Legislature(2023 - 2024)BUTROVICH 205
04/21/2023 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
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 | |
| SB84 | |
| SB128 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 84 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 128 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 128-COMMERCIAL SALMON FISHERY CLOSURE
1:53:34 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 128
"An Act temporarily closing the commercial salmon fishery in a
portion of the Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands; and
providing for an effective date."
He acknowledged the considerable interest in the bill and
clarified the following: The legislation will not move out of
committee today; public testimony on the bill will remain open
until all who wish to testify are given an opportunity to
testify; constitutional issues raised by this legislation will
not be reviewed in detail today; the bill probably won't be
heard again before the legislature adjourns in mid-May; and
written testimony may be submitted online to
[email protected]. He predicted that 20-30 people would
be able to testify today.
1:55:36 PM
SENATOR DONNY OLSON, District T, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of SB 128, thanked the committee for
hearing the bill that addresses an issue that is of great
concern for many of his constituents.
1:56:22 PM
ALMERIA ALCANTRA, Staff, Senator Donny Olson, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented the sponsor statement for
SB 128 on behalf of the sponsor.
Over the last three years, Western and Interior Alaska
have faced detrimental collapses in salmon runs along
the Yukon River and Kuskokwim River. This collapse has
led to fishery closures along the rivers and their
tributaries for all fishing types, which has had a
severe impact to the subsistence and personal use
harvests that residents rely on for their cultural,
financial, and physical wellbeing.
In 2021, there was a return decrease for Yukon Chinook
and summer Chum of nearly 90%, which left residents
along the Yukon and Kuskokwim struggling to make ends
meet and put food on the table for their families. At
the same time, however, commercial fisheries in the
Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands have had record
high harvests with 1,168,601 Chum bycatch.
Historically, much of this bycatch happens in Area M,
a mixed stock intercept fishery in the Alaska
Peninsula, Aleutian Islands, and Atka-Amlia Islands.
In February, the Board of Fisheries had the
opportunity to address this issue and protect the
people and salmon of the Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim (AYK)
region, they failed to do so by not passing
Proposition 140. Proposed by the Fairbanks Advisory
Fisheries Sub-Committee, Proposition 140 called to
reduce the commercial salmon fishing time in Area M.
Due to the failure of the Board to act in accordance
with their constitutional obligation under the
"sustained yield principle" and statutory obligation
to provide reasonable subsistence fishing
opportunities under AS 16.05.258(b)(4)(A) I am
introducing this legislation.
Senate Bill 128, TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF ALASKA PENINSULA
MAMANGEMENT AREA M TO COMMERCIAL SALMON FISHING;
directs a temporary closure for commercial fishing in
Area M from June 10th, 2023 through June 30th, 2023.
This closure allows those fish bound for their natal
streams in Western and Interior Alaska to have a
fighting chance to reach their spawning grounds.
Furthermore, while Senate Bill 128 addresses concerns
about the State and Board of Fisheries constitutional,
statutory, and treaty obligations; it also opens the
conversation of how the State of Alaska can better
manage our fisheries with current science, data,
policy, and traditional ecological knowledge from
Indigenous communities across the State. As a
testifier from Kwethluk said at the Board of Fisheries
meeting this last February, "I am asking on behalf of
my village and the residents of the Kuskokwim and
Yukon rivers, that you make decisions that will
benefit all Alaskans- no matter how small it seems to
be. We are asking to give a chance for some salmon to
return to our rivers. We are asking because we want to
see some salmon in our smokehouses and freezers. We
are asking not for money? it's just that we want to
eat our food."
1:59:34 PM
SENATOR OLSON spoke about the crisis situation facing
subsistence fishermen today. He talked about the history of
fishing starting in 1741 with Vitus Bering, to the decline of
the Sea Otter in 1780, to 1868 when fish plants started on
Kodiak Island, to the use of fish traps, to the successful
ballot measure in 1948 to do away with fish traps - which
Congress ignored, to 1960 when Governor Egan closed the
fisheries in Bristol Bay and Cook Inlet for most of that decade.
He said he patterned SB 128 on Proposition 140 that was narrowly
voted down by the Board of Fisheries in February. The point is
to address the issue of once vibrant fish camps and full
smokehouses that now are silent and just not there. He opined
that if the state doesn't take drastic action like Governor Egan
took, some fisheries will become extinct.
CHAIR CLAMAN recognized Senator Bishop in the audience.
2:05:33 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether the Board of Fisheries took any
action during the meeting when Proposition 140 was voted down.
SENATOR OLSON answered that the board offered no other solution
and that's why he put the bill forward.
MS. ALCANTRA clarified that Proposition 140 originally called
for a 60 percent reduction in fishing time in Area M, but what
passed was just a 12 percent reduction in fishing time.
SENATOR OLSON commented that the people on the rivers want
solutions, not more studies.
CHAIR CLAMAN turned to invited testimony.
2:09:44 PM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game,
Juneau, Alaska, provided invited testimony in support of SB 128.
He read the following prepared testimony.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today
regarding South Alaska Peninsula salmon fisheries. For
the record, my name is Doug Vincent-Lang, and I am the
Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game.
Let me begin by saying the Department is deeply
concerned about the poor returns of chinook, summer
chum, fall chum and coho salmon to coastal western
Alaska systems. The poor returns have resulted in
fishery restrictions and closures that impact food
security and subsistence and cultural activities.
I have visited the region numerous times and listened
to testimony about the impact this is having. The
words spoken are real and the impact understood. Let
me be clear, we understand and are sympathetic to the
hardship that the restrictions and closures are
creating for people living in western Alaska.
As fishing is restricted or closed in rivers, people
are asking what is being done in fisheries that
intercept fish destined for these rivers. They are
asking for some of these mixed stock fisheries to be
restricted, or in the case of the legislation being
discussed today, closed.
It is important to note that nearly all salmon
fisheries are mixed stock fisheries. They all harvest
to varying degrees stocks of mixed origins. For
example, the salmon fisheries that occur in the lower
Yukon River are mixed stock fisheries in that they
harvest a range of discrete stocks that occur upriver
of the fishery, including some of Canadian origin. It
is not until a fishery is prosecuted on the spawning
beds that it is not a mixed stock fishery.
In the case of coastal western Alaska chum salmon,
these fish are harvested in various mixed stock marine
fisheries, including as bycatch in marine trawl
fisheries targeting pollock and cod as well various
directed salmon fisheries, including the South Alaska
Peninsula seine and gillnet fisheries.
However, it is important to note that they are also
harvested in other fisheries, such as the Bristol Bay
sockeye salmon fishery, as they move through that
fishery on their way to the Kuskokwim and Yukon
Rivers.
So, the question is: What is the acceptable level of
harvest or intercept in these fisheries when
subsistence is restricted or closed? Should all
fisheries be closed if they harvest even a single chum
salmon that is destined to coastal western Alaska when
these fisheries are closed or restricted?
2:11:48 PM
To get a handle on this question, it is important to
understand the stock compositions of the salmon
harvested in these mixed stock fisheries that
intercept coastal western Alaska chum salmon. I will
not talk about bycatch in this presentation as it is
being addressed by the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council. Instead, I will focus on the
fisheries that occur along the South Alaska Peninsula,
as this is one of the fisheries that is affected by
the legislation being considered today.
In response to the poor returns of summer chum salmon
to coastal western Alaska, the Department initiated an
evaluation of the genetic compositions of chum salmon
harvested in the South Peninsula area mixed stock
salmon fisheries last year. This is one of several
marine mixed stock fisheries that are known to
intercept fish of Bering Sea coastal origin. Our study
was designed to assess whether stock compositions in
this fishery changed from when we previously evaluated
as part of the Western Alaska Salmon Stock
Identification Program (WASSIP) study conducted over a
decade ago.
So, what did we learn? From fish ticket information,
we know that 817,279 chum salmon were harvested in the
South Peninsula fisheries in all of 2022. This is 78%
of the recent 10-year average. Of these, 544,137 were
harvested during June, which from previous studies is
the time period when summer chum of coastal western
Alaska origin are harvested in this fishery.
2:13:07 PM
For the June fishery, about 58% of the chum salmon
harvested were of Asian origin and about 18% were of
coastal Alaska origin. That is to say about 6 out of
every 10 chum salmon harvested were of Asian origin.
In contrast, less than 2 out of 10 were of coastal
western Alaska origin. Coastal western Alaska
represents a grouping of Bristol Bay, Kuskokwim River,
Yukon River summer, and Norton Sound summer chum
salmon. Unfortunately, we cannot differentiate stocks
within this grouping with current genetic technology.
Bottom line, our study showed that about 96,000 summer
chum of coastal western Alaska origin were harvested
in the South Peninsula fisheries last year during
June. Based on preliminary run reconstruction data,
this represents about a 6% harvest rate on these
stocks as a group. Again, this number represents the
total number of summer chum stocks of coastal western
Alaska origin that were harvested. That is, these are
not all of Yukon and Kuskokwim River origin. They are
also of Bristol Bay and Norton Sound origin.
This is information that we presented to the Board of
Fisheries at their recent meeting to inform their
discussions.
The two primary questions the Board faced at their
meeting were: What was an acceptable level of
intercept harvest, and how could harvest of coastal
western Alaska chum salmon be reduced?
2:14:29 PM
Proposal 140, which was submitted by the Fairbanks
Advisory Committee and supported by Tanana Chiefs
Conference (TCC) and others, called for adoption of a
previous management approach that restricted time
fished. They postulated that chum salmon harvest could
be reduced solely on reduction of time alone. However,
when this management plan was utilized in the early
2000s, it did not significantly reduce the harvest of
chum salmon, and given the improved fishing power of
the modern Purse Seine fleet, the Department could not
guarantee that chum salmon harvest would be reduced
based solely on time restrictions. Based on this and
other information, the Board chose to not pass
proposal 140. It failed on a 3-4 vote.
Instead, they adopted a hybrid approach, specifically
designed to reduce the harvest of chum salmon in June,
that:
• Closed a known area of high chum harvests (Sanak
Island sections) to commercial fishing for salmon
during June.
• Reduced commercial salmon fishing time with purse
seine gear in June by a minimum of 13%.
• Increased the length of closure windows to allow
chum salmon passage through the fishery.
• Created chum salmon harvest limit triggers that
restrict and potentially close the commercial
purse seine fishery in June, if they are met or
exceeded. A trigger of 300,000 chum was set that
if exceeded after the second opening would reduce
fishing time by 44 hours for the third period. A
second trigger of 450,000 was set that if
exceeded after the third period would close the
fourth period, a reduction of 88 hours.
• Expressed an expectation, and received commitment
from the fishing industry, that the industry
coordinate efforts to reduce chum salmon harvest
based on a signed agreement that reduced harvest
last year. This included waiving confidentiality
and forming voluntary cooperatives. The
cooperatives were formed last year and were
successful in reducing chum harvests from 1.1
million chum in 2021 to 544,000 chum last year.
This proposal passed by a vote of 4-3.
2:16:47 PM
I want to note that many people were involved in this
outcome, which occurred over a 7-day period during
which public comment was taken, a committee of the
whole discussion occurred and numerous after hour
discussions occurred.
As with all compromise solutions, people on both sides
of the issue were not happy with the outcome. Inriver
users felt the Board let them down by not adopting
their preferred solution. South Peninsula fishermen
felt they unnecessarily lost traditional sockeye
salmon harvest opportunity.
This season will tell the tale of the outcome. If the
fishery is prosecuted, we will closely monitor it
inseason. We will also, assuming a fishery is
prosecuted, conduct a second year of genetic sampling.
If the fishery is cancelled, we will not be able to
conduct this study. We have also spoken with public
safety to beef up enforcement to address the perceived
issue of chum chucking. Finally, we will monitor the
cooperatives to ensure they are operating as agreed to
and envisioned.
2:17:50 PM
In closing, as with many Board of Fisheries decisions,
and also the legislative process, not everyone is
always happy with the outcomes. But in both cases,
it's not for a lack of thoughtful deliberation and
consideration.
2:18:17 PM
KAREN GILLIS, Program Director, Bearing Sea Fishermen's
Association (BSFA), Anchorage, Alaska, stated that BSFA works to
support small boat fishermen in the Arctic, Yukon, Kuskokwim,
and Bristol Bay regions. She said SB 128 will solve a problem
that the Board of Fisheries failed to address effectively. That
problem is that for more than a decade Area M management has
prioritized commercial fishing over escapement and subsistence,
in violation of state law and the policies that guide Board of
Fisheries decisions. ADF&G has documented the severe decline in
chum salmon in Western Alaska. In 2021 and 2021, escapement
goals were not met throughout the Yukon and Kuskokwim river
system, and subsistence harvests were severely limited or
completely closed throughout the season. Meanwhile, ADF&G
documented that the Area M fishery harvested over 210,000 chum
salmon the last two years. These fish were bound for the Western
Alaska Rivers that are failing to meet escapement goals.
She referenced a 2012 ADF&G Special Publication that identifies
the stock competition of chum salmon harvested in fisheries of
the Western Alaska Salmon Stock Identification Program. It says
that Area M is composed primarily of migratory salmon pathways
where discrete salmon stocks need protection from overharvest to
prevent poor escapement. Chum and Chinook transiting Area M are
weak and need protection. The law and the Alaska constitution
are clear that ensuring chum salmon meet escapement goals and
subsistence needs in the AYK region is a priority of ADF&G and
the Board of Fisheries. If a stock cannot provide reasonable
opportunity for subsistence, all other uses must be eliminated.
For all fisheries in Alaska with the exception of Area M,
ADF&G's policy and practice is to manage to meet salmon
escapement goals and to close commercial fishing on a stock when
escapement needs or reasonable opportunities for subsistence are
not being met. This is not being applied to the Area M
commercial salmon intercept fishery.
In February 2023, the Board of Fisheries voted to allow the Area
M fisheries to continue to harvest Western Alaska chums without
any meaningful windows for chum passage. For decades AYK
residents have voiced concerns about changes in salmon stocks
that have sustained the people for millennia. There is a
multispecies salmon decline in Western Alaska and there is no
provision for escapement and subsistence priority or in-river
commercial fishing in the foreseeable future. The continued
interception of migrating chum salmon in Area M threatens the
sustainability and future of coastal Western Alaska chum salmon
and the fisheries they once supported. Stakeholders have
exhausted their administrative remedies with the Board of
Fisheries. She asked the legislature to take action and provide
lawful restrictions on the commercial fishery in Area M as a
remedy to the Board of Fisheries inability to follow the law.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked her to submit her remarks in writing.
2:23:16 PM
VIRGIL UMPHENOUR, Member, Fairbanks Fish and Game Advisory
Committee, Fairbanks, Alaska, provided invited testimony in
support of SB 128. He shared that he served three terms on the
Board of Fisheries and tried very hard to get a responsible
fishery in Area 140. That measure passed 7:0 in 2001, but it was
subsequently changed from 3 16-hour openings per week to 88
hours of fishing with 32 hours off in June. He pointed out that
the Area M fishery is the only fishery in the state that is not
managed on escapement goals. He noted that the Yukon River is
managed on escapement goals in Alaska and Canada. He highlighted
that during the last meeting, the Board of Fisheries not only
did not pass Proposition 140, but also ignored the Sustainable
Salmon Policy that is in regulation. He read an excerpt to
support the point. Furthermore, the board violated the
allocation criteria set out in AS 16.05.251. He specifically
cited subsections (e)(3) and (4) about providing residents the
opportunity to obtain fish for personal and family consumption
and the availability of alternative fisheries resources. That is
nonexistent in the AYK while Area M had 225 other commercial
fishing permits in use in 2021 in addition to the salmon
permits.
2:27:21 PM
BRIAN RIDLEY, Chief, Chair, and President, Tanana Chiefs
Conference (TCC), Tanana, Alaska, provided invited testimony in
support of SB 128. He is from the village of Eagle on the
Canadian border. He stated support for the bill and the idea of
sustainable salmon management, which is lacking largely due to
decisions made by the Board of Fisheries and ADF&G. He charged
that following three days of public testimony and expert advice
from renowned fishery scientists, the Board of Fisheries ignored
that testimony and failed to prioritize sustainability and
subsistence in favor of commercial salmon interests. This was a
clear violation of regulatory and statutory requirements. In
closing comments, he said two of the four members who voted in
favor of the current proposal said they voted for the money.
He stated that TCC understands that the interception of salmon
in Area M and salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea Pollack are not
alone to blame for the collapse of chum and Chinook runs, but
the situation in the Yukon River is so dire that each and every
chum and Chinook salmon counts. The more than 18,000 people TCC
serves have already sacrificed for years by not fishing for
salmon and practicing their way of life. Salmon is more than
sustenance; it is essential to members' physical, economic,
cultural, and physical wellbeing. He called on everyone who
makes up the Area M commercial fleet to join in the conservation
efforts to rebuild the area salmon populations before they go
extinct.
MR. RIDLEY concluded by saying that SB 128 can change the
trajectory of salmon management in Area M and allow salmon to
return to the Yukon and Kuskokwim rivers. He urged the
legislature to support SB 128.
2:31:14 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on SB 128.
2:31:38 PM
ERNIE WEISS, Natural Resources Director, Aleutian East Borough,
Anchorage, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 128. He relayed
that he had attended all the Board of Fisheries meetings this
year, including the Alaska Peninsula, Aleutian Islands, Chignik
finfish meeting, and the Arctic, Yukon/Kuskokwim finfish
meeting. He stated that the action the Board of Fisheries took
during the Alaska Peninsula meeting in February was based on
science and the public process was robust. The meaningful
restrictions imposed on the South Alaska Peninsula June fishery
are meant to move more chum salmon through the area. He opined
that the restrictions coupled with the action plan this fleet
enacted will significantly reduce chum harvest. He pointed out
that the action plan this fleet enacted in 2022 resulted in the
lowest chum to sockeye ratio since limited entry was enacted. He
highlighted that the science presented during the February
meeting showed that climate change was the cause of the
struggling salmon stocks, not the Alaska Peninsula fishery.
Furthermore, genetic testing shows that 80 percent of the chum
salmon caught in this mixed stock fishery are bound for Asia.
Closing the Area M June salmon fishery will not fix the AYK
salmon issues, but it will hurt borough fishermen and
communities. He concluded by saying that overriding the Board of
Fisheries by passing SB 128 would set a poor precedent.
2:33:36 PM
ABBY FREDERICK, Director of Communications & Investor Relations,
Silver Bay Seafoods (SBS), Juneau, Alaska, stated that SBS
opposes SB 128 but shares the concern about Western Alaska
salmon stocks. They support efforts to better understand the
cause of the declines and find meaningful solutions that
strengthen healthy sustainable ecosystems. She said climate
change is warming Alaska twice as fast as the rest of the US and
it is disheartening to hear about the impacts that climate and
changes in the ocean are having on Alaska's salmon stocks.
Nevertheless, SBS still cannot support the punitive actions put
forth in SB 128; they will devastate the Alaska Peninsula but
won't benefit the AYK salmon stocks. She described the Board of
Fisheries action during the February meeting as significant. She
highlighted that while the board restricted fishing a minimum of
13 percent, additional actions in the decision potentially could
reduce the commercial fishery further. She opined that the Board
of Fisheries' action coupled with the fleet's adaptive approach
is the best path forward.
2:35:45 PM
ALISSA NADINE ROGERS, Director of Natural Resources,
Orutsararmiut Native Council, Bethel, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 128. She stated that the Yupik people are strong
and resilient, but nothing but ashes is left of what was once
the largest unaltered King Salmon fishery in the world. She
stated that the tribe is heavily involved in this fishery
through science and traditional knowledge. Many tribal members
live in poverty and their economy is the subsistence harvest.
She described the importance of the Aleutians commercial salmon
fishery and the production of oil to the state's economy and
questioned the reason for selling Alaskan oil dirt cheap and
punishing the Alaskan people for the lack of economic
infrastructure. She pointed out that the Yupik people have
sustained themselves on their fishery for more than 10,000
years. She emphasized the importance of allowing for substance
harvest throughout the Arctic, Yukon, Kuskokwim, and Bristol Bay
rivers. She reiterated support for SB 128.
2:38:19 PM
CARLIN HOBLET, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, stated that
he is an Area M seiner who was urging the legislature not to
undermine the established system for fisheries management in
Alaska. He maintained that hearing SB 128 disregarded appointed
officials who have dedicated their careers to fishery science
and management. He posited that passing the bill would set a
dangerous precedent throughout state government. He pointed out
that countless hours of research into the salmon crashes in the
Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers had shown that the Area M fisheries
are not a significant contributing factor. Nevertheless, Area M
fishermen have implemented a self-management plan to maximize
the number of chum and Chinook transiting the area. Their
interest is for the greater good of fellow Alaskans, and their
mission is to rebuild endangered salmon stocks so Alaskans will
still being able to participate in the fishery that is the
foundation of the region. He posited that SB 128 will not return
salmon to the endangered rivers because climate is the leading
factor in the decline. He urged the committee to prevent SB 128
from advancing.
2:40:42 PM
CHARLOTTE LEVY, Natural Resources Assistant Director, Aleutians
East Borough, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB
128. She stated that for many years she has participated in
Board of Fisheries meetings and worked with Area M fishermen.
She pointed out that fisheries management is complex and the
state has developed a rigorous and comprehensive process for its
management. The Board of Fisheries relies on science and the
lived experience of stakeholders. Board processes exist for a
reason; they require extensive resources, time, and subject
matter expertise that is not available within the legislature.
She opined that passing SB 128 would set a precedent that
potentially would undermine all board processes in the state.
She concluded by reminding the committee that the fishermen in
Area M are predominantly Alaska residents who operate boats that
are under 60 feet. They are subsistence users and borough
residents who live and work in remote communities year around.
The borough is responsible for critical infrastructure in these
communities and the Area M fishery contributes upwards of 28
percent of the borough's fish tax revenue. She questioned
cherry-picking this one fishery because it would be the
harbinger of borough and community collapse.
2:42:33 PM
DALE PEDERSEN, representing self, Sand Point, Alaska, stated
that he is a 50-year Area M fisherman and setnetter who
wholeheartedly opposes SB 128. He said the Board of Fisheries
meeting in February was well attended and like all such
meetings, there were no winners. Like them or not, stakeholders
have always lived with Board of Fisheries' decisions. If the
legislature were to override the Board of Fisheries decision by
passing SB 128, it would upset this precedence. He also pointed
out that by the time the board made its decision, many boat
owners had already invested significant money in their fishing
operations, thinking there would be a June fishery. He urged the
committee to instead spend time looking at why salmon smolt were
having difficulty surviving and returning salmon were starving.
He opined that it was due to poor conditions in the ocean. He
urged the committee to hold SB 128 and allow the Board of
Fisheries and ADF&G do the jobs they do so well.
2:44:02 PM
DAVID POLUSHKIN, representing self, Wasilla, Alaska, stated that
he has fished in Area M for 36 years, and is a board member of
Concerned Area M Fishermen (CAMF). He advised that CAMF
represents more than 80 percent of the drift fleet in Area M. He
also represents 54 fishing vessels from the Russian communities
on the Kenai Peninsula and MatSu Borough. He stated opposition
to SB 128, which would deal a devastating blow to the Area M
fishery without any noticeable benefit to returns in Western
Alaska rivers. He reminded the committee that this was tried in
Area M in 2001-2003; it decimated the fishery but had no
noticeable benefit to the Western Alaska chum salmon stock. SB
128 would be even worse because it also proposes closing the
north side of the Area M fishery even though chums bound for
Western Alaska aren't caught there. He continued that the bill
overrides the Board of Fisheries decision that was based on
science and stakeholder experience. The legislature voted for
Board of Fisheries members and should let them do their job. He
urged the committee to oppose SB 128.
2:46:13 PM
CONNOR MURPHY, representing self, Kodiak, Alaska, stated that he
is a lifelong Alaskan, a subsistence user, and a commercial
fisherman. Most of his income comes from his setnet operation
which would be shut down completely for the month of June if SB
128 were to pass. North Alaska Peninsula districts would be shut
down as well. He explained that the North Alaska Peninsula is
managed based on escapement in specific rivers. He reported that
just 154 chums were caught in June last year on the North Alaska
Peninsula and there was no genetic evidence that any of the
chums would struggle in Western Alaska river systems. He
continued that there was no proposal or testimony before the
Board of Fisheries about closing the North Alaska Peninsula in
June for chums bound for these river systems. The Area M fishery
is complex and SB 128 fails to grasp that fact. He opined that
overriding the Board of Fisheries' process directly threatens
all fisheries in the state and all board processes. He urged the
committee to leave fisheries management to the Board of
Fisheries and ADF&G, as has been the case since statehood.
2:47:54 PM
CHELSAE RADELL, Assistant Director, Alaska Groundfish Data Bank
(AGBD), Kodiak, Alaska, stated that AGDB is a member-based
organization that represents shoreside processors and trawl
vessels that are mostly home-ported in Kodiak. She voiced
explicit opposition to SB 128 and stated support for Area M
fishermen. Instead of repeating the extensive scientific data
that was presented in February, she said she would focus on the
larger issue of the dangerous precedent that would be set for
fisheries management in Alaska if SB 128 were to pass. She
reminded the committee that the Board of Fisheries is comprised
of experts and stakeholders with the knowledge and experience to
delve into the complex issue of fisheries management. The
members are appointed based on their experience and the
legislature has control over who is confirmed to sit on the
Board of Fisheries. She disputed the notion that the Board of
Fisheries somehow failed to act during the February meeting.
They took action to significantly restrict the Area M fishery
while implementing adaptive measures to allow more chum salmon
to transit the area. She emphasized that any action to further
restrict the fishery outside the board process undermines the
authority of the Board of Fisheries on this and all future
fishery management issues in the state. She urged the committee
to hold SB 128.
2:50:07 PM
BLAIR HICKSON, representing Anvik River Lodge, Anvik, Alaska,
stated that he had been in the area for 28 years, which is the
primary spawning grounds for chum salmon in the Yukon River. He
reported the high and low chum salmon numbers in the river and
stated that there was no question the spawning rivers could
still house these fish. The water temperatures have remained
fairly stable. He stated support for SB 128 and emphasized that
every salmon that swims up these rivers and spawns counts.
2:51:31 PM
VIVIAN KORTHUIS, Chief Executive Officer, Association of Village
Council Presidents (AVCP), Bethel, Alaska, stated that AVCP
represents 56 tribes along the Yukon and Kuskokwim rivers and
the Bering Sea coast in Western Alaska. She urged the
legislature to protect Alaskans by passing SB 128, maintaining
that the Board of Fisheries was not doing its job and ignoring
state law. She described the current situation as the greatest
natural resource crises that had ever occurred in Alaska. This
is a generational and humanitarian crisis and a food famine.
Chum salmon numbers have crashed since 2020 resulting in a
failure to provide escapement and meet subsistence needs. There
are no more conservation actions that AYK subsistence fishermen
can take. She urged the committee to support SB 128.
2:54:03 PM
ADOLPH LUPIE, representing self, Tuntutuliak, Alaska, stated
that he is a subsistence hunter and fisherman who is
representing his village in support of SB 128. He made the
following points: 1) 2019 was the first year of the chum salmon
crash; 2) chum salmon crashed in 2021 in both the Yukon and
Kuskokwim rivers, 3) chum salmon numbers remained very low in
2022, 4) Area M interception in 2021 was over 210,000 chum
salmon and bycatch was 51,500 that were headed for Western
Alaska and the Tuntutuliak commercial fishery; 5) Board of
Fisheries management of Area M prioritizes commercial fishing in
violation of state law; 6) people in Tuntutuliak are hurting
from the lack of fish; and 7) chum salmon is needed during the
summer to meet food needs during the winter. He urged the
committee to act.
2:56:37 PM
STACY ARBELOVSKY, representing self, Kasilof, Alaska, stated
that he is a lifelong Alaskan who has commercial fished for 49
years. He owns and operates a drift gillnet boat and permit in
Area M and is a member of Concerned Area Fishermen. He opposes
SB 128. He stated that the Board of Fisheries took action this
winter against the June fishery to help chum salmon to transit
the area during times of abundance. This included loss of
fishing time, area closures and the adaptive fleet cooperative
to stand down and move fishing areas when implemented. He opined
that this was a good management plan for the fishery. He pointed
out that SB 128 would also shut down the North Peninsula fishery
for setnet and gillnet fishing, which was not part of
Proposition 140. He said that genetic studies and sampling have
shown that this fishery does not harvest any AYK chum salmon. He
emphasized that the June fishery on the North Peninsula is
extremely important to the set and drift gillnet fleets. He
spoke against having five sockeye rivers over-escaped from a
closure that is not science-based. He asked the committee to
consider the real motive of SB 128 and urged the committee to
support fisheries management that is based on science.
2:58:45 PM
RICHARD DAVIS, Member, Board of Directors, Seafood Producers
Cooperative, Juneau, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 128.
He stated that the cooperative is the largest and longest
surviving trade association of commercial fishermen on the North
American Continent. The cooperative paid $0.5 million in raw
fish business tax to the State of Alaska this year. He stressed
that the legislative process should not be used to contravene
Board of Fisheries management decisions. The fishermen he
represents don't always like the Board of Fisheries' decisions,
but they live with them. Thus, the Seafood Producers Cooperative
opposes SB 128.
3:00:54 PM
DENNIS ZADRA, representing self, Cordova, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 128. He echoed the previous testimony that
science should govern decisions on fisheries. The board process
should be respected.
3:02:03 PM
PHYLLIS SHIRRON, representing self, Cordova, Alaska, testified
in opposition to SB 128. She posited that the bill wasn't
developed with a comprehensive understanding of the watersheds
or communities it would impact. It does not take into account
the biomass effects of all the river systems or far-reaching
negative economic effects to families and communities in Area M.
Furthermore, SB 128 blatantly undermines the power and value of
the public process and managerial plans that are in place.
Passing SB 28 would set a precedent for overriding existing
regulatory and managerial agencies through the legislature. She
urged the committee to oppose SB 128.
3:04:01 PM
CHARLES LEAN, Chair, Northern Norton Sound Fish and Game
Advisory Committee, Nome, Alaska, stated that he was speaking
from the heart in support of SB 128. He stated that a public
process is only as good as its rules. What is happening is the
Board of Fisheries is not following the rules that it
promulgated. He pointed out that the majority of AYK has not
fished for chum and Chinook salmon for three years and fishing
for coho salmon has been limited. At issue is the lack of
adequate escapement and the replenishment of the runs that
support an area the size of Texas with 130,000 Alaska residents.
He concluded by emphasizing that this crisis needs to be
addressed; the department and Board of Fisheries are not
following the rules and it is time to step in and take over.
3:06:21 PM
PETER HAMRE, representing self, Homer, Alaska, stated that he
owns and operates a fishing boat on the Alaska Peninsula, and
more than half his income comes from the Area M June fishery.
Thus, he is opposed to SB 128. Board of Fisheries members are
carefully vetted, whereas the legislature has neither the time
nor expertise to take on fisheries management. He urged the
committee not to go down this path.
3:06:56 PM
SCOTT ADAMS, representing self, Homer, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 128. He stated that he worked in Area M for 10
years and he feels the bill is going in the wrong direction. The
Board of Fisheries and the fishers in Area M are working to
restrict the chum catch. He opined that fisheries should not be
managed legislatively.
3:08:12 PM
DANNY CUMBERLODGE, representing self, Sandpoint, Alaska,
testified in opposition to SB 128. He sat through the 12 days of
Board of Fisheries meetings and listened to all the science that
was presented. He believes the board made the best decision it
could. All parties sacrificed. He opined that adopting the bill
would make the Board of Fisheries process irrelevant.
3:09:18 PM
SENATOR OLSON offered closing comments that disputed the notion
that the Board of Fisheries and ADF&G were doing a good job.
3:10:02 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN held SB 128 in committee with public testimony
open.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 84 version A 2.24.2023.PDF |
SJUD 4/21/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/1/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/5/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 84 |
| SB 84 Transmittal Letter 2.27.2023.pdf |
SJUD 4/21/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/1/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/5/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 84 |
| SB 84 Sectional Analysis version A 2.24.2023.pdf |
SJUD 4/21/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/1/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/5/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 84 |
| SB 84 Letters of Support - Received as of 3.23.2023.pdf |
SJUD 4/21/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/1/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/5/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 84 |
| SB 84 PowerPoint Presentation 4.21.2023.pdf |
SJUD 4/21/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/1/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/5/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 84 |
| SB 84 Fiscal Note DCCED-DBS 2.16.2023.pdf |
SJUD 4/21/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/1/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/5/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 84 |
| SB 128 version A 4.12.2023.PDF |
SJUD 4/21/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/12/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 128 |
| SB 128 Sponsor Statement version A 4.19.2023.pdf |
SJUD 4/21/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/12/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 128 |
| SB 128 Sectional Analysis version A 4.19.2023.pdf |
SJUD 4/21/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/12/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 128 |
| SB 128 Fiscal Note DFG-DCF 4.14.2023.pdf |
SJUD 4/21/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/12/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 128 |
| SB 128 Fiscal Note DOR-TAX 4.14.2023.pdf |
SJUD 4/21/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/12/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 128 |
| SB 128 Letters of Opposition - Received as of 4.21.2023 v.2.pdf |
SJUD 4/21/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 128 |
| SB 128 Letters of Support - Received as of 4.21.2023 v.2.pdf |
SJUD 4/21/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 128 |
| SB 128 Opposing Testimony - Received as of 4.24.2023 2_23 PM.pdf |
SJUD 4/21/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 128 |
| SB 128 Supporting Testimony - Received as of 4.24.2023 10_10 AM.pdf |
SJUD 4/21/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 128 |
| SB 128 Supporting Document - 2022 Kusko Situation Cover Letter & Report 2.17.2023.pdf |
SJUD 4/21/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/12/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 128 |
| SB 128 Supporting Document - Chum Decline Infographics 4.21.2023.pdf |
SJUD 4/21/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/12/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 128 |