Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/21/1996 05:03 PM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 21, 1996
5:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Kim Elton
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Moses, Vice Chairman
OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gene Kubina
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 118
"An Act relating to seafood marketing, to the definition of
`seafood' for purposes of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute,
and to an aquatic farm product marketing tax; and providing for an
effective date."
- PASSED CSHB 118(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 175
"An Act relating to sport fish guides; and providing for an
effective date."
- PASSED CSHB 175(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 265
"An Act relating to the export of live dungeness crab."
- PASSED CSHB 265(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 118
SHORT TITLE: SEAFOOD MARKETING / AQUATIC PRODUCT TAX
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) AUSTERMAN
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
01/25/95 131 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/25/95 131 (H) FSH, L&C, FIN
02/07/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/07/96 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/21/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 175
SHORT TITLE: SPORT FISH GUIDE LICENSING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) AUSTERMAN, Ivan
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
02/10/95 303 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/10/95 303 (H) FSH, RESOURCES, FINANCE
02/27/95 511 (H) COSPONSOR(S): IVAN
03/13/95 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/13/95 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/29/95 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/29/95 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
01/31/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
01/31/96 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/07/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/07/96 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/21/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 265
SHORT TITLE: EXPORT OF DUNGENESS CRAB
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) WILLIAMS
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
03/17/95 778 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/17/95 778 (H) FSH, RESOURCES
03/22/95 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/22/95 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/29/95 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/29/95 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/05/95 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/05/95 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/21/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
TOM MEARS, Executive Director
Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association
HC 2, Box 849
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 283-5761
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 118.
DON AMEND, General Manager
Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association
2721 North Tongass Avenue
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-9605
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 118.
DAVE COBB, Business Manager
Valdez Fisheries Development Association
P.O. Box 125
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-2637
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 118.
TED ACHILLES, President
Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corporation
P.O. Box 1110
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907) 424-7511
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 118.
BRUCE SCHACTLER
P.O. Box 2254
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-4686
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 118.
BRUCE BACHEN, Operations Manager
Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association
1308 Sawmill Creek Road
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-6850
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 118.
RODGER PAINTER, President
Alaska Shellfish Growers Association; and
Board Member, Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
P.O. Box 20704
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 463-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of provisions of HB 118
relating to aquatic farming.
CHRIS BERNS
P.O. Box 26
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-5091
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 118.
DWAYNE PEEPLES, Administrative Officer
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
1111 Eighth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-5560
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 118.
AMY DAUGHERTY, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Alan Austerman
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol Building, Room 434
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4230
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of sponsor, discussed changes in
committee substitute to HB 175.
CHERYL SUTTON, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Bill Williams
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol Building, Room 128
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3424
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of sponsor, discussed changes in
committee substitute to HB 265.
SHERRI WOHLHUETER
P.O. Box 1312
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: (907) 772-9248
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 265.
DON HASELTINE
P.O. Box 7682
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 247-1336
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 265.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-7, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN ALAN AUSTERMAN called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Austerman, Ogan, Davis and
Elton. Absent was Representative Moses.
HB 118 - SEAFOOD MARKETING / AQUATIC PRODUCT TAX
Number 0099
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS moved to adopt for discussion purposes
the committee substitute for HB 118, version M, dated 2/15/96.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 0160
TOM MEARS, Executive Director, Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association,
testified via teleconference from Kenai. He indicated the
1percent marketing tax on fish they sold was not a financial
burden, as it would amount to only $10,000 per year. On the other
hand, as a private nonprofit corporation, they currently paid no
income tax and were exempt from property and sales taxes in both
the Kenai Borough and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Therefore, it
2would be "new ground" to be paying taxes.
Number 0208
MR. MEARS said secondly, if they paid the 1 percent tax, they would
simply pass it along to the fishermen. "We'll just have to catch
more fish in our special harvest areas in order to be able to pay
the tax," he said. He suggested the fisherman probably would not
think that was a good idea, as they would pay additional amounts to
the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI). Finally, if they
and the oyster growers were to be subject to a tax, Mr. Mears
thought they should be entitled to representation on the ASMI
board. He suggested that the political difficulties of doing that
would make it not worth the small amount of revenue created by
their participation. Mr. Mears reiterated that it was "not that
big a deal to us one way or the other," and added that they could
live with whatever was decided.
Number 0292
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS, in response to Mr. Mears, mentioned that
representation on the ASMI board was spelled out and that there
were fishermen on that board. He noted that "under the statute,
you're considered something other than a fisherman, even though you
are fishing," and asked Mr. Mears if that was correct.
MR. MEARS replied that was correct. Their special limited entry
permits allowed the harvest of fish just in a special harvest area.
"We're clearly not commercial fishermen," he said. "Those are all
individual persons ... and what we are is corporations. Our
ability to catch fish is limited to just that very small place in
the special harvest area."
Number 0389
MR. MEARS explained they established a cash goal for the year,
based primarily on operating expenses for the year. If operating
costs increased by 1 percent because of this tax, they would
correspondingly increase their cost-recovery cash goal by 1
percent. They would then need to catch more fish in the special
harvest area for purposes of paying for the aquaculture
association, leaving less fish of the total net return available to
fishermen.
Number 0465
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if that cash goal was established by Mr.
Mears and his board.
MR. MEARS replied that was correct.
Number 0479
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON expressed ambivalence about the provision.
He suggested an assumption had been made that hatchery production,
as well as other production, was contributing to the market problem
and in fact added "a couple of wrinkles to the market problem." He
said, "the assumption may have been that since there's a
contribution to the market problem, there may need to be a
contribution to help address the market problem." Representative
Elton thought it was a good point that the aquaculture association
was "neither fish nor foul," being neither a fisherperson nor a
processor. He indicated the ASMI board had been vexed by that in
the past. Because of some of those questions and the need to get
hatchery representation on the board, he noted, the Governor had
appointed a public member who at the time was affiliated with the
Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corporation (PWSAC), but who no
longer had that affiliation. Representative Elton said there was
a sensitivity to the need that "if you're going to be contributing,
you ought to have some representation." He reiterated to Mr. Mears
that he felt some ambivalence about it.
Number 0599
DON AMEND, General Manager, Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture
Association (SSRAA), testified via teleconference from Ketchikan,
saying he echoed some of the comments by Tom Mears. He briefly
discussed SSRAA's situation, which he suggested was the same as for
Cook Inlet. If SSRAA were to pay an additional 1 percent tax, it
would increase its revenue goal, resulting in harvesting more fish.
Mr. Amend indicated this would be counter to the objectives of
SSRAA of providing the maximum amount of value and revenue to the
fishermen, who, if they were allowed to catch those fish, would pay
that 1 percent tax, as well. He concluded by saying that SSRAA
would not be in favor of the additional tax for the same reasons
outlined by Tom Mears.
Number 0738
DAVE COBB, Business Manager, Valdez Fisheries Development
Association, testified via teleconference, explaining that his
nonprofit association was not a regional hatchery. He wished to
echo the same things said by Tom Mears and by SSRAA. Having
budgets set by the board of directors, based on revenue goals, any
taxes would result in taking more fish from the fishermen. Mr.
Cobb said it had been the goal of his board to provide as many fish
to the commercial fishing fleet and sport fishery as possible. A
1percent tax would be about $28,000 per year. "It certainly won't
break us up in business," he said, "but there certainly is a
distinction between ... us as a corporation and us as a fisherman.
We're certainly not a fisherman. We're a producer. We're
producing a product out there," he said. "And for this reason,
we're opposed to the additional language."
Number 0847
TED ACHILLES, President, Prince William Sound Aquaculture
Corporation (PWSAC), testified via teleconference from Cordova,
saying he also wanted to echo Tom Mears's thoughts. He explained
that PWSAC operated a little differently, as they had no revenue
goal. Instead, they tried to make ends meet "within 40 percent of
the catch," he said. They would not be passing the tax along; it
would simply come out of the operating budget. Although it would
not break PWSAC, it would limit their ability to accomplish goals
in terms of raising salmon for Prince William Sound. From PWSAC's
point of view, it would probably be a counter-productive
assessment.
Number 0918
BRUCE SCHACTLER testified via teleconference from Kodiak, saying he
did not agree with anyone who had spoken thus far. "I don't think
they're looking at it from the point of view of the rest of the
fishermen in Alaska that are supporting the products that those
guys are selling to keep themselves in business," he stated. He
noted that the aquaculture associations were going to cost-recover
and put onto the open market approximately $16 million worth of
fish. This was in competition or in addition to the rest of the
fish from Alaska and the world. Mr. Schactler said that was more
than the entire pack was worth in the Kodiak area this summer, and
was a significant amount of fish being put on the market. Right
now, fishermen were subsidizing the selling and marketing of those
$16 million worth of fish.
Number 0980
MR. SCHACTLER emphasized that the aquaculture associations worked
for a group of fishermen who had formed a corporation to raise fish
for profit. "This is not just some company that's doing charitable
work here," he said. Mr. Schactler explained that the associations
put fish on the market and ASMI was marketing those fish, just as
ASMI marketed the rest of the fish in the state, increasing demand
for fish worldwide through their efforts. This theoretically
increased prices, resulting in the aquaculture associations having
to cost-recover less fish. "It's all part of the same business.
They're in the business of catching fish and selling them to keep
themselves in business. This 1percent is the cost of doing
business," he added.
Number 1100
MR. SCHACTLER concluded that it was a fair way of doing business.
The approximately $160,000 would enable ASMI to continue to do its
job. He added that fishermen in the different aquaculture
associations had a position on ASMI's board.
Number 1160
BRUCE BACHEN, Operations Manager, Northern Southeast Regional
Aquaculture Association (NSRAA), testified via teleconference from
Sitka. He emphasized that NSRAA operated hatcheries for the
benefit of the public, including commercial, sport and subsistence
fishermen. He indicated NSRAA had provided to the sport fishery
65,000 Chinook salmon in Juneau and Sitka, as well as 2,500 coho
for sport fishermen in northern Southeast Alaska. When NSRAA's
fish left the hatchery, they were available to anyone interested in
catching them. Mr. Bachen explained that NSRAA received its
funding from the enhancement tax collected from fishermen, as well
as from the sale of returning fish. "Our expenditures are strictly
to cover our costs," he said, including the year's operations,
repaying state loans and, in good years, putting away some reserves
to provide stability.
Number 1223
MR. BACHEN explained that NSRAA tried to keep costs to an absolute
minimum, resulting in minimum cost-recovery needs. He suggested
this provided the greatest benefit to the public. He expressed
concern about anything that raised costs, as this tax would do. It
would force NSRAA to take additional fish away from what was
available to the users of those fish, he said. Rather than harming
NSRAA, he suggested the tax would harm the fishery and the people
who participated in it. He said that ran counter to the goals
established by NSRAA.
Number 1282
MR. BACHEN acknowledged the need for marketing and provided an
example. He concluded by saying, "We'd ask you not to include the
cost-recovery harvest as part of the revenue generator for ASMI."
Number 1320
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted that Representative Gene Kubina had joined
the meeting.
RODGER PAINTER, President, Alaska Shellfish Growers Association,
and Board Member, Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, noted that he
was also an oyster farmer. He spoke in favor of the provisions of
HB 118 relating to aquatic farming. He provided the committee with
hand-outs from the Department of Fish and Game which reported data
on aquatic farm permits, operations, sales and inventory. He said,
"We'd really like to see the assessment in place." He mentioned
that when the subject had been brought before membership for the
past two years, members had voted unanimously in favor of the
marketing assessment.
Number 1410
MR. PAINTER explained that ASMI was currently promoting oysters,
and doing a pretty good job of it, even though oyster farmers were
not subject to the marketing assessment. Since oysters were being
promoted, the growers felt it was only fair to pay their own way.
They were keenly interested in keeping ASMI interested in oysters
because there would be lots of them to sell. He discussed
inventory figures from the Department of Fish and Game hand-out.
Aggressive promotion was needed, he said, and ASMI was the best
vehicle they had. Mr. Painter urged the committee to move CSHB
118, at least the provisions relating to aquatic farming, out of
committee.
Number 1495
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked Mr. Painter if there were problems
marketing the 866,000 oysters they had.
MR. PAINTER replied, "I wouldn't say that we're not having any
problem marketing it." They had been aggressively promoting
oysters for the past four years. For example, the last year, ASMI
had contributed $10,000 towards the Alaska Oyster Festival in
Anchorage, which had helped immensely in moving the product.
Number 1543
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked how many years it would take to reach 10
million.
MR. PAINTER responded that it took two to three years to grow the
product to market size. He explained that a number of farms had
started up but not made it. In addition, some oysters in inventory
might never see the marketplace. Looking at reports over the past
few years, there had been a lot in inventory but a much smaller
number reaching the marketplace. With oysters, there was also a
high mortality; probably half of the oysters planted did not make
it to market size or were misshapen or otherwise unmarketable. Out
of 10 million, only 5 million would reach market size. Mr. Painter
referred to the chart provided and said in terms of sales, there
was a steady growth curve. He expected the chart to "jump up"
significantly in the next two years. For example, in 1996, there
would probably be twice as many farms selling product as there were
the previous year. Therefore, they should see a big jump in sales
this year.
Number 1659
CHRIS BERNS testified via teleconference from Kodiak. He suggested
that fishermen from Bristol Bay, Kodiak and the peninsula were in
direct competition with and paying for marketing of cost-recovered
fish. He suggested that aquaculture associations should share the
burden of trying to market those fish.
Number 1765
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON moved that CSHB 118, version M, dated 2/15/96,
move from committee with attached fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS objected for the purpose of asking a question.
He wanted to know what ASMI's current budget was and where those
funds came from.
Number 1787
DWAYNE PEEPLES, Administrative Officer, Alaska Seafood Marketing
Institute (ASMI), explained that ASMI had three sources of revenue,
one of which was receipts from assessments from the processors,
calculated at .3 percent on all products sold on shore. There was
also a 1 percent assessment on all salmon at ex-vessel value. In
addition, the export program was supported by a United States
Department of Agriculture grant and some state matching funds. In
relation to assessments for FY 1996, Mr. Peeples projected
approximately $4.5 million from the 1 percent salmon marketing tax,
plus approximately $3 million from the processor tax. As for
HB118, he said, the ASMI board had not addressed the proposed
legislation but was meeting in Juneau the following two days, at
which time they would address the board's position and discuss
HB118.
Number 1850
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked Mr. Peeples if he knew the amounts of
the federal and state shares.
MR. PEEPLES replied yes, the state match right now was $890,000,
with the federal money being $3.9 million.
Number 1866
REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA asked Mr. Peeples whether ASMI received
anything over and above the fish tax for the eggs. He suggested
the eggs were the "high-value product" from the fish being marketed
by the hatcheries.
MR. PEEPLES asked if Representative Kubina was referring to cost-
recovery and hatcheries.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA clarified that he was referring to eggs taken
from fish sold by the processors.
Number 1883
MR. PEEPLES replied that for most fish sold to the processor, ASMI
collected on the ex-vessel value at the time of the sale. Once the
product had been sold one time, there was no further assessment.
Number 1895
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted that there was a motion on the table and
asked if there was still an objection.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS recalled when the state had been getting rid
of hatcheries and given up state funding, turning it over to the
nonprofits to handle themselves. Now, he said, we were going back
and charging them. It had been a fairly short time since telling
them, "Go out and make it on your own," and Representative Davis
thought it was counter-active. Now, the aquaculture associations
were funded, with their dollars coming from commercial fishermen,
who were already part of ASMI. Now, the cost-recovery and the fish
that they caught were being charged. It seemed like they were
being cut short. Something just did not seem proper,
Representative Davis said. He indicated it was like giving an
assignment and then making it tougher.
Number 1991
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON responded that another way of looking at it
was to say, "Okay, this is a tax assessed against the fish. And if
we have a salmon marketing problem and we're assessing this tax
against one portion of the salmon pack - and that's the portion
that's caught by the commercial fishermen and the portion bought by
the processing industry - and so, without this provision, we're
allowing some of those fish that are going to end up in the market
to compete with fish that have paid their share toward the
marketing costs."
Number 2051
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "it's no secret that we have a real
problem." Production was rising faster than consumption. The
previous year, production exceeding consumption by 3 million metric
tons. A large portion of Alaska's production was from the hatchery
component. "We have a lot of people on the ropes in this industry,
in the salmon segment of the commercial fishing industry," he said.
He suggested the Division of Investments might be able to testify
as to the dimensions of the problem. Some of the people on the
ropes were processors, he said. For cost-recovery fish, the
solution was to catch a few more.
Number 2099
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON expressed that he did not feel strongly about
the issue. However, if there was going to be hatchery production
contributing to the market problems, it also ought to contribute to
the market solution. "It will be less onerous for them to
contribute to the market solution than it is for the fisherman or
the processor," he said, "because all they do is increase their
cost-recovery catch."
Number 2114
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS wondered how much this would contribute to the
solution. He thought it seemed to be a very small portion of the
problem. He withdrew his objection to the motion to move CSHB 118
out of committee.
Number 2134
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted that there was a motion on the floor to
move CSHB 118 out of committee, with accompanying fiscal note, to
the next committee of referral. There being no objection to the
motion, it was so ordered.
HB 175 - SPORT FISH GUIDE LICENSING
Number 2143
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN pointed out that the committee would not take
testimony on HB 175 that evening.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS moved to place CSHB 175, work draft R, on the
table for discussion. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 2217
AMY DAUGHERTY, Legislative Assistant to Representative Austerman,
sponsor of HB 175, explained the changes made since the last work
draft for the bill. She mentioned there were a lot of little
changes but only two main ones. First, they had pulled out the
"transporter" section. She said this was removed to avoid
complications and future problems, and could possibly be addressed
in other legislation. Second, in response to requests by small
business operators, the language had been changed so that an
operator/guide license could be obtained without going to more than
one agency location. In addition, Ms. Daugherty explained, all the
language referring to physically being on a vessel had been moved
to the definitions section.
Number 2272
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS expressed appreciation for the stack of
letters that had been received. One thing that had struck him
involved concerns over insurance requirements. He asked if there
had been a history of claims and problems driving the issue. He
noted that in the testimony received, there did not seem to be a
history of claims. He wondered if light could be shed as to the
need for that provision.
Number 2316
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN responded that originally, the insurance
provision was for $500,000, with a $1 million aggregate. After
receiving testimony, they had lowered the requirement to $300,000.
Chairman Austerman explained the language had been drafted from the
big game license procedures, which originally contained an
insurance clause that had been eliminated. Chairman Austerman said
the committee had received a couple of remarks in reference to
dropping it from the bill entirely. On the other hand, they had
received comments from industry people saying it was a good thing
to have, as it made the industry responsible and provided a certain
level of comfort to tourists and people coming to the state to use
the services. He pointed out that he himself had no argument
either way. However, another argument was that there was no
requirement, for example, that doctors have certain levels of
insurance.
Number 2370
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referred to the language coming from big game
regulations or statutes; he thought going after a fish was
different from going after a bear or moose. He mentioned letters
received from Fairbanks that indicated there was no problem there
and that regionalization would be nice. He said, "I probably
disagree with that, having lived on the Kenai River for thirty
years. You can see that thirty years ago, there wasn't a problem
there, either. And probably twenty years ago, there wasn't. So
get ready, because these sport fishermen love to fish and streams
are drying up all over the world." He wondered if Alaska might be
accommodating the whole world soon. He indicated that people in
his area were not opposed to the legislation. "I think we're on
the right track," he said, adding that he was not sure the
legislation could not be improved somehow. He noted that a lot of
work and a lot of testimony had gone into the legislation. He said
he looked forward to the House Resources Committee "hashing it out
a little more."
Number 2455
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN replied that indeed, in the Fairbanks area there
was concern about the bill. In interior Alaska, there was concern
by guides on the rivers, as well.
TAPE 96-7, SIDE B
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN suggested that if the Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G) later felt that fish other than salmon and halibut
needed to have reports done on them, they could later come back and
do that. He pointed out that some requirements had been removed
from the legislation. For example, there had been concern over the
Coast Guard license. People had been worried they would need that
license to run a raft down a river, and there had been changes made
so that was no longer required.
Number 0033
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN continued, explaining that with changes made to
HB 175, both required licenses could now be obtained through ADF&G,
instead of having to go two places. "We've got it down now to
where we basically want it, and that's just to register and to
report their catch so that the department has some kind of
justification for what's going on," he said.
Number 0044
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN indicated he thought it was a wise move
to drop the transporters out. He said it had been a constant
problem with hunting guides and a "major, major point of
contention." He acknowledged he had some problems with CSHB 175.
He wanted the record to reflect that he would not be objecting to
passing it out. However, his recommendation was to amend it. He
thought it needed to be simplified. He also had philosophical
problems with "one branch of government enforcing two or three
other branches of the governments' regulations and licensing." He
noted that hearings were scheduled the following day in Kenai,
which he thought would be productive. He also thought the
legislation should move along so that the House Resources Committee
could consider it.
Number 0089
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted that HB 175 moved to the House Resources
Committee next. There was also a scheduled House Resources
Committee meeting in Kenai on Thursday and Friday, with HB 175
being heard there Friday afternoon.
Number 0103
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "I think the problems that we may have
philosophically and practically with this are probably the
licensing provisions and how you do that in the least onerous way.
I understand and I sympathize with Representative Ogan's concerns
there, but I hope when it gets to the Resources committee they also
recognize the main thrust of this is to gather the data to help
manage the different resources wisely. And it's unfortunate that
the only way you can do that is through a registration program,
because it does bring up philosophical problems and practical
problems." He concluded by saying the data component of this was
where the real value came in. He expressed appreciation for the
sponsor's efforts.
Number 0146
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS moved that CSHB 175 move out of committee,
with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes, to
the House Resources Committee. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
HB 265 - EXPORT OF DUNGENESS CRAB
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted that the next item of business was HB 265.
He introduced Cheryl Sutton to present the bill.
Number 0185
CHERYL SUTTON, Legislative Assistant to Representative Bill
Williams, sponsor of the bill, explained that HB 265 had been heard
the previous year. Before the committee was a substitute which she
felt confident would address any concern stated in the past. She
briefly summarized the sponsor statement, saying HB 265 was an
economic development bill introduced by Representative Williams in
response to constituents who were developing a live crab market in
British Columbia. Currently, there was a prohibition against any
kind of transport except by air. This bill, in the committee
substitute form, would allow dungeness crab to be exported from the
state both by air, as currently allowed, or by "surface
transportation if the crab are taken at a time and location in the
state for which the Department of Environmental Conservation does
not require seafood processors to test dungeness crab for the
presence of marine toxins."
Number 0234
MS. SUTTON explained the bill pertained mostly to Southeast Alaska,
especially the southern regions. She said there had been concerns
raised about issues of crab coming onshore. In the Kodiak
dungeness fishery, she noted, "it tests hot all the time. This
would not even fit into this model at all," she said. She referred
to documents provided to the legislature by the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) and explained that in the Bering
Sea, where there were no dungeness, there was a fishery for Opilio
Tanner crab that had been certified in winter. There would be no
Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP) testing for that fishery, but
spot-checking only. "It really narrows down the focus," she said,
"and what it will allow is an opportunity for some fishermen who
are now doing air transport and have found that it's very costly
and also not very efficient." She explained there were lots of
dead crab because they got "bumped" or had other problems being
transported by air. To transport by vessel, all the reporting
requirements were in place. All the taxes would be paid. All the
catch statistics would be reported to the department. Ms. Sutton
noted that Geron Bruce was present from ADF&G and Janice Adair from
DEC was on line to answer questions. Ms. Sutton indicated that the
agencies were happy with the bill.
Number 0298
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted that it would be proper to accept the work
draft for CSHB 265, version F.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS moved to accept the draft. There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
Number 0317
SHERRI WOHLHUETER testified via teleconference from Petersburg,
2saying she was a dungeness fisherman. She expressed support for
HB 265, saying as she understood it, it offered fishermen the
ability to diversify in the transportation of dungeness crab to
market. She thought it could only be an improvement.
Number 0340
DON HASELTINE testified via teleconference from Ketchikan. He said
there was a "good, solid market" in British Columbia. He noted
that a third of what he got paid for crab went into air freight.
He said there were buyers in Prince Rupert and tenders already
running that direction carrying shrimp. He thought the legislation
provided a good opportunity to "put some guys back to work and keep
the money in Alaska instead of going to out-of-state
transportation." He concluded by stating his support of the bill.
Number 0440
MS. SUTTON pointed out that there were two zero fiscal notes.
While she had been unable to obtain updated ones, both ADF&G and
DEC had affirmed with the committee substitute that there were
still zero fiscal notes, she said.
Number 0453
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS moved that CSHB 265 be passed out of the
committee, with attached fiscal notes. There being no objection,
it was so ordered.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct, CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN
adjourned the House Special Committee on Fisheries meeting at
6:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|