Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/22/1999 01:11 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 28 - COOK INLET BELUGA POPULATION Number 1980 CO-CHAIR OGAN announced the next item of business would be House Joint Resolution No. 28, requesting that the National Marine Fisheries Service and the United States Congress act immediately to reverse the decline of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population and to regulate the harvest of the beluga whales in Cook Inlet until the beluga whale population has recovered. In packets was a proposed committee substitute, version 1-LS0649\G, Utermohle, 3/19/99. Co-Chair Ogan noted that he is a co-sponsor of the resolution. Number 1973 REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor, advised members that the language in this revised resolution has been agreed-upon and supported by the parties involved in this issue. She noted that Ron Somerville, Resource Consultant to the House Majority, was present to answer any technical question. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS explained that Cook Inlet beluga whales are currently managed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Under provisions of that Act, Alaska Native harvest of marine mammals cannot be regulated by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) until a specie has been declared "depleted." The number of Cook Inlet beluga whales has drastically declined in the past five years. According to NMFS and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), the annual harvest needs to be reduced from about 75 to less than 7, to allow for recovery. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS told members that since 1974, organizations with a strong interest in the Cook Inlet beluga whales have been working to promote conservation of those whales. The Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council (CIMMC), whose members include Native tribes and groups, and the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee recognize the need for a joint effort with NMFS to maintain a sustainable harvest for local traditional subsistence use. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS explained that recently, environmental and animal rights groups petitioned NMFS to undertake the emergency listing of this stock under the Endangered Species Act. However, such a listing would erode the ability of the local Native community to participate in the management of these resources. It could mean that subsistence harvesting would not be allowed, for example, and it could cause irreparable harm to all of the major industries of Cook Inlet, including commercial and sport fishing, oil and gas, shipping and tourism. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS advised members that the CIMMC and the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee believe that such a listing would be counterproductive at this time, because they are working together diligently to finalize an interim agreement for managing this stock. This resolution calls for NMFS and Congress to address this issue before it is determined that an endangered specie listing is warranted. The resolution recommends that NMFS begin a specie status review under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and that Congress amend that Act to give the agency authority to control the harvest, at least for a specific period of time. It also calls for Congress to fund adequate research and management programs for NMFS, to address the data deficiencies and to provide adequate funds for the management needs. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS emphasized that nothing in HJR 28 precludes continuing efforts by NMFS and local beluga whale hunters to work cooperatively. She concluded, "The time for action is now. This is an urgent issue for Alaska Native populations and the major economies invested in the Cook Inlet region. Continued delays and agency foot-dragging will lead to severe personal and economic consequences. Many organizations and Cook Inlet users support the language in this resolution, and I ask for your support today." Number 1752 CO-CHAIR OGAN advised listeners that the proposed committee substitute (CS) wasn't yet before the committee because they had temporarily lost a quorum. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS confirmed that her testimony had been based on that proposed CS, a copy of which had been sent to the Legislative Information Offices (LIOs). Number 1675 ROSETTA ALCANTRA, United Cook Inlet Drift Association (UCIDA), testified via teleconference from Kenai, noting that UCIDA represents the 585 salmon drift permit holders in the Upper Cook Inlet, 350 of whom are current members. In addition, UCIDA is active at the federal and state levels as a member of the executive committee of the United Fishermen of Alaska. MS. ALCANTRA said UCIDA would like to go on record as supporting HJR 28. While they are concerned about the decline of beluga whales in Cook Inlet, in light of the inconclusive data available they feel it would be detrimental to both Cook Inlet and the state to list the beluga whales as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act until further studies can determine accurate numbers and the reasons for decline. In fact, this summer the Cook Inlet drift fleet is scheduled to participate in the NMFS observer program, and UCIDA has committed to assist NMFS in its efforts to gain additional information regarding the beluga whales. In addition, they have indicated to NMFS that they would participate in other studies, if deemed necessary. MS. ALCANTRA said she believes that conclusive numbers can be established regarding Cook Inlet's beluga whales. Although UCIDA does not support listing of the specie as threatened or endangered, UCIDA does support a request to have NMFS manage the harvest of beluga whales until the population has recovered. Furthermore, UCIDA believes that it is imperative to have financial security for the necessary research to establish concrete numbers of beluga whales. Number 1558 CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether there is ever any bycatch of beluga whales in driftnets for salmon. He noted that sometimes Steller sea lions are caught in trawls, for example. MS. ALCANTRA replied that to her knowledge, there has been no interaction between beluga whales and the drift fleet. Number 1501 DAN ALEX, Project Coordinator, Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council (CIMMC), testified via teleconference from Anchorage, specifying that the CIMMC is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation chartered under the laws of the state of Alaska. He told members that the CIMMC and the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee had asked United States Senator Stevens for an emergency amendment to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which has been accomplished. They had also asked for funding for co-management. Mr. Alex said that the CIMMC is not new to co-management proposals to NMFS; the first time that was done was in 1994. MR. ALEX told members that the CIMMC, along with RurAL CAP [Rural Alaska Community Action Program] and the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee, recently co-sponsored a symposium forum, where there was a consensus on some key points on a draft interim co-management agreement. They have had one session already, and they expect to have one or more negotiating sessions this week, with expected conclusion of an interim co-management agreement to be in place by April 1. Mr. Alex mentioned the perception of overharvesting, then concluded by saying the CIMMC plans to do accurate harvest and population counts, as well as additional scientific studies upon which meaningful and valid decisions can be made. CO-CHAIR OGAN asked Mr. Alex whether he is a whale hunter. MR. ALEX said he is not, although he is the project coordinator for CIMMC, which represents beluga whale hunters in the Cook Inlet area. CO-CHAIR OGAN asked Mr. Alex to describe how beluga whales are hunted. Number 1324 MR. ALEX replied, "It's actually not very difficult. You take an open-top dory and a spear, you know, a harpoon, and harpoon the whale with a float on it. And once the whale comes back up, you kill it and then take it to shore and cut it up." REPRESENTATIVE JOULE pointed out that in Cook Inlet that is quite a challenge because of the murky waters there. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS mentioned the huge tides, as well. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE observed that harpooning the whale before shooting it takes quite a bit of skill. Furthermore, by harpooning it first, it ensures that the hunter will catch that whale because of the attached float, and it is really quite a conservation measure. In contrast, if a person shot a whale first, wounding it, the chances of harvesting that particular animal would be greatly diminished. Number 1216 CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether any current regulation requires that the whale be harpooned first. MR. ALEX answered, "We are proposing a set of rules that the hunters have proposed, that would require that." CO-CHAIR OGAN asked for confirmation that now a hunter could shoot first, then harpoon later. MR. ALEX affirmed that. Number 1170 CO-CHAIR OGAN stated that he supports that type of rule, which he believes would ensure that any whales that are struck would most likely be taken. He asked whether non-Natives can participate in hunt like that, as observers. MR. ALEX specified that non-Natives can be observers, but the only people allowed to harvest the whales are Natives. CO-CHAIR OGAN commented, "Well, if anybody wants to take me whale hunting, I'm game." He noted that there was now a quorum. Number 1079 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to adopt the proposed CS, version 1-LS0649\G, Utermohle, 3/19/99, as a work draft; she asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, that proposed CS was before the committee. [HJR 28 continues after short discussion of SCR 2.] HJR 28 - COOK INLET BELUGA POPULATION CO-CHAIR OGAN returned the committee's attention to House Joint Resolution No. 28, requesting that the National Marine Fisheries Service and the United States Congress act immediately to reverse the decline of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population and to regulate the harvest of the beluga whales in Cook Inlet until the beluga whale population has recovered. Number 0958 DAVID VOLUCK, Attorney at Law, Copeland, Landye, Bennett and Wolf, testified via teleconference from Anchorage, noting that his law firm provides legal counsel to the CIMMC. He told members, "We're encouraged by the state's support of co-management agreements with Alaska Native organizations. My only issue with the resolution, as drafted, is that it refers to local Native subsistence hunters or users, which is basically incorrect. It should refer to the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council, as they are the only body with the authority of the tribes in the Cook Inlet region to manage the beluga whales in Cook Inlet." He said the first reference to Alaska Native organizations begins at line 13; it mentions local Native subsistence users at page 2, lines 21 and 26, and in both places it should refer to the CIMMC. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES responded that she believes that Mr. Voluck is probably quite correct. She asked whether she could move that as an amendment. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS requested that Ron Somerville speak to that, because it had been a consideration. Number 0832 RON SOMERVILLE, Resource Consultant to the House and Senate Leadership, Alaska State Legislature, came forward. He reminded members that a similar resolution would be up in the Senate that afternoon, then said these amendments that were provided by the council were discussed among some of the leadership; the only reason that was dropped was because there are people other than from Cook Inlet who come to Cook Inlet to harvest belugas. He stated, "And so, the council itself is not totally able to control the harvest, if you will, so just referencing the council does not cover all of the Native people who, in fact, could legally participate in the harvesting. It doesn't preclude the co-management agreements. It doesn't preclude the council's being the lead agency in the co-management. It just was dropped as a specific reference here in the resolution." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she would remove her reference to an amendment. Number 0742 MR. VOLUCK responded, "While it is true that there are other Natives from the various areas of the state that can hunt in Cook Inlet, the only body that has the authority of the tribes which control the geographical area is the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council, that I'm aware of. And so, by just referencing local Native subsistence users, you are denigrating the efforts and the authority of the council to manage that beluga whale take. The result of the symposium that was held - I guess about a week and a half ago; [it] was from the hunters and all the various users that showed up in Anchorage to deal with this issue - was to support the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council as the managing body for this area." Number 646 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS referred back to her opening remarks, emphasizing that nothing in this resolution precludes continuing efforts by NMFS and the local beluga whale hunters to work cooperatively. CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether the CIMMC is a tribe. MR. VOLUCK indicated CIMMC is a nonprofit organization that has been chartered by the Cook Inlet treaty tribes: Tyonek, Eklutna, Chickaloon, Seldovia and Ninilchik, that he is aware of. He added, "[U.S. Senator] Stevens refers to it in his legislative amendment, so it's not without precedent." Number 0544 CO-CHAIR OGAN emphasized that they are dealing with a nonprofit corporation here, not a tribe. Number 0492 DALE BONDURANT testified again via teleconference from Kenai, stating, "I truly believe that we need something like this, especially when we're talking about a depletion of a resource in Cook Inlet." He said it would be much better to work this out among ourselves and show a responsible plan for all users, rather than having it be forced under application of the Endangered Species Act. Mr. Bondurant said he was glad they had cleared up the status of the CIMMC as a nonprofit organization, as he doesn't believe this should talk about dealing with a certain tribal entity. He supports this effort and believes that it is the right way to go. Number 0357 DREW SPARLIN testified again via teleconference from Kenai, noting that he is a Cook Inlet drift fisherman who resides in Kenai. He expressed appreciation to the sponsor for her work on HJR 28, which he supports. A member of UCIDA, he feels very comfortable with their representing him and his fellow fishermen on this issue. He expressed great hopes that they will be able to accomplish what they've set out to do, which is to determine the cause of the decline of the beluga whale population in Cook Inlet. He concluded by emphasizing that never, in 35 years of fishing, had a beluga whale hit his net, let alone be entangled. Number 0216 CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether Mr. Sparlin had ever had beluga whales around the area where he was fishing. He noted that driftnetters fish in the tide rips in the inlet, and when he himself dipnets for salmon on Fish Creek, beluga whales sometimes show up at the mouth of the creek and the fishermen then catch no fish. Co-Chair Ogan commented that he assumes those whales have a healthy appetite for salmon. He asked whether the belugas are smart enough and have good enough sonar that they can avoid the nets, or whether Mr. Sparlin had just not encountered them. MR. SPARLIN replied, "Yes, in fact, I would say that they are intelligent enough, or have the sonar equipment necessary, to avoid the nets." He pointed out that in days past, when there were more belugas, they certainly had the opportunity to have nets set whenever the belugas arrived. He stated, "The old fishermen, the first thing they would put on the radio for information would be the fact that 'you now have belugas around you, and you'd better get your gear up and get out.' What it does is it sounds the salmon. So, consequently, ... there has been interaction, but I don't think that it has ever caused any kind of a problem and concern of damage to the beluga, and, quite honestly, we are going to have a tendency to try to avoid a pod of beluga while they're feeding." TAPE 99-17, SIDE A Number 0001 MARGARET ROBERTS, Chair, Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion Commission, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She told members, "Our commission is a statewide tribal consortium. Our board represents six coastal regions, from Southeast, Chugach, Cook Inlet, Kodiak, Bristol Bay and the Aleutians. We have been very active in cooperative management for the last three years, with regional and local management plans for sea otters, and we've done a lot of research with the federal agencies. We support the efforts of the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council and National Marine Fisheries Service to sign a co-management agreement for the conservation of beluga in the Cook Inlet region." CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether Ms. Roberts supports HJR 28. MS. ROBERTS specified that she was speaking only in favor of supporting CIMMC and NMFS in their cooperative management agreement, not in support of the resolution. Number 0250 DOLLY GARZA, Chair, Indigenous People's Commission on Marine Mammals (IPCOMM), testified via teleconference from Anchorage. Formed in the mid-1980s, their membership includes the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee, the Eskimo Whaling Commission, the Alaska Sea Otter and Sea Lion Commission, the Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission, the Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP), the Bristol Bay Marine Mammal Commission, the Eskimo Walrus Commission, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, the North Slope Borough, the North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management, the Pribilof Aleut Fur Seal Commission, the Southeast Native Subsistence Commission, Maniilaq Association, the Alaska Nanuuq Commission, and the Sitka Marine Mammal Commission. MS. GARZA told members that she was there to testify in favor of HJR 28, provided that there are two changes, as noted in the commission's letter of March 19. She acknowledged that she has a copy of the proposed CS, also dated 3/19/99, which incorporates some of their requested changes. She said, "We speak in favor of what Dan [Alex] and David [Voluck] had spoken to earlier, that on page 2, line 13, line 20 and line 26, that it does need to specifically state, 'Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Commission.' That commission has worked very hard with the National Marine Fisheries Service, and with the local hunters, to establish the protocol and process to regulate the hunt." MS. GARZA continued, "In addition, Senator Stevens' rider specifically states the marine mammal council - and we believe that also, the second amendment, on the second page, starting with line 18, the 'FURTHER RESOLVED' that the Alaska State Legislature respectfully support Senator Stevens' rider to regulate the harvest of Cook Inlet beluga whales ... with the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council - if that amendment is not incorporated, then, as it reads, amending MMPA [Marine Mammal Protection Act] would not happen until this fall or winter, or till next year, and that would have no impact on this year's hunt of marine mammals." Ms. Garza said that Senator Stevens' rider would allow CIMMC and NMFS to come up with that management for this year. She added, "We've already heard testimony that April 1, or by April 15th, that that management would be in place. Mr. Chairman, we do support the resolution, but we are hoping for those amendments." Number 0461 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said he was wondering whether, in the three areas of HJR 28 (page 2, lines 12, 21 and 26) referenced by the groups involved with the beluga commission or CIMMC, it would be appropriate to accommodate language that specifically cites CIMMC and others. He suggested that would garner a whole lot of support. Number 0580 MS. GARZA responded, "I guess the concern we have is that by adding other Alaska Native organizations, it will actually make it much more difficult to set up regulations and enforcement. Cook Inlet Marine Mammal [Council], in itself, has become the leadership, and that is the group that National Marine Fisheries Service is working with. If National Marine Fisheries Service is then required to work with any other Alaska Native organization, then it could make it much more difficult to come up with a harvest level and regulation plan. So, by leaving it as one, Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council, it will be more likely that those regulations will be established and implemented for this year." Number 0668 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS emphasized that the wording of HJR 28 was very, very carefully crafted to allow the organizations that need to put the co-management agreements together to do that. Nothing in the resolution prohibits - in any way, shape or form - any of those groups getting together for co-management, and nothing in it will affect any co-management agreement or any decisions that any of those groups want to put together. "We did not want the legislature to be involved in that co-management decision," she added, saying that is between the Native populations that take the belugas and NMFS. She asked Mr. Somerville to expound on that. MR. SOMERVILLE said in talking to some of the people concerned, it is very understandable that they would like to push the co-management agreements. However, the resolution was purposefully designed so that there isn't a big floor debate about the definition of "co-management." He stated: Even as successful as the co-management agreements have been on bowhead whales or, in some cases, with walrus and other species, as pointed out, it is not clear in some cases to what extent the National Marine Fisheries Service ... delegates its authority to the tribes. What they've been able to do is work out some sort of agreement as to issuance of permits ... and the development of cooperative regulations in this sort of thing. But the extent of the enforcement in this sort of thing is really still kind of up in the air. And so, if we get into a big debate about what you're endorsing or not endorsing on the House and Senate floors, you know, that's a decision you have to make. But the point was we were ... requested to try and avoid that, and still allowing for these cooperative agreements to be developed and go forward without having a debate as to what they entail. Number 0832 CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether Mr. Somerville concurs with the sponsor's assessment that being silent on it basically leaves it up to those that will enter into these agreements. MR. SOMERVILLE replied, "Mr. Chairman, I'm silent in the respect that the people that I've been told to work with, and helping craft some of this language, it was the best way of avoiding it. It's not my decision to make; that's your decision as to whether we'd want to do that." CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether anyone else wished to testify, then closed public testimony. Number 0903 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked for confirmation that Senator Stevens' amendment specifically talks to the NMFS and the CIMMC. MR. SOMERVILLE nodded in assent. Number 0950 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move CSHJR 28 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note; she asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, CSHJR 28(RES) moved out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|