01/28/1998 05:03 PM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
January 28, 1998
5:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Chairman
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Mark Hodgins
Representative Gene Kubina
MEMBERS ABSENT
All member present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 38
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to limited entry for sport fish guides and allied
professions.
- TABLED
* HOUSE BILL NO. 310
"An Act relating to the utilization of groundfish; and providing
for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 310 OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 38
SHORT TITLE: SPORT FISHING GUIDE LIMITED ENTRY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) GREEN, Hodgins
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/30/97 1408 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/30/97 1408 (H) FSH, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
11/05/97 (H) FSH AT 1:00 PM KENAI
11/05/97 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
01/21/98 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
01/21/98 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
01/26/98 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
01/26/98 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
01/28/98 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 310
SHORT TITLE: UTILIZATION OF GROUNDFISH
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) AUSTERMAN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/12/98 2025 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/12/98 2026 (H) FISHERIES, RESOURCES
01/28/98 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KEVIN DELANEY, Director
Division of Sport Fish
Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
Telephone: (907) 267-2218
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 38.
BRUCE TWOMLEY, Chairman/Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
8800 Glacier Highway, Suite 109
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 7890-6160
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered the committee's questions on limited
entry.
MIKE BETHERS, Representative
Alaska Sport Fish Council
P.O. Box 323
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 789-7234
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 38.
JOHN MERRICK, Plans and Resource Manager
Koniag Incorporated
2801 E 48th Avenue
Anchorage Alaska 99507
Telephone: (907) 561-2668
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HJR 38.
DARREL SHREVE, Sport Fish Guide
P.O. Box 2053
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-4734
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 38.
RONDAL WHITLEY
P.O. Box 2311
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-4994
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 38.
DARWIN JONES, Owner and Operator
Sea Trek Charters
P.O. Box 897
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: (907) 772-4868
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 38.
CHIP PORTER, Charter Operator
P.O. Box 7844
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-2447
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 38.
A.J. SLAGLE, Charter Guide
P.O. Box 5166
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 247-6615
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 38.
DALE BONDURANT
HC1 Box 1197
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-0818
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HJR 38.
ELLA RING
P.O. Box 10-3212
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Telephone: (907) 373-2080
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 38.
ROY JONES
ADDRESS NOT PROVIDED
Larsen Bay, Alaska
Telephone: NOT PROVIDED
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HJR 38.
MICHAEL SWAN, Halibut Charter Guide
P.O. Box 2397
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-3978
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 38.
GARY AULT, Owner
Charter Business
P.O. Box 2083
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-7477
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 38.
SEAN MARTIN, Owner/Operator
Charter Boat
P.O. Box 889
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-7620
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 38.
AMY DAUGHERTY, Legislative Aide
to Representative Austerman
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 434
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4230
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor testimony on HB 310.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802
TELEPHONE: (907) 465-6143
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 310.
RICK LAUBER, Representative
Pacific Seafood Processors Association;
Chairman, North Pacific Fisheries Management Council
321 Highland Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-6366
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 310.
CHRIS BLACKBURN
P.O. Box 2298
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-3033
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 310.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-2, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN ALAN AUSTERMAN called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Austerman, Ivan and Ogan.
Representative Hodgins and Kubina arrived at 5:10 and 5:12,
respectively.
HJR 38 - SPORT FISHING GUIDE LIMITED ENTRY
Number 0043
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN announced the committee would hear HJR 38,
"Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to limited entry for sport fish guides and allied
professions." He stated that at the last meeting there was
discussion of an amendment to the resolution in regards to the
transferability of the permits. He stated that currently, there is
no such amendment. He explained that he would take testimony on
the bill and then he would table the bill until future notice or
until information comes forward that would invoke him to bring it
back to the table.
Number 167
KEVIN DELANEY, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Department of Fish
and Game, stated that when he testified on Monday he raised the
question of whether or not a constitutional hurdle existed for
limiting the number of guides that participate in a specific
fishery. At that time he suggested that it was possible that
limitations could be enacted through either a competitive bid or
lottery. He explained that since then he has done some research
and discussed it with Steve White from the Department of Law and
Mr. Utermohle. He declared that they are all in agreement that a
constitutional hurdle does exist. He stated that this door needs
to be opened if the state wishes to limit entry in the sport fish
guiding industry or to limit participation as a guide in any
specific fishery. He stated that the joint conclusion is that
attempting to do that through a competitive bid process lottery
would not withstand the legal challenge that would likely occur.
Number 0428
MR. DELANEY stated that the department does not have a position on
the transferability of the permits, as it is more of a social and
economic issue, which does not affect the department's ability to
implement the management plans. He stated that he heard a lot of
people state, at the last meeting, that the resolution is vague and
that they would feel more comfortable knowing what would occur in
a limited entry system. He explained that the sport fishery, the
sport fish guiding industry and allied professions are a diverse
group. For instance, there are the classic charter boat guides,
the bed and breakfast operation that hires a sport fish guide as
needed, and the lodge owner. He reiterated that a constitutional
amendment would be needed.
Number 0451
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN asked if the person from the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission could explain what the process of
execution of the limited entry commission would be if the
resolution passes.
Number 0524
BRUCE TWOMLEY, Chairman/Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission, stated that if a constitutional amendment were to pass
the state would face all of the practical problems, that it is
facing now regarding the information needed. He stated that the
Board of Fisheries as well as this committee is taking measures to
get the necessary information. He stated that the information
would have to be reliable and have a bearing on the conservation
issues and the economic issues that arise in the area. The
practical problem is to figure out how to acquire that information.
He stated that he is here to answer questions and not to promote
the limited entry commission as the means to do that. It would be
a decision purely up to the legislature as to who would best serve
the beneficiaries of the program.
Number 0636
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if the commission would see itself as the
natural place for this program and asked what the title is of the
limited entry commission.
Number 658
MR. TWOMLEY replied that title is the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there is a possibility that a whole new
entry commission could be developed.
MR. TWOMLEY responded that he thought there was. He stated that
their statutes set up the means to address commercial fisheries
that have been managed in a particular way. A lot of detailed
information has been gathered about every individual fish
transaction. He stated that when the commission is called upon to
address these issues there are "tools" available that are useful to
deal with. He stated that the commission can not claim any
familiarity or any tools that would be useful in looking at a
guided sport fishery. He stated that it would be a whole new area
for the entry commission to look at.
Number 0710
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN questioned the ability to identify who is
participating in the fishery because there is no method of
identification nor have any accurate records been kept. He stated
that a limited entry system could not be implemented at this time
because there has to be more accurate data gathered on who is doing
what, where and when to prove who is going to be the haves and the
have nots. He asked if that is a fair assessment.
Number 0751
MR. TWOMLEY replied that he believed that to be true. He stated
that it is his understanding that was the conclusion of the Board
of Fisheries' committee, developed to look at this issue. They
recognize that unless you can get some sound information on
individuals, the extent to which they depend on the fisheries and
the extent to which they are making demands on the fishery, there
might be some risks in going forward with some kind of limitation
or moratorium.
Number 0792
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that the information is not available
because there isn't a system in place at this time.
Number 0827
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked how the commission thinks they are
doing now in regards to limited entry. He asked what would he
change and what advice could he give if there was to be limited
entry with sport fish guides.
Number 0841
MR. TWOMLEY replied that "in balance" limited entry serves the
state and has helped secure the place of Alaskans in their
fisheries, where there would have been tremendous pressure on the
fisheries, primarily by people outside the state. He referred to
the Boldt Decision, and the difficulties that have hit various
fisheries up and down the West Coast. He stated that it is known
as a matter of history that if limited entry had not been in
place, there would have been tremendous pressure from outside
fishermen on all of the fisheries and more of a risk that Alaskans
would have been displaced. He stated that it is for historic
reasons that limited entry went into place in time. The state can
not discriminate against non-residents nor can limited entry. He
stated that if the state can limit the fishery at a point when
Alaskans are dominant in that industry, an opportunity is created
for Alaskans to maintain their places.
Number 0934
MR. TWOMLEY addressed the issue of transferability of these
interests. He stated that the supreme court has had a chance to
look at the transferability of the privileges that they have
administered. They identified a positive result of limited entry
to be that it gives people a long term stake in the resource and
the transferability allowed families to maintain access to the
fishery. He stated that he could offer that history to the
committee if it would be of value.
Number 0980
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if the limited entry mechanism helped
the commercial fishermen or the commercial fishing industry.
Number 1000
MR. TWOMLEY responded that he thought it empowered individual
fishermen and helped them in relation to processors. They had more
bargaining power and more of an ability to control their own
fishing. He stated that it empowered them to also maintain their
access to the fisheries. He continued that he had been told by
people close to the real world aspect of the fishery that limited
entry helped save a place in the fishery for local people, that
otherwise would have been crowded out.
Number 1040
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if there would be the opportunity to
protect the habitat on some of the over-used rivers through a
limited entry system.
Number 1055
MR. TWOMLEY replied that is an important consideration of limited
entry, as to whether it would serve that kind of conservation
issue.
Number 1066
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if he had any figures of his budget
and what the budget would be on a sport fish guide limited entry
system.
Number 1086
MR. TWOMLEY stated that he did not have an idea of what the cost of
a sport fish limited entry program would be. He stated that the
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission is responsible for all the
commercial fisheries, and have limited entry into 50 fisheries in
the state. He stated that fishermen pay a fee to the commission
for the permits. He stated that they bring in about $5 million a
year and the cost of the agency is about half of that.
Number 1123
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated that the commission is then revenue
generating for the general fund.
MR. TWOMLEY stated that it was true.
Number 1136
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked what the bill was that Mr. Twomley had
referred to.
Number 1157
MR. TWOMLEY stated that he did not recall the bill number but he
knows that the chairman has sponsored a bill that addresses the
licensing of commercial fishing guides that would help capture some
of the information needed to go forward with the resolution. He
stated that in addition the Board of Fisheries recognizes this as
a need.
Number 1181
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if he could briefly describe how limited
entry was implemented; what kind of methodology was used.
Number 1203
MR. TWOMLEY replied that there is nothing in place right now that
gives the kind of information that the limited entry commission had
for the commercial fisheries. He stated that there was a limited
entry constitutional amendment in 1972 enacted by the legislature
that is in existence now. He informed the committee that the
legislature told the commission that they had to look at past
participation and economic dependence on the fisheries as a way of
determining who was most dependent on the commercial fisheries and
who ought to get limited entry permits. He continued that they had
the benefit of fish tickets which recorded every individual sale of
fish; therefore everyone's catch was documented in every fishery.
The commission had to look at for purposes of determining economic
dependence; who had invested in vessels, the amount of earnings
from the fishery as compared to earnings from other sources. They
had the benefit of tax records that were pretty clear.
Number 1283
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if the commercial fisheries management
areas were in effect before limited entry or were those created
through limited entry.
MR. TWOMLEY replied that the management areas were in place before
limited entry, the Board of Fisheries had every management area
that the commission addressed for salmon in place before the
commission began.
Number 1313
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Delaney what he would see as the
kind of mechanism that would be implemented and how difficult did
he think it would be to make it work, in regards to limited entry
on sport fish guides.
Number 1337
MR. DELANEY replied that in working on the guide licensing bill
that is currently in the legislature, a great deal of effort went
into developing the definitions of what a guide is and what they
do, in order to encompass the sport fish guide industry. He
expressed that a lot of progress had been made. He reiterated that
it is a very diverse industry, however the guides for the king
fishery on the Kenai River are not a very diverse operation. The
boats are about the same size and most have similar histories. He
referred to the previously mentioned diverse aspects of the sport
fish guide industry, and stated that if the state went forward on
limited entry, a decision would be made that define each fisheries'
needs based on urgency to move forward with a limited entry system.
He stated that the start would be with the fisheries that are
heavily utilized and conducted uniformly, with a longer history.
He stated that this can not be accomplished without the socio-economic informat
order to collect the information. At the present time, the
information is what is lacking to describe the economics and the
character of these operations.
Number 1496
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if it would be possible to get a short
narrative on the department's idea as to what kind of mechanism
would come out of this. He stated that the voters would want to
know what the limited entry system would entail, in order to decide
if they could support it or not.
Number 1529
MR. DELANEY replied that the department would be more than happy to
help in that exercise, however, some of the decisions that would
need to be made would be public policy level decisions. All the
department could say is there is a range of possibilities here and
this is what it would it take to implement across that range. He
continued that there are a number of socio-economic calls that are
obviously not going to made by the department and he would not want
to pre-suppose what the legislature would chose to do. However, he
pointed out that he would be more than happy to help.
Number 1565
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked, "Do we have in place now within the
state such as maybe parks on the Kenai River where there is kind of
a charge that they do? Wouldn't some of that information be
available because of that?"
Number 1576
MR. DELANEY replied that the data base that exists on the guides
on the Kenai River between the Department of Fish and Game and the
Department of Natural Resources, Division of State Parks is
undoubtably the best data that the department has in the state. He
questioned, however, whether that would be sufficient to meet the
test that would be put before the department.
Number 1601
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that in the early '70s he had a problem
when they invoked limited entry on the commercial fisheries. He
mentioned that he did not think it was a good idea at that time,
although he pointed out that it is the management tool that is used
and it will probably be used in the sport fish industry as well.
He questioned if it was appropriate at this time. He referred to
HB 19, the charter licensing bill, which would give the legislature
a better informational tool to gather the needed information in
order to invoke a limited entry system. He stated that the Board
of Fisheries is also reaching out in some of those areas in order
to gather that information as well. He asked if his understanding
was correct that after the International Pacific Halibut Commission
(IPHC) evoked the cap for the halibut fishermen that the board
through the department would come up with areas. He asked if that
is something the department is looking at doing at this time.
Number 1661
MR. DELANEY responded that he believed Chairman Austerman was
referring to the reporting requirement. He stated that the NPFMC
has adopted a motion that would require mandatory reporting and
have set forth a list of information that needs to be recorded. He
stated that the department has supported that at the council
meeting and has said that they will take the responsibility of
implementing that. He stated that the department has asked the
council to let them work together with the Board of Fisheries as
they have a proposal before them to adopt a regulation that would
put mandatory reporting requirements in place. He remarked that
the council deals with just halibut, the department would like to
mesh the two together so that the people would have one reporting
requirement together and the department could provide the data to
both bodies. He anticipated the board would adopt that, although
they have not yet. At that point in time, whether or not the
information that the council and the board had asked for to begin
addressing a limited entry system is sufficient, he could not say.
Number 1732
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that he was not hinting at that. He
asked if the actual management areas were not something the
department is looking at now.
MR. DELANEY replied no.
Number 1747
MIKE BETHERS, Representative, Alaska Sport Fish Council, testified
via teleconference from Anchorage that they represent both guided
and non-guided sport fishermen and the sport fish industry. He
stated that they support the concept of a moratorium which would
ultimately lead to licensed limitation. He stated that they are in
support of a limited entry system in problematic areas identified
by the sport fishing industry. He stated that they are not in
support of a statewide licensed limitation at this time. He stated
that it will be at least a few years before data is available on
which to base such a statewide or local program. He pointed out
that it is based on the state's recent establishment of reporting
requirements for outfitter guides for the state and federal
cooperation in treatment in areas with local problems identified
with halibut. He stated that eventually when local management
plans call for licensed limitation or a statewide program for the
sport fish guiding industry, it should be based on the conservation
of fish stocks, as a top priority, and based less on the economics
of an individual operator. He stated that it should be developed
with the assumption that non-commercial resource users are
receiving an adequate allocation of the resource to supply their
needs, as it is not happening in many areas. He clarified that the
council understood that it is only a resolution but asserted that
the following should be addressed: who gets a permit, the criteria
used, which areas, transferability, cost to the industry and
individual participants, will they be issued to the owners or to
the boats. He stated that how these questions are answered will
affect the viability of a license limitation program. He declared
that HJR 38 leaves too many of these questions unanswered and
leaves the door open for a competing user group to have an impact
on the development of a program which could have a negative impact
on the viability of the final product. He stated that a resolution
like this should be supported by the sport fish industry only after
industry participants have developed a program which addresses the
above issues to their satisfaction and then are ready to move
forward.
Number 1890
JOHN MERRICK, Plans and Resource Manager, Koniag Incorporated,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage that Koniag
Incorporated manages the private land along the Karluk River, a
popular salmon stream, with most of the activity stemming from
outside interests. He stated that because now that the salmon runs
and the dollar returns are down there is a lot of interest from
village residents in becoming sport fish guides. He stated that
for that reason he would oppose any rapid move to limit the sport
guide fishery because he would like the village residents to have
the opportunity to become sport fish guides.
Number 1963
DARREL SHREVE, Sport Fish Guide, testified via teleconference from
Valdez in regards to the IPHC's halibut cap. He stated that when
the resource is capped but the participants of that industry are
not capped, once the cap is reached it will become a critical
situation. He stated that a lot of halibut operators have a lot of
money vested in the guided efforts on halibut. He said, "Yes I am
very concerned when the number of bay-liners and smaller boats
start participating in the sport guided industry, I can't see any
cap in the future on them but yet there is a cap for the overall
industry." He declared that for economic reasons there needs to be
limited entry in order to protect the people that have a vested
interest in the fishery.
Number 2016
MR. SHREVE said, "As far as the limited entry commission that is
currently in place -- you know I know that every year and for the
last number -- many years I've been sending my money down there for
the triangle, I've not seen a lot out of it. I've seen a funding
source, there that might be able to assist and maybe further this
thing along in addition to probably some fees that go along with
registering, should this be the direction that we go as far as
registering guides." He stated that transferability ought to be
considered.
Number 2058
MR. SHREVE explained that one of the big concerns in Prince William
Sound is the growth of sport guides in the Whittier area,
especially once the road is established. This will cause the 125
percent halibut limit to be met at a faster pace. He stated that
the state is in a position to further limited entry along and he is
in full support of going in that direction. He stated that he was
on the task force of the NPFMC in regards to the uncontrolled
growth of sport fish licenses being issued because of a limited
entry threat. He explained that talk of a limited entry affects
the growth of licenses. He reiterated his support for HJR 38.
Number 2127
REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA asked if his position was an association
position or if he was just representing himself.
Number 2132
MR. SHREVE responded that he is not speaking on behalf of the
charter boat association, he is representing himself.
Number 2138
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if the association would be taking a
position on the issue.
Number 2144
MR. SHREVE responded that John Goodhand is now the president of the
charter boat association and could not get teleconferenced in.
Number 2155
RONDAL WHITLEY testified via teleconference from Valdez that he has
been following the halibut issue. He asserted that there needs to
be a stop to speculative entry because as soon as the NPFMC talks
about limited entry, everyone starts applying for the charter
operators triangle, whether they use them or not. He said, "We're
going to need to move forward with this."
Number 2197
DARWIN JONES, Owner and Operator, Sea Trek Charters, testified via
teleconference from Petersburg that he is in favor of limited entry
for sport fish guides as it will give the state a better idea of
who is catching what and where. He stated that if limited entry is
enacted it should be given to the individual skipper and not to
companies or lodge owners. He asked if the state of Alaska feels
they have the authority to place limited entry on sport fishermen
targeting halibut, since halibut are not regulated by the state.
Number 2245
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN replied that he would look it up but he was
almost certain that the three-mile-limit would have some bearing on
the management aspects.
Number 2252
CHIP PORTER, Charter Operator, testified via teleconference from
Ketchikan that he has been chartering for nine seasons and assumed
he was being monitored all the time, but now it does not sound that
way. He stated that he supports limited entry for the charter
fleet and is not sure what the limit should be. He asked that
limited entry be instituted before the number of guides reach a
level where no one can make a living at it. He continued that if
there is the steady increase of charter fishermen, no one will be
able to make a living and it is already heading in that direction
with the limit that is on king salmon and halibut.
Number 2318
MR. PORTER stated that he was a power troller for many years and
having that permit was similar to having a farm with a certain
numbers of farmers allowed to farm the area. He asserted that
without the limited entry system for commercial fishermen it would
have been over years ago. He declared that he hoped in a sport
fish limited entry system the people who do not deserve the permits
will not get them. He suggested income tax records being used as
a guide. There are a lot of people who have charter boats permits
just to be able them to write their boats off.
Number 2387
A.J. SLAGLE, Charter Guide, testified via teleconference from
Ketchikan, that he has been guiding since 1990. He stated that he
is in support of limited entry but feels that it is poorly
researched at this time. He stated that in the interest of
fairness he would like to see a lot more research and public
comment on the issue. He stated that he would like to see a
resident preference. He asserted that a limited entry system
should be governed by people that are involved in this industry and
have a broader or more knowledgeable idea of the conditions and
concerns of those who work in it. He stated that there is a
definite concern of growth and abuse of the resource through
overharvest.
TAPE 98-2, SIDE B
Number 0002
DALE BONDURANT, testified via teleconference from Kenai, that all
he wanted to say was that he was listening to find out how the
department was going to use limited entry and what information they
had. He stated that he found out they did not have much
information.
Number 0031
ELLA RING, testified via teleconference from Matsu that she is in
favor of limited entry for the guided sport fish industry, but did
not want it to be like the commercial limited entry system. She
stated that some families applied for permits every time they had
a child, one family had six permits. She stated that she is in
favor of a federal takeover because of bad management in the
Northern district. Since 1981, she has made less than $5,000 from
commercial fishing. She asked how many king salmon are allowed
this year per person.
Number 0096
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that he did not have that information and
suggested that she call the Department of Fish and Game.
Number 0101
MS. RING stated that she had heard that it is one king salmon a day
for 30 days which is too much with such poor fishing. She stated
that there has been a decrease of salmon in her area. She talked
about poor management of the Northern district and asserted that
something needs to be done or else future generations will not have
any fish.
Number 0161
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated, "The limit for Cook Inlet, if I am not
mistaken, Kevin Delaney's here -- is five fish per year and one
fish per day in possession."
Number 0187
ROY JONES, testified via teleconference from Larson Bay that most
of the residents from Larson Bay are opposed to limited entry on
sport fishing. He stated that it is a new industry to the area and
a lot of residents are trying to rely on sport fish guiding as an
income. He stated that if this is implemented it should be area
specific. He stated that charter boats from other areas of Alaska
are guiding in Larson Bay because their areas are over crowded. He
stated that the Larson Bay residents are interested in getting into
the sport fish guiding industry. He reiterated that it should be
area specific.
Number 0329
MICHAEL SWAN, Halibut Charter Guide, testified via teleconference
from Homer, that he has been chartering for twenty years and is in
favor of a limited entry program. He asserted that the data has to
be available as he has been registering his charter boat for ten
years and has had a guide license for the past three years. He
continued that there is sufficient tax information that he has
accumulated for the past 15 to 20 years. He stated that he agreed
that it is a regional problem.
Number 0393
GARY AULT, Owner, Charter Business, testified via teleconfernce
from Homer, that he is speaking for the Homer Charter's
Association. He stated that the members have voted for support of
the fair and equitable licensed limitation program. The reason
being in response to the NPFMC cap to the halibut charter
operations. He stated that the members would like the licenses to
be fully transferrable in order for the licenses to be viable and
have some sort of future business. He stated that there needs to
be a strong plan to eliminate the speculative licenses that have
been occurring since 1993 when a limitation on sport fish guides
was being pursued by the NPFMC. He continued that an area specific
plan would be the best way approach a limited entry system.
Number 0482
SEAN MARTIN, Owner/Operator, Charter Boat, testified via
telconfernce from Homer that because of the restrictions placed on
halibut guides, a limited entry system is needed and the sooner it
is in place the better. He stated that this is the best way to
ensure charter operators a season of historic length, if the guide
line harvest level is approved. He stated that other limits such
as reduced; bag limits, fishing days, size limits and passengers
per vessel could be implemented which will all have negative
economic impacts on the guided halibut sport fishery in Homer. He
stated that he could support any limited entry system that allows
for transferable permits even if those permits do not have a value.
He continued that a limited entry program should be based on past
participation and not just the desire to be a guide and looked at
on a regional basis.
Number 0538
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that he is going to cut off the testimony
on HJR 38 as HB 310, "An Act relating to the utilization of
groundfish; and providing for an effective date" is before the
committee as well tonight. He stated that HJR 38 will be brought
up again in the future.
HB 310 - UTILIZATION OF GROUNDFISH
Number 0555
AMY DAUGHERTY, Legislative Aide to Representative Austerman, stated
that HB 310 is straight forward, it removes pollock from the
statute and in its place but the word "groundfish" in. Section 3
is amended to include pollock in the definition of groundfish,
thereby extending the waste laws on pollock to all groundfish. She
explained that it is part of a movement started by federal
fisheries management. She referred to a letter in the committee's
packet that concerns Amendment 49 to the Fishery Management Plan.
It states the need for regulations to govern shore based processors
regarding the Improved Retention/Improved Utilization program
(IR/IU). The federal regulations are contingent on actions by the
state of Alaska. She referred to a statement by the National
Marine Fisheries (NMFS) Service that stated they believe Alaska
will proceed ahead with the statutory changes in order to apply the
IR/IU program to the onshore processors and NMFS is going to
implement their regulations accordingly.
Number 0632
MS. DAUGHERTY referred to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and
Conservation and Management Act's section on bycatch reduction.
She explained that it states there should be "conservation and
management measures to lower, on an annual basis for a period of
not less four years, the total amount of economic discards
occurring in the fisheries." She stated that HB 310 is the first
step in a mutual effort between state and federal government to
minimize the waste that occurs in the fisheries.
Number 0673
MS. DAUGHERTY referred the committee to the third page of the
federal regulations in their committee packet: "The Council has
assumed that the state of Alaska will implement a parallel IR/IU
program for shore-based processors. In testimony at the Council
meetings, the state indicated its intent to implement parallel
IR/IU regulations. Otherwise rejection of deliveries by
processors would be the equivalent of discarding". She explained
that we are forcing the processors to purchase some of the fish so
that it can be utilized, instead of the normal practice of
discarding them.
MS. DAUGHERTY pointed out that there are also some regulations for
pollock in place as there is currently the statutory authority to
deal with pollock. She stated that there is the need for statutory
authority to deal with Pacific cod and referred to Mr. Bruce to
testify on HB 310.
Number 0725
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Fish and Game, that he is in support of HB 310. He
stated that he would like the committee to keep in mind that this
is part of an effort by the managers in the agencies responsible
for the groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska and
inshore waters to reduce the economic discards that are associated
with the groundfish fisheries. He stated that it is a level
playing field issue; when it was discussed at the council level
there was concern expressed and general agreement that the onshore
processors and the fishermen fishing inside state waters should
abide by the same rules that the offshore harvesters and processors
where abiding by. The state agreed to work towards that goal. He
continued "And we have already through the existing statute that
authorizes us to prevent waste of pollock, taken action, the Board
of Fisheries has taken action to put in place exactly the same kind
of regulations for pollock that exist in the federal arena." He
stated, however, we can't go forward with Pacific cod at this point
as far as regulation by processors because the Board of Fisheries
lacks the statutory authority to take that action with Pacific cod.
House Bill 310 would authorize the board on a case by case basis to
specify a groundfish species for inclusion in this IR/IU program.
He declared that the reason they have specified groundfish rather
than Pacific cod, in addition to pollock, is because this program
will evolve over time and the federal program calls for rock sole
and yellow fin sole to be added to that list in the year 2003. He
clarified that the intention is to move toward the reduction of
economic discards in the groundfish fisheries and in all species
overtime. House Bill 310 would provide the flexibility for the
state to match the federal program as well as for the industry to
adapt to it over a phased-in period of time.
Number 0855
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked what the concept of including other
species of fish in the waste treatment does economically to the
fishermen and processors.
Number 0882
MR. BRUCE stated that there is certainly an economic cost to the
industry for doing this and those issues were discussed extensively
in the NPFMC arena. He stated that Mr. Lauber could address the
nature of those discussions. He explained that the Department of
Fish and Game contacted a group of 22 different representatives
from both the fishing groups and processors in the state to involve
them in the development of the legislation and regulations. There
was near unanimous support for this; their view is that they are
willing to undertake the cost to improve conservation and have
better utilization of the resource. He continued that the cost to
some operators is not going to be that significant because they
have the ability through meal plants to deal with fish that have
been discarded in the past. Others will have to modify their
operations to do this. He stated that with the exemption of one
group there is support for going forward with HB 310. He declared
that there is a cost issue but one that the industry is willing to
bear and it is not an obstacle that can not be over come.
Number 0959
RICK LAUBER, Representative, Pacific Seafood Processors
Association; and Chairman, North Pacific Fisheries Management
Council, stated that members support HB 310. He stated that it is
necessary in order to be in legal compliance. He continued that a
vast majority of inshore operators have been in compliance with
this bill for many years. He ascertained that it has been very
helpful because without the pollock bill regarding full
utilization, there would have been a great difficulty to convince
factory trawlers to stop roe stripping. He stated that they would
take the roe and discard the carcasses in the Bering Sea. He
stated that they have successfully passed, through the council and
the Secretary of Commerce, a ban on roe stripping of pollock. He
stated that in order to have comparable regulations on shore as the
council has imposed offshore for improved retention and
utilization, it has become possible to implement requirements for
at sea processors to retain all of their pollock. He stated that
as mentioned by Mr. Bruce by the year 2003 it would be expanded to
other fisheries. He believed it was the state's intention to do
this now so that in the year 2003 there would not need to be
another amendment. He added that it is not a major problem for
most of the onshore processors as they are already in compliance.
Number 1150
CHRIS BLACKBURN, testified via teleconference from Kodiak that Jeff
Stephan, who could not testify, and herself both support HB 310, as
it is important to stop waste. She stated that we are in the year
of the ocean, and in a time when people are concerned about the
care of the ocean. She explained that not only is HB 310 a way to
make the fish come onshore, it is a great incentive for fisherman
to avoid small fish. She is already seeing larger mesh sizes and
other changes in fishing practices to avoid bycatch. She hoped
that the state will take the advice of Mr. Lauber and pass the bill
to be in compliance with the federal standards at the state level,
as it would be terrible to see Alaska have less conservation than
the federal government.
Number 1235
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to move HB 310 with individual
recommendations and attached zero fiscal notes.
Number 1252
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there was an objection, hearing none,
HB 310 was moved out of the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
Number 1260
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN adjourned the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting at 6:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|