Legislature(2025 - 2026)GRUENBERG 120
03/27/2025 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB135 | |
| HB129 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 135 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 135-DUTIES OF ASMI BOARD; MEANING OF SEAFOOD
[Contains discussion of HB 111.]
10:07:53 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 135, "An Act relating to the duties of the Alaska
Seafood Marketing Institute; and relating to the seafood
marketing assessment."
CHAIR STUTES remarked that HB 135 comes at the request of the
governor. She let the committee know that a committee
substitute was available, "Version N," which would change the
bill title from its original version by removing "Seafood
Marketing Assessment". Legislative Legal Services made this
conforming change because assessments are not included in the
body of the bill. Chair Stutes noted no other changes were
proposed in Version N of HB 135.
10:09:00 AM
The committee took a brief at-east at 10:09 a.m.
10:09:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 135, Version 34-GH1072\N,
Bergerud/Bullard, 3/19/25, as a working document. There being
no objection, Version N was before the committee.
10:10:07 AM
ANNA LATHAM, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Commerce,
Community & Economic Development, gave introductory remarks
about HB 135, Version N. She stated that the proposed
legislation would allow the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
(ASMI) to market aquatic farm products. She noted that Alaska
has many strengths that make it an ideal environment for growing
the mariculture industry. Alaska has a long maritime history
and a workforce that is fully trained to work on the water. The
state already produces more than 50 percent of the seafood in
the United States, and it is a natural progression for Alaskans
to expand mariculture activities to add to the state's economic
portfolio. She noted that over the last decade, the State of
Alaska has shown its commitment to developing the mariculture
industry. Part of this is credited to the mariculture revolving
loan fund. She said that given the state's abundant resources
and support from both the federal and state governments, there
is a tremendous opportunity to further grow mariculture through
the states marketing agency ASMI. She remarked that this
emerging industry creates year-round jobs, supports coastal
communities with declining fish harvests, and diversifies the
state economy. She noted that ASMI has done a wonderful job
developing an international brand for Alaska seafood and
expanding the scope of marketing to include the marketing of
shellfish could incentivize growth. She remarked that HB 135 is
also aligned with Governor Mike Dunleavy's food security
initiatives. If marketing efforts grow, it would allow for
increased production of shellfish and increase the availability
of fresh food in the state.
10:12:19 AM
JEREMY WOODROW, Executive Director, Alaska Seafood and Marketing
Institute, presented and answered questions regarding HB 135.
He stated that HB 135 is a "fairly simple bill", and its aim is
to give the ASMI Board the powers to market agriculture products
produced in Alaska. It would also change the definition of
seafood under ASMI statutes to include mariculture products.
MR. WOODROW presented the sectional analysis [copy available in
committee file], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section 1: Technical change amending AS 16.51.100(3)
to include "harvest" more of a technicality to include
mariculture products and handling of mariculture
products since they are harvested and not captured.
They are harvested and grown in a controlled space
these will now be included under definition of the
ASMI board.
Section 2: Amends AS 16.51.180(7) to include "aquatic
farm products" in the definition of "seafood" in
ASMI's chapter of statute, since it is currently only
wild capture seafood products. This will include
aquatic farm products under AS 16.41.199 fish and
game's definition of aquatic farm products, which only
include shellfish and seaweed, finfish are not
included.
10:14:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked how cephalopods would be
classified. This would include squid, octopus, cuttlefish, and
others.
MR. WOODROW responded that as the bill is written, he did not
believe cephalopods would be included in the ASMI marketing
purview unless wild caught.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that she wanted to know
whether cephalopods would be included under the proposed bill if
someone wanted to farm them.
MR. WOODROW reiterated his understanding that cephalopods are
not currently included under statute as a product; therefore, he
added that he did not think they would be allowed to be grown.
He said that he would need to consult the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game (ADF&G) to confirm his understanding. He said if
the cephalopods were wild capture, then ASMI would have the
ability to market these products. He said that he could follow
up with the question.
10:16:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked whether ASMI would market farmed
fish if HB 111, a finfish farming bill, were passed.
MR. WOODROW responded that as he understands it, given HB 135,
ASMI would not have the power to market these products. He
remarked that there would need to be a legislative change.
10:17:49 AM
MR. WOODROW remarked that ASMI is supportive of any legislative
change to allow for marketing of mariculture products.
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony on HB 135.
10:18:07 AM
ROBERT VENABLES, Executive Director, Southeast Conference,
testified in support of HB 135. He remarked that ASMI is the
"gold standard" for marketing and its guidance and expertise
would serve the mariculture industry very well. He said that
Southeast Conference was hosting the Alaska Mariculture Cluster
Initiative, which he said is a $49 million effort to stand up
the mariculture industry in Alaska. He said the guidance and
support ASMI could give would be timely and appreciated.
10:19:24 AM
KATIE BODE, representing self, noted she is from prince William
Island and was testifying in opposition to HB 135. She said
that she is an oyster farmer with Tomasso Shellfish. She said
that she began working in the oyster farming industry in 2017
when joining her partner at his family's farm in Sea Otter
Sound. She said that in addition to learning how to grow
oysters and market the product, she had to learn how to
troubleshoot challenges, expenses, and logistics that arise when
operating in a rural area. She noted that Tomasso has been
creating a sustainable business that contributes to the economic
diversification of the region. She said that oysters are
primarily provided locally across Southeast Alaska and Tomasso
was a member of the Alaska Oyster Cooperative and the Alaska
Shellfish Growers Association. She raised concerns that the
marketing assessment would be an additional cost to the farm.
While she was unaware of what those fees may be, she said that
treating a farm as a fishery opens the door to additional taxes,
assessments, and regulations. She said that Tomasso is ready to
comply with multiple regulatory agencies regarding food safety
and quality protocols. She said that new inspection
requirements would strain small entrepreneurial businesses like
hers and others operating in remote areas. She noted that
additional costs could prevent the farm from reaching a
profitable scale. She remarked that all shellfish farms have
unique characteristics based on the specific growing location
and Tomasso has built a quality reputation and directs relations
with customers. She remarked that every farm offers a different
product, and the commodity approach does not align with
shellfish production. In conclusion, she remarked that
shellfish production is farming and not a fishery.
10:21:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked Ms. Bode how she currently
markets shellfish products if not partnering with ASMI.
MS. BODE responded that they have done everything on their own
through direct marketing and building relationships with their
customers. She said that they are on their own and have built a
brand identity using tools such as social media. She said that
doing it on her own has been successful and she thinks it has
been on other shellfish farms as well.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT observed that small-scale operations
was working for them and asked whether there may be a scale that
oyster farming could reach where ASMI marketing would be
beneficial. She said that she understands difficulties of not
having a Southeast based lab. She asked whether it would always
be small scale.
MS. BODE responded that she did not believe so and reiterated
that shellfish farming was more of an agricultural practice and
not a fishery. She said that adding another success may hamper
growth.
10:23:20 AM
JAMES GREELEY, President, Alaska Oyster Co-Op, testified in
opposition to HB 135. He said that the cooperative ("co-op")
consists of five small family-owned farms that are the oldest in
operation for 20 years and the youngest in operation for two.
He said that combining farmed shellfish and seaweed products was
not necessary and all members of the co-op were opposed to the
bill.
10:24:41 AM
JASON LESSARD, Executive Director, Alaska Mariculture Alliance,
testified in support of HB 135. He remarked that the Alaska
Mariculture Alliance is an industry group made up of shellfish
and seaweed farmers, processors, hatchery operators, Alaska
Native Corporations, regional economic development authorities
and researchers. He said the group's mission is to develop and
support a robust and sustainable mariculture industry for the
long-term benefit to Alaska's economy, environment, and
communities. He remarked that the proposed bill concept has
been discussed for quite some time amongst the Alaska
Mariculture Alliance Board and its members. He said there is a
divide along sector lines, shellfish farmers versus seaweed and
aquatic plants. In part it is due to the different
circumstances between the two industries. He noted that
shellfish farming has been operating for decades, with a robust
well-respected industry with great products. Whereas many
seaweed farmers are relatively new and need help developing
markets. He said that recently McKinley Research Group did an
industry overview report for the Alaska mariculture cluster, and
they looked at history and projections moving forward. He noted
in 2024 oysters on a national level saw a softening of markets
but Alaska oysters "stood pretty strong," especially given in-
state operations. He said that seaweed "just doesn't have the
markets yet" and there was a "long ways to go" in terms of
developing the industry. He said that the Alaska Mariculture
Alliance saw a decrease in planting activity by seaweed farmers
due to the lack of markets.
MR. LASSARD said that the Alaska Mariculture Alliance invited
Jeremy Woodrow with ASMI to present on a webinar to members and
there was a substantive question and answers (Q&A) afterwards.
He said that the Alaska Mariculture Alliance voted on this topic
during a recent annual meeting, 87 percent of voting memberships
approved a measure to support ASMI marketing with the caveat
that each sector, whether shellfish or aquatic plants would be
able to make their own decision regarding participation. He
noted that the proposed bill falls within their approved scope
and the Alaska Mariculture Alliance supports it. He said that
an issue of assessment is not included in the bill at this time
and this is something that needs to be addressed. He said that
while both shellfish and seaweed are products of ocean farming,
they are very different and currently in different places in
terms of market development, different even in the plant versus
animal comparison. He said marketing is different and you could
look at beef versus kale ten years ago, he said kale was a
foreign product and it took extra lift to get it popular on the
market. He said both products would require different marketing
strategies. The marketing for shellfish versus seaweed can be
wildly different. He reiterated that the group was supportive
of the measure as currently written.
10:29:26 AM
WEATHERLY BATES, Owner, Alaska Shellfish Farms, LLC, testified
in opposition to HB 135. She and her family operate Alaska
Shellfish Farms in Homer, and she is also the president of the
Alaska Shellfish Growers Association and on the board of the
Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association. In 2007, she and
her husband moved to Alaska to pursue aquatic farming, she noted
that Alaska seemed like the perfect place to settle down and
there was an abundance of opportunities in the industry. She
stated that after being in Alaska for almost two decades, her
farm has generated and reinvested millions of dollars into the
farm which was purchased as a derelict sight. Today, the farm
is one of the biggest producers of oysters and seaweed in
Alaska, hosting an abundance of kelp and seaweed products. She
felt that ASMI would be very inappropriate for marketing their
farmed products for several reasons. She said that public funds
should not be used to market private farm products as each farm
produces and grows unique products and commodity marketing would
be undesirable. She said that her farm does not have issues
marketing their products, only problems growing enough. In the
last two decades they have seen the markets for their oysters
almost triple and given tariffs in place, it helps oyster
farmers like them get an edge over Mexican and Canadian
producers. She opined that by growing their product and
planting it, it shouldn't be subject to fisheries assessments
since it's agriculture related, not fisheries related. The farm
uses the "Alaska Grown" label, reports to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and has access to other resources. She said
that shellfish and seaweed have entirely different challenges
regarding marketing. She said that the proposed bill seems like
a move for the kelp industry to get access to marketing, but it
may not even help to use ASMI since there are so many complex
issues when it comes to marketing. She said that any farmer
knows that they need to understand their product and who they
are selling it to. She said that having to pay an assessment
into a marketing program that has not supported them for over
two decades is complicated and agriculture products and
fisheries should be characterized differently. She concluded by
saying that her farm supports the development of the USDA but
felt it was inappropriate to have ASMI market agriculture
products.
10:34:02 AM
SEAWAN GEHLBACH, Member, Simpson Bay Oyster Company, testified
in opposition to HB 135. She said that she serves on the board
of the Alaska Shellfish Growers Association but was testifying
on behalf of her farm. She said that she is an oyster farmer,
she buys seeds and plants seeds into an area leased by the State
of Alaska. She said that she is not fishing but simply
harvesting crops like growing potatoes or peonies. She said
that she is eligible for services through the USDA. She opined
that she should not be assessed a marketing fee. She said that
if the State of Alaska wants to begin marketing farmed products,
then it should do more than just change definitions, and
additional changes would be needed in ASMI such as the
assessment mechanism which deals with processors. She said all
oyster farmers she knows sell products direct and do not deal
with processors. She appreciates the state's ongoing support
for the growing mariculture industry by continued funding for
lab testing, affiliated state employees, and other associates
but nonetheless is opposed to HB 135.
10:37:18 AM
MARGO REVEIL, Jakolof Bay Oyster Company, testified in
opposition to HB 135. She operates the Jakolof Bay Oyster
Company with her husband and son and serves on the boards of
both the Alaska Shellfish Growers Association and the Pacific
Coast Growers Association. Speaking on behalf of her farm, she
said that she appreciates the legislature's ongoing efforts to
support Alaska's growing mariculture industry, particularly
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) shellfish
authority, funding for lab testing, and other resources. She
noted that for over twelve years, they have invested over $1
million dollars to transform a derelict site in Kachemak Bay to
a viable family farm with future operations being taken over by
her son. She said that unlike wild fisheries that begin with
public resources, their business begins with a private purchase
from private hatcheries. Their shellfish require year-round
care, and it takes three to five years before revenue can be
generated. She said that oyster producers navigate multiple
regulations from institutions like the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), the Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G), and others. She said that the oysters help improve
water quality and can even provide habitat for juvenile fish.
She noted that the farm developed its own unique gear that
creates a unique product that customers seek out, and every
oyster they grow is already sold; marketing is not their farm's
"bottleneck." She said large farmers outside of Alaska do not
have a state sponsored entity doing their marketing for them and
the "commodity marketing approach" does not fit well with Alaska
shellfish farming, which is a differentiated market. She said
that redefining seafood in statute to include both a public and
private resource would result in significant consequences
throughout the state. She said that farming has been explicitly
excluded from fisheries legislation and should remain so.
10:39:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELAM asked if he understood correctly that Ms.
Reveil's concern was that her private small business would be in
direct competition with the State of Alaska.
MS. REVEIL responded that they don't feel that they would be in
competition with the State of Alaska, but they do not want the
state to represent their products or market their products. She
said that she appreciates things like "Alaska Grown" or more
generic resources for growers. She said that she wants Alaska
shellfish to be represented by growers, not the state. She said
if the industry wanted to do some marketing like the "Got milk?"
campaign then industry members could come together to do so.
10:41:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT surmised that "Got oysters?" may not
resonate with people but there were certainly things that could
be done.
10:41:55 AM
CHAIR STUTES, after ascertaining that there were no additional
testifiers, closed public testimony on HB 135.
10:42:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said that ASMI has had its challenges
lately and it was discussed a lot during the Joint Legislative
Seafood Taskforce process, but it has had success stories as
well. He said that one of those challenges, given the tight
budget, is ensuring adequate state support for ASMI, year in and
year out. He said that the state was not sure what would and
would not get funded and said that the bill purports to increase
ASMI's workload but does not come with additional funding. He
asked Mr. Woodrow what he thought about this.
MR. WOODROW responded that this was a great question. He said
that ASMI has internally discussed it and if the workload was
increased by adding additional products to the portfolio without
additional assessments, there are many grant opportunities that
could be pursued. Some of these grants were not only for
mariculture products but wild caught fisheries as well. He said
some of those grants ASMI cannot pursue because they are
mariculture specific. When talking about what ASMI does most,
it markets the brand Alaska, and anytime it markets the brand
Alaska, it "lift[s] all the boats together." He said the
opportunity to pursue those other marketing opportunities or
grants would help other industries as well.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON commented that the committee heard
agriculture mentioned and it is interested given all the
different terms that are currently used: food security,
agriculture, seafood, fisheries, aquatic seafood products, et
cetera. He said that the legislature turned down the governor's
executive order (EO) to form a Department of Agriculture, but in
both the House and Senate there is an effort to bring it back
into discussion. He said that he heard agriculture mentioned in
testimonies, and he asked Mr. Woodrow what he thought about this
topic.
MR. WOODROW responded that it is a very broad topic, and he
would speak to it on a national level. At the national level,
seafood gets caught between two agencies. It gets caught
between the Department of Commerce under the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) where it is regulated as a
fishery. But there is a change of hands when it moves to USDA
and gets classified as food product, and this is something that
is not done in Alaska. The discussion is when seafood or
fisheries becomes classified as food, as this is when the USDA
would step in and help organizations like ASMI to pursue
different grants to market seafood products to the world. He
opined that the country and government do not currently do this
well. He said one of the requests as a seafood industry is to
establish a liaison office under the USDA to help open dialogue
between the Department of Commerce and USDA to help market the
state's fisheries products as food products. He said more
support is needed by the USDA to support seafood.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said the question was nuanced and the
answer was nuanced as well. He appreciated the perspective and
that more conversations would take place later.
10:47:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked Mr. Woodrow what the currents grants
were for oyster development and if there was a grant that could
be pursued for Alaska Oysters and Kelp and how it would be
pursued. He asked what a marketing campaign would look like,
either globally marketing strategies or U.S. focused.
MR. WOODROW responded that one funding opportunity that is
available is from the "Build Back Better Initiative," which
provided $49 million, part of which was to provide opportunities
to market Alaska's mariculture products. He said that ASMI
cannot receive this money due to statute. He said that this is
an example of pre-existing funding available for marketing
purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that his vision would be to have an
ASMI stamp on mariculture products, he said ASMI would cooperate
with them, and he said it sounds like what they are complaining
about is money. He asked whether this was a fair assessment.
MR. WOODROW responded that there was no assessment written on
the bill and much of the concern was about assessment costs and
he understood the nuances. He remarked that the industry is
nascent and trying to get on its feet. He said that ASMI
recognizes this challenge, and it would need to be discussed in
greater detail. He added that from an ASMI standpoint, they do
not tell the wild capture industry what to do and how to market
their product. Instead ASMI listens to the industry and reacts
to where the industry needs them most. He said if mariculture
were under the ASMI purview then it would be no different. He
said they would try to "create a seat at the table" and ask
where ASMI is needed most.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that he was trying to give him an
opportunity to push ASMI a little bit and to market ASMI to the
oyster farmers; he said that this would not change branding and
brand preference for consumers. He said it was like a stamp of
approval, and it would let a chef know that it is Alaska farmed
and not imported.
MR. WOODROW said that Representative McCabe was correct and ASMI
has been around for over 40 years has developed the most
recognizable seafood brand in the world; Alaska is the most
recognized brand. He said that ASMI does not attack farmed
seafood and one of the core criteria for the organization was to
speak only to the positives of their brands. If they brought in
other products, it would be an opportunity to bring that value
to the customers, farmed or wild, and regardless of the harvest
method. He said that if a brand carries the ASMI label, it is
the most recognizable seafood brand in the world.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said the vision would be like "Joe's
Oysters" [a hypothetical] from Southeast Alaska, which has a
great brand and great oysters, and they market to multiple
groups. They could have a campaign that ASMI approved or
supported, et cetera. He said a marketing campaign could let a
chef know that these are ASMI certified products. He asked Mr.
Woodrow what his thoughts were regarding what a chef would
think.
MR. WOODROW responded that ASMI interacts with many seafood
buyers and markets across the world. He said for example ASMI
was recently at the Boston Seafood Show and there are a lot of
potential buyers. He said that ASMI collects the buyer's names
and shares them with Alaska Seafood companies. He said that
ASMI was helping build these markets and relationships. He said
this is one-way ASMI could help "Joe's Oysters." He said that
ASMI also helps the industry if there are additional products to
get to market and there are a lot of technical resources that
speak to the specifics of the product. This includes
contamination testing and nutritional testing. He said that
these are a few things that they do to support the industry.
10:55:01 AM
CHAIR STUTES said that considering the testimonies, it appears
that most shellfish growers are not remotely interested in
coming under ASMI's umbrella. She asked what Mr. Woodrow's
thoughts were about separating shellfish growers from other
forms of mariculture such as seaweed and kelp.
MR. WOODROW responded that ASMI is supportive of helping any
maritime industry and if it was the will of the legislature to
separate shellfish from seaweed in the bill then he could
understand this. He said that ASMI looks at the industry as a
whole and it's an opportunity to help Alaska's coastal
communities.
CHAIR STUTES said that it would be a good way to get the foot in
the door with someone willingly instead of someone who is
screaming and yelling.
MR. WOODROW responded that ASMI does not want to force anybody's
hand with this legislation.
MR. WOODROW, in response to a previous question by
Representative Himschoot, said that cephalopods are considered
mollusks and would be considered in the shellfish purview.
10:56:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked Mr. Venables whether there was an
elegant way to separate shellfish such as oysters from other
forms of mariculture.
MR. VENABLES responded that he thought that his leaning would be
to try to make an allocation for a "less than" sized producer.
He said that those with small operations that feed the community
are not the subject of the bill intent. He said that finding a
way to do an allocation so that when "less than" a certain size
then there would be no assessment. He said that some oyster
farmers are looking forward to working with ASMI. He said that
finding a way to exclude small ones may be more appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said that splitting the two types based
on a "less than" may be difficult. She said that the smaller
producers would still benefit from ASMI, but they don't need the
help. He said that they are not able to produce as much to be
able to meet demand for marketing.
MR. VENABLES said that while rising tides lift all boats, if
those farmers see a benefit and decide to grow beyond the "less
than" threshold then they could grow into that opportunity. He
said he thinks there is an opportunity to move forward with
limits in place.
10:59:26 AM
CHAIR STUTES remarked that given the letters that were sent in,
it may need to be an exemption since it appears that oyster
growers are not just concerned about the monetary issues but
also regulations. She said that they need to comply with other
regulatory bodies and would face additional monetary demands
from the state. To move forward it may need to be separated or
exempt or put in total exclusion. She thinks that a total
exclusion would take interaction with the larger farmers
regarding interest.
MR. VENABLES said that he believed that an exemption was already
in place for small salmon farmers and his suggestion was to
model it along these lines.
11:00:56 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that HB 135 was held over.