Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/08/1999 05:09 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
March 8, 1999
5:09 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Chairman
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Harold Smalley
Representative John Harris
Representative Fred Dyson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 104
"An Act revising the procedures and authority of the Alaska
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, the Board of Fisheries, and
the Department of Fish and Game to establish a moratorium on
participants or vessels, or both, participating in certain
fisheries; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 104 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Relating to management of Alaska's wildlife and fish resources.
- MOVED SCR 2 OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 104
SHORT TITLE: ENTRY MORATORIA ON PARTICIPANTS/VESSELS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) HUDSON, Austerman
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/19/99 260 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/19/99 260 (H) FSH, RES
3/08/99 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SCR 2
SHORT TITLE: MANAGEMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/22/99 64 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/22/99 65 (S) RES
2/03/99 (S) RES AT 3:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
2/03/99 (S) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
2/03/99 (S) MINUTE(RES)
2/08/99 (S) RES AT 3:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
2/08/99 (S) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
2/08/99 (S) MINUTE(RES)
2/10/99 199 (S) RES RPT 3DP 3NR
2/10/99 199 (S) DP: HALFORD, GREEN, PETE KELLY;
2/10/99 199 (S) NR: MACKIE, PARNELL, LINCOLN
2/10/99 199 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S.RES)
2/11/99 (S) RLS AT 11:30 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
2/11/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
2/16/99 257 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1OR 2/17/99
2/17/99 272 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
2/17/99 272 (S) PASSED Y15 N5
2/17/99 276 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
2/19/99 247 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/19/99 247 (H) FISHERIES, RESOURCES
3/08/99 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
ELIZABETH CABRERA, Researcher
for Representative Bill Hudson
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 108
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6890
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the sponsor statement for HB 104.
MARY McDOWELL, Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC)
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
8800 Glacier Highway, Suite 109
Juneau, Alaska 99801-8079
Telephone: (907) 789-6160
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 104 on
behalf of CFEC.
AMY DAUGHERTY
Pacific Associates, Inc.
234 Gold Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3107
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 104.
Joe Kyle
Pacific Associates, Inc.
234 Gold Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3107
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 104.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-6143
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on behalf of the ADF&G in
support of HB 104, and testified on SCR 2.
RAYMOND J. CAMPBELL
P.O. Box 23216
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901-3216
Telephone: (907) 247-3626
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 104.
DONALD WESTLUND
P.O. Box 871
Ward Cove, Alaska 99928
Telephone: (907) 225-9319
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on both HB 104 and SCR 2.
GERRY MERRIGAN
Petersburg Vessel Owners Association
P.O. Box 232
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: (907) 772-9323
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 104.
DALE BONDURANT
31864 Moonshine Drive
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-0818
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on both HB 104 and SCR 2.
WAYNE REGELIN, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-4190
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on behalf of ADF&G on SCR
2.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-03, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 5:09 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Hudson, Whitaker, Morgan and
Kapsner.
HB 104 - ENTRY MORATORIA ON PARTICIPANTS/VESSELS
Number 0125
CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced the first order of business was House
Bill No. 104, "An Act revising the procedures and authority of the
Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, the Board of
Fisheries, and the Department of Fish and Game to establish a
moratorium on participants or vessels, or both, participating in
certain fisheries; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced there is a committee substitute for House
Bill No. 104, and asked for a motion to adopt it.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute for HB 104 [1-LS0394-I, Utermohle, 03/08/99].
There being no objection, it was so adopted.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON called on Elizabeth Cabrera, staff to
Representative Hudson who is the sponsor of HB 104, to present the
sponsor statement.
Number 0199
ELIZABETH CABRERA, Researcher, Representative Bill Hudson, Alaska
State Legislature, read the following sponsor statement into the
record:
HB 104 amends the existing moratorium law to provide for a
streamlined and effective process to better manage Alaska's
fisheries resources. The current process involves multiple
steps whereby a fisherman seeking a moratorium must first go
to the Commissioner of Fish and Game, who, in turn, must seek
authorization from the Board of Fisheries. If the Fish Board
authorizes the Commissioner to go forward, the Commissioner
may then petition CFEC (Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission)
to provide a moratorium. CFEC is then authorized to go
forward if it can make findings as required by statute.
Unfortunately, the standards set forth in statute are
difficult to understand and mutually inconsistent.
HB 104 allows petitioners to request a moratorium directly
from CFEC. A moratorium would be established if CFEC found
that it was necessary "to promote the conservation and
sustained yield management of the resource and the economic
health and stability of commercial fishing in the state." The
purpose of a moratorium is to quickly put a lid on
participation levels in order to buy time to develop better
management tools.
HB 104 authorizes CFEC to implement a moratorium on entry of
new vessels into a fishery as well as participants. This new
authority provides an additional management tool where there
are a number of different skippers used on one vessel.
Additionally, HB 104 allows the state to extend its moratorium
authority to offshore fisheries adjacent to state waters when
consistent with federal law.
The committee substitute specifically differs from the
original bill by authorizing CFEC to extend the moratorium on
both the Korean hair crab and weathervane scallop fisheries.
Also, I would note that a similar bill passed the House last
session with overwhelming support. Improving the moratorium
law is consistent with our concern for developing and
protecting jobs, as well as streamlining government and
resource protection.
Number 0378
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if there were questions regarding the sponsor
statement. Hearing none, he opened the meeting to public
testimony.
Number 0459
MARY McDOWELL, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC), Alaska Department of Fish and Game, provided testimony in
support of HB 104 on behalf of CFEC. It is the belief of CFEC, she
stressed, that having a workable moratorium statute is very
important for sound management of the fisheries. She explained
that the moratorium provisions currently in statute are so
cumbersome that they are counterproductive, and could result in
harm to a fishery by generating "a rush" of new participants. She
informed the committee that HB 104 would create a workable process
whereby massive growth could be temporarily controlled in a quickly
developing fishery. This would allow time to work with the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), the Board of Fisheries and
individuals involved in the fishery to assess the best route for
the future.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked whether a moratorium was for purposes of
biological conservation or to "save the scales of economy of those
who participate in the fisheries."
Number 0600
MS. McDOWELL responded that the two mandates of a limited entry act
are conservation of the resource and protecting the economic health
of the fishery itself. She explained that a moratorium is an
interim step to "getting a handle on" a fishery while assessing
whether limitation is the way to go.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON sought clarification as to whether HB 104 would
simply streamline CFEC's existing authority to employ a moratorium.
MS. McDOWELL said yes. She added that the current provision for
employing a moratorium is a convoluted process, involving
petitioning the Commissioner of ADF&G, who would then go to the
Board of Fisheries "if and when they can get on the agenda." The
Board of Fisheries would then sanction the Commissioner of ADF&G to
approach CFEC to request a moratorium. She stressed that this
process would take so much time that it is equivalent to waving a
flag and telling individuals, "You might want to rush into this
fishery because we might be putting a lid on it." This would be
absolutely the opposite of want CFEC would want to do at that
particular point, she said. She clarified that CFEC would continue
to work with ADF&G and the Board of Fisheries in this process, but
HB 104 would allow anyone to come directly to CFEC to petition the
moratorium.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON next introduced Amy Daugherty, former legislative
assistant to Representative Alan Austerman, and former House
Special Committee on Fisheries committee aide for four years.
Number 0788
AMY DAUGHERTY, Pacific Associates, Inc., came forward to testify in
support of HB 104. She is currently working on the Korean hair
crab vessel moratorium and the scallop moratorium. She indicated
that the language in the proposed committee substitute was clear
and specific. She expressed support for the bill in its entirety,
but particularly supported the provision to extend the moratorium.
Number 0869
JOE KYLE, Pacific Associates, Inc., came forward to testify in
support of HB 104. He mentioned that he is a member of the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), but he clarified that
he was not speaking on their behalf. He declared that anything
that could be done to give better management tools to ADF&G or CFEC
would protect the interests of Alaska. He stipulated that many
things overlap and intertwine between state and federal fishery
management; however, the federal fishery managers in Alaska are
currently in better shape with their budget than the state fishery
managers.
MR. KYLE added that there are times, from his perspective as a
member of NPFMC, when the state could be delegated more power over
some of the fisheries, but not having the management tools in place
acts as an inhibitor to that. He reminded the committee that HB
104 had a zero fiscal note, and would give the state fishery
managers improved tools to manage their fisheries. He stressed
that the greatest issue currently facing fishery management
worldwide is overcapitalization. If the state is not able to
address that issue in a timely and productive manner, he added,
federal fisheries organizations may preempt state fishery issues.
He urged the committee to move HB 104 as a means of giving the
state of Alaska the ability to take control of its destiny with
regard to state fisheries.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if anyone from ADF&G would like to testify.
Number 1049
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, came forward to testify on
behalf of ADF&G in support of HB 104, and he explained that ADF&G
worked with CFEC to develop it. He stated he was available to
answer any questions.
Number 1122
RAYMOND CAMPBELL testified via teleconference from Ketchikan in
opposition to HB 104. He felt that HB 104 seemed to be a
resurgence of HB 204 in 1998, and he referred to it as "the Santa
Claus program." He argued, "The Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC) wants the process of giving away our resources
streamlined so they can be Santa Claus and give our resources away
to people that got their hand out and want something for nothing.
We've had a bill -- we put our dive fisheries in Southeast in a
moratorium here about three years ago, and we put people out of
business who were actively fishing in those fisheries, and we
allowed people to come into the fisheries that had never touched
urchins before, and never touched some of the other fisheries...
I think this is a bad bill. If it goes through, I would like to
see it changed like the bill in last session which was 204. I'd
like to see the transferability of permits be eliminated, and I
think, if you took the transferability of permits out of it and
made it into a 'not a give-away' program, I think the support would
dry up."
Number 1225
CHAIRMAN HUDSON noted that he worked on a bill last year to try to
open up the urchin dive fishery, and he asked if that was working
at the present time.
MR. CAMPBELL replied, "Not for the people who were diving and got
cut out. It hasn't worked for me. It financially destroyed me...
I was down here diving for urchins and I was thrown out of the
fishery so people who had never touched an urchin before could have
the opportunity to do it, and this bill right here is going to give
CFEC the right to give people the opportunity to go into a
moratorium who have never been in a moratorium before, and it will
give them the right to cut people who are fishing in a fishery out,
so people who haven't been in the fishery can get into it, just
like it happened with the dive fisheries here in Southeast."
CHAIRMAN HUDSON declared he did not believe that would be the end
result of this legislation; rather, HB 104 is aimed at the Korean
hair crab and scallop industries. He added, "I don't think that
it's going to provide any more effort for mischief on the part of
CFEC in the dive fisheries down here." He asked Mary McDowell from
CFEC to again come forward to address Mr. Campbell's concerns.
Number 1340
MS. McDOWELL advised the dive moratorium was not imposed by the
CFEC, but by legislative statute. She explained that there was a
provision inserted in that legislation, by the legislature, that
allowed some fishermen who had not yet participated in certain
species to participate in all dive fisheries during the moratorium.
She explained that an individual needed to have participated a
certain number of years in a dive fishery to be "grandfathered in"
to other species.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON reiterated that the dive moratorium was a
legislative action, and he asked Ms. McDowell if she saw anything
in HB 104 that would adversely affect Mr. Campbell's interest in
getting involved in the dive fisheries.
MS. McDOWELL said she did not. The only connection between the
dive moratorium and HB 104, she explained, was that the committee
substitute of HB 104 would provide for the ability to extend Korean
hair crab and scallop fishery moratoriums for two more years, if
that much time was needed to gather data and decide upon a course.
She stressed that it was the belief of CFEC that a sound public
process, where the fishermen are involved in establishing the rules
through the regular public process, is a good way to go.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON invited Mr. Campbell to send him his written
observations, and his concerns would be addressed. However, he
pointed out that he did not believe HB 104 would have any affect on
the issues Mr. Campbell raised.
Number 1514
MR. CAMPBELL agreed to do that. He further addressed a question to
CFEC, "Does that mean, if this bill goes through, they won't be
able to extend the moratorium on dive fisheries for another two
years? It seems to me like you...you are saying that it is
directed at the Korean hair crab and the scallop fishery, but it
seemed to me like the dive fisheries would be in there, too."
MS. McDOWELL explained there was nothing in HB 104 that would
prohibit CFEC from extending the dive moratorium for two additional
years; however, she stressed that CFEC would never want to use an
extension provision unless there was a very specific reason for
doing so. She added, "People need certainty in their lives and we
know that. At a certain point, you need to make a decision and let
people know whether they are in or out of a fishery and get on with
it, so we'd be very careful about extending any moratorium any
longer than we absolutely needed to."
CHAIRMAN HUDSON once again reassured Mr. Campbell that they would
look into his written concerns, perhaps communicating through
Representative Carl Morgan's office. He invited the next witness
on teleconference to testify.
Number 1639
DONALD WESTLUND testified via teleconference from Ketchikan on HB
104. He mentioned he had some concerns, but added that CFEC really
needs some type of moratorium that is quick and responsive. He
cited his personal experience of having just gone through the
issuance of shrimp limitations, and attending three public meetings
on this issue. He related that there were 187 active fishermen at
the first meeting he attended. The next meeting had an attendance
of 243, and the following year there were 332. He stressed that
some type of stabilization of the fishery was needed when
petitioners file a petition with CFEC and "get a stop." He argued
that ADF&G should not, as was done in his area, advertise, "If you
have not fished in this year, you need to make a delivery so you
can fish in the next coming year or you will have a moratorium or
you will not be able to fish." He indicated that some type of
ground rules were needed, and that a moratorium would help in
certain circumstances.
Number 1769
MR. WESTLUND continued by stating that there was a five-month
fishery originally and historically, and some years it is a
five-week season. Stability of the fishery is needed, he stressed,
and parts of the limited entry buy-back program should be addressed
as well. He argued that there are too many participants in a
fishery, almost double the number in his case, and that something
needs to be done.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON reassured the witness that the committee was
looking for ways to streamline the public process, and give the
needed tools to CFEC and others to balance conservation with the
economy. He agreed that too many participants in a fishery would,
not only not make money, but deplete the resources; however, he
added that this has not always been easy to balance.
Number 1880
GERRY MERRIGAN, Petersburg Vessel Owners Association, testified via
teleconference from Petersburg on behalf of his organization. He
indicated that they would generally endorse HB 104 as providing two
new tools, one being a more timely way to institute moratoriums.
The other benefit from HB 104, he added, would be "adding in
vessels in cases where if you limited, say, permit holders, you
might be increasing the harvesting capacity by giving it to the
skippers...The larger-vessel fisheries, such as hair crab, you
might be increasing the catching power." He summarized by stating
that HB 104 should move forward.
Number 1950
DALE BONDURANT testified via teleconference from Soldotna. He
stated he thought there was a problem in our fisheries with
overcapitalization; although, he admitted that he did not know how
HB 104 would deal with this issue. He pointed out that the Board
of Fisheries passed a resolution last year addressing
overcapitalization; however, he was told at a meeting in the
Soldotna/Kenai area that the legislature "black-holed it." He
urged the legislature to institute a program that would not expand
the fisheries anymore, and to recognize their responsibility to
protect the users of these resources.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON thanked the witness for his testimony, and
expressed understanding of his concerns. He clarified that HB 104
related more towards streamlining bureaucracy by instituting a
process whereby CFEC would possess moratorium capabilities. He
reassured Mr. Bondurant that the committee would be open to looking
into his concerns at a future date.
Hearing no further questions from committee members or further
testimony from witnesses, CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked to entertain a
motion to move the committee substitute for HB 104 out of the
committee.
Number 2139
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER made a motion to move CS HB 104 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero
fiscal note. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
SCR 2 - MANAGEMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE
Number 2172
CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced the next order of business to be SCR 2,
relating to management of Alaska's wildlife and fish resources. He
called on Mel Krogseng, staff to Senator Robin Taylor who is
sponsor of SCR 2, to present the sponsor statement.
MEL KROGSENG, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor, Alaska
State Legislature, read the following sponsor statement into the
record on behalf of Senator Taylor:
Mr. Chairman, Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 2 is similar to
the resolution passed by the legislature last year, which,
incidently, bore the same number. It is intended to send a
strong message to the governor, the Board of Fisheries, the
Board of Game, and the Department of Fish and Game, that you,
the legislature, want the wildlife and fish resources of our
state to be aggressively biologically managed on a
sustained-yield basis for abundance.
Mr. Chairman, over the past few years, we have seen a decline
in several of our wildlife and fish stocks in certain areas.
This decline has continued to the point where serious
shortages currently exist and are continuing unabated. Last
year, before the House Resources Committee, there was
testimony about moose shortages from an Angie Morgan of Aniak;
also from a William Miller of Dot Lake who testified that
there were moose and caribou shortages in his area.
There are ongoing shortages in fish stocks in several areas as
well. Bristol Bay has been considered a disaster area for the
last two years. In 1997, the Kenai River had only a few coho
salmon, and just this past year the Kenai was closed down June
5th to catch-and-release for Chinook salmon. The Mat-Su
streams have had ongoing shortages in coho, sockeye, chum and
Chinook stocks. Cook Inlet commercial fishing was closed
early this past year due to a low sockeye run.
Management of these resources was delegated to the Board of
Fisheries, the Board of Game and the Department of Fish and
Game by the legislature. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the
legislature to tell these agencies the management philosophy
that you want followed. This resolution will send that
message, and it is a crystal clear message, Mr. Chairman, that
the legislature wants these resources biologically managed on
a sustained-yield basis for abundance.
Sustained-yield, Mr. Chairman, but what do we really mean? I
would like to quote from the Alaska Constitutional Convention
Proceedings, page 2451: "We have in mind no narrow definition
of 'sustained yield' as is used, for example, in forestry, but
the broad premise that insofar as possible, a principle of
sustained yield shall be used with respect to administration
of those resources which are susceptible of sustained yield,
and where it is desirable. For example, predators would not
be maintained on a sustained-yield basis." Mr. Chairman, if
we had an abundance of wildlife and fish resources in our
state, that would go a long way towards help[ing] solving the
ongoing subsistence issue, as there would be enough of these
resources for all user groups.
Number 2346
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked if it was the sponsor's intent to
state that the subsistence dilemma is based on current shortage of
resources.
MS. KROGSENG replied, "It is the Senator's feeling that if we had
an abundance of resources we might not be faced with this issue at
this time."
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER indicated it was her understanding that
subsistence users only use about three percent of the current
resource, whether it is abundant or not.
MS. KROGSENG stated she could not respond to that since she did not
know those figures, but she reiterated her previous statement that
an abundance of fish and wildlife resources in the state would go
a long way in helping resolve the subsistence issue.
Number 2404
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if the bill before the committee was still
the original SCR No. 2.
MS. KROGSENG confirmed that it was the original draft and that
there have been no revisions to it.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON questioned whether the sponsor statement was
revised.
MS. KROGSENG confirmed the sponsor statement was revised. She
explained this was done because the original sponsor statement
included a comment regarding fish escapement, and there was some
concern that the Bristol Bay situation was being blamed on
inadequate escapement. In order to eliminate any confusion,
therefore, the sponsor statement was rewritten by simply taking
that reference out.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON sought clarification that this change in the
sponsor statement did not require any modification of the
resolution itself.
MS. KROGSENG indicated that she did not believe the change in the
sponsor statement affected the resolution at all.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if there were any audience members present
from ADF&G who wished to comment on SCR 2.
Number 2480
MR. BRUCE from ADF&G again came forward. He stated he was not
prepared to make any specific testimony on SCR 2; however, he
referred to a graph that he had previously provided the committee
showing commercial salmon harvest in the state from 1878 to 1998.
He felt that the graph illustrated the difficulty in talking about
exactly what abundance means, because, even with the recent
downturns in 1997 and 1998, Alaska's commercial salmon harvest are
still enjoying all-time high production levels. He admitted that
specific stocks in some regions of the state are weak, and ADF&G is
concerned about those. Western Alaska, the Yukon River and
Kuskokwin River are areas of specific concern. He confirmed the
previous statement that sometimes fluctuations in population are
not due to management. For example, escapement goals were achieved
in Bristol Bay; however, that did not result in the survivals that
were expected. Many complex factors can affect the survival of
fish and wildlife in the natural environment, he added, and these
factors cannot always be predicted.
MR. BRUCE reported that salmon is the most important and abundant
fish species to recreational, subsistence and commercial users, and
that populations are generally large. There are, however, notable
exceptions in some areas, for which ADF&G has implemented very
severe conservation measures, often resulting in difficulty for the
people in those areas. He explained that ADF&G is trying to get
the assistance of the federal government to focus research on the
Bering Sea, as there are indications that environmental conditions
there are changing and may not be as conducive to salmon survival
and production now as it was in the 1980s and early 1990s.
Number 2634
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN commented that he noticed from the graph that
the number of catches keeps going up until it hits a peak. He
pointed out that people have become experts at getting fish due to
increased technology: bigger and faster boats, sonar, planes with
spotters, and bigger nets. He cautioned that record numbers cannot
continue to be taken, and that a time will come when the state will
have to realize that they are harvesting too many fish. He
acknowledged that record numbers looks good for the economy of the
state of Alaska, but he expressed concern that there were no
reports of record numbers of escapement. He questioned whether
simply reaching escapement was biologically sound.
MR. BRUCE agreed, and stated that escapement is the most important
factor and the basis of ADF&G's approach to managing salmon. He
reported that every system does not have use of the same tools to
determine escapement; for example, Bristol Bay has a better set of
tools than others. Achieving escapement goals is the aim of the
salmon management program, he added, and is one of the few things
that can be controlled. Due to the size of the state, however, it
is very expensive to get all the information.
Number 2768
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN called attention to the fact that no one
really knows what is a "safe level" of escapement. He said, "When
we leave it to Mother Nature, she tends to rebound, but when we
leave it to us and we overtake, we usually hurt it beyond a point
that Mother Nature is hurt, and I don't want to get to that stage.
I want to be at the safe level that we always have a fishery which
helps all users (subsistence, commercial, sports) and have
everybody happy, and I think we better start looking that way
seriously."
Number 2810
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER noted SCR 2 relates to the notion of
management for abundance. He explained that Alaska's Constitution
is very explicit in stating we must manage for attainment of the
goal of sustained yield. He asked Mr. Bruce if he could
differentiate his interpretation of those two concepts. He added,
"Are they one and same or are they different?"
MR. BRUCE indicated he interprets abundance to be a high level of
production, along the lines of a maximum sustained yield concept;
however, sustained yield has a wide range of interpretation. He
explained that it was possible to have sustained yield at a very
low level of production if the population is maintaining itself and
producing some yield. He referred to a term used in fisheries
management, optimum yield, which considers other things besides
biological factors, such as economic factors, in determining the
amount of yield desired. For example, a recreational fishery might
not be managed for maximum sustained yield, but rather optimum
sustained yield, by putting more fish into a river than actually
needed for spawning, in order to improve the opportunity for sport
fishermen to have a good experience. He defined sustained yield as
ranging all the way from a maximum level down to a low level
allowing the population to maintain itself but yield little
harvest.
Number 2902
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked for clarification. He said, "Correct
me if I'm hearing you wrongly -- that sustained yield does not
necessarily mean that there is a benefit for people. Did I hear
that correctly?"
MR. BRUCE explained it is possible to achieve a yield from a
population at a very low level, not anywhere near what it could be,
due to a very small or limited harvest. There might be some
surplus available for harvest, but it might be extremely small, and
it might be taken incidental to other fisheries. He said he did
not mean to imply that it was possible to have sustained yield
without any use.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER referred to the Alaska State Constitution,
Sections 8.1 and 8.2, which indicate that resources will be managed
for the maximum benefit of the people of the state of Alaska.
Tape 99-03, Side B
Number 0030
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Wayne Regelin, Director of the Division of
Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, to join
Mr. Bruce at the table. He then asked both gentlemen if they felt
ADF&G is managing both fish and game for abundance.
MR. BRUCE said yes, adding, "on the fish side."
Number 0060
WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, stated he certainly would not argue
against managing for abundance; however, there are often several
species of wildlife in the same area that need to be balanced. He
gave the example of managing moose and caribou, and how the
department usually has to reduce the abundance of predators like
wolves and bears. The goal is to balance healthy populations of
predators with a yield for human harvest that meets the needs of
the people, he explained. He testified that there are some areas
in Alaska where there are problems, such as managing wolf predation
of caribou in the 40-mile area by sterilization and by working with
local trappers. This resulted in an increase of 30% in that
population last year.
MR. REGELIN also related that there was a prescribed burn of 52,000
acres in that same area last year to improve moose habitat, and
this is the largest prescribed burn that they know of in the
nation. He referred to the "moose problem" in Aniak; namely, a
small population of moose, a high level of need, and a high level
of predators. Most individuals, he related, would like wildlife
managed in a balanced way; however, most people also want to make
sure they get a moose and a caribou every year. He felt that, in
most cases, ADF&G succeeded in their goal to be balanced.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if the ADF&G had a position on SCR 2.
Number 0172
MR. BRUCE testified that ADF&G does not usually take positions on
resolutions, as they are the "legislature's opinion and its
expression of that opinion." He explained they were there to
provide information and a perspective on this issue, but they
really were not taking a position on it.
Number 0192
MR. REGELIN also stated he would not take a position, and he had
two additional comments. He reported that all of the wildlife
populations in Alaska are managed on a sustained-yield basis with
one exception. They are harvesting the brown bear population in
the Nelchina area beyond sustained yield, and they are doing so on
purpose in order to reduce the bear predation on moose and caribou.
He assured the committee that this is a planned and legal action.
There are other areas, he added, that are within sustained yield,
but admittedly low.
MR. REGELIN next called attention to specific wording in SCR 2 that
bothered him. He stated the resolution indicates ADF&G only did
passive monitoring of wildlife populations, and he disagreed with
this. He reported that collecting the needed data on population
size, productivity, mortality and hunter harvest is essential for
wildlife management and appropriate wildlife regulations. This
data, he added, needs to be collected on a scheduled basis; it is
done annually in many areas, and less frequently with some of the
caribou herds by census. With regard to moose populations, ADF&G
tries to do a census in key areas every three to four years, but
they do trend counts and look at calf production, calf mortality
and recruitment into the population on an annual basis. He
emphasized that this monitoring is key to wildlife and fisheries
management.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked for additional comments or concerns for the
two witnesses from ADF&G. Hearing none, he opened the meeting to
further testimony via teleconference.
Number 0307
MR. BONDURANT again addressed the committee via teleconference from
Soldatna, this time regarding SCR 2. He said, "I want to stay with
the fisheries mainly, because that's what I am more familiar with
and active in in the Cook Inlet area, and I think we have some real
problems there as far as the -- maintaining the optimum escapement
goal or the abundance of our fisheries in this area. If you go
back years ago, you'd find a lot different fishery management than
you do today. The management today is actually to maintain the
maximum sustained yield of one species or stocks in one river, and
that's the Kenai sockeye, and with that we've jeopardized the
Northern District fisheries." It was his understanding that
approximately 40% of the sockeye that came up the Cook Inlet in the
1940s were from Northern District stocks; however, in 1987 and
1992, 9 million sockeye were harvested with only 66,000 put back
into the river. He added, "I would say the new management yield
that they put out is merely a computerized reflection of what they
did before. So I think we have to manage the fisheries, especially
in the Cook Inlet area, on the optimum sustained yield for all the
different stocks and species there. One of the stocks that's
really bad there is the chum salmon. Some of those runs are
actually bordering on a fact that we're going to have a species
that is endangered there."
MR. BONDURANT concluded by stating it is his contention that the
fisheries are not being managed for optimum sustained yield for
abundance in every discreet stock that goes into the ecosystem. He
referred to Representative Morgan's concern about over-escapement.
He added, "I attended an American Fisheries Institute meeting in
Juneau about a year ago, and I brought up this over-escapement
deal, and they said, 'Are you from the damn Kenai Peninsula?' So
there's very few people that believe in this except in the Kenai
Peninsula."
Number 0492
MR. WESTLUND was still on line via teleconference from Ketchikan,
and he asked to speak in support of SCR 2. He agreed the state
should be managing for abundance instead of sustained yield. He
referred to the previous comment about smaller stocks, adding, "You
have small stocks that are doing fair, and you're managing on major
stocks." He felt extending fishery periods for maximum sustained
yield on larger stock could hurt other stocks. Managing for the
maximum sustained abundance of all stocks, he emphasized, is better
for subsistence users, fishermen and sports users of the resource.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON thanked the witnesses, and indicated his intention
entertain a motion to move SCR 2 from the committee.
Number 0590
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER made a motion to move SCR 2 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero
fiscal note. He asked unanimous consent. There being no
objection, SCR 2 was moved from the House Special Committee on
Fisheries.
Number 0610
CHAIRMAN HUDSON briefly discussed next week's committee meeting.
Present will be federal and state managers, and they will speak
about what will happen if there is no action taken on subsistence.
He discussed strategy and planning for the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0700
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|