Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/28/2003 08:34 AM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 118-TRANSPORTATION OF COMMERCIAL FISH CHAIR SEATON announced that the only order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 118, "An Act relating to the transportation and sale of certain commercially caught fish by an agent of a commercial fishing permit holder and to the sale of fish; and providing for an effective date." CHAIR SEATON turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Wilson. Number 0136 CHAIR SEATON, the bill's sponsor, explained that HB 118 gives fishermen more options to economically deliver fish and to get better quality fish to market. Currently, for a fisherman to deliver fish, he/she needs to be present at the point of delivery. Because processors are cutting back on expenses, they are contracting with fewer tenders, so fishermen have to run their fish in, and be at the dock when those fish are sold to the processor. In some areas of the state, enforcement of this regulation is lax and fishermen combine their catches. It is technically illegal if each fisherman isn't at dock when the fish are there. Requiring fishermen to stop fishing in order to run their fish to the processor means either they have to stop fishing early or they retain their fish longer, which then results in a reduction in fish quality. This bill gives fishermen the option to hire a tender. There will be fish tickets to account for all fish on board, so this in no way circumvents the reporting process or the fish ticketing system. HB 118 allows fishermen the flexibility to deliver a better product, more economically, to processors. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if anyone was against this bill. CHAIR SEATON said he has not received comments against the bill. He mentioned working in coordination with the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) and the Department of Public Safety (DPS), and said any previous objections have already been addressed. Number 0506 CHAIR SEATON offered Amendment 1, which read [original punctuation provided]: Technical Page 2, line 15-16, After the words, "shall provide the fish transporter [in writing] with all required information that the..." CHAIR SEATON explained that the reason for the amendment was due to an earlier draft in which there was a requirement for a transporter agreement to accompany the fish as well as the fish ticket. Both ADF&G and DPS decided that the fish ticket could be used as sufficient documentation, and that the other piece of written documentation was not necessary. Number 0634 VICE CHAIR WILSON objected for discussion purposes. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to contract law and said that when dealing with items over a certain value, there are certain presumptions that attach, so that memorializing something writing is sometimes a preferred course. CHAIR SEATON replied that a permit containing all of the specifications will be issued by the department. For fishermen to utilize the transporter, they will need to see the permit and know conditions such as that the fisherman retains ownership of the fish, and that the transporter is acting solely as an agent. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if the fisherman would be paying the transporter. CHAIR SEATON said there would be a contract between the fisherman and the transporter. VICE CHAIR WILSON asked about the position of the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force ("Salmon Task Force") regarding the proposed amendment. CHAIR SEATON replied that the Salmon Task Force said the bill was a great idea and did not address further details. They expressed interest in having input from the Board of Fisheries, and there is a letter of support in the committee packet from the Board of Fisheries. The Salmon Task Force has not been involved with technical questions because they deal with the concept, which they have approved. VICE CHAIR WILSON noted that changes to a bill can modify the intention and asked if there was input from the Salmon Task Force. CHAIR SEATON replied that [Senator] Ben Stevens was aware that the bill would be modified, and had expressed interest in moving the bill through legislation because it could help fishermen in the coming season. Number 0913 CHRIS KNIGHT, Staff to Representative Paul Seaton, Alaska State Legislature, said the bill originally had some technical problems, but in working with ADF&G those problems were resolved; the overall scope and character of the bill remain the same. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if every fisherman would have this permit as well as a fishing permit, or if perhaps a box could be checked on a license to indicate the other license as well. CHAIR SEATON said ADF&G requires a permit to ensure that the transporter fully understands the rules. This doesn't just expand what is allowed under a permit, but is a separate permit. He said the fisherman actually retains ownership of the fish, and the transporter is acting as his/her agent. These are individual contracts that would be signed or made between fishermen, or between a fisherman and a tender. REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked if the original intent of HB 118 was to prevent harvest abuse. Number 1081 CHAIR SEATON replied that the original intent was to allow fishermen the flexibility to be able to deliver a quality product at a lower price. He referred to letter in the packet from Buck Laukitis, a fisherman from the Aleutian Chain. Chair Seaton explained that when the processor no longer sends out a tender, there are several fishing boats to catch fish but they are not having high enough volume for each fisherman to fill up every day. For example, it is expensive to run from False Pass to Sand Point, so the fishermen give up fishing. If they could have their own tender or if one of the fishing boats could aggregate those fish, write out the fish ticket, and take those fish to Sand Point, then it would be economical to continue fishing. The idea of HB 118 is to give fishermen an option to get their fish to market quickly and more economically so that everyone doesn't have to leave the grounds and run all the way back to the processor. REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked why, prior to this bill, fishermen were required to be at the dock to meet the tender. CHAIR SEATON said the fish ticket system in Alaska is a great system; it makes sure all the fish are accounted for. When the system was designed, the processors had tenders, thereby supplying a place for that buyer to be on the grounds. Now, the situation has changed due to the economics of the fishery, and fisherman cannot deliver fish on the grounds like they used to because processors are no longer supplying tenders. This bill allows for a substitute tender, and it maintains the integrity of the fish ticket system. It specifies that the fish ticket data must be filled out and must accompany the fish. Number 1273 DOUG MECUM, Director, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, thanked Chair Seaton and his staff for making the necessary changes to the bill. He said that all concerns have been answered in working with The Department of Law and The Division of Fish & Wildlife Protection; he testified that the department supports HB 118. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked what the potential penalties would be if this provision were violated. Number 1381 VICE CHAIR WILSON noted that the procedure was such that the committee was addressing the amendment. VICE CHAIR WILSON withdrew her objection to the amendment. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 1440 JAMES COCKRELL, Major, Deputy Director, Division of Fish & Wildlife Protection, Department of Public Safety, responded to Representative Berkowitz, saying that a violation would be subject to penalties under AS 16.05.722 - AS 16.05.723, which spell out what a commercial fishing misdemeanor is - whether it is similar to a class A misdemeanor or a strict liability violation. Number 1518 MARY McDOWELL, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC), Alaska Department of Fish & Game, spoke in support of HB 118. She noted that CFEC will have to give commercial vessel licenses to vessels used as transporters. Most transporters will already have a commercial vessel license because of their involvement with either harvesting, processing, or tendering; however, CFEC will have to change the application format so it includes an additional category. MS. McDOWELL emphasized the critical importance to CFEC and ADF&G that fish ticket information be kept discrete, and that at the point of delivery, the transporter not aggregate that information. A tender usually has a state-certified scale on board to weigh fish, and the fish ticket contains complete information. In some of these cases, transporters will probably have to count fish so that there will be discrete information on the fish tickets. MS. McDOWELL explained that ADF&G needs to have good fish ticket information for management purposes, and CFEC needs that information for research and for day-to-day functions, including determining average growth earnings of fishermen, and for economic analysis. When CFEC limits a fishery, it sets up a point system that determines who is most economically dependent on that fishery, which is how it determines who is grandfathered in to a fishery; a part of that point system is based on fish ticket information, which reveals catch history. It is important, if fish are delivered to transporters, that the fish ticket integrity be maintained, so that if CFEC limits the fishery, there is accurate information. Ms. McDowell offered other examples that reference accurate fish ticket information, such as optimal number studies, the federal government's IFQ [individual fishery quota] programs, certain legal settlements, and certain loan programs. Number 1718 MS. McDOWELL testified that this bill gives ADF&G some flexibility and authority to establish criteria and to analyze a given transporter application to make sure that the applicant has the means of ensuring the integrity of that fish ticket information. She said regarding the amendment on page 2, deleting the words "in writing" helps to clarify that it is a stamped fish ticket that is being required. The commission [CFEC] issues a little plastic card to every fisherman, which has his/her permit number, name, et cetera; CFEC wants to make it clear that a fisherman needs to provide his/her permit card to the transporter, stamped on an official ticket. Rather than writing down information from that card, they need to actually have their card and stamp it. She concluded by saying the goal of HB 118 is good; it provides both for the integrity of the fish ticket system and for a needed service on the fishing grounds. Number 1895 JASON KOONTZ, Fisherman, testified in support of HB 118. He said it is a good bill: it gives fishermen flexibility in delivering their fish, provides the opportunity to develop new markets, and ensures quality. MR. COCKRELL said DPS supports HB 118 as written, as issues of enforceability have been addressed; he appreciates the work that ADF&G and Chair Seaton's office have done on the bill. Number 1975 PAUL SHADURA, Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association, testified that the association supports HB 118, although they feel it stops short of addressing regulatory impediments on the Cook Inlet setnet fishery. He said if this bill were to truly allow efficiency and higher productivity, it should address other changes in the delivery and reporting requirements. Currently, commercial setnet fishermen in Cook Inlet are fined several thousand dollars for doing what they have practiced doing for several years. They have operated a type of cooperative in Cook Inlet for many years, composed of family, extended family, or groups of small businessmen who pool their resources to reduce costs and accommodate individual situations. Currently, a setnet permitted fisherman cannot have his wife or other crewmember of his/her operation deliver the salmon to market. The fisherman must stop fishing, stop picking nets, and drive to wherever the market is. This allows little time for preparation for the next opening or for sleep, and is counterproductive. [The association] strongly objects to CFEC's position on the need for individual fish ticket reporting. He said it is apparent that the setnet operations in fisheries in Cook Inlet are not understood very well by CFEC. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked that Mr. Shadura forward to his office any specific suggestions as to how to remedy the problem. Number 2114 CHRIS GARCIA, Cook Inlet Fishermen's Fund, testified in favor of HB 118. He agreed that several areas of the state have reduced tender service due to the economics of the fishery. Because of that, beach fishermen in remote areas, for example, have to either quit fishing or fly their fish to the processor. Flying is expensive and the expense keeps people from fishing. This bill opens up the possibility for someone fishing in that area to transport the fish. Number 2170 BUCK LAUKITIS, President, North Pacific Fisheries Association, noting that he had submitted written comments, stated the following: Our group met earlier this week to discuss House Bill 118. I submitted written comments this morning. Our group supports this bill. We feel that it will solve a number of problems fishers face in remote locations. This bill will allow fishermen to save costs by consolidating fish to be transported to primary processors. We feel that, if enacted, this bill will have an immediate positive effect for fishermen this summer. We feel that this is a well thought out and well researched bill that has no downside. I'll give you a couple of examples of how this bill will work. These are my own personal experiences. Oftentimes I am fall fishing for coho salmon on the Alaska Peninsula area and when the local processor will stop sending a tender after a certain date even though the fish are still available. It's basically because the cost of the tender is too high for the volume of fish being caught or the processor is more interested in other species - pollock or cod or some other opening. And so that means that every night - and this is just a little subset of the fleet where I happen to be fishing - there will be 3 to 8 or 10 boats every night will have to run to King Cove to deliver, as the regulations exist now, if they wish to sell their catch. With current coho prices of about 15 cents per pound, losing the tender usually means the fishing boats leave the grounds - meaning they go home, go to port, call it a season - and the resource goes unharvested. Under current regulations each boat must run in to deliver. Sometimes boats that aren't catching much high volumes try to hold their fish for a second day, and this is really detrimental to fish quality. Under this Act, I would be allowed to consolidate three or four of my fishing friends' catch onto my refrigerated seawater boat on the grounds, weigh them, issue fish tickets, and then run them in to the market, in to the local processor. Perhaps the next night another boat, one of my other friends, would provide that service and I could get a night's sleep. Basically, you get no sleep if you're running every night. The savings in fuel and effort would potentially make the difference between ending the season, versus fishermen and processors continuing to utilize the salmon resources. The other situation I have faced where this may help is during the state-water cod fishery on the Alaska Peninsula. Last year, the cannery had a three-day backup after the season closed. That means that we had to wait for three days from the closing date to get our fish delivered. A better-quality fish could be delivered for a higher price if three 58-foot cod pot boats could consolidate their catch - say, put 100,000 pounds on one of the boats - and send that boat to Kodiak. We had situations where boats were heading back that way, and it happened to be that the price was 30 or 40 percent higher in Kodiak than King Cove. This would be not only cost savings, savings of time, but also we could have made considerably more money that year. ... We hope this bill will move through the legislative process so that we can utilize these advantages in the upcoming season. ... Number 2360 VICE CHAIR WILSON asked if a spouse or crewmember could get a transport permit if this bill were in effect. MR. MECUM answered yes. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked, in reference to previous testimony from a setnet fisherman, if a transporter necessarily had to be a boat, or if all that was needed was a license in order to then transport fish by perhaps truck or plane. CHAIR SEATON answered that was correct. MR. MECUM said he thought the problem referred to by Mr. Shadura would be solved by this bill. [Vice Chair Wilson asked if Mr. Shadura was still on teleconference, but he wasn't.] Number 2464 REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE moved to report HB 118, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. Number 2486 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected for discussion purposes. He said he was in support of this bill, but wanted to acknowledge that when the committee passes statutes, costs may be added to other entities of government. CHAIR SEATON responded that this bill would actually reduce costs because, currently, illegal procedures are going on, citations are being written, and there is a lot of liability. The objective is not to make illegal activities legal, but to have efficient operations. He said that HB 118 should actually reduce court costs because it melds current practice with the law, so it should result in fewer citations. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said his point was not just in reference to this bill, but to other bills as well; there are implications that might not crop up in the fiscal note, but that the committee needs to pay attention to. Number 2588 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew his objection. Number 2608 VICE CHAIR WILSON indicated that there being no further objection, CSHB 118(FSH) was reported from the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|