Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/28/1997 03:58 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 34 NPFMC PROPOSED REGS FOR HALIBUT FISHERY
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced HJR 34 to be up for consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN said that this resolution was
introduced because of the actions the North Pacific Fisheries
Management Council (NPFMC) was taking to create a halibut
subsistence program. A number of them felt a program wasn't needed
and they are asking them not to implement it. The criteria in
their first proposal is quite discriminatory and bringing the
subject up now and creating regulations referenced to subsistence
halibut would create more of a gridlock in trying to solve the
current subsistence problems.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said the background is that someone was a little
overzealous in enforcement. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN agreed and
added that a native group requested the Council to put together
subsistence regulations for halibut.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if there wasn't another way to handle this
without creating all these problems. He didn't think they said
enough in the resolution about other ways to do it.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said the Council put a subcommittee
together to come up with this proposal. SENATOR TAYLOR wondered
what basis they used for the numbers.
Number 444
MR. DICK BISHOP, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council and
Territorial Sportsmen of Juneau, Inc., supported HJR 34 which
addresses many of the most objectionable parts of the proposed
halibut subsistence proposal soon to be considered by the North
Pacific Management Council. Some of these include discrimination
on racial grounds, or on the basis of zip code, and adopting the
unlimited catch of halibut under subsistence regardless of size,
etc. - very much like ANILCA's undefined customary and traditional
use priority. It is reopening the door to commercial sale of
another so called subsistence resource. Federal courts have
already established under ANILCA that sales of subsistence fish for
tens of thousands of dollars are o.k., and although this is a
different matter, the precedents that have been established in
federal court are likely to be significant.
Furthermore, it provides for a new fishery that is bound to compete
with existing fisheries, but on a discriminatory basis; and finally
the same strategy could be easily proposed for other marine
resources such as crabs.
MR. BISHOP said it is important to recognize that these proposed
regulations, looking at the table of catches, are not about
obtaining food by customary and traditional means. Instead they
are yet another ploy to expand political and institutional approval
of special privileges for a racially defined group of people.
He read a quote from the committee's report on dealing with non-
tribal Alaskans: "The committee discussed a proposal to include
`other rural residents in areas of Alaska with halibut uses.' The
committee discussed the opportunities for non-tribal Alaskans to
harvest halibut and concluded that the two fish per day sport fish
limit would meet their needs for supplying their families with
halibut for food. The determining factor in this conclusion was
the stated need to recognize existing traditional practice at
current levels of halibut removals. The management plan for
halibut subsistence programs should legalize the current halibut
removals and fishing practices by tribal members. Expansion of
subsistence harvest to nontraditional users may create resource
concerns within the IPHC regarding increased levels of halibut
removals and localized depletions in some rural and urban
communities."
MR. BISHOP said that it's apparent that the committee felt that for
non-tribal people the standard of sport fishing was adequate, but
for tribal members it was not. This State is already being
socially shredded by controversy over subsistence and Indian
country and we don't need another discriminatory rule relating to
the use of fish and game. He said they would support changes in
the personal use or sport fishing rules rather than establishing a
new fishery.
Number 493
SENATOR TAYLOR agreed with his comments and said many of them have
been frustrated for years about the personal use aspect of halibut
on the grounds that a boat out there fishing for them can't take an
undersized fish that's dead or dying and utilize it for their own
consumption without running serious risks of prosecution. He asked
if the NPFMC believe they are mandated by federal law (ANILCA) to
bring about this change. MR. BISHOP said he couldn't answer that,
but was sure it didn't fall under the requirements of ANILCA.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if this wouldn't be an extension of ANILCA
even into waters beyond federal jurisdiction. MR. BISHOP replied
that his understanding is that it does not fall within the purview
of ANILCA.
Number 519
MR. RON SOMMERVILLE, Senate and House leadership, said that ANILCA
specifically excludes the Magnuson Act; it specifically limited the
impacts of ANILCA to mean high tide although the advance notice of
rule making indicates that the secretary might be able to extend
their jurisdiction into adjacent State waters if there was an
impact on subsistence.
MR. SOMMERVILLE pointed out that two cases led to this; one at
Toksook Bay and the use of skates by a resident of Angoon for
taking halibut for personal use in May (for drying). Before IFQs
were distributed this was the practice. Speaker Phillips requested
that they look at existing regulatory structure to accommodate some
of those uses and one suggestion was to legally allow for the
retention of undersized halibut to 4E, a specific area of the State
where it has been a consistent problem. They could also allow the
use of one skate of a certain size for taking of personal use in
May in specific areas of the State. He's note advocating this, but
it is conceivable. The commercial people on the Council expressed
real concerns about that.
The Council agreed to go forward with the two options of doing
nothing and what is in their packet. A third alternative was a
result of Speaker Phillips request. These will be analyzed in
preparation for the June 14 meeting in Kodiak.
MR. SOMMERVILLE said they are hoping to have an opinion as to
whether the Council has the authority to discriminate based on
race.
Number 569
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked how the State would enforce it with our
Constitution, if they choose to define a violation of law racially.
MR. SOMMERVILLE replied that the International Treaty on Halibut
preempted the State on halibut. He said their legal opinion would
be as good as his and it doesn't appear that the State could.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that apparently the Council feels obligated
to go forward with something and asked what is the best message to
put the most reasonableness into whatever approach is taken. MR.
SOMMERVILLE responded that he couldn't suggest any wording changes
to the resolution and he would pass it out as it is.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he was surprised that no one was here to oppose
the resolution.
TAPE 97-29, SIDE B
MR. SOMMERVILLE said they have a letter from Toksook Bay opposing
SJR 34.
MR. RICK LAUBER, President, NPFMC, commented that the letter from
Speaker Phillips and President Miller had some impact on the
Council; and the attorneys are working on the answers to the legal
questions. At this stage the public has not had an opportunity to
comment on this issue formally and it is their practice to allow
that. At their meeting in June in Kodiak the Council could do any
one of the things or a combination of the alternatives or options.
They cannot expand beyond what was analyzed.
SENATOR LEMAN moved to pass HJR 34 with individual recommendations.
There were no objections and it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|