:31:01 PM
SANDRA WILSON, Staff, Representative Carl Gatto, Alaska State
Legislature, paraphrased from the following sponsor statement on
behalf of Representative Gatto, sponsor of HB 70 [original
punctuation provided, but with some formatting changes]:
The Farm-to-School Act is similar to programs proposed
in several other states. Its intent is to strengthen
links between state agriculture and state food
procurement in schools, expand local markets, improve
nutrition, and even benefit the environment. It
improves upon current law that requires schools
receiving state moneys to purchase agricultural
products harvested in the state if, and only if, they
are priced no more then seven percent higher then
similar products imported to Alaska.
A Farm-to-School Program is created to facilitate
increased procurement of Alaska grown foods by
schools. The program will, in order of priority:
Identify and develop policies and procedure, including
proposed uniform procurement procedures, to implement
and evaluate the program;
Assist food producers, distributors, and brokers to
market Alaska grown food to schools by informing them
of opportunities and requirements;
Assist schools in connecting with local producers by
informing them of sources, availability and benefits
of Alaska grown foods;
Indentify and recommend ways to increase
predictability of sales and adequacy of supply;
Make available publications allowing students to see
the benefits of preparing and consuming locally-grown
food;
Support efforts to advance other farm-to-school
extensions such as school gardens or farms, and farm
visits; and
Seek additional funds to leverage state expenditures.
The Division of Agriculture must, cooperating with the
Department of Education & Early Development, collect
data on program activities and report biennially to
the Legislature their progress beginning January 2010.
HB 70 also gives schools the authorization to create a
school garden or even a farm. In doing so they must
allow students representing student organizations the
opportunity to be involved in the garden or farm
operation. Schools may teach both organic and
traditional farming methods.
This bill sunsets on July 1, 2013.
2:32:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARL GATTO, Alaska State Legislature, related
that according to reports he has read, Alaska maintains about a
four-day supply of food. He said the idea for HB 70 first came
to him when he was in Dillingham talking to people in the school
district who told him that the district had more frozen salmon
than it could use. This made him wonder whether there was the
ability to trade food among the schools; for example, trading
the salmon for milk, potatoes, carrots, and other crops from the
Matanuska-Susitna Valley. However, trading did not become
successful, mostly because of transportation costs. But there
was still the idea of taking locally grown food and moving it
from the farm to the schools, and HB 70 provides a seven percent
incentive to do that. Farming contributes about $50 million to
the state and anything that encourages the production of food
within Alaska is something that should be done.
2:34:23 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN requested Representative Gatto to elaborate how
food programs could help bring different areas of the state
together.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said the programs would add another venue
for communication between the state's schools; for example,
signs in the lunch area could note that the fish was donated or
traded by the Dillingham School District to the Palmer School
District. Children would learn that the food on their trays,
such as carrots or potatoes, had come from their state. He
predicted that the idea will expand as local food is put into
the local schools.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN opened public testimony.
2:37:08 PM
JESSICA LAZAR, testified in support of HB 70, saying that
support of local agriculture is important and economically vital
to Alaska's farmers. Since everyone needs to eat, it might as
well be purchased from friends and neighbors, she said. It is
entirely unsustainable to continue getting the majority of the
state's food from elsewhere. Fresh, local produce is also more
nutritious than food that has spent weeks in the shipping
process. As a child growing up in Anchorage eating unpalatable
school food shipped from outside Alaska, she said she thinks
public schools are a great place to start supporting local
agriculture. The bill will be a great first step in helping
students connect to their food supply, helping them eat
healthier, and providing a ready market for farmers; thus, HB 70
would provide a win-win situation.
2:38:56 PM
GAIL EASTWOOD, offered support for HB 70 on behalf of herself
and her husband. She said she and her husband have a farm in
Delta Junction and commercially fish out of Petersburg. Local
food will provide a much higher nutritional value to Alaska's
school children as well as assist Alaska's farmers. She said
she and her husband are absolutely and totally in favor of HB 70
as a wonderful first step.
2:40:22 PM
ZOE FULLER, Alaska Youth for Environmental Action, supported HB
70. She testified as follows:
Like almost all youth my age, I attend a public high
school and I am a daily witness to the
unsustainability of school food systems. Food is
prepackaged, frequently wasted, and is often flown in
from out of state using fossil fuels. Students need
better alternatives than status quo school food. The
bill, Alaska Grown Agricultural Products, would
provide support to schools' procurement of local food
and the establishment of school gardens and farms.
The bill is ecologically friendly and would be good
for Alaska's economy by providing support to local
farmers. We want to feel a connection to our food.
Local food and school farms could drastically improve
students' connection to their food and students'
connection to their school. Students need you to pass
HB 70 in support of Alaska Grown Agricultural
Products.
2:41:36 PM
MYKALA RICE, Tanana District 4H, said she likes HB 70 because it
would provide fresher and healthier foods to the schools and
would educate students about where their food comes from. It
would also help sustain the agricultural industry in Alaska and
would encourage farming to continue in the state. She said she
likes the idea of gardens in the school because they could teach
what many kids do not know; for instance, most of the kids at
her school do not know how to plant a seed. In addition, local
agriculture would help reduce Alaska's food dependence on other
states.
MS. RICE pointed out that teachers with natural resource and
agriculture backgrounds are needed to teach agriculture in the
schools, otherwise any farm and greenhouse programs will not be
as successful as they could be. She noted that HB 70 says the
education would go through different departments, one of them
being the Cooperative Extension Service, which is currently
stretched to the limit as far as staff, time, and funding. She
said she must therefore question where the funding will come for
sponsoring a teacher or agent for this school program. She also
questioned whether the definition in the bill for Alaska Grown
means only a product that is grown in the state or also includes
a product that is shipped into the Alaska and then processed.
Ms. Rice pointed out that the growing season is either just
starting when school is ending or ending when school is
starting. She suggested that further steps be taken to fully
implement HB 70 even though she likes the bill.
2:47:30 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 70, version 26-LS0284\R, Bannister,
2/12/09, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version R
was before the committee.
2:48:09 PM
JENNA ARMSTRONG, Tanana District 4H, stated that she agrees with
some parts of HB 70, but disagrees with others. She said a good
thing about HB 70, is that Alaskan grown food would be fresher
and healthier for kids and would help educate youth about where
their food comes from. It would also help sustain Alaska's
farmers by providing more customers to help them stay in
business. In addition, having gardens and greenhouses in
schools is a great idea because it would provide hands-on
experience.
MS. ARMSTRONG suggested that changes be made to HB 70 in regard
to the funding. The Cooperative Extension Service needs
increased funding as it has been flat lined for many years, she
said Alaska has only 9 full- and part-time Cooperative Extension
Service agents and they would be unable to handle the additional
work that HB 70 would require of them. She also noted that most
of the growing season is when school is out for the summer,
therefore it would need to be a summer program and there would
need to be a 12-month contract with a teacher. While she really
likes HB 70, she urged that it be amended to make these changes.
2:52:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON thanked the witnesses for their testimony.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN agreed that the witnesses have brought up good
points about the funding.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG noted there is a $10 million fiscal
note accompanying HB 70 that would implement its programs.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN held HB 70, Version R. He urged members of the
public to submit their suggestions to Representative Gatto.
2:53:58 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:54 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 70 Packet.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 70 |
| HB 43 Packet.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 43 |
| HJR 21 Packet.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR 21Fixed Gear Recency Anal.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 21 HJR 21Fixed Gear Recency Anal |
| HJR 21 add info 1.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 21 |
| HB 70.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 70 |
| HB 70-EED-TLS-3-16-09.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 70 |
| HB 70-DNR-AG-03-17-09.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 70 |
| HJR 21 add Testimony.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR 21 add Testimony 2.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 21 |