Legislature(1997 - 1998)
09/12/1997 01:10 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
September 12, 1997
1:10 p.m.
Dillingham, Alaska
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Chairman
Representative Mark Hodgins
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Gene Kubina
Representative Scott Ogan
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
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: 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
04/28/97 (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
04/30/97 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
05/05/97 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
05/05/97 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
05/07/97 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
05/07/97 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
09/12/97 (H) FSH AT 1:00 PM DILLINGHAM LIO
WITNESS REGISTER
TERRY HOEFFERLE
Bristol Bay Native Association
P.O. Box 310
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-5257
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 149.
JOE MCGILL
Box 1469
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-2452
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 149.
ED CRANE, President,
Alaska Seafood Council; and
President, Commercial Fisheries and
Agricultural Bank
P.O. Box 91239
Anchorage, Alaska 99509-1239
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 149.
REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2186
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of HB 149.
ROBYN SAMUELSEN, Commercial Fisherman
Box 412
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-5335
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 149.
ROBERT HEYANO, Commercial Fisherman
P.O. Box 1409
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-1053
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 149.
THOMAS TILDEN, Subsistence and
Commercial Fisherman
Box 786
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-2259
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 149.
JERRY LIBOFF, Commercial Fisherman
Box 646
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-2512
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 149.
AMY DAUGHERTY, Legislative Administrative
Assistant to Representative Austerman
Alaska State Legislature
Capital Building, Room 434
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4230
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding the
status of legislation.
TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Ivan
Alaska State Legislature
Capital Building, Room 418
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4942
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding the
status of legislation.
BERNICE HEYANO
Bristol Bay Permit Brokerage
Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation
Box 964
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-1994
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 123.
HARVEY SAMUELSEN, Commercial Fisherman
Box 18
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-5625
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 149.
RON BOWERS
Box 6
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-4186
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding fisheries funding.
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: Commented regarding funding for management.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-23, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN ALAN AUSTERMAN called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. at the Dillingham
Legislative Information Office (LIO). Members present at the call
to order were Representatives Austerman and Hodgins.
HB 149 - PREFER CONSUMPTIVE USE SALMON FISHERIES
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN announced the committee would hear HB 149, "An
Act relating to the management of salmon fisheries; and providing
for an effective date," sponsored by Representative Kohring, and
other fishery-related issues. He noted this meeting would the
first of a series of meetings to be held around the state. He
cautioned the public to keep the testimony constructive and not
bring up issues of allocation between gear groups or areas unless
these points are specifically addressed within HB 149. He
indicated Representative Ivan was on his way but was experiencing
"plane problems" and should be present shortly.
Number 051
TERRY HOEFFERLE, Bristol Bay Native Association, came before the
committee to testify. He stated, "While the processes of the Board
of Fish are not always ones that yield results that everybody
likes, or that you like, I think the board process is one of the
things that is unique and very fine about the way that we regulate
and manage fish and game in the state of Alaska. I think that HB
149 interferes dramatically in that board process and I think that
I would simply like to recommend that the legislature stay away
from the board's allocation issues. In talking about allocation,
I think that there's a major problem with this legislation in that
it assesses a 5 percent measure on all salmon species statewide
while the sports fishermen focus their efforts on king salmon and
coho salmon primarily. And I guess that what I would foresee
happening, should this legislation be enacted, is that the count of
all salmon species statewide is just going to keep on being
inflated by hatchery fish and so on, low value species and if the
5 percent is assessed the state in all five salmon species, what's
going to happen is that the coho fishery and the king fishery for
too will become dominated by the sportfish industry. A major
reallocation. I would suggest that if this bill do move forward
that that 5 percent assessment be made by species rather than
salmon across the board. There needs to be some way of somehow or
other breaking up or making finite the mathematical application of
this formula. I would also just like to offer the observation, or
maybe it's a question, to the committee and to the department about
how the department would be able to manage a very large or an
increasingly large state sport fishery in river in season. And I
guess I don't see the department as having the resources that would
be required to do that at this time. I think that there are some
conservation issues that that ability to regulate (indisc.)."
Number 098
MR. HOEFFERLE thanked Representative Ivan and Speaker Phillips for
their efforts to bring an additional subsistence hearing to
Dillingham in the near future and thanked the representatives in
attendance for holding this meeting.
MR. HOEFFERLE referred to the fishing crises that was experienced
in the Bristol Bay area last year and said, "The Governor has
requested a federal disaster declaration under the Magnuson Act to
help us -- help our fisheries recover. The Governor has asked
initially for $10 million piece of assistance from the federal
government and under the Magnuson Act that would require $2.5
million dollars of state match. I know the Governor is going to go
back to the legislature to ask for that money. And I guess that I
would like to ask this committees support in supporting the
Governor's request in securing match funds to help us reestablish
our fisheries. We're staggering under the impact of the last
season, poor return coupled with poor market prices. So anything
that you can do in that regard would be deeply appreciated."
Number 132
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked for clarification on the extent of
economic disaster.
MR. HOEFFERLE replied, "There have been run problems from the
Chigniks all the way up to Norton Sound. How extensive the
economic crunch is in some of the areas north of us I can't really
say. I know in the Chignik fishery the return is somewhere between
25 and 30 percent of what it has historically been over the last 5
years or the last 10 years or the last 15 years. As you probably
are aware, the fishermen in that fishery -- the communities that
are encompassed by that fishery are nearly totally dependent upon
the fishery. The number of households, the percentage of
households in Chignik Bay, Chignik Lagoon, Chignik Lake, Ivanoff
Bay and Perryville, the percentage of those households that are
completely and totally dependent upon the fishery, I would suspect
are probably 80 to 85 percent. They're devastated by this poor
return and the poor prices. We move into Bristol Bay, recent
research that the Bristol Bay Native Association and the Bristol
Bay Economic Development Corporation have conducted indicates to us
that 30 percent of all of the households in Bristol Bay are totally
dependent upon the fishery for their income. They have no other
income going into those households other than what is provided by
the fishery. That comes out to be probably 950 families region
wide. Over half of the families, probably 57 percent of the
families in Bristol Bay, a major source of their income is the
salmon fishery. In terms of how devastating it was, my
understanding is that there are about 200 fishermen, give or take
20, that fish for Peter Pan Fisheries, located here in Dillingham.
When Peter Pan had a payday there were only 14 boats that had any
pay coming to them at all and some of their pay was as low as $36.
The average boat fishing for Peter Pan finished the year with a
$20,000 debt to the cannery. I suspect it will take eight years,
ten years perhaps, in my conversations with other people who are
much more intimately familiar with the fishery than I, it will
probably take eight years for us to recover from this one very,
very bad season. Many fishermen that fished at Ugashik this year
had such poor seasons that they had to borrow money to get home.
They could not even afford to buy gas to get them home."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked, "Of the $10 million and the $2.5 million
from the state that you're talking about here, what will that be
used for?"
MR. HOEFFERLE indicated that was "still being determined." He
said, "This is the first time that there's every been a request for
this kind of assistance under the Magnuson Act and so the
Department of Commerce is not sure what kind of programs that it
can bring to bear on the situation. And I think, very frankly,
that the state doesn't know the magnitude of the problems that we
have before us."
Number 202
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS asked if the fish didn't enter the
rivers due to the high water temperatures.
MR. HOEFFERLE said he couldn't speak to the reasons for the poor
salmon returns. He pointed out some fishermen owe more on their
boats than the market value of their boats and in those cases,
creditors may seize permits instead of boats and subsequently,
fishermen would loose their means of livelihood. He indicated this
may accelerate the loss of Bristol Bay permits out of the local
areas.
Number 239
MR. HOEFFERLE described types of public assistance which might
become available to fishers in need with the help of the federal
disaster funds.
Number 265
JOE MCGILL was next to come forward to testify in opposition to HB
149. He spoke in support of the Board of Fisheries process to
allocate. He then brought up HB 285 and said, "I'd like to see one
thing put in there and it's something that is more of a problem
than a lot of people are willing to admit and that's outsiders
putting their self down as residents to save money." He referred
to HB 285 and asked, "How many points are you allowed to get before
you loose?"
MR. MCGILL added, "I would like to see management get more help and
more money in this area. Before, when the state didn't have money,
$80, $90 thousand dollars a year, we'd have smolt programs and all
kinds of research. Now we don't have any. One example is our
herring fishery that before we used to have biologists out there
and they would figure the opening when the herring was ripe, you
know to call for the openings. Now they have fishermen in test
fisheries testing in stages. They see fish around they're apt to
get a bunch of fish that are not ripe yet and have an opening when
the fish is not ready to harvest. I figure that a few years ago we
must have cost -- well the year before last must have cost the
fishermen $1.5 million, and of course that (affected) that raw fish
tax and everything out of that. It would pay for the extra
(management) out there of course. Maybe with a smolt program and
stuff we wouldn't have had this trouble. I mean they're coming up
with a lot of different reasons that the fish is not here this year
and I know when I fished here the water was warmer and everything
else, but we're going to have wait another year to find out
(indisc.) true or not -- rather they disrupted it to water
temperature will keep the fishermen coming in. It think there are
good examples, in `63 when they were getting fish early in
Southeastern then the earthquake came and the fish just
disappeared. The next year they had a heck of a good run."
Number 339
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN thanked Mr. McGill for bringing up the topic of
management. He said, "I think that's part of the overall fisheries
(picture) is whether we're managing at first correctly and whether,
secondly, if we're not managing correctly, is it a problem with
funding or is the problem that we don't do enough research?" He
inquired whether Mr. McGill remembered more research being done in
the past.
MR. MCGILL indicated there was more done in the past. He said, "We
had beluga scaring programs, the smolt programs. There seemed to
be more people out there tagging."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said, "You'd think with all the oil wealth
though, we'd have those kinds of programs."
MR. MCGILL acknowledged the chairman's point and added, "There has
never in the history of the salmon been a program where they've
followed the fish for several cycles to see where they go to high
seas, if they intermingle and where they feed at and how much years
like this el nino would affect where they go." He suggested the el
nino occurrence kept the fish offshore where the high seas fleet
could harvest them. He concluded, "I think one of the big things
is getting more money for management."
Number 395
ED CRANE, President, Alaska Seafood Council; President, Commercial
Fisheries and Agricultural Bank (CFAB), came before the committee
to testify. He testified in agreement of Mr. Hoefferle's testimony
on the economic impacts in the region. He said, "The numbers that
I've seen suggest to me that there's some $60 to $80 million
missing compared to a five year average, missing from this regional
economy this year. I would stress that's only the first dollar, in
other words, it doesn't count the number of times any particular
dollar may turn over before it heads into Anchorage."
MR. CRANE added, "CFAB is among maybe one of the more significant
lenders in Bristol Bay as well as in other fisheries of the state.
And I don't have any reason to believe that CFAB is necessarily
going to be any part, at least at this time, this season, for the
foreseeable future, in creating new and additional pressures on our
borrowers. I think mid-July we had already written letters to all
the Bristol Bay borrowers we could identify and we've been
processing a lot of modifications and extensions since then, but
the thing is we can only -- the most we can do, or the most any
lender can do is to relieve or defer a certain amount of pressure
for a certain amount of time. There's nothing we can do that will
address the need that fishermen and others have for cash flow and
immediate cash flow."
MR. CRANE stated, "I believe we in this state are going to suffer
or have to deal with the results of this Bristol Bay shortfall and
the rather generalized shortfall around the state for many years to
come. And I would urge this committee and all of your colleagues
in the legislature, and I think I've seen it enough to recognize
there's often a difference between politics and reality, but I
believe that our state is going to bear and must bear the cost, the
effects of this shortfall one way or another and I frankly would
like to see not necessarily this committee specifically, but the
legislature as a whole perhaps be more constructively responsive to
what has happened and is happening in rural Alaska as a result of
the shortfall."
Number 516
REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING, prime sponsor of HB 149, announced that
he joined the committee via teleconference.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked Mr. Crane if the Alaska Seafood Council
was involved with advocating for the Department of Fish and Game's
budget.
MR. CRANE replied that the Alaska Seafood Council supported
increased fish management and research budget. He said, "There are
competing pressures I understand, in the legislature, for funds and
there are a lot of things I would not disagree with you or any of
your colleagues on. At the same time, the health of our fisheries
is not a constructive place in which to continue trying to save
money."
Number 567
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if enhancement was a concern in this
area or only research and management.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING made his statement regarding sponsoring HB
149, "We have a problem here in the Mat-Su Valley and I think the
fishing season that just concluded up here once again reflected
that we have a problem here. That problem is a lack of fish in our
rivers to the extent where I personally feel that there's a
jeopardizing of the sustained yield of that resource to the extent
where we might even see, frankly in some of the streams anyway, the
extinction of some of these species of fish." He indicated there
were "substantially reduced numbers of salmon" in the Mat-Su river
drainages.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said, "I know it's hard to attribute
specifically the cause and it's hard to make a direct correlation
between perhaps the intercept of salmon in the high seas or in Cook
Inlet but the bottom line is we have a serious problem. And the
bottom line is that it does seem that when commercial fishing
activity does occur, particularly in the lower Cook Inlet, we seem
to see a decrease in numbers of fish. And in some cases likewise
when the fishing is restricted commercial wise we seem to see more
fish in our rivers up here as well. So we feel that that
correlation is there and hence, that's why I filed this
legislation, HB 149, to direct the Board of Fisheries to give first
priority of the resource, after sustained yield goals are met, to
the personal consumptive user - the sports fishermen, subsistence
user, the personal user like the dip netter and so forth."
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING concluded, "I and many of us here in the
valley are not against the commercial industry. We recognize the
fact that folks in the commercial industry need too. but we just
see this as a problem where our resource is endangered and it's
having a negative impact on our economy and we respectfully request
that we get a more equitable, a larger share of that resource and
hopefully my legislation, if I was so fortunate to get it through
would enable us to accomplish that goal."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked the sponsor if there was a significant
increase this year in salmon returns.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING replied, "There were select areas where we
saw larger numbers of fish, we saw more kings certainly at the
onset of the season. In fact, there were substantial kings in the
Deshka River and some of the other streams, but on balance we saw
greatly diminished numbers and I think Fish and Game certainly
recognized the problem too. That's why they, once again, as
they've done in recent years, placed major restrictions on our
rivers and streams. They placed restrictions on the use of bait
and the numbers of fish you can catch. Believe me I had many many
unhappy people here that were calling and expressing their concern
saying that they could not catch the fish up there that they would
like to catch simply to put food on the table - to fill up the
freezers for the winter."
Number 700
ROBYN SAMUELSEN, Commercial Fisherman, came forward to testify
against HB 149. He said, "I wish you'd keep your damn problems in
Cook Inlet and not spread them throughout the rest of the state."
He then identified himself as a 30-year Bristol Bay commercial
fisherman. He said, "House Bill 149 is nothing more than a
reallocation plan that was spawned in the Cook Inlet area that has
now boiled over to the rest of the state of Alaska. This bill is
bad public policy and truly shows the public process adopted by the
Board of Fish is meaningless in the eyes of this Alaska
legislature. House Bill 149 is strictly a political move by a
group of state representatives from the Anchorage Mat-Su area to
satisfy a small number of greedy sports fishermen lodge owners. It
has nothing....
TAPE 97-23, SIDE B
Number 001
MR. SAMUELSEN referred to the time he served on the Board of Fish
and said, "I was never out to get any one user group. I have made
hundreds of allocation decisions and I can truly say that I made
those decisions on the best available information provided to me by
the Department of Fish and Game's staff and through the public
comment process. House Bill 149 is a guarantee to sports fishermen
that they would get 5 percent of the return in salmon stocks. Well
let's take a look at Cook Inlet and see how HB 149 helps those
folks in Cook Inlet that are in need of sport fish. Cook Inlet
sports fishermen caught 89 percent of the returning king salmon, 33
percent of the silver salmon, 22 percent of the pink salmon and 7
percent of the returning chums. These folks are already over the
5 percent direct allocation as provided in HB 149. In fact, HB 149
would do nothing for those sports fishermen who spawned the idea of
this bill. They already are catching 13 percent of the total
return in salmon to Cook Inlet. I then ask myself, `Why is this
bill continuing on forward?' I could only come up with a simple
answer, `greed.' In the Bristol Bay region this bill would have a
devastating affect on the commercial fisheries. In 1997, the
Department of Fish and Game forecasted a harvestable surplus of
sockeye salmon of 24.8 million fish. Actual surplus was 12
million. How would this bill address the margin of error in
forecasting. It doesn't. If HB 149 is passed based on the
preseason forecast of 24.8 million return in Bristol Bay sockeye,
the allocation to the sportfish industry would be 1.2 million fish.
Sport fishermen, under HB 149, would be able to take all the king
and silver salmon returning to the rivers of the Bristol Bay. This
bill would basically shut down the entire Bristol Bay commercial
fishery during the month of June. How can you people even consider
doing this to the people of Bristol Bay because of a few in Cook
Inlet. Most, 80 to 90 percent of the sport fishing effort in
Bristol Bay is nonAlaska residents. They are commercially guided.
How are you going to protect local Alaska residents sport fishermen
from the hordes of nonresident sport fishermen. Nonresident
sportfish guide license numbers are growing at alarming rates. In
1994, the nonresidents license totalled 227,088 license versus
resident license 183,000. And that number of nonresident licenses
continues to grow and outnumber resident licenses. Who are you
people representing? Nonresident sport fishermen interests? It
sure appears the case to me. It takes bills like HB 149 that are
driving the subsistence issue and turning rural Alaskans backs to
the state legislature."
Number 035
MR. SAMUELSEN then informed the committee that the present level of
Fish and Game management and funding for that management is not
acceptable in rural Alaska. He said, "You people have cut and cut
and cut into the Commercial Fish Division budget where it is damn
near a joke. Why is sportfish dollars -- every sportfish license
that is bought goes right back into Sportfish Division. They're an
over financed organization in the state of Alaska. Our funds that
we contribute, through the commercial fish process, are put in the
general funds. Why don't you give us what is due to us that we've
paid in for like you do for the sport fishermen?"
MR. SAMUELSEN continued stating any reallocation is best done by
the Board of Fisheries and said, "I think we should limit the
amount of commercial sport guides throughout the whole state. This
isn't just germane to Cook Inlet. It's happening in Southeast,
it's happening in Kodiak, it's happening in Bristol Bay." He then
voiced support for HB 19, relating to establishing data collection
on charter business, and HB 56, relating to establishing a program
to buy back limited entry permits.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN explained he would encourage testimony outside
of HB 149.
MR. SAMUELSEN indicated that he had some bad experiences when
previously testifying via teleconference.
Number 077
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN called for an at-ease at 2:03 p.m. He called
the meeting back to order at 2:07 p.m.
ROBERT HEYANO, Commercial Fisherman, came before the committee
members to give his testimony. He testified that he participates
in the commercial salmon fisheries and a partner in a sports fish
camp on the Nushigak River and is against HB 149. He said, "I
think it's poorly piece of legislation. In my opinion it's another
attempt to revive the failed F.I.S.H. Initiative. The concerns
that I have with the bill is that although it allocates 5 percent
of the salmon to subsistence to personal and sport fishing
interests, the way I read it is that it could allocate our larger
number of salmon species that are of particular high interest to
the sportfish industry in this area that (indisc.) primary king
salmon and the coho salmon. You run the numbers, and as Robin
stated, that could very well shut down the commercial fishery for
those species here in Bristol Bay, based on the amount of other
species that are available included in the 5 percent."
MR. HEYANO continued, "The information I've seen, especially here
in the area I'm familiar with, is there's a large portion of the
sport fishing activity happens from out of state residents. And I
think there's other ways to correct that problem without passing
this bill. I think we could, you know the Board of Fish has that
prerogative and I think we could impose different season and bag
limits for a nonresidents similar to what we do on the hunting
regulations. I think another thing we can do is maybe limit the
number of nonresidents per commercial operator. In my opinion, if
this bill is passed, the people who are going to reap the largest
benefit are going to be those commercial sportfish organizations or
businesses. The other reason I'm opposed to this particular piece
of legislation is because I think it chips away at the integrity of
the current board process which is in place and I'm a strong
supporter of that process." He then voiced concern about fewer
dollars appropriated to the Commercial Fisheries Management
Division through the years.
MR. HEYANO said, "I would urge you caution on just thinking that
limiting the charter business or commercial sportfish interest is
that your problem would go away. I think here, and especially out
in rural Alaska, there's very little or a very small amount of
local residents who are currently participating in that industry
and it's pretty natural type of industry for them to get into. A
lot of them have the land base, private land in which they can
operate out of. They have the basic knowledge and the basic
equipment to do it. What they lack is the marketing expertise and
maybe some of the business sense that it takes to make that type of
business work for them. I think if you're going to limit the
number of commercial operators, then you also need to limit the
number of clientele or customers they can take. Because it does no
good to limit the operation to 10 people and have them taking out
100 customers a piece. Where if you had 10 people or 100 taking
out 10 I think the end result would be the same. So I would urge
caution on thinking that limiting the commercial operators is going
to take care of the problem."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN suggested that different areas may have to be
individually set up regarding charter business limitations.
Number 185
THOMAS TILDEN, Subsistence and Commercial Fisherman, was next to
address the committee. He testified against HB 149 saying, "I
think the bill left more questions than answers for me. For
instance, I was concerned about how you would, or how the
legislature would define `consumptive user and their gear' and how
does that compare to a sport fisherman and his gear? Another
question that popped into my mind is how would you determine the
need for the consumptive user and how would you determine the need
for all of the sport fishermen? I guess some of the positive
things as I read this, I thought maybe that might happen would be
is that if you had a consumptive user and a subsistence user and
they were getting allocation, I'm sure that you would look to
expand the fish board to put a subsistence fisherman on the Board
of Fish and a consumptive user on the Board of Fish."
MR. TILDEN continued, "Sport fisheries has grown quite dramatically
in this particular area. I grew up in a little village called
Portage Creek which is 40 miles east of here. In the `60s there
was no sport fisheries at all up in that area. There was zero,
there was nothing. And now you go up there and it's boats ramming
boats. It has grown so much and I think it's kind of an overflow
of the Cook Inlet area."
MR. TILDEN said, "I think when you look back five years and see how
much it has grown and how much more of the resource they're using
and if you start projecting, take that growth and start projecting
it in a five year or ten year average, they're going to be taxing
that resource tremendously. And where does that put the commercial
fishermen. It will eventually ace out the commercial fishermen.
We saw growth here in our commercial fisheries in the `60s and `70s
and we did something about it. We started the permit system and I
think the sport fishery should look at doing something similar.
We, as commercial fishermen, contribute a lot of jobs I think to
the area, to the state, to the state coffers."
Number 260
MR. TILDEN concluded, "You cannot have good management unless you
fund it fully. Here in our area, we need more research done on our
fisheries. I've approached our managers here about expanding our
fishery too. we have a heck of smelt run out here and there was a
proposal to do a pike fishery here at one time, but there's no
research." He added that subsistence and habitat protection should
receive more funding as well. "Habitat protection, with all of
this increase in sports fishermen, they're destroying some of the
habitat in some of the rivers upriver, particularly this year when
the river has been extremely low. And there's no monitoring of
that, there's absolutely no monitoring of that. The planes fly
into the area, drop off their sports fishermen. They're walking
around on these eggs. And there is no monitoring, there's no
checks and balances here that needs to be done. So we do need
management fully funded. We need a sonar on the rivers here so we
have an accurate count of how much salmon are actually going by."
Number 282
JERRY LIBOFF, Commercial Fisherman, came before the committee to
testify. He thanked the committee for their visit to Dillingham.
He said, "You guys being here is to me probably the classic and
most important single reason that I can think of why I want the
state to maintain managing fish and game resources versus the
federals." He indicated he is a 30 year resident of the area, he
is commercial fisherman, manages two village corporations and does
some accounting. He said he is also opposed HB 149 saying, "I
think for managers for commercial and sportfish managers in a mixed
stock fishery, it could sometimes be real difficult to try to
allocate that 5 percent or 9 percent or 27 percent whatever we
decide the personal use fishery is supposed to get in a particular
river system or a particular area. An allocation between the two,
in terms of numbers, is one thing but to achieve those numbers, is
another thing and it can be really difficult. In order to do that
you might wind up shorting another fish resource in the mixed stock
fisheries. For example, in this river system we have king salmon
that run kind of the same time as sockeye salmon, and if this fish
initiative was in existence and we had to get X number of fish
upriver for the sports fishery to catch in kings -- the kings quite
often run with the reds in order to do that, you might end up
getting an over escapement of reds upriver and an under escapement
or an under catch of reds out in the commercial district. So it's
one thing to put it on paper but another thing to manage this in a
mixed stock fishery you could wind up actually doing more damage
than good."
MR. LIBOFF also stated that he did not like the university lands
trust bills which have twice passed the legislature but was vetoed
twice by the Governor. "The mandate for the university is to
basically generate as much revenue off that land that they get as
possible and what that has meant in the past is basically
wholesale, either selling, or leasing out either large tracks of
land. In this area what would happen and what has happened in the
past when that's happened is we get more competing interest for our
fish and game resources." He gave an example of a local tract of
land which would effect local subsistence practices and that the
university does not include the public process in their
considerations of land disposal.
Number 363
MR. LIBOFF commented in support of HB 123, which is a tax
obligation loan program. He said, "A lot of my tax clients and
accounting clients that I've dealt with have used that program,
used it successfully to save their permits from the IRS." He
concluded, "In addition to specific families making use of that
program, it has been a real good tool to convince the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) to deal with the state on saving permits.
The IRS has always fought to be able to seize permits and sell them
due to back taxes that are owed but with this program in place, for
the years that we had it, which was for four or five years before
it sunsetted last year, the IRS was willing and continuously dealt
with the state and individuals to try to do a work out with them.
Without this program, we have much less leverage with the IRS to
convince them to back off. And if for no other reason, it becomes
a very good negotiating tool with the IRS to get them to change
their hard stance on this, I think it's an important program to
have in place. Much beyond the 200 or 300 people that have made
use of it."
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS questioned where legislative process is with
HB 123.
AMY DAUGHERTY, Legislative Administrative Assistant to
Representative Austerman, said HB 123 was currently in Senate
Resources.
TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant to Representative Ivan, confirmed
via teleconference that Representative Ivan would be persevering
this legislation this coming session.
Number 414
BERNICE HEYANO, Bristol Bay Permit Brokerage, Bristol Bay Economic
Development Corporation, testified in support HB 123. She said she
is aware of many people utilizing the tax obligation loan program
over the last year.
Number 447
HARVEY SAMUELSEN, Commercial Fisherman, came before the committee
to testify. He said he is against HB 149 saying, "That's Fish and
Game's job, not the legislature's job. Our legislators down in
Juneau seem to hate rural Alaska and anybody who lives in rural
Alaska. We got hardly any voice down there anymore in Juneau and
now these people that's making all of these dreams are for
themselves, not all of Alaska. In the old days, we had a bunch of
legislators that ran from their districts, got elected and when
they got down to Juneau they all worked for Alaska then. Now we
got a different type of legislator down there. Most of them."
Number 477
MR. SAMUELSEN then suggested that Alaska become two different
states and added, "Sport fishing has really grown in this area.
I'm really concerned. I know one sports fishing lodge, they don't
hire from here, they don't hire their guides from here - kids that
know how to run skiff and kicker and know how to survive. One
sport fishing lodge, his selling point is, he sends all of his
guides through Orvis School out in the states, wherever Orvis runs
it's school and these guys are graduates from there. And they come
up and work and take the jobs away from kids up here. I think
there should be something done if they're going to use the
resources of Alaska, 50 percent or more should come out of Alaska.
I don't know how you'd do it but it would certainly put a lot of
kids to work." He then voiced support for the offshore factory
trawler fleet and indicated some knowledge about recent high seas
salmon interception by Japanese.
Number 620
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN thanked Mr. Samuelsen for his testimony and
asked his opinion on allocation in light of the increasing
populations in the Anchorage area.
Number 640
MR. SAMUELSEN said, "I think that allocation issue shouldn't be
brought up in the legislature. That's what these boards are
appointed for." He concluded, "People get mad at the fish and game
boys. There's a lot of people in this room that weren't around
when the feds had the say so during the old territorial days. It
wasn't all a bed of roses when the feds had it. It was horrible.
You had one game warden in this area and he was a dictator. You
couldn't just pick up the phone and phone up Juneau, you had to
call Washington, D.C. or somebody. A lot of people don't realize
that. It's going to be good for a year or two if the feds take
over, I'm pretty sure, until the greenies take over back in
Washington, D.C., and all these guys that figure that'll be a good
deal are going to be kicking their asses. I don't trust the
federal government. I don't trust the state government either, but
I trust state government a little bit more than I do the federal
government."
RON BOWERS came forward and thanked the committee for coming to
Dillingham.
TAPE 97-24, SIDE A
Number 000
MR. BOWERS spoke in support of the $100,000 provided to Alaska
Marine Safety Education Association (AMSEA) and described some of
the local benefits that money provides. He asked for additional
support this year.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner
Department of Fish and Game, testified via teleconference providing
information on the department's budget regarding commercial
fisheries. He indicated those dollars are general fund monies and
said, "Since fiscal year `92, over the last six years, the
Department of Fish and Game has lost almost $11 million in general
fund appropriations. And that is a very significant amount of
money."
Number 046
MR. WRIGHT apologized that Representative Ivan had not made the
meeting and spoke about HB 285. He said, "Those suspensions and
revocations are found on the bottom of page 2 and the top of page
3 where if a person accumulates 12 or more points during a
consecutive 48 month period, the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC) can make determination about a suspension or if
16 or more points during any consecutive 16 month period for
violations occur, then the CFEC can also make a suspension and
revocation can occur after 18 or more points during any consecutive
72 month period. These numbers aren't set in concrete. They're
something that we worked with a recommendation made by one of the
fishermen in the Bristol Bay area from South of Naknek, I believe."
He indicated that once this gets into the committee process,
they'll certainly be looking for any assistance from the Bristol
Bay fishermen and also fishermen from around the state in helping
to refine this and if this is what they want to see happen.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if Representative Kohring was on line, but
there was no response for several minutes. Then Representative
Kohring indicated he was listening.
Number 068
MR. CRANE asked about how HB 123 would effect CFAB permit loans.
He pointed out that points assessed through the policies in this
legislation would carry with permits during sale transfers.
Number 100
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING indicated that he was willing to modify some
language in HB 149. He said, "I'm not trying to be hard-nosed
about this. I'm just simply trying to help folks in Southcentral
Alaska who are really hurting here, and many of which are being
restricted from getting fish they were simply trying to put on the
dinner table and fill their freezers with to feed their families.
The bottom line is that we here in the Mat-Su are at the end of the
line so to speak as far as the route that the fish take. We're at
the terminal point here and our residents are just simply not
getting an adequate fish in our rivers here. And of course Fish
and Game does recognize the problem and they're recognizing it by
restricting our access to those fish."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said he hoped for more problem solving at the
next House Special Committee on Fisheries meeting scheduled for
September 30, 1997.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 155
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN ascertained that no one on teleconference or in
attendance wanted to testify. He adjourned the meeting at 2:58
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|