Legislature(2015 - 2016)BUTROVICH 205
04/01/2015 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
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 | |
| SB68 | |
| SB42 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 68 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 42 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 42-PERSONAL USE FISHING PRIORITY
4:05:36 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced consideration of SB 42.
SENATOR BILL STOLTZE, sponsor of SB 42, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said this measure has been called
the Alaskans First Fisheries Act and it has been muted by the
legislative process since 1999. He explained that there are two
fisheries within Alaska that are for Alaska resident only:
subsistence and personal use (PU). It is surprising how many
people say personal use fisheries are an important part of
Alaskans' food security, but SB 42 simply says in times of
shortage, the Board of Fisheries can set a priority for average
citizens that is reflected in the Alaska Constitution.
He is excited that the ADF&G commissioner has a neutral position
on SB 42, because if it was a bad bill, he would oppose it.
Senator Stoltze said this only affects a small percentage of
fish that are commonly owned by all Alaskans. It would not trump
Pacific salmon treaties or Canadian agreements, and the board
itself is trumped by other higher authorities within the
department and international treaties all the way up to the
federal government.
SENATOR STOLTZE said this is not just about salmon; there are
about 80 PU fisheries in the state, but the bulk of the
contention has been in the Kasilof and Kenai Rivers. Some argue
that people can buy their salmon at the store, but catching
one's own salmon what an Alaskan values.
4:12:28 PM
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) mentioned excessive use by some
Alaskan families and it has been suggested to limit them to 10
per year, but that is not enough to share with family and
friends, which is another Alaskan value.
4:13:52 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL noted the many emails the committee had received
on this issue and opened public testimony.
4:14:36 PM
STEVE VANEK, representing himself, Ninilchik, Alaska, opposed SB
42. It is an innocent idea with unintended bad consequences.
Like the book and movie called "Bridge Over the River Kwai,"
this is a situation in which a short term goal disguises a much
larger long term evil. This bill has many long term consequences
that affect ADF&G management, many that affect the board of
Fisheries process and private businesses.
4:16:47 PM
DAVID HILLSTRAND, representing himself, Homer, Alaska, opposed
SB 42. He is a commercial fisherman in Upper Cook Inlet and is
against personal use fisheries over commercial fishing. He
supports personal use in rural areas that are defined by the
federal government as subsistence areas. He explained that
because of Alaska's continued population growth, especially
since 1972 and Limited Entry, an allocation issue has arisen.
Some people have applied the constitution's "common use" concept
to all 700,000 residents receiving six fish a piece from the
Kenai River. But in his view, limited entry is the way for the
public to participate in common use; just like the oil, timber
and mining industries have a chance to lease land. Once limited
entry was created, participation was limited to a certain number
of people and the way the public can participate in harvesting
fish is by purchasing a limited entry permit. Courts have ruled
against compensating fishermen for the limited entry process.
4:19:31 PM
CLAY BEZENEK, representing himself, Ketchikan, Alaska, opposed
SB 42. He is a coastal guy who survives on salmon and doesn't
have the benefit of any other income in his community. If they
are going to reallocate the resource, it should be reallocated
in a way that benefits someone whose life isn't on the line
because of it. "It's a cavalier regard for coastal economies."
4:23:17 PM
ALEXIS COOPER, Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU),
Cordova, Alaska, opposed SB 42. Cordova is a small coastal
community whose economy depends almost entirely on the
commercial salmon industry. She said SB 42 doesn't represent all
Alaskans or promote a sense of responsibility amongst all
Alaskans to insure the sustainability of the salmon resource.
She said Alaska has set the gold standard for sustainable
fisheries by establishing a system where management decisions
are based on the highest standards of scientific integrity, and
that commitment maximizes opportunities that has afforded all
Alaskans relatively unfettered access to the state's rich salmon
resources and provides residents a multitude of options from
which to choose to harvest or access salmon for their
households. The subsistence, personal use, sport and commercial
opportunities, are all vitally important in providing Alaska and
its resident economic opportunity and food security.
MS. COOPER said that SB 42 would establish a further priority in
an already complex system of allocation and management for
salmon, which already includes a resident only priority, and
rather than uniting all Alaskans to ensure the sustainability of
the salmon resource, SB 42 perpetuates a vision amongst
residents at times of diminished run strengths when conservation
most needs to be a collaborative effort.
4:25:19 PM
GRANT KLOTZ, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, supported
SB 42. As the population in Alaska grows, so does the demand on
the Kenai fishery, he said, and this bill ensures that Alaska
residents will have access to their fair share of this commonly
owned fishery. Unfortunately, this pits commercial fishermen
against personal use fishermen, but not having enough fish
return to the rivers has been a long standing issue.
4:27:09 PM
BRIAN MERRITT, representing himself, Wrangell, Alaska, opposed
SB 42. This bill could tie the BOF's hands. He found some
interesting information about the Copper River situation in
2013. In that 2013, 135,000 sockeye were caught by personal use
fishermen, and most of them came out of urban areas like
Fairbanks, Anchorage, Eielson Air Force Base, Delta Junction,
and Eagle River. The personal use fishery enables rural
residents to get the food they need for the winter, and they
depend on ADF&G to control this resource through the Board of
Fisheries process.
4:29:02 PM
BOB LINVILLE, representing himself, Seward, Alaska, opposed SB
42. He had commercial and personal-use fished for several
decades on the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers. He said the board had
evolved over the years to include all personal use and sport
fishing representation and asked if the legislature thought it
could do that balanced analysis. He concluded saying that all
users need to share in resource conservation.
4:31:26 PM
CHUCK DERRICK, President, Chitina Dipnetters Association,
Fairbanks, Alaska, supported SB 42. The association feels the
best use of Alaska's food resources is to feed Alaskan families.
He explained that prior to creation of the criteria that
identified customary and traditional uses, the Chitina
dipnetters were always managed as a subsistence fishery, but a
clause about "local" turned the Chitina dipnet fishery into
personal use. The clause was later ruled unconstitutional, but
the dipnet fishery remained personal use. In 1999, they
succeeded in convincing the BOF that the Chitina dipnet fishery
did meet customary and traditional criteria. Then it got changed
back to subsistence until 2002 when that decision was rescinded.
MR. DERRICK stated that the board used to always be heavily
weighted with commercial interests and Chitina dipnetters had
never won a proposal that he could remember with that make up.
But using their data, they were able to convince the 2014 board
to increase the bag limit - the fist win he could remember.
4:34:11 PM
RICHARD DAVIS, Seafood Producer's Cooperative (SPC), Juneau,
Alaska, opposed SB 42. The SPC is the oldest and largest
vertically integrated, entirely fisherman owned, harvesting,
processing, and marketing association on the continent, he said.
They began in 1944, and today 560 fishermen member owners
process 10-15 million pounds of Alaskan seafood annually. The
cooperative employs 30-140 people and paid $1 million to the
State of Alaska in fisheries business taxes last year.
He urged them to resist designating personal use fisheries a
priority. SPC's experience is that personal use fisheries are
designated because of limited quantities, or availability, or an
excessive number of citizens vying for finite quantities of
certain fish. "Personal use" to them means residents in
possession of a sport fishing license, sometimes with a permit,
involved in a harvest reserved for Alaskan residents only. If
lawmakers feel compelled to favor personal use fisheries with a
priority distinction and this legislation passes, he warned to
expect other efforts by Alaskan citizens to use the legislature
to manipulate the Board of Fisheries or make a priority for
their particular pet fishery.
4:36:40 PM
JOHN MCCOMBS, representing himself, Ninilchik, Alaska, opposed
SB 42. He commented that currently the personal use fishery
occurs before escapement takes place in front of the counters
and it's never been closed. Expanding a fully allocated fishery
- there are 80 PU fisheries statewide - has never been explained
or rationalized. There are no guarantees in fishing. But when
thoroughly scrutinized, the PU fishery has a priority based on
management defaults and BOF reallocations.
GARLAND BLANCHARD, representing himself, Homer, Alaska, opposed
SB 42. He is a Cook Inlet fisherman and said that everyone
agrees that all residents of this state are entitled to fish.
But, he said, apparently no one on the board had ever been to a
Kenai City Council meeting when they are trying to figure out
the mess at the Kenai. First of all, according to the City
Council, 17 percent of the fish caught on the Kenai River are by
local people and 83 percent are caught by people from the
Valley. According to ADF&G records, 8,000 permits were not
returned from this fishery, so nobody has any idea of how many
fish have been taken out of this fishery. Combined with the
Copper River fishery, it's possible that over half a million
sockeye are being taken.
The issues that the Kenai Council hears are about people
defecating in their backyards, people partying all night, piles
of garbage and rotten carcasses, and zero enforcement because
the Division of Parks doesn't have the authority to write any
tickets. Troopers don't do anything, either.
4:40:21 PM
MARTIN WEISER, Chief Development Officer, Copper River Seafoods,
Anchorage, Alaska, opposed SB 42. "Calling this the Alaskans
first fishing bill is misleading," he said. According to the
Resource Development Council's most recent published statistics
the revenues generated by the fishing industry in 2012 totaled
more than $100 million in state and local taxes. And with the
current fiscal challenges facing the state, Alaskans can't
afford to reduce income to it. This industry pays for services
that all Alaskans benefit from and actually provides a majority
of Alaskans with their seafood.
Copper River Seafoods does not support any single user group
getting priority over any other. The ADF&G and BOF currently
ensure fair allocation of the state's fisheries based on science
and not politics, he said, but SB 42 will restrict their
abilities to do so by prioritizing one single user group. He
said the PU fisheries are healthy and no Alaskan is being
limited in these fisheries as a result of commercial or sport
fishing.
MALCOLM VANCE, representing himself, McCarthy, Alaska, opposed
SB 42. He had lived in McCarthy for 33 years and commercial
fished for the past 35 years. He qualifies for both federal and
state subsistence use and is also an avid sports fisherman.
There is no good reason to put PU fishing above all other user
groups. All harvesters should share the burden and
responsibility of harvesting and conservation equally. The
regulatory process that meets the needs and wants of all user
groups is already being used. SB 42 is another way of creating
chaos in the ever widening gap between the user groups.
4:44:33 PM
GARY STEVENS, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), Chugiak, Alaska,
strongly supported SB 42. He said a 2012 study by the ADF&G's
Division of Subsistence found that recreational, PU fishing,
subsistence and recreational hunting combined amounted to less
than 2 percent of the total fish and game harvested in the State
of Alaska. Commercial fishermen harvested over 98 percent of the
total poundage of fish and game. He said 75 percent of residents
live in non-subsistence areas and the PU fishery for all intents
and purposes is a subsistence fishery for people that live in a
non-subsistence area. If fish were returning to other streams in
Cook Inlet the pressure could be spread out from the mouth of
the Kenai River. Personal use should have a priority over
commercial fishing.
AL BARRETTE, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska, supported
SB 42. All the statutory definitions that pertain to PU and
subsistence and the intent language found in 5 AAC 77.01 make it
clear that the PU fishery has a priority. PU was recognized in
the days of rural priority, but the McDowell decision in 1989
removed that rural priority and made all Alaskans eligible to
participate. Then the legislature and joint boards created the
non-subsistence areas, which is a perfect fit for the PU
fisheries now. PU fisheries are not only for dip nets, as he
personally fishes with a gillnet in the Tanana River.
MR. BARRETTE stated also that at least the PU fisheries are not
subsidized by the state like the commercial fisheries are to the
tune of $60 million.
JULIANNE CURRY, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska
(UFA), Juneau, Alaska, opposed SB 42. UFA care about the
sustainability of Alaska's fishing resources above all else.
They have four primary concerns regarding SB 42. It
unnecessarily pits Alaskans against Alaskans and further
complicates fisheries management and BOF decisions. It does not
establish reasonable expectations for the harvest of a
fluctuating biomass nor does it ensure food security.
She said most Alaskans don't have the time, resources, the
access or the ability to harvest their own fish and the
commercial harvesting sector provides them with critical access
to the resource in fish markets, grocery stores and restaurants
throughout the state. A PU priority would trump the existing
sport and commercial fisheries that resident Alaskans use to
help feed their families.
MS. CURRY said that according to Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC) data, Alaskans hold nearly 77 percent of all
limited entry permits. This bill further complicates complex
fisheries management plans and reduces flexibility. It creates a
one-size fits all approach, whereas these type of allocation
decisions are best left to the BOF that has the ability to take
significant public and scientific input and make decisions on a
fishery by fishery and region by region basis.
Sustainability relies on the premise that resources have limits,
and setting reasonable expectations help perpetuate users'
commitment to sustainability, she said. Establishing a PU
priority will not ensure that salmon run upstream on the weekend
when most individuals choose to participate in the three most
popular salmon dip net fisheries.
4:50:27 PM
BRENT JOHNSON, representing himself, Clam Gulch, Alaska, opposed
SB 42. He put in 49 seasons into the Cook Inlet set net fishery
and the biggest difference he found between living in Chugiak
and living in Clam Gulch is that nobody in Clam Gulch is in
favor of this bill. The reason is that people in Clam Gulch fish
in the summer and have to sustain themselves all year around to
live there. Not one time between 1882 and 1982 was there a
harvest of 3 million sockeye salmon in Cook Inlet, but since
1982, there has been 21 times when over 3 million sockeye were
harvested. The sockeye fishery is in real good shape. The PU
fishery has been harvesting hundreds of thousands of sockeyes in
recent years, so it seems like the PU people are getting a lot
of fish. This bill must want to change something. So, what is it
going to change? The change could put him and his wife out of
business.
He also related that a number of years ago their fish opening
was rescheduled for Mondays and Thursdays to accommodate people
from Chugiak and Anchorage who wanted to fish on the weekends
and to give the fish one day in between to repopulate the river.
WES HUMBYRD, representing himself, Homer, Alaska, opposed SB 42.
He had fished in Cook Inlet since 1966 and raised his family
there. He felt this bill would open up a can of worms. Anyone
in Anchorage who doesn't get enough fish with a dip net can come
to his boat, the Knife's Edge, and he will make "damn sure" they
don't starve. There has to be enough fish (millions of pounds)
for people without having a law.
RICHARD BISHOP, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska,
supported SB 42. He lives in a subsistence use area and fished
in the personal use fishery even before it was called that; it
has been a major source of food for his family for over 50
years, and their experience is not unique.
He said the Alaska Constitution outlines sustained yield and
common use for the maximum benefit of Alaskans. That is how
subsistence fishing has been classified in the past. The Alaska
Constitution also allows for resident preferences. Personal use
fishing is for residents and it should have priority over sport
and commercial fishing when harvestable surplus is low.
MIKE MICKELSON, representing himself, Cordova, Alaska, opposed
SB 42. He is a lifelong resident of Cordova and a subsistence
and commercial fisherman. This is a very allocative proposal and
allocation is what the Board of Fisheries does, he said. The BOF
created the PU fisheries in 1982 so that Alaskan residents could
harvest salmon when there was an available surplus.
There are lots of opportunities for PU fishermen; it is a
valuable opportunity that Alaskans are lucky to have when extra
fish are there. It is not subsistence. Most of his points have
already been brought up by people who are against SB 42, but he
added, if this proposal is really about putting Alaskans first,
you can't believe it. If you are actually out there fishing all
the time you can actually see what is happening in the
ecosystems. Commercial fishermen have a very vested interest in
keeping these fisheries around, because that is their income. He
suggested expanding the loan programs instead of doing the BOF's
job, which is what this proposal attempts to do.
4:58:22 PM
ARNI THOMSON, Alaska Salmon Alliance, Kenai Peninsula and
Anchorage Seafood Processors, Anchorage, Alaska, opposed SB 42.
PU salmon needs of Alaska residents are already provided for
upfront when the ADF&G calculates its annual harvest forecast
for commercial, PU and subsistence fisheries based on Kenai and
Kasilof River stocks. Thus, it is not necessary to create
legislation unless the goal is to further exacerbate the
divisiveness between user groups, he said.
5:00:41 PM
JERRY MCCUNE, representing himself, Juneau, Alaska, opposed SB
42. He said PU fisheries were created for people who didn't
qualify for subsistence. All kinds of fishing are important to
Alaskans, but this bill seems to shut down commercial fishing.
CHAIR GIESSEL apologized to the 26 people left wanting to
testify and invited them to send their testimony to the
committee in writing.
5:03:27 PM
SENATOR STOLTZE thanked her for this opportunity to present his
bill and said his goal is to represent Alaskans' interest.
CHAIR GIESSEL said she welcomed written testimony and announced
she would hold SB 42 in committee.