03/18/1998 05:06 PM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 18, 1998
5:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Chairman
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Mark Hodgins
Representative Gene Kubina
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 33(RES)
Supporting reduction of fishing capacity in the Bering Sea fishing
fleet and Americanization of the fishing fleet through passage of
S. 1221, the "American Fisheries Act," by the United States
Congress.
- MOVED CSSJR 33(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 55
Relating to the allocation of pollock and Pacific cod.
- MOVED HJR 55 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 318
"An Act relating to waste of salmon."
- MOVED CSHB 318(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 423
"An Act relating to the Alaska access fishery trust, purchase of
commercial fisheries permits, vessels, gear, equipment, and leases
by the Department of Fish and Game, sport fishing license
surcharge, and the entry permit surcharge; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SJR 33
SHORT TITLE: SUPPORT AMERICAN FISHERIES ACT
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) MACKIE, Taylor
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/16/98 2211 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/98 2211 (S) RESOURCES
01/28/98 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
01/28/98 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/02/98 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/02/98 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/03/98 (S) RLS AT 11:35 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/03/98 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/03/98 2716 (S) RES RPT CS 3DP 2NR NEW TITLE
03/03/98 2716 (S) DP: HALFORD, TAYLOR, LEMAN
03/03/98 2716 (S) NR: SHARP, GREEN
03/03/98 2716 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SJR & CS (S.RES)
03/05/98 2750 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/5/98
03/05/98 2755 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/05/98 2755 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/05/98 2755 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
03/05/98 2755 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSJR 33(RES)
03/05/98 2755 (S) PASSED Y19 N1
03/05/98 2755 (S) HOFFMAN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
03/06/98 2773 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
03/06/98 2773 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y15 N- E4
A1
03/06/98 2775 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/09/98 2560 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/09/98 2560 (H) FISHERIES
03/18/98 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HJR 55
SHORT TITLE: ALLOCATION OF POLLOCK AND PACIFIC COD
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) AUSTERMAN, Moses, Elton
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/30/98 2180 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/30/98 2181 (H) FISHERIES
02/11/98 2293 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ELTON
02/16/98 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/16/98 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/11/98 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/11/98 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/18/98 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
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 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/11/98 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/09/98 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/09/98 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/11/98 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/11/98 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/18/98 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 423
SHORT TITLE: ACCESS FISHERY TRUST/LIC. PERMIT SURCHARGE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) MULDER
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/16/98 2333 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/16/98 2334 (H) FSH, RESOURCES
03/09/98 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/09/98 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/11/98 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/11/98 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/18/98 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR JERRY MACKIE
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 427
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4925
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement on SJR 33.
TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Ivan
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 418
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3882
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 318.
DR. JOHN WHITE, Chairman
Board of Fisheries
P.O. Box 757
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-3778
POSITION STATEMENT: Answer questions regarding Board of Fisheries
meeting move.
LARRY ENGLE, previous Chairman
Board of Fisheries
Old Glenn Highway
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-4132
POSITION STATEMENT: Answer questions regarding Board of Fisheries
meeting move.
BRUCE TWOMLEY, Chairman/Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Department of Fish and Game
8800 Glacier Highway, Suite 109
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-6160
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 423.
REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 501
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2647
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 423.
KEVIN DELANEY, Director
Division of Sport Fish
Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
Telephone: (907) 267-2224
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 423.
JERRY McCUNE, United Fishermen of Alaska
211 4th Street, Suite 112
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-2820
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 423.
BRENT JOHNSON, President
Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association
P.O. Box 508
Clam Gulch, Alaska 99586
Telephone: (907) 262-2492
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 423.
DALE BONDURANT
HC 1 Box 1197
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-0818
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 423.
GRACE KENDALL
P.O. Box 2523
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-6130
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 423.
DONNA SCHOWEILER, Commercial Fisherman
HC 1 Box 162-A
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-8462
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 423.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-11, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN ALAN AUSTERMAN called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 5:06 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Austerman, Ivan, Ogan and
Hodgins. Representative Kubina arrived at 5:05 p.m.
CSSJR 33(RES) - SUPPORT AMERICAN FISHERIES ACT
Number 0010
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN announced the first order of business to be
CSSJR 33(RES), Supporting reduction of fishing capacity in the
Bering Sea fishing fleet and Americanization of the fishing fleet
through passage of S. 1221, the "American Fisheries Act," by the
United States Congress. He asked Senator Mackie to present the
bill.
Number 0033
SENATOR JERRY MACKIE stated that committee has already moved the
House companion resolution, so he would just highlight the changes
present in the Senate version. He stated that there were several
changes in CSSJR 33(RES), the first is in the title, as it adds
support for Bering Sea fishing fleet reduction and for
Americanization of the fleet. He read the following into the
record: "The second is in the first three whereas clauses of CSSJR
33(RES), are new which express the following: (a) That there is an
overcapitalization of fishing harvest capacity in the Bering Sea
and that this typically can result in excessive exploitation, and
(b) the state values sustainable fishery management principles
which minimize damage to the fishery resources and habitat while
maximizing the economic benefits of these resources for Alaska
communities and U.S. citizens. Change number 3. The first two
whereas clauses on page 2 of the Senate version compare to the two
clauses on page 1, line 12 to page 2, line 3 of HJR 48. In the
senate version, the references to tonnage, length and horsepower
limits are not specified so that was taken out in this version.
The fourth change, the senate clause beginning on page 2, line 6 is
the same as the House clause beginning on page 1, line 6. The
Senate version eliminates the House clause following page 1, lines
9-11 as redundant. Number 5. The two Senate clauses on page 2,
lines 9 to 14 compare to the House clauses on page 2, lines 4 to 9
where, again, specific references to tonnage, length, horsepower,
and numbers of vessels are eliminated. Number 6. The final
whereas clause of the Senate version consolidates the last three
whereas clauses in the House version into a simple statement
promoting Americanization of fisheries. And lastly, the Senate
resolved clause beginning on page 2, line 17 more specifically
states that the legislature's support is for the provisions of
S.1221 that reduce fishing capacity in the Bering Sea and promote
Americanization of the fleet. The House resolved clause on page 2,
line 19 simply supports the legislation." He stated that those who
had concerns with the original bill should feel more comfortable
with this version.
Number 0088
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN referred to the six Community Development
Quota (CDQ) groups in Western Alaska from Nome to the Aleutian and
the Pribilof Islands. He asked if this in any way would harm the
CDQ group's efforts to partner with processors in the Bering Sea.
Number 0095
SENATOR MACKIE responded that there was only one CDQ group that was
brought to his attention that this would have an affect on and it
is one that has a partnership with American Seafoods but as far as
the Norton Sound Economic Development CDQ group they own 49 percent
of the partnership and it does not affect them at all.
Number 0115
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS made a motion to move CSSJR 33(RES)
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note.
Number 0120
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN objected to the motion.
Number 0127
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked for a roll call vote. Representatives
Hodgins, Kubina, Ivan and Austerman voted in favor of CSSJR
33(RES). Representative Ogan voted against CSSJR 33(RES).
Chairman Austerman announced CSSJR 33(RES) moved out of the House
Special Committee on Fisheries.
HJR 55 - ALLOCATION OF POLLOCK AND PACIFIC COD
Number 0131
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN announced the next order of business to be HJR
55, relating to the allocation of pollock and Pacific cod.
Number 0138
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to move HJR 55 out of
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note.
Number 0140
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN objected.
Number 0153
REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA stated that he wanted to say something
for the record. He stated that it first seemed like a cut and dry
answer, that we would want to do everything possible to support the
onshore based processors because one would think that they are
hiring more Alaskans and paying more taxes. However, he stated
that the offshore sector is providing more of a benefit to Alaska
then they have, as they are now hiring more Alaskans and helping to
diversify the salmon industry. He explained that he is going to
vote to move the bill out because he believes there has been
politics played. He stated that he has always said that the
legislature should not be involved in allocation issues, but he
believed that it was politics that turned over a decision by the
North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC) not once but
twice, on the allocation issue. He stated that by supporting HJR
55, he is being consistent regarding his view on allocation issues,
as it is not right for Washington D.C. to change decisions by the
council either. He added that the onshore sector needs to think
about the issue, he is not sure how much of that is American owned.
He suggested the onshore sector looked into their abilities to
diversify as well.
Number 0195
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN stated that his objection to moving HJR 55 is
because it is an allocation debate that belongs to the NPFMC. Also
because the offshore sector is partnered with the Community
Development Quota (CDQ) groups and has provided more jobs and
higher wages for the communities. He stated that his objection is
inorder to support the CDQ groups that he represents.
Number 0211
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that he agreed that it was not a cut and
dry issue. He said "there is going to be some Alaskans that win
and some that lose in this and if there is going to be some
Alaskans that lose, let the feds to it to us like they do it to us
on everything else, instead of doing it to ourselves."
Number 0224
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that it is a cut and dry situation in his
mind, he would like to get 100 percent of the processing done
onshore, to build the tax base and economic base of the state of
Alaska.
Number 0242
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that he did not think this would have a
tremendous effect on what is going to happen but he would hope that
if more fish are allocated onshore they will give deference to
constituents of Representative Ivan.
Number 0258
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that wanted to make another comment. He
disagreed that the decision should be made by the NPFMC. He stated
that the allocation issues that have gone before the government
appointed Board of Fisheries and Board of Game should stay out of
the Legislature but the NPFMC's interests are separate from what
the state of Alaska's issues are and, at times, interests are.
Individual Fish Quotas (IFQ) are an example of why the state of
Alaska should have been a lot more involved in that issue as that
resource was given away. He stated that is important for the
legislature to be involved in what happens with the NPFMC.
Number 0278
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN called for a roll call vote. Representative
Hodgins, Kubina and Austerman voted in favor of HJR 55.
Representative Ogan and Ivan voted against HJR 55. HJR 55 moved
out of the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
HB 318 - WANTON WASTE OF SALMON
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN announced that the next order of business would
be HB 318, "An Act relating to waste of salmon." He stated that
the committee heard the bill once before and he believed that some
amendments to the bill would be discussed.
TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant to Representative Ivan, stated
that there are two amendments to HB 318.
Number 0316
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN moved to adopt Amendment 1 for discussion
purposes. Amendment 1, 0-LS130\A.3, reads as follows:
Page 1, line 14, following "fish,":
Insert "bait,"
Page 2, following line 1:
Insert a new bill section to read:
Sec.2 AS 16.10.450 is amended by adding new subsections
to read:
(c) Except as provided by (d) and (e) of this
section, a hatchery operator is subject to AS
16.05.831.
(d) Notwithstanding AS 16.05.831, a hatchery
operator who takes eggs or sperm for use in a
hatchery or a related salmon culture facility from
adult salmon returning to the locations designated
by the department under AS 16.10.420 shall provide
for the utilization of the flesh of the salmon from
which eggs or sperm are taken unless the hatchery
operator determines that the flesh is not fit for
human consumption and that it is not economical to
provide for utilization of the flesh.
(e) Notwithstanding AS 16.05.831, if the
commissioner issues a permit authorizing the
stripping and commercial sale of eggs from adult
salmon taken at locations designated by the
department under AS 16.10.420, a hatchery operator
may strip eggs from the salmon for commercial sale
and dispose of the flesh of the salmon in
accordance with procedures prescribed by the
commissioner in the permit. The commissioner may
issue a permit authorizing the stripping of eggs
from salmon and disposal of the salmon carcasses by
a hatchery operator if the commissioner determines
that sufficient salmon eggs will be recovered to
continue operation of the hatchery and related
salmon culture facilities and to provide salmon
eggs to other hatcheries, that the flesh of the
salmon carcasses is not fit for human consumption,
and that it is not economically feasible to use the
flesh of the salmon in a manner consistent with AS
16.05.831. The fee for a permit issued under this
subsection is equal to 50 percent of the net
proceeds earned from the sale of the salmon eggs to
a seafood processor or other purchaser. The
commissioner shall adopt regulations as necessary
to implement this subsection and shall seek to
promote the maximum practical use of the flesh of
salmon harvested by hatchery operators. Permit
fees collected under this subsection and shall be
deposited into the general fund. The legislature
may appropriate money collected under this
subsection to the Department of Fish and Game,
division of commercial fisheries management and
development."
Number 0319
MR. WRIGHT explained that there was some discussion about whether
hatcheries would fit under the wanton waste laws and instead of
revising the wanton waste laws, the drafter felt that it was more
appropriate to put the wanton waste prohibition under the hatchery
statutes, rather than the wanton waste statutes. It does exclude
hatcheries from wanton waste when they take milt and eggs for
broodstock and those carcasses are not fit for human consumption
can be disposed of in the most economical way possible. He stated
that Section (E) states that if there is broodstock that returns to
the hatchery in excess of cost recovery for milt and egg take, the
broodstock may be roe stripped but with the proviso that 50
percent of the net proceeds will go to the department and the other
50 percent will go back to the hatchery. He stated that this was
to discourage managing for an excessive broodstock. He stated this
would cover the cost incurred for the disposal of carcasses that
are unfit for human consumption.
Number 0344
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated that he would like to offer an
amendment to the Amendment 1. He stated that it would delete on
page 2, lines 1-7, "The fee for a permit issued under this
subsection is equal to 50 percent of the net proceeds earned from
the sale of the salmon eggs to a seafood processor or other
purchaser."
Number 0355
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked that in other words Representative Hodgins
would like to gut the essence of the proposed amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS replied yes.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there was an objection on the amendment
to Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN objected.
Number 0357
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated that he did not think there should be
a fee involved with the bill and that there is an economic damage
in having the fee more so than the punitive advantage for having
fee in there.
MR. WRIGHT stated that if it was going to be done correctly on page
2, lines 4-7 would have to be deleted as well.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated that he would then include in the
amendment to Amendment 1, the deletion of the language, "Permit
fees collected under this subsection shall be deposited into the
general fund. The legislature may appropriate money collected
under this subsection to the Department of Fish and Game, division
of commercial fisheries management and development."
Number 0368
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that he would accept that as part of the
amendment to Amendment 1. He stated that the reason that language
is included in the proposed amendment is to try and discourage
hatcheries from overestimating the amount of broodstock that they
will take. He asked Representative Hodgins if he thought hatcheries
should be able to take more broodstock than necessary.
Number 0376
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated that he had a problem with the fee
structure.
Number 0376
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if Representative Hodgins if he thought
there was any way that they should be controlling the excess brood
stock.
Number 0378
MR. WRIGHT stated that it one of the safeguards to keep from
managing for excessive broodstock. He stated that there are
requirements for the hatcheries in the disposal of the fish that
are not used for broodstock. He stated that this is a mechanism to
get rid of the excessive broodstock and not incur any more cost but
yet not allow for carte blanche roe stripping.
Number 0393
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked for a roll call vote on the amendment to
Amendment 1. Representative Hodgins voted in favor of the
amendment to Amendment 1. Representatives Ivan, Ogan and Austerman
voted against it. Representative Kubina was absent. The amendment
to Amendment 1 failed.
Number 0402
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that the original Amendment 1 was back
before the committee. He asked if there was an objection.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS objected.
Number 0407
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN called for a roll call vote. Representative
Hodgins voted against Amendment 1. Representatives Ivan, Ogan and
Austerman voted in favor of it. Representative Kubina was absent.
Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN made a motion to adopt Amendment 2 which reads:
Page 1, Line 3:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"Section 1. INTENT. It is the intent of this legislation
that the stripping of salmon roe for cost recovery purposes by
hatcheries is prohibited. The only exception is the selling
of roe form broodstock, commonly referred to as excessive
broodstock, which has returned in numbers larger than
anticipated by the hatchery and the Department of Fish and
Game and is not fit for human consumption. The roe of that
excessive broodstock may be stripped and sold after the
hatchery has obtained a permit from the department for that
exclusive purpose."
Renumber the following sections accordingly.
Number 0424
MR. WRIGHT stated that this is to just clarify what the intent of
the legislation is, that the stripping of salmon roe for cost
recovery is prohibited with the exception of broodstock. He stated
that the drafter could not find a way to use the term excessive
broodstock. The proposed Amendment 2 is to clarify that there is
a difference between the cost recovery, broodstock and excessive
broodstock. The point is that the excessive broodstock is what the
bill talks to.
Number 0433
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that if there is no further discussion he
would call for a roll call vote. Representative Hodgins voted
against Amendment 2. Representatives Ivan and Austerman voted in
favor of Amendment 2. Representatives Kubina and Ogan were absent.
He stated that Amendment 2 failed.
Number 0438
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to reconsider Amendment 2.
Number 0439
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN called for a brief at ease.
Number 0439
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN called the meeting back to order. He stated
that there is a reconsideration on Amendment 2 by Representative
Hodgins. A roll call vote was taken Representative Hodgins voted
against Amendment 2. Representatives Ivan, Ogan and Austerman
voted in favor of Amendment 2. Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 0448
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that he would table CSHB 318(FSH) as
Representative Hodgins has requested to talk to John White,
Chairman of the Board of Fisheries and he is now on teleconference.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS thanked Dr. White for being available via
teleconference. He stated that he is quite concerned about the
newspaper headlines regarding the Board of Fisheries changing the
meeting plans. The future February meeting was moved out of
Soldotna because of safety concerns. He asked him what his safety
concerns are because if there is a problem it would need to be
addressed.
Number 0465
DR. JOHN WHITE, Chairman, Board of Fisheries, testified via
teleconference from Bethel that the question is two-fold, there is
the issue of neutral ground, historically the meetings have been
held in Anchorage, involving Cook Inlet issues. He stated that
those meetings are the most volatile. He stated that there were
tensions at the previous meetings and the Board of Fisheries needs
to have public safety present at the meetings. He asserted that
board members have been concerned regarding the safety of public
members and board members at the meetings. He stated that the
safety issue is second to the neutral ground issue. He stated that
the board wishes to consider alternative sites that would give
neutral ground in allocation disputes.
Number 0494
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that he did not understand what he just
said and asked him to explain his answer.
Number 0493
DR. WHITE reiterated the two reasons, neutral ground and public
safety. He stated that there are a lot of physical posturing at
the meetings and board members have had to be escorted to their
cars.
Number 0508
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked where those meetings took place.
Number 0509
DR. WHITE replied that it was in Anchorage.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated that it would seem that Anchorage
would then be the place to not hold the meetings.
Number 0511
DR. WHITE responded that Anchorage has been the place of neutral
ground between all parties in the past.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if this meeting has been scheduled.
Number 0517
DR. WHITE stated that it was scheduled in October and the meeting
on salmon issues was going to be held in Soldotna and Wasilla
meeting was going to be the native species issues.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked that since then they have decided that
it was not neutral ground.
Number 0521
DR. WHITE stated that the issue would be taken back to the rest of
the board for the discussion of the availability of other space.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if he was trying to dissuade other
board members to not meet in Soldotna.
DR. WHITE replied that the discussion was that six of the seven
board members felt that they should see about the availability of
alternative meeting places.
Number 0529
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked what brought out the need for physical
safety in the Anchorage meetings.
Number 0535
DR. WHITE replied that they are discussing allocative issues and
when people do not get the amount of fish that they think they
should, emotions run very high.
Number 0538
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if he has caused emotions to run even
higher by changing the meeting location.
DR. WHITE replied that the discussion to move the meeting was to
maintain order and have public safety.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated that he understood that, but the
public safety problem was in Anchorage. He said, "It is a slap in
the face what you have done to the people of the Kenai Peninsula
and I do not appreciate it and I will not stand for it and I would
like for you to consider, reconsider, do whatever you need to do,
but you need to hold that meeting in Soldotna."
Number 0550
DR. WHITE replied that he has heard him clearly and stated that the
board will discuss it.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS thanked him and stated that he appreciated
the job that he is doing and hoped that the outcome will be a
meeting in Soldotna.
Number 0559
LARRY ENGLE, previous Chairman, Board of Fisheries, testified via
teleconference from Palmer that this is not something that is
unusual or new to change a meeting that was scheduled. He stated
that not long ago a meeting was scheduled in Cordova to deal with
issues in that area, people from Fairbanks felt that it was not
fair, in that it was not reasonable for people from Fairbanks to be
able to attend. The board decided to keep it in Cordova. He
stated that prior to that, a meeting was scheduled for Dutch Harbor
and it was rescheduled to Anchorage as it was the more neutral
area. He stated that reasonable cost, equal access and public
concerns have been factors in moving meetings.
TAPE 98-11, SIDE B
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated that he understood the process and
the reluctance to hold the meetings in certain areas, but that is
part of government. He stated that if he really wanted to find a
neutral area maybe Cincinnati, Ohio would be good. He stated that
it is important to bring government close to the issue, and he
stated that there is quite a bit of cost when people have to travel
to the meetings, which is why the meetings are held in various
places of the state. The purpose is to be able to hear input from
the people from the area and those people cannot always travel. He
stated that he did not find his excuses very good and hoped that
the decision would be taken back to the board. He reiterated that,
the board by their own volition, announced that meeting was going
to be held in Soldotna and now that decision is being changed. He
implored that they reconsider and meet in Soldotna as planned.
Number 0245
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that his sympathies are with the Board
and asked that they do the right thing.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked that they let the committee know what they
decide to do.
HB 318 - WANTON WASTE OF SALMON
Number 0350
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that they would now continue with HB 318,
as amended and asked it there is any further discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN made a motion to move out CSHB 318(FSH) with
individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS objected.
Number 0422
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN called for a roll call vote. Representative
Hodgins voted against the motion. Representatives Ivan, Ogan and
Austerman voted in favor of the motion, therefore CSHB 318(FSH)
moved out of the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
HB 423 - ACCESS FISHERY TRUST/LIC. PERMIT SURCHARGE
Number 0516
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that the next order of business is HB
423, "An Act relating to the Alaska access fishery trust, purchase
of commercial fisheries permits, vessels, gear, equipment, and
leases by the Department of Fish and Game, sport fishing license
surcharge, and the entry permit surcharge; and providing for an
effective date." He called on Bruce Twomley.
Number 0533
BRUCE TWOMLEY, Chairman/Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC), Department of Fish and Game stated that he has
talked to Representative Mulder, sponsor of HB 423, about the
problems of the legislation and has recommended a work group to
convene between sessions to work through some of the problems. He
stated that Representative Mulder concurred with that
recommendation and his recommendation would be that the work group
preceded passage of the bill because there are enough problems that
need to addressed. He stated that it would be important for all
parties to know how the requirements for a buy-back program and how
it will be implemented. He stated that it is also important to
understand the Johns v. Commercial Fisheries Entry COmmission case
as it affects the subject of buy-backs. The supreme court has
basically said that a limited fishery can become too exclusive and
if it does become too exclusive then the limited entry commission
can put more permits back into the water. He stated that
therefore, there are implications for whoever foots the bill for a
buy-back program. He stated that the Johns case itself invalidates
the language of Section 8, lines 26 and 27. He stated that he has
already faced a lawsuit under the Johns ruling to eliminate the
entire limited entry program for the Bristol Bay Drift Gilnet
Fishery and it was only in the last 4 years. He stated that the
supreme court has identified a tool to defend against the Johns
claim and to support the buy-back program. It is the optimum
number study, although it is not perfect and is time consuming and
expensive. He stated that the result is a single number for all
time in regards to the fishery. He stated that it is critical that
the study is conducted as an independent and professional study.
Number 1106
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if he has ever done a study on the optimum
number.
MR. TWOMLEY replied that they have completed a study for the
Southeast herring purse seine fishery, under a court order and
public pressure to put more permits back into that fishery. The
result was that the optimum number study defended the status quo.
Number 1146
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if they had ever done an optimum number
study on salmon.
Number 1147
MR. TWOMLEY replied that it would need to be done and the bill does
call for it as it is the triggering mechanism that would have to go
forward with the buy-back. The standard in the bill is that the
buy-back would have to provide a direct and immediate benefit to
sport fishermen. It is not known exactly what that would mean
until the specifics are known. He stated that if that translated
into reallocating the catch, it would be a factor that would have
to be taken into account in a optimum number study. He stated that
the most important aspect in doing the optimum number study is
applying the statute as written which provides some standards but
they are somewhat ambiguous and contradictory. An optimum number
study is an exercise in statutory interpretation which means that
a court could substitute its own judgement of what an optimum
number ought to be. He stated that it would be helpful to have a
decision from the court that the study was a sound methodology but
that could take up to three years.
Number 1328
MR. TWOMLEY stated that there are also some practical
considerations. He referred to the 1995 setnet fishery which had
625 permits that recorded catch and 120 permits that did not record
any catch and 63 permits that recorded .3 percent of the catch.
183 permits were not making demands on the resource at the cost of
$24,800 a piece. The cost of retiring those permits would be more
than $4.5 million. He stated that the 5 percent surcharge on the
permits that the CFEC administers would only raise $200,000 a year.
He stated that in order to evaluate the risks and the benefits a
buy-back program it is necessary to look closely at it on a fishery
by fishery basis. This bill does not provide the methodology about
how to go forward. He encouraged that those considerations be
discussed before proceeding.
Number 1548
MR. TWOMLEY stated that he believed the bill is a good vehicle for
discussing this and there are present inducements given the
situation in the salmon fisheries. He stated that the CFEC would
like to be involved in developing a working program. He stated
that the gear groups that have looked closely at buy-backs in their
fisheries have tended to turn away from sweeping buy-back programs
and have looked toward incremental ways to reduce fishing efforts
in the given fishery. He stated that the question has been raised
for fishermen to get together privately, pool their funds to buy-
out and retire permits. The CFEC has found a way for that to be
done under existing law. He stated that the advantage is that a
private buy-back program would be less visible to attract a John's
type challenge.
Number 1713
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if the optimum number study would be
needed with a private buy-back program.
MR. TWOMLEY replied no, a private buy-back program could go forward
if people chose to commit their money and assume that risk, it
could happen right now.
Number 1736
REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER stated that Sections 7, 8, 9 deal with
the areas of concern. He stated that he did not want them to be
included in the bill because it clouds the issue. He stated that
he agreed with Mr. Twomley, it is not possible to construct a buy-
back program that passes all the tests. He stated that the only
way to do so is to have the affected user groups come together to
develop something that works for everybody. He stated that he
would not mind having those sections deleted from the bill. As the
optimum number study is extremely expensive and time consuming and
will not be the best way to get where we want to go. He stated
that if that requires a constitutional amendment then so be it. He
stated that this bill is a way to get to the solutions.
Number 2007
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if a group decides they want to retire
their permits what will happen to those permits.
Number 2014
MR. TWOMLEY replied that there, currently, is a yearly renewal fee
and if a permit is not renewed for two years it is canceled. He
stated that with a private buy-back program it would be possible
for an individual holding a permit to contract anyone to not seek
reinstatement.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if that permit could be reissued again
even with an optimum study.
Number 2126
MR. TWOMLEY replied no, because that is where the constitution
intervenes, if there were to be an optimum number study that
indicated more permits where required to make the fishery
constitutional or if there was a court decision then more permits
would have to be added back in.
Number 2157
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated that the fallacy is that there could
be a way to get the permits reinstated.
MR. TWOMLEY replied that is correct.
Number 2231
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if the constitution was changed to omit
the optimum number, wouldn't that problem be eliminated.
Number 2236
MR. TWOMLEY replied that there would be a lot to change and the
reason the issue comes up is because there is a clause that
authorizes limited entry but then there is a clause that states
fisheries are open to everybody. He stated the only way to
resolved that tension is to do an optimum number study. He stated
that if a mechanism could be found under law other than an optimum
number study, that would satisfy the court, that would be a way
around it.
Number 2405
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if it was true that on the setnet
sites, buying a permit does not mean you are buying the site.
MR. TWOMLEY stated that was his understanding.
KEVIN DELANEY, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Department of Fish
and Game, stated that one could envision a corporate effort with
the Board of Fisheries, where time and area where changed in
addition to permits being bought.
Number 2544
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked how the mechanism of setnet sites and
permits interact, where if a permit was bought what would happen to
the site.
Number 2603
JERRY McCUNE, United Fishermen of Alaska, responded that setnet
sites are different from area to area, some are leased federal
sites and they are leased every year. He stated that in Cook Inlet
some people own their sites and they would be looking to sell the
sites with the permits.
Number 2705
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if the Cook Inlet sites could be moved
around.
MR. McCUNE responded that was correct.
Number 2830
BRENT JOHNSON, President, Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association,
testified via teleconference from Kenai that he is opposed to HB
423. He stated that the bill states that it would buy-back boats
and gear and asked what will the state do with them; if they don't
burn them they will then be on the market at a decreased value and
devalue the fishermen who choose not to sell. He asked the
committee to keep in mind that the commercial fisheries are an
important part of the economy. He asked that with the cut back in
jobs related to Alaska's other natural resources jobs if it was
wise to affect the commercial fishing industry. He stated that he
would rather have two people making $30,000 in the setnet fishery
than one person making 60,000. He stated that the salmon stocks
are healthy and as last year "121 million salmon" were harvested
across the state of Alaska, before 1983 that state had only
exceeded this harvest one time. He stated that those kind of
numbers do not support a buy-back. He stated that in the Pacific
Northwest, Canada and Washington have had buy-backs generated
because they did not have any fish. He stated that fishing season
has always fluctuated and care needs to be taken when talking about
buying something back that will permanently change the fishery when
things may turn around. He stated that page 2, line 5, states
"that would result in a direct and immediate benefit to sport
fishermen." He asserted that the fisheries could be decreased
without a handful of fish going to the sport fishermen. He stated
that this is feeding the sport fishermen a line that they would
benefit from a buy-back program. He stated that the technology is
there for the existing fleet to continue to harvest the same number
of fish. He stated that there are benefits to a slow fishery
season in that young people are able to buy into the fisheries.
Number 3544
DALE BONDURANT testified via teleconference from Kenai that he
could not figure out how it would work and that a lot of problems
would result. He questions how it would benefit the sport fish
fleet. He stated that we do not owe the permit holders any money.
He said "They did not pay anything for them so why does the public
have to start paying them back." He stated that this is not the
problem of the sport fishing industry.
Number 3846
GRACE KENDALL, testified via teleconference from Kenai that HB 423
takes away from an already established commercial fishery and gives
to a new commercial fishery called sport fish guiding. She stated
that the reason for HB 423 is not to benefit the salmon runs or to
enhance the habitat but to benefit the sport guides and enhance
their pocket book at the expense of the commercial Cook Inlet
fishery. She referred to page 2, line 5 of HB 423 and stated that
the wording should be changed from a direct benefit to sport
fishermen to sport guides because all the local sport fishermen
have been shoved out of the way for the sake of the sport guides
and their non-local paying customers. She asked if she understood
it correctly that the local commercial drifters and set netters are
supposed to help pay to put themselves out of business, so they can
help the sport fishermen. She stated that the commercial fishermen
were limited in 1974 for the sake of conservation of salmon runs
and it has worked but it will not do anything if an unlimited
amount of guides are allowed in the river drawing an exponential
amount of tourists to damage and pollute the rivers. She pointed
out the Cook Inlet commercial fishermen do not fish in the rivers,
the drifters only take 8 percent of the silvers and the setnetters
only catch 14 percent of the silvers, therefore, that only leaves
the in-river fisheries to to account for the rest of the catch
rate. It is time that the state starts recognizing the devastating
effect they are having on the resources and stop blaming others.
She stated that if the loss of fish in the rivers is due to the
overuse and abuse by the in-river fisheries then it should be
addressed at that level and not by destroying the local economy.
Number 4142
DONNA SCHOWEILER, Commercial Fisherman, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage against HB 423 because in 1974 the
commercial fishermen agreed to the limited entry system under the
assumption that it would be protecting their heritage and their
families. She stated that in 1997 the amount of registered sport
fishermen on the Kenai river was 472. These boats take on the
average, two trips per day, six people each trip which equates to
54 fish per person. She said "Two trips a day with six people on
board, the limit per person would be three, which equates 11,328
people per day and 33,984 fish a day. She asked that the committee
think about this.
Number 4349
MR. McCUNE stated that the United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) opposes
the bill as it is written, however, they do think it is an option
to be looked at. It would have be crafted very carefully and be
from area to area. He stated that it would have to be a voluntary
buy-back program. UFA expressed that they would like have a
voluntary buy-back program where each group would have to vote on
it, they would assess themselves the 5 percent and pay for the
permits in their areas. He stated that the way the bill is
drafted, he would be paying for Bristol Bay permits whether he had
a buy-back program or not. He suggested that the allocation issue
be taken out all together as it causes problems. He asked why
would he want to buy out his permit unless he received a gain.
Number 4554
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked what allocation issue in the bill is he
referring to.
MR. McCUNE responded page 2, line 5 "would result in a direct and
immediate benefit to sport fishermen." He stated that this would
depend on the fishery and the area. He stated, for example, in the
Copper River if 70 permits were bought out it would not make a
difference as there are 70 permits that don't fish.
TAPE 98-12, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. McCUNE suggested putting the buy-backs on a neutral ground. He
stated that he had a concern on page 4, line 10.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated that the drafters put that in and it
is not important to him.
MR. McCUNE stated that it is a worthwhile discussion and some areas
would like to look at it but UFA would like to get the program
under the constraints that he mentioned.
Number 0153
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated that page 2, line, 5 has a purpose in
that federal requirements, in relation to sport fish licenses,
prohibit the use of fish and game funds for those purposes that do
not have a "direct and immediate benefit to sport fishermen."
Without that language sport fishing licenses could not be used to
help in the process. He stated that it is a way to ease tensions
and benefit both user groups. He pointed out that in some
locations this could not be done. He stated that there is a
benefit to having a regional breakdown.
Number 0316
MR. McCUNE stated that language on page 2, line 5 is what sets
people off. He stated that one group or other should not be listed
to gain from the buy-back because the gains are unknown. He stated
the number of participants in some fisheries could be cut in half
but the remaining boats could still catch that same amount of fish.
Number 0505
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated that he could only reflect the area
that he knew the best, which is Cook Inlet. He stated that his
point is well made, a mechanism needs to be developed to evaluate
which permits would give the greatest benefit to sport fishermen
and then have those permits bought out by sport fishermen.
Number 0545
MR. McCUNE stated that he understood the intent but thought that it
would have to be voluntary by the permit holders and those benefits
would be weighed after the fishery was consolidated instead of
stating the direct benefit ahead of time. He suggested that
allocation and this section be removed so the issue is how best
could a buy-back program be implemented from area to area for those
that desire to have one.
Number 0636
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated that if that section 2 were eliminated
from the bill he would not participate and the bill would not be in
front of the committee.
Number 0648
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that he understood where he was coming
from and it is a discussion that the committee will continue to
have. He referred to the resolution by the Board of Fisheries and
stated that because of Representative Mulder's interest in sport
fish, he had incorporated further than what the Board of Fisheries
has indicated. He stated that the committee will have to come back
to that issue. He stated that the next issue is if sport fish is
kept in the bill, the question is what is the Department of
Interior's view on using sport fish dollars. He stated that a
determination by the department should be gotten.
Number 0811
MR. DELANEY stated that the way he envisioned the program to work
is to have the fish and game fund purpose in statute. The state
has to separately account for those things that are considered
licenses to sport fishermen within the state fish and game account
and those monies can only be spent on projects where a linkage can
be demonstrated to a sport fish benefit. He stated that all other
monies deposited in the fund can be used for any fish and wild life
purposes. He stated that the way it would need to work is a
separate ledger would need to be kept from the other monies.
Number 1036
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if the bill had been presented to the
Department of the Interior.
MR. DELANEY responded that he had asked the department if federal
aid monies or license fees had been used to finance buy-back
programs. He stated that the answer is that it is not an
appropriate use of federal aid funds but sport fish license fees
had been used in some East Coast states to facilitate a buy-back
program. A direct linkage to the sport fish benefit would need to
be proven. He stated that the way he reads the bill, is that if
nothing was ever implemented in the 10 year time-frame then all of
those monies would be available to be appropriated to fish and
wildlife uses.
Number 1201
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN referred to a February 8, 1996 letter by George
Utermohle that raised the question about the Department of the
Interior. He asked if there should be further written
determination.
Number 1243
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated that it would be worth pursuing and he
felt confident in what Mr. Delaney has stated. There needs to be
a carefully constructed plan. He stated that for example, a permit
that had a high intercept king salmon rate with the owner willing
to sell it, could then be purchased from the access trust fund.
Number 1337
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that there was reference in the Board of
Fisheries resolution to the Magnuson-Stevens funding of buy-back
programs on the East Coast and Washington state. He asked if that
had been considered.
Number 1347
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated that he has contacted Senator Stevens
office and it is available. He stated that it is a low interest
loan program meant to be utilized for buy-back type programs. It
could be capitalized very quickly. He stated that in the end,
there would be an assessment of the affected user groups to
implement a buy-back program and capitalized 100 percent by the
fund from D.C. and paid back as a loan through the different
assessments to the affected groups.
Number 1449
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if he envisioned an incentive for
various group to buy-back permits within the group. He asked if he
was considering letting reduced fleets being able to fish longer.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated that he would expect the commercial
fisheries to come to the table and develop a program that made
sense for them. He stated that he would feel comfortable with
that. He stated that in many of the regions there are multiple
fishermen making close to nothing so with a reduced fleet is would
be better to have one person making something.
Number 1636
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that the HB 423 would be held over.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN adjourned the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting at 7:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|