Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/25/2017 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
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 | |
| HB188 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 188 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 188-COMM. FISH. ENTRY PERMITS; LOANS; TRUSTS
10:01:27 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 188, "An Act relating to commercial fishing entry
permits; establishing regional fisheries trusts and fisheries
trust regions; relating to commercial fishing entry permits held
and leased by a regional fisheries trust; relating to the duties
of the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission and the
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development; and
providing for an effective date."
10:01:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 188, labeled 30-LS0389\R, Bullard,
4/18/17, as the working document.
CHAIR STUTES objected for discussion.
10:02:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that the primary change, being introduced
in Version R, is that trusts would be formed under a limited
authorization. Only three fisheries trusts would be
established in the state to allow the program to be tested and
vetted.
10:02:51 AM
CHAIR STUTES removed her objection. Without further objection
Version R was before the committee.
10:03:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS outlined the intent of the bill
referring to the committee handout titled, "HB 188: Regional
Fisheries Trusts." He said fishermen don't "just drive boats,"
as their efforts also drive the Alaska economy. The fisheries
trusts maximize Alaskans' access to the economic opportunities
provided by the commercial fishing industry, particularly in the
coastal communities. He said regional trusts would empower
communities to prevent economic distress among fishermen,
promote fisheries conservation, improve Alaskans' access to
fisheries, and realize greater economic self-sufficiency by
making entry into the commercial fishing industry more
accessible, as called for in the Constitution of the State of
Alaska. Several tools to financially aid fishermen exist, such
as the Commercial Fishing Revolving Loan Fund (CF RLF), which
saw 225 applicants in 2016. The fund currently hosts 1,700
loans, at a total of $95.2 million. Since it began in 1972, the
CF RLF has provided roughly 8,473 fishermen with business loans.
Additionally, the Commercial Fisheries Agriculture Bank offers
uniquely fishermen-oriented financing. However, with the
greying of the fleet, more options are needed to support entry
into the industry.
10:07:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said the trusts are being proposed
as opt-in, self-determined decisions that allow maximum regional
flexibility, and handled through community and regional
governments via a board of directors; seating members from
around the region. The initial three regions that are expected
to take advantage of the legislation will not be expanded
without further legislative action. A fisheries trust would
hold permits to provide a stepping stone by fishermen entering
the industry. The fishermen would gain access to a permit for a
time period determined by local authorities, but for no more
than six years. The number of permits a trust can acquire has a
hard cap to prevent distortion to the open market. He suggested
that perhaps only 2.5 percent of the available permits for a
given fishery could be held by a regional trust.
10:13:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said the guiding principles of the
legislation are: to improve access for Alaskans to Alaska's
commercial fisheries; to empower communities; and for regions to
become more economically self-sufficient. Regarding the
question of constitutionality, he said HB 188 has gone through
two and a half years of extensive legal vetting, including
opinions from the Alaska Department of Law (DOL), private
fisheries attorneys, and Alaska Legislative Legal Services. The
bill has been crafted and re-crafted in response to
recommendations and concerns.
10:16:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS explained that Version R will
provide limited authorization, allowing no more than three
regions to opt-in. After January 1, 2018, two-thirds of the
municipalities in any fisheries trust region will be allowed to
apply to the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development (DCCED) to establish a trust. Further, if more than
three regions apply, the commissioner of DCCED will work with
the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) to pick the three
best candidates to receive a go-ahead, as based on their
business plans and ability to fulfill the legislative intent of
the trusts.
10:18:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS reviewed the process that has
occurred around the development of this bill, which includes:
over 1,500 hours of work, receipt of 2,500 individual emails,
150-200 stakeholders were contacted, a statewide summit was
held, over 90 pages of legal memos were generated, and 16 bill
versions were drafted. Turning to the final page of the
handout, he acknowledged the lengthy list of organizations that
have been involved, and consulted, for the drafting of the bill.
10:20:31 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked what the source of funding would be to
purchase the permits.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS responded that the capitalization
of the fund is to be handled on a regional basis via local
entities.
CHAIR STUTES inquired whether there are constitutional issues to
be addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said the federal constitution
disallows the bill to be Alaska centric, and deferred further
comment.
10:22:51 AM
REID MAGDANZ, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, added that legal opinions are still
being assembled and satisfied.
10:23:59 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked whether ADF&G supports HB 188.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said the bill has been drafted in
close consultation with the department, and Commissioner Sam
Cotton has testified in previous hearings on the measure. He
refrained from providing official support, but said that ADF&G
supports Alaskans having access to Alaska fisheries.
10:25:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER asked which entities would be recognized
in a village that is governed by tribal and municipal entities,
which can at times be at odds.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS pointed out that the bill language
addresses incorporated governments, but Native tribes could be
included and have a seat at the table.
10:27:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that the trust is being modeled
somewhat on the fisherman's revolving loan fund, and asked why
it was decided to step away from similar management at the state
level.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS responded that it was decided to
organize the trusts under regional control rather than state
management, in order to best serve local needs. Without the
local buy-in it would not work as intended.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about consequences if a buy-in
is lost after the trust has been developed and perhaps goes
"sideways;" are there checks in place to ensure continued
success.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that the guidelines for
the regional trust to follow would be in statute, limiting the
possibility of an effort going sideways. However, a disillusion
section is included in the legislation, he assured.
MR. MAGDANZ added that the bill provides sideboards for
operating within certain tenants.
10:32:50 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked whether discussions have ensued regarding the
potential for opening up the limited entry act.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said discussions have occurred,
and legal counsel has indicated that the act would not be
invoked.
10:33:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN made a request to have the constitutional
questions that have come forward, during the crafting of the
bill, as previously mentioned, distributed to committee members.
He established that the community trust would be the permit
holder and asked how the permits would be obtained.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said different regions would need
to take on the mission of creating local trusts, generate
funding, and acquire permits from the open market. The trust
would hold title to any permits and lease them out for no more
than six years.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN queried the source of funding for
acquisition, and established that any private industry or
individuals would be making a donation, not an investment, to
support the purchase and community ownership of permits.
10:37:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked about the boundaries of the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) management areas.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered to provide further
information.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR questioned what type of permits might be
available.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said fisheries vary widely by
region and the proposed process may be best suited for smaller
operators.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether a trust would be limited in
the number and types of permits it could hold.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS responded yes, and said AS
16.440.60, establishes limits.
10:41:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN assumed that DCCED would have applicable
bylaws to consider.
MR. MAGDANZ responded that the municipalities would draft bylaws
and provide them to DCCED.
10:42:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked about constraints regarding
regional growth.
MR. MAGDANZ said the requirement in the bill is that, at the
outset, DCCED sets the boundaries, in conjunction with
ADF&G/CFEC. Each community will be tied to a fisheries trust
region similar to the structure of the Regional Educational
Attendance Areas (REAA). Trusts could only hold permits for
their region. If the CFEC changes borders of a management area,
the fisheries trust borders might also be altered.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS added that the current CFEC
regionalization shows about a dozen communities that aren't
included in a region. However, these communities are very small
and located far from salt water. Although it may only be an
academic exercise, the language of the bill allows DCCED to
include every small community into a trust region, he stressed.
10:46:40 AM
NORM VAN VACTOR, CEO/President, Bristol Bay Economic Development
Corporation (BBEDC), stated support for HB 188, paraphrasing
from a prepared statement, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
My name is Norman Van Vactor from Dillingham Alaska
who for the last 40 years has participated in
different capacities in the Alaskas fisheries. That
said Bristol Bay and our sockeye fishery is what I am
most familiar with.
2 ? years ago in November of 2014, 24 committed,
Fisheries Passionate and knowledgeable Alaskans
gathered together in Anchorage. We commented at the
time that for several of us the only other time that
we might be found in the same room was in either
arguing opposing positions before the Board of Fish or
in Court. That long weekend together produced not
acrimony or divisiveness but amazing positive
consensus. We were there at the request of then
Governor Elect Walker and Lt. Governor Mallott to help
them in the capacity of their Fisheries Transition
Team. I was honored to Chair of this esteemed group.
Over the next two days our group hammered out what we
felt were the top 5 priorities facing the State and
they were in order of identified importance as
follows:
1. Clear Fish First Policy for Alaska. Chairperson
Stutes thank you for your leadership in bringing
forward HB 199 that speaks specifically to having this
conversation.
2. Prioritize and Improve Fisheries Access for
Alaskans, Develop policies, and strategies to return
access opportunities to residents of Alaska's fishing
Communities.
3. Provide adequate Funding for ADF&G and Fisheries
Science.
4. Science over Politics
5. Locally based Adaptive Fisheries Management.
House Bill 188 speaks directly to what was identified
as the second most important Fishery Issue in the
State. "To prioritize and Improve Fisher Access for
Alaskans, Develop policies, and strategies to return
access opportunities to residents of Alaska's Fishing
Communities.
We are all familiar with conversations centering
around "The Greying of the Fleet", "Permit Out
Migration", and closing communities. These
conversations are not new but ongoing. HB 188 will
provide us the opportunity in our varied and different
regions to focus on positive conversations. A
conversation of reconstruction and growth.
I first met the principal author and sponsor of this
Bill a little over 3 years ago. What you have before
you today was not created in a vacuum but has been a
vision and work in progress for Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins for several years. Individuals from across the
State with a variety of backgrounds have provided
input, concerns, and suggestions and the author has
been receptive and adaptive.
Is this Bill perfect and a Silver Bullet to address
our communities concerns? Certainly not perfect but
with a few tweaks pretty darn good. A silver bullet,
NO, but a significant compliment to all the other
programs that many of us are working on in different
regions to address the issues.
Groups like Bristol Bay Economic Development
Corporation who I work for have significant programs
in place but in my opinion this Bill would be a huge
and significant compliment.
For most of our rural coastal communities our cultural
and economic base is in Fisheries and the loss of
access comes with significant costs. This Bill is
about providing support for an initiative that is all
about Economic empowerment. This is all about helping
us to most importantly HELP OURSELVES. We know our
fisheries. I know Bristol Bay.
I just don't see the downside especially when the
other ongoing alternative, our reality, is doing
nothing. This allows regions by region to decide if
this tool might work for them. For those individuals
that are thinking of retirement and transitions I
strongly believe that with a Regional Fisheries Trust
in place that not only will values be enhanced but new
entrants facilitated.
Once this Bill is passed then the real work for us in
our towns and communities begin. We are not asking the
State to do this for us. Regions that have an interest
in opting in will have to go thru a public process and
get a majority of the communities and municipalities
to support. Once this step is completed and if not
happening concurrently, business plans will need to be
developed and financial resources secured and not
banking on State or Federal. With that in hand a
competitive application would be submitted to the
Department of Commerce for review and approval.
There are ON ramps and there are off ramps. I ask for
your support in addressing this critical issue of our
time and for your help in Helping us Help ourselves.
10:52:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked how long it might take before a trust
could purchase permits.
MR. VAN VACTOR said making a purchase would depend on the fund
raising possibilities, and expressed optimism that money would
be forthcoming.
10:55:15 AM
RACHEL DONKERSLOOT, Program Director, Alaska Marine Conservation
Council, stated support for HB 188, paraphrasing from a prepared
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I'm an anthropologist by trade, I grew up in the
fishing community of Naknek in southwest Alaska, and I
work for the Alaska Marine Conservation Council. My
time is largely devoted to research, education and
policy work on fishing community sustainability,
marine resource governance (especially fishery access
issues) and rural youth issues in Alaska and the
Global North. I'm currently co-leading two projects
relevant to HB 188: One focuses on the graying of the
fleet and loss of fishing rights and opportunities in
Alaska fisheries. This project includes a global
review of potential responses to address the graying
of the fleet in Alaska, including policy provisions,
alternative management structures, and training and
mentorship programs. This review should be coming out
in a few weeks' time.
In our study, we found that the need to purchase
permits and quota has created expensive barriers to
entry into commercial fisheries for the next
generation of fishermen. This, with the resulting
increased financial capital and risk needed to enter
into fisheries are primary factors contributing to
current trends in Alaska. The cost and financial risk
of entry into most fisheries is prohibitive for many
young or new fishermen seeking to make fishing a
career or diversify into new fisheries.
Our research shows intergenerational access is
eroding. Fishing permits are leaving coastal
communities and our state, which reduces opportunities
for Alaska youth to enter into fisheries. This loss of
opportunity for residents has important implications
for the future of these communities and our state as a
whole.
I would stress here that Alaska has implemented a
number of programs and provisions intended to
facilitate entry and Alaska ownership, but what we're
seeing, across the state, is that additional tools are
needed.
Regional trusts as designed in HB 188 are a highly
controlled tool that can provide an additional path to
local and independent ownership for Alaska residents.
This is not an untested idea. Other fishing regions in
the US and around the globe have created similar tools
to address similar challenges, tools that anchor
access rights and entry opportunities in fishing
regions to bolster economies and support new and rural
fishermen. Examples include Norway's recruitment quota
and coastal district quota, Maine's lobster
apprenticeship and island license program, and leased
access through the Cape Cod Fisheries Trust.
Today, more than three-quarters of Bristol Bay salmon
permits are held by nonlocals. In one generation,
Kodiak's Alutiiq villages have suffered an 84%
decrease in the number of young people owning state
fishing permits, and a 67% decrease in the number of
state permits overall. In the southeast villages of
Angoon, Hoonah, Hydaburg, and Kake, the number of
young people owning state permits has dropped sharply
since 1985: from 131 to only 17 in 2013.
Big picture, the net loss of more than 2300 state
permits from Alaska rural fishing communities
represents 29% of permits originally issued to rural
Alaskan fishermen. This loss of access is particularly
stark when compared to the 7.4% net increase in
permits held by non-residents of the state over the
same time period.
Our research has led us to make five recommendations
that could contribute to reversing the trend of the
graying of the fleet in Alaska. Among these are: 1)
Explore new forms of access to commercial fishing to
facilitate entry for the next generation; and 2)
Consider mechanisms to protect community-based fishing
access. Fisheries trusts are within these realms.
Regional Fisheries Trusts will not single handedly
solve the problems affecting our fisheries and
communities, but it is an important part of the suite
of solutions that Alaska needs to be advancing. Trusts
recreate the opportunity that is fundamental to the
health of our fishing communities and help to
recapture some of the benefits currently leaving
Alaska in the form of rights, income and livelihood.
10:59:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked what sidebars are being referring to
in the statement that the trusts will be highly controlled
tools.
MS. DONKERSLOOT answered that the controls include the number of
permits a trust can hold, where the funding can come from, and
the board structure.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted the reference to the trust not being a
new idea and that similar organizations exist elsewhere in the
world. She sked if similar controls are found in the other
examples mentioned.
MS. DONKERSLOOT answered that the other programs have caps and
eligibility rules, but they've all been developed specific to
their locales.
11:01:59 AM
CHAIR STUTES cautioned that expectations are possibly being
raised that the permit bank will serve to promote residency in
coastal communities, but in actuality much of the outmigration
of the permit holders has been to the Anchorage, Matanuska-
Susitna, Palmer, and Wasilla, areas where more permit holders
reside than anywhere else in the state. Pending the
satisfaction of constitutional requirements, the permits held in
trust may be available to anyone, living anywhere, in the state,
she noted, and asked how particular regions are expected to be
enhanced.
MS. DONKERSLOOT explained that a perception exists of lost
opportunities in coastal communities, and financial hurdles are
often seen as impassable. She stated her belief that using the
trust as a stepping stone will provide locals, especially young
adults, the assistance they need to enter the fishing industry.
CHAIR STUTES stressed that the permit cost isn't the only
expenditure required for fishing, as a captain must be able to
put together a boat, equipment, and crew. Further, she reported
that Community Quota Entity (CQE) permits exist, which are not
being fished.
MS. DONKERSLOOT responded that the existing CQE dynamics are an
example of why a multi-faceted approach is necessary to re-
enliven the fishing industry. The permits trust will be one
aspect of the effort.
11:06:53 AM
JIM BRENNAN, Attorney, Law Offices of Brennan and Heideman, said
the ongoing exodus of limited entry permits from Alaska coastal
communities is a major concern. Reviewing the constitutionality
of the bill has been his primary focus, and he has scrutinized
three specific areas, which are: discrimination against
nonresidents under the federal Privileges and Immunities clause;
discrimination in general under the state and federal Equal
Protection clauses; and the creation of an exclusive right or
privilege of fishery under the Constitution of the State of
Alaska. Although all three areas pose concerns, the
constitutionality of a regional fisheries trust system would be
upheld, if the statute is accompanied by carefully worded
legislative findings and purposes, he opined, and paraphrased
the language of Article 8, Section 16, which reads:
SECTION 15. No Exclusive Right of Fishery. No
exclusive right or special privilege of fishery shall
be created or authorized in the natural waters of the
State. This section does not restrict the power of the
State to limit entry into any fishery for purposes of
resource conservation, to prevent economic distress
among fishermen and those dependent upon them for a
livelihood and to promote the efficient development of
aquaculture in the State.
The final provision in this section, adopted in 1972, is
unusually specific, which has been interpreted by the Alaska
Supreme Court to authorize the limited entry statutes, despite
the clauses that prohibit exclusive right and privilege of
fishery. Thus, the limited entry provisions establish precedent
for the three constitutional areas of concern. If the
legislature is acting to prevent economic distress among
fishermen and those dependent upon them for a livelihood, the
proposed legislation could be defended. The bill offers a sound
approach, he opined.
11:12:19 AM
RALPH TOWNSEND, Director, Institute of Social and Economic
Research (ISER), commented on specific aspects of HB 188, and
said ISER refrains from taking a political stance on issues. He
cited how the approach to fisheries, around the world, have
evolved regarding ways in which they are managed. However, the
underlying concept that is common is that, regardless whether
they choose to or not, someone who would like to fish may not
have the choice. Alaska was an early adopter of limited entry
fisheries. Benefits of collective efforts exist, as seen around
the world. It's in that context that a trust may be formed to
offer collective decisions about a joint resource. The creation
of a permit process has reduced access for many people.
However, drawing an analogy is not easy given the different
characteristics of entities such as community quotas and permit
trusts. Assisting a fisherman to enter the industry has many
facets, but unless the permit is owned by a local trust, the
permit owner can sell it to anyone, anywhere. Regarding who
would finance the permits, he offered two possibilities, as
follows: a permit may be willed or sold at less of a cost by a
retired fisherman without an heir apparent or need for a high
sale rate; or the Nature Conservancy, which has acted to
purchase permits in the past under different rules. One concern
he said is that the caps of 2.5 percent keeps the trust agency
small, and if there are too many rules, they could become
expensive to run. A balance should be struck to create a real
opportunity with necessary restrictions. The role the trust
will play in a given fishery will likely not be one of over
control.
[Public testimony was treated as opened.]
11:24:45 AM
CLAY BEZENEK, Fisherman, stated opposition to HB 188 and said it
isn't necessary. A new car isn't needed, but the car that we
have needs tweaked, such as the bill that was introduced to
increase the borrowing limit through the state program; HB 56.
The sponsor said that HB 188 is for the small boat fisheries,
but an entity already exists to support that endeavor. A
division of investments representative should visit coastal
communities to help the young people, he suggested.
11:29:44 AM
NATASHA HAYDEN, stated support for HB 188 and said the evolution
of the fishing industry has been dramatic. Access to permits
may not be a benefit, as some communities have permits that
aren't being fished. One type of fishery doesn't support a
family and it would be important to have the opportunity for
access to different types of permits.
11:33:33 AM
ELSA SEBASTIAN, Fisherman, stated support for HB 188
paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
I'm 26-years old and I operate a power-troller. I
grew up fishing, and have spent every summer season of
my life working on boats. I started out hand-trolling
on a vessel and permit that was bought with PFD money
that my parents had saved for furthering my education.
I was fortunate to receive a full scholarship to
college, so I did not have to choose between fishing
and a college education.
I'm from a rural community, and as a troller I fish
around Southeast Alaska so I visit many small
communities, from Craig to Port Alexander, to Pelican.
The number of fishing operations in these small
communities is dwindling.
There's something about the way of life in rural
Alaska that makes people very risk adverse. Since
I've been fishing my own vessel I've had many
conversations with other young people, especially from
Prince of Wales, who are hoping to start running their
own operations. Always, these young people are
uncertain, even those who were from fishing families
aren't sure that they can pull it off their parents
had gotten into fishing when the opportunities were
easier to come by, and often in small communities
there aren't many role models of young people who have
bought in under the current circumstances.
I think the opportunity that could be realized through
leasing a permit from a Permit Trust would be
significant for young people from rural Alaska. For
starters, it would allow the young person several
years to figure out how to run a business. This is
one of the most challenging aspects of fishing,
figuring out how to make the numbers work, how to
invest in your boat and your business, how to save
money for the years when the fishing is poor. This is
especially daunting to young people in rural
communities, even if they're from fishing families.
Having a few years to figure this out with less risk
involved would ultimately allow fishermen to be better
business owners.
The other practicality to this, is that it would allow
a young person of limited means to invest in a fishing
vessel and in the first few years of fishing, be able
to have enough extra cash on hand to actually get the
boat in fine working order. Last year was my first
year fishing my new power-troller, it's a nice boat,
but it hadn't been fished for a couple of years and I
was pretty surprised by how many things went wrong
over the course of the season. The number of in-
season repairs I had to make took a huge toll on the
probability of my operation. After making my boat and
permit payments, it's been difficult to invest the
money needed to get the boat ready for this season.
This is a well-known challenge for young fishermen.
Young Alaskans who want to get into fishing are
passionate about it, theyre hard-workers, and often
they see fishing as a way of living in rural Alaska
for the long-term. Leasing a permit through a trust
would get them off to a good start.
11:36:51 AM
ALYSSA RUSSELL, Alaska Longline Fisherman's Association, stated
support of HB 188 and said it would provide a good means of
access to young fishermen, dovetailing with other programs that
are in place to encourage entry into the industry.
11:40:38 AM
TYLER EMERSON, Fisherman, stated support for HB 188 and said the
fishing dynamic in rural communities have seen an outmigration
of permits. The bill provides an opportunity to address that
issue and will offer necessary assistance to young people
entering the industry. It will be an important tool for
ensuring the future of the fleet.
11:44:31 AM
HEATHER MCCARTY, Representative, Central Bering Sea Fisherman's
Association, stated support for HB 188, and said that, although
the Pripilof Islands do not sustain salmon fisheries, the
association is adding its voice of support, as a community
development quota (CDQ) entity. The spirit and concept of HB
188 is in keeping with the mission of the CDQ program, which is
to provide economic and social benefits to the western Alaska
coastal communities through access to, and participation in, the
fisheries in the Bering Sea. The CDQ program provides these
opportunities for fishermen who participate in the federally
managed fisheries. The regional fisheries trust concept is
believed to be a means for bringing similar opportunities to the
coastal, salmon fishermen. Further, the proposed legislation
holds the potential to keep fishing rights in communities. She
urged committee support for passage of HB 188.
11:46:42 AM
CHAIR STUTES closed public testimony and announced HB 188 as
held.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB188 Sectional Analysis ver R 4.25.17.pdf |
HFSH 4/25/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 188 |
| HB188 Summary of Changes U to R 4.25.17.pdf |
HFSH 4/25/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 188 |
| HB188 ver R 4.25.17.pdf |
HFSH 4/25/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 188 |
| HB188 Supporting Document ALFA 4.25.17.pdf |
HFSH 4/25/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 188 |
| HB188 Supporting Document APICDA 4.25.17.pdf |
HFSH 4/25/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 188 |
| HB188 Supporting Document Kodiak Rural Leadership Forum Resolution 5.3.17.pdf |
HFSH 4/25/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 188 |
| HB188 Opposing Document SEAFA 5.10.17.pdf |
HFSH 4/25/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 188 |
| HB188 Supporting Document Young Fishermen.PDF |
HFSH 4/25/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 188 |
| HB188 Supporting Document CFEC Administrative Area Map.PDF |
HFSH 4/25/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 188 |
| HB188 Supporting Document Native Village of Ouzinkie.PDF |
HFSH 4/25/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 188 |
| HB188 Supporting Document City of Ouzinkie.PDF |
HFSH 4/25/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 188 |