Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
02/13/2024 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 | |
| HB195 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 195 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 195-COOK INLET: NEW ADMIN AREA;PERMIT BUYBACK
10:07:12 AM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 195, "An Act relating to the powers of the Alaska
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission; relating to
administrative areas for regulation of certain commercial setnet
entry permits; establishing a buy-back program for certain
setnet entry permits; providing for the termination of state
setnet tract leases under the buy-back program; closing certain
water to commercial fishing; and providing for an effective
date."
10:07:22 AM
CHAIR VANCE opened public testimony on HB 195.
10:07:52 AM
WES HUMBYRD, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
195. He talked about his background as a fisherman. He
explained that with a buyback program, "if you're going to buy
back any one permit, you need to buy them all back." He
believes it is unconstitutional unless everyone can participate.
He also said he thought the fishermen were being put out of
business.
10:09:15 AM
DENNIS EFFENBECK, representing self, spoke in support of HB 195.
He described his background as a fisherman. He believes buyback
program will give more opportunities for fishing the Eastside
setnet fishery, and it is time to buy back some of the permits
and give the rest of the fishermen a chance to survive. He said
the setnetters have been "regulated out", and it is hard to even
make a living.
10:10:29 AM
TED CROOKSTON, representing self, spoke in support of HB 195.
He described his background as a fisherman and the changes he
has seen during his 58 seasons fishing. Setnetting was a stable
fishery on the shoreline. It was an unusual circumstance that
created a big influx of permits which made sense at the time,
but now it's out of balance. He is in favor of the buyback
because it is a restoration program. If the fishery is reset,
it has the potential to thrive again.
10:12:39 AM
ALAN CROOKSTON, representing self, spoke in support of HB 195.
He described his background as a fisherman. He explained that
he has a site he cannot fish, and he cannot sell. He
characterized it as a valuable site, but he has no way to
harvest the sockeye salmon under the current regulations. He
emphasized that the status quo cannot continue, and that they
will be starved out with a negative impact on the local economy.
Six of the past seven years have been economic disasters. The
buyback program would allow some people to recover some of their
costs, and the reduced number of nets would have a positive
effect on the remaining fishermen.
10:15:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES referred to Mr. Crookston's comment about
having a site that he could not fish and he could not sell. She
inquired whether that was because of regulations or because of a
lack of buyers due to a lack of fish.
MR. CROOKSTON replied that it was the lack of fishing. For
example, if he shows a setnet buyer his books, the last six
years are dismal, so the buyers won't buy.
10:16:38 AM
ROBERT WILLIAMS, representing self, spoke in support of HB 195.
He gave his background as a fisherman and his involvement in
setnetter boards. He emphasized that the bill really needs to
be moved out of the legislature and "get it going." He pointed
out there was very little cost to the state. The buyback
program has been discussed at the board meetings where members
discussed the pros and the cons. Surveys have been sent out to
the membership, and of those who responded, a majority favored
the buyback program. He said that "if we can't get it out of
the legislature, we are dead in the water."
10:18:08 AM
LOREN LEMAN, representing self, spoke in support of HB 195. He
described his background as a fisherman. His family has fished
near Ninilchik for the past 110 years. During the past 40 years
there has been a reassignment of salmon resources. During the
last five or six years, the area's fishermen have been limited
by gear reduction and early closure of the fishery, ostensibly
to protect the Kenai River king salmon. Sadly the 2023 season
didn't open at all. This bill is a bold approach to secure a
voluntary reduction of gear which will help with management and
increase the opportunity of those who choose to continue
fishing. He estimated the cost of the buyback would be 52
million dollars. That is a lot of money, but he estimated that
was about the economic impact of last year's closure of the
sockeye setnet fishery in that area.
10:21:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked for clarification regarding why
this program would allow others to continue to fish.
MR. LEMAN explained that if 200 permits are retired, that would
create greater opportunity for those who stay in the fishery.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER inquired whether fewer nets change the
calculus in the regulatory decisions to allow fishermen to fish.
MR. LEMAN replied that he thought it would. He also opined that
some of the Board of Fish plans are unwise, and he hopes this
year the board will see that some of its plans don't make a lot
of sense and there is a better way to manage.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether his organization supports
the bill.
MR. LEMAN said he thought some board members would be
testifying, so they could answer that question.
10:24:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE inquired whether there were any objections
from his group when the state increased the number of permits
for the area.
MR. LEMAN responded that Representative McCabe is referring to
an issuance of probably 735. However, he believed the greater
problem was in the mid-seventies when there was a re-assignment
of permits from other areas to the Eastside. This created a
greater take on the resources.
10:26:44 AM
STEVE VANEK, representing self, spoke in opposition to HB 195.
He explained that he was party to a lawsuit concerning limited
entry permits which went to the Alaska Supreme Court. The court
determined that permits are not property because they can be
revoked by the legislature without compensation. If the
legislature passes the bill, and the state pays for the buyback,
then the state is admitting that a permit is property. Also,
reducing the number of setnets is not going to help the king
salmon. The only thing that will help the kings is to stop
fishing in the spawning beds. This is a management issue and a
Board of Fish issue.
10:30:37 AM
SCOTT SUMMERS, representing self, spoke in support of HB 195.
He described his background as a fisherman. When the fishermen
came to the Eastside from the westside in the 1980s, it changed
things. He would love to have a crystal ball and know that this
bill is going to increase the productivity of the fisheries that
are still left, but there is a concern that regardless of the
buyback, they will still be stuck in the corridor. A lot of
this is a regulation and allocation issue. He is in support of
bill because his gear is literally rotting because it is not a
viable fishery. He pointed out that some people who testified
focused on the number of permits, but that ignores the fact that
sports fishing is still unregulated. Nothing has been done to
curtail the guides in the river. Because of the regulations,
his site is virtually worthless.
10:33:51 AM
TIM KEENER, representing self, spoke in support of HB 195. He
explained that he has been working on the buyback program for
almost ten years. It makes sense on every level. The reality
of the situation is that the fishermen simply cannot fish. As a
whole, this bill will ensure that there is proper escapement
into the river and will ensure that the people who want to stay
and fish can have an economically viable fishery. This program
is supported by organizations representing both commercial
fishing and sport fishing.
10:36:36 AM
JOANN WICHERS, representing self, spoke in support of HB 195.
She briefly described her background as a fisherman. If the
bill passes, she would like to use the funds for her children
and grandchildren to move into another fishery. They love this
way of life and are sad to see where it is at this point.
10:37:21 AM
RUSSELL CLARK, representing self, spoke in support of HB 195.
He pointed out that the funds would not come from the state but
would be from outside sources. The funds would boost the local
economy, help restore some of what has been taken away. The
Eastside setnetters have borne the brunt of restoring the Kenai
king salmon. He gave an anecdote which illustrated how fewer
nets would have a positive effect. He also pointed out that the
Eastside setnet fishery is very important to maintain proper
escapement up the Kenai River.
10:39:58 AM
GARY HOLLIER, representing self, spoke in support of HB 195. He
described his background as a fisherman. He described the
number of setnets that would be economically viable on the
Eastside. He emphasized that there was no state money and that
it would be voluntary. The setnetters are an integral part of
the economy, and the buyback would help Alaska residents rather
than people from out of state that come to fish. He said he
found it ridiculous that the state of Alaska would not change
part of the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) to help
residents of the state.
10:42:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked Mr. Hollier what he paid for his
permit since he was an original CFEC holder.
MR. HOLLIER replied that his cost for the permit was zero since
he qualified for a limited entry permit.
10:42:45 AM
TEAGUE VANEK, representing self, spoke against HB 195. He
briefly described his fishing background. He believes the
answer to the management problem facing the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game (ADF&G) is not to eliminate the setnet salmon
fishery, but instead to allow ADF&G and the Board of Fish to
make management decisions. If the legislature really wants to
help this fishery, then it needs to pass legislation mandating
that the primary goal of management is achieving maximum
sustained yield for all species of salmon.
10:44:35 AM
JOHN MANLEY, representing self, spoke in support of HB 195. He
reminded the committee that the buyback program is voluntary,
and the sports fish groups are for it. It will help the
setnetters who keep their permits.
10:45:23 AM
JOHN MCCOMBS, representing self, spoke in opposition to HB 195.
He said it was ironic that there were approximately a million
and a half sockeye between the Kenai and the Kasilof River, but
the bill proposes reducing gear. Managers cannot save king
salmon with unlimited guides, unlimited dip netters, and
unlimited traffic on the spawning beds. All this is
unsustainable. Unless king salmon can be protected where they
spawn, there will be no kings.
10:46:16 AM
AARON DUCKER, representing self, spoke in support of HB 195. He
said he has not able to fish. He was shut down completely the
last two seasons.
10:46:51 AM
BRUCE MANLEY, representing self, spoke in support of HB 195. He
described his background as a fisherman. He pointed out that
the money will not come from the state.
10:48:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked where the money will come from for
the buyback.
MR. MANLEY replied that Senator Murkowski has been working on
the program in Washington, D.C. Funding from NOAA is also a
possibility.
10:49:57 AM
DAVID MARTIN, representing self, spoke in opposition to HB 195.
He suggested that the committee read the bill in its entirety
and mentioned what the legislature could and should do. He
opined that the problem is due to mismanagement. The buyback
bill will not solve the issues of the setnetters. The
management decisions by the Board of Fish demonstrate its
political agenda. He described the statistics of the king
salmon history since the 1980s. The buyback program gives false
hope to the setnetters who hope to fish more. They will not.
The proposal is unfair to future generations. There are plenty
of fish for all user groups, but they are not managed according
to scientific principles.
10:52:39 AM
GARY DEIMAN, representing self, spoke in support of HB 195. He
described his family's setnet fishing business and said they
have been regulated out of business. He explained that he
participates in the Board of Fisheries process, and he doesn't
see any changes. The fisheries have been allocated to the dip
netters and the sports fishermen.
10:53:37 AM
DAVID WICHERS, representing self, spoke in support of HB 195.
He described his background as a setnetter in Cook Inlet,
explaining that his family has five permits. He said he is in
full support of HB 195.
10:54:05 AM
DANIEL WICHERS, representing self, spoke in support of HB 195.
He described his background, working with his family as a
setnetter except for a period of time when he was in the air
service.
10:54:44 AM
JOHN MILLS, representing self, spoke in support of HB 195. He
explained that it was a win-win for everyone involved: the
fishermen who would like to get a fresh start in another fishery
or those who want to stick it out on the Eastside. He believes
that with fewer fishermen there is a greater chance of fishing
time. This bill may be the only way to give fishermen more time
to fish. Last year he was kept from fishing a single day.
10:55:49 AM
SARAH FROSTAD-HUDKINS, representing self, spoke in support of HB
195. She said she represents her family's 100-year-old legacy.
She works on same plot as her grandfather where he had his fish
trap. She described the complexity of her family's fishery and
how it has been devastated the last several years. A buyback
could be a way to regain stability.
10:57:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked Ms. Frostad-Hudkins how many permits
she owns.
MS. FROSTAD-HUDKINS replied that her family has four permits.
10:57:42 AM
CARRIE HOLLIER, representing self, spoke in support of HB 195.
She likes that the bill gives fishermen a choice whether to
participate or not. She referred to the testimony of her
father, Gary Hollier, and clarified his answer about the cost of
his permit under limited entry and the money he has invested.
10:59:02 AM
PAULINE MILLS, representing self, spoke in support of HB 195.
She described her background in commercial fishing. She said
that she has seen the Eastside fishery go from a viable fishery
to over-escapement of the resource and little to no fishing
time. She explained that the buyback will benefit all user
groups. Although her children fished from a young age, they
left the state because this was not a future that would be
sustainable.
11:00:47 AM
LISA GABRIEL, representing self, spoke in support of HB 195.
She described her fishing background. She hopes the buyback
will revitalize the fishery. It offers financial viability and
stability for fishermen. It is fair and voluntary. In the past
20 years, the Eastside fishery has declined dramatically because
of the reductions in time, area, and gear imposed by the Board
of Fish. In 2023 there was a complete closure of the fishery.
11:03:09 AM
JEFF BEAUDOIN, representing self, spoke in opposition to HB 195.
He described the history of limited entry. He questioned the
legality of the buyback program. He also said that there is no
scientific evidence that the program would result in a sustained
yield of the sockeye on the Kenai or the Kasilof Rivers.
11:07:22 AM
ERIC NYCE, representing self, spoke in support of HB 195. He
described his work and the costs involved with his permit.
Originally, he was opposed to the buyback because he thought the
state and the Board of Fish would make policy based on the best
scientific data. He now believes the Eastside setnetters are
being willfully allocated out of the fishery. It has become
apparent that the state will not manage the fisheries based on
biological data and instead will pander to dip netters and
sports fishermen.
11:09:25 AM
VICTORIA COLEMAN, representing self, spoke in support of HB 195.
She described the impact of the setnet fishery closures on her
family as well as the local community.
11:09:57 AM
LANCE ALLDRIN, representing self, spoke in support of HB 195.
He explained that he is fairly new in the setnet fishery and
bought in 20 years ago. He sees it as the only way to exit the
fishery with a little bit of dignity and buy into another
fishery. He pointed out that the inability to fish the Eastside
fishery is not due to a lack of the resource. There are plenty
of fish to meet every user group's needs, but their allocation
has simply been taken away.
11:11:08 AM
MELISSA GOOD, representing self, spoke in support of HB 195.
She described her family's fishing background. Fishing is an
integral part of her family, both in terms of economic value and
cultural value. The buyback program will give fishermen the
choice of reducing their participation in the fishery or getting
out of it.
11:12:19 AM
TRAVIS EVERY, representing self, spoke in support of HB 195. He
said that due to the political reallocation actions of the Board
of Fish and continuously growing population of other user
groups, a reduction of setnetters is the only path forward.
Eastside setnetters take the brunt of the fishery closures and
reallocation of resources. In its current state, the setnet
fishery is no longer viable.
11:13:25 AM
GREG JOHNSON, representing self, spoke in support of HB 195. He
pointed out that setnetting was a sustainable fishery, but over
time significant allocations and modifications have been made.
If and when the chinook return, there is still a management plan
that has made setnetting unviable. This bill would be a needed
reset of the fishery and is appropriate. He posited that
fishermen are eternal optimists, and that his family will shrink
their operation and carry forward on a smaller scale.
11:15:03 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 11:15 a.m.
11:15:40 AM
CHAIR VANCE closed public testimony and encouraged those who did
not have a chance to testify to submit their written testimony.
11:16:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked Representative Ruffridge, the
sponsor of HB 195, for details regarding the lottery in the
bill, specifically, if a person's name is drawn in the lottery,
whether it would be for one permit or for all the permits owned
by that person.
11:16:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JUSTIN RUFFRIDGE, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor of HB 195, answered that a person would be putting
in for a lottery of permits for a specific site. If those were
drawn, those waters would be closed to fishing, so they need to
be particularly regulated to that site.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked a series of questions based on a
hypothetical owner of six permits. If, under this scenario,
that person's name was drawn in the lottery and that person
chose to sell only three permits, would the waters linked to
those six permits be closed. She pointed out that if that were
the case, the person would be the owner of three permits that
were unfishable.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE explained that whether a person sold
all or a portion of their permits, the intent is to close more
waters to fishing.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES questioned whether a portion of the
permits can be sold if they are tied to a specific portion of
water.
11:20:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE explained his understanding of how the
lottery would work.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE reiterated his response and deferred to
Ken Coleman for clarification.
11:22:33 AM
KEN COLEMAN, Vice President, Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's
Association, responded to questions regarding the lottery
proposed under HB 195. He explained that each individual permit
is assigned to a specific area, so a person who enters the
lottery would be offering up one permit with its three nets and
a specific location. If a person's permit is drawn in the
lottery, then that particular area for that permit and those
three nets would be withdrawn and closed to fishing.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES explained her understanding that there
would be fewer permits fished, but that does not necessarily
equate to fewer people fishing. She pointed out that most of
the people who called in were multiple permit holders, so it
doesn't preclude them from fishing the balance of their permits.
11:26:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE said he would like to reframe the
question based on the testimony he heard which is that last year
nobody fished. Zero people put a net in the water to setnet.
As a result of that, there were 2.3 million sockeye that escaped
into the Kenai River. That is too many fish. The goal is to
manage a sustainable fishery. Part of a sustainable fishery is
to catch a certain number of fish in order to provide food
security or industry. How do we make it to the point where
people can people fish again? The question is whether the
reduction of nets in the water will reduce the number of total
bycatch for Chinook salmon that are terminally fished out of the
Kenai River. This is why the Kenai River Sportfishing
Association supports this bill. The question really is not
whether fewer people are fishing, but rather whether people are
allowed to fish.
11:29:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said he had two questions. First, he
referred to language in HB 195, page 5, lines 11 through 18,
which talks about an election but doesn't give details
concerning what kind of majority is required. He suggested that
Legislative Legal Services might need to look at this. His
second question concerned how the makers of the bill came up
with the number $260,000 for each permit buyout.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE explained that the $260,000 takes into
account the previous 10 years of not being able to fish. There
is an economic factor associated with the loss of a return on
the investment. The fishing association calculated the
approximate value, but there is room to move on the number.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE observed that it seems the state is
compensating a group of fishermen for 10 years of bad fishing,
and that is not the way the free-market works regarding
setnetting. He gave an example from Kodiak Island setnetting.
11:33:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE commented that, in fairness, this area
is not bad fishing. The fish are abundant. The Kenai area is
on par with all the other great fisheries in Alaska, but the
difference is that the state is attempting to modulate the
fishery to protect one species, the king salmon. He said that
the setnetters can explain how they have changed their fishing
techniques in order to conserve the large Kenai king. He
pointed out that the sockeye are everywhere, and a person with a
dip net can go to the mouth of the Kenai and catch three or four
at one time. Dip netting is a subsistence fishery, and it is
protected. He went on to say that setnetters are sitting on the
beach during multiple great fishing years due to a regulation
decision. There are management concerns that have brought
setnetters and Kenai residents to this position. There must be
a solution of some sort because there are fishermen in great
fishing years that are being told, "You cannot fish."
11:35:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether there are other remedies
to the situation such as recalling inactive permits. She
posited that a three-net permit could be designated a two-net
permit by the state. She also requested the date of an
optimization study conducted by the state.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE deferred to Commissioner Haight.
11:36:54 AM
GLENN HAIGHT, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC), Alaska Department of Fish & Game, answered
questions from the committee. In response to Representative
Himschoot's questions, he explained that the question of the
nets would be handled by the Board of Fish. The permit allows
105 fathoms of gear, and it can be split up into three or four
nets. Reductions in gear could relieve some of the pressure.
The optimum number study was finalized in May 2023.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether there have been other
buybacks by the state.
COMMISSIONER HAIGHT replied that there have been two. About 20
years ago there was a Southeast Alaska salmon purse seine
buyback. There were three stages of that buyback, one of which
was grants from the federal government, and the other two were
loans. The other buyback was the Bering Sea and Aleutian Island
crab buyback.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT questioned whether HB 187 avoids some
of the problems that came up with the previous two buybacks.
COMMISSIONER HAIGHT stated that the purse seine buyback resulted
in some people claiming buyback funds who had not fished a purse
seine permit. He said that the specifications outlined in HB
187 would prevent that type of situation because it is open only
to people who have fished their permits during specific years.
11:39:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES referenced the conditions of the Bering
Sea crab fisheries buyback in which the fleet received a federal
loan, and payments for that loan were a percentage of each
catch. She asked whether the recipients of the Eastside setnet
buyback would pay back loans in a similar manner.
COMMISSIONER HAIGHT acknowledged that the crab fleet did pay
back the loan "after the fact." He also explained that buyback
provisions were in the Limited Entry Act and were outlined in
the initial 1973 limited entry statutes. It was envisioned it
would be paid back by the remaining permit holders. He pointed
out the difference between the Southeast seiners and the Bering
Sea crabbers, describing those two fisheries as healthy
fisheries where they have a good expectation of a good return.
He said that the Eastside fishery does not necessarily have that
expectation, so this buyback would involve public sector and
federal funds.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES said she just heard Representative
Ruffridge say it was a very healthy fishery.
COMMISSIONER HAIGHT clarified that the resource is there, and
the price can potentially be good, but the question is whether
the setnetters can get their nets in the water. It is in part
an allocation issue, but certainly with king salmon
conservation, it is a big issue.
11:42:36 AM
CHAIR VANCE asked Commissioner Haight to provide a history
regarding action that has been taken to reduce the nets with the
current permits and the changes in the nets in the water.
COMMISSIONER HAIGHT responded that the optimum numbers study by
the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission did provide a broad
look at this question in Findings and Results from a Modified
Optimum Numbers Study on the Cook Inlet Eastside Set Gillnet
Fishery [hard copy included in the committee packet]. He
referred to page 25 of the report which shows the fishing days
over the years and shows an average of 500 fishing days in the
late 1980s but more recently averages 200 days.
COMMISSIONER HAIGHT also addressed an earlier question posed by
Representative Stutes regarding the number of permits a person
can hold. In the Eastside fishery, an individual can hold two
permits. When a person says they own six permits, for example,
that refers to a group of permit holders, often family members,
who are fishing together. He explained that his understanding
is that when a permit on a leased site is retired, then that
leased site is taken out but that most of the fisheries are not
on leased sites. Referring again to the optimum numbers study,
he used Ninilchik as an example, and explained that there are 16
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) leases and 107 permits.
The permits could be retired, but not necessarily the leased
site unless the permits were assigned to that leased site.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked a question about what happens when
setnet permits are bought back and whether that area is then
also closed to sports fishing or other gear types.
COMMISSIONER HAIGHT said he did not have that information.
11:46:10 AM
CHAIR VANCE referred to the information in the report regarding
the Eastside fishery and asked whether the end goal was to close
that entire section to commercial fishing.
11:46:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE replied that closing the fishery was
not the end goal.
CHAIR VANCE asked about the lottery and whether the end result
would be to close portions of the Eastside to commercial
fishing.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE answered in the affirmative.
11:47:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked Commissioner Haight for
additional clarification about the buyback program. She
enquired whether the permits remaining after the buyback would
still not guarantee the ability of permit holders to put their
nets in water because that is a Board of Fish decision.
COMMISSIONER HAIGHT answered that for the permit holders
remaining after the lottery, the jeopardy is in their ability to
advocate at the Board of Fish. Some fishermen believe they have
a better chance of keeping their nets in the water if there are
fewer nets. He said that absent a durable allocation where the
fishermen can be assured of some level of harvest, there is
risk.
11:48:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER explained that he had a question that
he wanted to have on record, whether there was an answer or not.
He reiterated what he has heard about the Eastside setnetters
being a specific subset of the fishing fleet. Constitutionally
Alaska has a sustained yield principle by which resources are
supposed to be managed. There is a constitutional requirement
of no exclusive right of fishery even though the state has given
wide latitude to manage who can fish within the fishery. There
is a provision that no person shall be divested of the right to
use the water without just compensation and that the laws and
regulations shall apply equally to all persons similarly
situated. The first part of HB 187 says that the intent is to
reduce the number of setnet fishers, decrease pressure on
commercial fishing in Cook Inlet, create a sustainable setnet
fishery, and allow for more fish for river users. The question
is whether there has been an assessment by the Legislative Legal
Services regarding this legislation being in keeping with
constitutional provisions.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE responded that he will look into that.
He thanked Representative Carpenter for bringing up the
constitutional aspect, explaining that last year the dip
netters, the drift fishers, and the trawlers were all out and
everybody got fish. During this time, the Eastside setnetters
sat on the beach unable to fish. He suggested the setnetters
would argue that there was a constitutional failure in the
management of that fishery in an equal way for everyone, and
that the state has failed them. This bill is an attempt to
solve the situation. He opined that this legislation is the
result of the question asked by Representative Carpenter, but
the constitutional question has apparently not been addressed
during the past several years.
11:54:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER addressed the constitutional issue
again, opining that, at least on the surface, it looks like a
violation of the provision that says the setnetters should not
be divested of the right to use the waters without just
compensation. He would like to see that question asked of
Legislative Legal Services and put on the record. He further
commented that if the state is in a situation where policies of
the state are violating the constitution either from executive,
legislative, or a subordinate board that has been established,
the answer is to correct that problem rather than create a
statutory remedy. He asked whether fishermen will actually be
able to fish if the nets in the water are reduced.
11:56:00 AM
CHAIR VANCE thanked Representative Carpenter for drawing the
committee's attention to this matter and replied that she will
ask for a legal analysis on this question. She then addressed
Commissioner Haight, asking him whether CFEC has had a legal
analysis done regarding this issue.
COMMISSIONER HAIGHT responded that there has not been a recent
legal analysis.
11:56:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked what percent of permits are on state
leased land.
COMMISSIONER HAIGHT called attention to page 12 of the report
which shows how many permits are on land leased from the DNR.
11:58:58 AM
CHAIR VANCE announced that HB 195 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 195 - Sponsor Statement v.A.pdf |
HFSH 2/6/2024 10:00:00 AM HFSH 2/13/2024 10:00:00 AM |
HB 195 |
| HB 195 - v.A.PDF |
HFSH 2/6/2024 10:00:00 AM HFSH 2/13/2024 10:00:00 AM |
HB 195 |
| HB 195 - Sectional Analysis v.A.pdf |
HFSH 2/6/2024 10:00:00 AM HFSH 2/13/2024 10:00:00 AM |
HB 195 |
| HB 195 - Sponsor Presentation.pdf |
HFSH 2/13/2024 10:00:00 AM |
HB 195 |
| HB 195 - ECA Presentation.pdf |
HFSH 2/6/2024 10:00:00 AM HFSH 2/13/2024 10:00:00 AM |
HB 195 |
| HB 195 - Supporting Document-ADFG Season Summary.pdf |
HFSH 2/6/2024 10:00:00 AM HFSH 2/13/2024 10:00:00 AM |
HB 195 |
| HB 195 - Supporting Document-CFEC Annual Report 2022.pdf |
HFSH 2/6/2024 10:00:00 AM HFSH 2/13/2024 10:00:00 AM |
HB 195 |
| HB 195 - Supporting Document-CFEC Set Gillnet Report.pdf |
HFSH 2/6/2024 10:00:00 AM HFSH 2/13/2024 10:00:00 AM |
HB 195 |
| HB 195 - Supporting Document - CFEC Optimum Numbers Study.pdf |
HFSH 2/6/2024 10:00:00 AM HFSH 2/13/2024 10:00:00 AM |
HB 195 |
| HB 195 - Fiscal Notes (1-3).pdf |
HFSH 2/6/2024 10:00:00 AM HFSH 2/13/2024 10:00:00 AM |
HB 195 |
| HB 195 - Opposition Written Testimony (Uploaded 02-12).pdf |
HFSH 2/13/2024 10:00:00 AM |
HB 195 |
| HB 195 - More Written Testimony (Uploaded 02-18).pdf |
HFSH 2/13/2024 10:00:00 AM |
HB 195 |