02/11/1998 05:05 PM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 11, 1998
5:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Chairman
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Mark Hodgins
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Gene Kubina
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 318
"An Act relating to waste of salmon."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 318
SHORT TITLE: WANTON WASTE OF SALMON
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) IVAN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/13/98 2033 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/98 2033 (H) FISHERIES, RESOURCES
02/11/98 Text (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Ivan
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 418
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3882
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement on HB 318.
DON STILES, Chairman
Norton Sound Economic Developement Corporation
P.O. Box 948
Nome, Alaska 99762
Telephone: (907) 443-4383
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 318
PETER ESQUIRO, General Manager
Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association
1308 Sawmill Creek Road
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-6850
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 318.
GARY FANDREI, Executive Director
Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association
HC 2 Box 849
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 283-5761
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 318.
DREW SPARLIN, Cook Inlet Commercial Fisherman
37010 Cannery Road
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-4096
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 318.
DON AMEND, General Manager
Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association
2721 North Tongass
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-9605
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 318 in its present form.
DAVE COBB, Business Manager
Valdez Fisheries Aquaculture Corporation
P.O. Box 1858
Valdez, Alaska 00686
Telephone: (907) 835-4874
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 318 in its present form.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 465-6143
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 318.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-4, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN ALAN AUSTERMAN called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Austerman, Ogan and Hodgins.
Representative Kubina was absent. Representative Ivan arrived at
5:07 p.m.
HB 318 - WANTON WASTE OF SALMON
Number 0037
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN announced that committee would hear HB 318,
"An Act relating to waste of salmon." He stated that he would be
taking testimony only because it is not his intention to move the
bill, as a committee substitute may be introduced at a later
hearing.
Number 0074
TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant to Representative Ivan, stated
that Representative Ivan is the sponsor of HB 318 and is presently
attending another meeting but is expected shortly. He read the
following statement into the record: "House Bill 318 was
introduced in response to the Division of Legislative Audit Report,
dated August 22, 1997. The report was entitled 'Department of
Commerce and Economic Development, Department of Fish and Game
Review of Funding and Operation of Private Nonprofit Hatcheries.'
The audit suggested that exemptions should be granted to permit
hatchery operators to extract roe from excessive brood stock and
deep water dispose of the carcasses. The roe would then be able to
enable hatcheries to cost recover, providing an economic benefit to
the hatcheries.
"The main purpose of this legislation is to prohibit the roe
stripping by hatcheries for the purpose of selling the roe while
discarding the remainder of the fish. It's a feeling of many
fishermen, particularly in Western Alaska that this gives a
hatchery that conducts this practice a distinct advantage over a
commercial fishery since roe is extremely valued, especially in the
Far East markets. Sale of the commercial catch may be limited with
little or no market price despite part of the catch having roe
content. This legislation would not affect a hatchery's ability to
collect roe for brood stock. At least that is the intention of the
legislation.
"House Bill 318 eliminates the provisions of current law that have
caused much confusion in the past and that have permitted the
commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game to allow hatcheries
to strip roe.
"I have been in contact with the Department of Fish and Game and
right now we're in the process of working out some of the
differences that they may have with this legislation. And I think
it is important to note that Representative Ivan is not against the
collection of brood stock for rearing purposes. I want to make
that clear because that is one of the contentions that you will
hear from the hatcheries this evening, that this bill will
prohibit. And again it is one of the things that we will have to
work out when we tighten up the language in the bill, as it states
now. Representative Ivan also believes that it is important that
the commissioner have the tools to deal with in-season problems
that may occur that are not dealt with in legislation or in other
issues or board of fish matters. As it stands right now this bill
would not allow the commissioner to have any latitude in making any
of those decisions. The bill is broad and it is going to undergo
refinements prior to its leaving this committee, as Representative
Austerman has indicated, if the committee decides to move it to the
next committee of referral.
"Again, Representative Ivan is opposed to hatcheries being able to
use only the salmon roe while discarding the remainder of the fish.
Roe stripping, according to some of the sources we have, gives
hatcheries a huge advantage in the market where salmon prices are
already depressed and some fisheries are having a hard time finding
markets for the entire salmon product."
Number 0324
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS asked what the practical application
would be concerning the hatcheries around Cook Inlet. He asked how
it would affect the fishermen and the market. He asked what is the
ultimate goal out in the bush.
Number 0356
MR. WRIGHT stated that the ultimate goal is to prohibit roe
stripping by hatcheries and then selling the roe on the open market
in cost recovery. He stated that presently hatcheries can conduct
cost recovery operations using excessive brood stock or returns to
help the hatcheries produce funds. He asserted that currently, a
lot of the hatcheries are financially strapped. One of the
complaints in Western Alaska is that roe stripping gives the
hatcheries a distinct advantage over fishermen who are dealing with
depressed prices and lack of market places. He pointed out that
salmon roe is especially valued in the Far East.
Number 0407
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if the Western Alaska fishermen get
less money for their fish.
MR. WRIGHT replied that is the feeling; fishermen have had a hard
time finding markets, there are few processors and if the product
is not valued this situation will continue.
Number 0430
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if fishermen are only paid for the
female fish.
Number 0441
Mr. WRIGHT replied no, the fishermen don't sort the fish by sex.
Number 0455
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN stated that he is trying to level the
playing field for some of the residents in the lower Kuskokwim,
Arctic Yukon Kuskokwim (AYK) area, that depend on the chum fishery
especially for commercial fishing. He stated that a marketing
council is trying to help his area get the best price for the
salmon.
Number 0548
DON STILES, Chairman, Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation
(NSEDC), testified via teleconference from Nome in support of HB
318. He stated that the definitions in the bill strengthen the law
and most importantly remove the authority of the commissioner of
the Department of Fish and Game to grant exemptions to this law.
He stated that under current law the commissioner of the Department
of Fish and Game granted exemptions in 1996, allowing hatcheries in
Southeast to dump over 3.2 million chum salmon after stripping the
roe. He stated that not only has the overproduction by hatcheries
glutted the flesh market for salmon, but the exemption to the waste
law glutted the roe market as well. He asserted that this waste
has devastated an already depressed fishery in the Southern Norton
Sound.
MR. STILES stated that there was a report from the Department of
Commerce and Economic Development and the Department of Fish and
Game, asking the legislature to consider amending the salmon waste
law to permit private nonprofit hatchery exemptions to the law.
This recommendation is made only as a benefit analysis and not as
a cost benefit analysis. He declared that there was no
consideration given to the associated drop in prices and income
felt by Western Alaska fishermen. He pointed out that the chum
markets are still affected by the flood of salmon and this has
adversely affected every person living in the North Sound Region.
Number 0711
PETER ESQUIRO, General Manager, Northern Southeast Regional
Aquaculture Association, (NSERAA) testified via teleconfernec from
Sitka that he did not think it is a good idea to strip the
commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game of the ability to
respond to unplanned situations, such as what happened in 1996. In
1996 markets were overwhelmed, processing capacities were not large
enough due to the 6 to 9 percent marine survivals of salmon when 2
percent is the normal rate. He pointed out that the world markets
were also saturated at the same time. He informed the committee
that he has never seen this happen except in 1996 and seriously
doubts that he would see that amount of chums again in his
lifetime.
MR. ESQUIRO stated that the NSRAA operates the Hidden Falls
Hatchery and the Medvejie Inlet facilities in Sitka. He asserted
that the NSRAA tries very hard to minimize the number of surplus
brood fish that they have returning to the facilities. However, it
is very hard to accurately estimate the number of fish in a school
while looking at choppy waters and glaring sunlight. Surplus brood
fish cost the NSRAA money and as a result they try to avoid that
situation, if at all possible. He explained that the Hidden Falls
Hatchery has had some very large returns but there as been up to 85
percent interception rate of those fish by the common property
users. He stated that the hatchery usually get 15 percent back of
a total run of which the hatchery uses for the brood stock and cost
recovery purposes. He explained that they do not try to make a
surplus of brood stock. When this occurs crews have to be kept on
for a much longer time period in order to properly take care of the
fish. He asserted that it is not a money making enterprise as some
people would suggest. The brood stock situation has never been a
part of the wanton waste law and hopped that it would not be made
a part of it.
Number 0923
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that the committee plans to amend the
bill to exempt brood stock. He asked how many of NSRAA's fish were
used for cost recovery in 1997.
Number 0940
MR. ESQUIRO replied that in 1997 at the Hidden Falls Hatchery they
utilized about 200,000 chum salmon and at the Medvejie Hatchery
they utilized 300,000 for cost recovery. He stated that he has
been with the NSRAA for 17 years and they have never had any
difficulty selling the whole cost recovery fish, the only eggs that
are taken out are from the few surplus brood fish that cannot be
avoided.
Number 0978
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked what their brood stock amounts to.
MR. ESQUIRO responded that the brood stock at Hidden Falls is
approximately 100,000 fish and 30,000 at the Medvejie Hatchery.
Number 1005
GARY FANDREI, Executive Director, Cook Inlet Aquaculture
Association, testified via teleconference from Kenai that the
association does not want to see or support the waste of Alaska
salmon resources. He stated that the association does not support
unlimited roe stripping and has not conducted this practice. House
Bill 318 is directed at the practice of roe stripping by private
nonprofit hatcheries. He stated that it is drafted in response to
a recent recommendation by the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development. He stated that the department felt that private
nonprofit hatcheries should be allowed to extract roe from
excessive brood stock to recover some of the costs of operations.
He explained that the intent of this recommendation was to provide
an economic value to an otherwise valueless salmon resource. He
pointed out that the removal of roe from excessive brood stock is
not the same as the roe-stripping activity that occurred in 1996.
Excessive brood stock are fish that are left over after the
hatchery egg take needs are met. He explained that these fish are
of a very low quality and are not suitable for sale. The only
valuable component is the roe itself, the flesh is not an asset.
He pointed out that Cook Inlet Aquaculture does not extract and
sell roe. The association does collect eggs for hatchery operation
and disposes of the carcasses. He continued that most of the
operations are associated with sockeye salmon enhancement, sockeye
salmon carcasses are an important nutrient source in sockeye
rearing lakes. He asserted that the ability must be maintained to
return the carcasses to the water body that they came from, in
order to maintain the rearing environment.
MR. FANDREI stated that his real concern with HB 318 centers on the
limitations imposed by it. The bill states that the only
acceptable use of salmon flesh is for human or domestic pet food,
fertilizer or for scientific and education purposes. Without the
commissioner's ability to make exceptions to these uses, we could
be limiting the opportunity for other uses and hindering the
development for new uses for the salmon resource. He added that
the ability of the commissioner is also compromised if there can
not be adjustments made during the season.
MR. FANDREI stated that if the purpose of the bill is to limit roe
stripping, he recommended that language be drafted that does just
that.
Number 1165
DREW SPARLIN, Cook Inlet Commercial Fisherman, testified via
teleconference from Kenai that he has been a commercial fisherman
for 30 years and has served on the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Board for
15 years. He stated that he supported Mr. Fandrei's comments. He
stated that roe stripping in Cook Inlet has not been an issue and
he does not anticipate to become an issue. He stated that he was
glad to hear the bill was going to be worked on and he hoped it
would be more narrowly focused.
Number 1214
DON AMEND, General Manager, Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture
Association, testified via teleconference from Ketchikan and read
the following statement into the record: "The Alaska state not-
for-profit hatcheries do not want salmon wasted nor do we want
unlimited roe stripping. However, we have concerns regarding HB
318. The state of Alaska has invested over $109 million in the
private not-for-profit hatcheries, and this investment may be
jeopardized by the passage of this bill. There have been several
public meetings in the last two years sponsored by the Governor's
Salmon Industry Response Cabinet on hatchery operators selling roe
from mature salmon. There has also been a lawsuit filed and ruled
on. There have been many facts brought before the public's
attention. In addition, similar concerns have been expressed by
some legislators and a legislative audit was ordered. The
legislative auditors reviewed all the facts, made conclusions, and
submitted recommendations.
"A conclusion from the legislative audit was that hatcheries are
achieving their goal of enhancing fish, but financially many are
unstable. This makes the state loans unstable. The Legislative
audit also recommended legislative changes which would allow
hatchery operators to obtain economic value from hatchery fish
which cannot be economically harvested under the current statutes.
What the legislative audit concluded and recommended were logical
and should be adopted. There is no question that the hatcheries
are having a significant economic impact on the fisheries and
communities in which they operate. Legislative action should be
focused on stabilizing the financial foundation of the hatcheries
rather than attempting to destabilize them.
"House Bill 318 should not be passed in its present form because it
would make the hatcheries uneconomical and would result in many
hatchery closures. The primary problem is there is no exemption
for brood stock. Brood stock carcasses have no commercial value
and in many cases cannot even be given away without substantial
costs to the hatchery operator. Unless there is a way to discard
brood stock carcasses, many hatchery operations would not be
financially viable. The committee should address the problem of
brood stock carcasses.
"One of the stated reasons for HB 318 was introduced was because
the practice of selling roe and discarding carcasses gave the
hatcheries a distinct advantage over a commercial fishery. This
statement is not supported by any of the facts. There are several
reports that conclude that this practice has no impact. Alaska
salmon and roe compete on a world market which are controlled by
forces outside Alaska."
Number 1365
MR. AMEND stated that despite the low return of sockeye, prices are
still very low. He continued to read the following statement into
the record: "There have been no studies shown that hatchery sale
of salmon or roe have any impact on markets. Certainly brood stock
carcasses do not compete against commercial fishermen or any of the
other markets. They are unfit for human consumption and cannot be
rendered into fish meal, economically."
MR. AMEND stated that he would be willing to offer suggestions and
help the committee in drafting some legislation that might be more
helpful.
Number 1402
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that there is going to be a redraft of HB
318 and another public hearing will result. He asked for the
number of cost recovery fish that they take.
MR. AMEND responded that last year the association harvested 2
million fish out of Bernice Bay's cost recovery operation of 4.4
million fish.
Number 1418
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if it is correct that they harvested 2
million cost recovery fish out of 4.4 million fish.
MR. AMEND replied that is correct.
Number 1435
DAVE COBB, Business Manager, Valdez Fisheries Aquaculture
Corporation, testified via teleconference from Valdez that it is a
private, not for profit hatchery. He stated the hatchery has
decided that they have an inherent responsibility to find a use for
the carcasses. In 1996, Valdez Fisheries gave away to the public,
in excess of 1 million pounds of carcasses at the corporation's
expense of $100,000. He continued that this past year they gave
away approximately 400,000 pounds of carcasses to the public. He
informed the committee that they are in the process of looking at
technology and working through the Kake Native Corporation to find
a use for these carcasses. He pointed out that there is the
possibility for the use of the carcasses as a dried fish. He
asserted that hatcheries are often used as scape goats for world
conditions and world markets, that they do not have any control
over. He stated that the hatcheries are trying to find an answer
to what to do with the carcasses and at the same time they need to
recover their costs. He stated that he has a hard time facing the
public and the fishermen when he has a carcass that he can't use
and can't recover any economic benefit from it to offset the costs.
It is important the this bill is not passed in its present form.
He reiterated that hatcheries are being used as scapegoats for
situations that are beyond their control.
Number 1532
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked for the number of cost recovery fish that
they took in 1997.
MR. COBB replied that it was approximately 2.1 million fish for
cost recovery out of a return of 8 million fish.
Number 1551
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Department of Fish and Game,
stated that the department has been in discussions with
Representative Ivan and they do have some concerns with the bill.
The first is the issue of brood stock. The hatcheries are
authorized to dispose of their brood stock, fish that they take the
eggs from for propagation purposes. He explained that they are
authorized to do this by a regulation the Board of Fisheries passed
20 years ago, directing the commissioner of the Department of Fish
and Game to use his authority under the salmon waste law and to
authorize other uses of these carcasses for brood stock. He stated
that the way HB 318 is written now, the commissioners authority to
authorize that would be removed; which would remove the authority
of the Board of Fisheries' regulation and hatcheries would then
have no legal basis to dispose of their brood stock carcasses. He
stated that Representative Ivan has recognized that as a concern.
Number 1642
MR. BRUCE continued that the other concern is to keep flexibility
in the law to allow the commissioner to deal with unforeseen
conditions. Salmon are at the end of their life upon return to the
terminal hatchery sites; they will die within a few days. He
stated that if circumstances are such that the commercial harvest
does not occur and there is a large build up fish in one of these
areas, the best alternative is not necessarily to just let the fish
die there. He stated that it does not necessarily have to result
in the removal of the roe, it could just be for the removal of the
fish from the water for disposal in deep water.
Number 1687
MR. GERON explained that another concern with the legislation is
that it does not authorize the use of salmon as bait. The
department has been working on this issue for several years, it has
been a historical practice in the crab and halibut fisheries to use
salmon as bait, but the law has never authorized that use. The
commissioner, through his authority, authorizes other uses than the
ones specifically stated in law, the use of salmon as bait has been
allowed. That is commercially harvested salmon for use in other
commercial fisheries, not sport harvested salmon which is illegal
to be used as bait.
Number 1737
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked that couldn't the bait issue be addressed
in regulation and then it would not have to be covered in the bill.
Number 1743
MR. BRUCE responded that the bill would remove the commissioner's
authority to authorize other uses than those uses specifically
listed in the statute. Therefore, the commissioner's ability to do
it through regulation is removed. He asserted that is why it is
important to keep some flexibility in the statute for the
commissioner to have the authority to deal with situations that
have not been foreseen. He stated that authorization to use bait
in the commercials fisheries could be included in statute.
Number 1775
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked what is percentage or poundage in
the demand for bait.
Number 1783
MR. BRUCE responded that it is a small number, but in the case of
brood stock, where the fish are held to their ultimate maturity
many fishermen do not want to use those for bait. Typically the
salmon that is used for bait is a lower grade commercial quality
salmon. He explained that when salmon mature they lose their oil
content and the flesh quality greatly deteriorates, which would
eliminate their usefulness for bait. He stated that it is not
preferred to use brood stock for bait. The lower grade terminal
harvest can be used for bait which would utilize the carcasses as
well as utilize the roe.
Number 1830
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if there was another use for carcasses
such as for the enhancement of crab fisheries.
Number 1854
MR. BRUCE responded that he did not know of any experiments that
have been done to test the feasibility of that. However, in the
state of Washington they have begun to return the carcasses that
they get from some of the hatcheries returns back to the freshwater
environment. This is because it is documented that salmon in the
freshwater environment provide a complex of nutrients that are
important to that environment. He stated that those streams are
nutrient poor. In Alaska, where there are large natural returns
and a healthy environment, there aren't many cases where we would
need to do that. He stated that he did not think that in regards
to the salt water environment, no one has ever really tested that
as a feasible way of trying to rebuild crab populations. However,
it is known that crab do feed on decaying salmon that have died
after spawning.
Number 1903
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if it would be worth it to experiment on
this.
Number 1912
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that there are two crab biologists left
in the state of Alaska, one is retiring and they are not going to
fill that position. He stated that there is a shortage of king
crab biologists in the state. He explained that in Kodiak the
amount of fish waste was far more than they could consume in their
meal plants. Therefore, they had permission to dump the waste
offshore. This was done for a number of years and then the
National Marine Fisheries Service and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration went out to the area with an underground
camera and found no more crab than normal. There bottom was also
clear, there was not a build up of waste, indicating that the ocean
currents had dispersed it. He stated that it was not dumped in the
king crab grounds.
Number 1865
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that there are several fishermen who do
their own processing and they freeze their fish for bait. He asked
if this was included in the regulation.
Number 1979
MR. BRUCE responded that the salmon waste law does not prohibit
that as they are using the carcass for bait, therefore they are
allowed to sell the roe as a separate product. Some sell the flesh
to one buyer and the roe to a different buyer, which is legal and
would still be legal under this bill.
Number 2000
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if that was under statute and not just a
regulation.
Number 2006
MR. BRUCE responded that for many years the use of salmon for bait
was technically illegal but everyone had accepted that as a
standard practice. Three years ago the department realized that it
was illegal and used the commissioner's authority under the salmon
waste law to write a regulation to authorize bait. Currently, it
is legal through a regulation that has statutory authority
underlying it to permit such use.
Number 2033
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said "That authorization to use it as bait is
probably almost impossible to enforce, if somebody was catching
their own fish and have possession of them to use for bait. We'd
dump them and say they're chumming or something." He thought that
it would be wide open for abuse.
Number 2070
JOHN CARTER, Representative, Douglas Island Pink And Chum
Incorporated (DIPAC), stated that it seems like this bill is
directed at what went on in 1996, more than what was reflected in
the Legislative Audit Report. The two situations that the audit
report spoke to were the excess to brood stock, which is a very
limited situation, and those fish are not of value. He stated that
even the roe of those fish are of less value because the fish are
extremely mature. He said, "DIPAC has 450 foot fish latter, we
have a lot of fish in there that are coming up the latter to be
used for brood stock and it is very difficult to call that exactly.
And without some ability here we've-- you really would end up
wasting revenue, what revenue you would have from the excess fish."
He asserted that if the bill passes as is, those fish would have to
be put back into the ocean in the round. There would be value
wasted.
Number 2140
MR. CARTER stated that at the end of a harvest, after the
commercial harvest is finished, there are still some fish that
continue to come in for a period of time. Those fish are dark and
have very little value, therefore fishermen could remove the roe
from the fish to sell and then discard the carcasses into the
ocean. He reiterated that this is a reaction to the situation in
1996. He stated that the Legislative Audit did not suggest that
roe stripping should be allowed again as it was in 1996.
Number 2179
MR. CARTER stated that the hatchery programs, as they are now
functioning, are a user pay situation. Without cost recovery we
would have to go back to state owned and funded hatcheries or would
have to do away with the enhancement effort. He stated that would
have meant that fishermen would have caught 25 percent less salmon.
He asserted that cost recovery is the evil that results in order to
make the program work, as a user pay situation.
Number 2224
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked what would be the threshold price of
the flesh, in order for it to work economically or is the fish of
too bad a quality to be worth anything.
Number 2234
MR. CARTER asked if he was talking about the excess to brood stock
fish.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked when would they find that it is better
to discard the fish, rather than to process it.
Number 2250
MR. CARTER stated that at the beginning of the run 60 to 70 percent
of the fish are bright colored fresh market fish, at the tail-end
of run the fish are then called chalks because the flesh is to the
point were it will not even cook. He explained that the eggs still
have value but the flesh is uncookable. He stated that the
processors up until that point bid on the fish responding to the
economics of the catch. He stated that this year, in this area,
the fishermen were getting 25 cents to 30 cents a pound and if the
hatcheries were able to get that same amount it would have made
things a lot easier.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked what their cost recovery for chums were.
Number 2316
MR. CARTER stated that it was 600,000 for chum salmon. He added
that $1 million of their budget came from chum salmon cost recovery
this year. Their budget is about $3.5 million. He stated that
they do a lot of things to a raise revenue.
Number 2338
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked how the 600,000 figure compares with the
total return.
MR. CARTER responded that the total return was about 1.2 million.
He stated that DIPAC actually took more than the fishermen this
year for cost recovery. He stated that he could get the exact
number.
Number 2362
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked how much it really costs to do cost
recovery as approximately half the fish go to cost recovery.
Number 2369
MR. CARTER responded that when DIPAC's main facility was built,
chum salmon prices were at about 80 cents and they had based the
economics of it in the loan package to be at 39 cents. He stated
that currently when it is 15 cents to 18 cents a pound, one can see
what the hatcheries are up against.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that he totally understood and that the
world market has raised far more questions then they have got
answers to.
Number 2398
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there was anybody else that would like
to testify, seeing none, he stated that HB 318 would be held over.
He stated that he would like Representative Ivan and his staff to
put together a committee substitute for the bill.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN adjourned the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting at 5:50 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|