Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
02/13/2012 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR26 | |
| Presentation(s): a Five-year Look Back: Oil Industry Capital Expenditures by Category 2006-2010 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HJR 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HJR 26-SEA OTTER MANAGEMENT
2:05:45 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 26, Urging federal agencies to
work with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Southeast
Alaska Native leaders, and other interested parties to establish
strategies and plans for the sustainable management of the
reintroduced sea otter population of Southeast Alaska. [Before
the committee was Version B, the proposed committee substitute
(CS) labeled 27-LS0717\B, Bullard, 1/27/12, adopted as the
working document on 2/3/12.]
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HJR 26, Version 27-LS0717\I, Bullard, 2/6/12, as the
working document. There being no objection, Version I was
before the committee.
2:06:29 PM
ARTHUR MARTIN, Staff, Representative P. Wilson, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that the language in Version I is the
result of working with the Sealaska Heritage Foundation. During
the 2/3/12 hearing on HJR 26 a concern was raised of the ability
of Native peoples to sell sea pelts to anyone. Therefore, all
mention of the sale of intact sea otter pelts was removed from
the resolution and language was crafted in two changes that
clarify the issue. The first change is on page 3, line 1, where
the language now reads that "Alaska Natives are limited to
selling only 'authentic' and 'traditional' Native handicrafts".
The second change begins on page 3, line 31, and addresses a
previous discussion that the Marine Mammal Protection Act limits
the allowable uses of sea otters to only "authentic" and
"traditional" handicrafts. Because the definition of authentic
and traditional is too restrictive, the change here asks that
these terms be replaced with "Alaska Native articles of
handicraft".
MR. MARTIN reported that the sea otter issue has made headlines
and the sponsor is happy that the issue is being elevated to
this level and heard by the committee. If current policies of
inaction continue it is believed that in just a few years humans
will have little share of the dive fishery resources for
commercial or subsistence harvesting. Areas that once had an
abundance of sea cucumbers, geoduck clams, red sea urchins, and
Dungeness crab are being depleted by sea otter predation.
2:08:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI, regarding ecology and the hope that
management will include an ecosystem balance, questioned Mr.
Martin's last statement because the [first] further resolved
clause does not state that managing for a balanced ecosystem is
the plan. He understood the resolution to say that the state is
not taking a position on whether to start actively managing
populations of sea otters, but to urge federal agencies to
revisit [the 1994] management plan.
MR. MARTIN agreed it is Representative P. Wilson's opinion that
the ecosystem is out of balance because of increased sea otter
populations. He maintained, however, that the resolution itself
does not state an opinion; it just asks that a discussion be had
between the appropriate state and federal departments and the
Native peoples based on the research that has been done.
2:10:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI opined that the [November 2011] McDowell
Group report [entitled "Sea Otter Impacts on Commercial
Fisheries in Southeast Alaska"] does not say that sea otters
were the major part of the decline of sea cucumbers and a
certain shellfish. Responding to Mr. Martin, he said the report
clearly states that the declines in sea urchins and other
species were not due to sea otter predation.
MR. MARTIN recalled reading such a clause in the report, but
said he could not remember whether that clause was referencing
geoducks, sea cucumbers, or sea urchins. However, he continued,
[Appendix 2] of the report does show conclusive evidence that
sea otters have had a direct and indirect impact on species such
as the sea cucumber and geoduck clams.
2:13:47 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE opened public testimony on HJR 26.
GREG BROWN stated that HJR 26 was developed by a special
interest group that hired a consultant to substantiate its
beliefs. He said he has had many dealings with consultants all
over the world through his previous work as CEO of one of the
largest companies in Latin American, and consultants get to be
big and successful by writing reports that the people who are
paying them want to hear. He said that even the title of the
McDowell report is misleading and should instead be "The Effect
of Sea Otters on a Few Specific Fisheries in Southeast Alaska"
given there are dozens of fisheries in Southeast Alaska that are
not even mentioned in the report.
MR. BROWN said other possibilities should be looked at. For
example, sea otters could improve other commercial fisheries and
are a keystone species. He noted that the State of Oregon has
issued a report regarding ocean acidification that is not
covered [in the McDowell report]. Additionally, tourism viewing
and wildlife viewing is a $30 billion industry in the U.S. and
has grown over 6 percent annually even during this current
economic downturn. In the city of Juneau the business of
wildlife viewing is worth over $30 million. One whale, over its
lifetime, is worth over $32 million to the city of Juneau and a
bear at Pack Creek is worth $132,000 annually to the city. The
reintroduced wolves of Yellowstone National Park are worth $35
million annually.
2:16:27 PM
MR. BROWN maintained that sea otters could be worth as much as
$5 million annually in increased tourism. To support his
statement he read from a 2005 California study report: "The
eventual expansion of southern sea otter populations in range
would provide more than $100 million of annual income economic
benefit to California households." Allowing that reports can be
argued, he pointed to an example of economic benefit in
Monterey, CA, which began holding the Sea Otter Classic 22 years
ago when sea otters were reintroduced there. He said this
extravaganza, which will be running again in April 2012,
features amateur and pro cycling events as well as family
activities, attracting more than 50,000 bicycle enthusiasts from
around the world. The classic also plays host for the largest
consumer bike expo in the world. None of these have been
considered in the [McDowell] report, he pointed out.
MR. BROWN, again allowing that any report can be argued, related
that he searched for the most neutral report that he could find
and came upon a 2006 Master's thesis by Sarah Poirier of McGill
University. The thesis talks about the benefits of sea otters
around Victoria Island and the increase in tourism and economic
prosperity that can be gained by utilizing that opportunity.
The thesis also supports that the keystone species of sea otters
is real and provides extreme detail about why it is real and
where it comes from.
2:18:52 PM
MR. BROWN explained that his point in discussing economics and
other alternatives is that if nature was embraced and not fought
everyone could become rich because the opportunity is there for
this to happen. He said the committee is making a decision
based on the recommendations of a financial special interest
group and the report paid for by that special interest group is
very biased, woefully incomplete, and insulting. He recounted
an old rule in business that says to get 80 percent of the
information, add judgment, and then make a decision because one
can never get 100 percent of the information. In this case, he
argued, there is less than 20 percent of the information. He
urged the committee to take time to get the rest of the facts
and not rush to judgment.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked what keystone species means and how
that plays out.
MR. BROWN understood from Dr. Mary Willson [of Juneau] and the
aforementioned thesis that sea otters control the number of sea
urchins and sea urchins are directly related to the amount of
kelp. When kelp is healthy other fisheries are also healthy,
such as salmon and fisheries similar to salmon.
2:20:52 PM
JULIANNE CURRY, Executive Director, Petersburg Vessel Owners
Association (PVOA), specified that PVOA has about 120 vessels
and businesses and its members are active personal use,
subsistence, and sport fishermen who are affected by the species
that are affected by sea otters. She said nobody is looking for
widespread and unchecked harvest of sea otters; people are
looking for a balance, but in Southeast Alaska there is not a
good balance with what is happening with resources. She noted
that Version I does not include the allowance of Alaska coastal
Natives to sell and trade raw pelts to non-Natives. Without
that language, she said it will be difficult to support the
resolution because that is a time-honored tradition and PVOA
feels it is very important for Alaska coastal Natives to be able
to sell raw pelts. However, she continued, the rest of the
resolution is heading in the right direction. She observed that
PVOA's letter is missing from the committee packet, but drew
attention to the resolution from the City of Petersburg and the
letter from the Southeast Alaska Subsistence Regional Advisory
Council (RAC), which has heard hours and hours of testimony
about this issue.
2:22:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, regarding the inability of Alaska Natives
to sell to non-Natives, asked whether Ms. Curry is suggesting
there be a quota for pelt use and that once that quota is
reached then pelts could be sold by Natives to non-Natives.
MS. CURRY replied that PVOA would be looking for the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, or the U.S. Congress through an amendment
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, to interpret the definition
of significantly altered differently. She said PVOA would like
for coastal Natives, who are allowed to harvest sea otters under
current regulations, to be able to sell a sea otter pelt to a
non-Native.
2:24:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that she did meet with
Native groups to discuss the resolution and it was re-worded to
the way that the Native groups wanted. She inquired whether
there has been a change since then.
MS. CURRY responded that much of the conversation so far about
significantly altered and handicraft has been driven by the
artisan market and she understood that that conversation has
helped in the shaping of the current bill. However, she
continued, there is a significant number of just harvesters who
would like to be able to sell raw pelts, although she does not
know why they are not coming forward with testimony. She shared
that she would like to have a raw sea otter pelt to put on one
of her two couches to accompany the raw pelt of an arctic fox
that she already has. While she understood the concern about
the sale of raw pelts potentially industrializing the current
artisan market, she remained unconvinced that that should trump
the overall good that would come from returning the right of
Alaska Natives to sell a raw pelt.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she would be glad to add anything
that might help with those concerns as the resolution moves
along, but the harvesters will need to call her office.
2:26:58 PM
TINA BROWN, President, Alaska Wildlife Alliance (AWA), noted
that her non-profit organization, whose board is comprised only
of Alaskans, is committed to the preservation and protection of
Alaska's wildlife. She said AWA has critical concerns about HJR
26 because the resolution appears to call for the implementation
of predator control on sea otters. While understanding this is
a resolution and not a bill, she stressed that there would be
negative consequences if the resolution is adopted. It is
intended to be a foot in the door for those advocating for
predator control on sea otters. The sponsor's statement on the
Internet seems clear in the call for predator control on sea
otters because it says that action must be taken now rather than
waiting for studies. Additionally, at a previous hearing the
executive director of the United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
testified that HJR 26 is probably not enough to help his
fishery, but it is a step in the right direction.
2:29:17 PM
MS. BROWN related that at a presentation by the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) last week a member of the
audience said predator control on sea otter population was
necessary and urged that it be opened up to all Alaskans, not
just Native Alaskans. This issue is escalating, she continued,
and the resolution has not yet been passed. She noted that HJR
26 urges state and federal governments to work with ADF&G to
reduce sea otter populations, but said that ADF&G does not have
a shining reputation for wildlife management: the department is
shooting wolves from aircraft in the Kenai Peninsula; snaring
bears, including sows, and then shooting their cubs; gassing
wolf pups in their dens; and is allowing non-resident hunting in
some active predator control areas. Alaska's reputation for
wildlife management is deeply tarnished right now, she said.
Imagine the negative press if Alaska started what people would
consider predator control on sea otters. Imagine the reaction
of tourists and potential tourists. Imagine the reactions of
Alaskans.
2:31:06 PM
MS. BROWN concurred that sea otters are a keystone species and
said that without sea otters there will be no great kelp forests
because the otters keep sea urchins under control. She related
that a panel of scientists at the recent Board of Fisheries
meeting in Petersburg stated that research on sea otters in
Southeast Alaska is underway and more research is needed. It
was also stated at the meeting that the carrying capacity for
sea otters in Southeast Alaska, before they were wiped out, is
unknown. At this same meeting, the Board of Fisheries stated
that one species should not be placed in higher regard than
another and the board specifically referred to sea cucumbers
versus sea otters. Prudence is the wisest approach to this
issue, she advised. Opening the door for predator control on
sea otters also opens the door for predator control on other
protected species, such as Steller sea lions and humpback
whales, and people are already talking about that.
2:32:25 PM
MS. BROWN said the consequences of HJR 26 could be devastating.
If the intent of the resolution is to provide greater economic
benefits to Native Alaskans via a more liberal use of sea otter
pelts, then re-word the resolution to say that. However, if the
intent of the resolution is to use Native Alaskans as a tool to
start predator control on sea otters, then the Alaska Wildlife
Alliance strongly opposes the resolution.
CO-CHAIR SEATON noted that the committee has adopted Version I,
which would do what Ms. Brown suggests in regard to expanding
the usage in handicrafts, such as allowing for a zipper. Since
Version I has no expansion of who can hunt and has no sales to
non-Natives, he asked whether it would fit the criteria that Ms.
Brown has laid out.
MS. BROWN pointed out that the resolution has numerous whereas
clauses and some of the wording in those clauses need to be
changed to not address predator control. She offered to go
through the clauses and mark the areas of concern. She said
previous oral testimony and the written testimony clearly view
the resolution as a step towards predator control on sea otters.
2:34:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked whether predator control in any form
is unnecessary.
MS. BROWN replied that she did not say that; she said that more
studies need to be made, which is what scientists said at the
Board of Fisheries meeting. While she is not a biologist, she
said she knows that sea otters are good for the marine
environment and fisheries. Since sea otters are just making a
comeback right now, it seems wise to see what happens and not
jump into anything.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON inquired whether it is being said that
there is not enough science on wolves and bears.
MS. BROWN responded that ADF&G cannot always be depended upon to
make wise management decisions.
2:35:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ noted that the Marine Mammal Protection Act
is very restrictive in the use of sea otter materials for Alaska
Native handicrafts. She asked whether Ms. Brown perceives that
a threat could happen on the national level if the act is re-
opened, even though the resolution is directed at Alaska Natives
and their uses.
MS. BROWN agreed that the resolution is directed at Alaska
Natives, but stressed that the committee needs to be very
precise and specific in the wording so that it does not appear
to be a step toward predator control on sea otters. She said
she gets nervous when she looks at the sponsor statement and
when she looks at some of the wording in the resolution. The
Alaska Wildlife Alliance supports the Native community and if
that is the sole purpose then the language about sea otter
populations increasing and being too much does not have a place
in the resolution. If the economic benefit is wanted for the
Native community - wonderful, but leave out the idea of reducing
sea otter populations.
2:37:32 PM
MIKE MILLER, Chairman, Indigenous People's Council for Marine
Mammals (IPCoMM), noted that IPCoMM is comprised of 18 organized
marine mammal hunting groups in the state of Alaska. His group
has a co-management umbrella agreement with National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to deal with issues of common concern around the state on the
mammals under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. He said it has
been interesting to listen to all the different points and he
agrees with points brought out by both sides. He offered his
support for HJR 26. He understood the concern about the
resolution being used for getting into a predator control
program and said he does not want the act used for anything
along those purposes. He agreed, however, with the resolution's
statement about establishing strategies and plans for
sustainable management of sea otter populations, which is very
consistent with everything the Native community has worked for.
2:39:16 PM
MR. MILLER appreciated the changes made to the resolution and
said he supports Version I. The resolution is being looked at
with two different approaches. The Native community definitely
has concern about the impact that sea otters have and wants to
conserve the species, but conservation is the wise use of a
resource, not preservation. Protection is needed for both the
otters and the resources that the communities rely on for
subsistence and commercial purposes. He said headway could be
made on the root of the problem by dealing with definitions,
such as significantly altered, and the Marine Mammal Protection
Act would not need to be opened up for that.
MR. MILLER stated that he has worked on this issue for about 15
years. He facilitated the harvest management workshop for the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a tannery was started in
Sitka to promote economic opportunities for tribal members in
the community. He expressed his organization's great concern
with some of the enforcement actions that have happened and
which have created confusion amongst the hunters and artisans.
He concluded by supporting Version I with no changes to it.
2:41:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, regarding the current use of sea otters,
asked who determines who qualifies as Native and how a Native
harvester would know that a buyer is qualified to own it.
MR. MILLER explained that there is an exemption in the Marine
Mammal Protection Act, Section 101(b), for Alaska coastal
Natives to harvest and make use of sea otter for handicrafts, as
well as to trade and sell pelts to other qualified Natives. In
regulation the definition of Alaska Native for purposes of the
act is one-quarter blood quantum or greater who lives on the
coast. However, there is some question as to how that is
figured out by the different solicitors of the respective
agencies, although that is how they say they enforce that. For
many people who are one-quarter blood or a bit more it would be
hard to determine that they are unless they show identification
and that raises questions about how that would be enforced. A
lot of this comes back to questions about how things are
enforced and there needs to be some clarity on those things
before sea otters can really be fully utilized to help Natives.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK commented that he is the only non-Native in
his family and all his family members have a Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) card that shows what fraction Native Alaskan they
are.
2:43:57 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE closed public testimony on HJR 26 after
ascertaining that no one else wished to testify.
CO-CHAIR SEATON reiterated that he thinks Version I cleans up
the potential problems in the resolution. He said he would not
make a motion to move the resolution if it allowed sale to non-
Natives because that would hurt the Native artisan community and
the authenticity of sales to tourists and others, as well as
have a situation in which one shooter on a boat that was
qualified and the rest of the people onboard would be non-
Natives. The sponsor has done a good job of expanding the use
within the Native community without getting into the situation
of less control on the harvest.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ agreed with Co-Chair Seaton. However, she
suggested to the sponsor that some of the editorializing
language be toned down so as not to build up hysteria around the
issue. She said she agrees with the resolution and thinks it is
important.
2:46:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI agreed with the previous two speakers
and noted that Version I calls for coming up with local plans.
He appreciated the sponsor's willingness to change the language
dealing with Alaska Native and traditional artifacts and agreed
with the previous speaker about how the resolution should be
fixed further. Regarding the McDowell Group report, he
maintained that a lot of study has not been done and much more
needs to be done for any management plan. Referring to
citations in the report that ADF&G has closed seven areas for
sea cucumbers presumably for sea otter predation, he said it is
inconclusive. He further noted that no geoduck harvests have
ever been closed due to sea otter predation, although ADF&G has
identified some areas where there could be sea otter predation.
Continuing his reference to the report, he said sea otter
predation impacts on red sea urchins since 2005 have not been
compiled, and the decline of red sea urchin in recent years is
related to market factors, not due to sea otter predation. He
further noted that the abalone fishery collapsed almost
certainly because of excessive harvest in the 1970s and 1980s,
not due to sea otter predation. He said he would like to ask
ADF&G numerous questions about how it comes up with the various
numbers. He urged that there be thoughtful debate about this
and offered his appreciation of the sponsor's willingness to
continue in this regard.
2:48:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK understood the concern of those people
asking for more study and said that if hunting was begun
tomorrow it would be premature. He maintained, however, that
with predator control for wolves the cry for more study went on
for eight years and resulted in no moose populations. He said
he is sure that there will be more study on the sea otter issue,
given the timing of the resolution.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE stated that a good part of the resolution is
simply to get the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to come up with
a plan.
2:48:54 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to report the committee substitute (CS)
for HJR 26, Version I, labeled 27-LS0717\I, Bullard, 2/6/12, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, the
House Resources Standing Committee reported CSHJR 26(RES) out of
committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHJR 26 Explanation of Changes.pdf |
HRES 2/13/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| CSHJR26 Work Draft Version I.pdf |
HRES 2/13/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR26 Support Letter - Neidiffer.pdf |
HRES 2/13/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HRES Dept. Rev 5 YLB 2.13.12.pdf |
HRES 2/13/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR 26 Comments - Knudsen.pdf |
HRES 2/13/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR 26 Comments - Randrup.pdf |
HRES 2/13/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR 26 Comment - Churchill.PDF |
HRES 2/13/2012 1:00:00 PM |