Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205
03/29/2019 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 | |
| SB90 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 90 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 90-COOK INLET: NEW ADMIN AREA;PERMIT BUYBACK
3:30:59 PM
CHAIR BIRCH announced the consideration of Senate Bill 90 (SB
90).
3:31:18 PM
SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of SB 90, explained the challenge of the Cook
Inlet fisheries is different user groups working together. He
said the issue that SB 90 addresses is an example of one case
where Cook Inlet user groups have come together.
He disclosed that his office has been working the past several
years with Cook Inlet's sport and commercial groups on a
solution that he thinks is a good start. He said SB 90 is a
result of sport and commercial fishermen working together in
Cook Inlet towards a viable solution. SB 90 supports all user
groups: commercial, sport, personal use, and subsistence stress-
relief by reducing the number of east side setnet fishers in
Cook Inlet by nearly half.
He opined that by reducing the number of setnet operations on
the east side of Cook Inlet, the area will see a more viable
commercial fishery for those remaining, adequate production for
the processing industry, and more fish available for in-river
users. SB 90 offers setnet fishermen, some of whom have fished
in the area for generations, a way to fairly exit the fishery or
to reinvest in remaining operations once the 200 permit and site
reduction plan takes place.
SENATOR MICCICHE explained that in the 1980s there was a huge
migration of setnet fishermen to the east side of Cook Inlet,
returns to those river systems were very large, fishing the area
was lucrative, and access to processors easy, therefore the area
held great appeal to commercial fishermen. As pressure on fish
stocks increased and commercial fishing profitability began to
wane, several processors left the area. Over time, setnet
fishermen saw fewer and fewer opportunities to fish, and in
recent years there have been very few openings during the
fishing season.
He disclosed that he is a Cook Inlet commercial fishman that is
not involved in the specified fishery, a fishery that does not
impact his income; however, he said he has seen the impacts on
his setnetting neighbors through the years.
He specified that SB 90 is a voluntary program, a point that he
cannot stress enough. The legislation would only become
effective after an affirmative election held amongst the permit
holders; a covenant that provides the fishermen with the "last
say."
He disclosed that recent polling data showed over 75 percent of
setnet respondents were interested in SB 90's program concept.
Once the program is established, permit holders would apply for
the program where 200 permits would be drawn in a lottery
fashion to determine the order of permit retirement. When a
permit is retired the waters where the permit was fished would
be closed to future commercial fishing.
He summarized that increased returns for in-river users and a
more viable setnet fishing industry will make SB 90's concept a
win-win for all user groups.
3:35:38 PM
At ease.
3:36:11 PM
CHAIR BIRCH called the committee back to order.
3:36:19 PM
KEN COLEMAN, President, Eastside Consolidation Association
(ECA), Kenai, Alaska, explained that ECA was formed a few years
ago to explore permit or gear reduction on the east side of Cook
Inlet. The goal is to remain or become more economically viable,
which is the central premise of limited entry. The buyback plan
also makes sure that the river escapements are sustainable for
optimal use of all user groups.
MR. COLEMAN said the setnetting fishery in Cook Inlet has been
around for a long time. Eighty-four percent of the fishery is
composed of Alaskans and over eighty percent are central
peninsula residents. Many commercial fishermen live right where
they fish. He proclaimed that Alaska's commercial fishery "feeds
the world and the nation." The Cook Inlet's east side setnetters
have been around about 150 years and is part of a vibrant,
diversified economy.
He specified that the entire Cook Inlet setnet area has over 735
permits, spanning from Goose Bay up towards Anchorage, all the
way to Homer and across the way from Homer. Cook Inlet's east
side, which is the upper subdistrict of the central district,
has approximately 440 registered setnet fishermen.
3:39:03 PM
He explained that limited entry was promulgated and passed
constitutionally in the 1970s. Limited entry is the crown jewel
in terms of salmon fishing and other fishing. In the mid-1980s
there was a large influx on Cook Inlet's east side for several
reasons including large biomasses, record prices, and an
increased area to put setnets.
He explained that the intent of the Cook Inlet permit buyback is
to reduce the permit numbers by approximately 45 percent from
440 permits to 240 permits. The primary reason for reducing the
permits is that the area's commercial fishermen know the number
of permit holders cannot be supported, that the area is over
capitalized. There has been an exponential growth over time in
user groups. The Kenai and Kasilof rivers no longer have an
enhancement process. Escapements in the area are at more
traditional levels, and user groups are asking for their
appropriate piece of the Cook Inlet biomass. SB 90 is a plan to
find a way for everyone to live together. He reiterated that
there have been fruitful discussions with the area's user groups
and there is hope that the user groups can find common
solutions.
3:41:18 PM
He explained that SB 90 says that if a setnet permit is retired
through the voluntary buyback program, the waters where the
permit was fished would be closed to future commercial fishing.
This will increase returns to the rivers and increase available
fish for all user groups.
MR. COLEMAN noted that ECA surveyed permit holders and 80
percent responded positively to making changes, a response that
indicates people want and need change.
He detailed that a value is affixed to a setnet permit that will
be paid. The methodology to determine the value is based on 10
years of what a permit makes in Cook Inlet, which is $20,000 per
year, and an additional $60,000 for tax implications.
3:43:43 PM
SENATOR BISHOP asked if the $20,000 per year is a gross or net
amount.
MR. COLEMAN answered that the amount is gross.
He said ECA is looking to find a way for permit holders to
financially stay in business, to live with other end-user
neighbors, and to continue to have healthy limits and
sustainable escapements.
He disclosed that ECA has been working collaboratively with
other groups and noted the increased cooperation to solve the
fishing issues in Cook Inlet. He said the fish wars between user
groups have torn communities apart.
He referenced a document in his overview, "A Letter to Erin," a
letter in prose that was very poignantly done by a multi-
generation fisherman.
3:45:53 PM
He summarized that Senator Micciche has done a lot of work with
ECA over the past five years on the legislation proposed in SB
90. He opined that SB 90 is a fair and equitable bill that is
voluntary for permit holders. An affixed number for the payback
has been assigned to those who will be leaving and closing their
business forever. There will be a vote by permit holders to
proceed. He opined that the proposed legislation is the best
vehicle for fairness that he has seen for some time.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked how many people will participate in the
proposed program.
MR. COLEMAN replied that he anticipates in excess of 200 people
will apply for the program.
SENATOR KAWASAKI inquired if there are permits currently held by
fishermen who are not utilizing the fishery.
MR. COLEMAN replied that he does not have data to answer Senator
Kawasaki's question. He said ascertaining information is
difficult for setnet fishermen; for example, he noted that his
family owns multiple permits but sells fish on only one permit.
3:48:42 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if his family owns multiple permits for
different sites but only utilizes one of the permits.
MR. COLEMAN answered that all of his family's permits are being
used, but as a convenience only one permit is being used to sell
product. That way four people with four different names on four
permit cards do not have to go to the processing plant or a fish
buyer.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if there is a deadline in which to apply
for the expected 200 possible permits.
3:49:53 PM
KONRAD JACKSON, Staff, Senator Micciche, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, explained that the goal of SB 90 is
to retire 200 permits, but there is no expectation that there
will be 200 applications for retirement on day one. He said
there is no deadline to apply, but he assumes that permit
holders interested in the program will apply as soon as
possible.
SENATOR KAWASAKI said he equates the permits to liquor license
transfers. For example, there are a limited number of liquor
licenses in Fairbanks where a licensee holds on to their license
because the value keeps appreciating due to a limited number of
licenses. He asked if there is concern that a permit holder
might want to wait for other people to jump in first because the
permits that are remaining would probably appreciate.
MR. COLEMAN answered that he suspects that the number of people
who speculate will be rather small.
SENATOR KIEHL said he appreciates the element to close a
particular site. He asked if somebody who does not sell their
permit could fish close to the area that was closed through the
buyback.
3:52:16 PM
MR. COLEMAN answered no; the intent is to close the area
associated with the buyback.
SENATOR KIEHL inquired if a permit holder could come within 600
feet of an area that is closed.
MR. COLEMAN answered no. He explained that there is a spatial
requirement in Cook Inlet to keep nets from being too close
together. There is a 600-foot buffer between any part of a net
and another net.
SENATOR MICCICHE explained that the bill does not change the
fishery for those remaining in Cook Inlet other than the water
that is closed will be closed and the water that is open remains
open. The 600-foot buffer does not change.
He said regarding the speculation issue, because of the
participation deadline, if people are going to speculate, they
are going to speculate. SB 90 sets the baseline for some time at
$260,000 and the natural market value of the permits will occur
after that. He said he expects that the buyback will be more
attractive to lower value sites and it's not enough to purchase
the higher value sites, so there will be some "blending" of the
permits' values for some time before the remaining permits
returns to the natural market tension.
3:55:20 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked what the vote threshold will be for permit
holders voting on the buyback. He asked if consideration was
given to set the "vote threshold" higher than 50-percent-plus-
one.
MR. COLEMAN answered that there was no direct conversation on
vote threshold with respect to the bill. He noted that the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) had a 50-
percent-plus-one threshold for their capacity reduction program,
a model that will probably be used for the buyback program.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if a permit holder who participates in
the buyback could receive a permit to fish in a different
location.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he prefers to answer questions on what is
in the bill. He explained that if the bill passes the
legislature, the legislation goes before the east side
setnetters for a final vote after the area has been divided into
two administrative areas. The first 200 permitholders who are
selected by lottery will participate in the buyback. Their
permits within the east side setnet area will be retired and the
waters where the permit is fished will be closed.
He noted that the fiscal note is indeterminant because outside
funding is being sought; no money will come from the state.
3:58:06 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI said he was trying to ascertain whether all the
real estate along the east side is fully encumbered by setnets
or if an individual could get a permit right now for a physical
location that is not currently being fished.
SENATOR MICCICHE answered that the bill will reduce the permits
by 45 percent. New permits could not come into the area, but
east side setnet permitholders could move around into available
areas that are not currently being fished. People could not move
into areas that have been closed by a sale. He said the number
of permits in the east side area would be reduced by 200.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked for confirmation that there will be no
other permits or no other availability to fish in the east side
fishery portion.
SENATOR MICCICHE answered that is correct.
CHAIR BIRCH asked that the sectional analysis for SB 90 be
reviewed.
4:00:02 PM
MR. JACKSON referenced the sectional analysis for SB 90 as
follows:
Section 1:
Amends the uncodified law of the State of Alaska by
adding a new section which establishes that this
legislation may be known as the East Side of Cook
Inlet Setnet Fleet Reduction Act.
Section 2:
Amends the uncodified law of the State of Alaska by
adding new Legislative findings and intent relating to
the bill.
Section 3:
Amends AS 16.43.200(b), giving the Alaska Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission (commission) specific
authority to divide an existing commercial fishing
administrative area into two or more separate areas.
Section 4:
Amends AS 16.43.200 by adding 2 new subsections: (c)
Establishes the Eastern Setnet Subdistrict as a
distinct administrative area separate from the Cook
Inlet Central District on January 1, 2020. This area
is made up of the statistical areas identified on
January 1, 2019 as 244-21, 244-22, 244-31, 244-32,
244-41 and 244-42. (d) Provides that an individual who
has a setnet permit for the Cook Inlet Central
District on December 31, 2019 is not entitled to
setnet in the administrative area created under the
section as of January 1, 2020.
Section 5:
Amends AS 16.43 by adding a new section to Article 4
which establishes the setnet entry permit buyback
program for certain permits fished in the
administrative area established under AS 16.43.200(c)
(added by sec. 4 of the bill). This section will only
take effect if approved at a vote (see sec. 8) by the
setnet entry permit holders in the administrative area
established under AS 16.43.200(c). If it is approved,
the buyback program will become law on July 1, 2020
(see secs. 12 and 14). Sets qualifications for
participation in the program, provides the buyback
price for permits, requires that the purchased permits
be cancelled and not re-issued, provides that certain
waters that were fished with permits purchased under
the program will be closed to future commercial
fishing, and specifies other details of the buyback
program.
Section 6:
Repeals the program on June 30, 2026.
Section 7:
Amends the uncodified law of the State of Alaska by
adding a new section which provides how the commission
will determine whether an individual who holds a
setnet entry permit in the Cook Inlet Central District
on January 1, 2020 is reassigned an entry permit for
the administrative area established under AS
16.43.200(c) (added by sec. 4 of the bill) or the
portion of the Cook Inlet Central District that was
not assigned into the administrative area established
under AS 16.43.200(c).
Section 8:
Amends the uncodified law of the State of Alaska by
adding a new section which requires a March 1, 2020
election be held by persons in the new administrative
area to affirm support or opposition to a buyback
program. Requires the commission to provide public
notice of the vote, hold public meetings concerning
the election, and clarify the details of the buyback
program.
Section 9:
Amends the uncodified law of the State of Alaska by
adding a new section which requires the commission to
provide a written report to the Legislature on the
status of the program no later than January 15, 2026.
Section 10:
Amends the uncodified law of the State of Alaska by
adding a new section which requires the chair of the
commission to notify the Lieutenant Governor and the
Revisor of Statutes of the outcome of the election
held under section 8.
Section 11:
Amends the uncodified law of the State of Alaska by
adding a new section which provides an instruction to
the revisor to change the heading of art. 4 of AS
16.43 if the buyback program is approved (see secs. 12
and 14).
Section 12:
Amends the uncodified law of the State of Alaska by
adding a new section which provides that secs. 1, 2,
5, 6, 9 and 11 take effect only if the buyback program
is approved at the election held under sec. 8 of the
bill.
Section 13:
Effective Date Clause. Section 4 of the bill takes
effect January 1, 2020.
Section 14:
Effective Date Clause. Provides that if sections 1, 2,
5, 6, 9, and 11 take effect, they take effect July 1,
2020.
Section 15:
Effective Date Clause. Except as provided in section
13 and 14, the bill takes effect July 1, 2019.
4:06:32 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL asked him to explain what the language in
section 5 regarding AS 16.43.200(b) actually means. She
commented that it sounds like somebody volunteers but then might
decide not to participate in the buyback if they are chosen.
MR. JACKSON explained that the idea is that permit holders will
apply and 200 of the applicants will be selected through a
lottery for their permit to be purchased. Should something
change in a permit holder's life after they are selected, the
intent is to afford the individual the ability to withdraw.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if there was a provision to fill a slot
that has been withdrawn.
4:08:11 PM
MR. JACKSON answered that lottery choice 201 would replace the
withdrawn lottery applicant.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if the process would be to select another
name from the bowl of applicants.
MR. JACKSON replied that he would expect that the commission
will draw 210 or 225 permits to establish the lottery order,
should someone step back from the program.
SENATOR MICCICHE added that some people think about buying or
selling a business that they have had for 10 or 15 years and
think about the emotion tied to it. In the case of the east side
buyback, there will be families that have fished for five
generations and it is who they are. He said it might sound like
a really good idea at that time to retire for $200,000 plus tax
protection for a total of $260,000, but when it comes down to
it, some will say, "Move on down the list, we think we are not
ready." He opined that the decision to participate in the
lottery is a very emotional, significant opportunity that is
tough. There will not be 100 percent support. The support level
for the buyback has been increasing because the sheer numbers is
kind of a writing on the wall situation. He said he assumes that
a percentage of the 200 will change their mind about
participating.
4:10:48 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked if the bill has sufficient language for the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to extinguish their
shoreside leases.
MR. JACKSON answered yes.
SENATOR KIEHL noted that the bill does not speak to the outside
funding mechanism for the buyback. He asked how the actual
process of funding a repayment will work.
SENATOR MICCICHE answered that there have been conversations
over the last several years with federal programs that are
involved with conservation buybacks. The discussions have
resulted in a strong indication that funding is possible. If
partial funding is possible and the program is approved, the
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) and the DNR would
manage the purchase of the permits that can be purchased up to
the partial amount and wait for additional funding. The partial
funding scenario has been discussed with the groups as well.
There is a chance that the program does not secure the $52
million initially, but partial funding will begin the partial
program.
4:13:53 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked if funding for the program is from grant
funds.
SENATOR MICCICHE answered yes.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked him to follow up regarding the Cook Inlet
setnet permits declining over the past 6 years from 846 to 735,
and if a Cook Inlet setnet permit can currently be purchased.
SENATOR MICCICHE replied that he will answer Senator Kawasaki's
question offline as requested.
4:15:12 PM
CHAIR BIRCH opened public testimony for SB 90.
4:16:26 PM
DAVID MARTIN, representing self, Clam Gulch, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 90. He disclosed that he has fished in Cook
Inlet for 48 years. He said SB 90 addresses a very divisive
issue amongst the fishermen and industry members and not all
fishermen are in favor of SB 90. He opined that the proposed
buyback program came from a handful of setnetters located at the
mouth of the Kenai River that want somebody to fund their
retirement. He pointed out that the department did not ask for
the buyback program for management purposes, they have "time and
area" in their management plans under the constitution. He said
the mouth of the Kenai River is the largest closed area in
Alaska, almost two miles of closed area; in comparison, Bristol
Bay implements their whole fishery within three miles of shore.
He opined that there are no conservation concerns on the Kenai
River. SB 90 is strictly an allocation that the legislature
should not get into to start dictating. The Kenai River area and
the amount of gear is needed for large runs to harvest the
surplus, it's been used in the past for surges of fish coming
into the river and the setnet fishing is the last effort to
prevent over-escapement. He opined that SB 90 is contrary to the
Magnuson Stevens Act for maximum sustained yield, the bill will
take away a fishing area for future generations. The Kenai River
area is the last area to harvest the surplus. He opined that SB
90 does not guarantee that a viable setnet fishery or fish time
will be available and there will still be groups trying to
eliminate the fisheries in Cook Inlet.
4:19:12 PM
CHAIR BIRCH asked if he is a setnet fisherman involved with the
east side setnet fishery.
MR. MARTIN answered no. He said he is a drifter involved in a
lot of fishing organizations that were implemented in the 1970s
that represent all gear types.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if he is aware that the legislation is an
optional and voluntary process as written and does that change
his opinion of the legislation.
MR. MARTIN answered that he is aware and remains opposed. He
said there are a lot of other fisheries issues that needs to be
dealt with besides the proposed legislation from SB 90,
specifically on invasive species and fisheries management. He
opined that there are a lot of other ways to manage the
fisheries for maximum sustained yield rather than allocative
movements proposed in SB 90 that will provide for future
generations.
4:20:43 PM
PAUL A. SHADURA, President, Cook Inlet Revitalization
Association (CIRA), Anchorage, Alaska, testified in opposition
of SB 90. He disclosed that he has been setnetting in the Cook
Inlet for 51 years and represents a multi-generational salmon-
fishing family.
He said CIRA is a qualified salmon fishery association under the
current buyback provision. CIRA has submitted 20 "critical"
points for the committee's review, a consensus document from the
association's board of directors that is based on several
outreach meetings with fishermen. He specified CIRA concerns and
recommendations as follows:
• CIRA has reviewed SB 90 but has not had time to hold public
meetings with other Cook Inlet setnet fishermen since the
bill was filed.
• CIRA supports the efforts of Senator Micciche; however,
CIRA does not agree with SB 90.
• CIRA has always addressed the issue with a keep it simple
principle.
• CIRA contends that current permits should be voluntarily
relinquished without legislation via a third-party entity.
• CIRA contends that SB 90 has Alaska funding the program
entirely with undetermined cost associated with multiple
departments.
• CIRA does not support closed waters which would connotate a
state-approved property right.
• CIRA believes that closed waters for current setnet holders
would be a possible violation of the Alaska Constitution.
• CIRA does not support the exclusion of all current Cook
Inlet permit holders from a vote to give up their
individual rights to harvest salmon in the entire Cook
Inlet region.
• CIRA considers excluding a particular area creates a "super
exclusive" zone, something that Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC) has had to tackle both in the courts and
within regulation.
• CIRA is trying to go forward with a simplest way possible
and the least amount of conflict.
• CIRA does not know what the individual funding will be for
the program.
• CIRA has been working with the federal delegation for many
years, there seems to be very promising funds for this
program, but the programs have not been set up through the
National Marine Fisheries Service, or NOAA as we know it,
correctly.
4:24:02 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI noted that Mr. Shadura mentioned that CIRA has
a 20-point statement, but the committee has not received letters
of support of opposition to the bill. He asked CIRA to submit
their statement.
MR. SHADURA replied that he submitted CIRA's statement earlier
that day.
4:25:03 PM
LISA GABRIEL, representing self, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 90. She said her family has owned and operated its
setnet site on Kalifornsky Beach since 1987. SB 90 was brought
forward at the request of fishermen in hopes of revitalizing
family fishing businesses. SB 90 offers fair compensation for
fishermen who voluntarily choose to participate in the fleet
reduction and exit the fishery, and offers future viability and
stability for those fishermen, like herself, who choose to
remain. In the past 20 or so years, the fishing opportunities
for the east side setnet fishery has declined dramatically. She
said SB 90 is the correct solution to the survival and longevity
of a financially viable setnet fishery.
4:27:37 PM
RON CARMON, representing self, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 90. He said the buyback means more fish for the
guides and dipnetters. The dipnet fishery takes about 3.5
million fish from state general fund and commercial sport
fishermen take $35 million from the general fund, the state will
receive nothing. All commercial fishermen will be cheated out of
revenue as well as the state. Last year the commercial fishermen
gave $146 million to the general fund and there could be another
$70 million to the general fund if the commercial fishermen
caught the 13 million fish that has been taken from them. He
said the legislature is selling commercial fishermen's fish, not
its sites. He opined that the state needs revenue and should be
concentrating on revenue, not spending money and giving income.
4:30:09 PM
ROMAYNE HINDMAN, representing self, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 90. He said he has fished before limited entry in
the northern most end of Cook Inlet's central district. He
opined that SB 90 would reduce the amount of nets and bring the
number of central district setnets back to pre-limited-entry
numbers. The fact that the buyback is open to all permit holders
and will benefit all user groups makes the bill a good plan.
4:30:58 PM
THOMAS HINDMAN, representing self, Nikiski, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 90. He said he believes the bill will put
viability back to the fishery.
4:32:12 PM
TRAVIS EVERY, representing self, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 90. He said he is a third generation Cook Inlet
fisherman. He opined that the bill is a huge step in the right
direction for commercial industry and all user groups in Cook
Inlet. The bill covers several issues regarding a fleet
reduction that is paramount for the plan to be successful. The
fleet reduction is entirely on a voluntary basis. No matter what
the permit's location is on the east side setnet, everyone would
be eligible for the same monetary value. Most importantly, if a
permit is selected for purchase, the associated waters will be
closed from future use; that will prevent "back filling" of gear
in certain areas which defeats the purpose of a commercial
reduction.
MR. EVERY summarized that SB 90 will create financial viability
and stability within the commercial fishing industry that will
hopefully lead to a more conservative and sustainable fisheries
outlook in the Upper Cook Inlet for all user groups.
4:33:36 PM
JEFF BEAUDOIN, representing self, Kasilof, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 90. He disclosed that he has been a setnetter
in Cook Inlet for over 30 years, his business is a family
operation, and he has been involved in fishery associations as
well.
He remarked that since the bill's introduction, fishermen have
never been given the opportunity to address the bill in a public
forum regarding concerns and possible mitigation. He opined that
the legislature is going to create an act before there is a
vote.
He suggested that the setnet permits should be qualified through
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and historical
records. He noted that permits have been assigned to area waters
within the statistical areas along the east side of Cook Inlet.
He summarized that his main concern is unsustainability and that
ADF&G has not been involved in the plan.
4:37:03 PM
MARK DUCKER, representing self, Kasilof, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 90. He said the law change is an irresponsible
and reckless way to address the fishery. Limited entry took
several years and finally the federal government had to approve
it before implementation. The Cook Inlet resources are not state
resources, they are federal resources that belong to the nation.
He opined that the bill is a reallocation of a resource to
create a super exclusive fishery. Permits from the west side
were able to move back and forth just like permits from the east
side. The drift fleet will be allowed to come into the east
side, a drift net only must stay 600 feet away from a set-gill
net.
4:39:34 PM
DEVIN EVERY, representing self, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 90. He disclosed that he is a high school student
who represents the future generations of commercial fishermen.
He said he believes that everyone has a choice to voluntarily
get out of the east side fishery and try to create a more
economical, viable fishery for generations to come.
MR. EVERY summarized that there is a future generation coming
that wants to fish.
4:40:56 PM
GARY HOLLIER, representing self, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 90. He disclosed that he is a 65-year-old lifelong
resident of Kenai, a fourth-generation family member who has
been an east side setnetter for 48 years.
He opined that SB 90 is progressive thinking that could really
help all user groups. SB 90 is a voluntary gear reduction, a win
for all user groups. The bill is good for the setnetters who
want out as well as the setnetters who want to stay fishing
because the bill will make the fishery more viable. The
personal-use and sport fishery will benefit as well. He said the
bill is the first time that he can recall where there has been
some common ground to help alleviate the "fish wars." He opined
that 300-plus permit holders will apply for the buyback. He
added that without closed waters the bill is moot. He said he
would like to see his kids and grandkids participate in the
fishery.
4:44:12 PM
PAT ZURFLUH, representing self, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 90. He said the bill will make everything viable
and is a good to start in ending the fish wars. He stated that
he would be glad to sell his permit and win the lottery.
4:45:08 PM
MIKE WOOD, representing self, Talkeetna, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 90. He said he and his wife own a commercial
setnet operation at the mouth of Susitna River. He disclosed
that he is the board president of the Susitna River Coalition as
well as the chair of the Mat-Su Wildlife Commission.
He noted that he has spoken to many friends that have been
lifelong east side setnetters and considers the bill as being
better for the river and the diverse user groups to voluntarily
remove nets from the Cook Inlet's east side waters. He opined
that the buyback program will lead to a more predictable,
viable, and sustainable fishery in the future that will return
the beach to the more historical pre-1980s fishery. The results
of reducing the number of permits and leases will show some very
attainable and positive results for all user groups.
MR. WOOD conceded that some details still need to be ironed out
but having two user groups who have always been at each other's
throats, the sport and the commercial, agree that SB 90 is the
right direction, then the plan should be "given a whirl."
4:46:52 PM
RUSSELL CLARK, representing self, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 90. He disclosed that he has been fishing Cook
Inlet in the middle district for approximately 20 years. He said
there are 400-plus permits on the east side district from the
bottom line at Ninilchik all to the way to Boulder Point where
there are nets upon nets. Closing the east side district's
waters because the next fisherman's ability to catch more fish
will increase.
He explained that the monetary value of the buyout is based upon
$20,000 per year, an amount that is poor. Having a sustainable
fishery for future generations must be more than $20,000.
Individuals need to go out and make a living, right now that is
not possible. Making a sustainable fishery cannot be done by
closures. There are too many permits on the east side to be
effective in making living for future generations.
4:49:20 PM
EUDELL BROWN, representing self, Arkansas, testified in support
of SB 90. He said the bill is a win-win for everyone.
4:49:56 PM
VICTORIA COLEMAN, representing self, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 90. She disclosed that she is an east side
setnetter that fishes north of the Kasilof River. She opined
that the bill is fair and entering the program is entirely
voluntary. The monetary price is the same for all, regardless of
where a permit holder fishes on the east side. If a permit is
offered for sale, the associated water is closed to further use
whether it is leased or not, which allows for the remaining
setnetters to have an opportunity for financial viability. The
bill won't allow other setnetters to "back fill" which would
defeat the whole purpose. Financial viability was one of the
basic tenants of limited entry.
She said the setnetters will vote on the bill's acceptance, all
setnetters will have an equal chance to be drawn from a lottery
with no preferential treatment, and the bill may help to defuse
the "fish wars."
4:51:19 PM
CHRIS EVERY, representing self, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 90. He said he is an east side setnetter. He
opined that the bill is about a group of people doing what's
best for the Kenai and Kasilof rivers.
He said the permit consolidation effort is a first step that the
east side setnetters can do for the health of their fishery
while benefitting all user groups. He opined that it is time for
each group to come to the table with a plan for their allocated
portion of the fishery. The governor has said he would like to
end the "fish wars" in the upper Cook Inlet, something that
could be done by the net setters and other user groups by
curtailing their desires to acquire a larger piece of the fully
allocated fishery and to start concentrating on how to enjoy the
fish that are available at current levels. He said SB 90, if
implemented, could create an unobstructed corridor for fish from
Ninilchik to the Kenai River.
4:52:58 PM
JOEANN WICHERS, representing self, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 90. She said her family started setnet fishing on
north Kalifornsky Beach in 1986. She noted that he family
currently has five permits north of Kalifornsky Beach. She said
during her family's 34 years of commercial fishing in Cook
Inlet, they have seen the increase in fish pressure by many user
groups including commercial fishing, subsistence use, sport
guides, and sport fishing.
She said her family supports SB 90 to reduce the amount of
permits on the east side setnet fishery and to close the waters.
The reduction will relieve pressure on the salmon stock of Cook
Inlet and allow more fish to get to the river for all user
groups. SB 90 will create a more viable fishery for those
setnetters who remain, but the bill also allows them as a
volunteer in the program to continue on to other businesses of
their choice to help support their families.
She said her family has found it very difficult for to make it
setnetting anymore. Setnetting used to be amazing, but a lot of
permits have moved in and there is a need to reduce permits to
get the fishery back to the way is used to be so there will be
more space for the fish to get through.
4:54:52 PM
KEITH PRESSLEY, representing self, Ninilchik, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 90. He disclosed that he has four setnetting
permits between himself and his son. He opined that SB 90 is a
win-win situation where removing permits would greatly increase
fish for people staying in the fishery as well as show good
faith to the sports fishermen that the east side setnetters are
helping them. He added that there seems to be a problem with the
funds and suggested that consideration be given to look at what
the crab industry did when they reduced their fleet by
increasing their fish tax for borrowing money to pay for the
reduction.
4:57:28 PM
MARILYN KEENER, representing self, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 90. She disclosed that her family has been
involved in the setnet fishery since 1978. She opined that SB 90
is a solution and a healing element for the resource as well as
the people who have been effected greatly by the problems which
have arisen over the years. She said SB 90 is an equitable
solution that will care for the resource and the people.
4:58:59 PM
CHAIR BIRCH closed public testimony.
4:59:08 PM
CHAIR BIRCH held SB 90 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB90 Version G.PDF |
SRES 3/29/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB90 Sponsor Statement Version G.pdf |
SRES 3/29/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB90 Sectional Summary Version G.pdf |
SRES 3/29/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB90 Fiscal Note-DFG-CFEC-3-22-19.pdf |
SRES 3/29/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB90 Fiscal Note-DNR-MLW-3-22-19.pdf |
SRES 3/29/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB90 Fiscal Note-DFG-DCF-3-22-19.pdf |
SRES 3/29/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB90 Eastside Setnet Area Map.pdf |
SRES 3/29/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB90 Setnet Sites With DNR leases.pdf |
SRES 3/29/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB90 ECA Presentation 3.29.19.pdf |
SRES 3/29/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |