Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/18/1998 05:17 PM House WTR
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 54 - ALASKA MARITIME BOUNDARY WITH CANADA REPRESENTATIVE BARNES announced the next order of business was HJR 54, Relating to establishing maritime boundaries with Canada. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES called on Representative Al Vezey, sponsor of the resolution. Number 1227 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY, Alaska State Legislature, asked Captain Vince O'Shea to join him from the United States Coast Guard. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated Alaska is the only state in the union that has two maritime boundaries - one with Canada and Russia - yet there is no boundary treaty with either. The boundary between Alaska and Canada stems back to the Anglo-Russo Treaty of 1825. It was a period in history where the Russians and the British just defeated Napoleon in 1814 and Europe was in a period of peace. The treaty was one of the first international disputes settled peacefully. The treaty stemmed from a problem in 1821 when the Russian-American Company started to put restrictions on foreign vessels fishing and trapping in Alaskan waters. Alaska was a territory of Russia at the time. The territorial description of the line of demarcation has not substantially changed since 1825. There were some minor changes in 1903, but there is no maritime boundary. Dixon Entrance is the area with the most disputes. HJR 54 - ALASKA MARITIME BOUNDARY WITH CANADA REPRESENTATIVE BARNES indicated the committee will resume discussing HJR 54. Number 1385 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute for HJR 54, version 0-LS1435\B, Bannister, 2/27/98, for consideration. There being no objection, it was so adopted. Number 1401 VINCE O'SHEA, Captain, Operations Plans and Policy Branch, Maritime Plans and Policy Division, Seventeenth Coast Guard District, United States Coast Guard, stated the U.S. and Canada do not have an agreed upon maritime boundary. He referred to a chart that illustrated the boundary lines claimed by the U.S. and Canada. The area in between the two lines is called the disputed area. Both countries have agreed to allow their fishing vessels in that area. The Coast Guard has been patrolling in the Dixon Entrance area for many years during the salmon season - June through September. The purpose is to be available for search and rescue, and to ensure that the U.S. vessels are not harassed by Canadian vessels in the disputed area. In general, there are about one or two minor violation cases. The Coast Guard doesn't have a position on the resolution, but notes that it is consistent with the idea of resolving a maritime boundary, a position that the State Department has taken over the years. Number 1518 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Captain O'Shea why this boundary wasn't brought up in 1984 when the International Court of Justice set the other questionable boundaries. CAPTAIN O'SHEA replied the Canadians didn't want to bring the issue up because they would not have prevailed. Number 1537 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Captain O'Shea where the boundary is in the Beaufort Sea. CAPTAIN O'SHEA replied it is way up north. He did not bring a chart to illustrate that boundary. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Captain O'Shea how has the Beaufort Sea boundary changed from what is perceived to be the Alaska- Canadian boundary today. CAPTAIN O'SHEA replied, "I don't know." He suspects that the issue up there relates to the oil underneath the boundary. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS stated that is what she is concerned about. Number 1561 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY asked Captain O'Shea whether the boundary in Dixon Entrance has anything to do with the current fishery dispute with Canada. CAPTAIN O'SHEA replied it has a connection. It is an intense symbol of sovereignty for the Canadians. It represents a potential pressure point for people on both sides as a means of stirring up controversy. Number 1616 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Captain O'Shea whether the proposed new boundary is acceptable to Canada. CAPTAIN O'SHEA replied, "Absolutely not." It is not a new proposal. The U.S. claims the equidistant line between the land masses in Dixon Entrance. The U.S. took the line drawn in 1903 as a means to separate the islands in Dixon Entrance. In other words, the islands north of the line belong to the U.S. and the islands south of the line belong to Canada. Canada took the line drawn in 1903 as applying to the maritime boundary. The U.S. for many years has claimed the equidistant line which is not acceptable to Canada. Number 1682 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Captain O'Shea whether the U.S. line is disputed by Canada. CAPTAIN O'SHEA replied, "Yes." Canada does not recognize it. It recognizes that it is the equidistant line, but holds that the 1903 tribunal line is the maritime boundary, while the U.S. does not recognize it as the maritime boundary. Number 1729 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Captain O'Shea whether the area is heavily used for commercial fishing. CAPTAIN O'SHEA replied there are several areas fished by trollers. More Canadian vessels fish the area than U.S. vessels. There is a concentration of U.S. gillnetters at Tree Point. Once in a while there are seiners there as well. There are some black cod and halibut fishers in the disputed area. Generally, the Canadians have not had a problem with the U.S. fishers. They do have a problem with the U.S. trollers operating within the disputed area. Last year, they also said that they have a problem with charters operating off of Newnez Rocks (ph). Number 1779 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Captain O'Shea whether he is aware of any problems that the state of Washington is facing similar to what Alaska is facing. CAPTAIN O'SHEA replied there is an unresolved area in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. It is a smaller sliver of water and the fishing issues aren't as contentious, however. There is a boundary near Blaine, Washington that is agreed upon and there is a good relationship between the U.S. and Canada from an enforcement standpoint. In fact, Canada cooperated with the U.S. in putting up a giant range marker to make it easier for fishers to know where the line is. Number 1850 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated, in reference to Representative Phillips' earlier question, there is no dispute along the Beaufort Sea because there isn't a lot of activity at the moment, but the maritime boundary is totally unresolved, including the line of demarcation. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY further stated that the Canadians have nothing to win if they negotiate. The best the Canadians could hope for is to hold the status quo. The Anglo-Russo Treaty of 1825 merely states that the territory ceded starts from the southernmost point of the Prince of Wales Island to Portland Channel. It doesn't talk about a maritime boundary - a concept that didn't even exist in 1825. Most international courts would either establish a 12-mile limit or an equidistant line. Number 1942 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a motion to move the proposed committee substitute for HJR 54, version 0-LS1435\B, Bannister, 2/27/98, out of the committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note(s). There being no objection, CSHJR 54(WTR) was so moved from the House Special Committee on World Trade and State/Federal Relations.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|