Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/02/2001 06:13 PM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
April 2, 2001
6:13 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gary Stevens, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Co-Chair
Representative Drew Scalzi
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative John Coghill
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mary Kapsner
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 206
"An Act relating to a vessel-based commercial fisheries limited
entry system, to management of offshore fisheries, and to the
definition of 'person' for purposes of the commercial fisheries
entry program; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 206 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 206
SHORT TITLE:VESSEL LIMITED ENTRY FOR COMM. FISHERIES
SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/22/01 0691 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/22/01 0691 (H) FSH, RES
04/02/01 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
MARY McDOWELL, Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
8800 Glacier Highway, Suite 109
Juneau, Alaska 99801-8079
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission in support of HB 206.
JOHN WINTHER
(No address provided.)
Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 206.
ALAN PARKS
PO Box 3334
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 206; he noted that the bill
might have good intentions, but he does not support it as-is.
PAUL K. SEATON
58395 Bruce Street
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 206.
MAKO HAGGERTY
PO Box 2001
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 206.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-16, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR GARY STEVENS reconvened the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 6:13 p.m. Representatives Scalzi,
Dyson, Coghill, Kerttula, Stevens, and Wilson were present.
[For minutes of the Presentation on the AK Seafood International
(ASI) by Bob Poe, Executive Director, AIDEA and Jeff Bush,
Deputy Commissioner, Department of Community & Economic
Development, see the 5:07 p.m. minutes for the same date.]
HB 206-VESSEL LIMITED ENTRY FOR COMM. FISHERIES
CO-CHAIR STEVENS announced the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 206, "An Act relating to a vessel-based
commercial fisheries limited entry system, to management of
offshore fisheries, and to the definition of 'person' for
purposes of the commercial fisheries entry program; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 0048
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI, speaking as co-chair of the House
Resources Standing Committee, sponsor of HB 206, explained that
there are two types of limited entry systems in Alaska, the
[current] limited entry system and the Individual Fishery Quota
[IFQ], a federally managed fishery. This bill addresses a new
fishery that exists for which the current limited entry system
does not work. The current limited entry system requires a
permit to be issued to the vessel operator.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI noted that HB 206 is by request of the
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission [CFEC], and has been
brought to the legislature to see if CFEC can receive support in
obtaining this new "tool" regarding management of fisheries. He
stated that Mary McDOWELL, Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission, is here to speak on the "fine necessities of the
situations" that have risen in the hair crab and scallop
fisheries and why the existing limited entry system does not
work.
Number 0226
MARY McDOWELL, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC), Alaska Department of Fish & Game, explained
that the origin of this bill stems from the legislature. In
1996, the legislature placed a moratorium on the entry of new
vessels into the Korean hair crab fishery, and did the same to
the weather vane scallop fishery in 1997. In passing the bill
that implemented the moratorium on the hair crab fishery, the
legislature directed the CFEC and Department of Law to draft and
bring forward legislation to create a vessel-based limited entry
program. This alternative program could serve where there are
problematic programs such as in the hair crab and scallop
fisheries.
MS. McDOWELL stated that the legislature gave specific
instructions to develop a vessel based limited entry program
that could be used in fisheries in which limitations of Alaska's
current program hindered the achievement of the purposes of
Limited Entry Act. She said these purposes were "conservation
[of] a resource and protecting the economic viability of the
fishery and those who depend on it." In doing this, the
legislature recognized that these fisheries are not well suited
to limitation in the current program. So, a new tool was needed
for specific use in these fisheries.
Number 0374
MS. McDOWELL specified that the current limited entry program
was enacted in 1973, with very few changes since then. Over 60
fisheries have been limited under the current program. She said
it has served Alaska and its fisheries very well. She explained
that the current limited entry program was based on the owner-
operator model, that has characterized the salmon fishery, which
happens to be the first fishery that was limited. The owner-
operator model still characterizes the vast majority of the
state-managed fisheries. Relatively small boats and single
owners characterize these fisheries. These owners invest in the
boats and equipment and serve as the skippers of the operations
by operating the vessel, hiring crew, and so on. She reiterated
that fishing privileges go to the vessel operator under the
current limited entry program. These privileges can only go to
a human being, not to companies, partnerships, or any other kind
of entity. So, operators of these fishing operations are
"grandfathered" into a fishery under CFEC's program.
MS. McDOWELL said in recent years, CFEC has been faced with the
need to get a handle on several fisheries that differ in the way
they have evolved. This has resulted in a modified version of
the limited entry program. These fisheries tend to be
characterized by larger and more expensive vessels, fishing
farther offshore, and ownership through companies, partnerships,
or corporations, even if those involved one or two individuals.
In these fisheries, owners use hired skippers more often than
not. These skippers are not invested in the fishery, and might
be working on a rotating basis throughout the year.
MS. McDOWELL indicated that if these fisheries were limited such
that the permits had to be issued to the actual fishermen, the
number of participants in a fishery could increase rather than
decrease. For example, if one boat has four skippers, and four
permits are issued, the operation could be "cloned" into four
[fisheries].
Number 0601
MS. McDOWELL remarked that there is also a fairness issue as to
whether, under the current program, ongoing fishing privileges
were being issued to employees rather than to those who have
invested in developing that fishery. So, the legislature
recognized that these fisheries had different traits when the
moratoriums were implemented. She mentioned that the
moratoriums for hair crab and scallop fisheries were supposed to
expire in 2000-2001, but since the legislature did not have a
way of permanently dealing with these fisheries, the legislature
extended them to 2003-2004. House Bill 206 provides the tool
needed to deal with the hair crab and scallop fisheries.
However, as the legislature directed, this is a generic bill
that could serve as a useful tool in other fisheries.
MS. McDOWELL remarked that this bill establishes a framework for
a vessel-based program that is very similar to the current
program under current statute. This bill was carefully drafted
to preserve the use of CFEC's current person-based program in
any fisheries where it can be workable. It was also designed to
adhere to as many of the goals and purposes of the current
program as possible and still create a new one.
Number 0723
MS. McDOWELL referred to page 2, lines 16-31, of HB 206 and said
it contains criteria regarding when the CFEC may use this
program as opposed to the traditional limited entry program.
She summarized this part of the bill as saying that "we
essentially always default to traditional person-based limited
entry." It is a well-designed program that keeps the fishing
privileges in the hands of the actual participants. She went on
to say that [traditional limited entry program] avoids absentee
ownership of Alaska's fisheries and consolidation of ownership
and so on, and it works well to protect the place of Alaskans in
their fisheries both at initial issuance and over time as
permits change hands, while still passing constitutional muster,
which it needs to do because it is regulating a commerce
activity.
MS. McDOWELL remarked that the bill ensures that this new
program would only be used in state-managed fisheries if the
fishery met several criteria. She indicated that the fishery
would have to meet limitations that would not work under the
existing limited entry system. The new program could also be
used for fisheries that are in the [United States] exclusive
economic zone if it helped the state gain or retain state
management of those fisheries.
MS. McDOWELL pointed out the "second generation" provision that
begins on page 6, line 8, of HB 206. She said that under this
program, permits are initially issued when a fishery comes
"under limitation to the owners of the vessels that qualify."
These owners can be individuals, partnerships, companies, or
another sort of entity. However, when permits are transferred,
sold, or given away, they can only be transferred to an
individual human being, which is the case in CFEC's current
[traditional limited entry] program.
MS. McDOWELL said this bill mandates that the person receiving
the permit must hold an ownership interest in the vessel and be
onboard whenever that vessel is fishing. These provisions are
also in the current [limited entry] program. Permit holders can
still have partnerships in owning a boat and so on, but fishing
privileges can only be under one person. She said the only
exception for this is found on page 6, line 24, subsection (c)
which says an entity that received an initial issuance permit in
that fishery could have another permit transferred to it if it
was for use on the same boat. For example, this could happen if
different criteria such as species to be caught or areas to be
fished were attached to the permits in a given fishery. So, if
one's initial permit was for a particular species or a specific
area, another permit could be issued to the same boat to broaden
the species or area that could be fished. This is the only
exception. Otherwise, at the second generation and from there
on, permits would have to change hands only into the hands of a
human being.
MS. McDOWELL summarized that [CFEC] believes this bill is
responsive to the directives from the legislature and that it
departs from CFEC's current program as little as possible. The
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission encourages quick passage
of the bill since it is faced with the upcoming expiration of
the moratorium on the hair crab and scallop fisheries, where
this program is needed. She said this bill is only "enabling"
legislation. After its passage, limitations will still need to
be proposed in those fisheries. The Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission plans on working closely with the people in these
fisheries to ensure that a workable program is developed.
Number 1064
CO-CHAIR WILSON asked for clarification on what occurs if a
transfer must be made to a person.
MS. McDOWELL replied that under the current [limited entry]
program, only a human being can hold a permit. When fisheries
are initially limited, the "grandfather rights" are handed out
to participants. In this case, the permit would go to only
vessel owners, which may be a "non-human being" such as a
company. If the entity [vessel owner] goes to sell the permit
or give it away, the permit can only be transferred to a human
being, not another corporate entity. Similar to CFEC's
traditional limited entry program, "it's the idea of having
participants have the ownership in the fishery." She said there
was some fear in initial discussions, that the fishery would
move toward "absentee corporate ownership, that our fisheries
would be owned by California banks or something, [and] fishermen
would all be hired hands." The current limited entry program
was designed for this not to happen. She said this is a
confusing part of the bill, but it's meant to depart from the
goals of the current program as little as possible.
Number 1196
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS wondered if she had any concerns with
corporate structures owning permits, especially when they change
hands.
MS. McDOWELL remarked that this is not going to be an easy thing
to administer. The Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission hopes
it will not be used that often. Provisions in the bill will be
established for when ownership has changed enough that it has
triggered the need to be transferred to a human being. For
example, she said:
If there's a partnership, [where] you've got two or
three partners and they want to add a new partner,
that would be seen as a change of ownership. At that
point, we would say this partnership has changed and
the next owner of that permit needs to be a human
being. [In other words,] one of you needs to be
onboard and the name of one person needs to be on the
ownership of the fishing privileges.
Number 1292
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA remarked that if there were problems in
the fishery, the same problems would exist when transferring the
permit. She asked if this would cause transference of a permit
to become very difficult.
MS. McDOWELL commented that this is an area that they will be
hearing from fishery participants about. But the participants
[CFEC] has spoken to so far have not seen it as a problem.
[This bill] will limit the available market, because [a permit
holder] will have to find someone who wants to be an active
participant. She said in most partnerships, the person whose
name it is in, after the transfer, will need to be at least a
partial owner of the vessel and look for a partner who wants
to be an active participant. She went on to say that this
proposal came from fishery participants, due to the concern of
people moving towards absentee ownership. So "we're hopeful
it's workable." If not, CFEC will hear from fishery
participants.
Number 1349
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI commented that the reason for this is that
if [the permit] were to go to the individual initially, there
would be too many. So, the intent is to start with a vessel and
then "migrate to putting it to the person, essentially."
MS. McDOWELL said there still may be multiple owners of a
vessel, but one owner has to have the permit in his or her name
and be an active participant onboard.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked what the case would be if there
were four people who wanted to be the owner [of the permit].
MS. McDOWELL replied that initially, the permit would be issued
to the company or partnership. Most of the vessels in these
big-boat fisheries are incorporated as a business. When vessel
ownership changes, the "market" would be towards those willing
to put the [permit] in their names.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if partnerships can individually
sell their shares.
MS. McDOWELL said they could sell the ownership of the boat that
way. But the fishing privileges have to be put in the name of
one person.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if the transfer could be to "one
person and to one partnership, or to two persons."
MS. McDOWELL stated that upon transfer, it has to be in the name
of one person because one person holds the [fishing] privileges.
Number 1494
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said chances are high that ownership
would change within a fishery. He asked if she knew what this
scope might look like.
MS. McDOWELL replied that she did not know, but perhaps fishery
participants who testified could answer that.
Number 1525
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked what the required minimum time was
that a person could have the permit in his or her name before
being able to transfer it.
MS. McDOWELL said there was no minimum amount of time.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON inquired if the permit had to be in the
hands of a person "every other time."
MS. McDOWELL replied that a permit could only go to an entity at
the initial issuance. After that, the permit must go to one
person.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked how this would work for a vessel that
worked year-round with a succession of crews and skippers.
MS. McDOWELL said this is an inconvenience because it means the
person who owns the permit must be onboard if the boat is
fishing. As in current [limited entry] program, "we" have to
find someone who is willing to be on the boat whenever it
fishes. This is how the bill is currently crafted; however,
it's a policy call [for the legislature].
Number 1625
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI commented that this is similar to the IFQ
fishery. In first-generation IFQ transfers, the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council realized that there were many people
who had multiple boats or who hired skippers. In second-
generation IFQ transfers, the owner must be onboard the vessel
when it is fishing. He said the intent of this was to keep it a
"small-boat fishery" and not have absentee owners. He noted
that Joe Kyle, who served on the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council during this time, would be available for
questions.
Number 1625
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON remarked that what this bill does is "fix
something that's currently a problem" but she wondered if
someone, for example, owned a corporation and sold it after ten
years, if "we" would go back to the same problem.
MS. McDOWELL said no, because the bill proposes to "push the
direction of the evolution of the fishery over time," by going
towards participant ownership rather than absentee corporate
ownership. These are expensive vessels, and there will still be
companies and partnerships investing in them. However, the
fishing privileges will be held by actual participants with an
ownership interest in the fishery.
Number 1744
JOHN WINTHER testified via teleconference. [Much of Mr.
Winther's testimony was difficult to transcribe due to bad sound
quality.] He stated that he was born and raised in Alaska, and
has been involved in the fishing business since 1964. He bought
his first vessel from an uncle who started fishing in Juneau in
1915. He has fished crab in the Bering Sea since 1973 as well
as hair crab. He has also built his own vessel. He has served
six years on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, ten
years on the Governor's Panel of U.S.-Canada Salmon Commission,
and is currently on the RJ (ph) Committee for (indisc.), which
involves designing management options for the Bering Sea.
MR. WINTHER remarked that he fully supports Commissioner
McDOWELL's testimony.
MR. WINTHER described hair crab fisheries. [This part of the
testimony was indiscernible.] He then went on to say that this
bill would replace the moratorium that Commissioner McDOWELL
discussed.
MR. WINTHER commented on problems with the current limited entry
system and how this new system is modeled after the federal IFQ
system. [Details of this section were indiscernible.]
Number 2094
ALAN PARKS testified via teleconference that he has been
involved with commercial fishing since 1975. He spent ten years
fishing crab in the Bering Sea, and has also fished crab around
Kodiak, in the South Peninsula, in Cook Inlet, and on the outer
coast between Homer and Seward. He said he also has 25 years'
experience longlining from Washington up to Southeast [Alaska]
to Adak for primarily halibut, black cod, and [Pacific] cod. He
has also participated in salmon fisheries in False Pass, Bristol
Bay, Kodiak, and Cook Inlet. In addition, he has spent numerous
seasons fishing herring in Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet,
Kodiak, and Togiak. He went on to say:
I wanted to just comment a little bit about the
history of the fisheries just to give you a little bit
of what my perspective is when we became a state. The
very first Act of the state legislature was to do away
with the fish traps around our salmon rivers. And
that was done for a very specific reason because the
corporation had a hold of our communities and the
legislature felt that they needed to give control of
the resource ... to the people living in the state.
And to reflect back to the 1973 implementation of
limit entry for salmon, ... it was issued to the
individual and the owner. And ... it was issued to
the people who made the fish landings, based on a
point system. So I have some real problems with this
bill on ... the way it's going. I particularly want
to say that I've been the operator, I've been an
owner-operator, [I've] mostly been a crew member, I
should say, but I have owned and operated-owned
limited entry permits, owned boats, [and] fished in a
variety of different fisheries under a variety of
different capacities.
But in the introduction letter from Representative
Scalzi and commentary by the CFEC staff person, it
states that it would award fishing privileges to many
who have worked essentially as hired crew in the
fishery and ... not those who have invested in the
fishery. And under that pretense, ... I think that I
have invested in the fisheries over the past 25 years.
I have spent time. And you can look at those hair
crab vessels out there, and they wouldn't be out there
if it wasn't for a crew. So there's actually a value
to the crew. [There is a] value to the boat, owners,
and operators to have professional crewmembers
onboard.
And I know that the IFQ system has been mentioned here
a couple of times, and I should say that there is a
National Academy of Science publication called
"Sharing the Fish" that addresses the value socially
and economically for giving a broad spectrum of
issuance to fishing rights. So, ... I think ... we
need to go back and think about other ways that we can
address the hair crab and the scallop fishery while
not producing something that's [going to] have a whole
bunch of sideboard issues that we don't foresee right
now. So, I think that there's other ways to limit
those guys and reduce the number of issuances, based
on a point system perhaps. But there's other ways
that could possibly help those guys out.
Number 2370
Now, I know that you have mentioned the IFQ situation,
and I can tell you right now that I worked on a boat
out of Seattle that was an initial allocation, and it
was basically a first generation. So they were able
to hire a skipper to run that boat, and now that boat
and vessel have [been sold] to an investor, and he
only has to own.... There are several loopholes
involved in the IFQ situation, so I won't go into
that. But basically what's happened is that this boat
that was once producing income for five families has
been sold along with its fishing rights, and basically
the investor wrote a new letter to the crew stating
that the wages calculations has been changed and your
wages have been cut 60 percent....
To sum it up, I think the intent of this [bill] might
have merit, but the devil is in the details, and I
think we need to look at other ways we can address the
problem in the hair crab and scallop fishery rather
than giving it to corporation. I think that we have
to go back to our roots and exactly how we (indisc.)
fisheries in the past. And IFQ fisheries, a federally
managed program, so then the state didn't do that. So
I guess I would say, "Use caution, look at the
details, and listen to the fishermen in the
communities." And I think that you'll gain a lot of
knowledge.... Thank you very much for letting me
testify.
Number 2479
MAKO HAGGERRTY, commercial fisherman, testified via
teleconference:
I have a lot of problems with this bill. I don't
really know where to start. What I have heard is that
the concern is that one boat that has four skippers is
going to translate to four permits, which will clone
the fishery into four boats.
Well, first of all that doesn't make a lot of sense to
me because that one boat had four skippers for a
reason. It had four skippers because that one boat
had to be fishing all the time. So it just seems like
we're trying to fabricate a problem that doesn't
really exist. I think it's a bad idea to be giving
the fishing rights to the vessel owners. ... I've
heard a lot of talk about that one boat and several
skippers. But what I haven't heard talked about is
one owner and several boats. And it basically winds
up into the same thing, ... concentration of wealth
and one person controlling a fishery. And that takes
us back to what Alan [Parks] was talking about, which
is the way the fish wheels worked and the fact that
all the fish was owned by one entity, and we all were
lucky to be able to have an opportunity to just get a
little bit of that money. ...
So I guess what I'm really concerned about is that
this particular bill kind of violates what that
initial sharing of the resource was all about, and it
re-concentrates a resource back into the hands of [a]
few. And this bill does exactly that. You might
think that this just addresses hair crab and ...
scallop fishery. It can be translated into the state
cod fisheries and a number of other fisheries [as
well]. And I think that it would have [a] very
detrimental effect to the coastal economy. And I
would really urge you to make the necessary changes or
even just throw this bill out. Alan [Parks] had some
good points about eligibility by a point system, but
giving the fishery to the vessel owner is really a
(indisc.) to regulate managed fishers.
Number 2631
PAUL SEATON testified via teleconference and referred to Ms.
McDOWELL's comments regarding owner-operated salmon fisheries in
1973. He said anyone who has been involved with the salmon
industry, including him, knows that these were not owner-
operated fisheries. They were predominantly vessels owned by
canneries, and operators were from the "outside" or anywhere in
Alaska, and they fished "whether it [was] in Bristol Bay or Cook
Inlet." He noted that trolling in the Southeast might have been
different. But this is how the gillnet fisheries were. He said
the state "saw in its wisdom" to grant permits to fishermen. He
went on to say:
If you went back and looked at the ownership of
vessels in Cook Inlet and the ownership of vessels in
Bristol Bay at the time this happened, you'd find
exactly the same situation that you'd find now, [one
in which] somebody else [such as] a corporation owned
a vessel, and not the majority of fishermen. And I
think when the state decided to empower fishermen,
that's why they did this. And I don't think the boat
would have come out the same way if the ... system was
designed to give the ownership to vessel owners
instead of the fishermen.
Basically, this is a difference between the state
system that empowers fishermen and the federal system
that gives everything to vessel owners. And there's
been huge amounts of problems within the communities
that [have] been created by the federal system, and in
fact that's why we have a state water sablefish
fishery. That's why the state Board of Fisheries went
through and formed the state water's [Pacific] cod
fishery and other devices trying to alleviate the
economic ... hardships that have been created by this
federal vessel owner system. Between the time this
first came up and now, the federal government and the
council has created the (indisc.) implementation (or
LLP program) to solve these problems in these federal
fisheries, these both scallop and hair crab can go and
get a species endorsement without having to go through
and change the whole basic philosophy of fisheries
management in the state of Alaska.
These fisheries, to solve those problems, could get
endorsements on LLP's for those two fisheries and
.... go back to the people that it operated in those
fisheries. And the state could still maintain
management. So, I am firmly against this.
We can take a look at the state water [Pacific] cod
(ph.) fishery, which has been a lifesaver to fishermen
from Sand Point and Chignik, and Kodiak and here and
Prince William Sound, to all over. We've got five
different management areas and they have this open
access fishery that's regulated in a number of
(indisc.) to a slow fishery. And that's specifically
to provide a long-term economic input. The usefulness
of a limited entry system here has not occurred. And
if people haven't applied for limited entry like at
Sand Point, which they would immediately apply under a
vessel license program, because the vessel owners
aren't the guides that are out there fishing.
It's the same way here in Cook Inlet. I own ... two
vessels at [Pacific] cod (ph.) fish[ery]. .... Most
of the larger vessels here are not owner-operator and
I'm sure there would be a move to apply for limited
entry right away if the owners of the vessels were
given the permit. Right now, that's not going to
happen because the vessel owners aren't operating the
vessels. And so they are not out pushing for an entry
permit system that would give those permits to the
operators.
Number 2845
MR. SEATON said there were a lot of problems with this bill. He
referred to page 5, line 3 of HB 206, and remarked that he could
not believe that "only if lost" would "make it into the final
writing."
MR. SEATON alluded to transfers of vessel entry permits found on
page 6 of HB 206. He referred to earlier testimony and said if
"You have corporation A and that's bought by a holding
corporation, corporation A still owns the permit but you now
have new owners of that permit and vessel." He said
corporations have many ways around this.
MR. SEATON pointed out another problem on page 7, lines 3-6 of
HB 206. He indicated his hope that substitution [of another
vessel for the vessel identified on the permit] would be
eliminated from the bill, and that two fisheries [hair crab and
scallop] would go back to LLP endorsements rather than changing
the state's philosophy on fisheries.
Number 2920
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI requested that Mr. Seaton submit written
testimony detailing his concerns.
01-16 SIDE B
Number 2944
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA remarked that she would not object to
this bill being moved out of committee because she has heard
enough testimony to see that the bill needs to be looked at.
However, she still has concerns about transferring permits to
corporations since she is not clear on what happens with second-
generation transfers. She mentioned that she sees how there can
be exemptions and "multiple ownership" [with permits]. But, her
concerns can be addressed before this bill goes to the House
Resources Standing Committee, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI made a motion to move HB 206 from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 206 moved from the House
Special Committee on Fisheries.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2898
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries Committee meeting was adjourned
at 7:03 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|