Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/08/1999 05:09 PM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 104 - ENTRY MORATORIA ON PARTICIPANTS/VESSELS
Number 0125
CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced the first order of business was House
Bill No. 104, "An Act revising the procedures and authority of the
Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, the Board of
Fisheries, and the Department of Fish and Game to establish a
moratorium on participants or vessels, or both, participating in
certain fisheries; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced there is a committee substitute for House
Bill No. 104, and asked for a motion to adopt it.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute for HB 104 [1-LS0394-I, Utermohle, 03/08/99].
There being no objection, it was so adopted.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON called on Elizabeth Cabrera, staff to
Representative Hudson who is the sponsor of HB 104, to present the
sponsor statement.
Number 0199
ELIZABETH CABRERA, Researcher, Representative Bill Hudson, Alaska
State Legislature, read the following sponsor statement into the
record:
HB 104 amends the existing moratorium law to provide for a
streamlined and effective process to better manage Alaska's
fisheries resources. The current process involves multiple
steps whereby a fisherman seeking a moratorium must first go
to the Commissioner of Fish and Game, who, in turn, must seek
authorization from the Board of Fisheries. If the Fish Board
authorizes the Commissioner to go forward, the Commissioner
may then petition CFEC (Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission)
to provide a moratorium. CFEC is then authorized to go
forward if it can make findings as required by statute.
Unfortunately, the standards set forth in statute are
difficult to understand and mutually inconsistent.
HB 104 allows petitioners to request a moratorium directly
from CFEC. A moratorium would be established if CFEC found
that it was necessary "to promote the conservation and
sustained yield management of the resource and the economic
health and stability of commercial fishing in the state." The
purpose of a moratorium is to quickly put a lid on
participation levels in order to buy time to develop better
management tools.
HB 104 authorizes CFEC to implement a moratorium on entry of
new vessels into a fishery as well as participants. This new
authority provides an additional management tool where there
are a number of different skippers used on one vessel.
Additionally, HB 104 allows the state to extend its moratorium
authority to offshore fisheries adjacent to state waters when
consistent with federal law.
The committee substitute specifically differs from the
original bill by authorizing CFEC to extend the moratorium on
both the Korean hair crab and weathervane scallop fisheries.
Also, I would note that a similar bill passed the House last
session with overwhelming support. Improving the moratorium
law is consistent with our concern for developing and
protecting jobs, as well as streamlining government and
resource protection.
Number 0378
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if there were questions regarding the sponsor
statement. Hearing none, he opened the meeting to public
testimony.
Number 0459
MARY McDOWELL, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC), Alaska Department of Fish and Game, provided testimony in
support of HB 104 on behalf of CFEC. It is the belief of CFEC, she
stressed, that having a workable moratorium statute is very
important for sound management of the fisheries. She explained
that the moratorium provisions currently in statute are so
cumbersome that they are counterproductive, and could result in
harm to a fishery by generating "a rush" of new participants. She
informed the committee that HB 104 would create a workable process
whereby massive growth could be temporarily controlled in a quickly
developing fishery. This would allow time to work with the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), the Board of Fisheries and
individuals involved in the fishery to assess the best route for
the future.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked whether a moratorium was for purposes of
biological conservation or to "save the scales of economy of those
who participate in the fisheries."
Number 0600
MS. McDOWELL responded that the two mandates of a limited entry act
are conservation of the resource and protecting the economic health
of the fishery itself. She explained that a moratorium is an
interim step to "getting a handle on" a fishery while assessing
whether limitation is the way to go.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON sought clarification as to whether HB 104 would
simply streamline CFEC's existing authority to employ a moratorium.
MS. McDOWELL said yes. She added that the current provision for
employing a moratorium is a convoluted process, involving
petitioning the Commissioner of ADF&G, who would then go to the
Board of Fisheries "if and when they can get on the agenda." The
Board of Fisheries would then sanction the Commissioner of ADF&G to
approach CFEC to request a moratorium. She stressed that this
process would take so much time that it is equivalent to waving a
flag and telling individuals, "You might want to rush into this
fishery because we might be putting a lid on it." This would be
absolutely the opposite of want CFEC would want to do at that
particular point, she said. She clarified that CFEC would continue
to work with ADF&G and the Board of Fisheries in this process, but
HB 104 would allow anyone to come directly to CFEC to petition the
moratorium.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON next introduced Amy Daugherty, former legislative
assistant to Representative Alan Austerman, and former House
Special Committee on Fisheries committee aide for four years.
Number 0788
AMY DAUGHERTY, Pacific Associates, Inc., came forward to testify in
support of HB 104. She is currently working on the Korean hair
crab vessel moratorium and the scallop moratorium. She indicated
that the language in the proposed committee substitute was clear
and specific. She expressed support for the bill in its entirety,
but particularly supported the provision to extend the moratorium.
Number 0869
JOE KYLE, Pacific Associates, Inc., came forward to testify in
support of HB 104. He mentioned that he is a member of the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), but he clarified that
he was not speaking on their behalf. He declared that anything
that could be done to give better management tools to ADF&G or CFEC
would protect the interests of Alaska. He stipulated that many
things overlap and intertwine between state and federal fishery
management; however, the federal fishery managers in Alaska are
currently in better shape with their budget than the state fishery
managers.
MR. KYLE added that there are times, from his perspective as a
member of NPFMC, when the state could be delegated more power over
some of the fisheries, but not having the management tools in place
acts as an inhibitor to that. He reminded the committee that HB
104 had a zero fiscal note, and would give the state fishery
managers improved tools to manage their fisheries. He stressed
that the greatest issue currently facing fishery management
worldwide is overcapitalization. If the state is not able to
address that issue in a timely and productive manner, he added,
federal fisheries organizations may preempt state fishery issues.
He urged the committee to move HB 104 as a means of giving the
state of Alaska the ability to take control of its destiny with
regard to state fisheries.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if anyone from ADF&G would like to testify.
Number 1049
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, came forward to testify on
behalf of ADF&G in support of HB 104, and he explained that ADF&G
worked with CFEC to develop it. He stated he was available to
answer any questions.
Number 1122
RAYMOND CAMPBELL testified via teleconference from Ketchikan in
opposition to HB 104. He felt that HB 104 seemed to be a
resurgence of HB 204 in 1998, and he referred to it as "the Santa
Claus program." He argued, "The Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC) wants the process of giving away our resources
streamlined so they can be Santa Claus and give our resources away
to people that got their hand out and want something for nothing.
We've had a bill -- we put our dive fisheries in Southeast in a
moratorium here about three years ago, and we put people out of
business who were actively fishing in those fisheries, and we
allowed people to come into the fisheries that had never touched
urchins before, and never touched some of the other fisheries...
I think this is a bad bill. If it goes through, I would like to
see it changed like the bill in last session which was 204. I'd
like to see the transferability of permits be eliminated, and I
think, if you took the transferability of permits out of it and
made it into a 'not a give-away' program, I think the support would
dry up."
Number 1225
CHAIRMAN HUDSON noted that he worked on a bill last year to try to
open up the urchin dive fishery, and he asked if that was working
at the present time.
MR. CAMPBELL replied, "Not for the people who were diving and got
cut out. It hasn't worked for me. It financially destroyed me...
I was down here diving for urchins and I was thrown out of the
fishery so people who had never touched an urchin before could have
the opportunity to do it, and this bill right here is going to give
CFEC the right to give people the opportunity to go into a
moratorium who have never been in a moratorium before, and it will
give them the right to cut people who are fishing in a fishery out,
so people who haven't been in the fishery can get into it, just
like it happened with the dive fisheries here in Southeast."
CHAIRMAN HUDSON declared he did not believe that would be the end
result of this legislation; rather, HB 104 is aimed at the Korean
hair crab and scallop industries. He added, "I don't think that
it's going to provide any more effort for mischief on the part of
CFEC in the dive fisheries down here." He asked Mary McDowell from
CFEC to again come forward to address Mr. Campbell's concerns.
Number 1340
MS. McDOWELL advised the dive moratorium was not imposed by the
CFEC, but by legislative statute. She explained that there was a
provision inserted in that legislation, by the legislature, that
allowed some fishermen who had not yet participated in certain
species to participate in all dive fisheries during the moratorium.
She explained that an individual needed to have participated a
certain number of years in a dive fishery to be "grandfathered in"
to other species.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON reiterated that the dive moratorium was a
legislative action, and he asked Ms. McDowell if she saw anything
in HB 104 that would adversely affect Mr. Campbell's interest in
getting involved in the dive fisheries.
MS. McDOWELL said she did not. The only connection between the
dive moratorium and HB 104, she explained, was that the committee
substitute of HB 104 would provide for the ability to extend Korean
hair crab and scallop fishery moratoriums for two more years, if
that much time was needed to gather data and decide upon a course.
She stressed that it was the belief of CFEC that a sound public
process, where the fishermen are involved in establishing the rules
through the regular public process, is a good way to go.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON invited Mr. Campbell to send him his written
observations, and his concerns would be addressed. However, he
pointed out that he did not believe HB 104 would have any affect on
the issues Mr. Campbell raised.
Number 1514
MR. CAMPBELL agreed to do that. He further addressed a question to
CFEC, "Does that mean, if this bill goes through, they won't be
able to extend the moratorium on dive fisheries for another two
years? It seems to me like you...you are saying that it is
directed at the Korean hair crab and the scallop fishery, but it
seemed to me like the dive fisheries would be in there, too."
MS. McDOWELL explained there was nothing in HB 104 that would
prohibit CFEC from extending the dive moratorium for two additional
years; however, she stressed that CFEC would never want to use an
extension provision unless there was a very specific reason for
doing so. She added, "People need certainty in their lives and we
know that. At a certain point, you need to make a decision and let
people know whether they are in or out of a fishery and get on with
it, so we'd be very careful about extending any moratorium any
longer than we absolutely needed to."
CHAIRMAN HUDSON once again reassured Mr. Campbell that they would
look into his written concerns, perhaps communicating through
Representative Carl Morgan's office. He invited the next witness
on teleconference to testify.
Number 1639
DONALD WESTLUND testified via teleconference from Ketchikan on HB
104. He mentioned he had some concerns, but added that CFEC really
needs some type of moratorium that is quick and responsive. He
cited his personal experience of having just gone through the
issuance of shrimp limitations, and attending three public meetings
on this issue. He related that there were 187 active fishermen at
the first meeting he attended. The next meeting had an attendance
of 243, and the following year there were 332. He stressed that
some type of stabilization of the fishery was needed when
petitioners file a petition with CFEC and "get a stop." He argued
that ADF&G should not, as was done in his area, advertise, "If you
have not fished in this year, you need to make a delivery so you
can fish in the next coming year or you will have a moratorium or
you will not be able to fish." He indicated that some type of
ground rules were needed, and that a moratorium would help in
certain circumstances.
Number 1769
MR. WESTLUND continued by stating that there was a five-month
fishery originally and historically, and some years it is a
five-week season. Stability of the fishery is needed, he stressed,
and parts of the limited entry buy-back program should be addressed
as well. He argued that there are too many participants in a
fishery, almost double the number in his case, and that something
needs to be done.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON reassured the witness that the committee was
looking for ways to streamline the public process, and give the
needed tools to CFEC and others to balance conservation with the
economy. He agreed that too many participants in a fishery would,
not only not make money, but deplete the resources; however, he
added that this has not always been easy to balance.
Number 1880
GERRY MERRIGAN, Petersburg Vessel Owners Association, testified via
teleconference from Petersburg on behalf of his organization. He
indicated that they would generally endorse HB 104 as providing two
new tools, one being a more timely way to institute moratoriums.
The other benefit from HB 104, he added, would be "adding in
vessels in cases where if you limited, say, permit holders, you
might be increasing the harvesting capacity by giving it to the
skippers...The larger-vessel fisheries, such as hair crab, you
might be increasing the catching power." He summarized by stating
that HB 104 should move forward.
Number 1950
DALE BONDURANT testified via teleconference from Soldotna. He
stated he thought there was a problem in our fisheries with
overcapitalization; although, he admitted that he did not know how
HB 104 would deal with this issue. He pointed out that the Board
of Fisheries passed a resolution last year addressing
overcapitalization; however, he was told at a meeting in the
Soldotna/Kenai area that the legislature "black-holed it." He
urged the legislature to institute a program that would not expand
the fisheries anymore, and to recognize their responsibility to
protect the users of these resources.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON thanked the witness for his testimony, and
expressed understanding of his concerns. He clarified that HB 104
related more towards streamlining bureaucracy by instituting a
process whereby CFEC would possess moratorium capabilities. He
reassured Mr. Bondurant that the committee would be open to looking
into his concerns at a future date.
Hearing no further questions from committee members or further
testimony from witnesses, CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked to entertain a
motion to move the committee substitute for HB 104 out of the
committee.
Number 2139
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER made a motion to move CS HB 104 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero
fiscal note. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|