Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 124
03/09/2005 08:30 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR15 | |
| HB192 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 192 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HJR 15-OPEN OCEAN AQUACULTURE 8:39:13 AM CO-CHAIR THOMAS announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 15, "Relating to open ocean aquaculture in the federal exclusive economic zone." 8:39:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute for HJR 15, labeled 24-LS0631\F, Utermohle, 3/8/05, as the working document. There being no objection, Version F was before the committee. 8:40:08 AM IAN FISK, Staff to Representative Bill Thomas, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as the committee aide for the House Special Committee on Fisheries, presented HJR 15 and the proposed CS. He pointed out that the CS has a few additional lines on page 1, lines 15-16, regarding genetically modified fish that read: WHEREAS there are patents pending to cultivate and introduce genetically modified fish into open waters which will pose a direct threat to wild stock fisheries MR. FISK also noted that the CS has an additional resolve on page 2, lines 27-20: FURTHER REOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature respectfully urges Congress to prohibit the issuance of any license to permit an aquaculture facility that imports, exports, possesses, cultivates, sells or otherwise handles genetically modified fish in the federal exclusive economic zone or has access to open waters 8:41:17 AM MR. FISK explained that HJR 15 is in reference to legislation that is being developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). He commented: Alaskans have many legitimate concerns about this concept, especially in light of our experience with farmed salmon and what that has done to our economy and communities.... Some of these concerns are environmental in nature, for instance: disease- transmission; damage to the environment due to anoxic conditions that are created by overfeeding in salmon farms; concern about the health ramifications to those ... consumers who choose to eat farmed fish; and, of course, escape into the natural environment of nonnative species like Atlantic salmon. To address these concerns, this resolution asks Congress to require an Environmental Impact Statement for any proposal to license an open ocean aquaculture operation. 8:42:19 AM MR. FISK pointed out that there are healthy existing fisheries in the exclusive economic zone that have been developed over decades such as the halibut and sablefish industries, which have been soundly managed for biological and economic sustainability. "People are very concerned that the advent of open ocean aquaculture is going to change the nature of the seafood business, and we need to know how this is going to affect our communities and their economies," he said, "so this resolution expresses the legislature's commitment that open ocean aquaculture do no harm to our environment and to our communities." MR. FISK reminded the committee that the state legislature enacted a prohibition on finfish farming in 1990, and now the state fishing industry is starting to see the benefits of that because "we've differentiated ourselves in the market; Alaska's name is associated with natural, wild products." He opined that if fish were being farmed offshore of Alaska, it would confuse the market place and damage some of the recent industry progress. 8:44:01 AM MR. FISK continued: Rumor has it that this draft legislation from [the U.S.] Department of Commerce is not going to include the [North Pacific Fishery Management Council] in the process of approving permits.... It's important that we make a statement that the council be involved since they manage all the other fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska that are important to us. 8:45:01 AM CO-CHAIR THOMAS noted that United Fisherman of Alaska had submitted a letter of support for HJR 15. REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, asked if the language on page 2, lines 27-30, referred to live fish. MR. FISK responded that it refers to genetically modified fish. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified, "I want to make sure that what we're talking about is live fish or live animals, and we're not getting too much into the import/export business, ... [or] something that's being used for feed." REPRESENTATIVE WILSON pointed out the language on page 1, lines 15-16, regarding genetically modified fish. MR. FISK stated, "The language about import and export is in reference to the idea of people bringing in a genetically modified organism and introducing it for the purpose of cultivating it in the waters of the exclusive economic zone." 8:48:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked Mr. Fisk what kind of escapement is coming from fish farms in Washington and British Columbia (B.C.). MR. FISK replied that he did not have any numbers, but he noted that salmon have escaped from farms in B.C. and have been found in Alaska streams as far west as the Alaska Peninsula. He remarked that in the case of open ocean aquaculture, no one knows what different species might be proposed to be developed in local waters. 8:49:30 AM REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if there was any evidence of diseases introducing into Alaska by the fish farms. MR. FISK replied that he was not aware of any diseases transmitted from farmed fish into Alaska wild salmon stocks. However, he said, there have been documented cases where the infectious hematopoietic neocrosis (IHN) virus and sea lice have been transmitted to wild fish stocks on the B.C. coast. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that her neighbor, a fisherman, caught [an escaped farm fish] that was very unhealthy and covered with sea lice. She remarked that it could devastate the entire fishing industry if [the farmed fish infected the wild stocks]. 8:51:54 AM ERIC JORDAN stated that he is a lifelong Southeast Alaska resident and a salmon troller. He mentioned that he has also been involved with the Alaska Marine Conservation Council as an outreach coordinator regarding salmon farming and its potential effect on ecosystems. He stated: It's my opinion that open ocean aquaculture ... presents a real threat to the health of our fishing industry in Alaska because we are seeing increasing problems with ... the fish farming industry around the world associated with disease, environmental pollution, escapes, and effects on our wild resources. My position is ... that the Alaska legislature should notify the U.S. Congress and others of our grave concern about opening up federal waters to aquaculture development, especially finfish aquaculture off the coast of Alaska. MR. JORDAN noted that he and two other men were in Juneau to meet with legislators on behalf of the Alaska Trollers Association. He expressed appreciation to the legislature for the work it does for the fishing industry. 8:55:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Mr. Jordan if he was also testifying on shellfish, such as oysters and clams. MR. JORDAN replied that he was not testifying on shellfish. He commented that there are successful oyster farms in Alaska and he had not heard of any big environmental problems associated with those. He mentioned that his friend runs a successful scallop and oyster farm in Port Althorp. He clarified that his testimony specifically in opposition to finfish farming. 8:56:46 AM HERMAN FANDEL testified that due to the increasing global population, it will become necessary to farm the oceans "just like we farm the lands of the world today." He opined: Today more fish are needed for commercial fishing industry, sport fishing industry, tourism, subsistance, and so on. We need more fish to feed the world and the open ocean aquaculture program certainly will give us more fish. It seems to me that we'd look very foolish today if our forefathers decided not to farm the fertile farmlands in our country. And we may look more foolish in the future if we decide today to not farm the endless oceans. It is important that we get started now so that the rest of the world doesn't leave us behind. Open ocean aquaculture, I feel, is the "wave of the future." To oppose open ocean aquaculture is like some people ... opposing drilling for oil in [the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)]. We should not let fear stop progress. Alaska's wild stocks cannot feed the world, and we should not expect that a shortage of fish will make the prices of fish go up. Somewhere along the way we're going to have to have more fish, and we've got some big fields out there that we can farm and get a lot more fish. It's coming; we might as well adjust our thinking to it and join in with it. I think it's to our advantage to start; the sooner, the better. 8:59:09 AM IRENE FANDEL pointed out that NMFS was promoting legislation to permit open ocean aquaculture in federal waters. She commented: Global marketing is consistantly increasing and demanding seafood products. Opening aquaculture in federal waters could and would increase [the economies] of Alaska coastal communities and subsidize their fishing season. ... A five-year moratorium on all permitting, leasing, or development of ocean pen- raised shellfish and finfish in the federal waters off of Alaska will just set Alaska fisherman further behind in the development of ocean aquaculture. The social and economic well-being of Alaska coastal communities could get a boost by engaging in open ocean aquaculture. If there are problems in the present process of aquaculture fisheries, I urge you to gather and work to solve these problems rather than to try to stop it. Again, the population of our earth is such that we need to find ways of feeding our people without depleting the fish stock in our wonderful oceans. 9:01:09 AM CO-CHAIR THOMAS closed public testimony. 9:01:17 AM REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS moved to report CSHJR 15, labeled 24- LS0631\F, Utermohle, 3/8/05, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON objected for discussion purposes. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that the resolution refers to aquaculture, which includes filter-feeding shellfish such as oysters and mussels. He commented that he agreed with the concept of not farming predatory shellfish such as lobsters and crab, but "I'm not sure that the same conditions apply to oysters, clams, and mussels." 9:03:19 AM JERRY McCUNE, Lobbyist for United Fisherman of Alaska (UFA), explained that the NMFS legislation lumps everything together as "aquaculture", whether it's shellfish or not. He commented that the federal legislation will be better understood once it is completely drafted, and that if the North Pacific Fishery Management Council is involved, then there would be room for [limited shellfish farming]. He said, "We're not opposing shellfish, but we're not saying right now openly until we get something that we can really get our hands around and really tackle." 9:05:12 AM PAULA TERREL, Alaska Marine Conservation Council, agreed with Mr. McCune, and she noted that farming shrimp, which are also considered shellfish, could have a big impact on the Alaska shrimp fishermen. She commented that some states are very concerned about shrimp farming because of what has happened to their markets. She said of the resolution, "It's broad because the legislation is broad. In other places they use aquaculture in a totally different way than we do here." MR. McCUNE opined that each state should have some say over what happens off its shores. 9:06:41 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that he had wanted to get a feel for how the committee felt about including shellfish in the resolution. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON removed her objection. MS. TERREL emphasized the need to keep the resolution broad for now. 9:07:37 AM There being no objection, CSHJR 15(FSH) was moved from the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|