Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/27/1996 08:31 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 547 - MORATORIUM ON S.E. DIVE FISHERIES CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAM K. "BILL" WILLIAMS stated his intent to move HB 547 out of committee. He requested a motion to adopt the committee substitute for HB 547, version (F), for purposes of discussion. Number 131 REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA moved for the adoption of CSHB 547. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered. Number 150 CHERYL SUTTON, Legislative Staff to Representative Williams, read the sponsor statement into the record: "House Bill 547 would place a moratorium on new entrants into four of the Southeast Alaska dive fisheries. It would include sea urchin, sea cucumber, geoduck and abalone. The Southeast dive fishery is a discrete fishery different from other parts of the state and the participants are unique to Southeast. MS. SUTTON read, "Commercial fishermen are attempting to diversify within commercial fisheries. In the Southeast dive fisheries, diversification is occurring by fishing for more than one species. This increased interest and effort caused the number of divers to be precariously high at the end of 1995. MS. SUTTON said, "The purpose of this moratorium is to set aside a period of time for examination of each aspect of the Southeast dive fisheries absent concern of increasing harvest effort. There is more than keen interest in the dive fisheries from residents and non-residents. The Department of Fish and Game has been gathering assessment and management data on these fisheries. A moratorium on new entry into the Southeast Alaska dive fisheries is necessary to allow a proper review and analysis of the sea cucumber, abalone, sea urchin and geoduck fisheries. MS. SUTTON continued, "The Southeast Alaska sea urchin fishery cannot be opened due to lack of research and management. The large number of new divers interested in this fishery would be difficult to manage and may threaten the sustained yield management of the sea urchin resource. Number 263 MS. SUTTON proceeded, "House Bill 547 places a four-year moratorium on entrants into the sea cucumber, sea urchin, geoduck and abalone fisheries. The moratorium is necessary to provide an opportunity to investigate alternative means of fishing effort regulation that may be more appropriate for these fisheries. MS. SUTTON said, "Coordination of available data and investigation into the management of these fisheries should provide long-term opportunities to the state and its residents. These valuable fishery resources need special attention. House Bill 547 would provide the mechanism for the development of sustainable fisheries which provide the best economic opportunity to the participants and the best economic return for the state." Number 315 MS. SUTTON briefed the committee on the CS for HB 547 explaining changes from the original bill. Section 1. Legislative Findings, adds: (6) individuals who participated in the abalone, sea cucumber, and geoduck fisheries in Southeast Alaska during 1994 and 1995, would have been likely to participate in a sea urchin fishery during those years if a fishery had occurred; (7) current economic dependence on a fishery is best demonstrated by recent participation in, and economic reliance upon, a fishery;. Number 355 MS. SUTTON explained, Section 2 (d) adds: (1) during calendar year 1992 or 1993, the applicant commercially harvested sea urchin in the Southeast Alaska sea urchin fishery while holding the appropriate interim-use permits;. Number 369 MS. SUTTON briefed the committee on the intent of the legislation: Section 1. Legislative Findings that support placing a moratorium on these four species. Section 2. Deals with how it will be executed. We have created two years for each species for qualifying years to fish during the moratorium. If someone has fished for sea cucumber, geoduck, or abalone during calendar years 1994-1995, they would be allowed to fish during the moratorium. For sea urchin, because there has not been a commercial fishery in recent years and they are in an assessment by test fishery mode, the bill goes back to calendar years 1992 and 1993 to be consistent with qualifying years. The geoduck qualification was extended through January 1996 because the fishery was occurring then and there were residents who were participating in the fishery. MS. SUTTON explained that the Limited Entry Commission does not know at this time whether it will be necessary to limit entrance into these fisheries and the moratorium will provide the time to examine the issue. There is a real concern within the Department of Fish and Game on the increased effort. There is an enormous amount of interest in these resources from places like Maine, Oregon, Washington State and California. They have harvested some of these resources in other parts of the country and some in Alaska. Alaska needs to get a handle on the management of these fisheries and the moratorium will buy the time to do that. Number 536 CO-CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN wanted to know if HB 547 sunsets limited entry. MS. SUTTON replied that the bill allows people who have participated in those dive fisheries during the qualifying years laid out in the bill to participate in the fisheries during the period of the moratorium which is up to four years. Any one of those species can come out by the legislature creating another law to bring them out. It just limits the people during the period of the moratorium, it does not necessarily mean that the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission will find that each one of these species needs to have a limited access by whatever means. It just is for the period of the moratorium. After that period, the findings will determine who, what, when and where. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN interjected, so it is limited entry for a four year period. Number 601 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted the arrival of Representatives Ogan, Kott and Austerman. Number 605 REPRESENTATIVE DON LONG wondered if this legislation would be extension of the limited entry program. MS. SUTTON stated that the moratorium falls under the commission's present duties and responsibilities. What the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission will do during the time the moratorium is in place, is they will work with the participants in the fishery, the Department of Fish and Game, the Board of Fisheries and their own staff to look at the available information and make determinations about the effort in these fisheries. Number 662 REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN professed his support for the concept of the moratorium saying that the state needs to look at more of its fisheries, especially, the new fisheries, and make sure that we do not disallow what the state has done in the past with crab and shrimp. He advocated private enterprise, but stressed that this is a finite resource, and by allowing the private sector to come in and devour everything, we end up destroying a fishery. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN pointed out that the bill will give the state time to protect the fisheries while fishing continues and information can be gathered. He contended that this is not a limited entry system in the true sense but it give us a moratorium. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN deduced that at the end of four years, there may be fisheries that do not need to be limited. We do not know that because of how we, as legislators, continue to cut the Department of Fish and Game's budget. For example, there are only two crab biologists in the state of Alaska; one crab biologist is retiring and the department is leaving that position vacant because of budget constraints. Number 777 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES questioned the eligibility requirements of the moratorium suggesting that the bill appears to gerrymander the dates and recommended the committee look at a definite interval. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said the bill seems to allow people to cross fish sea urchins and asked for an explanation. MS. SUTTON replied that sea urchins were commercially fished a number of years ago and were not fished very strongly because the market did not support the fishery. Sea urchins are in a test fishery mode, with no commercial opportunity. The Department of Fish and Game is trying to investigate how they might manage this fishery. MS. SUTTON referred to Legislative Finding (6) stating that the sea urchin fishery was treated differently, Representative Williams did not want to exclude the folks who did participate before it went into an assessment mode. That is why the qualification years go back to the early calendar years in 1992 and 1993. The bill is cross-pollinated because the folks who were fishing in the other dive fisheries probably would have fished in the sea urchin fishery had it been open for that opportunity. MS. SUTTON explained the reason the geoduck fishery was extended is because the season was open in January 1996. There were local residents who participated and Representative Williams did not want to exclude those folks because the fishery was open. Number 949 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES wanted to know if the abalone fishery closes at the end of the calendar year. MS. SUTTON deferred to Frank Homan, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES referred to Ms. Sutton's comments about cross pollination of sea urchins and asked why geoduck and abalone were not considered. MS. SUTTON answered because of the numbers of participants in those fisheries, and the fact that they were open continuously without interruption, our office felt the sea urchin was a special circumstance. Number 1080 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN supported the fact that the state needs to come to terms with its fisheries. He wondered if there was potential for the permits to increase in value. MS. SUTTON explained that these are not permits. She elaborated that the purpose of the moratorium is to buy time, without additional pressure, to make proper assessments. She agreed with Representative Austerman's comments about there being no money to manage a sea urchin fishery. There is assessment data, but there is no money to manage that fishery. All of those things have to be figured out and they have to be figured out in an atmosphere where there are no additional pressures on the resource. A moratorium provides that protection. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN commented that his line of questions were for educational purposes rather than argument. Has there been a consideration for a two-year moratorium? Of those who do not qualify, are those fishermen supportive of the moratorium? Number 1189 MS. SUTTON claimed that there are folks who do not qualify under one fishery, or another and see the need for, and support, the moratorium. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked if the permits were transferable. MS. SUTTON advised that the permits were not transferable. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN pointed out that if the permits were not transferable, then there was no value to them. Number 1235 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked that staff point that out in the bill. MS. SUTTON stated that the limited entry commissioner would provide more information on that concern. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if limiting the fishing seasons was an alternative to enacting a moratorium. MS. SUTTON said the seasons are severely limited, abalone is, basically, nonexistent at this time, in terms of the opportunity to fish in it. The sea cucumber is, maybe, one day a week during a select period of time. The department has gone to every management tool they can to hone down opportunity. Representative Williams wants to look at all of the fisheries and see if there is a better management regime, and it is hard to do that under pressure of not knowing how many participants there are going to be in that period of time. Number 1302 FRANK HOMAN, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, referred to statistical tables in committee packets and encouraged members to use them as reference. MR. HOMAN began, What is happening in dive fisheries is sort of a classic example of fisheries that are headed toward a distressed situation. In the statistics, the average harvests per individual, or the average harvest per participant, is declining which means there is more and more pressure being put on the resource and the number of participants are increasing. MR. HOMAN informed that the abalone season is almost down to no season at all because there is no ability to limit the number of participants in the fishery. MR. HOMAN related that the sea urchin fishery has been closed for two years because the department cannot control the number of participants into that fishery. In the bill, the other dive fisheries would be allowed to fish in that fishery, that is, only if it opens. As long as the sea urchin fishery remains closed, even those eligible under this bill would not be allowed to fish. Whether that clears itself up in the four year moratorium or not, it is possible that there would not be a sea urchin fishery in that time except for the test fishery. Number 1433 MR. HOMAN applauded Representative Williams office, the department and the divers, forming a unit in Southeast Alaska, working toward alternatives in the long term. MR. HOMAN said the moratorium just stops the procedure of entry into the fishery but does not necessarily lead to a limitation of any of the four fisheries in question. Number 1518 MR. HOMAN returned to the origin of limited entry program: two criteria set out in statute say a fishery can be limited for two purposes: resource conservation and the economic health of the fishery. If the fisheries are in distress, they can easily be closed completely by the department so that no one is able to participate. However, in the purpose of the limited entry commission purpose they do add a balance in there saying the economic health of the fishery. What the legislature was trying to craft at that time was to allow the fishermen in Alaska to participate in a balance with the resource so that both would remain healthy and have a sustained yield over time. Number 1594 MR. HOMAN clarified for Chairman Green that during the time of the moratorium, the commission would issue "interim use permits" and an interim use permit has no value and they are nontransferable except in some very extenuating circumstances, such as a medical reason. Number 1671 MR. HOMAN explained a reason for the bill is also the timeliness of the legislature being able to act on a moratorium. By this bill, the legislature can declare the moratorium as of a specific date. The commission has a statute that allows for moratorium, but it is a very complex statute and requires the Department of Fish and Game and the commissioner to make findings that a moratorium should be established, it also requires the Board of Fisheries to authorize the department to petition the commission to act on a moratorium. MR. HOMAN predicted that testimony from the divers would indicate that time is of the essence and the longer that these fisheries remain open to entry, the higher the numbers will be and the worse the situation will be. Number 1692 MR. HOMAN related that there is a model available for a moratorium. Four years ago, the legislature adopted a moratorium for the Southeast Dungeness Crab fishery and during that four year period, the commission was able to work with the department and the fleet and come up with an acceptable solution to the increasing numbers. He encouraged legislative consideration of HB 547. Number 1728 REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES understood Alaska's constitution, Article A, Section III, that the fish and game resources of the state belong to all the people for the common use and are to be managed under the sustained yield principle. She asked whether it is not, historically, true that the Department of Fish and Game is mandated to manage under the sustained yield principle through their own bags and limits of harvests rather than allowing one fisherman an opportunity over another one. Number 1768 MR. HOMAN replied that Representative Barnes had hit on a key element of the reason for the passage of the Limited Entry Act which was that there was no ability until 1972 to limit the number of fishermen. There was no way, other than closing seasons, eventually, to keep the fisheries economical. A constitutional amendment in 1972 allowed a restriction on the number of entrants, the reasoning was that at least, for those people in there, there would be an economically viable fishery. Number 1873 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to the limited entry law that was passed, as a constitutional amendment by the people, and asked if that law was for a specific fishery or a specific species. MR. HOMAN responded that the intent was for fisheries of Alaska. Number 1852 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES alluded to limited entry permits that apply to salmon fishing and asked if the permits were costly, almost impossible to buy back once they are sold to out of state fishermen. She asked, "How did you determine through the limited entry commission that one permit was not transferrable but another permit was transferrable." She wanted to know how the limited entry commission determined that it had the right to limit fisheries into this fishery. Number 1870 MR. HOMAN answered that the constitution allowed the limited entry commission to limit any commercial fishery in the state. In order to do that, the commission has to investigate that fishery and do substantial research into who is participating and the resource that is available. These determinations take a long time to investigate and to consult with the Department of Fish and Game in each specific fishery. MR. HOMAN informed, at the very beginning, there were 19 different salmon fisheries that the legislature said were distressed and the commission did not have to do the economic analysis because it was, at the time, evident that they were distressed, particularly, Bristol Bay fisheries were in a disaster. The legislature told the commission on those specific fisheries they could limit without the analysis. Since that time, on every fishery that has been limited, the commission had conducted that analysis and public hearings. Number 1966 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES reasoned that the bill establishes limited entry for a short period of time. He questioned the need for a bill when it appears that the commission has the authority to establish a four year moratorium. MR. HOMAN explained one of the problems with the moratorium statute is that the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission cannot instigate the moratorium. It requires a request from the commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game and the approval of the Board of Fish. The moratorium legislation was adopted at a time when there was concern about fisheries limitations and, particularly, what the federal agencies were doing. The commission was restricted from the ability to adopt a moratorium and, on our own initiative, we cannot adopt a moratorium. It has to come from outside the agency. Number 2077 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN reiterated that if the Department of Fish and Game had the staff to research these fisheries to find out how big they are and what they can sustain, the state would not be in this kind of situation. He argued that until that time, the state has to have the ability to come in and stop the over fishing of a resource. Even within the four year period, it will be difficult for ADF&G and the commission to come up with guidance because they do not have the money to do the work that needs to be done. Number 2150 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked for clarification on the interim use permits. MR. HOMAN responded, Title 16, Chapter 43, the commission issues permits for all fisheries in the state but only some of them are limited. The permits that are not permanent limited entry permits are called interim use permits and they are not transferrable. Number 2233 GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Department of Fish and Game, stated the department's support of the concept of the moratorium and explained the department's perspective to the problems that occur in managing these fisheries: Effort, what kind of resource you are harvesting, what its productivity is, what level of harvest it can sustain and then what kind of effort is going to be harvesting that resource so that effort can be matched through season and bag limits to what the resource can sustain over time. MR. BRUCE stated that in these particular fisheries, these organisms, we do not know a lot about them. They are difficult to study, they are on the bottom of the ocean. We do know that, generally, they are slow growing organisms susceptible to over harvest. For example, geoducks can live to be as old as 100 years and, typically, when they are harvested they are about 30 years old. It does take a long time for the organisms to reach the point at which they are harvestable. Number 2300 MR. BRUCE apprised that, in season, it is important to gather harvest data, to track progression of the fishery and to take the available surplus and not exceed it. In cases where the fishery occurs too rapidly, by the time the department assesses where we are in the harvest, we have already exceeded the quota. Repeated situations lead to stressing and over harvesting the resource, a declining resource, and, ultimately, a resource that is trouble. MR. BRUCE continued, in the dive fisheries, the Board of Fisheries, has attempted to spread the fishery out by limiting the number of days in the week that a fishery could occur. Those measures were not successful because of the rapidly, increasing interest in these fisheries because of the high value of the product. Other, similar fisheries along the coast, in California, are going to limited entry. People are being forced out of those fisheries and they are looking for opportunities to diversify. Number 2362 MR. BRUCE further stated that the moratorium would enable the Department of Fish and Game to stabilize the fishery, conduct the fishery in a more orderly manner, one that would be more matched to the department's ability to do management and assessment with the staff that it has. He hoped that in four years the legislature might provide the department with more money to enable them to hire more staff to manage the fisheries more effectively. Number 2385 MR. BRUCE commented that the Board of Fisheries adopted, several years ago, a regulation dealing with high impact emerging fisheries which directed the department not to open those kinds of fisheries unless the department had harvest assessment data and was managing the fishery on a sustained basis. That is why the sea urchin fishery was closed after its initial opening, the department did not have an assessment program in place. The principle of managing these fisheries is to prepare a crop assessment to determine what the standing crop is, what kind of productivity there is, and what percentage of that can be taken on a sustained basis and manage from that. MR. BRUCE stated the assessment was not in place for the sea urchins and, therefore, did not have the fundamental element needed to manage on a sustained basis. So, the fishery was not opened. The department is working to complete management assessments in several districts in Southeast Alaska. It is one option for doing these kind of assessments without any additional general fund support. Number 2448 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES wanted to know how much time it takes for the commissioner to request a moratorium. MR. BRUCE said the commissioner has to submit a request to the Board of Fisheries and that would have to be added to their agenda. In this case, the board is concluding their meeting cycle for this year, so the earliest that it could go to them would be next winter and then allowing them time to act upon it would take a year or two ....(change tape) TAPE 96-43, SIDE B Number 000 MR. BRUCE commented that Phil Daugherty, Department of Fish and Game biologist would be available for questions. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced that he would hear from witnesses on the teleconference network. Number 077 CLAY BEZENEK, President, Ketchikan Chapter - Southeast Alaska Harvest Divers Association, testified on behalf of the association encouraging the passage of HB 537. He agreed with Representative Austerman that ADF&G is a great gun for the fishermen, but if the department has no ammo, then they are not too effective. Number 140 SCOTT HEITMAN testified from Ketchikan thanking Representative Williams and his staff for introducing HB 547. He said we all want a fishery group that will provide us with a decent living. We believe this bill provides for a stable fishery in which Alaska fishermen can invest capital. Number 181 JAMES L. LECRONE testified from Sitka in support of HB 547. He stated that there is too much pressure in the dive fisheries and this bill looks like a good alternative. Number 190 LARRY TRANI, President, Sitka Chapter - Alaska Harvest Divers Association, testified on behalf of the members and stated that all 45 members currently dive in one or more of the dive fisheries and are near unanimous in support of passage of HB 547 as written. Number 229 ANDREW KITTAMS, Petersburg diver, testified on behalf of the Petersburg Chapter, Southeast Alaska Harvest Divers, in support of HB 547. He said, we have seen decreased fishing time and, almost, a 50 percent increase in all of our fisheries last year. It is just not equitable to put money into our vessels to make them safe, as well as the equipment, to go out and harvest these resources. MR. KITTAMS addressed Representative Davies question about the bill segregating between abalone, sea urchins, geoducks and sea cucumbers. He said, there are 120 people fishing geoducks that would be eligible under this moratorium. We were only allowed four days of harvest last year, at six hours a day, for a total of 24 hours. In the sea cucumber fishery, there are about 400 people fishing sea cucumbers and were allowed about eight, one day openings, one day per week. He said if those 400 harvesters were also allowed to fish geoducks or abalone, it would totally decimate the amount of time for those of us who have put in the time and effort to learn these fisheries. They are segregated because there are different numbers of people, different harvest levels and different resources to harvest in each fishery. Number 291 STEVE LACROIX, Board of Directors, Ketchikan Chapter - Southeast Alaska Harvest Divers Association, related that the committee had heard earlier testimony from Clay Bezenek in full support of HB 547. He said he would focus on what will happen if this bill does not pass. If the bill does not pass, the state is going to have so many participants in these fisheries, coming from out of state, that the divers will not be able to make the meager amount of money that we have already been making. "We know that is going to happen and that is why we consider this an emergency situation." Number 311 PATRICK CASSIN testified from Ketchikan relating his experiences by participating in the sea urchin test fishery. He expressed his opinion to separate sea urchins from the legislation. TOM TRUMPETER testified from Ketchikan stating his involvement in sea urchin fishery for 20 years, nine years in Alaska. As a former resident of California, he is aware of a great number of fishermen waiting to come to Alaska when the fishery does open. He sees a great need for something to done. Number 421 GRANT THOMPSON testified from Sitka stating that he has a dive boat and has been fishing since 1990. He agreed with HB 547 except for several points: Geoducks, as is, makes it 60 percent out of state divers for the next four years. He recommended adding a clause for a person in school or the armed services during 1994-1995 that was an Alaskan citizen and actively involved in industry. He expressed opinion that it is important to control industry. Number 460 BURGESS BAUDER testified from Sitka relating his experiences in the dive fisheries and voiced his support of HB 547 as written. Number 486 MIKE BANGS testified from Petersburg relating his experiences in the dive fisheries and urged the committee's adoption of HB 547 which he feels is fair to everyone. Number 535 MICHAEL REIF, Member, Sitka Chapter - Alaska Harvest Divers Association, testified in support of HB 547 because the fisheries resources of Alaska are very valuable. He said, "We, as divers, are beginning to recognize this more and more. I believe HB 547 is a rational approach to opening the sea urchin fishery." "This fishery will be valuable some day and the question I ask, is this bill going to provide more value for Alaskans or not? The answer is, this bill will, because there are 533 people qualified under this bill to fish sea urchins." He related that what he hears, and what the Department of Fish and Game, hears is that big producers are going to come from the East Coast, Maine, and from the West Coast, Oregon, California and Washington. The moratorium is a tool developed by the state to allow time elements to reevaluate and for consideration, this tool is needed to protect the resources and the economics of these resources. Number 711 DEREK THYNES, lifetime Petersburg resident, testified on behalf of the Petersburg Divers in support of HB 547 stating that he dives for geoducks and sea cucumbers. He said, in the last year, between 1994 and 1995, those fisheries have doubled and he predicted that geoducks will double within the next year. SCOTT THOMAS, Ketchikan Chapter, Southeast Alaska Harvest Divers Association testified in full support of HB 547. He related his experiences in the geoduck and sea cucumber fisheries. He said the bill addresses the problem now and, hopefully, the divers can salvage something out of these fisheries. Number 766 LARRY COTTER, Oceanfresh Alaska, explained that this company is presently conducting a sea urchin test fishery in Metlakatla and supports HB 547, in its entirety, with the exception of the inclusion of sea urchins. He requested that sea urchins not be included in the legislation because the company feels that the fishery has not yet occurred. It is potentially a huge fishery in Southeast Alaska, with millions of pounds of urchins available for harvest, perhaps hundreds of jobs in the dive industry and millions of dollars of value. Oceanfresh feels this fishery needs to be developed in a very rational manner so that it maximizes the economic return to Alaska and the job opportunities to Alaska. In order to do that, that fishery needs to occur during the course of a year. Our existing management techniques may not fit well with the sea urchin fishery, but we hope that during the next year, the Board of Fisheries and the Department of Fish and Game will work together with the industry to analyze the existing management tools and try to develop a management program for sea urchins that is rational and fits the needs of that fishery. MR. COTTER further expressed that, if at that time, it is deemed by the board or by the legislature, next year, that a moratorium is necessary, we would support the bill at that time. He asked the committee to not close the door on alternatives to traditional methods of management today. Number 859 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Cotter to explain why rational development of the industry would not be possible under this bill. MR. COTTER replied that Oceanfresh believes that if traditional open access for sea urchin occurs there will be a gold rush in Southeast Alaska led by divers, from throughout the lower 48, who have expertise in sea urchins and they will be accompanied by sea urchin companies who have the expertise that we, currently, do not have available in Alaska. We think that the value will be consumed by nonresidents and the fishery will last a very short period of time. We do not think that is in the best interest of Alaska. MR. COTTER continued, "In order to avoid that, one might say that we should have a moratorium and put it into effect now so that we limit the participation by non residents." " Oceanfresh thinks in the last case scenario, yeah, that is the way to do it." "But we think there are other alternatives and other approaches that might be used to maximize Alaskan participation." "There are a lot of Alaskan fishermen in Southeast Alaska who could dive for a living and have not dove for a living yet, but given the situation of the salmon industry, they may choose to participate in that fishery in the future if it gets going because it provides them with a real means to make a living in the future." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Cotter how the state could prevent the "gold rush." Number 933 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN also wanted to know the answer to that question and rationalized that having a moratorium would protect against this "gold rush" because not only would fishermen come from the lower 48 but the fishermen who are excluded from the other fisheries would shift over and the state would end up with an artificial evaluation period. Number 987 MR. COTTER said, "I am not trying to make your decision here more difficult. We are not, necessarily, opposed to a moratorium on urchins, we think it is premature to do it. A year from now, we think that may be a rational decision because by that time, hopefully, the collective body, the industry, the department and the Board of Fish, will have had the opportunity to sit down and look at what is necessary to manage and develop the sea urchin fishery. We do not want preclude additional participation by Alaskans through any vehicle between now and then. A year from now, if that did not work, sure, let's have a moratorium." Number 1048 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS closed public testimony on HB 547. Number 1056 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT moved that CS HB 547 (RES) move from the House Resources Committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|