Legislature(1997 - 1998)
01/28/1998 05:03 PM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 38 - SPORT FISHING GUIDE LIMITED ENTRY Number 0043 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN announced the committee would hear HJR 38, "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to limited entry for sport fish guides and allied professions." He stated that at the last meeting there was discussion of an amendment to the resolution in regards to the transferability of the permits. He stated that currently, there is no such amendment. He explained that he would take testimony on the bill and then he would table the bill until future notice or until information comes forward that would invoke him to bring it back to the table. Number 167 KEVIN DELANEY, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Department of Fish and Game, stated that when he testified on Monday he raised the question of whether or not a constitutional hurdle existed for limiting the number of guides that participate in a specific fishery. At that time he suggested that it was possible that limitations could be enacted through either a competitive bid or lottery. He explained that since then he has done some research and discussed it with Steve White from the Department of Law and Mr. Utermohle. He declared that they are all in agreement that a constitutional hurdle does exist. He stated that this door needs to be opened if the state wishes to limit entry in the sport fish guiding industry or to limit participation as a guide in any specific fishery. He stated that the joint conclusion is that attempting to do that through a competitive bid process lottery would not withstand the legal challenge that would likely occur. Number 0428 MR. DELANEY stated that the department does not have a position on the transferability of the permits, as it is more of a social and economic issue, which does not affect the department's ability to implement the management plans. He stated that he heard a lot of people state, at the last meeting, that the resolution is vague and that they would feel more comfortable knowing what would occur in a limited entry system. He explained that the sport fishery, the sport fish guiding industry and allied professions are a diverse group. For instance, there are the classic charter boat guides, the bed and breakfast operation that hires a sport fish guide as needed, and the lodge owner. He reiterated that a constitutional amendment would be needed. Number 0451 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN asked if the person from the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission could explain what the process of execution of the limited entry commission would be if the resolution passes. Number 0524 BRUCE TWOMLEY, Chairman/Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, stated that if a constitutional amendment were to pass the state would face all of the practical problems, that it is facing now regarding the information needed. He stated that the Board of Fisheries as well as this committee is taking measures to get the necessary information. He stated that the information would have to be reliable and have a bearing on the conservation issues and the economic issues that arise in the area. The practical problem is to figure out how to acquire that information. He stated that he is here to answer questions and not to promote the limited entry commission as the means to do that. It would be a decision purely up to the legislature as to who would best serve the beneficiaries of the program. Number 0636 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if the commission would see itself as the natural place for this program and asked what the title is of the limited entry commission. Number 658 MR. TWOMLEY replied that title is the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there is a possibility that a whole new entry commission could be developed. MR. TWOMLEY responded that he thought there was. He stated that their statutes set up the means to address commercial fisheries that have been managed in a particular way. A lot of detailed information has been gathered about every individual fish transaction. He stated that when the commission is called upon to address these issues there are "tools" available that are useful to deal with. He stated that the commission can not claim any familiarity or any tools that would be useful in looking at a guided sport fishery. He stated that it would be a whole new area for the entry commission to look at. Number 0710 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN questioned the ability to identify who is participating in the fishery because there is no method of identification nor have any accurate records been kept. He stated that a limited entry system could not be implemented at this time because there has to be more accurate data gathered on who is doing what, where and when to prove who is going to be the haves and the have nots. He asked if that is a fair assessment. Number 0751 MR. TWOMLEY replied that he believed that to be true. He stated that it is his understanding that was the conclusion of the Board of Fisheries' committee, developed to look at this issue. They recognize that unless you can get some sound information on individuals, the extent to which they depend on the fisheries and the extent to which they are making demands on the fishery, there might be some risks in going forward with some kind of limitation or moratorium. Number 0792 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that the information is not available because there isn't a system in place at this time. Number 0827 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked how the commission thinks they are doing now in regards to limited entry. He asked what would he change and what advice could he give if there was to be limited entry with sport fish guides. Number 0841 MR. TWOMLEY replied that "in balance" limited entry serves the state and has helped secure the place of Alaskans in their fisheries, where there would have been tremendous pressure on the fisheries, primarily by people outside the state. He referred to the Boldt Decision, and the difficulties that have hit various fisheries up and down the West Coast. He stated that it is known as a matter of history that if limited entry had not been in place, there would have been tremendous pressure from outside fishermen on all of the fisheries and more of a risk that Alaskans would have been displaced. He stated that it is for historic reasons that limited entry went into place in time. The state can not discriminate against non-residents nor can limited entry. He stated that if the state can limit the fishery at a point when Alaskans are dominant in that industry, an opportunity is created for Alaskans to maintain their places. Number 0934 MR. TWOMLEY addressed the issue of transferability of these interests. He stated that the supreme court has had a chance to look at the transferability of the privileges that they have administered. They identified a positive result of limited entry to be that it gives people a long term stake in the resource and the transferability allowed families to maintain access to the fishery. He stated that he could offer that history to the committee if it would be of value. Number 0980 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if the limited entry mechanism helped the commercial fishermen or the commercial fishing industry. Number 1000 MR. TWOMLEY responded that he thought it empowered individual fishermen and helped them in relation to processors. They had more bargaining power and more of an ability to control their own fishing. He stated that it empowered them to also maintain their access to the fisheries. He continued that he had been told by people close to the real world aspect of the fishery that limited entry helped save a place in the fishery for local people, that otherwise would have been crowded out. Number 1040 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if there would be the opportunity to protect the habitat on some of the over-used rivers through a limited entry system. Number 1055 MR. TWOMLEY replied that is an important consideration of limited entry, as to whether it would serve that kind of conservation issue. Number 1066 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if he had any figures of his budget and what the budget would be on a sport fish guide limited entry system. Number 1086 MR. TWOMLEY stated that he did not have an idea of what the cost of a sport fish limited entry program would be. He stated that the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission is responsible for all the commercial fisheries, and have limited entry into 50 fisheries in the state. He stated that fishermen pay a fee to the commission for the permits. He stated that they bring in about $5 million a year and the cost of the agency is about half of that. Number 1123 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated that the commission is then revenue generating for the general fund. MR. TWOMLEY stated that it was true. Number 1136 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked what the bill was that Mr. Twomley had referred to. Number 1157 MR. TWOMLEY stated that he did not recall the bill number but he knows that the chairman has sponsored a bill that addresses the licensing of commercial fishing guides that would help capture some of the information needed to go forward with the resolution. He stated that in addition the Board of Fisheries recognizes this as a need. Number 1181 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if he could briefly describe how limited entry was implemented; what kind of methodology was used. Number 1203 MR. TWOMLEY replied that there is nothing in place right now that gives the kind of information that the limited entry commission had for the commercial fisheries. He stated that there was a limited entry constitutional amendment in 1972 enacted by the legislature that is in existence now. He informed the committee that the legislature told the commission that they had to look at past participation and economic dependence on the fisheries as a way of determining who was most dependent on the commercial fisheries and who ought to get limited entry permits. He continued that they had the benefit of fish tickets which recorded every individual sale of fish; therefore everyone's catch was documented in every fishery. The commission had to look at for purposes of determining economic dependence; who had invested in vessels, the amount of earnings from the fishery as compared to earnings from other sources. They had the benefit of tax records that were pretty clear. Number 1283 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if the commercial fisheries management areas were in effect before limited entry or were those created through limited entry. MR. TWOMLEY replied that the management areas were in place before limited entry, the Board of Fisheries had every management area that the commission addressed for salmon in place before the commission began. Number 1313 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Delaney what he would see as the kind of mechanism that would be implemented and how difficult did he think it would be to make it work, in regards to limited entry on sport fish guides. Number 1337 MR. DELANEY replied that in working on the guide licensing bill that is currently in the legislature, a great deal of effort went into developing the definitions of what a guide is and what they do, in order to encompass the sport fish guide industry. He expressed that a lot of progress had been made. He reiterated that it is a very diverse industry, however the guides for the king fishery on the Kenai River are not a very diverse operation. The boats are about the same size and most have similar histories. He referred to the previously mentioned diverse aspects of the sport fish guide industry, and stated that if the state went forward on limited entry, a decision would be made that define each fisheries' needs based on urgency to move forward with a limited entry system. He stated that the start would be with the fisheries that are heavily utilized and conducted uniformly, with a longer history. He stated that this can not be accomplished without the socio-economic informat order to collect the information. At the present time, the information is what is lacking to describe the economics and the character of these operations. Number 1496 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if it would be possible to get a short narrative on the department's idea as to what kind of mechanism would come out of this. He stated that the voters would want to know what the limited entry system would entail, in order to decide if they could support it or not. Number 1529 MR. DELANEY replied that the department would be more than happy to help in that exercise, however, some of the decisions that would need to be made would be public policy level decisions. All the department could say is there is a range of possibilities here and this is what it would it take to implement across that range. He continued that there are a number of socio-economic calls that are obviously not going to made by the department and he would not want to pre-suppose what the legislature would chose to do. However, he pointed out that he would be more than happy to help. Number 1565 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked, "Do we have in place now within the state such as maybe parks on the Kenai River where there is kind of a charge that they do? Wouldn't some of that information be available because of that?" Number 1576 MR. DELANEY replied that the data base that exists on the guides on the Kenai River between the Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Natural Resources, Division of State Parks is undoubtably the best data that the department has in the state. He questioned, however, whether that would be sufficient to meet the test that would be put before the department. Number 1601 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that in the early '70s he had a problem when they invoked limited entry on the commercial fisheries. He mentioned that he did not think it was a good idea at that time, although he pointed out that it is the management tool that is used and it will probably be used in the sport fish industry as well. He questioned if it was appropriate at this time. He referred to HB 19, the charter licensing bill, which would give the legislature a better informational tool to gather the needed information in order to invoke a limited entry system. He stated that the Board of Fisheries is also reaching out in some of those areas in order to gather that information as well. He asked if his understanding was correct that after the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) evoked the cap for the halibut fishermen that the board through the department would come up with areas. He asked if that is something the department is looking at doing at this time. Number 1661 MR. DELANEY responded that he believed Chairman Austerman was referring to the reporting requirement. He stated that the NPFMC has adopted a motion that would require mandatory reporting and have set forth a list of information that needs to be recorded. He stated that the department has supported that at the council meeting and has said that they will take the responsibility of implementing that. He stated that the department has asked the council to let them work together with the Board of Fisheries as they have a proposal before them to adopt a regulation that would put mandatory reporting requirements in place. He remarked that the council deals with just halibut, the department would like to mesh the two together so that the people would have one reporting requirement together and the department could provide the data to both bodies. He anticipated the board would adopt that, although they have not yet. At that point in time, whether or not the information that the council and the board had asked for to begin addressing a limited entry system is sufficient, he could not say. Number 1732 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that he was not hinting at that. He asked if the actual management areas were not something the department is looking at now. MR. DELANEY replied no. Number 1747 MIKE BETHERS, Representative, Alaska Sport Fish Council, testified via teleconference from Anchorage that they represent both guided and non-guided sport fishermen and the sport fish industry. He stated that they support the concept of a moratorium which would ultimately lead to licensed limitation. He stated that they are in support of a limited entry system in problematic areas identified by the sport fishing industry. He stated that they are not in support of a statewide licensed limitation at this time. He stated that it will be at least a few years before data is available on which to base such a statewide or local program. He pointed out that it is based on the state's recent establishment of reporting requirements for outfitter guides for the state and federal cooperation in treatment in areas with local problems identified with halibut. He stated that eventually when local management plans call for licensed limitation or a statewide program for the sport fish guiding industry, it should be based on the conservation of fish stocks, as a top priority, and based less on the economics of an individual operator. He stated that it should be developed with the assumption that non-commercial resource users are receiving an adequate allocation of the resource to supply their needs, as it is not happening in many areas. He clarified that the council understood that it is only a resolution but asserted that the following should be addressed: who gets a permit, the criteria used, which areas, transferability, cost to the industry and individual participants, will they be issued to the owners or to the boats. He stated that how these questions are answered will affect the viability of a license limitation program. He declared that HJR 38 leaves too many of these questions unanswered and leaves the door open for a competing user group to have an impact on the development of a program which could have a negative impact on the viability of the final product. He stated that a resolution like this should be supported by the sport fish industry only after industry participants have developed a program which addresses the above issues to their satisfaction and then are ready to move forward. Number 1890 JOHN MERRICK, Plans and Resource Manager, Koniag Incorporated, testified via teleconference from Anchorage that Koniag Incorporated manages the private land along the Karluk River, a popular salmon stream, with most of the activity stemming from outside interests. He stated that because now that the salmon runs and the dollar returns are down there is a lot of interest from village residents in becoming sport fish guides. He stated that for that reason he would oppose any rapid move to limit the sport guide fishery because he would like the village residents to have the opportunity to become sport fish guides. Number 1963 DARREL SHREVE, Sport Fish Guide, testified via teleconference from Valdez in regards to the IPHC's halibut cap. He stated that when the resource is capped but the participants of that industry are not capped, once the cap is reached it will become a critical situation. He stated that a lot of halibut operators have a lot of money vested in the guided efforts on halibut. He said, "Yes I am very concerned when the number of bay-liners and smaller boats start participating in the sport guided industry, I can't see any cap in the future on them but yet there is a cap for the overall industry." He declared that for economic reasons there needs to be limited entry in order to protect the people that have a vested interest in the fishery. Number 2016 MR. SHREVE said, "As far as the limited entry commission that is currently in place -- you know I know that every year and for the last number -- many years I've been sending my money down there for the triangle, I've not seen a lot out of it. I've seen a funding source, there that might be able to assist and maybe further this thing along in addition to probably some fees that go along with registering, should this be the direction that we go as far as registering guides." He stated that transferability ought to be considered. Number 2058 MR. SHREVE explained that one of the big concerns in Prince William Sound is the growth of sport guides in the Whittier area, especially once the road is established. This will cause the 125 percent halibut limit to be met at a faster pace. He stated that the state is in a position to further limited entry along and he is in full support of going in that direction. He stated that he was on the task force of the NPFMC in regards to the uncontrolled growth of sport fish licenses being issued because of a limited entry threat. He explained that talk of a limited entry affects the growth of licenses. He reiterated his support for HJR 38. Number 2127 REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA asked if his position was an association position or if he was just representing himself. Number 2132 MR. SHREVE responded that he is not speaking on behalf of the charter boat association, he is representing himself. Number 2138 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if the association would be taking a position on the issue. Number 2144 MR. SHREVE responded that John Goodhand is now the president of the charter boat association and could not get teleconferenced in. Number 2155 RONDAL WHITLEY testified via teleconference from Valdez that he has been following the halibut issue. He asserted that there needs to be a stop to speculative entry because as soon as the NPFMC talks about limited entry, everyone starts applying for the charter operators triangle, whether they use them or not. He said, "We're going to need to move forward with this." Number 2197 DARWIN JONES, Owner and Operator, Sea Trek Charters, testified via teleconference from Petersburg that he is in favor of limited entry for sport fish guides as it will give the state a better idea of who is catching what and where. He stated that if limited entry is enacted it should be given to the individual skipper and not to companies or lodge owners. He asked if the state of Alaska feels they have the authority to place limited entry on sport fishermen targeting halibut, since halibut are not regulated by the state. Number 2245 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN replied that he would look it up but he was almost certain that the three-mile-limit would have some bearing on the management aspects. Number 2252 CHIP PORTER, Charter Operator, testified via teleconference from Ketchikan that he has been chartering for nine seasons and assumed he was being monitored all the time, but now it does not sound that way. He stated that he supports limited entry for the charter fleet and is not sure what the limit should be. He asked that limited entry be instituted before the number of guides reach a level where no one can make a living at it. He continued that if there is the steady increase of charter fishermen, no one will be able to make a living and it is already heading in that direction with the limit that is on king salmon and halibut. Number 2318 MR. PORTER stated that he was a power troller for many years and having that permit was similar to having a farm with a certain numbers of farmers allowed to farm the area. He asserted that without the limited entry system for commercial fishermen it would have been over years ago. He declared that he hoped in a sport fish limited entry system the people who do not deserve the permits will not get them. He suggested income tax records being used as a guide. There are a lot of people who have charter boats permits just to be able them to write their boats off. Number 2387 A.J. SLAGLE, Charter Guide, testified via teleconference from Ketchikan, that he has been guiding since 1990. He stated that he is in support of limited entry but feels that it is poorly researched at this time. He stated that in the interest of fairness he would like to see a lot more research and public comment on the issue. He stated that he would like to see a resident preference. He asserted that a limited entry system should be governed by people that are involved in this industry and have a broader or more knowledgeable idea of the conditions and concerns of those who work in it. He stated that there is a definite concern of growth and abuse of the resource through overharvest. TAPE 98-2, SIDE B Number 0002 DALE BONDURANT, testified via teleconference from Kenai, that all he wanted to say was that he was listening to find out how the department was going to use limited entry and what information they had. He stated that he found out they did not have much information. Number 0031 ELLA RING, testified via teleconference from Matsu that she is in favor of limited entry for the guided sport fish industry, but did not want it to be like the commercial limited entry system. She stated that some families applied for permits every time they had a child, one family had six permits. She stated that she is in favor of a federal takeover because of bad management in the Northern district. Since 1981, she has made less than $5,000 from commercial fishing. She asked how many king salmon are allowed this year per person. Number 0096 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that he did not have that information and suggested that she call the Department of Fish and Game. Number 0101 MS. RING stated that she had heard that it is one king salmon a day for 30 days which is too much with such poor fishing. She stated that there has been a decrease of salmon in her area. She talked about poor management of the Northern district and asserted that something needs to be done or else future generations will not have any fish. Number 0161 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated, "The limit for Cook Inlet, if I am not mistaken, Kevin Delaney's here -- is five fish per year and one fish per day in possession." Number 0187 ROY JONES, testified via teleconference from Larson Bay that most of the residents from Larson Bay are opposed to limited entry on sport fishing. He stated that it is a new industry to the area and a lot of residents are trying to rely on sport fish guiding as an income. He stated that if this is implemented it should be area specific. He stated that charter boats from other areas of Alaska are guiding in Larson Bay because their areas are over crowded. He stated that the Larson Bay residents are interested in getting into the sport fish guiding industry. He reiterated that it should be area specific. Number 0329 MICHAEL SWAN, Halibut Charter Guide, testified via teleconference from Homer, that he has been chartering for twenty years and is in favor of a limited entry program. He asserted that the data has to be available as he has been registering his charter boat for ten years and has had a guide license for the past three years. He continued that there is sufficient tax information that he has accumulated for the past 15 to 20 years. He stated that he agreed that it is a regional problem. Number 0393 GARY AULT, Owner, Charter Business, testified via teleconfernce from Homer, that he is speaking for the Homer Charter's Association. He stated that the members have voted for support of the fair and equitable licensed limitation program. The reason being in response to the NPFMC cap to the halibut charter operations. He stated that the members would like the licenses to be fully transferrable in order for the licenses to be viable and have some sort of future business. He stated that there needs to be a strong plan to eliminate the speculative licenses that have been occurring since 1993 when a limitation on sport fish guides was being pursued by the NPFMC. He continued that an area specific plan would be the best way approach a limited entry system. Number 0482 SEAN MARTIN, Owner/Operator, Charter Boat, testified via telconfernce from Homer that because of the restrictions placed on halibut guides, a limited entry system is needed and the sooner it is in place the better. He stated that this is the best way to ensure charter operators a season of historic length, if the guide line harvest level is approved. He stated that other limits such as reduced; bag limits, fishing days, size limits and passengers per vessel could be implemented which will all have negative economic impacts on the guided halibut sport fishery in Homer. He stated that he could support any limited entry system that allows for transferable permits even if those permits do not have a value. He continued that a limited entry program should be based on past participation and not just the desire to be a guide and looked at on a regional basis. Number 0538 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that he is going to cut off the testimony on HJR 38 as HB 310, "An Act relating to the utilization of groundfish; and providing for an effective date" is before the committee as well tonight. He stated that HJR 38 will be brought up again in the future.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|