Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/22/2002 01:13 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 286-OWNERSHIP OF MORE THAN ONE FISHERY PERMIT Number 0125 CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 286, "An Act allowing a person to hold more than one commercial fishing entry permit for a fishery; relating to the power of the Board of Fisheries to establish fishing periods and areas for subgroups of commercial fishing permits and commercial fishing permit holders and to establish limits on the amount of fishing gear that may be used by certain commercial fishing permit holders; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 286(FSH); in packets was a proposed committee substitute (CS), Version T.] CO-CHAIR SCALZI, sponsor of HB 286, addressed changes in the [Version T] that he characterized as small and innocuous. He said the change on page 1, line 8, replaces "the commissioner shall" with "the commissioner may". On page 7, lines 20-21 are changed to "during each month to the department by the last day of the next month", consistent with the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) Salmon Enhancement Tax. And page 8, line 9, has a change from "shall" to "may". Number 0265 CO-CHAIR MASEK asked why "shall" was changed to "may". CO-CHAIR SCALZI said he should let the department speak to that issue, but added, "The inference of 'shall assist in and encourage the formation of qualified salmon fishery associations for the purpose of promoting the consolidation' ... may not be in the best interest of any group in one particular area to have that mandated on them." He said the department may not want the word "shall" used in this case. He said the bill would not be broad-based across all salmon fisheries, but may be specific to different areas. The change from "shall" to "may" gives the department and different fishing areas some latitude. CO-CHAIR MASEK asked to hear from the department on the matter. She also inquired about the changes on page 7, lines 20-21. Number 0412 GORDY WILLIAMS, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), explained that the change from "shall" to "may" is more appropriate. He said the department wouldn't want to have to force people into doing something they didn't want to do by using "shall". This gives people the option of either seeking the department's assistance in developing an operating plan or not. Number 0505 CO-CHAIR MASEK asked Mr. Williams if it would cost the department any funding to assist in those areas. MR. WILLIAMS replied that the department does a lot of outreach already, and that he didn't foresee this plan-development assistance creating a large fiscal strain. Number 0572 CO-CHAIR MASEK moved to adopt the proposed CS, version 22- LS1099\T, Utermohle, 2/20/02, as the working document. There being no objection, Version T was before the committee. CO-CHAIR SCALZI referred to page 8, following line 2, and said the Department of Revenue had concerns about the collection of fees; the department felt it would help in ensuring the enforcement of AS 43.05 and AS 43.10. Number 0714 CO-CHAIR SCALZI offered Amendment 1, 22-LS1099\T.1, Utermohle, 2/20/02, which read: Page 8, following line 2: Insert a new subsection to read: "(e) The provisions of AS 43.05 and AS 43.10 apply for the enforcement and collection of a salmon fishery assessment levied under AS 43.76.220 - 43.76.280." He explained that it was for the purposes of better enforcement of collection. Number 0758 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if it would be better to replace "for" with "to" on line 3 of the aforementioned amendment. CO-CHAIR SCALZI said Representative Kerttula is the committee's resident attorney and deferred to her judgment on the matter, saying he thought it was fine. He said he didn't think the change was so great as to require substantiation by the Department of Revenue. Number 0857 CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked if there were any objections to Amendment 1 [including Representative Kerttula's suggested amendment to the amendment]. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 0916 MR. WILLIAMS asked for clarification of Section 1, page 2, line 1 [Version T], which read in part, "(2) represents interim-use permit and entry permit holders who participate in the salmon fishery". He said the department had had discussions about the word "participate", and that within some fisheries, some permit holders don't fish their permits but renew them so that they are still valid. He suggested it might be better for the bill to say, "represents interim use and entry permit holders in the salmon fishery", thereby deleting "who participate" from the language. Number 1056 CO-CHAIR SCALZI responded that it doesn't exclude permit holders who are not actively fishing and that he doesn't see a problem with the language as it is. Number 1126 SUE ASPELUND, Cordova District Fisherman United (CDFU), testified via teleconference. She said CDFU had no problem with amending the language from "shall" to "may", but would like clarification on the "participant" issue raised by Gordy Williams. She said CDFU supports the legislation and characterized it as a good "tool in the box" to get gear out of the water. She asked the committee to support the bill. Number 1234 THOM WISCHER, United Salmon Association, testified via teleconference. He said his association supports the bill and agrees with the amendment regarding ["shall" to "may"], which preserves regional self-determination. He said the United Salmon Association also likes that there can only be one additional permit held per area by a permit holder. He said the ability to form associations and pursue fleet reduction are also pleasing to the United Salmon Association. Number 1353 ALAN REEVES testified via teleconference. He said he wanted to "piggyback" other fisheries onto the bill. He raised the scenario of fishermen being paid not to fish their permits in other districts and going to other districts and crowding them out. He said the committee would probably be hearing from the other gear groups in the following year. CO-CHAIR SCALZI expressed his concurrence with many of Mr. Reeves' thoughts but underlined the difficulty of getting any bill passed in the present year. He said other gear types should be included, perhaps in the following year if the bill goes through. Number 1471 JIM SMITH, Fisherman, testified via teleconference. He disagreed with Mr. Reeves that all other gear groups and fisheries should "be looked at with the same eye." Number 1520 DAVID BEDFORD, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Seiners Association, testified before the committee. He said the bill is a good start to getting the salmon industry back to health, and that the amendments have good justifications. He said he would like to see the associations represent all of the permit holders within a fishery and that his group would support any change which would bring about that end. Number 1620 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK remarked that the bill is formed well and thanked the associations for helping to craft legislation to keep the state's salmon fisheries a viable part of the economy. Number 1676 GERALD (JERRY) McCUNE, Lobbyist for United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA), testified before the committee. He said the UFA supports the bill and its amendments. He said over the summer the UFA would try to survey all of the other fisheries - 86 fisheries in the state, 26 of those regarding salmon. He said if the other fisheries come to a conclusion, the UFA will support an amendment in the following year to include them. The reason that salmon fisheries were the only ones specified in the bill is "that was all we ever talked about." Number 1756 KATHY HANSEN, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fisherman's Alliance, testified before the committee in support of HB 286, saying her organization would like to see the bill extended into statewide fisheries because salmon fisheries have a "downstream effect on other fisheries." The other fisheries need tools to deal with issues in their fisheries also. She gave the example of the pot-shrimp fishery in Southeast as one looking for ways to reduce permits in its fishery. She said it wouldn't be good to see other fisheries harmed because they weren't allowed to deal with their problems, while salmon fisheries were allowed to do so. Number 1842 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Hansen what she thought of the proposal to work on including other fisheries during the summer. MS. HANSEN characterized the bill as well written and voluntary. She said a fleet would not join in unless that was the will of its majority. She said that to not give the fisheries "a tool" is hampering them. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Hansen if she is supportive of the bill, even if it is not "statewide." MS. HANSEN answered in the affirmative. She said she preferred that it be debated once, instead of going through the whole process again. She said fishermen around the state are paying attention to the bill already. Number 1973 SCOTT McALLISTER, Alaskan Salmon Fisherman, testified before the committee. He said 15 years prior, he could see the salmon- marketing "train wreck" coming with the advent of farmed salmon. He called the bill timely and constructive. Number 2054 MR. WILLIAMS offered the ADF&G's and the administration's support of the bill. He said bills like this give the industry tools to pick and choose ways to help itself. Referring to Section 1, he said he wanted to continue to work with some of the bill's language in that section. He pointed out that the bill allows for more than one association. CO-CHAIR SCALZI said the language was left as it is because "multi-associations" can be formed in fisheries presently, without the bill. He added, "The language as it is actually reflects what is going on today." Number 2154 MR. WILLIAMS referred to page 3, line 4, which read in part, "(1) there exists in the administrative area in which the fishery occurs an association". He said he wasn't certain of the intent of that portion or what "administrative area" meant in the bill. He suggested perhaps it should read, "there exists for the fishery an association". Number 2205 CO-CHAIR SCALZI explained that the administrative area is the area of the permitted use, in which there may be several overlapping limited entry uses. For example, there may be gillnet, seine, and setnet uses in the same area; it is specific to that administrative area of the fishery, which is why that language is used. He indicated the administrative area is more specific than a limited entry area. MR. WILLIAMS said he would continue to look at that, although it seems now that Southeast Alaska is an administrative area. He said if one fishery had an association, then there is a qualified association existing in the area; however, it may not be the one that wants to impose the tax. He indicated the words could be clarified but the intent was understandable. Number 2287 REPRESENTATIVE FATE noted that there had been discussion on the participation in the fishery. He suggested it was fine in its current form. For example, there is a salmon fishery on the Yukon River; although there hasn't been commercial fishing on that river for two years, they still participate. He said HB 286 doesn't specify the geographic location of that salmon fishery; thus it would [be included] if there were qualifications for these associations in that fishery. He suggested that things limiting that commercial fishery can happen to heighten participation. Therefore, he said he wouldn't spend much time on that issue. Representative Fate related his belief that HB 286 may even help the "brown water" fishery. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA remarked that she wasn't sure that this shouldn't be opened up to other fisheries, but indicated she was willing to [pass HB 286], knowing that UFA and others will work on bringing others in. However, she noted that she shared Ms. Hansen's concerns regarding the impact on other fisheries. CO-CHAIR SCALZI concurred with Representative Kerttula's comments. He noted that this process is going to take time. There won't be an immediate consolidation, and perhaps the other fisheries can be brought in by the time the downstream impacts are determined. Number 2444 CO-CHAIR MASEK moved to report HB 286 [version 22-LS1099\T, Utermohle, 2/20/02, as amended] out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 286(RES) was reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|