Legislature(1993 - 1994)
01/28/1994 08:00 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 153: EXCHANGE RAW FISH FOR SEAFOOD PRODUCT CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the meeting was on teleconference with Anchorage, Cordova, Fairbanks, Sitka, Ketchikan, Homer, Valdez, and Kenai-Soldotna. He stated the committee would be hearing the committee substitute for SB 153 resources amended, a version of the Senate Bill 153 which passed the Senate, and noted this was the first public hearing on SB 153 in the House. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS pointed out that his office has drafted a proposed amendment to SB 153 for consideration by the committee. He said he worked closely with the sponsor, Senator Robin Taylor throughout the drafting process of the amendment and noted that although Senator Taylor could not be present at the meeting, he assured Chairman Williams he supports the amendment. Number 025 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS advised the committee that work on SB 153 will take more than one meeting, and stressed the proposed amendment will generate much discussion and debate. He proposed the amendment, in an effort to address concerns expressed about existing situations, and how those might be aggravated by passage of SB 153 unamended. He said everyone recognizes there are some problems, or perceived problems, but added there will be differing ideas on how to best address them. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS thought it to be worthwhile to get concepts and ideas on the table to discuss, and hoped the committee will begin constructive dialogue on whether there are things which the committee can do to address the problems without negative impacts. He expressed he is open to ideas about modifications to the amendment or the approach it proposes. Number 047 JOE AMBROSE, STAFF, SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR, read Senator Taylor's sponsor statement: "The nonresident sport fishery has experienced phenomenal growth. There were 132,008 nonresident sport fishing licenses issued in 1987. By 1992, that number had swollen to 208,516. A large percentage of that fish is boxed up and sent home. Some anglers take advantage of the cumbersome custom processing offered by a limited number of facilities, which must track an individual fish through the process. It's a time consuming and expensive form of processing that discourages value-added processing right here in Alaska. "This legislation was introduced at the suggestion of commercial processors, Native corporations, economic development groups and other interested parties. It would allow for modification of current regulations and should have a positive impact in both the seafood processing and tourism industries. SB 153 would allow the sport fisherman to exchange raw fish for processed fish of the same species. Such an exchange program would generate new jobs in the processing industry, adding to the economic base of coastal communities throughout Alaska. "SB 153 contains provisions to maintain the separation of sport caught fish from commercially and personal use caught seafood. Only in the initial round would processors be allowed to exchange commercially caught processed fish for raw sport fish. After that, the sport fish received in the exchange would be processed and used only in future exchanges. SB 153 contains language assuring the quality of both the raw and processed fish used in the exchange program. SB 153 would provide a mechanism by which fish currently being shipped out raw can be processed in Alaska, with all of the inherent economic benefits that go along with adding value to an Alaskan resource before it leaves the state. This bill passed the Senate in a 17-3 vote last May." MR. AMBROSE advised that Senator Taylor indicated he had no objection to the consideration of a proposed amendment, and in fact, supports the concept. He said Senator Taylor does object to the consideration of the proposal if it raises questions about SB 153 itself. Senator Taylor still believes in the original merits of the bill as it passed the Senate and asked that consideration not be lost in any debate. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES expressed concern about potential health hazards in the exchange of raw fish and asked what kind of measures will be taken to assure that fish exchanged and fish going to market is wholesome. MR. AMBROSE responded the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) was involved in developing SB 153. He said much of the bill addresses quality issues, and added that DEC will have oversight responsibilities. He stated the bill was amended at the request of DEC and referred the committee to page five, line ten. The definition of wholesome was debated for an extended period of time in the Senate Resources Committee. MR. AMBROSE noted there was a legitimate concern on the quality issue, as not only does the person doing the exchange need to be assured the product he takes home is of high quality, but the processor also needs to be assured that the product being delivered and processed is top quality. The processor will be reluctant to take fish not up to normal standards in the exchange. Number 108 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said line seven, on page six stipulates the exchange does not constitute a sale or barter and he wondered how the process will work. He expressed concern that the state may lose the opportunity in the future to tax a value-added effort. MR. AMBROSE responded the processor will be allowed to charge for the service, so it is not a barter. He stressed SB 153 calls for regulations which establish the volume of raw fish to processed fish. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if that exchange is meant to reflect simply the loss of weight in processing. MR. AMBROSE responded that is correct. Number 126 (CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON joined the committee at 8:20 a.m.) MR. AMBROSE again emphasized that Senator Taylor supports the proposed amendment and does not want the bill to get lost in the debate. Number 140 MARY McDOWELL, HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE AIDE TO REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS, explained SB 153 makes the transformation of raw fish into processed fish quicker, simpler and less expensive for sport fishermen, which is convenient but may also have potential drawbacks. The main concern is its potential for encouraging the taking of larger and larger quantities of fish per fishermen, particularly by nonresidents. She added that another concern is whether SB 153 will open the door for abuse by making it simple to circumvent bag and possession limits which now pertain only to fresh unprocessed fish. MS. McDOWELL stated there is growing concern from resident sportsmen, subsistence and commercial fishermen, and even charter guides about the rapid growth in the guided sport fishery and the often unknown impacts of that growth on the resources. She noted that everyone has heard complaints about the huge stacks of boxes containing sport fish in airports. Ms. McDowell said although the quantities may not really be as large as many fear, there is a perception among many Alaskans that visitors are taking home more fish than is necessary to fulfill their own needs and to keep Alaska's guided sport fishery and tourism industry healthy and growing. MS. McDOWELL explained SB 153 does not create those concerns, but it does intensify concerns by removing a current disincentive to taking maximum bag limits for the maximum amount of available time. She said that in turn, may cause increased concern and bad public relations for the guided sport fishery, and increased pressure and hassles for guides whose clients may demand more and more fish. MS. McDOWELL stated the goal of the amendment is to take the negatives of the exchange provisions and turn them into positives. The amendment proposes to adopt the provisions regarding the exchange of raw fish for processed fish, but delay their implementation until regulations have been established to set the limit of raw and processed sport fish that a person may have in their possession in the field or in transient to their permanent place of residence. Number 163 MS. McDOWELL continued that once fish reaches a person's home, it no longer counts in their possession limit enabling them to go back out for more. She said these newly defined possession limits are not mandated by the amendment, but if the Board of Fisheries does not expand possession limits to include processed fish, the provisions regarding the ability to trade in raw fish for processed fish do not take effect. MS. McDOWELL pointed out that the Senate recognized the problems mentioned and although they did not choose to amend the bill to address the problems, they did pass a letter of intent asking the Board of Fisheries to consider adoption of export limitations and the redefinition of possession limits. She stressed an "export" limit is often discussed as a means of addressing the question of large quantities being taken out of state, but added that an export limit is probably impossible to do without violating federal interstate commerce laws. Number 175 MS. McDOWELL said even if export limits are possible, the use of "in transit to one's permanent place of residence" has several advantages. Primarily it would ease the concerns about the Board of Fisheries setting possession limits which are too restrictive. She noted although export limits as low as one daily limit of each species has been proposed, the Board of Fisheries has never adopted it. She said all Alaskan sport fishermen would have to operate under the same limits as those taking their catch out of state. Therefore, the Board would have every reason to make the limits high enough to satisfy the majority of Alaskans. Number 182 MS. McDOWELL explained while many people fear the Board process, a determination of appropriate possession limits, as proposed by the amendment, would not be a sport versus commercial issue; or a sport versus guided sport issue. The Board's job would be to set a limit reasonable to users, while preventing abuse and exploitation. She pointed out that the amendment is not likely to be embraced by guides or lodges who cater to people who want to pay for their trip with fish and added in the long run, reasonable caps on what fishermen can take home will be good for everyone. MS. McDOWELL stressed there will still be no limit on boating, sightseeing, or catch and release fishing, nor on how many fish people can catch and eat while on a fishing adventure. It only relates to a determination of the quantity a fisherman can take home at the end. She noted the amendment relates only to sport caught fish, so possession limits would not pertain to fish caught under personal use or subsistence. MS. McDOWELL stated there is an argument that enforcement of possession limits, including processed fish, would be difficult to enforce which is probably true. She felt, however, most people are law-abiding and will comply, meaning quantities would be more under control immediately. She noted there will always be those who will take more than allowed, just as there are laws on possession of narcotics and other difficult to enforce laws. Occasionally, a blatant violation will be discovered and prosecuted which serves as a deterrent to others. MS. McDOWELL continued that under Alaska law, sport fish guides are not allowed to assist a client in any action contrary to Alaska sportfishing regulations, and are not likely to risk aiding someone in exceeding their legal limits. She told members it is important to note that most coastal states and Canada have possession or export limits, and most are very stringent. Many places have learned by spreading the quantity out, more boats and guides are sustained, serving more tourists. MS. McDOWELL summarized that the amendment is intended to mitigate potential concerns regarding instant exchange of raw sport fish for processed fish, and to address related policy issues. She said Representative Williams knows that any suggestion which is not business as usual will require a lot of discussion and consideration, but felt that it is the legislature's responsibility to provide leadership in ensuring the orderly, sensible development of sport fisheries in Alaska. Number 220 REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER recalled Ms. McDowell had said without a proposed amendment, SB 153 could not take place. MS. McDOWELL responded as SB 153 is written, it takes effect immediately. However, with the amendment the effective date will be delayed and the exchange provisions will not go into effect until after possession limits are redefined to include processed fish. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER affirmed the amendment will delay the effective date but otherwise, the current bill will take effect immediately. MS. McDOWELL replied that was correct. REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY asked if there were any indications the Board of Fisheries is willing to consider the matter in a timely manner. MS. McDOWELL responded the Board has had versions of export limits put before them in the past, but never passed any of them. She said one of the provisions of the proposed amendment is the Board can consider the limit definition out of cycle. The board is currently on a three-year cycle, so every subject is considered once every three years. She said sport fish regulations in each region will be considered over the next three years. Therefore, the next time the board is in a region for any reason, they could discuss that region's possession limit. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY noted the board is dominated by commercial fishermen who may not be in favor of the amendment and may decide not to consider it in a timely manner. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stressed the commercial fishermen do support the amendment. There is a letter from the Alaska Trollers Association supporting the amendment in committee member's packets. Number 261 REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON felt the commercial fishermen would support the amendment as it will limit the meat hunters. He thought the proposed amendment will achieve two goals. First, it attempts to set up more value-added processing in the state which gives a better accountability of the catch and ensure the quality of seafood products leaving the state; and at the same time, through the amendment and Letter of Intent, will stop the discriminatory overtaking of fish. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON expressed concern about tying the requirement for limitations of raw and processed fish in the amendment to the bill, because he is not certain the Board of Fisheries will be able to do that. He felt perhaps the limitations issue should be considered by itself but regardless, Representative Hudson wants to see SB 153 passed, as he thinks value-added processing is the right idea. MS. McDOWELL responded that is the reason the amendment addresses the subject as there is already a feeling that SB 153 aggravates the concern more by pushing it more in that direction. She stated it seemed an appropriate time to address the problem, a quality for quantity trade off. In exchange for the convenience, ease and an increased incentive to take more fish, a cap is attached. Number 290 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said his concern relates to whether the Board of Fisheries is prepared to set up the complicated controls and enforcement process necessary to limit the amount of fish shipped. MS. McDOWELL told members that other states have managed this issue, and although she has not talked to other states her understanding is, it usually is discussed as a possession limit--what a person has with them. She said people are currently spending extra money to ship fish. She pointed out SB 153 mainly creates an incentive for people because it is less expensive to have fish processed on the spot and take it with them, than to have the fish custom processed and shipped. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked if there was a fiscal note attached to the amendment MS. McDOWELL replied a fiscal note has not been requested. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER felt there would be a substantial fiscal note because of potential enforcement costs. Number 324 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS commented there are many current laws which are not enforceable, and this bill is an attempt to contain fish leaving the state. He said in past years, he flew to Seattle often and would have to walk around a large number of boxes containing hundreds of pounds of sport fish at the airport. REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN observed that currently people can sport fish and convert the fresh fish to processed fish. He asked what the bill and amendment will do to alter the fact that people catching fish have the opportunity to have it processed, but are not required to. Number 359 MS. McDOWELL stated currently, people who sport fish take it home fresh or frozen and at some point, say they can only use so much fresh or frozen fish. She said the disincentive currently is that people believe fresh or frozen fish is somewhat self limiting and there is a concern that if it is extremely easy to trade in for cans or smoked filets, etc. it is also easier to sell. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented people can do that now. MS. McDOWELL said people can have fish custom processed and pay for the shipping. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said people can exchange fish for cans right where they catch it. MS. McDOWELL responded people cannot do that currently, as it is illegal. Number 381 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated there seems to be a resistance to putting the bill and amendment together because of the delay in implementing value-added processing. He asked if dropping the restriction and allowing the Board of Fisheries to put the limitations in place when possible had been considered. He felt by doing that, it would not only enable SB 153 to pass, but also enable industry to develop the processing. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated sport fishermen are not permitted by law to sell their catch as they do not have commercial licenses. He felt the bill provided a legal ability for sport fishermen to exchange fish on some equal basis. He said the amendment adds a new element by attempting to control ongoing violations of the overtaking of fish and is very similar to the game limitations law currently in effect. Number 442 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER mentioned the control limit is based on bag limit and he felt it is inconsistent to allow a person to catch three fish a day, or two fish a day, but only allow that person to take out three or four of those salmon if the person stays for ten days. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said that was incorrect. The person could take out twenty. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER felt it was not realistic to believe the Board of Fisheries will set up regulations allowing a person to take out twenty fish if the person stays twenty days. Number 456 REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN noted the Board of Fisheries would be able to set limits lower than the twenty fish. He said earlier it was mentioned that the state currently has a possession limit on unprocessed fish, but he could not find the authorization for any possession limit in current law. Number 465 MS. McDOWELL responded the current law does not pertain to what a person can take with them. A person can have two daily bag limits in possession at one time. MS. McDOWELL commented that one additional concern had been expressed by commercial fishermen regarding SB 153 itself. That is under the exchange provisions of the bill, sport fishermen who currently often buy canned and smoked fish, which is commercially caught, would now exchange sport caught fish instead. This potential loss of a small market seems to be only a minor concern to commercial fishermen. Number 500 PAUL KRASNOWSKI, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SPORT FISH, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (ADF&G), commented the department views SB 153 as other than a resource management issue. He stated the bill and proposed amendment are extremely timely, based on the degree of public contact the division has had on the issues and through the Board of Fisheries process. Mr. Krasnowski said he has been involved with a number of Board of Fisheries meetings on the topics currently being discussed where regulatory action was proposed. He added that ADF&G does not currently have a formal position on SB 153 or the proposed amendment. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if there are existing possession limits in the law. Number 530 MR. KRASNOWSKI responded in current regulations the possession limit, which is the number of sport fish people can possess, is set and may or may not be different than the daily bag limit. A fish is considered in possession until such time it is processed, and processed is defined in such a way that it includes canned, smoked, hard frozen, not iced in a cooler, not lightly salted, but in some way put in a state of preservation. He said once the fish is processed, it no longer counts under the possession law. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked where in current law does the regulations come from. Number 559 MR. KRASNOWSKI replied Title 16 gives the Board of Fisheries the authority to set bag and possession limits dealing with raw or unprocessed fish. He said the Board then promulgates regulations under Title 5 that set the specific bag and possession limits for a particular species in a particular area of the state. MR. KRASNOWSKI remarked his understanding of the proposed amendment is, it would add an additional category, that being field limit. He explained the daily bag limit is the number of fish a person can take on a specific day; the possession limit is the number of unprocessed fish a person can have in his possession in total in the field; field limit is the number of fish processed and unprocessed a person can have in total, away from his permanent residence. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Title 16 is what is before the committee in the proposed amendment and stated he still cannot find where it says the Board is allowed to adopt possession limits. Number 598 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON pointed out that if subsection three, under section 4 in the draft amendment is reviewed, "setting quotas, bag limits, harvest levels, and sex and size limitations on the taking of fish," is essentially the authorization for the Board of Fisheries to do all the things being discussed, and the proposed amendment will add "setting limits on the amount of raw and processed fish taken in a sport fishery that may be in possession." He added that the "taken in a sport fishery" may be causing Representative Finkelstein to believe the Board is being given some extraordinary powers, but the intent is not to upset the establishment the Board already has for setting quotas, but rather to try and control the amount of fish which can be in possession in the field or transit. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Representative Hudson was correct, but it still was not clear to him that the Board can base possession limits on that because a quotas, a bag limits, harvest level, and a sex and size limitations are all different. Number 633 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated Ms. McDowell had earlier indicated that a person cannot exchange fresh fish for processed fish under current law, and asked when that law had been enacted. MR. KRASNOWSKI was not certain when the present law was enacted but under that law, a person can take a fish into a custom packer or processor and have his fish processed, but the custom processor is required by law to give the person his fish back. Therefore, it would not be an exchange, but rather a service provided to process fish. Number 685 BILL VALENTINE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, stated although he had just seen the bill and amendment that morning, he could answer questions. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Valentine to respond to Representative Mulder's concern about a fiscal note. MR. VALENTINE responded it will be no different than what the division has now, and it would be difficult to say it is going to cost a lot more as the cost could not be determined. He felt SB 153 and the proposed amendment will further address existing problems. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked how the bill and amendment will solve existing problems. MR. VALENTINE replied the amendment defines the possession limit in the field. TAPE 94-5, SIDE B Number 000 MR. VALENTINE continued that currently, processed fish are not counted in the possession limit and under this amendment they will be. He noted there will be record keeping by processors, which will give the division the opportunity to go back to the processors and determine the amount of fish going out. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked Mr. Valentine if he preferred the proposed amendment to the letter of intent because the amendment requires the Board of Fisheries to act before the law will go into effect. MR. VALENTINE responded that he did. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON questioned if bag limit is the amount a person can have in the field. MR. VALENTINE responded, until the fish is processed. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON clarified the amendment will require the Board of Fisheries to set up regulations on determining the quantity of processed fish which can be shipped. He noted that major grocers throughout the state sell whole fish and expressed concern how SB 153 and the amendment will affect them. Number 021 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked currently people do take advantage of the amount of fish taken out and asked if SB 153 and the amendment will be creating more of a problem. He noted that a person can conceivably go out with more fish than what he was entitled to convert and could simply say he bought extras. He said a person can take a lot more canned than fresh. MR. VALENTINE responded that could happen, but he felt the amendment and the bill are better than current law. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted that commercially caught fish in cans would be labeled. Number 047 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES advised members to look at the bottom of page four, and the top of page five, where the bill does specify that the exchange to product will be labeled prominently "Not For Sale". REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY commented if the concept of SB 153 is a good idea, the quicker it takes effect the better it will be, and added that the Letter of Intent asks the Board of Fisheries to consider regulations, but does not require regulations to be established before the law is effective. He questioned again, if the committee adopts the amendment which is dependent on the Board of Fisheries setting regulations, is the committee willing to wait the length of time required for the Board to act. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON expressed his support of SB 153, because it is obvious there is illegal commercialization of the sport fisheries ongoing, and the bill gives options for sports and commercial fishermen to legalize a practice which is already happening. He said whether or not the committee wants to modify the bill by controlling the amount of illegally caught fish being shipped out of the state through an amendment of the bill is a question yet to be answered. At this time, he is not convinced the bill and the amendment should go together. Number 090 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN commented on his earlier confusion and stated there is no difference between a possession limit and a bag limit in terms of raw fish. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS remarked in regard to getting the Board of Fisheries to act on regulations, it is not the committee's intention to put any pressure on the Board at this time. He said hopefully, the Board will agree SB 153 is good legislation and will act on it accordingly. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY commented SB 153 with the Letter of Intent becomes effective immediately, with the benefits of the bill, without the necessity for the Board to act. He felt it might be better not to do the amendment. PAUL JOHNSON, CHARTER BOAT OPERATOR, ELFIN COVE, requested to clarify several statements made earlier. He said presently, a person can take a fish into a processor and get the same fish back. What the bill does is expedite the exchange, enabling a person to take a fish in and immediately get something back. He explained the difference is, a person can take their bag limit in and get processed fish back immediately. MR. JOHNSON stated the people in Elfin Cove have watched the lodge industry grow extensively. He said one lodge out of the five there, has established its own limits for customers which are realistic and essential. He stated a person who is allowed two halibut and a couple of king salmon a day and takes home 300 pounds of product, that is a major export. MR. JOHNSON expressed his support of SB 153 and felt it was good for several reasons, including having a quality fish product in the lower 48 for people to eat, but felt it important that people not do it on a 300 pound level. He pointed out that Canada has an export limit and felt if Alaska's export limit was smaller, the charter industry would be impacted. Mr. Johnson stated it is not unrealistic for the state to have at least the same export limits as Canada. MR. JOHNSON pointed out that fish is a public resource no different than oil. He did not believe the state would casually give away barrels of oil. He felt the Board of Fisheries will be reasonable and timely. He said having some kind of nonresident export limit is imperative. Number 164 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER agreed with Mr. Johnson, but expressed concern on what the effect of an export limit will have on those living in Alaska. He asked if it was possible to have an export limit for nonresidents only. MS. McDOWELL responded export limits violate interstate commerce law and that is where the "in-transit to place of residence" comes into play. She said most Alaskans catch several days of fish, take it home and put it in the freezer and it does not count anymore; enabling that person to go out again. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated Mr. Johnson implied an export limit would only pertain to nonresidents. MS. McDOWELL replied the limit will not pertain to residents if they get home every few days. Number 187 KEN DOLE, MANAGING PARTNER, WATERFALL RESORT, testified via teleconference and informed members his resort manages up to 84 customers a day, operates 25 guided charter boats and offers (indiscernible) rates of $745 a day per person. He stated his company contributes $2 million annually to the local economies. MR. DOLE noted there has been a lot of discussion on the rampant violations on going in the sport industry, specifically targeted toward the guided sport industry. He requested ADF&G to verify the violations being discussed. He stressed his resort does not violate bag limits, and has had no violations in their ten year history. Mr. Dole said people continually talk about the large number of boxes of fish in the airport which he has never seen. MR. DOLE noted the Board of Fisheries already has the ability to establish possession and export limits. He said there is no proof that sport take will increase due to SB 153, and felt the whole concept appears to be an effort to solve a current perceived problem. He felt it is an issue which should be solved by the Board of Fisheries, and added that the issue has been brought before the Board many times. The Board has determined a limit is not necessary. MR. DOLE stated based on the information received from Chairman Williams office on this SB 153 and recent memos related to moratoriums, it is obvious there is an effort to further limit guided sport fishing. He recommended trashing the entire bill and leaving the guided sport industry alone. Number 235 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS responded that no one is trying to restrict limits in the bill, but only trying to contain the limits. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Mr. Dole if he believed, especially from Silver Lining's point of view, that a legal ability to immediately exchange a fresh frozen fish for a comparable quantity of processed fish is a constructive and positive measure. MR. DOLE replied that SB 153 will provide some benefits for the guided sport, the resident sport and the commercial processors. He said the undertone of the amendment is an attempt to further restrict the amount of fish that guided sport can take, and felt there is no reason to tie the two together. If there is a desire to further limit guided sport fishing, then develop a new bill and let SB 153 stand on its own merits. Mr. Dole noted there is no proof that the guided sport industry and take will dramatically increase because of the ease in exchanging fish for value- added fish. Number 270 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said in trying to understand what the new limits on guided sport fishing may be, he asked Mr. Dole if the new limit will be on the export of processed fish. MR. DOLE said currently, possession limits only apply to unprocessed fish and the act of processing fish means cleaning and freezing the fish. Therefore, as long as fish is brought back every day, processed and put in the freezer, it no longer counts against the possession limit. He stressed when all product, including processed product, is contained in a possession limit, the amount a person can take is going to be further limited, if they cannot take it to their place of residence. He noted the Board of Fisheries is and has been controlled by commercial fishing interests. Number 303 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated he understood the concern in theory, but asked Mr. Dole in practice, under status quo, if there are a significant number of his clients exporting large amounts of processed fish. MR. DOLE replied his clients stay an average three and one- half days and during that time, especially at the peak of silver season, it is not unusual for a guest to limit out each day of their stay. He said therefore a guest could take six silvers, six pinks and two halibut per day, but felt no one gets all of their limits every day. He stated 90 percent of the resort's guests are repeat or referral and as guests continue to come back, they begin limiting themselves. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he appreciated Mr. Dole's comments, but the question asked was a little different. He asked if current clients are taking out the same volume in processed fish. MR. DOLE said the amendment will include all fish in possession limits, and noted that currently there are possession limits on a variety of species and cited the current one a day king salmon possession limit. He explained if the one a day possession limit remained in place with the redefinition of possession limit to include both processed and unprocessed fish, his guests could only take two king salmon during their entire trip. MR. DOLE responded many of his guests custom process fish through Silver Lining. He believed more of his guests would use custom processing if they were able to exchange at the resort. He does not believe the exchange opportunity will increase clients desire to catch more fish. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN clarified the only change which will be made is a limit on the export of processed fish and stated that all of the other aspects are already allowed under existing law. Number 368 MR. DOLE affirmed there currently are possession limits on raw fish and the change proposed, as he understands it, is the possession limit will now apply to all fish whether processed or unprocessed. Again, he reiterated that a fish is processed merely by cleaning and freezing a fish. BILL FOSTER, PRESIDENT, SITKA CHARTER BOAT OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, testified via teleconference and stated his group has not met and therefore has not taken a stand on the issue at hand. He thought perhaps SB 153 could increase the export of fish as it will be cheaper. He stated he could not remember a client who did not want his own fish and felt the bill would give some options to processors. Mr. Foster expressed concerns regarding export limits. He said the North Pacific Council is also talking about similar issues. Number 448 JAMES HESTON, VALDEZ, testified via teleconference and expressed his support of SB 153, but said he has concerns relating to the amendment. He stated the amendment will only allow a client to fish for two days during a three day stay and also gives the Board of Fisheries the authority to adopt regulations without input from user groups. He felt placing possession limits in the export arena will do more damage to the tourist and sport fishing industry rather than solve the problem of meat hunters. Number 495 ED DERSHAM, PRESIDENT, ANCHOR POINT CHARTER ASSOCIATION, testified via teleconference and stated the large quantity of fish leaving the state is a perceived problem, not a documented one. There is no documented evidence to support the claim that there is any widespread abuse of this nature. He said, on the contrary, the ADF&G statistics support the opposite contention. During a recent meeting of the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, Halibut Charter Working Group, ADF&G biologist Doug Vincent-Lang stated that a suggested annual limit on halibut of eight, ten or twelve would have a negligible effect on the overall sport harvest in Alaska. MR. DERSHAM pointed out that in Cook Inlet, an annual limit on king salmon of five per angler, protects the fishery from this perceived problem. He said the current bag limits on salmon and halibut in the state adequately protect the resource from any biological problems. He added that if any biological problems do arise, the ADF&G deals with them via emergency orders regulations. Number 521 MR. DERSHAM stated this is not a biological issue but a back door attempt to reallocate fish from sport to commercial fishing interests via an export proposal that is thinly veiled as something other than an export proposal. He said Ms. McDowell stated to him that the Board of Fisheries can be trusted to set reasonable limits under the amendment because they would have no motivation to do otherwise. Mr. Dersham pointed out that past export proposals before the Board of Fisheries, backed by commercial fishing interests, have sought to set export limits at one daily bag limit of sport-caught fish. He felt, given that fact and that the Board of Fisheries is still dominated by commercial fishing interests, sport fishermen and charter operators in Alaska cannot support the amendment with the unreasonable hope that any limits set would be fair to sport fishermen. MR. DERSHAM remarked as a lodge owner, his business is based on clients who stay four to seven days. Each fisherman returns home with no more than five king salmon and ten halibut. He said his clients pay approximately $250 a day per angler for the package. Any export limit set lower than these amounts of fish would severely impact his business. He stressed his fishing packages reflect an economically sound utilization of the resource and any restrictions that damage the business without biological justification are unreasonable. Number 545 MR. DERSHAM stated the goal of SB 153 seems to be a sound one, as creating a situation encouraging a value added factor to the fisheries resource makes good economic sense. He felt the proposed amendment does not and has potential for unreasonable harm to sport fishermen, charter operators and lodge owners. He asked since there is no biological problem and the raw fish for processed fish trade makes good economic sense to the state, why is the amendment needed and why shorten the number of days a nonresident angler would choose to stay and fish in the state. He stressed every day a person stays, he contributes to the state's economy in many different ways, and every fish he catches represents a wise economic utilization of the resource. MR. DERSHAM concluded that the provision in the amendment allowing the limit to be set by the Board of Fisheries statewide without regard to regulations regarding scheduling of areas of the state is unfair and further raises the suspicions of sport fishermen. He stressed it seems to encourage the Board to take up the issue in a meeting at a site and time that limits access to the process for those most affected by it. Number 572 BILL HEARD, AUKE BAY, said he was speaking on behalf of a nonprofit group of concerned citizens primarily of traditional sport fish anglers, the Alaska Residence Sport Anglers Association. He stressed a matter of much concern to the group is the rapid growth of the commercial guided sport industry and the vast quantities of sport caught fish the industry is helping to export from the state. He stated SB 153 concerns the exchange of raw fish legally caught in sport fisheries for processed fish. MR. HEARD remarked that SB 153 contains many good points and if enacted into law, could provide a very useful service that many in the sport fishing community, including both guided and unguided anglers, would appreciate and use. However, he believed that by itself, SB 153 could create a mechanism which could be abused under current legal definitions of possession limits. By itself, SB 153 might cause even greater amounts of sport fish to be shipped from the state by greedy, misguided anglers. He stressed the proposed amendment is an essential component which must be included in the bill. MR. HEARD noted one of the main reasons he chooses to live and work in Alaska is the access to participate in recreational sport fishing as a resident angler. He stressed his family all have strong dependence on access to sport fishing in Alaska's waters and to the frugal and wise use of their catch as an important part of their lifestyle, diet and deep appreciation and respect for the fishery resources. He said current definitions of the sport fish possession limit allow clients of a fishing lodge or charter operation, with freezing or other facilities for preserving fish, to ship home an amount of fish limited only by the number of days fished. A ten day trip would allow a client to take home ten daily bag limits often amounting to several hundred pounds of fish. MR. HEARD pointed out that sport angling for king salmon in Southeast Alaska is currently under tightly controlled catch quotas and there is strong and growing competition between guided sport and nonguided sport anglers for access to the limited number of fish. He said with a two day fish bag limit, a ten day lodge trip could involve shipping up to twenty large king salmon out of the state by one client. He stressed many resident Alaska anglers spend a lifetime of satisfied and highly rewarding sport fishing and never catch half that amount of king salmon in total. MR. HEARD told members there are anecdotal accounts of guided sport operators stockpiling sport caught fish for present and future clients and accounts of vacation cost recovery schemes through the illegal sale of sport caught Alaska fish in other areas. He summarized that SB 153 could provide a useful and welcomed service to the recreational fishing community of Alaska, only if the proposed amendment regarding possession limits on raw and processed fish taken legally in a sport fishery is included in the bill. Number 641 (CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE joined the committee meeting at 9:40 a.m.) ROD BERG, SOLDOTNA, testified via teleconference and expressed his opposition to the proposed amendment and said he is opposed to possession or export limits. He said the amendment appears to be a back door approach by commercial fishing interests to stymie the sport fishing entity particularly the sport charter industry. He felt the state had no business dictating the amount of fish a resident or nonresident chooses to possess as long as that amount is within biological limits set within ADF&G regulations and added that this is the United States, not Canada. He stated if the amendment was reviewed by the Attorney General, it would be found to be unconstitutional. Mr. Berg respectfully requested that the proposed amendment be removed from SB 153. MR. BERG felt the amendment is an attempt to create a new, unenforceable law and for those individuals who eat a lot of fish, it will force them to buy commercially caught fish. He said it seems to be a price fixing scam promulgated by greedy commercial interests. He stressed his guests request a professionally processed vacuum sealed product and this service is rendered by a commercial cannery in the Kenai area. He said he can prove that over 50 percent of his guests also purchase additional commercially caught products. MR. BERG stressed if the export limit becomes a law there will be much confusion and the liability to the state of Alaska will be great. He said with the present Alaskan economy, anyone supporting this type of legislation ought to have their motives closely scrutinized. TAPE 94-6, SIDE A Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON felt the primary goal of SB 153, not including the amendment, is to legalize something which is already happening. For example, many tourists now illegally go to a custom processor and receive another person's fish in return for theirs. He asked Mr. Berg if he felt SB 153 does something beyond that. MR. BERG responded that if the amendment were left out he felt SB 153 does what Representative Hudson described. He stressed he was not positive the present law actually reads that the current situation is illegal. Number 024 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS reminded Mr. Berg that the Committee is scrutinizing both SB 153 and the proposed amendment as well as taking public testimony, and hopefully will go in the right direction. JOHN GOODHAND, VICE PRESIDENT, VALDEZ CHARTER BOAT ASSOCIATION, testified via teleconference and stated SB 153, with the proposed amendment, will be another law that cannot be enforced and suggested if the state wants to spend money, give it to ADF&G Wildlife Division to enforce current laws. He felt the proposed amendment will not just affect nonresident tourists and Alaska coastal communities but also people in the interior. He advised the committee if they want to protect the resource, whether it be halibut or salmon, they should look at personal use fishery first. MR. GOODHAND felt maybe charter fishermen and guides in the interior should be allowed personal use fish. He said with the price of oil down, the state had better look at tourism as a viable economic resource. He expressed opposition to the proposed amendment and said SB 153 could possibly provide benefits to certain areas including jobs, although he cannot support trading fresh sport caught fish for commercial fish. Mr. Goodhand stressed the boxes of fish in airports is a problem occurring more in Southeast Alaska rather than other parts of the state. He felt restrictions on the sport industry should be based on biological reasons only. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES told Mr. Goodhand his points in regard to fisherman in the state who live away from the coast and issues related to the tourism industry are well taken. ROBERT CANDOPOULOS, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and expressed his opposition to the proposed amendment. He felt possession limit is a fragile issue which should be researched and decided upon only after data is collected. He said the only fish boxes he sees in Seward are boxes coming off commercial boats. Mr. Candopoulos expressed support of SB 153 without the amendment. He also felt the charter and tourism industry are industries Alaskans should give attention to. He asked if there is any available data from ADF&G which asserts there is a large problem with the export of fish in Alaska. (TELECONFERENCE DISCONNECTED) Number 128 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE told members in his past work as an air taxi pilot, he has personally carried many 120 quart coolers full of king salmon fillets out of the Susitna River drainage, which went with Europeans back to Europe. He suspected those people paid for their trips with that fish. (TELECONFERENCE BACK ON LINE) Number 145 DAN McQUEEN, OWNER & OPERATOR, SALMON BUSTERS CHARTER SERVICE, testified via teleconference and expressed opposition to SB 153 with or without the proposed amendment. He stressed his customers want their own fish as they paid to catch it, caught it, and saw it was properly iced and cleaned. He recalled the large increase in nonresident license sales and pointed out that the nonresident catch rates were not included. He believed ADF&G data will show nonresident anglers actually catch less than residents. MR. McQUEEN said enforcement and costs associated with enforcement of the amendment would be better used to grow more salmon. He felt the only way SB 153 will work is to require each and every sport caught fish be processed. He stated SB 153 and the proposed amendment should be considered individually not together. Number 166 JEFF KING, REPRESENTATIVE, FISHING GUIDES, SOLDOTNA AREA, agreed with Representative Hudson's comments regarding the value and quality of fish, nurturing tourism, etc. relating to SB 153. He said in regard to the proposed amendment, nonresident anglers are affluent people and do not need to be greedy as they can go to the store and buy all the fish they want. He felt those people should not be treated with that kind of mentality. He stated he believes and felt others believe that legislators should not be involved with allocation. Mr. King stressed if the issue does go to the Board of Fisheries, there are creative ways to accomplish the goal not yet discussed. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS advised that SB 153 and the proposed amendment will be heard again and those wishing to testify will have additional opportunities.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|