Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/23/2004 01:35 PM Senate L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 409-SEINE VESSEL LENGTH
CHAIR CON BUNDE announced HB 409 to be up for consideration.
MR. TIM BARRY, staff to Representative Bill Williams, sponsor,
said that HB 409 was requested by the Joint Legislative Salmon
Industry Task Force.
It could give the Alaska Board of Fisheries and
Alaska's fishermen an additional tool to allow them to
diversify and increase the value of their fish. First
of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that
this does not eliminate the 58 ft. length limit on
salmon seiners. It only puts these boats in the same
regulatory regime as all other fishing boat size
limits. The 58 ft. limit is one of only two commercial
fishing boat length limits that are enshrined in
statute.
The 58 ft. limit predates statehood. In the 1950s,
Alaska's commercial fisheries were not nearly as well
developed as they are now. Territorial and early state
lawmakers wanted to protect Alaska's fishing fleet
from the dominant fleet of large boats that fished out
of, primarily, Puget Sound. This perceived threat was
serious enough that legislators enshrined this length
limit in statute rather than allowing the Board of
Fisheries to have the same discretion it has regarding
lengths in other gear restrictions. Those concerns
that drove the law 50 or so years ago are no longer
present. There really is no longer the same threat
from outside vessels or fleets today. In fact,
Alaska's fishing fleet is far stronger and healthier
now than certainly the Puget Sound fishing fleet.
In addition, if HB 409 becomes law, the length limit,
as I said earlier, remains in place. If the Board of
Fisheries decides to consider changing it, the board
will have to consider the concerns about Alaska's
seiners and their economic future, as well as dozens
of other concerns before rendering a decision. The
Board of Fisheries has the authority to change or
impose length limits, gear limits, and all sorts of
other regulations on commercial fishing boats in the
State of Alaska.
If this bill is made law, the board will have to go
through its normal public process, which involves
hearings, public comment, generally speaking, at least
a three-year cycle between the proposal of a change
and an actual change being made before this length
limit would be changed. The bill before you is
supported by the UFA and by a number of individual
fishermen around the state. Unfortunately, a number of
seiners who wanted to testify in favor of this bill
are out fishing. In conversations in other committees,
seiners have said they could diversify their
operations if they had longer boats. They could do a
little more processing; they could add value to their
product, which is something we're all hoping we can
help Alaska's fishermen do. There is a zero fiscal
note from the Department of Fish and Game....
CHAIR BUNDE asked if the other length that is set in statute is
for Bristol Bay boats.
MR. BARRY replied that Bristol Bay boat length is not enshrined
in statute, but is determined by the board. The other boat
length was set in statute six years ago and has to do with the
hair crab fishery out west.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if he thought seiners would begin to pressure
the board to change their length limitation if this bill passes.
MR. BARRY replied that he wouldn't bet against that happening.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS asked if the 58 ft. length were eliminated,
would that devalue the vessels that are in the fleet now.
MR. BARRY answered that fishermen have commented a lot on this
issue. One of their comments is that not all seiners are 58 ft.
long - some are 48 ft. or 52 ft. and a good living could be made
from them if other boats were larger. Testimony is that some
fishermen want to diversify their business with the change being
very gradual.
SENATOR STEVENS pointed out that the 58 ft. boat length is not
being removed, but the option is simply being given to the board
to do that.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if he had a 62 ft. seiner that has been in
the state's waters since before 1962, could he still be fishing
it.
MR. BARRY replied that he understands that using an Alaska seine
permit limits a boat size to 58 ft.
2:17 p.m.
SENATOR SEEKINS remarked that it says, "except vessels that have
fished for salmon with seines in waters of the state before
January 1, 1962...." and asked what that means.
MR. BARRY replied that some boats were fishing when the law was
put in place in 1962, but the boat would still have to be under
the same ownership and permit to be fished.
SENATOR FRENCH asked how much longer he anticipated boats
getting to be.
MR. BARRY replied that testimony has indicated that other
considerations would come into play in the board's process of
determining length. For instance, federal regulations for boats
longer than 60 ft. and practical considerations in terms of what
people can do on a boat once it gets to be that much longer like
where it can fish. People are not looking for an optimum number.
He added that trollers currently do not have a length limit and
a few are 70 ft., but most are shorter than 60 ft.
MR. JERRY MCCUNE, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA), supported
the sponsor's statement for HB 409. People could petition the
board according to area and it would have to decide based on its
deliberations.
TAPE 04-25, SIDE B
MR. MCCUNE continued saying that probably some fishermen would
want to extend their boats 5 - 10 ft. and be able to harvest
more fish - perhaps by putting in a Sunday hold so they could
put RSW (refrigerated salt water) sockeye in it and high grade
fish in another.
So, even if you change the limit in Southeast, it's
not going to happen overnight. Guys are going to have
to make the decision based on their economics and
based on whether they want to market some of their own
fish and things like that. Way back when, there were
100 ft. tuna seiners coming up here to do the herring
and stuff, so they put that 58 ft. to keep all that
big boat fleet out of here.... Well, that fleet is no
longer in existence. So, a lot of this is changing now
to be able to do your own fish and market and have
enough room to handle it.
He described how one fisherman needs more room to put his seine
[net] and another fish hold while still being able to have a
covered area to clean fish, a DEC requirement. In other areas,
some guys have two boats, a 58 ft. and a 70 ft. They could get
rid of one boat and consolidate their operations and save money
by just using the one boat if the board decided that was the
limit.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked again what the process is for the Board of
Fisheries to consider changing the length regulation.
MR. MCCUNE explained that he would write a proposal to the board
if he fished in Southeast, asking to change the 58 ft. limit to
65 ft.
I'd have to write that proposal, submit it in the
three-year cycle that the board has Southeast in.
Let's use, for example, 2006 is the next Southeast
cycle - submit that proposal, they accept the
proposal, put it in the book and then they publish it
to the public - all the proposals - so everybody gets
to see what's going to be coming up in 2006.
SENATOR SEEKINS said the application is not by petition, but
rather by a proposal that anyone could write.
MR. MCCUNE replied that is correct.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if he was right in assuming that the board
didn't have to consider just any proposal at any time, but
within the board cycle.
MR. MCCUNE replied that is right.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS asked if he thought there would be any
devaluation of the existing fleet and would existing vessels
still be competitive.
MR. MCCUNE replied that he really didn't think existing boats
would be devalued. There is a good 58 ft. limit market in Kodiak
right now. He said that a lot of people would just extend their
existing boats that might already be paid for.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS said he knew of several fishermen in Kodiak
who were attempting to do value-added processing on their
vessels and they often have to do that in very cramped spaces.
"This would allow them to be a little more competitive on the
market, I would guess."
MR. MCCUNE agreed. "You have to have another fish hold if you're
going to clean fish and ice them. You can't have it in the
refrigerated salt water. That's against DEC rules, because of
bacteria and stuff...."
MR. MAC MEINERS, Alaska purse seiner, supported HB 409. He has a
little purse seiner.
If they would open up and get bigger seiners, that
would give me an opportunity to buy a little bit
bigger boat.... What we've got to remember is that the
gear catches the fish and the gear is also restricted.
So, no matter how big the boat is, you'll always have
the same piece of gear.
MR. MELVIN LARSON said he is a limit seiner out of Sand Point
and carries 160,000 lbs. under the deck; he didn't agree with
most of the previous testimony. He said there are many different
ways to process and make a boat capable of doing more work.
Under the federal LLP regulation, with the limit
seiner that I have now, I'd only be able to add on two
feet. Under federal regulations you can only go to 60
ft. and then it goes from 60 to 125 ft. I'd be
penalized and I'd be able to go only two feet under
federal regulations.
MR. LARSON said the same goes for fishing halibut IFQs. You
could only go to 60 ft. otherwise you would have to get another
boat or you wouldn't be able to fish your IFQs on the same
vessel.
Under federal regulations, also, if you are not currently
qualified for processing, you are only capable of processing a
small amount of rockfish on a vessel. Getting rid of the 58 ft.
limit wouldn't help in terms of adding processing capacity.
Regarding the value of a 58 ft. seiner, Mr. Larson said he paid
over $1 million for his "wide-bodied Delta," and right now it is
valued at about half of that. If the 58 ft. limit went away, he
didn't know what he would be able to sell it for. Not much.
I also believe the salmon fishery is already
overcapitalized. It doesn't need anything to change
it. Passing this bill would stop in the wrong
direction, putting the burden on small struggling
communities that are already having a hard time. I
don't believe many people in these smaller communities
could afford to spend $400,000 to $500,000 to lengthen
their boats....
MR. LARSON said he has been a member of the UFA for a long time
and wasn't contacted about this. "I don't agree with UFA. I
think it's just personal opinions there that's being presented
to you."
CHAIR BUNDE said he would pass that information on to Mr. McCune
and that he would hold the bill for further thought.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|