04/02/2024 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB297 | |
| HB294 | |
| HB195 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 195 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 297 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 294 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
April 2, 2024
10:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Sarah Vance, Chair
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative CJ McCormick
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Rebecca Himschoot
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Craig Johnson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 297
"An Act establishing the sport fishing angler access account;
establishing the sport fishing angler access surcharge; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 294
"An Act relating to electronic monitoring of fishing vessels;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 195
"An Act relating to the powers of the Alaska Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission; relating to administrative areas for
regulation of certain commercial set net entry permits;
establishing a buy-back program for certain set net entry
permits; providing for the termination of state set net tract
leases under the buy-back program; closing certain water to
commercial fishing; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 195(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 297
SHORT TITLE: SPORT FISHING ANGLER ACCESS ACCT/SURCHARG
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/26/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/26/24 (H) FSH, FIN
03/21/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/21/24 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/02/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 294
SHORT TITLE: ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF FISHING VESSELS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/26/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/26/24 (H) FSH, FIN
03/21/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/21/24 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/02/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 195
SHORT TITLE: COOK INLET: NEW ADMIN AREA;PERMIT BUYBACK
SPONSOR(s): RUFFRIDGE
05/08/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/08/23 (H) FSH, RES
02/06/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/06/24 (H) Heard & Held
02/06/24 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/13/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/13/24 (H) Heard & Held
02/13/24 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/27/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/27/24 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/14/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/14/24 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/19/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/19/24 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/21/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/21/24 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/26/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/26/24 (H) Heard & Held
03/26/24 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/02/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of House Rules by request of the
governor, introduced HB 297 and HB 294.
JOE FELKL, Legislative Liaison
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of House Rules by request of the
governor, gave the sectional analysis for HB 297 and HB 294.
ROBERT BALLINGER, Staff
Representative Sarah Vance
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Vance, answered
committee questions on Amendment 5 to HB 195.
REPRESENTATIVE JUSTIN RUFFRIDGE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the prime sponsor, answered committee
questions on Amendment 5 to HB 195.
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Legislative Counsel
Legislative Legal Services
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered committee questions on Amendment 5
to HB 195.
GLEN HAIGHT, Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered committee questions on Amendment 5
to HB 195.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:03:12 AM
CHAIR SARAH VANCE called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:03 a.m. Representatives
Carpenter, Himschoot, McCabe, and Vance were present at the call
to order. Representatives McCormick and Stutes arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 297-SPORT FISHING ANGLER ACCESS ACCT/SURCHARG
10:04:07 AM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 297, "An Act establishing the sport fishing
angler access account; establishing the sport fishing angler
access surcharge; and providing for an effective date."
10:04:24 AM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G), on behalf of House Rules by request of the
governor, introduced HB 297. He stated that the proposed
legislation would establish a surcharge on sport fishing
licenses for funds to go toward nonboating angler access. He
explained the importance of access for Alaskans, stating that
this surcharge would enable the department to fund services for
anglers, including construction and maintenance of trails. He
explained in detail why the proposed legislation would be
necessary. He stated that the bill would create parity in
angler access to fishing resources between shore access and
motorized access.
10:07:21 AM
JOE FELKL, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, on behalf of House Rules by request of the governor,
paraphrased the sectional analysis on HB 297 [copy included in
the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 1: amends Fish and Game Fund statutes by
adding a new subsection creating a subaccount for the
sport fishing angler access surcharge, referred to as
the Sport Fishing Angler Access Account.
Section 2: conforming amendment to the Fish and Game
license, permit, and tag fees statute that authorizes
the Commissioner of Fish and Game to provide residents
of the Yukon with nonresident sport fishing licenses
and tags for the same fee as a resident license.
Section 3: amends Fish and Game license, permit, and
tag fees statute to add a new subsection (l), creating
the angler access surcharge.
Section 4: transition section to allow the Department
of Fish and Game to adopt regulations necessary to
implement the bill.
Section 5: immediate effective date for section 4.
Section 6: effective date of January 1, 2025, for all
other provisions of the bill
MR. FELKL discussed the fiscal impact of the proposed
legislation. He stated that by using a 5-year average of
licensing sales, deducting 10 percent for the vendor
commissions, the surcharge is estimated to be $4.1 million
annually. He stated that these funds will be deposited into the
new angler-access sport fishing account, and there would be no
added cost to the department. He asserted that this would allow
nonboating angler-access projects not to compete with other work
of the Division of Sport Fish. He noted that the user groups
support a user-pay system.
10:10:16 AM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG gave the example of the Homer Spit
access project. He noted that across the state boardwalks,
fishing piers, canoe access, and kayak access would be added,
along with guide and map publications of the nonboating access.
He stated that this would provide legal access into areas that
cannot support boating access.
10:11:20 AM
CHAIR VANCE questioned what the current license fees are and
what the proposed change would be. She questioned whether the
different fees would be impacted equally.
MR. FELKL responded that the proposed surcharge differs
depending on the license type. For resident licenses, the
surcharge amount would be $4, and a nonresident surcharge would
be anywhere from $4 to $40.
10:12:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT questioned how the collected funds
would be distributed among projects.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that ADF&G would use a
similar model to the current boating-access model to distribute
funds. He noted that there would be a call for public
proposals, and a five-year plan would be created to fund the
projects. In response to a follow-up question, he explained
that distributing the money proportionately would be difficult,
as tracking the money would be hard. He emphasized that ADF&G
would not short sight Southeast Alaska, as many lakes in the
area need access. In response, he said that ADF&G could provide
funding for increased opportunities for subsistence users as
long as there was a sport fishery part of the funding package.
10:14:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked if the recent $5 increase in bison
tags has proven beneficial for the state. He postulated that in
the future some areas may not agree that the sport fish funding
was spent appropriately.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that the proposed surcharge
to license fees in HB 297 would be modeled after the surcharge
to build fish hatcheries, and these sport fish funds would go
into a subaccount. He expressed confidence that this process
would not bring about any disagreements because of the
subaccount.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked if there was a ranking system in
place to choose which projects to fund first.
MR. FELKL answered that ADF&G prioritizes projects around the
state based on need first, and then on the available funding.
10:17:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked why ADF&G's cost estimate in the
fiscal note does not include a dollar figure for future
maintenance of the projects.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that the cost estimate of HB
297 is modeled after a recent boating-access project, where
partners take over the maintenance after the projects are
constructed.
MR. FELKL added that the fiscal note relates to financial
impacts directly from HB 297 and explained that the proposed
legislation creates a surcharge, and it does not account for any
future or proposed projects. He noted that coming up with the
cost to maintain the projects would be challenging.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER commented that it is always difficult
to estimate the cost of future projects and said that it is the
responsibility of the legislature to ensure tax dollars are
being spent responsibly.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG expressed agreement with the comment.
He reiterated that this would be modeled after the boating-
access project. He expressed the hope that partners would help
with the maintenance.
10:19:33 AM
CHAIR VANCE asked Commissioner Vincent-Lang about the timelines
of any potential projects.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG gave his understanding that ADF&G
could complete most of the proposed projects in a year or two
once the funding becomes available.
MR. FELKL added that the timelines for each individual project
would be on a case-by-case basis and offered to follow up with
an answer.
10:20:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked if there is a list of angler-
access projects currently waiting funding.
MR. FELKL answered that there was a list provided to the
committee prior to the meeting.
10:20:52 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:20 a.m. to 10:24 a.m.
10:24:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked for clarification regarding the
nonresident surcharge.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that the surcharge would be
about a third of the fish hatchery surcharge.
CHAIR VANCE requested a full price list of the licenses so the
full impact to anglers could be seen.
10:26:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked if private employers or state
employees would complete projects funded by grants.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that there would be a
combination of the two in any given project. He discussed this
further.
10:27:13 AM
CHAIR VANCE announced that HB 297 was held over.
HB 294-ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF FISHING VESSELS
10:27:37 AM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 294, "An Act relating to electronic monitoring of
fishing vessels; and providing for an effective date."
10:27:49 AM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G), on behalf of House Rules by request of the
governor, introduced HB 294. He explained that HB 294 would
authorize the Alaska Board of Fisheries to require electronic
monitoring in fisheries, and it would grant the commissioner of
ADF&G the authority to implement a program, as authorized by the
Board of Fisheries. This would allow the technology to
electronically capture fishing locations and catch, as there is
no current law that allows for this. He pointed out that the
current law only allows monitoring by observers. He explained
that electronic monitoring would have the potential of reducing
costs while improving accuracy, as data would be provided in
real time as opposed to human observers. He added that
electronic monitoring could also be used as an enforcement tool
for bycatch. He emphasized that this would be a permissive
statutory change, as any proposal to require electronic
monitoring would have to go through a very involved Board of
Fisheries approval process, and this would include a public
notice process. He expressed the belief that HB 294 would be an
extension of the constitutional obligation of ADF&G to manage
fisheries sustainably in Alaska. He argued that electronic
monitoring of fisheries would provide accurate and timely data.
He discussed the problematic nature of having observers on board
commercial fishing vessels. He informed the committee that new
technologies are being developed that can identify species being
caught, and this would expand the possibilities of monitoring
bycatch. Adopting this legislation now will help the department
implement this technology in the future.
10:32:31 AM
JOE FELKL, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, on behalf of House Rules by request of the governor,
paraphrased the sectional analysis on HB 294 [copy included in
the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 1: adds new language to the powers and duties
statutes for the Commissioner of the Department of
Fish and Game, providing the commissioner authority to
implement an electronic monitoring program.
Section 2: adds new language to the statutory
authority for the Board of Fisheries to adopt
regulations, providing the board authority to require
electronic monitoring in a fishery.
Section 3: defines electronic monitoring for the
purposes of Fish and Game statutes.
Section 4: transition section to allow the Board of
Fisheries and Department of Fish and Game to adopt
regulations necessary to implement the bill.
Section 5: immediate effective date for section 4.
Section 6: effective date of January 1, 2025, for all
other provisions of the bill.
MR. FELKL discussed the fiscal impacts of the proposed
legislation. He stated that installing the electronic
monitoring systems has shown to be cheaper than having human
observers on vessels. These savings vary on the fishery's size
and type, he said, with the manual review of video, data
transmission, and data storage being the largest cost. As it is
a permissive change, he said, there would be no direct costs of
the bill. The bill would not require electronic monitoring, as
this would be determined on the board level, along with
community and public comment. He stated that the department
already does this with the state shellfish program, with
associated cost funded through the test fish revenue, federal
funds, and payments from vessels. He suggested that the
electronic monitoring program could be funded similarly. He
allowed that in the future funding might be needed to hire and
train staff. He stated that if adopted, it could take the
department up to two years to implement the program. He noted
that the Board of Fisheries would have no authority over the
program.
10:36:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES argued that there would be a large fiscal
note, with the first cost being to small boat owners and the
second cost concerning the collection and interpretation of the
information. She added that using test fisheries to pay for
this would be "a red flag." To pay for this program, she argued
that the state would be in competition with the small business
owners. She expressed concern over the proposed legislation, as
it would put small boat owners out of business.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that currently the Board of
Fisheries has the regulatory authority to delegate observers to
smaller commercial fishing vessels, and this would be a cost to
these vessels. He argued that electronic monitoring would be
more cost neutral. He emphasized that currently the Board of
Fisheries can only use onboard observers to keep track of
fisheries. He pointed out that using onboard observers does not
always work well with smaller vessels, and this would be an
alternative.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES opined that the Board of Fisheries is
biased towards sport fisheries and shared the belief that
because of this bias, the board would not be as accommodating to
commercial fisheries.
10:40:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked which fishery currently requires
onboard monitoring.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that crab fisheries currently
are required to have onboard observer monitoring. In response
to a follow-up question, he stated that he does not have the
cost to vessels of having observers on board readily available,
but he would report to the committee with this information.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER requested clarification whether the
proposed electronic monitoring would replace in-person
monitoring or be in addition.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said it would be on a case-by-case
basis, as some fisheries would use both monitoring programs,
while some would only use one or the other.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER expressed the opinion that electronic
monitoring may not be cheaper than physical observers.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG gave his understanding that electronic
monitoring would give the Board of Fisheries more tools to
enforce fisheries management.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked if HB 294 would direct the
commissioner of ADF&G to implement electronic monitoring as an
either-or option.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that the proposed bill would
give the discretion to the Board of Fisheries. He further
explained that the board has no spending authority, and if the
program is implemented the department would be requesting the
funds from the legislature.
10:43:38 AM
MR. FELKL added that the proposed bill does not limit a fishery
to one monitoring system or the other.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE discussed "high grading" of fish, and he
pointed out that it might be difficult to tell the size of a
fish being thrown back from a camera image.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that when there is a
discharge prohibition, usually this would be on all sizes of the
specific type of fish, and any fish thrown overboard would be
detected.
10:45:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES noted that the observer program is paid
for by the industry. She questioned whether HB 294 would
require more funding to facilitate the proposed electronic
monitoring program.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded in the affirmative.
10:46:29 AM
CHAIR VANCE questioned the average cost of the equipment per
vessel.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that he does not have this
information currently, but he would report this back to the
committee. In response to a follow-up question, he explained
that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has electronic
monitoring requirements for its fisheries. He expressed
uncertainty concerning other fishing industries that require
electronic monitoring.
CHAIR VANCE expressed the understanding that fishermen in Alaska
are highly opposed to the idea of electronic monitoring. She
questioned giving the regulatory authority to the Board of
Fisheries, as opposed to ADF&G.
MR. FELKL clarified that HB 294 would grant regulatory authority
to the commissioner of ADF&G to manage the program. He
explained that the Board of Fisheries would have the authority
to require implementation in a specific fishery.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG, in response, stated that the
department chose to make this a board process. He expressed the
understanding of the apprehension felt by fishermen, but he
argued that electronic monitoring would be beneficial to them,
as it gives more options. He continued that monitoring needs to
happen to help sustain the fisheries.
CHAIR VANCE, concerning the expanded authority to the Board of
Fisheries, opined that the board would be making management
decisions versus allocation decisions, and this could become
political. She expressed the concern that electronic monitoring
could be used in a punitive manner. She asked if there would be
a monitoring requirement for in-river sport fish guides.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG expressed the understanding that this
would be applied to the commercial fishing statutes, but he
indicated that he would further review the bill and follow up to
the committee.
10:51:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked what area of Alaska electronic
monitoring would encompass.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered electronic monitoring would
be available for the Board of Fisheries to utilize statewide.
He discussed its usage when there is a mandatory retention of
bycatch in a fishery and gave examples of monitoring.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES speculated that there is more going on
"behind the scenes" that the public and legislature are not
aware of.
10:53:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked if ADF&G has plans to require
observers in fisheries that do not currently require observers.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG shared his understanding that there is
a possibility of new observers in the Area M fisheries. In
response to a follow-up question, he stated that currently,
because of statute, there is not the possibility of having
electronic monitoring anywhere.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER noted that currently observers are only
required in a couple of fisheries in one part of the state. He
questioned the impetus for the idea of electronic monitoring on
some of the other fisheries.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said that under current statute any
fishery in the state could be in the observer program; however,
only a couple of fisheries have this. He deduced that not all
fisheries would be in the electronic monitoring program, but
when the board decides a fishery should be monitored, this would
allow another option other than the observer program.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER expressed the agreement that electronic
monitoring might be cheaper than having physical observers
onboard vessels.
10:55:44 AM
CHAIR VANCE acknowledged concerns with the associated cost of
$17,000 for electronic monitoring equipment. She expressed the
understanding that among vessel owners this is a concern.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG, in response to a series of questions
from Representative Himschoot, explained that the proposed
legislation was created because of the discussion about the need
for monitoring Area M. He pointed out that there is currently
no way to perform electronic monitoring in Alaska under current
statute. Along with this statutory requirement, he explained
that this is also in response to NMFS's electronic monitoring
program, as when vessels with NMFS's equipment are in state
waters, a physical observer program must be implemented. He
answered that the Board of Fisheries would have the authority to
establish the regulations, while ADF&G would have authority over
the specifics. He responded that if the proposed legislation
goes through the Board of Fisheries, there would be a very
robust public process. He expressed the opinion that this is a
much better process for creating the regulatory structure than
the department's process. He added that the public is very
familiar with the board's process.
10:58:51 AM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG, in response to a series of questions
from Representative Carpenter, explained that a small boat would
be under 60 feet, as this is the legal size of a seine vessel.
In response, he explained that there could be the possibility of
electronic monitoring on small commercial vessels; however, he
suggested that it is more likely this would be on medium and
large vessels. He noted that the NMFS's program does not use
electronic monitoring on smaller vessels. He responded that the
Board of Fisheries could request the program from the
legislature, but it was decided that the department would do
this. He expressed the understanding that the board supports
the program, but it has not written a letter regarding it
support.
11:00:54 AM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG, in response to a question from
Representative Stutes, clarified that the Board of Fisheries
brought the idea for electronic monitoring forward.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES reiterated the opinion that the board
leans it support to the sport fishing industry. She asked if HB
294 has anything to do with the declining king and chum salmon
fisheries in Alaska.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG explained that there was in-season
harvest-caps adopted by the Board of Fisheries that were not
sufficient in Western Alaska, so the board recommended
electronic monitoring.
11:02:30 AM
CHAIR VANCE asked what types of electronic monitoring are
currently available. She asked how different types of
electronic monitoring would be prescribed by regulation.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG explained that electronic monitoring
would be done with small cameras and hard drives aboard the
monitored vessel. In response to a follow-up question on
whether the purpose of electronic monitoring would be data or
enforcement, he responded that it is a combination of both.
MR. FELKL noted the document from NMFS made available to the
committee. He stated that this details the information on the
types of electronic monitoring, how data would be stored, who
would watch the footage, and how cameras would be set.
CHAIR VANCE expressed the concern that ADF&G does not have the
staff to properly install a new electronic monitoring system.
She asked how ADF&G would properly operate and enforce a new
monitoring system if it does not have the staff.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that the board sees the
purpose for the proposed program as protecting weaker stocks of
fish in Alaska. He expressed the desire to keep these weaker
fisheries as active as possible, and the department saw how NMFS
was addressing this. He explained that it is simply a "tool in
the toolbox" to keep the fisheries active, as now there are weak
stocks.
CHAIR VANCE pointed out that the legislature needs to know the
projected costs of an electronic monitoring program for both
ADF&G and fishermen. She stated that currently the department
is unable to do its mandated management with the staff it has.
She requested a fiscal analysis from the department because
there is the understanding that fishermen think this would cost
too much and it could be punitive. She stressed that this would
be a large program; therefore, the legislature needs to know the
first steps. She noted that might be there needs to be
observers and enforcement on the sport fish side of the
fisheries, as there needs to be a fairness for every fisherman.
11:08:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked if ADF&G has a plan for the
collected data.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG, in response to Chair Vance, stated
that ADF&G would come up with a cost analysis based on the
current observer programs. He acknowledged the need for a data
analysis program related to electronic monitoring.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER expressed the opinion that the need for
fisheries data is not the driving force for electronic
monitoring. He questioned the impetus for the request for
electronic monitoring.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG, using the Area M example, explained
that there are two reasons for mandatory retention. He stated
that it allows for an accurate count of chum salmon, and it
allows for the genetic sampling, as this helps to determine the
distribution of the fish. He reiterated that the mandatory
retention regulations are multipurposed.
11:11:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the understanding that the
purpose of the proposed legislation is to give the Board of
Fisheries the ability to say that electronic monitoring is the
preferred method. He noted the costs concerning having
observers onboard vessels, pointing out that electronic
monitoring would be less intrusive.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG, in response to multiple questions
from Representative McCabe, confirmed his understanding is
correct that HB 294 would encourage the Board of Fisheries to
adopt electronic monitoring and said that electronic monitoring
would not be utilized on every vessel in Alaska. He expressed
the opinion that electronic monitoring would only be put on
vessels in fisheries that have specific requirements, like
mandatory retention or fish sampling. He responded that since
he has been commissioner there has not been a proposal to add
new observers to fisheries. He stated that there is discussion
about Area M, but he expressed the opinion that this would not
be implemented across the state, but on a case-by-case basis.
He expressed the opinion that fishermen would want the option of
having either an observer or electronic monitoring.
11:15:23 AM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG, in response to a question from
Representative Stutes, confirmed that the user groups would have
to pay for the electronic monitoring equipment.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER opined that the proposed electronic
monitoring program is not a demand by the Board of Fisheries,
rather it is a demand by certain board members. He observed
that if there was a consensus, a letter supporting this would be
submitted from the Board of Fisheries.
11:16:27 AM
CHAIR VANCE announced that HB 294 was held over.
11:16:55 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 11:16 a.m. to 11:24 a.m.
HB 195-COOK INLET: NEW ADMIN AREA;PERMIT BUYBACK
11:24:00 AM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 195, "An Act relating to the powers of the Alaska
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission; relating to
administrative areas for regulation of certain commercial set
net entry permits; establishing a buy-back program for certain
set net entry permits; providing for the termination of state
set net tract leases under the buy-back program; closing certain
water to commercial fishing; and providing for an effective
date." [Amendments 1, 2, and 3 were adopted to HB 195 during
the meeting on 3/26/24.]
11:24:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to adopt Amendment 4 to HB 195, as
amended, labeled 33-LS0807\A.1, Bullard, 3/4/24, which read as
follows:
Page 6, line 24:
Delete "200"
Insert "300"
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER objected for the purpose of discussion.
CHAIR VANCE explained that Amendment 4 would change the number
of permits in the current buyback program to 300. She stated
that this puts the number of permits closer to the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) number.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES clarified that this would make the maximum
number of permits 300.
11:25:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
11:25:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to adopt Amendment 5 to HB 195, as
amended, labeled 33-LS0807\A.7, Bullard, 3/29/24, which read as
follows:
Page 5, line 3, following "and":
Insert "how"
Page 5, lines 3 - 4:
Delete "to be offered"
Insert "will be determined"
Page 6, lines 19 - 30:
Delete all material and insert:
"(b) Participation in the buy-back program
established under this section is voluntary. Subject
to appropriation and to this section, the commission
shall buy back the unencumbered entry permit of an
individual qualified under this section. A qualified
individual may apply electronically on a form provided
by the commission to have the individual's entry
permit purchased under this section. If an applicant
is disqualified from participation in the program
under (c) of this section, elects not to participate
in the buy-back program, fails to sign the contract of
sale within a period specified by the commission, or
fails to provide all of the information required under
(a) of this section, the commission shall disapprove
the individual's application and may not buy back the
individual's entry permit under the program."
Page 6, line 31:
Delete "whose name is selected in the lottery
under this section"
Page 7, lines 12 - 13:
Delete all material and insert:
"(1) determine the amount for which to buy
back an entry permit of an applicant by dividing the
money allotted to the buy-back program established by
this section among the qualified applicants after
(A) all appeals made under sec. 5 of this
Act concerning the assignment of entry permits are
resolved; and
(B) all timely received applications have
been approved or disapproved by the commission under
(b) of this section;
(2) buy back the entry permit of an
applicant for an amount determined under (1) of this
subsection, less administrative costs; and"
Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER objected for the purpose of discussion.
11:26:00 AM
ROBERT BALLINGER, Staff, Representative Sarah Vance, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Vance, answered
committee questions on Amendment 5. He said that the primary
purpose of Amendment 5 would be to make a modification to the
dollar amount that was set for the buyback program, as this
would help facilitate the program. He stated that this would
make the buyback amount align with the funding available, and
the funds would be distributed equally among participants.
CHAIR VANCE asked if Amendment 5 would address constitutional
concerns related to HB 195.
MR BALLINGER explained that the issue with the buyback program
dollar amount is that the value in the proposed bill is much
higher than the appraised value of the permits, as the bill
value includes the cost of the ability to fish. He suggested
that Amendment 5 would change the amount to what could be paid.
CHAIR VANCE explained that Amendment 5 addresses the dollar
amount, as at this point it is unknown how much funding would be
allocated. She expressed the understanding that this is not
meant to impact the state treasury, and she expressed the desire
to not give "false promises" to fishermen, as the program should
be equally available to those who choose to participate. She
further explained that the amendment would remove the lottery so
each participant would receive an equal amount based on the
allocation. She acknowledged that the sponsor of the proposed
legislation does not support the amendment, as he prefers the
lottery option.
11:29:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK asked to hear from the sponsor of HB
195.
REPRESENTATIVE JUSTIN RUFFRIDGE, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, answered committee questions on Amendment 5 to HB
195. He explained that the intention of HB 195 is to establish
an election and a lottery to enter the buyback program. He said
HB 195 would create a framework for people who engage in the
setnet fishery on the east side of Cook Inlet to enter
voluntarily a buyback program. The fishermen would elect for
themselves whether their permit would be put into the lottery to
be selected. He stated that the amount of federal funding
allocated for this has not been established. He added that HB
195, as is, would set a cap at $60,000 per permit, but this is
contingent on whether these funds are available. Per Amendment
5, he expressed concern on how permits would then qualify for
the program. He stated that the purpose of the buyback program
would be to establish a fishery that would sustain itself, but
the amendment would remove the lottery and the price cap. He
advised that this would create "nebulous components to a bill
that is already setting a framework with some question marks:
what is the dollar amount going to be and who is going to fund
that." He expressed understanding of the impetus behind
Amendment 5 but stated that the individual fishermen are not
taking this stance. He expressed the understanding that the
fishermen want to have a framework for a buyback program, so
they can decide whether to have their permits in a lottery,
leaving the remaining permits to participate in a sustainable
fishery. He argued that the amendment would not help HB 195
accomplish the primary goals it aims to achieve.
11:33:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked if Amendment 5 would satisfy the
constitutional concerns posed by HB 195.
11:34:00 AM
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal
Services, Alaska State Legislature, answered committee questions
on Amendment 5 to HB 195. He expressed the understanding that
the constitutional concern is whether paying $260,000 for the
permit would serve the public purpose. He recommended that
Amendment 5 would provide a different process and alleviate any
concerns raised by this. In response to a follow-up question,
he stated that for the concern that a permit would be bought
back for a higher price than the market value, the proposed
amendment would make each permit worth the same percentage value
from the appropriated funds.
11:36:14 AM
GLEN HAIGHT, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission, in response to a question from Representative Stutes
on who would be affected by the proposed legislation, stated
that there are around 340 current permit holders who hold from
405 to 450 permits registered to fish in the area in the last 10
years. He responded that multiple permit holders own more than
one permit.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES questioned whether the amendment should
include a limit of the number of permits one individual can
sell.
COMMISSIONER HAIGHT clarified that one individual can only hold
two permits. He added that these fishermen will fish together
in one operation, and in these operations multiple individuals
hold either one or two permits. He explained that this could be
misleading on how many permits one person can hold, as many
permits can fish in one operation.
COMMISSIONER HAIGHT, in response to a question from
Representative McCabe, he pointed out that per the CFEC's
economic report from 2021, there were 453 permits registered to
fish in 2016, with 407 permits registered to fish in 2020. For
the eligibility years for the buyback, he said there were 428
permits registered to fish.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE clarified that based on these years there
was around 430 permits, with around 300 permit holders.
11:40:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES questioned the number of total permits,
registered, or not registered to fish. If a permit was not
registered to fish in the qualifying years, she questioned
whether the permit would qualify for the buyback.
COMMISSIONER HAIGHT responded that in the Cook Inlet setnet
fishery, these permits can fish in any subdistrict, but the
permit holder must register for one district and stay in the
district for the year. He expressed the understanding that
these fishermen are stable, returning to the same subdistrict
every year; however, the ability to move districts would create
a range of participants in the east side. He continued that it
is difficult to show whether an individual actually participated
in the fishery because when many fishermen fish in one
operation, the fish may all be landed under just one of the
permits in the operation. He suggested that if the permit were
registered in a district, the individual is most likely fishing.
He noted the other qualifications in the proposed legislation,
such as having buoy tags and shore leases.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES questioned whether a Cook Inlet setnet
permit holder from another district could move to the east side
in a following year.
COMMISSIONER HAIGHT responded that the permit holder could
feasibly move; however, there is not much migration in this
fishery. From a survey taken, it was understood that around
four fishermen moved operations in around ten years. He
described the equipment and land usage in this fishery, which
tends to be difficult to move.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES expressed the understanding that fishermen
must be registered in certain years to qualify for buyback.
CHAIR VANCE concurred.
11:45:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT sought to clarify that the amendment
would remove the lottery system and allow the available sum to
be equally distributed to those who qualify and choose to
participate.
CHAIR VANCE reiterated that under the amendment it would still
be a voluntary program.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT questioned whether there would still be
an election.
CHAIR VANCE requested an explanation of the effects of Amendment
5 versus the current language in the proposed legislation.
MR. BULLARD stated that the amendment would replace the lottery
process and the amount each would receive. He stated that under
the amendment there would still be an election where people
would choose to participate; however, the participants would be
signing up to receive a percentage of the funds made available
for the buyback.
11:47:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER expressed concern that without the
amendment, the bill would not meet the provision in Article VIII
of the [Constitution of the State of Alaska], which provides
just compensation for any individual who gives up his/her right
to fish.
MR. BULLARD stated that because it is a voluntary process, no
one would be divested of his/her right to fish. He stated that
each permit holder would make the decision for himself or
herself.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER pointed out that commercial fishermen
have not been able to fish the east side of Cook Inlet for a
number of years, and they have not been compensated by the state
for the inability to use the waters. He questioned whether the
state policy is following the state's constitution.
MR. BULLARD expressed uncertainty whether HB 195 relates to the
violation of this constitutional provision, as this would be a
voluntary process.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER pointed out that if the amendment is
passed, 300 permits would be taken away. If the state still
does not allow the remaining permit holders to fish, he
questioned whether these permit holders would be losing any
cause of action against the state.
MR. BULLARD stated that holding a CFEC permit does not provide a
right to catch a certain percentage of fish or make a profit
from doing so. He expressed the opinion that HB 195 would not
relate to the provision referred to in the constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER expressed the understanding that
fishermen in Cook Inlet feel that they have been divested of
their right to fish, as they have not been allowed to fish and
have not been compensated, yet the proposed legislation would
compensate some permit holders. He expressed the opinion that
this is "straying into some constitutionally murky water."
11:54:05 AM
CHAIR VANCE clarified that if Amendment 5 were adopted, there
would be no cap on the number of permits.
MR. BULLARD concurred with this statement.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER pointed out that Amendment 4 was just
passed, and this would change the 200 permits to 300 permits.
He suggested that passing Amendment 5 would override Amendment
4.
CHAIR VANCE explained that if Amendment 5 is adopted, anyone who
has a permit can choose to participate, and the money would be
distributed equally; otherwise, the current version of the bill
has a lottery program with a cap on the permit participation of
300 permits.
11:55:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE, in response to a request from
Representative Himschoot, explained that he opposes Amendment 5
because it would remove the lottery system and the cap that was
passed in Amendment 4. He pointed out that the goal of the
buyback is to have the number of participants be at a
sustainable fishery level, which would be around 200 permits.
He argued that Amendment 5 would create an open-ended system
with a level of uncertainty on how the buyback would be
administered. He suggested that the amendment would allow
fishermen to wait until the amount of appropriated money is
known before they consider the program. Once this happens, the
number opting into the program would divide the amount. He
clarified that the legislature would not be using state funds to
fund the buyback. He stated that the funds would be either
federal or private. He opined that this comes down to what
should be first: the choice to be involved in the buyback or the
determination of how much money is appropriated to the buyback.
11:59:02 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Stutes, Carpenter,
Himschoot, and Vance voted in favor of adopting Amendment 5 to
HB 195, as amended. Representatives McCormick and McCabe voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 5 was adopted by a vote of 4-
2.
12:00:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to adopt Amendment 6 to HB 195, as
amended, labeled 33-LS0807\A.6, Bullard, 3/26/24, which read as
follows:
Page 7, line 13:
Delete "$260,000"
Insert "$13,500"
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES stated that Amendment 6 is based on the
value of the permits as reported by CFEC. This amount was
reported at $13,500 per permit. She argued that the buyback
should be for the value of the permit and nothing else. She
stated that the boats, houses, and equipment should not be
included in the buyback.
CHAIR VANCE noted that the newly adopted Amendment 5 removed the
dollar value of the permit. She questioned whether this would
change the intent of Amendment 6.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES responded in the negative.
12:01:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK requested that the bill sponsor speak
to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE stated that after the adoption of
Amendment 5, this bill has become open ended with a vague
framework. He suggested that a legal opinion should be sought
on whether Amendment 6 and Amendment 5 could coexist.
12:02:56 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 12:02 p.m. to 12:03 p.m.
12:03:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES withdrew Amendment 6. There being no
objection, Amendment 6 was withdrawn.
12:03:33 PM
CHAIR VANCE requested closing comments.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed support for the version of the
proposed legislation before Amendment 5 was adopted, as now the
buyback would be something that it was not designed to be, which
could result in more legal issues.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER expressed the understanding that there
are 340 permit holders, but he expressed uncertainty on the
number of eligible permits. He expressed the opinion that this
would be unfair and unconstitutional if only a small portion
receives compensation for not being able to fish. He argued
that this is the main issue. He further discussed this, opining
that state policy would be left to "chance" on who receives
compensation. He pointed out that Amendment 5 would make this
fair; however, the issue of the funding has not been addressed.
He suggested that if this is state policy, the state should pay;
however, leaving this to a lottery with an unknown funding
source could have a negative effect with the fishermen in the
area. He reiterated the argument on the unfairness of the
lottery system.
12:08:48 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 12:08 p.m. to 12:12 p.m.
12:12:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES clarified that the buyback program was not
the state's idea, as it was the user group's idea. She
suggested that Amendment 5 "leveled the playing field" for the
user group.
CHAIR VANCE voiced that her job is to answer to her constituents
and the state's constitution. She stated that the amendments
brought forward addressed constitutional concerns, but still
there is a high probability of litigation. She expressed the
hope that the bill will reflect the constitution and the will of
fishermen. She suggested that the proposed legislation would
provide a tool that allows the fishermen to have their say. She
thanked the committee members for the conversation. She
expressed support for the bill because her constituents are in
support of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER clarified that by adopting Amendment 5,
the fishermen would still have an election, and the maximum
number can participate, if they so choose. He argued that
otherwise only a certain number of fishermen would be allowed to
participate.
12:16:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to report HB 195, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. He granted Legislative Legal Services the
authority to make technical and conforming changes as necessary.
There being no objection, CSHB 195(FSH) was reported out of the
House Special Committee on Fisheries.
12:16:39 PM
CHAIR VANCE made closing comments.
12:16:57 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 12:16
p.m.