Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
04/04/2024 09:00 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 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 297 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 294 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 294-ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF FISHING VESSELS
10:21:43 AM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 294, "An Act relating to electronic monitoring of
fishing vessels; and providing for an effective date."
10:21:52 AM
CHAIR VANCE opened public testimony on HB 294.
10:22:08 AM
JERRY MCCUNE, representing self, gave public testimony in
opposition to HB 294. He shared that he is a commercial
fisherman in the Cordova area. Noting the high cost of
equipment for electronic monitoring, he suggested that this
would cost more money than his net income from last year. He
also argued that the Board of Fisheries members do not truly
represent the fisheries, so any one of these members can put a
proposal forward. He noted that currently there are no 12-volt
outdoor cameras available on the market. He stated that as a
small boat owner, he is in opposition to the proposed
legislation.
10:24:01 AM
ERNIE WEISS, Director, Natural Resources, Aleutians East
Borough, stated that his main objective in providing testimony
is to bring attention to a letter submitted to the committee
from his colleague, Charlotte Levy. He stated that she is a
fisheries analyst. He urged the committee to read the letter,
as she has been very instrumental in a project to bring
electronic monitoring to small vessels in the federal Western
Gulf fishery for groundfish. He noted that currently she is out
of the country, or she would be testifying. He expressed the
opinion that she has expertise, as the project was extremely
involved and costly. He stated that she works with the North
Pacific Fisheries Observer Program and North pacific Management
Council, and she has important insights.
10:25:29 AM
CHRIS CLEMENS, Board Member, Concerned Area M Fishermen,
provided public testimony in opposition to HB 294. He stated
that he is a commercial fisherman in Area M, arguing that the
cost for electronic monitoring in this area would be too high.
He questioned how the footage would be monitored and how the
equipment would be maintained. He pointed out that there are
state troopers who provide enforcement in the area.
10:26:58 AM
BOB MURPHY, Executive Director, Concerned Area M Fisherman,
provided public testimony on behalf of the members of Concerned
Area M Fisherman. He stated that these members represent
between 95 to 115 limited entry permit holders, and they
represent around 80 percent of the active drift gill net fleet
in Area M. He noted that the organization has been involved
with ADF&G and in the regulatory processes with the Board of
Fisheries. He expressed opposition to the proposed legislation
because of the cost. Because of low fish prices, he stated that
there are struggles in the seafood industry and with commercial
fishermen. He expressed the opinion that electronic monitoring
is cost prohibitive and would not better the management of the
fisheries. He noted problems, such as privacy issues and camera
malfunctions, which could result in lost fishing time. He
expressed support of enforcement by the Department of Public
Safety (DPS), which has a history in Area M, and it has the
tools to monitor the fisheries. He argued that supporting DPS
would be more cost effective than an electronic monitoring
program.
10:29:12 AM
KATHY HANSEN, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermen's
Alliance, provided public testimony in opposition to HB 294 on
behalf of the alliance's 320 plus members. She stated that she
is also a member of the North Pacific Fisheries Management
Council. She advised that many issues need to be considered
concerning HB 294, including the cost to the fisherman and
ADF&G, confidentiality of data, and the ability to repair broken
equipment in a timely manner. She expressed the opinion that
the Board of Fisheries process would not allow full testimony
from the public and other entities. She recommended that if the
legislation moves forward, it needs to be amended in Section 1
of AS 16.05050 (a)(13) and Section 2 of AS 16.05251 (a)(13).
She argued that both sections list criteria that the board must
consider for the onboarding observer program; however, this has
not been included in the electronic monitoring programs. She
recommended that an advisory committee be formed of fishermen
and stake holders to assist in developing the program. She
stated that the Southeast drift gillnet fishery is getting an
observer pilot program in 2024, and this concerns marine mammals
with a budget of around $230,000. She stated that both
observers and electronic monitoring are being considered for
this program. She argued that a successful program per HB 294
would require support from the fishing fleet and data planning.
MS. HANSEN, in response to a question from Representative
Himschoot, expressed uncertainty whether the cost of $230,000
for the Southeast drift gillnet program would be annually or
just for the two to three years the program would be
implemented. She responded that federal dollars would be used
for this program.
10:32:40 AM
JARED DANIELSON, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 294. He expressed concern about the negative impact of the
legislation. He pointed out the high cost of the installation
and maintenance of the equipment and the burden that this would
present to small vessel owners. He expressed the understanding
that the legislation is being "pushed" by a small group with a
specific agenda, and it does not represent the fishermen. He
noted that there is already effective enforcement in place that
ensures compliance with regulations, so electronic monitoring
would be unnecessary. He stated that it would just be more
"bureaucratic hurdles." He discussed the cost and encouraged
the committee to oppose the legislation in its current form.
10:34:53 AM
DARIN GILMAN, representing self, provided testimony in
opposition to HB 294. He stated that he participates in
multiple fisheries in the state. He reiterated the concerns of
previous testifiers, including confidentiality and cost
concerns.
10:35:40 AM
DAVID POLUSHKIN, representing self, provided testimony in
opposition to HB 294. He shared that he has participated in the
fisheries in Area M since 1986, and he currently has electronic
monitoring on his vessel for the [federal] halibut and pacific
cod fisheries. He described the electronic monitoring process,
noting that if the equipment stops, he is required to return to
shore to have it repaired. He discussed the costliness of the
program, stating that there are already troopers who provide
enforcement in the area. He expressed the opinion that trooper
enforcement is the most effective, and the cost of the
electronic monitoring equipment would drive fishermen out of
business. He concluded that there are other questions to
consider concerning the cost of the program.
10:37:23 AM
CHAIR VANCE, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony.
10:37:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES expressed the understanding that per page
5, line 18 of the proposed legislation, both electronic
monitoring and observers could be required. She recommended
that more work be done on the requirements before the bill is
enacted.
10:38:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT concurred with Representative Stutes.
She questioned whether fishermen would be able to choose between
the electronic monitoring or a human observer.
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G), answered questions on HB 294, on behalf of House Rules
by request of the governor. He stated that the federal program
had used the council to address this in the regulation. He
continued that through this process fishermen have been involved
to help determine which program would be used, adding that
sometimes both programs are used aboard a vessel. He explained
that the bill uses the word "and", as the option would be for
both.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT expressed confusion, as there are
guidelines in statute for human observers, but there is none for
electronic monitoring. She suggested that this would need to be
done by statute.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG stated that because it is not in
statute, there is no electronic monitoring; therefore, the
regulatory work cannot be developed. There had been the
decision to ask the legislature first before developing this, as
creating the regulations would require time. In response to a
follow-up question concerning the expense, he stated that for
the state to pay the cost there would need to be a fiscal note
from the legislature. He suggested that from price comparisons,
human observers would cost more, and this cost would be passed
onto the fishermen. He stated that the Board of Fisheries would
consider this.
10:43:21 AM
CHAIR VANCE expressed the understanding that implementing
electronic monitoring would be less about data and more about
"bad actors" and enforcement. She questioned whether there is
technology to help review the data so a person would not have to
do this.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG stated that there is an effort to
incorporate artificial intelligence to help review videos. He
emphasized that along with the enforcement component of
electronic monitoring, there is also a data piece. He discussed
the importance of mandatory retention to track the genetic
composition of fish. In response to the follow-up question
concerning the use of drones, he stated that there is work being
done on drone technology.
10:46:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT questioned whether the regulations
concerning human observers were written after humans were put
onboard.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG stated that he was not part of this
process, and he would report back to the committee on this. He
expressed the understanding that because there were already
federal statutes, the state statute on observers needed to
mirror these regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT referenced the robust DPS enforcement
discussed during public testimony. She questioned whether
electronic monitoring would be for research or enforcement.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG reiterated that electronic monitoring
would be for both.
10:48:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES commented that she would be more likely to
vote in a positive way on a fiscal note for more DPS funding
than for electronic monitoring through ADF&G.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE commented that "isn't it a shame we need
it at all." He postulated that if the fishermen were concerned
about the resource, they would be following the recommendations
from the biologist.
10:49:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER questioned whether HB 294 is
specifically singling out Area M for electronic monitoring.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that this area is being used
as an example. He noted that Area M was under discussion by the
board when the idea was introduced. He pointed out that the
seine fishery in Southeast Alaska also has requirements of
retaining king salmon for treaty purposes, so this fishery is
also in the discussion. In response to a follow-up question, he
stated that the proposed legislation does not site any specific
area for electronic monitoring. He stated that to determine
which areas would have electronic monitoring; this would go
through the board's process.
10:50:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT expressed the opinion that "it would be
great if we all followed the law;" however, those in the fleet
that do not follow the law need to be called out.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG, in closing, stated that ADF&G has
accomplished its goal in having the discussion on electronic
monitoring, as currently human observers are the only "tool in
the toolbox." He stated that if the legislature does not pass
the proposed legislation, the department would continue to work
with the federal government to improve this. He expressed the
opinion that electronic monitoring should be added, as small
boat operators should have more options than having human
observers onboard.
10:52:03 AM
CHAIR VANCE expressed the opinion that the discussion has
clarified what would be involved concerning the federal
fisheries and the issues of bycatch. She noted that resources
are of a concern and that fishermen feel they are being
targeted. She recommended that electronic monitoring needs to
be flushed out and expressed support of an advisory committee
using fishermen to do this. She addressed the noncommercial
side, noting there is no accountability of the sports fish
sector, as it has no logbook requirement. She voiced the
understanding that the fish taken are not accounted for, and
this especially concerns king salmon.
CHAIR VANCE discussed the request for more enforcement on the
Kenai River, expressing the understanding that individuals who
are not state residents are taking advantage of this resource.
She noted that hundreds of boxes of salmon are being shipped out
of state. She continued that this should be a conversation
about protecting the entire resource using data and enforcement.
She argued that every fisherman should be treated equally,
whether this involves personal use, sport fish, subsistence, or
commercial.
CHAIR VANCE, concerning HB 294, expressed the understanding that
fishermen are requesting more time to further develop the plan,
partly because the technology is not ready. She expressed
concern on giving too much authority to the Board of Fisheries,
even though its process is robust. She argued that the board
should be an allocative body and ADF&G the management body.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG concurred with the concern on the
accountability of recreational fisheries. He noted that cell
phone technology is being used in other states for reporting,
and this is being researched by ADF&G for the personal use
fisheries.
10:56:20 AM
CHAIR VANCE announced that HB 294 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 297 - Transmittal Letter v.A.pdf |
HFSH 4/4/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
| HB 297 - v.A.pdf |
HFSH 4/4/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
| HB 297 - Sectional Analysis v.A.pdf |
HFSH 4/4/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
| HB 297 - ADF&G-SF Fiscal Note.pdf |
HFSH 4/4/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
| HB 297 - Supporting Document Surcharge Revenue Breakdown 01.31.24.pdf |
HFSH 4/4/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
| HB 294 - Transmittal Letter v.A.pdf |
HFSH 4/4/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 294 |
| HB 294 - v.A.pdf |
HFSH 4/4/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 294 |
| HB 294 - Sectional Analysis v.A.pdf |
HFSH 4/4/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 294 |
| HB 294 - ADF&G-SFM Fiscal Note.pdf |
HFSH 4/4/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 294 |
| HB 294 - UFA Letter of Opposition.pdf |
HFSH 4/4/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 294 |
| HB 297 - Supporting Document License Fees & Surcharge (04-04-24).pdf |
HFSH 4/4/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
| HB 294 - UFA Letter of Opposition.pdf |
HFSH 4/4/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 294 |
| HB 294 - Letters of Opposition.pdf |
HFSH 4/4/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 294 |