Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
04/30/2024 10:00 AM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB122 | |
| HB169 | |
| HB234 | |
| HB55 | |
| HB145 | |
| Adjourn | |
| HB55 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 234 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 55 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 145 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 169 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 122 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 169
"An Act relating to certain fish; and establishing a
fisheries rehabilitation permit."
1:29:31 PM
Co-Chair Foster relayed that there would be a brief recap
of the bill. The committee would also consider four
amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CRONK, SPONSOR, provided a brief review
of the bill relating to certain fish and establishing a
fisheries rehabilitation permit. He emphasized that the
bill did not contain the word "hatchery." He stressed that
the legislation was about wild fish and would allow the
collection of [a limited number] of fish from a river to
fertilize and hatch the eggs, which would then be placed
back in same river. The bill did not pertain to farmed
fish. He relayed that he and Co-Chair Foster both
represented the Yukon River. He detailed that the bill
orignated about six to seven years back due to the issue on
the Yukon River. He highlighted that fish in the Yukon had
to travel up to 2,000 miles to return to spawn. He stated
that the bill arose because individuals on the river had
been unable to put any fish in their freezer for the past
four years, yet there were hatcheries around the state
producing fish for commercial fishing and trolling. He
remarked that no one seemed to have a problem with that,
but people were up in arms about the bill. He explained
that the bill did not really change anything, it gave
entities the opportunity to work with the Department of
Fish and Game (DFG) to begin rebuilding primarily chinook
stock that were returning in fewer and fewer numbers. He
remarked that there were many contributing factors, but it
was necessary to ensure the state had tools in the toolbox
to help. He noted that DFG had entered into a seven-year
agreement with Canada to not harvest any more fish. He
stressed the state would be going on eleven years of not
catching a single fish for food security.
Representative Cronk stated that the bill did not allow
individuals to rear fish and dump them in the river. He
relayed that the bill had been vetted by DFG. He noted that
the state spent millions on DFG to trust it to do the right
thing. He considered that perhaps no one would use the
bill, but it would be a tool to allow the return of wild
fish into the river in order for people to catch fish and
continue cultural traditions.
1:33:25 PM
Representative Ortiz thanked Representative Cronk for
bringing the bill forward. He referenced Representative
Cronk's statement that it would likely be entities rather
than individuals taking advantage of the legislation. He
asked if there had been a demand for the bill from
different entities.
Representative Cronk responded that he did not want to
speak for anyone. He remarked that there was a process of
things happening and perhaps a bit of distrust with the
state. He referenced an article he had printed on the topic
of rewilding baby salmon using indigenous knowledge in
California. He envisioned entities including tribes on the
Yukon River being involved. He did not want to speak for
any of the entities. He wanted to provide the option as a
tool for the future.
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Jesse Sumner in
the audience.
Representative Galvin thanked Representative Cronk and
emphasized that she shared his passion for returning fish
wholeheartedly. She thought it was a question of how it
would be done. She believed different solutions had been
tried. She understood the bill to be a tool Representative
Cronk was hoping people would use. She asked if tribal
organizations or others living in the region had given the
green light and supported the idea.
Representative Cronk answered that prior to bringing the
bill forward there were groups that had supported the idea,
but they had taken a step back and there was currently
distrust of the state from tribes. He stated the idea had
been around and it could be used to help rebuild the salmon
runs.
Representative Galvin appreciated knowing there was some
energy around the idea and now there was some uncertainty
potentially due to politics or science. She was not sure
those were the reasons for the uncertainty. She wondered if
California was having success [rewilding baby salmon] why
DFG was not doing the practice on its own currently.
Representative Cronk deferred the question to DFG. He
believed the state was studying as many things as it could
and there were things going on in the ocean that no one
fully understood. He remarked that perhaps there was a hope
that someday the salmon would return, but he did not have
that hope. He elaborated that there had to be a lot of
salmon returning 2,000 miles up a river to produce enough
salmon to make the journey.
1:37:43 PM
JOE FELKL, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
(via teleconference), answered that currently the
department did not have the statutory authority to issue a
permit purely for rehabilitating a depressed run. The
department's permits were limited to education or
scientific purposes.
Representative Galvin noted there was something similar in
DFG statute for study related to the propagation of fish
and it did not limit the type of fish. She understood the
permit was currently used for scientific and educational
opportunities including propagation. She asked why the
department currently would not have the authority to do
what was proposed under the legislation.
Mr. Felkl deferred the question to a colleague.
FLIP PRYOR, AQUACULTURE SECTION CHIEF, DIVISION OF
COMMERCIAL FISHERIES, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (via
teleconference), answered that under regulatory authority 5
AAC 41.610 (permit classification), the department had a
permit for propagative research that could be issued to
scientific and educational institutions for research
primarily for something like looking to see if a site was a
good place to put a hatchery. The department did not have
the ability to provide a permit to a nonprofit or other
entity that wanted to rehabilitate a river. The department
did not have that clear authority under its current
permitting structure.
1:41:14 PM
Representative Galvin asked for verification that the
current permitting structure was limited to someone wanting
to start a hatchery.
Mr. Pryor answered that it was the example he had used. He
clarified that the permit could currently be issued to
educational or research facilities. The department could do
some things under a cooperative agreement, but it was not
done very frequently.
Representative Galvin believed the permits could be issued
to federal, state, local entities such as tribes, and any
institution of higher learning. She thought it appeared to
be pretty broad. She understood there was some oversight
and perhaps necessary qualifications. She asked if the bill
allowed something different than what was currently in
place in terms of who may be able to propagate salmon.
Mr. Pryor answered that the bill would clarify who DFG
could give permission to. He relayed that currently the
department could issue permits to certain people and the
bill would clarify who exactly would qualify for the
permit.
Representative Galvin asked why DFG had not tried the same
activities as she surmised it was the department's mission
to ensure fish populations remained healthy and strong. She
asked if DNR had already done the work itself.
Mr. Pryor replied that DFG used to have a division called
Fisheries Resource Development and Enhancement [Fisheries
Rehabilitation, Enhancement and Development] that was
tasked with the role, but it no longer had that staffing.
The department currently only had staffing for oversight
over issuing permits and no longer had the people to do
boots on the ground enhancement projects.
1:44:45 PM
Representative Josephson asked for verification that while
the bill would allow private citizens or groups to engage
in fisheries enhancement, the department could not
currently do so.
Mr. Pryor asked for clarification. He asked if
Representative Josephson was asking whether the department
had the ability to do the work if it wanted.
Representative Josephson confirmed it was his question.
Mr. Pryor responded that the department had the authority
to do the projects if it wanted and if it had staffing. He
relayed that the prior FRED division [Fisheries
Rehabilitation, Enhancement and Development] had been
eliminated in the early 1990s.
Representative Josephson stated the existing program would
allow the take of 50,000 eggs or equivalent in spawning
pairs. He asked for verification that the bill would allow
for ten times more than the existing program.
Mr. Pryor replied that for a vocational project the answer
was yes; however, there was another level of the same
aquatic resource permit for propagative research, which
allowed for the number of eggs that could produce 5,000
returning adults. Under the current bill it was 500,000
eggs. He detailed that at a 1 percent marine survival it
would result in 5,000 returning adults, which he believed
was pretty generous.
1:48:12 PM
Representative Josephson stated that Section 2 of the bill
could be read to say that if the DFG commissioner found
there were fisheries enhancements in an area it may allow
the commissioner to sign off on construction and work
(which could be mining) notwithstanding other concerns the
commissioner may have about lakes, streams, etcetera. He
asked why Section 2 was needed if the goal was fisheries
enhancement.
Mr. Felkl answered that that DFG interpreted Section 2 to
be a conforming change. The department viewed the section
to mean that when the commissioner made a determination
about whether construction work or other use sufficiently
protected fish and game, the commissioner also must
consider any ongoing fisheries rehabilitation project
created under the bill to ensure DFG was factoring in those
types of projects before determining whether fish and game
in the area were protected.
Representative Josephson remarked that he did not think it
was a great answer.
1:49:59 PM
AT EASE
1:51:16 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster moved to the amendment process.
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 33-
LS0763\B.5 (Bullard, 4/29/24) (copy on file):
Page 2, following line 22:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(c) At least 30 days before issuing a permit under
this section, the department shall provide public
notice of the proposed project."
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Representative Cronk OBJECTED.
Representative Josephson believed the department may be
neutral on the amendment. He stated that the bill did not
provide for any public notice or opportunity to participate
in the permitting process. He stated that the bill allowed
the state to approve fishery rehabilitation permits that
had potential to adversely impact wild fish populations. He
stated there was disagreement about that. He relayed there
were 150 emails from the public expressing there could be
adverse impacts on wild fish populations and could
constrain fisheries management and further deplete weak
stock fisheries. He stated that a public process was
necessary to ensure that stakeholders could weigh in to
better inform permit decisions.
1:53:01 PM
Representative Cronk opposed the amendment and viewed it as
unnecessary. He remarked that the 150 emails received were
all the same. He had not taken much time to read them
because they could have been mass produced. He noted there
were different entities against the bill such as Salmon
State that were against any development in Alaska. He
emphasized that the bill was about subsistence and
rebuilding wild runs. The bill would be a tool in the
toolbox. He remarked that leaders seemed to want to keep
studying and studying things to death. He stated that
"before we know it there's no more fish and then its too
late to actually do something like this." He did not like
using the words crisis and catastrophe; however, after the
moratorium it would be 11 years until any Native Alaskan or
resident on the Yukon River could harvest salmon. He
stressed it should be a concern for everyone. He stated
that the bill was about subsistence, food priority, and
continuing culture. He reiterated his opposition to the
amendment.
Representative Hannan supported the amendment. She stated
that although the example that the committee had talked
about almost exclusively in the context of the bill was the
Yukon River and king salmon, the bill was not restricted to
the biggest river in the state or to salmon. She envisioned
a small community and small creek that used to have
sheefish in it. She stated that before someone developed
it, she wanted the neighborhood to know. She clarified that
all the amendment did was ensure there was a public notice
process. She added that 5,000 returning king salmon would
not be a harvestable amount, but reintroducing sheefish in
a neighborhood to a small tributary could be a significant
change and people had the right to know what was happening.
She thought that people sometimes viewed public process as
a burden or obstacle, but it was also the way to amplify
success.
1:56:14 PM
Representative Josephson provided wrap up on the amendment.
He appreciated the bill sponsor's passion for the issue. He
stated that a number "of us" think it is a climate
phenomenon, a high seas take issue, and a habitat issue.
For example, in 2017 the bill had been opposed by the Kenai
River Sportfishing Association and Trout Unlimited. He
highlighted that some of the emails received on the bill
were not cookie cutter emails. He believed the emails were
all from individual Alaskans and there was no evidence to
the contrary. He had lived on the Kuskokwim River in the
past and he knew the importance of all of the highlighted
questions to indigenous people. He reasoned if it had been
a seven-year problem, it probably could withstand another
30 days. He was told the department was neutral on the
amendment.
Representative Stapp MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Galvin, Josephson, Ortiz, Hannan
OPPOSED: Cronk, Stapp, Tomaszewski, Coulombe, Johnson,
Foster
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 1 FAILED (4/6).
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 33-
LS0763\B.4 (Bullard, 4/29/24) (copy on file):
Page 2, line 23, following "the":
Insert "department surveys water from which fish will
be taken or fish eggs placed, and the"
Representative Stapp OBJECTED.
Representative Josephson explained that the amendment would
require DFG to do surveys. He explained that the department
would hear an application and do a survey. He noted that
the work had previously been by DFG under the former FRED
division, but the division had been eliminated. He believed
the department should support a finding that there was a
depleted stock and that the action under the bill was a
potential remedy.
Representative Cronk opposed the amendment.
Representative Stapp MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Galvin, Josephson, Hannan
OPPOSED: Coulombe, Stapp, Tomaszewski, Cronk, Ortiz,
Johnson, Foster
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 2 FAILED (3/7).
2:00:02 PM
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3, 33-
LS0763\B.3 (Bullard, 4/29/24) (copy on file):
Page 4, line 7:
Delete "500,000"
Insert "50,000"
Representative Stapp OBJECTED.
Representative Josephson explained the amendment. He
referenced a distributed copy of 5 AAC 41.610 on permit
classifications. The committee had been told that the work
was currently done through scientific and educational
activities, but those only allowed 5,000 eggs. He
highlighted that the level in the bill was 500,000. He
referenced a public testimony email from Gail Vick from
Fairbanks who was a long-term Alaskan resident and
fisheries policy consultant with more than 35 years of
experience in the Yukon River drainage. Her testimony
stated that finding original brood stock from a local
stream was a major obstacle and that an egg take of 500,000
would take 150 to 200 wild female salmon and twice as many
males. She stated that a single permit in any depleted
stock region would require more fish than the depleted
stock could afford. She noted that in discussions with the
commissioner, permits for severely depleted stocks would
not be granted. He thought 500,000 involved too many fish.
Representative Cronk opposed the amendment. He stated that
50,000 eggs were three salmon and would not make a
difference. The purpose of the bill was to rebuild a fish
run so it no longer needed enhancement. He stated the
number in the amendment was not acceptable. He noted the
committee had just heard that less than 1 percent of the
number would return.
Representative Stapp MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Hannan, Josephson, Ortiz, Galvin
OPPOSED: Coulombe, Stapp, Tomaszewski, Cronk, Johnson,
Foster
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 3 FAILED (4/6).
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4, 33-
LS0763\B.2 (Bullard, 4/29/24) (copy on file):
Page 5, lines 1 - 5:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Representative Stapp OBJECTED.
Representative Josephson explained the amendment. He noted
that he had asked about the topic and had not found the
department's answer satisfactory. He did not understand why
Section 2 was necessary. He stated that the bill was about
increasing salmon availability principally in the Interior
rivers. He remarked that the department said the section
was conforming, but he did not know why it was necessary.
The section related to construction and work in a section
called protection of waterways for anadromous fish. He
elaborated that the key section AS 16.05.871 created a
balancing test where the DFG commissioner had to sign off
when permits were brought forward. He furthered that the
section specified that the commissioner shall approve the
proposed construction work or use in writing unless he or
she found the plans or specifications insufficient for the
protection of fish and game. The subsection specified that
the commissioner shall consider fisheries rehabilitation
projects when considering construction and work. He did not
know how it possibly helped with enhancement. He believed
it ran counter to enhancement at some level. He stated it
was designed to tell the department to relax on its
toughness when considering construction and work permits.
The language did not even specify that the projects had to
be successful. He highlighted that the amendment did no
damage to the bill.
Representative Cronk opposed the amendment.
Representative Ortiz found the amendment persuasive. He
stated that the language [in Section 2 of the bill] did not
contribute to the overall goal of the bill to enhance runs.
He thought it made good sense to remove it.
Representative Galvin supported the amendment. She
highlighted that the language in the bill specified that
the commissioner shall consider related fisheries
rehabilitation projects. She noted that the bill did not
define whether or not a project was successful. She
believed a project's success would better inform the
commissioner as to how they should be weighing the project.
She did not believe the language sufficiently guided the
commissioner.
Representative Stapp MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Josephson, Galvin, Hannan
OPPOSED: Coulombe, Stapp, Tomaszewski, Cronk, Johnson,
Foster
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 4 FAILED (4/6).
Co-Chair Johnson MOVED to REPORT HB 169(FSH) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
2:08:38 PM
Representative Josephson OBJECTED for discussion. He
opposed the bill. He expressed concern based on testimony
from 2017 and the previous week. He noted that Ms.
Hillstrand of Seldovia spoke eloquently against the bill in
2017 and at the present time. He highlighted there were
over 100 emails in opposition to the bill. He understood
the bill concept came from a very honorable place, which
was that people who had been in Alaska for 10,000 to 15,000
years had been more impacted than many other people in
terms of living their culture, sustaining their lifestyle,
and having the nutritional food source. He referenced the
email from Ms. Vick in Fairbanks he had spoken about
earlier. The email talked about her concern with creating a
catastrophic take of depleted wild spawners, creating an
introgression of distinct populations. Additionally, Ms.
Vick highlighted concern about the proposal carrying a high
potential for transmission of disease and genetic damage,
and an opportunity for unmonitored egg transport from
distant populations. The committee had heard from DFG that
it no longer provided much oversight of the area. He was
not reassured by DFG that it would make efforts to do so.
He stated that the overall concern from critics was that
the most vulnerable wild salmon would potentially not
survive the threat because it created too much competition
for resources and other mal effects that could be
detrimental to wild stocks. He opposed the bill.
Representative Cronk wondered where stocks would be if the
legislature had passed the bill in 2017. He stated it was
seven years back and now there would be seven more years
without catching fish. He stressed that the state had
continued to do nothing and had no vision to help anything.
He suggested that if putting more wild fish in the river
would create more competition, perhaps hatchery fish needed
to stop in order for wild fish to have a better opportunity
to survive. He stated it was a catch-22.
Representative Galvin remarked that it was a troubling
issue to be wrestling with. She appreciated the bill
sponsor's intent. She was not an expert on the topic and
had heard there were many problems with the two major
rivers. She understood the issues around bycatch,
overfishing, erosion, and more. She did not believe enough
energy had been put into the research. She was concerned
that more of the projects may have been done by the
department if there were enough experts at DFG. She
believed experts trained in marine biology should be doing
the work to determine whether the idea was the answer. She
found the idea of starting something without the oversight
of experts concerning. She also understood the desperate
situation. She leaned to the scientists and unfortunately
there were not enough scientists doing working on the
topic. She would rather see scientists working on the topic
considered by the bill than counting fish that were
nonexistent. She did not think the state had done enough to
protect it as a way of life.
Representative Josephson MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Stapp, Tomaszewski, Coulombe, Cronk,
Foster, Johnson
OPPOSED: Josephson, Hannan, Galvin
The MOTION PASSED (7/3).
There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 169(FSH) was REPORTED out of committee with seven "do
pass" recommendations and three "amend" recommendations and
with one previously published fiscal impact note: FN2
(DFG).
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the remainder of
the meeting.
2:15:38 PM
AT EASE
2:24:51 PM
RECONVENED