Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/20/1995 06:10 PM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HFSH - 03/20/95 HCR 12 - UPPER COOK INLET SALMON FISHERIES MGN'T Number 022 REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK, PRIME SPONSOR OF HCR 12, testified, "I am here before you today because a vital resource is in a crisis situation. I use the term 'vital' because there is a large economy built upon this resource. An economy which starts at the dinner table of Alaskan families and extends outward to those whose livelihood depends on a healthy resource. We can all agree there is a critical problem with king salmon in Upper Cook Inlet. We can all agree serious measures are needed to correct the problem. The sport fish users in my district are very upset. The people who bring fish home to their families are very upset. They are upset because this has happened. They are upset because they are losing fish and an important economy but they have all agreed to support the closures and reductions to save the resource. Mr. Chairman this resolution is asking the board to look very closely at this crisis, to determine what other measures may be necessary to build back as rapidly as possible, a threatened resource. I feel it is wrong to zero one user group out and let other user groups continue to take fish needed for escapement. It is wrong to cripple one economy and let another continue to fish if they are taking Susitna Bound Kings. If the Board has made a mistake with management do not make my constituents absorb all the damage. This resolution, this committee, can not solve this crisis. But it can act so the board is sent a clear message. A message to revisit this issue. To make sure everything is being done to assist the resource that can be done. A message to not let this happen again. If over harvest is the problem then do not let it happen again. If intercept fisheries are the problem do not let them continue. Finally, this resolution will hopefully help to get the Governor involved in the issue. My constituents back home are feeling neglected by this Administration. Imagine for a moment that these are your district businesses, livelihoods, and traditional family activities being zeroed out. Mr. Chairman, I ask this committee to assist me on behalf of the resource in bringing all parties to the table to accomplish this critical task. If the language of this resolution can be better drafted to accomplish this goal, I encourage you as chairman to use your prerogative to accomplish this. I do ask in the interest of time to expedite this resolution. We must request the board to act before any more kings are taken by anyone. We can work out allocation issues after the resource is healthy again. But now we must act. We must concentrate on the resource. I am not a biologist, not an expert on any of the details. I am however, fully committed to bring all those parties together. We must quit using outdated management plans which have little relevance to the problems we are facing today in the Northern Districts of Cook Inlet. Human populations have increased dramatically in Upper Cook Inlet over the last ten years, and yet the board still has not developed a new allocation plan for making allocation decisions. It is time for us to provide a serious nudge to those who allocate our resources. It is time we explain that the legislature, not the board has to ultimately accepted the blame if they, the board, fail. It is the legislature that confirms appointees and gives the board its authority and guidelines. Not the other way around. We are, whether we like it or not, where the fish buck stops." Number 137 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN brought forth a committee substitute for HCR 12. REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES moved that the CS be adopted. There were no objections. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN ascertained that the sponsor was familiar with the committee substitute adopted. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK indicated her familiarity and said, "As in my previous statement, I encourage you to do what you can to help bring the issues on the table and I support your CS." Number 178 JERRY MCCUNE, PRESIDENT, United Fishermen of Alaska, testified saying, "I've had a chance to read the CS and I appreciate some of the things that were changed in it but still our organization is opposed to this resolution and there are several reasons why. It's not for the good of the resource. We're always for the good of the resource and also for (solving) the problems in the Cook Inlet. Particularly one stock, we're talking one or two stocks, we're not talking all the stocks of Cook Inlet are in crisis. We've seen a lot of presentations, habitat presentations, everybody's view and Fish and Game's view and our policy at the UFA is to keep the legislature and the Governor out of the fish arena. This is the Board of Fish and the Department of Fish and Game's issue. A lot of these things are governed by this, Title 16, Alaska Statutes. In this book here are the guidelines for sustained yield, allocation plans in the different uses. I think, if I'm not mistaken, there are 4 or 5 different management plans on the Kenai River, all different stocks. So it's a complex problem and just to deal from one segment is very hard. I'm for the message of yes, the Department should do all they can, the users should do all they can and the state of Alaska should do all they can to make sure that the stocks are healthy. And that's under Title 16 that's the Department of Fish and Games mandate, the first thing is, sustained yield. So if there's a problem with sustained yield which we don't quite know yet because the way I understand it is this is the first year that the stocks have declined that far on the Deshka, king salmon. We also need the tools. And this gets back to all the budget talks that we've had around the state here and we see what's going to happen most likely to the Fish and Game budget here. We need these tools, weirs, index studies, not only in the Kenai, we need them around the other river systems." Number 231 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he appreciated the work that went into the committee substitute as it is more "palatable". He then added, "The problem that I've got is the resolves. We're resolving that we're going to spend more money. We're resolving that we're going to divert time and energy from an already stressed staff support system. I mean, where does that additional effort come from," and, "I know that we have interception problems elsewhere around the state, and frankly, what we're doing as a legislature, if we pass this, we're setting allocation priorities and that bothers me." CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN agreed with Representative Elton. He said, "There is a priority problem as far as monies being allocated to Fish and Game for example because I think the resource, fish resource, in this state is so vast and so great, and the benefit to this state is so vast and so great as far as that resource is concerned that we are constantly cutting our own throat as far as the fisheries are concerned by under funding Fish and Game and their ability to research and figure out exactly what's happening with that resource. That's one reason I guess that I do favor the CS. Like you, this is more palatable than the original document because I had a little bit of a problem with that but at the same point in time, this doesn't necessarily delve into the allocation issue, I don't think, so much as it delves into more emphasis on taking care of that important resource. Whether the governor gets involved or not, we have to as a legislature spend more time paying attention to it and maybe put more funds into it." Number 288 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON agreed and said, "This is an allocation, one step removed. An example that I'll use is there is a proposal to cut the habitat division by a third which essentially means that we're going to be sending sportfish biologists and commercial fish biologists out to make determinations on what trees can be taken out of a stream set aside. There's a work group that was requested by the Board of Fish on the Kodiak-Cook Inlet situation that they just had. That further reduces the amount of staff resources that can be done. And if we then add this as a priority for the department, that further cuts it. So what we are doing, one step removed, is we are making an allocation decision and we're saying that these things are things that the legislature is mandating and because of that we're going to have less attention paid elsewhere. And I'm not so sure that we should be substituting the legislature's judgement on what need to be addressed first. I'm much more comfortable leaving that in the hands of the Board of Fish and the department than I am to the whims of the political winds." CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN pointed out that lines 10 and 11, on page 2 of the CS, refers to a development of a "long-range management plan for the protection and sustainable yield of the salmon stocks of the upper Cook Inlet area." REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES said, "I do get concerned when (we) infer that somebody else is catching their fish. When I first served in the legislature 30 years ago, that was a big issue between Bristol Bay and False Pass and interestingly enough, since then Bristol Bay has had some major runs (that) broke all records. Apparently, it wasn't the False Pass fishery. Throughout the state we have the same problem, everybody's accusing their brothers of catching their fish." Number 365 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if a motion was in order. There being no motion forthcoming, he tabled the CS for HCR 12.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|