Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
04/05/2006 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB37 | |
| HB218 | |
| HB380 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 37 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 218 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 380 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CSHB(FIN) 218-PRIVATE HATCHERY COST RECOVERY FISHERIES
CHAIR WAGONER announced HB 218 to be up for consideration.
IAN FISK, staff to Representative Bill Thomas, presented the
bill on behalf of the sponsor and clarified that the committee
was working from Version R that passed the House. He explained
that HB 218 addresses the way hatcheries recover costs. Under
the current system a hatchery takes bids from processors for
recovery of the anticipated return and allocates a certain
percentage of the harvest as cost recovery. The percentage
varies from hatchery to hatchery.
The intent of the bill is to maximize the benefit to the user
groups and so HB 218 creates a system whereby the hatchery
operator has the option of collecting the cost recovery through
a fishery that is open to all fishermen who hold permits to
harvest fish in the hatchery area.
MR. FISK explained that for a hatchery to be able to recover its
costs through a common property fishery there would have to be
an assessment on the fish that are harvested specifically in the
cost recovery area. That terminal harvest area is typically
located directly in front of a hatchery or remote release site.
The Board of Fisheries or the commissioner of Alaska Department
of Fish and Game (ADF&G) sets the boundaries.
The language in the bill establishes an assessment between 1 and
40 percent of the value of the fish. The proceeds would be
recovered in a manner similar to the salmon enhancement tax. The
hatcheries would not collect the tax.
MR. FISK emphasized that this is optional and the sponsor would
not support making it mandatory. He has worked with hatchery
operators to reach a comfort zone and is willing to continue
doing so.
4:11:39 PM
CHAIR WAGONER stated he intended to hold the bill until Friday.
4:12:18 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN said he had a meeting on the bill earlier today
and the version that was discussed wasn't Version R. He
appreciated the additional time to consider the bill because
that alone has created confusion.
CHAIR WAGONER said a suggested CS came out of the sponsor's
office, but there would be a Senate Resource Committee CS
presented on Friday.
MR. FISK commented, "The version that we've been working on
reflects a lot of the changes that have been worked on in the
Interim... We've just tried to address some of the hatcheries'
concerns." There is nothing in it that is drastically different.
He noted that he had a list of the changes that have been made
as the bill moved through the process to accommodate concerns
and the idea is to work with the hatcheries to keep it optional.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS asked if Version B is the work draft.
MR. FISK said Version B is a work draft that reflects changes
made in response to hatchery concerns. Those changes are not in
Version R.
CHAIR WAGONER clarified that Version B was discussed in the
meeting Senator Stedman mentioned.
CHAIR WAGONER opened public testimony.
4:15:23 PM
KEVIN MCDOUGALL, President, Northern Southeast Regional
Aquaculture Association (NSRAA) Board of Directors, said cost
recovery is a difficult issue but HB 218 is a knee-jerk reaction
to low returns. The NSRAA Board is open to ways to deal with
this issue and has decided it will not oppose the bill but the
fact remains that it does have reservations about it. He urged
the committee to review the documents that NSRAA has submitted
before making a decision on the legislation. [Abbreviated
testimony due to audio difficulties.]
4:20:05 PM
DIANE PLATT, Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU), stated
support for HB 218. CDFU believes that many fishermen support
the effort to get away from existing processor practices and
this is a good starting point.
4:20:51 PM
ERIC JORDAN, Sitka commercial fisherman, said HB 218 needs
further consideration, but he applauds the direction because
there is a problem with the current cost recovery. There was a
fundamental error when cost recovery was established because
there was no intention to pay for it through the common property
fishery. He said that HB 218 is going in the right direction,
but the details require work. He suggested a change on page 2,
lines 7-10 and said it would be a good idea to appoint a task
force to look at the problem of cost recovery not going to a
common property fishery.
4:26:40 PM
SENATOR ELTON explained that component of the bill is telling
the Board of Fisheries it can adopt regulations regarding a
fisheries management plan that includes allocation plans, but
doesn't preclude anything else. He said it might make sense to
use the language that's there and do it through the Board of
Fisheries process rather than micromanaging the regulations in
statute. He asked Mr. Jordan to respond.
MR. JORDAN said he agreed with concept, but the more specific
guidance the legislature provides as to intent the better. This
is a big issue, he said, and we need to rethink the terminal
harvest or special harvest areas if we're going to conduct these
types of fisheries for all gear groups.
4:28:43 PM
DEBRA LYONS, Secretary/Treasurer, NSRAA Board of Directors,
asked the committee not to not pass HB 219 until more work is
done. She noted that the fiscal notes state zero and the
Department of Revenue fiscal note comments say the bill doesn't
authorize it to enforce assessments. She asked when the
enforcement would occur if nothing is budgeted to enforce the
language in the bill. A further comment states that a successful
program needs regular staffing yet nothing is budgeted for that.
As a member of the NSRAA board, she is interested in preserving
flexibility to respond to changes during the season. If this
were to pass, she understands that NSRAA would be bound to a
common property fishery at the assessment established for the
year regardless of the strength of the return. This would be
particularly problematic in years in which the anticipated
return was stronger than what materialized. The bill has further
inflexibility in that it would bind NSRAA's ability to fund
operating reserves to 100 percent and it doesn't allow the board
flexibility in setting financial policies and in making
financial decisions.
A further concern relates to risk. A worst-case scenario is that
the NSRAA Board and the fishermen agree, in good faith, to
participate in the common property fishery, but when the season
comes along the fishermen choose not to participate. NSRAA would
have no fish taken for cost recovery and would have nothing in
place with buyers to conduct a tradition cost recovery fishery
on such short notice.
MS. LYONS referenced subsection (d) on page 2 and suggested
changing the wording to, "The Department of Revenue will set the
assessment based on the recommendation of the board of directors
of the affected hatchery." She said she didn't understand the
difference between this assessment and a tax and why it can be
adopted without a vote of the fishermen.
MS. LYONS said there is little understanding of NSRAA's
strategic plans to diversify their cost recovery fishery over
time to allow more Chinook and Coho to be harvested and reduce
the burden on the Chum fishery. She suggested that other
alternatives could be explored. Perhaps the sport fishery could
contribute something toward NSRAA's operation and the
aquaculture tax could be increased a little. That combined with
relying on other species for revenue would be a preferred
solution to HB 218. She reiterated her request to hold the bill.
4:36:19 PM
DAN CASTLE, President, Southeast Alaska Seiners Association
(SEAS), said a vast majority of the SEAS membership accepts the
idea of doing something different with cost recovery in
Southeast Alaska. Cost recovery programs have evolved and are
required to take an increasing amount of hatchery return and the
benefit is spreading to the fishermen. SEAS would like to see
the returns pass through the fish holds of the fishermen that
are making a living from fishing. This would strengthen the
relationship that individual fishermen have with processors.
MR. CASTLE emphasized that the language in the bill is
permissive and reiterated supported for HB 218.
4:39:03 PM
BRUCE WALLACE, commercial fisherman from Ketchikan, said SB 218
is just a tool. The cost recovery program is not working and
change needs to occur. He agreed with Senator Elton that
micromanaging cost recovery through statute probably isn't the
answer and the decisions are probably better left to the Board
of Fisheries. Since the language is permissive and doesn't
mandate that NSRAA or any non-profit use the tool, he suggested
it is an appropriate vehicle to expand the toolkit. He urged the
committee to support HB 218.
4:41:21 PM
JERRY McCUNE, United Fishermen of Alaska, stated support for HB
218. He thanked the sponsor for accommodating the hatcheries'
concerns.
Referencing page 2, line 10, he noted that the Board of
Fisheries already has the authority to review allocation plans
among user groups of hatchery stocks and to close a fishery if a
run is weak and isn't sufficient for cost recovery or to get the
brood stock. All this bill does is let fishermen come to an
agreement with a hatchery to be able to take fish under common
property and sell them to the processor so the fishermen have
access and aren't sitting around waiting for the hatchery to do
the common property harvest.
With regard to subsection (b) he said the attorney general
advised that it has to be in the bill; it is part of existing
statute.
4:44:49 PM
BOB THORSTENSON, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Seiners
Association (SEAS), referenced Ms. Lyons' concern regarding an
assessment fishery without a vote of the fishermen and reminded
her that the current cost recovery is without a vote of the
fishermen. He said if SEAS members were polled, they would
overwhelmingly vote to eliminate cost recovery. Furthermore, he
said, SEAS fishermen are willing to pay to cover the cost
recovery goals in Southeast, but they don't want to put those
costs on the back of other gear groups. Regarding the suggestion
for a task force, he said that approach has been tried for many
years and HB 218 is partially the result of a task force.
Under this legislation the people who catch the fish would pay
the tax. "We're willing to pay the tax so we can have our boats
working and not have just a few people catching all the fish and
one processor processing all the fish," he said. SEAS believes
it has to be in statute and that paying the tax is the
responsible thing to do.
4:47:46 PM
MITCH EIDE, Petersburg, Board Member, Southeast Alaska Seiners
Association, asked the committee to support HB 218 because it
will give fishermen access to more fish through the common
property fishery.
CHAIR WAGONER closed public hearing and held HB 218 in committee
to allow time to prepare a committee substitute.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|