Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
04/02/2024 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 | |
| HB297 | |
| HB294 | |
| 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 297 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 294 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 294-ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF FISHING VESSELS
10:27:37 AM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 294, "An Act relating to electronic monitoring of
fishing vessels; and providing for an effective date."
10:27:49 AM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G), on behalf of House Rules by request of the
governor, introduced HB 294. He explained that HB 294 would
authorize the Alaska Board of Fisheries to require electronic
monitoring in fisheries, and it would grant the commissioner of
ADF&G the authority to implement a program, as authorized by the
Board of Fisheries. This would allow the technology to
electronically capture fishing locations and catch, as there is
no current law that allows for this. He pointed out that the
current law only allows monitoring by observers. He explained
that electronic monitoring would have the potential of reducing
costs while improving accuracy, as data would be provided in
real time as opposed to human observers. He added that
electronic monitoring could also be used as an enforcement tool
for bycatch. He emphasized that this would be a permissive
statutory change, as any proposal to require electronic
monitoring would have to go through a very involved Board of
Fisheries approval process, and this would include a public
notice process. He expressed the belief that HB 294 would be an
extension of the constitutional obligation of ADF&G to manage
fisheries sustainably in Alaska. He argued that electronic
monitoring of fisheries would provide accurate and timely data.
He discussed the problematic nature of having observers on board
commercial fishing vessels. He informed the committee that new
technologies are being developed that can identify species being
caught, and this would expand the possibilities of monitoring
bycatch. Adopting this legislation now will help the department
implement this technology in the future.
10:32:31 AM
JOE FELKL, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, on behalf of House Rules by request of the governor,
paraphrased the sectional analysis on HB 294 [copy included in
the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 1: adds new language to the powers and duties
statutes for the Commissioner of the Department of
Fish and Game, providing the commissioner authority to
implement an electronic monitoring program.
Section 2: adds new language to the statutory
authority for the Board of Fisheries to adopt
regulations, providing the board authority to require
electronic monitoring in a fishery.
Section 3: defines electronic monitoring for the
purposes of Fish and Game statutes.
Section 4: transition section to allow the Board of
Fisheries and Department of Fish and Game to adopt
regulations necessary to implement the bill.
Section 5: immediate effective date for section 4.
Section 6: effective date of January 1, 2025, for all
other provisions of the bill.
MR. FELKL discussed the fiscal impacts of the proposed
legislation. He stated that installing the electronic
monitoring systems has shown to be cheaper than having human
observers on vessels. These savings vary on the fishery's size
and type, he said, with the manual review of video, data
transmission, and data storage being the largest cost. As it is
a permissive change, he said, there would be no direct costs of
the bill. The bill would not require electronic monitoring, as
this would be determined on the board level, along with
community and public comment. He stated that the department
already does this with the state shellfish program, with
associated cost funded through the test fish revenue, federal
funds, and payments from vessels. He suggested that the
electronic monitoring program could be funded similarly. He
allowed that in the future funding might be needed to hire and
train staff. He stated that if adopted, it could take the
department up to two years to implement the program. He noted
that the Board of Fisheries would have no authority over the
program.
10:36:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES argued that there would be a large fiscal
note, with the first cost being to small boat owners and the
second cost concerning the collection and interpretation of the
information. She added that using test fisheries to pay for
this would be "a red flag." To pay for this program, she argued
that the state would be in competition with the small business
owners. She expressed concern over the proposed legislation, as
it would put small boat owners out of business.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that currently the Board of
Fisheries has the regulatory authority to delegate observers to
smaller commercial fishing vessels, and this would be a cost to
these vessels. He argued that electronic monitoring would be
more cost neutral. He emphasized that currently the Board of
Fisheries can only use onboard observers to keep track of
fisheries. He pointed out that using onboard observers does not
always work well with smaller vessels, and this would be an
alternative.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES opined that the Board of Fisheries is
biased towards sport fisheries and shared the belief that
because of this bias, the board would not be as accommodating to
commercial fisheries.
10:40:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked which fishery currently requires
onboard monitoring.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that crab fisheries currently
are required to have onboard observer monitoring. In response
to a follow-up question, he stated that he does not have the
cost to vessels of having observers on board readily available,
but he would report to the committee with this information.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER requested clarification whether the
proposed electronic monitoring would replace in-person
monitoring or be in addition.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said it would be on a case-by-case
basis, as some fisheries would use both monitoring programs,
while some would only use one or the other.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER expressed the opinion that electronic
monitoring may not be cheaper than physical observers.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG gave his understanding that electronic
monitoring would give the Board of Fisheries more tools to
enforce fisheries management.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked if HB 294 would direct the
commissioner of ADF&G to implement electronic monitoring as an
either-or option.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that the proposed bill would
give the discretion to the Board of Fisheries. He further
explained that the board has no spending authority, and if the
program is implemented the department would be requesting the
funds from the legislature.
10:43:38 AM
MR. FELKL added that the proposed bill does not limit a fishery
to one monitoring system or the other.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE discussed "high grading" of fish, and he
pointed out that it might be difficult to tell the size of a
fish being thrown back from a camera image.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that when there is a
discharge prohibition, usually this would be on all sizes of the
specific type of fish, and any fish thrown overboard would be
detected.
10:45:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES noted that the observer program is paid
for by the industry. She questioned whether HB 294 would
require more funding to facilitate the proposed electronic
monitoring program.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded in the affirmative.
10:46:29 AM
CHAIR VANCE questioned the average cost of the equipment per
vessel.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that he does not have this
information currently, but he would report this back to the
committee. In response to a follow-up question, he explained
that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has electronic
monitoring requirements for its fisheries. He expressed
uncertainty concerning other fishing industries that require
electronic monitoring.
CHAIR VANCE expressed the understanding that fishermen in Alaska
are highly opposed to the idea of electronic monitoring. She
questioned giving the regulatory authority to the Board of
Fisheries, as opposed to ADF&G.
MR. FELKL clarified that HB 294 would grant regulatory authority
to the commissioner of ADF&G to manage the program. He
explained that the Board of Fisheries would have the authority
to require implementation in a specific fishery.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG, in response, stated that the
department chose to make this a board process. He expressed the
understanding of the apprehension felt by fishermen, but he
argued that electronic monitoring would be beneficial to them,
as it gives more options. He continued that monitoring needs to
happen to help sustain the fisheries.
CHAIR VANCE, concerning the expanded authority to the Board of
Fisheries, opined that the board would be making management
decisions versus allocation decisions, and this could become
political. She expressed the concern that electronic monitoring
could be used in a punitive manner. She asked if there would be
a monitoring requirement for in-river sport fish guides.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG expressed the understanding that this
would be applied to the commercial fishing statutes, but he
indicated that he would further review the bill and follow up to
the committee.
10:51:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked what area of Alaska electronic
monitoring would encompass.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered electronic monitoring would
be available for the Board of Fisheries to utilize statewide.
He discussed its usage when there is a mandatory retention of
bycatch in a fishery and gave examples of monitoring.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES speculated that there is more going on
"behind the scenes" that the public and legislature are not
aware of.
10:53:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked if ADF&G has plans to require
observers in fisheries that do not currently require observers.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG shared his understanding that there is
a possibility of new observers in the Area M fisheries. In
response to a follow-up question, he stated that currently,
because of statute, there is not the possibility of having
electronic monitoring anywhere.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER noted that currently observers are only
required in a couple of fisheries in one part of the state. He
questioned the impetus for the idea of electronic monitoring on
some of the other fisheries.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said that under current statute any
fishery in the state could be in the observer program; however,
only a couple of fisheries have this. He deduced that not all
fisheries would be in the electronic monitoring program, but
when the board decides a fishery should be monitored, this would
allow another option other than the observer program.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER expressed the agreement that electronic
monitoring might be cheaper than having physical observers
onboard vessels.
10:55:44 AM
CHAIR VANCE acknowledged concerns with the associated cost of
$17,000 for electronic monitoring equipment. She expressed the
understanding that among vessel owners this is a concern.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG, in response to a series of questions
from Representative Himschoot, explained that the proposed
legislation was created because of the discussion about the need
for monitoring Area M. He pointed out that there is currently
no way to perform electronic monitoring in Alaska under current
statute. Along with this statutory requirement, he explained
that this is also in response to NMFS's electronic monitoring
program, as when vessels with NMFS's equipment are in state
waters, a physical observer program must be implemented. He
answered that the Board of Fisheries would have the authority to
establish the regulations, while ADF&G would have authority over
the specifics. He responded that if the proposed legislation
goes through the Board of Fisheries, there would be a very
robust public process. He expressed the opinion that this is a
much better process for creating the regulatory structure than
the department's process. He added that the public is very
familiar with the board's process.
10:58:51 AM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG, in response to a series of questions
from Representative Carpenter, explained that a small boat would
be under 60 feet, as this is the legal size of a seine vessel.
In response, he explained that there could be the possibility of
electronic monitoring on small commercial vessels; however, he
suggested that it is more likely this would be on medium and
large vessels. He noted that the NMFS's program does not use
electronic monitoring on smaller vessels. He responded that the
Board of Fisheries could request the program from the
legislature, but it was decided that the department would do
this. He expressed the understanding that the board supports
the program, but it has not written a letter regarding it
support.
11:00:54 AM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG, in response to a question from
Representative Stutes, clarified that the Board of Fisheries
brought the idea for electronic monitoring forward.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES reiterated the opinion that the board
leans it support to the sport fishing industry. She asked if HB
294 has anything to do with the declining king and chum salmon
fisheries in Alaska.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG explained that there was in-season
harvest-caps adopted by the Board of Fisheries that were not
sufficient in Western Alaska, so the board recommended
electronic monitoring.
11:02:30 AM
CHAIR VANCE asked what types of electronic monitoring are
currently available. She asked how different types of
electronic monitoring would be prescribed by regulation.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG explained that electronic monitoring
would be done with small cameras and hard drives aboard the
monitored vessel. In response to a follow-up question on
whether the purpose of electronic monitoring would be data or
enforcement, he responded that it is a combination of both.
MR. FELKL noted the document from NMFS made available to the
committee. He stated that this details the information on the
types of electronic monitoring, how data would be stored, who
would watch the footage, and how cameras would be set.
CHAIR VANCE expressed the concern that ADF&G does not have the
staff to properly install a new electronic monitoring system.
She asked how ADF&G would properly operate and enforce a new
monitoring system if it does not have the staff.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that the board sees the
purpose for the proposed program as protecting weaker stocks of
fish in Alaska. He expressed the desire to keep these weaker
fisheries as active as possible, and the department saw how NMFS
was addressing this. He explained that it is simply a "tool in
the toolbox" to keep the fisheries active, as now there are weak
stocks.
CHAIR VANCE pointed out that the legislature needs to know the
projected costs of an electronic monitoring program for both
ADF&G and fishermen. She stated that currently the department
is unable to do its mandated management with the staff it has.
She requested a fiscal analysis from the department because
there is the understanding that fishermen think this would cost
too much and it could be punitive. She stressed that this would
be a large program; therefore, the legislature needs to know the
first steps. She noted that might be there needs to be
observers and enforcement on the sport fish side of the
fisheries, as there needs to be a fairness for every fisherman.
11:08:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked if ADF&G has a plan for the
collected data.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG, in response to Chair Vance, stated
that ADF&G would come up with a cost analysis based on the
current observer programs. He acknowledged the need for a data
analysis program related to electronic monitoring.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER expressed the opinion that the need for
fisheries data is not the driving force for electronic
monitoring. He questioned the impetus for the request for
electronic monitoring.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG, using the Area M example, explained
that there are two reasons for mandatory retention. He stated
that it allows for an accurate count of chum salmon, and it
allows for the genetic sampling, as this helps to determine the
distribution of the fish. He reiterated that the mandatory
retention regulations are multipurposed.
11:11:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the understanding that the
purpose of the proposed legislation is to give the Board of
Fisheries the ability to say that electronic monitoring is the
preferred method. He noted the costs concerning having
observers onboard vessels, pointing out that electronic
monitoring would be less intrusive.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG, in response to multiple questions
from Representative McCabe, confirmed his understanding is
correct that HB 294 would encourage the Board of Fisheries to
adopt electronic monitoring and said that electronic monitoring
would not be utilized on every vessel in Alaska. He expressed
the opinion that electronic monitoring would only be put on
vessels in fisheries that have specific requirements, like
mandatory retention or fish sampling. He responded that since
he has been commissioner there has not been a proposal to add
new observers to fisheries. He stated that there is discussion
about Area M, but he expressed the opinion that this would not
be implemented across the state, but on a case-by-case basis.
He expressed the opinion that fishermen would want the option of
having either an observer or electronic monitoring.
11:15:23 AM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG, in response to a question from
Representative Stutes, confirmed that the user groups would have
to pay for the electronic monitoring equipment.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER opined that the proposed electronic
monitoring program is not a demand by the Board of Fisheries,
rather it is a demand by certain board members. He observed
that if there was a consensus, a letter supporting this would be
submitted from the Board of Fisheries.
11:16:27 AM
CHAIR VANCE announced that HB 294 was held over.