Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/30/1997 05:00 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
April 30, 1997
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Chairman
Representative Mark Hodgins
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Gene Kubina
Representative Scott Ogan
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eldon Mulder
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 8
Relating to Cook Inlet fisheries enhancement projects on Tustumena
Lake on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge.
- MOVED HR 8 OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HOUSE BILL NO. 149
"An Act relating to the management of salmon fisheries; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HR 8
SHORT TITLE: TUSTUMENA LAKE FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT PROJ
SPONSOR(S): SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/24/97 1323 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/24/97 1323 (H) FISHERIES
04/28/97 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/28/97 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/30/97 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 149
SHORT TITLE: PREFER CONSUMPTIVE USE SALMON FISHERIES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOHRING, Masek, Mulder, Cowdery
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/19/97 399 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/19/97 399 (H) FSH, RESOURCES, FINANCE
02/27/97 519 (H) COSPONSOR(S): COWDERY
04/23/97 1307 (H) SPONSOR MOTION TO WITHDRAW-WITHDRAWN
04/28/97 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/28/97 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/30/97 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
CHUCK MEACHAM, Fisheries Analyst
for the House/Senate Majority
533 Main Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-3335
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HR 8 on behalf of
Representative Gail Phillips.
DENNIS RANDA, President
Alaska Council of Trout Unlimited
P.O. Box 3055
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-9494
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HR 8.
THOMAS WALKER, Special Projects Manager
Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association
HC 2, Box 849
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 283-5761
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HR 8.
DALE BONDURANT
HC 1, Box 1197
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-0818
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HR 8.
ROD BERG
266 Redwood Court
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-6064
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HR 8.
ROBERT HALL
P.O. Box 871906
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: Not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HR 8.
BRUCE KNOWLES
P.O. Box 873206
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 745-4965
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HR 8.
DREW SPARLIN
37010 Cannery Road
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-4095
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HR 8.
BRENT JOHNSON, President
Kenai Peninsula Fisherman's Association
HC 2, Box 508
Clam Gulch, Alaska 99568
Telephone: (907) 262-4763
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HR 8.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-6143
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HR 8.
REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2186
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 149.
ED CRANE, Officer
Alaska Seafood Council
P.O. Box 91239
Anchorage, Alaska 99509-1239
Telephone: (907) 276-2007
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 149.
ROBERT HALL
P.O. Box 871906
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: Not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 149.
BRUCE KNOWLES, President
Guide Association
P.O. Box 873206
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 745-4965
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 149.
STEVE STROMME, Commercial Fisherman
P.O. Box 22985
Juneau, Alaska
Telephone: (907) 790-2061
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony against HB 149.
JERRY McCUNE
United Fishermen of Alaska
211 Fourth Street, Suite 112
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-2820
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 149.
EMMET HEIDEMANN
P.O. Box 770061
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
Telephone: (907) 694-4479
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 149.
MARGO SHERWOOD, Domestic Engineer
1640 Brink Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Telephone: (907) 333-6268
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 149.
DON SHERWOOD, President
Alaska Boating Association
1640 Brink Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Telephone: (907) 333-6268
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 149.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-19, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN ALAN AUSTERMAN called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Austerman, Hodgins, Ivan and
Ogan. Representative Kubina arrived at 5:08 p.m.
HR 8 - TUSTUMENA LAKE FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT PROJ
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN announced the first order of business to come
before the House Special Committee on Fisheries would be HR 8,
"Relating to Cook Inlet fisheries enhancement projects on Tustumena
Lake on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge."
Number 0064
CHUCK MEACHAM, Fisheries Analyst for the House/Senate Majority, was
the first person to testify in Juneau. He said he was testifying
on behalf of Representative Gail Phillips and she offers her strong
support for the passage of the resolution. He read the following
statement into the record:
"HR 8 supports Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association's efforts to
secure a permit to continue its valuable scientific work directed
towards the enhancement of sockeye salmon production for in
commercial, recreational and personal use fisheries. Cook Inlet
Aquaculture Association has operated its salmon stocking program
since 1976. That's 20 years now. The legislature did pass a
similar resolution of support during the permitting process back in
1985.
"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is conducting an Environmental
Assessment of this project in conjunction with the Kenai National
Wildlife Refuge permit renewal process. Speaker Phillips
respectfully requests that the Fisheries Committee continue to
support enhancement efforts on the Tustumena Lake by passing HR 8."
Number 0179
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS asked if he is correct in saying that
this a pilot project for 20 years and if the resolution was an
encouragement of the project.
Number 0209
MR. MEACHAM stated the project had been on going for 20 years. The
level of egg take is approximately 13,000,000 from about 9,000
adults. Approximately half or 6,000,000 of the eggs are returned
to the Bear Creek area from where the eggs were taken.
Number 0285
DENNIS RANDA, President, Alaska Council of Trout Unlimited, was the
first person to testify via teleconference in Kenai. He said the
council is the largest cold water conservation organization in the
world. Mr. Randa said his organization has had communications with
the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game over
this and other hatchery implications over the years. They have
asked that the department look into the implications of stock and
hatchery programs for weakened wild stocks in the area that would
effect increased harvest opportunities for commercial fishing. Mr.
Randa said they have yet to receive adequate responses from the
commissioner. The council's greatest concern is the implications
associated with the increased harvest opportunity of sockeye salmon
on the wild run of Kasilof River Chinook salmon wild runs. The
sport fishery has been curtailed on that fishery and the department
is not making an effort to gather information. The council is
concerned about the genetic implications of further driving the
stocks down and the unknown impact due to commercial fishing.
MR. RANDA informed the committee that he attended a genetics
conference in Juneau and they are looking at the implications of
genetic of these stocks. Mr. said the state's geneticist indicated
that if many projects around the state had been under the permit
process at this time, as opposed to when they were permitted 20
years ago, they might not have been permitted by the department.
Therefore, he would like to see more information before jumping
into this wholeheartedly. He said he doesn't believe that it is in
the state's best interest to proceed with this project. The Alaska
Council Trout Unlimited was opposed to the resolution as worded.
He urged the committee members to enhance the department's budget
so that some of these questions could be answered. There are too
many question marks to continue to follow down these roads.
Number 0524
THOMAS WALKER, Special Projects Manager, Cook Inlet Aquaculture
Association, was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Kenai. He said the project had been on going for 20 years at its
current scale since 1988. It benefits a number of different user
groups from the Cook Inlet area. The project has been looked at by
the states' geneticist who recommended some changes of which the
association is prepared to accept. Mr. Walker informed the
committee that his association has also consulted with the
management biologists in the area and was told the project would
not drive the decision of management along the east side beach of
Cook Inlet. In short, the association has put a lot of time into
the project. It required permits from the Kenai National Wildlife
Refuge and the Department of Fish and Game to continue. The
association feels this is a project with a track record and
sufficient scrutiny. He thanked the committee considering HJR and
urged passage.
Number 0681
DALE BONDURANT was the next person to testify via teleconference
from Kenai. He testified in opposition to HR 8. The Tustumena
Lake is very turbulent and nutrient poor. Therefore, hatchery fish
could add to the competition of the natural stocks - dolly varden,
lake trout, white fish, sockeye and coho. The hatchery harvest is
of a higher percentage than the native stocks, thus allowing for a
smaller percentage to return to the lake. There are less carcasses
to help recharge the food chain and nutrients. This could impinge
upon the coho. There is also the eventual inbreeding of the
genetic pools of the natural stocks, and the tendency of the fish
to stray as happened in the Crooked Creek Hatchery. The continued
introduction of hatchery stock in the Upper Cook Inlet is highly
irresponsible and is not justified. Hatchery stocks are well known
for disease potential. Native stocks needed only to be managed on
a sustained yield principle for all the different discrete stocks.
The Tustumena Hatchery enhancement should not be continued are
there are just too many potential problems.
Number 0845
ROD BERG was the next person to testify via teleconference from
Kenai. He testified in opposition to HR 8. He said he does not
believe that the project is legal because it was being conducted on
the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. The cost recovery of harvest
opportunities means exclusive use by a special interest group -
commercial fishermen. He said he doesn't believe recreational or
personal users have ever asked for this project. Mr. Berg said
"additional opportunities" provided to these groups is always used
to legitimize an enhancement project that is going through the
permitting process. He said, "We are providing extra opportunities
to the public so it's okay that we commercial users enhance this
fishery for our own personal gain." Mr. Berg said it provides an
artificial increase in the number of fish going through the sonar
counters, but at what cost. He questioned where the funding is
coming from for this project and said he objects strongly to
recreational users indirectly funding this type of commercial
project. Mr. Berg said, "Even more serious ramifications are
these: The commercial fisheries south of the Blanchard line are
having a huge negative impact on the recreational fisheries north
of the Blanchard line because of the emergency commercial openings
promulgated by the escapement exceed minimum and optimum numbers of
fish on the spawning beds. This artificial commercial enhancement
project should be eliminated all together. The only people who
seem to think we need more sockeye salmon are commercial
gillnetters and the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association." Mr. Berg
informed the committee that stock affected negatively by this
project are July run Kenai kings, sockeyes, August run silvers on
the Kasilof and Kenai River, and all east side streams north of the
Blanchard line. The Tustumena project has been conducted for only
one user group - commercial fishermen. The time has come to
disband and discontinue the project entirely.
Number 1036
ROBERT HALL was the next person to testify, via teleconference from
Mat-Su, in opposition to HR 8. He said he is not speaking in
opposition to commercial fishermen, but in opposition to the
interception. Mr. Hall said one of the dangers they have
experienced in the Mat-Su Valley and in Cook Inlet is when you
artificially inflate a species, the harvest of those salmon, by its
nature, increases the intercept of other wild stocks, particularly
northern district salmon. He cited 90 percent of the silver salmon
intercepted in Cook Inlet are headed for northern district streams,
and 80 percent of the harvested silver salmon are also headed up to
the Mat-Su Valley. The commercial fishing industry has got to
recognize that it is destroying the runs in the Mat-Su. He cited
the escapement goals are substantially down on the Cottonwood
Creek, Jim Creek and Wasilla Creek. The state has failed to meet
the escapement goals on the Susitna River 12 out of the past 16
years. There has been testimony after testimony over the last five
to ten years about the diminishing returns in the Mat-Su River,
especially the silvers and kings which can be directly attributed
to the fact that we have an intercept of stocks in the central
district. To increase the intercept is absolutely crazy. "How
much do we have to suffer?" he asked. At some point, the
responsibility to the resources has to stop this type of crazy
fisheries enhancement. He thanked the committee members for their
time. Mr. Hall urged the committee to vote against the resolution.
Number 1194
BRUCE KNOWLES was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Mat-Su. He spoke in opposition to HR 8. He said they are losing
the salmon runs in the Susitna Valley. He informed the committee
that he has filed a grievance with the Office of the Ombudsman for
the way the salmon are being managed at the mouth of Fish Creek.
The Board of Fisheries, in November, elected to allow the fishery
to continue when it was targeting hatchery fish to the detriment of
native stocks. The Governor and the Lieutenant Governor have both
stated that the most important thing is to manage wild stocks. He
declared, "Any time we have a hatchery stock that is detriment to
native stocks, it's against the law to harvest them."
Number 1297
DREW SPARLIN was the next person to testify via teleconference from
Kenai. He spoke in support of HR 8. He indicated that since the
start of the project, there has been a change in management and the
development of a personal use fishery. The 6,000,000 fry released
in the area are determined to be fairly insignificant in the sense
that it does not alter the management scheme. He said he would
like to encourage the committee to support HR 8 as the project is
very worthwhile.
Number 1415
BRENT JOHNSON, President, Kenai Peninsula Fisherman's Association,
was the next person to testify via teleconference in Kenai. He
spoke in support of HR 8. The association is a group of over 400
setnetters in the Kenai area. The association has found that the
program is very helpful to them because it contributes to part of
their catch every year. He said every year more and more
information has been gained.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN closed the public hearing on HR 8.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN called Geron Bruce, Department of Fish and Game,
to the table.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN stated there were concerns raised about
the susceptibility of the hatchery fish to disease and the disease
spreading to the wild stocks. He asked Mr. Bruce if it was a
legitimate concern.
Number 1537
MR. BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Fish and Game, replied the Infectious Hematopoietic
Necrosis Virus or IHN virus is a concern, but there are practices
in place to prevent and detect an outbreak. He said he is not
aware of it being a major problem on the Tustumena Lake.
Number 1577
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Bruce at what point should we say it
might not be a good idea to continue producing more fish,
especially when there was an over abundance affecting the market
and the price.
Number 1610
MR. BRUCE replied that was a difficult question to answer. Salmon
production is currently worldwide and it is increasing
dramatically. For example, he said he recently read that farm
salmon production has increased 16 percent in one year. It would
be difficult to isolate Alaska's production and predict what impact
a change in that production will have on worldwide prices. Mr.
Bruce said there are two factors. One is maintaining market share
and the other is price - value for what you do have.
Number 1670
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN explained there is a fear in his district. He
said, "There is a fear that the more fishery produced, there more
pressure there is going to be when there is a large return -- that
the fish are predominately managed for the Kenai River and when
there is a big return, there is more openings. The more openings
there is less fish in my district." He asked Mr. Bruce if that is
a valid concern, in his opinion. Representative Ogan said he
thinks the Upper Cook Inlet fisheries are managed somewhat by
default, driven by the return on the Lower Cook Inlet.
Number 1708
MR. BRUCE replied he certainly hears the concerns expressed by the
people from the Mat-Su Valley. The department attempts to manage
all of the salmon returning to the Cook Inlet basin. It is a
difficult and complicated job to manage all of these runs. There
is only one index in the Susitna River and the department would
like to do more work there. The area is important to the
department and they are trying to manage them as well as they can.
Number 1774
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Bruce to comment on the impact of the
diminishing runs in the Upper Cook Inlet area, especially the
concern of them becoming endangered. He asked if there would be a
detrimental affect on commercial fishing in Cook Inlet?
Number 1810
MR. BRUCE replied it would be a very serious matter if they were
determined to be an endangered species. The state does recognize,
however, there are stocks that are not producing as well as the
department would like, but they are a long way from being
endangered.
Number 1851
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Bruce what the cost is to the
state for this particular salmon enhancement project.
Number 1861
MR. BRUCE replied he doesn't believe there is a cost to the state.
He said he believes it is a project that is being undertaken by the
Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association. There is an indirect cost to
the state in that the state pathology lab looks at the fish to
ensure they are disease free. Mr. Bruce said he believes the cost
of the actual stocking problem is being borne by Cook Inlet
Aquaculture.
Number 1904
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Bruce how many late run Kasilof kings
were left.
Number 1916
MR. BRUCE replied he didn't currently know the number, but would
get back to him.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated he is concerned how an enhanced fishery
in Kasilof would impact native late run kings. He would appreciate
Mr. Bruce getting back to him.
Number 1956
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to move HR 8 out of committee
with individual recommendations and with the attached fiscal notes.
Number 1980
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN objected. He and his constituency is concerned
that an enhanced fishery could have a negative impact on his
district.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked for a roll call vote. Representatives
Hodgins, Ivan and Austerman voted in favor of the motion.
Representative Ogan voted against the motion. House Resolution 8
was moved from the House Special Committee on Fisheries with
individual recommendations.
HB 149 - PREFER CONSUMPTIVE USE SALMON FISHERIES
Number 2057
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN announced the committee would hear HB 149
"An Act relating to the management of salmon fisheries; and
providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING, Sponsor of HB 149, came before the
committee to present the bill. He informed the committee that
there have been some problems with the rivers and streams in Mat-Su
in that over the years, there have been dramatic decreases in the
returns of salmon. This has been an ongoing problem and it seems
to be getting increasingly worse. He noted as far as the economy,
the Mat-Su depends on the sports fishing industry to a large
degree. There is a direct correlation between the diminished runs
of fish the rivers and the impact on the economy, from the store
owner to the bait and tackle shop owner to the gas station owner to
the hotel owner, etc. He said, "They all are negatively impacted
by the diminished numbers of people that go to the Mat-Su that fish
our rivers when there are fish that (indisc.) - fish that the Fish
and Game do not permit to be caught as a result of restrictions
that have been placed on our rivers -- restrictions such as the
numbers of fish allowed to be caught, restrictions such as the use
of artificial lures in lieu of bait, restrictions in terms of the
numbers of days you're allowed to fish during the week or the
numbers of hours, things of that nature."
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said there are some very frustrated
constituents in the whole Southcentral Region as a result of the
problems out there. He stated the constituents are frustrated
because it seems like people aren't acting to deal with the
problem. They initially looked to the Board of Fisheries to
resolve this problem. As a result of the lack of action by the
Administration and the Board of Fisheries, a petition was
circulated which resulted in over 28,000 signatures from people who
are demanding that we get more fish in our rivers. He said the
vehicle put forth to try and achieve that objective was the
F.I.S.H. (fairness in salmon harvest) Initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said the bill is, for the most part,
reflective of that F.I.S.H. Initiative. He said the reason he
introduced the legislation is because the initiative that he hoped
would be on the November ballot was struck down by the supreme
court. The court decided this was an unconstitutional issue, as
far as the public putting forth the initiative, and they said it is
the role of the legislature to decide on allocation issues. He
said HB 149 is essentially the same bill he introduced last session
which died as a result of the Nineteenth Alaska Legislature running
out of time.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING explained the intent of the legislation is
to direct the Board of Fisheries to give first priority of the fish
resource to the personal consumptive user. He noted consumptive
user would defined as the sports fishermen, the personal use
individual and also the subsistence user. Representative Kohring
said there is concern about sustained yield concept as we want to
make sure we get enough salmon migrating back to the rivers so that
they reproduce. He said the bill directs that the Board of
Fisheries give that priority to the personal consumptive user after
the sustained yield escapement goals.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING explained that what he is trying to achieve
with HB 149 is more fish. He said currently, the sports fishermen
roughly gets about 1 percent of the entire resource. The personal
consumptive user, as a whole, gets roughly 3 percent. The
commercial fish operator gets 97 percent. Representative Kohring
said he is talking about a small amount of the resource for the
vast majority of the people who are the sports fishermen and the
personal user.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said he understands there were over 300,000
people who bought the 1996 sports fishing license. He said, "If we
want to quantify, in terms of how many fish, just to put it in
layman's terms, what would 5 percent represent. It's been
calculated out that if we achieve that goal, it would be roughly 17
fish, per season, per sports fisherman, and we don't think that's
very unreasonable at all." Representative Kohring said he would
like to point out that the bill is confined to the Cook Inlet
Region. He noted the legislation doesn't make reference to the
fact that it deals only with those areas in the state of Alaska
that have 500,000 angler days per year. As it currently stands, it
is just the Cook Inlet Region that has that kind of activity.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said they are not against the commercial
industry, they are just looking for a more fair share of the
resource. He said he thinks it is in everyone's best interest that
we do get more fish into the rivers because of the sustained yield
concept. Representative Kohring said he thinks the direction that
we're going is the same as Washington, Oregon and California where
they depleted the resources to the extent where there were no fish
going back into the rivers to reproduce. Now there are many rivers
that are dead. He noted he is very concerned that is the direction
that Cook Inlet is going.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said the problem is not really with the
number of fish. He said it is his understanding that we have near
records of numbers of fish that are migrating up in the Lower Cook
Inlet and are being caught by commercial fishermen, yet at the same
time, we're seeing almost near records of returns in the rivers of
the Mat-Su. He referred to there being a direct correlation in
that there are massive amounts of fish, but they're not getting
beyond a point. The salmon that are migrating up Cook Inlet are
being intercepted by the commercial fishing fleet. He noted the
commercial fishing fleet would include the setnetters as well as
the driftnetters.
Number 2413
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said he has had discussions with Representative
Kohring regarding the bill and the implications it would have to
the overall fishery policies of the state of Alaska. He noted they
also discussed holding hearings during the interim. The hearings
that will be held will center on where the Alaska fisheries will be
in 10 to 15 years from now. Chairman Austerman said Alaska
fisheries are our most valuable and prolific natural resource.
Fisheries is the number two tax base in Alaska.
TAPE 97-19, SIDE B
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said the committee will hold a number of
hearings all over the state after the salmon industry has closed
down for the season. He indicated he has chosen the fall so that
there will be participation from all user groups.
Number 0063
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to the interim hearings and said one
thing that should be kept in mind is the fact that there will be an
eminent takeover of navigable waters by the federal government on
October 1.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said hopefully, there will be a solution before
then. He pointed out commercial fishing currently is a large tax
base to the state of Alaska and that everybody understands the
sportfish industry is relatively new to the state. He referred to
Representative Kohring's purpose statement and said it seems to him
that it removes commercial fishing out of Cook Inlet which is a big
tax base.
Number 0128
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING responded, "Certainly it would result in
less of a commercial catch and less dollars from that aspect of the
economy. However, when we're talking about the commercial industry
still getting a lion's share of that resource, and we still feel
that would be roughly 95 percent if this legislation were to become
law, they're still going to have a lion's share of those dollars
that are going to be captured, you know, from that industry. As
far as the economic impact, that would be a sports industry hazard
in Southcentral Alaska. I think that should be noted as well." He
said there are a lot of dollars that flow through the economy as a
result of expenditures that relate to the sport fish industry.
Number 0172
REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER referred to Chairman Austerman making
reference to the fact that commercial fishing is such a large part
of the state tax base and said he thinks that point is
challengeable in the sense that there are those who would argue
that commercial fishing doesn't even pay its own way. He said,
"When you consider that a great amount of that they pay actually
goes back to the local communities, it would be nice if I could do
that and I could pay my property taxes through whatever business I
was employed in, but I don't see that as adding to the state's
economy."
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said he has another point in relation to the
local impacts in Southcentral Alaska. He informed the committee
members that there was a study done by the Institute of Social and
Economic Research (ISER) which analyzed the net impact of sport
fish caught versus the commercial fish caught. At that point in
time, they basically said the study was a wash. He said that may
have been the situation and you can argue the merits of the study,
but if you hold that the study is at all correct you would
recognize the fact that the sport fishing industry is one that's
growing throughout Southcentral Alaska, has huge opportunity for
expansion, has huge economic opportunity in relation to the
creation of jobs and has a tremendous potential benefit to
Southcentral Alaska in the larger picture. Representative Mulder
said if you're looking at the commercial fishing industry today
versus the commercial fishing industry ten years from now, he
thinks that you'll see that sport fishing offers Southcentral
Alaska far greater economic opportunity and advantage than
commercial fishing does.
Number 0173
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said he would clarify his statement. Commercial
fishing is the number two tax base, under oil, of tax revenues for
the state of Alaska. He said, "How the legislature has taken that
money and allocated it is the debate that you're making right now."
Number 0296
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS referred to the bill and asked what the
mechanism is that allows the fish to get to the sport fish industry
and when there would be commercial fishing.
Number 0320
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said he won't even attempt to give any
detail as far as how the mechanism would work because it would be
his assumption that the Department of Fish and Game, through the
board, would make those decisions. He said he would put his faith
and trust in the department and board in that they would make the
proper judgements and see that the program is carried forward.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Representative Kohring what the intent
of the bill is.
Number 0350
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER responded saying the intent, when the bill
was written, was to have the department make a determination of the
demand by the common consumptive users, subsistence, personal use
and sport fish. That information would be provided to the Board of
Fisheries where they would establish the allocation to satisfy
those needs. At the point and time within the management
structure, the Department of Fish and Game could manage the catch
rates in relation to allowing that number of fish to escape up the
river systems, to ensure that those levels are going to escape,
while at the same time providing for reasonable commercial harvest
opportunity. Representative Mulder said he thinks the mechanism is
there. It's the directive or desire of the department to have some
direction about how they're supposed to proceed. He stated the
legislation gives the department directive that there be up to 5
percent of fish reserved for the common consumptive users.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said there is already a mechanism in place
for the natural escapement for sustainable yield. He said
basically the bill just sets a percentage that maybe hasn't been
set before for the escapement.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER responded that was correct.
Number 0437
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that this is an allocation bill no matter
how you look at it. He said Representative Kohring indicated that
sponsors of the bill are not satisfied with the allocation issue.
The allocation has taken place on the board level, so it is
currently at the legislative level to take a look and decide what
to do with it. He then referred to Section 2 and said it deals
with the management of Alaska salmon stocks. Subsection (a) deals
with the management of sustained yield, which they all agree with.
Chairman Austerman read from subsection (b) "The Board of Fisheries
shall adopt regulations establishing methods and means of taking
salmon that protect salmon spawning and rearing habitat from damage
that may, individually or cumulatively, result in significant
reduction in the productivity of salmon stocks." He then asked
Representative Kohring to explain the wording of (b). Chairman
Austerman also indicated he was uncertain whether cumulative
affects refers to downstream fisheries or included habitat.
Number 0502
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING referred to the first part of Chairman
Austerman's question and said in terms of attempting to protect the
habitat with this language, he would expect that through the
regulatory process, the Board of Fisheries would do everything in
their power to protect the habitat of the spawning beds so that the
there is the enhancement of fisheries to the extent of achieving
our sustained yield goals. He said the answer to the first
paragraph is an effort to protect the habitat for the sustained
yield purpose.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN referred to Section 3 of HB 149 and said it gets
into the area of the 500,000 angler days per year. He said it is
his understanding that Southeast Alaska currently has that level
for fishing. Potentially, the Dillingham and Bristol Bay area is
also potentially getting close to that right now. He asked
Representative Kohring if he has looked at this.
Number 0579
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING explained his intent of the legislation is
to just focus on Cook Inlet. Given the increasing fishing pressure
of that river system, he thinks it would be safe to say that number
is higher at this point. He noted he wouldn't have a problem
adjusting that number accordingly so they can continue to just
focus on the Cook Inlet Region.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER referred to the last review of the angler
effort in Southeast Alaska and said he believes it was somewhere
over 300,000 days. It was substantially less and it was projected
that it would take longer to reach that figure. Unless he had
incorrect information or that there has been dramatic increased
pressure, it was not necessarily the intention to exclude other
regions that were emerging as a potential for inclusion within the
bill. He said when you try to write a statute like this one, you
recognized that at some point there is a threshold that you reach
and you say, "Well at this point, effort is growing so much we are
now seeing a shift in focus of where the economic benefit begins."
Representative Mulder explained that the end user is now creating
more economy for the state of Alaska if it goes to the personal
consumptive user than it is for the commercial user. He stated he
differs, in that regard, to Representative Kohring. Representative
Mulder said with the level within the bill, he thinks it still only
impacts Cook Inlet, but eventually it could effect the other area.
That is only in accordance with the fact that those areas are
increasing under pressure in relation to the economic opportunity.
Number 0685
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN explained that as an informational point, he
thinks there will be questions. He referred to the economic
differences between commercial fishing, sport fishing and personal
use and said he thought there was a study done last year on the
Kenai area showing the economic value between commercial fish and
sport fish. If he remembers correctly, there was a balance where
they found that both commercial industries provided about same
amount of economic benefit.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said that is correct and that was the ISER
study he referred to. The economic benefit, as they determined,
was about wash at this point in time. He said, "That is why we
looked at this being more/less the threshold number because
certainly the pressure for personal consumptive users is growing
within that region, whereas the evaluation of fish and fish
products of salmon, specifically in relation to commercial fishing,
is diminishing worldwide."
Number 0745
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said another thing in that section is the
migration route. He stated that if he is reading the section
correctly, with the migration route language in the bill, there is
a potential that Chignik, Kodiak and every other fishery would
close down until the 5 percent figure was reached statewide or
cumulatively. The Cook Inlet area would take the 5 percent before
the other fisheries would open. He noted that is his perception of
reading the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated that potential does exist. He said
Chairman Austerman is reading the bill potentially correct.
Number 0824
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN referred to Kodiak and said it would allow the
sport fish industry to continue to fish in Kodiak, but it might
close down the whole commercial industry. He said he thinks this
is something that needs to be addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to the language and said he believes
it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. He
said, "What is spurring a lot of this is the Deshka River crash of
the king salmon has probably gotten this going more than anything
and the department has been in there for several years trying to
get wire coded tags in the heads of the smolt and they can't find
the doggone things." He stated the other side is that there is the
bycatch of chinook in pollock catches, from the Bering Sea, where
tags have been collected for a number of years, but nobody has ever
compiled the data to find out where they're coming from. He said
the committee should review that language to see if it is even
possible to enforce. He noted he doesn't think it is.
Number 0849
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said there is an emerging intercept fishery
developing off of Kodiak which has commercial user battling
commercial user. The point is that in times of abundance, they
would be able to do an intercept fishery and still ensure that
there will be enough fish that would return. In times of low
return, the potential for commercial shutdown does exist. It is
very difficult when you have an emerging fishery that is growing
that wants more and more of a slice of that pie.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said, "My guess is that the crux of this bill is
what we're talking about right now when we really get down to the
differences between sport fishing and commercial fishing - how we
come to a really rational decision on how to do this because when
you have mixed stock fisheries, which has been going on for eons -
ever since people started fishing here, it's been a mixed stock
fishery." He referred to the reports that came from the coded wire
tag study that was done in 1994, around Kodiak Island, on Cook
Inlet tags, not one Cook Inlet tag showed up on the Kodiak catch.
Number 1014
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said it is hard for him to imagine that the
Department of Fish and Game would actually take extreme measures.
He referred to the 5 percent total and said it is a very small
piece of the overall resource to achieve that goal. He said he
doesn't think that there will have to be drastic action to the
extent of the Department of Fish and Game shutting down some of the
migratory paths. The fishing industry would have to be awfully
depressed to reach the point where some of the migratory routes
would be shut down.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said he tends to agree with Representative
Kohring, although the potential is there. He said things like that
would have to be defined tightly in relation to when the 5 percent
will be reached and whether it would be projected on what has
already gone by Kodiak and the other areas.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said he would like to hear from the
Department of Fish and Game.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said the definitions have to come about somehow
so everyone understands exactly where they are and what they are
doing. He said that is the reason why the committee is having
discussion.
Number 1162
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING thanked Chairman Austerman for hearing the
bill.
Number 1251
ED CRANE, Officer, Alaska Seafood Council, came before the
committee to present his testimony. He said his organization
consists of individuals, companies and other nonnatural entities
from every segment of the seafood business in Alaska. He noted it
includes not only harvesters and crew members, but processors,
cannery workers, suppliers. Mr. Crane informed the committee they
have 20 corporate or institutional members and just under 1,900
individual members. He said the council members depend entirely on
commercial fishing for a living, but he is also a recreational
fisherman and has a particular distant fondness for the Deshka
River. He urged that the legislature not mess with allocation
issues. There is an established process. He indicated it may be
imperfect and frustrating to many people, it is an advocacy process
and is based upon advice, guidance, science from the professional
managers and it is a process which has been in place for many
years. Over the years, despite the warts and pimples, it has
displayed an ability to deal with its own problems. To intrude
this legislature, or any legislature, into that process may give
certain people some momentary pleasure or satisfaction, but it's a
bottomless pit for the legislature to get into.
MR. CRANE said as he looks at the legislation and the F.I.S.H.
initiative, harsh words come to mind such as "deception." There
has been discussion about only 5 percent which isn't very much. He
said about a year ago, he looked at data relative to the Upper Cook
Inlet salmon fisheries, which was available from the Department of
Fish and Game. He noted he looked specifically at information of
for the five species of salmon from 1990 through 1994. During
those five years, sport fishermen caught 89.3 percent of the king
salmon, 33.6 percent of coho, 7.7 percent of sockeye, 22.3 percent
of pinks and 7.1 percent of chum. He said for all five species,
13.5 percent were caught by sports fishermen. Mr. Crane said he
finds it very difficult to understand why we want to go to only 5
percent when there is a record like that to look at. He noted he
doesn't see how or why legislation like this should go anywhere
until it is made clear exactly what the supporters want and how and
why.
MR. CRANE referred to numbers from the Department of Fish and Game
and said between 1984 and 1994, resident sport fish licenses
increased from 178,000 to 183,000, which is less than 3 percent.
Non-resident sport fishing licenses increased over that same ten-
year period from 115,000 to 227,000, which is 97 percent increase.
In 1993, the Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism, did a
visitors survey and found that 6 percent of the visitors to Alaska
cited fishing as their primary reason for coming to Alaska. He
said it is not the mainstay of the tourism business for Alaska.
Mr. Crane said those 6 percent were asked to rate, on a scale of 1
through 7, their satisfaction of their fishing experience in
Alaska. They rate Southcentral fishing at 5.7.
MR. CRANE showed committee members information dated September 4,
1996, which listed names, addresses, telephone numbers, of 149 non-
resident owned sport fishing lodges and guides from 26 states and
two foreign countries. He said there are issues that must be
addressed. He said he doesn't think they can be addressed on the
basis of emotion and finger pointing. We have to do something
more, in terms of working together, to identify problems.
MR. CRANE informed the committee members he is a recreational pilot
and during the late 1980s and early 1990s, he would often fly over
the upper regions of the Deshka and some of the other Mat-Su
steams. He said he doesn't believe that what happened to the
Deshka had anything to do with commercial fishing in the upper Cook
Inlet.
Number 1815
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS referred to the 149 people that were from
out of state and question how many are from the state.
MR. CRANE informed the committee the total list, as he recalls, was
right around 1,100 or slightly more than 10 percent were non-
residents.
Number 1838
REPRESENTATATIVE MULDER asked what the percentage is of nonresident
commercial fishermen and what the percentage is for nonresident or
non state owned processors.
MR. CRANE said his recollection is as far as limited entry permits.
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER indicated the percentage was 76 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said, "Obviously there is a is a higher
percentage of nonresident commercial fishermen than there are
guides - or more than double."
MR. CRANE said he was trying to say that there is more to this than
just the emotion involved.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he would like to remind Mr. Crane that it
is the legislature's prerogative to get into allocation issues as
the supreme court has said so. He said there is a lot of energy
and emotion behind this issue.
Number 2037
ROBERT HALL was next to testify via teleconference from Mat-Su. He
said 28,000 Alaskans signed the F.I.S.H. Initiative petition to put
this on the ballet and let Alaskans vote. He continued, "This
right was yanked from us by the supreme court and the supreme court
said that this is the legislature's responsibility and only they
could put this on the ballot or only they could pass a law."
MR. HALL explained that years ago, the legislature established a
priority for subsistence. He said he is asking to establish a
second level of priority for other noncommercial activities. The
polls show that overwhelmingly Alaskans support a higher allocation
of salmon to consumptive users. No matter how you look at it, you
have to look a the bottom line, there is a basic fundamental
disagreement about who owns the salmon. Commercial fishermen have
invested tremendous amounts of money and time, they own a limited
entry permit and they believe that those salmon belong to them.
The rest of the Alaskans believe that the fish are owned by all
Alaskans and that we're all entitled to a fair share, hence the
title of the F.I.S.H. Initiative with the fairness in salmon
harvest. He stated, "If that's the fundamental objective that
everybody is looking for, we'll be able to reach it. However, if
you believe that you own the salmon or if you have pressures of
making a boat payment next year and you have all the pressures that
you have from other competing factors, whether they be from Norway
or the Valley of the (indisc.), you sometimes look at the F.I.S.H.
Initiative and say `Ah, this is just one more straw on my back,'
and Alaskan is pitted against Alaskan. It is a very divisive
situation. I don't think there is one of you who could honestly
stand up and say, `The Board of Fish is a nonpolitical situation.'
And yet that is who is managing and allocating the fish today, a
very political board and honestly, bottom line, it's been dominated
by commercial fishing interests since statehood and that has really
frustrated noncommercial fishermen."
MR. HALL continued, "There is this talk about the commercial
fishing industry versus the sport fishing industry in dollars and
value, and that's all well and good. But really for personal use
and sport fishermen, especially Alaskans - those who have grown up
here, sports fishing is part of our lifestyle. It's part of who we
are. You know, taking your children fishing, it's part of why we
put up with these long winters and short days in the winter, it's
because fishing and sport fishing is really part of who Alaskans
are. And when we're denied a fair opportunity, and the testimony
and the evidence, a fair opportunity to sport fish, especially in
the Mat-Su is abundant, and that frustration that Mr. Kohring spoke
about earlier is what prompted this F.I.S.H. Initiative, and when
we're denied that fair opportunity, this is the result. And I
think until the commercial fishing industry is willing, or maybe
some of the legislators that represent the commercial fishing
areas, are willing to look at the fundamental fact that we have a
problem with inequity and this is very political and that we have
an unfair allocation scheme and that we need to work for fairness.
The bottom line, as Governor Knowles said, we need to put more fish
in these Mat-Su rivers."
MR. HALL said the Mat-Su doesn't have the political strength and
critical will that the commercial fishing industry does throughout
the state of Alaska. He said there is a problem in the Mat-Su and
we are sacrificing the lifestyles and the people of the Mat-Su for
the dollar of commercial fishermen. Mr. Hall said we are looking
for fundamental fairness of who owns these salmon and to protect
the lifestyles of the residents and the future generations of the
children of Alaska.
Number 2438
BRUCE KNOWLES, President, Guide Association, testified via
teleconference from Mat-Su. He informed the committee members he
was a sponsor for the F.I.S.H. Initiative and believes strongly in
what they are doing. Mr. Knowles said he feels that Alaskans had
this initiative stolen away from us by the supreme court of Alaska.
He questioned why there is a need for this bill and said immediate
steps have to be taken to protect our endangered salmon runs to
ensure that biological statement goals are being met.
TAPE 97-20, SIDE A
Number 0006
MR. KNOWLES said, "Farmed fish make up 40 to 50 percent of the
market today. What's it going to be in ten years? Last year, we
had so many pink salmon that they could not be sold and the state
of Alaska allowed the roe to be stripped out of these pink salmon.
This is the first time that's ever happened because they could not
sell the fish from the hatchery. Commercial fishermen and
hatcheries currently owe the state over $100 million in loans with
very little being paid back. A Wall Street article, last year,
stated that up to 400 commercial fishermen could default on their
loans this coming year. My question is, `How much does the
hatcheries owe and how much have they paid?' Hatcheries currently
owe $92 million and have not repaid their loan. Commercial
fishermen insist that they are being targeted, they are being
reduced, their hours are being reduced that they can fish, yet in
1996, they caught two million more fish in Cook Inlet than they did
in 1941."
MR. KNOWLES continued to give his testimony, "Consumptive users
have had many restrictions placed on them. Season limits on king
salmon have been placed on sports fishermen in Cook Inlet.
Commercial fishermen do not have any limit on the number of kings
that they can take up over the hill and take to the processor.
Sports fishermen have had their tackle reduced, hours restricted,
rivers closed during king season and other seasons. In some areas,
large sections of the day have been closed where no fishing is
allowed at all. Guides have been restricted from taking out
clients on certain days. Personal use fishermen were forced off
the beach and into the streams because they did not want the
competition with commercial fishermen. And in the Knik Arm, it was
stated that they were moved off the beach and into the streams
because they were taking fish headed to streams that were having
problems with their returns and were endangered of losing their
runs. Major changes have been made to rainbow, char and grayling
limits and fishing requirements in Cook Inlet. This is do to low
numbers. Could this be because of insufficient food? Ask me how
many salmon runs failed to meet their BEGs. Ask me how much data
is available in Upper Cook Inlet. We are behind the power curve,
folks, we need to get something done and the F.I.S.H. Initiative I
feel will do it."
Number 0252
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said meetings that will be held, statewide, in
the fall will also include the Board of Fisheries. There are
currently a number of proposals as to whether the Board of
Fisheries is doing the right job and that will all come within
where we're going to be in 10 or 15 years with our fisheries. The
hatcheries will also be included. Chairman Austerman said the
committee will talk about not only commercial fishing versus sports
fishing, but also the Alaskan fish resource and how we're going to
make sure it is a viable resource.
Number 0294
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said he believes the committee will also be
talking about a resolution regarding a ballot issue for limited
entry for sport fisheries guiding.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN indicated that resolution was recently
introduced. He noted HB 19, which just passed the House, will also
be addressed as it is part of the overall fisheries the committee
is discussing.
Number 0350
STEVE STROMME, Commercial Fisherman, came before the committee
members to testify in opposition to HB 149. He said he has been a
commercial fisherman all of his adult life. Mr. Stromme said the
bill will impact people like him, his children and his ex-wife who
he has to pay support to. Mr. Stromme informed the committee he
grew up in Oregon and has fished in Oregon, Washington, California,
Good News Bay, Bristol Bay and just all up and down the West Coast.
He said he doesn't believe the problems of Oregon and Washington
are the problems of Alaska. He said his first boat was repossessed
in Oregon, he was there and knows what happened there. It is not
the same as Alaska.
Number 0445
JERRY McCUNE, United Fishermen of Alaska, came before the committee
members to give his testimony. He stated this issue goes very
deep. Mr. McCune said he would like to clarify the 5 percent
figure that is in the bill. He said this is one of the hardest
things to understand, even when we had the F.I.S.H. Initiative on
the ballot. He said, "It says 5 percent of the statewide salmon
harvest projection." Mr. McCune continued, "What that is, is 150
million to 200 million fish. So the pinks and chums are driving
the numbers up high. You take 5 percent, that's 6 to 10 million
fish. Now you want to talk about fair, that's 1,000 percent
increase in the sport fishing. That's how they're coming up with
this number."
MR. McCUNE said the number is based on the statewide projection
which gives you 6 to 10 million fish and that's not the way to
manage fish. You can't just say, "We're going to put 6 million
fish in the Kenai River next year for all the other users and
everybody else would have to hold back until that number is in
there." He said it won't work like that as the river will be
devastated.
MR. McCUNE referred to some of guides suggesting that commercial
fishing is the problem. He said you have to look further than just
commercial fishing. The sport fishery has grown a lot over the
last ten years. We have to look at all aspects, commercial, person
use, sports fishing and the guides. He said, "From ten years ago,
I've taken more salmon as a commercial fishermen because basically
where I fish, the runs have been higher. We've had record runs.
But also on the other end, it's grown to the use that's gotten very
high on how much they're taking. So if there is a big problem in
the Mat-Su, I'll be right along the sports fishermen or anybody
else to say if those streams are really that devastated as they're
telling me, then I'll get together with them and we'll try to
figure out what's going on with that system because there isn't a
fisherman in this state that would want to see a system go down.
That's detrimental to my income and everybody else's interest and
the sports fisherman that has just as much interest as I do in
taking their salmon home."
MR. McCUNE said he, as a commercial fisherman, has a real problem
giving up his livelihood for somebody else that's making a living
off the resource, and that's guides. Until that problem is
resolved and we've come to a level on the rivers that everybody can
live with, it is very unfair to keep pointing at the commercial
fishing industry. He indicated he is willing to sit down with Mr.
Knowles or anybody else to discuss if there is a problem. If there
is a problem then we should get Fish and Game up to the Mat-Su and
figure out what that problem is so everybody can share in the
resource. If there are mandates on all things that need to be
done, then it becomes split between the commercial and the other
users. He said we got to sit down and figure out how the issues
are affecting the rivers and how everybody can get along in using
them.
Number 0711
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN invited Mr. McCune to come up to Mat-Su during
the summer. He said maybe the Department of Fish and Game could
also come and meet with some of the people who have concerns and
there could be a meaningful discussion. Representative Ogan said
at some point we need to look at guides as a commercial use of the
fish. He noted he was on the Big Game Commercial Services Board.
He said he doesn't like fishing in the valley anymore because there
are too many people. He indicated he used to fish in Dillingham
before it got crowded there. Representative Ogan said the highest
and best use to him is personal use and subsistence. Those who
live in urban Alaska don't qualify for subsistence, but he
considers himself an urban subsistence hunter and fisherman. He
said that should be the number one best use. He said maybe the
committee can look at some areas in HB 149 or in another bill where
that use can be prioritized and address the commercial exploitation
- the guides, the people that are coming up from the Lower 48 and
putting the pressure on the whole. He said that is a separate
issue and it should be on table. Alaskans should feed their
families first. He said he thinks commercial fishermen and sports
fishermen can agree that Alaskans should feed their families first
and there is enough resources to do that. He said the tourist can
stand in line behind Alaskans.
Number 0883
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said he and Mr. McCune have a conflict of
interest in that he has a fiduciary interest in a guiding service
in Port Moller, Alaska. He said he does receive income off of both
guided fisheries tourism and commercial fisheries. and the more
tourism related activity from the Kenai Peninsula, I do receive
more earnings."
Number 0940
EMMET HEIDEMANN was next to testify via teleconference from
Anchorage. He informed the committee members he is not a salmon
permit holder, but he is a sports fisherman and also does some
guiding for only Alaskan sports fishermen. He noted he doesn't
like to take tourists out. Mr. Heidemann said he has been
listening to some of the comments about the F.I.S.H. Initiative and
how they got 28,000 people to sign so fast. He said they don't
mention that they paid signature gathers about $1 a head to gather
signatures in the Mat-Su, Anchorage, Kenai and Soldotna areas.
When the people were gathering the signatures, they weren't 100
percent true in that there was some very misleading information
given out. He said the 28,000 signatures were gathered, but they
were paid for by a professional gatherer. Mr. Heidemann referred
to the F.I.S.H. Initiative or HB 149 and said the healthy abundant
salmon runs of Alaska enjoyed today are a result of successful
management plans developed by the Alaska Board of Fisheries and
implemented by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The
biologists are the ones that are calling the shots and he believes
that when the science is taken out of fish management, we'll be
making a big mistake. He said when it comes to maintaining the
salmon production levels (indisc.) meet Alaska's goal as
conservation of fair sharing. Too many fish in the spawning
grounds can be just as disruptive as a balance of too few. Mr.
Heidemann said management decisions that could lead to additional
(indisc.) efforts could be carefully addressed with an eye towards
habitat protection. The preservation of our fragile fishery
resources and important responsibility can't be driven by the
politics and misinformation.
MR. HEIDEMANN said we've heard the term that commercial fish and
sports fish are about a wash. He said that term is sort of
misleading. The value of a fish caught commercially is still
higher than a fish that is caught sports fishing. He indicated
there has been talk about habitat and the poor runs in the Mat-Su
area. Nobody has talked about the large motors and the big jet
boats that are running up and down the rivers and the over building
of houses close to streams. He said he knows of one individual who
brags about catching anywhere from 25 to 50 fish, per hour, from
the deck on his house. There is very little enforcement up there.
Mr. Heidemann explained the commercial industry have nets in the
rivers in the Mat-Su district and nobody has talked about them.
MR. HEIDEMANN explained the streams are very small. The guides are
increasing at such a rate and they are taking an awful lot of fish.
He said we need to look at it all, work together and work for
Alaska. It shouldn't be commercial versus sports.
MR. HEIDEMANN referred to HB 149 and said he sees a lot of
similarities between it and the F.I.S.H. Initiative. He stated he
takes offense that people are trying to put the F.I.S.H. Initiative
into HB 149, without trying to change the words of intent. The
thinking is wrong and is a disservice to Alaska. He stated he is
very opposed to HB 149.
Number 1172
MARGO SHERWOOD, Domestic Engineer, testified via teleconference
from Anchorage. Ms. Sherwood stated, "I am here to testify in
support of HB 149. As wife, mother and grandmother, who feeds my
offspring fish in their diets, I feel that the allocation of salmon
are not fair. I have watched the number of fish caught in our
Susitna drainages diminish over the last few years. I have
listened to my husband and other give advise to the Fish Board and
ADF&G in regards to slow decline of fish returns, but in most cases
they, the board, and ADF&G ignored their pleas. Now that the fish
are not coming back in numbers that will maintain a sustained yield
we, the sports fisher people, do not come out until it's silver
time. And in not doing so, have impacted the economy of the whole
Mat-Su Borough. It isn't good to watch friends lose their
businesses for the sake of the mistakes made by the Fish Board and
ADF&G. All we ask is something to protect the economy of the
valley and put an equal amount of fish on my table. I think this
bill will do it." Ms. Sherwood said she has a commercial fisherman
friend and he says they are not getting the fish. She said the
sports fishermen aren't at the Susitna drainage. She questioned
whether the 400 setnetters could be the impact.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said there are a number of people asking that
same question and he doesn't have an answer at this point in time.
Hopefully, in the fall they will come up with some of those answers
during the statewide hearings.
Number 1275
DON SHERWOOD, President, Alaska Boating Association, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. He noted his organization has
chapters in Anchorage, the Mat-Su Valley and Fairbanks. He said,
"I have come here to testify on behalf of my constituents which are
90 percent fishermen and hunters. We support this piece of
legislation because a lot of us have fished these areas for over 31
years. I have witnessed the diminishing returns of salmon on our
rivers and streams within the Susitna drainage and the Upper Cook
Inlet Region. For over ten years, I have spoke with the Board of
Fish and ADF&G bio people and warned them of the increased harvest
of salmon by commercial and setnetters below the mouth of the big
Su and has fallen on deaf ears until the Chinooks crashed on Deshka
and other streams, and guess who got cut back. Yes, the sport
fishermen. The Fish Board has always kowtowed to the money maker
and has allowed the record harvesting to continue. We are only
asking for a fair and equitable share of our renewable resource.
The Mat Valley, which depends on the economic income from sport and
consumptive users, are now feeling these restrictions in over-the-
counter sales by the people who recreate in this area. We realize
that the crash and dash by ADF&G to try and rectify the problem has
started, but is it too late in some of these areas. All we want is
a fair share to put on our families tables and this bill is a start
in that direction."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said because of the lateness of the hour, he
would bring the meeting to an end. He indicated HB 149 would be
brought up again.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1365
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN adjourned the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting at 6:58 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|