Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
03/26/2024 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 | |
| HB329 | |
| HB195 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 329 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 195 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 195-COOK INLET: NEW ADMIN AREA;PERMIT BUYBACK
10:30:58 AM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the next 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 set
net entry permits; establishing a buy-back program for certain
set net entry permits; providing for the termination of state
set net tract leases under the buy-back program; closing certain
water to commercial fishing; and providing for an effective
date."
10:31:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 195,
labeled 33-LS0807\A.2, Bullard, 3/4/24, which read:
Page 1, lines 4 - 5:
Delete "closing certain water to commercial
fishing;"
Page 7, line 27:
Delete "(1)"
Page 7, line 29, following "section":
Delete "; and"
Insert "."
Page 7, line 30, through page 8, line 8:
Delete all material.
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Page 8, lines 11 - 13:
Delete "and of the geographic boundaries of the water
that will be closed to commercial salmon fishing under
(h) of this section"
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER objected for purposes of discussion.
10:31:19 AM
CHAIR VANCE explained the deletion in Amendment 1 and that the
bill directly dealt with fishermen in the Cook Inlet.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER removed his objection. There being no
objection, Amendment 1 to HB 195 was adopted.
10:32:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to adopt Amendment 2 to HB 195,
labeled 33-LS0807\A.4, Bullard, 3/20/24, which read:
Page 1, line 11, through page 2, line 5:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 2. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS. (a) The Alaska State
Legislature finds that there is a clear and legitimate
state purpose in addressing the dire predicament faced
by commercial set net fishers on the east side of Cook
Inlet. The predicament stems primarily from the
following:
(1) the recent return of king salmon to the
Kenai River, which resulted in the 2023 closure of
commercial set net fishing on the east side of Cook
Inlet;
(2) management restrictions adopted in 2024
that limit the use of commercial set nets in the
region that serve to almost close the east side of
Cook Inlet to commercial set netting;
(3) the Department of Fish and Game's
treatment of the incidental catch of king salmon by
commercial set netters fishing for sockeye salmon as a
significant challenge to conservation efforts;
(4) the importance of Kenai River king
salmon to the residents of the state for personal use
and to the sportfish guiding industry on the Kenai
River; and
(5) long-term allocative changes made by
the Board of Fisheries to how the state's fishery
resource is allocated, with data from the Department
of Fish and Game indicating a substantial reduction in
commercial set netter fishing times on the east side
of Cook Inlet over the years, from upward of 500 hours
annually in the late 1980s to an average of 200 hours
annually in recent years; while the management changes
may be intended to balance fishery interests
statewide, the commercial set net fishery on the east
side of Cook Inlet is uniquely vulnerable because of
its location amid the state's largest and expanding
population base.
(b) The Alaska State Legislature finds that, for
over 150 years, generations of commercial set netting
families have been central to the legacy of the
historic commercial set net fishery on the east side
of Cook Inlet. Since the 1840s, commercial set netters
have harvested salmon that has sustained local
communities and reached tables worldwide. Commercial
set netting is a long tradition in the region, used in
early international fishing expeditions to the water
on the east side of Cook Inlet and generating salmon
for the first cannery at the mouth of the Kasilof
River in 1882. From the founding of that cannery, the
cannery industry expanded rapidly, with 37 canneries
along the state's coast by 1892. When fish traps were
prohibited, set nets were essential for independent
fishers, ensuring the continuation of commercial
salmon harvesting for canneries. Commercial set net
fishing has been a sustainable tradition that has
profoundly influenced the cultural and economic fabric
of the east side of Cook Inlet.
(c) The Alaska State Legislature finds that this
Act, including the limitations on eligibility for the
buy back of a commercial limited entry permit for the
set net fishery on the east side of Cook Inlet, is
rooted in the specific challenges these particular
commercial fishers face. Unlike other fisheries, the
commercial set net fishery on the east side of Cook
Inlet has been subject to targeted closures, severely
limiting the ability of commercial set net fishers to
fish commercially in recent years. This fishery relies
on sockeye salmon returns to the Kenai and Kasilof
Rivers, which are experiencing management pressures
generated by the demands of the region's growing
population.
(d) The Alaska State Legislature finds that the
Department of Fish and Game's 2023 Upper Cook Inlet
Commercial Salmon Fishery Season Summary sheds light
on the stark realities faced by commercial set netters
fishing the east side of Cook Inlet. The fishery was
closed throughout the 2023 season because of a dismal
forecast for Kenai River late-run large king salmon.
Consequently, there was no commercial salmon harvest
in the commercial set net fishery on the east side of
Cook Inlet, further exacerbating the economic
challenges confronting these fishers. In contrast,
other fisheries in the region and around the state
were able to operate under varying conditions. Some
even experienced bountiful seasons.
(e) The Alaska State Legislature finds that it
is significant that the Upper Subdistrict of the Cook
Inlet Central District area remained completely closed
throughout the summer of 2023. While other districts
and subdistricts operated under different management
conditions, the closure of commercial set net fishing
in this subdistrict underscores the unique challenges
faced by this segment of the fishing industry. As
such, the Alaska State Legislature finds that it is
imperative to address the specific needs and concerns
of commercial set netters operating on the east side
of Cook Inlet through targeted legislative measures,
such as those proposed in this Act.
(f) The Alaska State Legislature finds that the
buy-back program established by this Act addresses the
inadequacies of applicable existing statutory
provisions. The existing buy-back provisions, which
allow for the establishment of taxes on existing
operators, do not address the specific needs of
commercial set netters operating on the east side of
Cook Inlet. Taxing permit holders who operate outside
the east side of Cook Inlet to fund buy backs for
commercial limited entry permits fished on the east
side of Cook Inlet is not viable. Therefore, this
Act's establishment of a smaller management area
exclusively for commercial set netters fishing on the
east side of Cook Inlet is crucial to ensuring the
effectiveness and fairness of this Act's buy-back
program.
(g) The Alaska State Legislature finds that allowing
certain qualified commercial limited entry permit
holders to sell their permits to the Alaska Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission while excluding other
commercial fishers is essential to the integrity and
effectiveness of the buy-back program. By restricting
eligibility to those with a demonstrated history of
involvement in the fishery, this Act prevents
opportunistic speculation and ensures that only
individuals who were genuinely invested in the fishery
on the east side of Cook Inlet are eligible. That
portion of this Act prevents a person from acquiring a
limited entry permit solely for the purpose of
profiting from this Act's buy-back provisions."
10:32:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER objected for purposes of discussion.
10:32:42 AM
BOB BALLINGER, Staff, Representative Sarah Vance, Alaska State
Legislature, explained the purpose of the intent language in
Amendment 2. He said the nature of the legislation brings into
question issues such as local legislation that is prohibited, or
equal protection. He expounded on permits and timeframes.
10:35:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked for clarification why an amendment
is needed to explain why there is a buy-back program.
MR.BALLINGER replied that most of the time you do not put
legislative intent on a bill; however, there were concerns about
violation of equal protection.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES expressed that it seemed to be a lot of
extra paperwork, and it is not the first buy-back program that
the state had been involved in. She added that she understood
the portion on the permit timeframe but opined that the rest was
superfluous.
10:38:25 AM
CHAIR VANCE pointed out that the bill had been seen more than 6
years and it always received the same outcome. There are
constitutional questions in the legislative intent, and she
offered her belief it would be more appropriate that the
findings be in writing.
10:40:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT referred to the last page, Section (f),
regarding taxation. She further questioned the dollar amounts
of the permits, and asked why net setters cannot tax themselves.
MR.BALLINGER responded that the problem would be that there is
not a large enough population in this group to sustain such a
tax.
CHAIR VANCE added that Commissioner Haight was available online
to answer questions.
10:41:51 AM
GLENN HAIGHT, Commissioner, Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry
Division, explained that it was a question of value. He briefly
explained other buy-back programs and the affordability of
paying taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether the taxes were paid in
one season or spread over many years.
COMMISSIONER HAIGHT said he did not have specifics, but it took
several years to pay off.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT observed it would be taxpayers funding
this in one way or another.
COMMISSIONER HAIGHT answered that participants would not have
the kind of resources or assurance that they would catch more
fish to pay it off.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT, speaking to the main bill, asked
Commissioner Haight if he could speak to the current value
versus the buyback price.
COMMISSIONER HAIGHT said he did not think the permit value was
the best measure right away, and the price has remained very
low. He recommended looking at a fishery when it is healthy and
do a business valuation.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether the amendment was seen as
a friendly amendment by the bill sponsor.
10:47:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JUSTIN RUFFRIDGE, Alaska State Legislature,
confirmed it was a friendly amendment.
10:48:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked how many net set permits were in the
Cook Inlet area, and how many permit holders there were.
COMMISSIONER HAIGHT responded there were roughly 740 permits,
and 420 on the east side. In response to a follow up question,
he said on the east side there were 340 permit holders.
10:49:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE noted that Representative Stutes raised an
interesting question. He asked what the value of a permit was
currently, and whether the state issued too many permits.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE, speaking to the underlying bill, said
there was an assumption that if a person puts a permit into the
pool, there must be an election that happens, and the permits
must be drawn by a lottery. He addressed a previous comment
about assessing value based on the business metrics versus the
price of a permit. He clarified that part of the reason for the
intent language is to address a very unique situation and offer
more understanding of it.
10:53:44 AM
CHAIR VANCE asked for clarification on a Board of Fisheries
decision regarding ease side netters and allowable fishing.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE explained that the decision was to shut
down the east side set net fishery.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE added that there was a risk in putting
permits into the lottery.
10:55:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER referenced intent language and asked
whether the buyback was part of the state's management strategy.
MR.BALLINGER replied that if the bill passed, then absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE added clarification that the bill would
not intend to override a management plan.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER commented that if the current
management plan did not include a buyback, the legislature would
enact statute that would create a buyback, and it would override
at least part of a management plan.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE said the current management plan in
place is an allocation question.
10:58:05 AM
CHAIR VANCE asked for commentary on the management of permits.
COMMISSIONER HAIGHT said the management plan from the board is a
dynamic plan that changes over time, and what is in front of the
committee now is something new.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER read from the amendment under
discussion and questioned whether there was a recommendation to
reduce the east side set net permits, thus that was why HB 195
was before the committee.
10:59:53 AM
CHAIR VANCE read from page 3, Section (f), and questioned
whether the current buyback provision does not meet the needs of
this set group of fishermen.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER restated his inquiry.
11:01:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE explained that through the management
plan, the intent of the Board of Fisheries is that the east side
set net fishery shall remain limited at best and closed at
worst. He stressed this is not due to the lack of the entirety
of the salmon run, but due to one species.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER commented that not all east side set
netters agree that this is the right strategy to take, and there
is a division in the user group whether the legislature should
take the action on buybacks. He recognized there was likely a
constitutional concern in prohibiting one user group from
fishing. He expressed uncertainty that this [legislation] would
solve the problem.
11:04:51 AM
CHAIR VANCE expounded on buyback and permit processes already
available in statue, but that the current bill created a
different mechanism for the same function. She added that this
is not a guarantee; however, by having a buyback that reduces
the permits, it allows those who remain to better optimize the
fishery.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE acknowledged commentary that "this is a
management issue," and it is an "out," not an answer. He spoke
of economic disaster relief, and dollars actively being pushed
into the fishery. He noted that the fisheries would have a
chance to vote, and it is a democratic solution to a management
problem.
11:09:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES pointed out that most buyback plans were
self-funded and bought out the other boat. She said the
remaining permit holders have no stake at all, and there is a
huge price on their permits. She offered personal examples as a
liquor license holder. She said when you go into a fishing
business, there are no guarantees, and a price of $260,000 for a
permit was overwhelming to her. She noted that she had
trepidation with the proposed legislation.
11:11:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE explained that the permit system from the
beginning was designed to limit the amount of fish taken. He
opined the management issue is that there are too many permits
out there and now we must find a way to get them back. He noted
that the lottery system may be the fairest way to move forward
and added that he supported the idea of there being a vote.
11:13:22 AM
CHAIR VANCE reminded the committee that intent language did not
speak to the dollar value that is in the legislation, but merely
addressed the constitutional questions why "this is a unique
fishery."
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT referred to the fish and whether they
were there, or not there.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE clarified that the numbers of sockeye
salmon that entered the area were well documented, and the
escapement was clear. He stressed that the fish were most
definitely there.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT observed there being no shortage of
fish, but it could be a reallocation issue.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE clarified that sockeye salmon are there
and that the decision to reallocate was for a different species.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT offered her understanding that the fish
are there, but other fish are interfering. She questioned
whether the state had a duty to restore "where we have messed
up."
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE offered to provide data and spoke to a
study done over last 2 years, to which he gave a brief example
of. He noted invited testifiers who could best speak to the
issue.
11:17:46 AM
COMMISSIONER HAIGHT expounded on a study that was conducted and
noted there was a report in the committee packet.
CHAIR VANCE asked Mr. Haight to speak to the purpose of the
state doing those studies and looking at (indisc.) numbers.
COMMISSIONER HAIGHT responded it was to go back in time to see
if the numbers were right, and if there were too few, more would
need to be issued and if there were too many, there were
provisions for buyback.
CHAIR VANCE questioned whether the study was based on the size
of the run, or the allocation.
COMMISSIONER HAIGHT answered the size of the run.
11:20:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES shared her concern about the lack of
familiarity of fisheries from some of the legislators, and for
the body to be making fishing policy when there are departments
and boards alarmed her.
11:21:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER maintained his objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Carpenter, C.
Johnson, Himschoot, McCabe, and Vance voted in favor of
Amendment 2. Representative Stutes voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 5-1.
11:22:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to adopt Amendment 3 to HB 195,
labeled 33-LS0807\A.5, Bullard, 3/20/24, which read:
Page 2, line 10:
Delete "2023" in both places
Insert "2024" in both places
Page 2, line 15:
Delete "2023"
Insert "2024"
Page 2, line 22:
Delete "2024"
Insert "2025"
Page 2, line 29:
Delete "2023"
Insert "2024"
Page 3, line 5:
Delete "2023"
Insert "2024"
Page 3, line 7:
Delete "2024"
Insert "2025"
Page 3, line 18:
Delete "2024"
Insert "2025"
Page 4, line 2:
Delete "2024"
Insert "2025"
Page 4, line 19, following "notice":
Insert "on the Alaska Online Public Notice System
(AS 44.62.175) and"
Page 6, line 7:
Delete "2023"
Insert "2024"
Page 9, line 2:
Delete "2030"
Insert "2031"
Page 9, line 11:
Delete "2030"
Insert "2031"
Page 9, line 17:
Delete "2024"
Insert "2025"
Page 9, line 22:
Delete "2023"
Insert "2024"
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER objected for purposes of discussion.
11:23:01 AM
CHAIR VANCE explained that Amendment 3 was to adjust the dates
in the bill related to implementation.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 3 to HB 195 was adopted.
11:24:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER, referring to the previous assumption
that there were too many permits, asked whom the majority of
those opinions were held by.
COMMISSIONER HAIGHT explained how permits and pounds of fish
related to one another, and he said it was fair to say there
were too many permits on the east side. He said there appeared
to be more permits out there than the fish that are able to be
caught.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER questioned whether there was an
official recommendation from stakeholders of the fisheries that
a reduction in the number of permits on the east side was called
for or was the legislature making that assumption.
COMMISSIONER HAIGHT responded that he did not have an official
stance, but opined it was the latter.
11:27:00 AM
CHAIR VANCE clarified departments and what they dealt with, and
that the legislature made policy decisions, as well as
stakeholders having recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE added that the bill was a result of
stakeholder input. He mentioned "fish wars," and the east side
set net community had too many nets in the water which was not
sustainable. He noted the complexity of user groups that all
demand more fish, and this could be a tool used by a particular
user group to make decisions.
CHAIR VANCE referenced page 6, line 24, and whether the number
of permits to be removed was satisfactory.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE said the number could increase and it
could be acceptable to all stakeholders.
11:30:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE commented that the state has already
interfered in the free market and was forced to do that because
the resources cannot be controlled. It is a conundrum, he said,
and he spoke to the complications.
11:31:40 AM
CHAIR VANCE inquired about the dollar value associated with the
buyback.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE reiterated that the purpose and intent
of the bill was to be framework language. The buyback would be
managed by the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC), and
the east side set net community had an intention to fund the
buyback through disaster relief dollars or through private
funding. He noted his intent is that the dollar figure is made
clear to those entering the lottery.
11:36:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked for clarity that no matter how
many permits one holds, they only fish one net.
CHAIR VANCE shared her understanding that it was one set net per
permit, plus the use of a dip net.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked the bill sponsor whether those
who held permits since 2020 were eligible to enter the lottery.
She further questioned the value of permits over recent years
and that she struggled with the current number.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE answered that the value of the permit
is not the question to be asked, but the value of being able to
fish.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether there was a way of
looking at the election, lottery, and lastly, the value of the
fish.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE answered that the fishery under
discussion is a fishery that has not been able to fish, and if
you look at a production amount in relation to the permit, he
said east side set netters would be very clear.
11:42:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER opined that it was a fairness issue.
The discussion was about permits, not permit holders. He gave
examples of the lottery system and a management and allocation
issue around permits. He further opined that the legislature
was "kicking the can" over to someone else to make the decision.
CHAIR VANCE asked about permit holders that do not want to
participate in a proposed voluntary lottery and how it would be
fair to them.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER said that was an open-ended question on
an alternative solution. He explained there is a process in
place for permit buybacks not being used, and now a second
process is being created. He noted he was on board with the
allocation issue on the Kenai River.
CHAIR VANCE commented that the fishermen want to fish, and the
area in the Cook Inlet has been a concern for quite some time.
She said fishermen feel discriminated against and it has been a
decades long issue. She stressed that it was the state's
responsibility to find a solution that works with management.
The current buyback structure requirement is not doable for this
set of fishermen because their allocation has been continually
reduced; therefore, they could not fulfill the requirements of
the taxation to meet the buyback. She said the nuances must be
worked through and must continue to be discussed.
11:49:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE noted that this was a relatively
regional concern, and for those who are not bordered by the Cook
Inlet, it may seem foreign. He shared his concerns about the
bill due to the issue of fairness, and one component that helped
him was that the bill offered the allowance to elect a lottery.
It gives fishermen an opportunity to somewhat control their own
destiny, he said.
[HB 129 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 329 - Amendment #1 (R.6) by Rep. Vance.pdf |
HFSH 3/26/2024 10:00:00 AM |
HB 329 |
| HB 329 - Amendment #2 (R.2) by Rep. Stutes.pdf |
HFSH 3/26/2024 10:00:00 AM |
HB 329 |
| HB 329 - Amendment #3 (R.1) by Rep. Stutes.pdf |
HFSH 3/26/2024 10:00:00 AM |
HB 329 |
| HB 329 - Amendment #4 (R.4) by Rep. Himschoot.pdf |
HFSH 3/26/2024 10:00:00 AM |
HB 329 |
| HB 329 - Amendment #5 (R.3) by Rep. Himschoot.pdf |
HFSH 3/26/2024 10:00:00 AM |
HB 329 |
| HB 195 - Amendment #1 (A.2) by Rep. Vance.pdf |
HFSH 3/26/2024 10:00:00 AM |
HB 195 |
| HB 195 - Amendment #2 (A.4) by Rep. Vance.pdf |
HFSH 3/26/2024 10:00:00 AM |
HB 195 |