Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/29/2004 09:05 AM 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
March 29, 2004
9:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Dan Ogg
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Cheryll Heinze
Representative Les Gara
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 315
"An Act relating to the administration of commercial fishing
entry permit buy-back programs."
- MOVED SB 315 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 347(RES)
"An Act relating to moratoria on entry of new participants or
vessels into a commercial fishery; relating to vessel permits
for, and the establishment of a moratorium on entry of new
vessels into, state Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 315
SHORT TITLE: ENTRY PERMIT BUY-BACK PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) STEVENS B BY REQUEST OF SALMON INDUSTRY
TASK FORCE
02/11/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/11/04 (S) L&C, FIN
02/24/04 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/24/04 (S) Heard & Held
02/24/04 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
02/26/04 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/26/04 (S) Moved SB 315 Out of Committee
02/26/04 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
02/27/04 (S) L&C RPT 3DP 1NR
02/27/04 (S) DP: BUNDE, SEEKINS, STEVENS G;
02/27/04 (S) NR: FRENCH
03/09/04 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/09/04 (S) Moved SB 315 Out of Committee
03/09/04 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/10/04 (S) FIN RPT 5DP 2NR
03/10/04 (S) DP: WILKEN, HOFFMAN, OLSON, BUNDE,
03/10/04 (S) STEVENS B; NR: GREEN, DYSON
03/17/04 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/17/04 (S) VERSION: SB 315
03/18/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/18/04 (H) FSH, FIN
03/29/04 (H) FSH AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 347
SHORT TITLE: COMM. FISHING MORATORIA, INCL. AK GULF
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) STEVENS B BY REQUEST
02/16/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/04 (S) RES
03/03/04 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/03/04 (S) Heard & Held
03/03/04 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/05/04 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/05/04 (S) Moved CSSB 347(RES) Out of Committee
03/05/04 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/08/04 (S) RES RPT CS 3DP 2NR NEW TITLE
03/08/04 (S) NR: OGAN, LINCOLN; DP: WAGONER,
03/08/04 (S) STEVENS B, ELTON
03/08/04 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED
03/09/04 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/09/04 (S) Moved CSSB 347(RES) Out of Committee
03/09/04 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/10/04 (S) FIN RPT CS(RES) 3DP 4NR
03/10/04 (S) DP: WILKEN, BUNDE, STEVENS B;
03/10/04 (S) NR: GREEN, HOFFMAN, OLSON, DYSON
03/22/04 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/22/04 (S) VERSION: CSSB 347(RES)
03/24/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/24/04 (H) FSH, RES, FIN
03/29/04 (H) FSH AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
CHERYL SUTTON, Staff
to the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 315 and SB 347 on behalf of
the sponsor, Senator Ben Stevens.
MARY McDOWELL, Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed Sections 2-8 of CSSB 347(RES).
ED DERSHAM, Chair
Board of Fisheries
Anchor Point, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that SB 347 is a necessary first
step.
SUE ASPELUND, Federal Management Resource Coordinator
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that ADF&G supports efforts to
amend CFEC's statutory authority in Sections 2-8 of SB 347.
MICHAEL RUCCIO, Fishery Biologist
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 347, answered
questions.
HERMAN SAVIKKO, Fishery Biologist
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 347, answered
questions.
GLENN MERRILL
Sable Fisheries Division
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 347, discussed
halibut by-catch rates.
DAVID POLUSHKIN
K-Bay Fishing Association
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 347 as it's the
beginning of the rationalization process.
JULIE BONNEY
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the representative of 25 trawl vessels
that fish out of Kodiak in the Central Gulf of Alaska regulatory
area, urged the committee to forward SB 347.
JOE SULLIVAN, Attorney at Law
Mundt MacGregor L.L.P.
Seattle, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: As the representative for the City of
Kodiak regarding Gulf groundfish rationalization issues,
testified in support of the Gulg groundfish moratorium
components of SB 347.
SAM COTTON
Aleutians East Borough
(Address not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 347.
GLENN CARROLL, Fisherman
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in general support of SB 347, but
expressed concern with regard to the fate of the jig fishery.
BUCK LAUKITIS, Fisherman
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Characterized SB 347 as an interim step,
and expressed concerns with regard to a vessel-based system.
YAKOV REUTOV, Fisherman
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Related his support of SB 347.
ALAN PARKS
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 347, but
expressed concerns with regard to a vessel-based system.
ILIA KUZMIN, Fisherman
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 347 and Mr.
Laukitis' testimony.
JOE CHILDERS, Director
Western Gulf of Alaska Fishermen
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 347.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-17, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. Representatives Seaton,
Wilson, Ogg, and Samuels were present at the call to order.
Representative Guttenberg arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
SB 315-ENTRY PERMIT BUY-BACK PROGRAM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 315, "An Act relating to the administration of
commercial fishing entry permit buy-back programs."
Number 0128
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to adopt SB 315, Version D, as the
working document. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 0170
CHERYL SUTTON, Staff to the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry
Task Force, Alaska State Legislature, informed the committee
that SB 315 is the companion to HB 410, which this committee
heard and moved out on February 9, 2004. She stressed that SB
315 is precisely the same legislation as HB 410. Simply put, SB
315 modifies existing law governing buy-back programs. The
legislation would allow the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC) to "front fund" a buy-back program if an
appropriation were received for that purpose. Senate Bill 315
has a zero fiscal note, she mentioned. She concluded by urging
the committee to report SB 315 from committee.
CHAIR SEATON, upon determining no one wished to testify, closed
the public hearing on SB 315.
Number 0362
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to report SB 315 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, SB 315 was reported from the
House Special Committee on Fisheries.
SB 347-COMM. FISHING MORATORIA, INCL. AK GULF
CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 347(RES), "An Act relating to moratoria
on entry of new participants or vessels into a commercial
fishery; relating to vessel permits for, and the establishment
of a moratorium on entry of new vessels into, state Gulf of
Alaska groundfish fisheries; and providing for an effective
date."
Number 0442
CHERYL SUTTON, Staff to the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry
Task Force, Alaska State Legislature, informed the committee
that Senator Ben Stevens introduced SB 347 at the request of the
Board of Fisheries, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
(NPFMC), the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), and the
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC). She related that
Senator Ben Stevens supports SB 347 and agrees with the
requestors that it's necessary. This legislation was heard in
the Senate Resources Standing Committee and the Senate Finance
Committee and passed the full Senate with a unanimous vote. Ms.
Sutton related her understanding that the chair has requested
specific data from ADF&G and CFEC, and has also indicated that
he didn't intend to move SB 347 from committee today.
Therefore, she deferred to the specific agencies. She concluded
by relating Senator Ben Stevens' request to report SB 347 from
committee.
Number 0600
MARY McDOWELL, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, specified that she
would speak to Sections 2-8 of SB 347, which amends the
provisions in current law that provide CFEC the authority to
administratively establish a temporary moratorium on entrants of
new participants into a fishery. Although the aforementioned
exists in current law, its current construction is virtually
unusable, and therefore no moratorium has ever been enacted
under it. She highlighted that the state has had four to five
moratoriums over the past few years, but those had to be enacted
by the legislature. Ms. McDowell explained that the idea behind
a moratorium provision is to buy time in order to determine the
best, long-term solution for controlling growth and ensuring the
manageability of a fishery. In a fishery where there appears to
be a need to get a handle on rapid growth, imposing a moratorium
rather than a permanent limitation may be a better option in
some cases. Currently, the choices are to permanently limit a
fishery or to leave it open access. Therefore, a moratorium
could be used in a situation in which there is insufficient data
regarding whether limited entry is justified and needed. The
constitution provides for limited entry so long as it impinges
on open access, and therefore a moratorium is a good tool.
Furthermore, the fact that a moratorium provision already exists
illustrates that the legislature has already recognized the
utility of such a tool. However, the provisions in the
legislation are narrow and don't provide much flexibility with
regard to structuring the most effective moratorium possible.
Moreover, the process required in the legislation is so
cumbersome that it might generate a rush into a fishery rather
than prevent such.
MS. McDOWELL highlighted that the need to address the state
waters ground fisheries has arisen and points to the need to
[put in place a moratorium provision] for future fisheries in
order to avoid the need for special legislation to address a
problem. She pointed out that the current law [addressing
moratoriums] uses language specifying the ability to use [a
moratorium] if there is already a problem in a fishery. The
current process is extremely slow and first requires the
commissioner of ADF&G to make findings and request permission of
the Board of Fisheries to petition CFEC. The Board of Fisheries
has to schedule the request at one of its meetings, which means
that there has to be 15-day public notice of the meeting. If
the Board of Fisheries approves the request, the commissioner
may petition CFEC, which can then begin an analysis.
Furthermore, the current law has no provision allowing for an
extension of the moratorium. After issuance of a moratorium, at
least five years must pass before another moratorium can be
issued. Therefore, without the ability to extend a moratorium,
there could be a situation in which the area would return to
open access and create a "real mess." The aforementioned is why
the legislation proposes giving CFEC the authority, if
necessary, to extend a moratorium for an additional two years.
Number 1034
CHAIR SEATON surmised that under the current moratorium law in
order to issue a moratorium, it must be shown that there are too
many fishermen who will approach too much harvest.
MS. McDOWELL clarified that the current law specifies that CFEC
"may establish a moratorium on new entrants into a fishery that
has experienced recent increases in fishing effort beyond a low
sporadic level of effort and that has achieved a level of
harvest that may be approaching or exceeding the maximum
sustainable level for the fishery, and for which insufficient
biological and resource management information necessary to
promote the conservation of sustained yield management of the
fishery."
CHAIR SEATON further surmised that the desire is to be proactive
and have the ability to establish a moratorium without the above
conditions.
MS. McDOWELL pointed out that [CSSB 347(RES)] specifies:
the commission may establish a moratorium if the
commission finds that a moratorium is necessary to
promote the conservation of sustained yield management
of the fishery and the economic health and stability
of the fishery, and either to allow the commission to
develop regulatory legislative proposals to address
the needs of the fishery that cannot be met under
existing regulations or statutes or to allow the
department of fish & game and the board to open a
commercial fishery that would otherwise remain closed
to protect a fishery resource from over exploitation
resulting from unrestricted access to the fishery.
CHAIR SEATON related his understanding then that the desire is
to provide CFEC and the Board of Fisheries with more open-ended,
less specific requirements regarding the institution of a
moratorium.
MS. McDOWELL clarified that the criteria [specified in the
legislation] is just as specific, but one doesn't have to prove
that the situation is already at the point of being
unmanageable.
Number 1229
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON surmised then that the current law
addressing moratoriums is cumbersome and if a moratorium was
called under the current law, it might be too late because of
the waiting. Therefore, this legislation would allow a
moratorium to be put into place before a situation is too far
gone.
MS. McDOWELL agreed, adding that the moratorium allows [the
department] to buy time while assessing the situation without
being pushed to a permanent program.
MS. McDOWELL turned attention to the sectional analysis included
in the committee packet, as well as a table comparing existing
statute to the legislation. Section 2 of CSSB 347(RES)
specifies the purposes for which CFEC may establish a
moratorium. Section 3 specifies that a moratorium may be for
one or more fisheries or one or more species, gear types, or
areas. For example, the ground fish fishery has multiple
species in areas that [CFEC] may want to contain all at once.
In response to Chair Seaton, Ms. McDowell reminded the committee
of the moratorium the legislature placed on the Southeast dive
fishery in which several fisheries were included. This
legislation would allow CFEC to do such administratively. In
further response to Chair Seaton, Ms. McDowell said that this
legislation would provide CFEC flexibility to determine how to
best handle a situation.
Number 1488
CHAIR SEATON posed a situation in which there is a fishery with
a problem and other fisheries without problems. He surmised
that in such a situation there could be a moratorium that would
target the fishery with a problem, but also include other
fisheries that aren't distressed.
MS. McDOWELL said that would be difficult. She highlighted that
folks can challenge any actions [taken by CFEC]. Furthermore, a
moratorium is a temporary measure that isn't as restrictive as a
permanent limitation. She clarified that this [legislation]
provides CFEC with the flexibility to do something appropriate
for a given fishery.
MS. McDOWELL turned to Section 4, which provides the ability to
administratively extend a four-year moratorium an additional two
years, if necessary to achieve the purposes of the moratorium.
Section 5 expands the current law's directive for CFEC to
analyze whether a fishery should be limited under the existing
limited entry program. Section 5 directs CFEC to evaluate all
the post-moratorium options in order to determine the best
possible long-term solution for the fishery. Section 6
discusses a qualification date not just criteria for the
moratorium, and therefore establishes an "as of" date for
eligibility in a moratorium. Section 6 also provides the
ability to establish a moratorium on persons, vessels, or both.
Although this legislation would allow CFEC to temporarily cap
entrants of new vessels, CFEC has no authority to do a permanent
vessel-based limitation. In response to Representative Ogg, Ms.
McDowell explained that a couple of years ago the legislature
passed legislation giving CFEC the ability to use a vessel-based
permanent limitation program in the Bering Sea hair crab and
scallop fisheries. The only authority for a permanent program
other than the aforementioned is CFEC's traditional person-based
program. Therefore, if, at the end of a moratorium, CFEC felt a
variation on the current program was appropriate, CFEC would
have to approach the legislature with a proposal requesting
additional authority for a permanent program.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG interjected his understanding that CFEC could
use an interim use or limited entry program.
MS. McDOWELL agreed, indicating those are traditional programs.
Number 1833
REPRESENTATIVE OGG turned attention to Section 6, which [on page
4, lines 8-9] refers to [the eligibility criteria] for "an
interim-use permit, vessel permit, or both". However, the next
sentence [on page 4, line 10] doesn't use the same language; it
only refers to an interim-use permit or a vessel permit. He
asked if that's a typographical error.
MS. McDOWELL replied no. She explained that the language is
specifying that if the program is person-based, interim-use
permits would be issued to that person. However, if the program
is vessel-based, a vessel permit would be issued to a qualifying
individual. If [the program] is a combination, then both types
of permits would be issued during a moratorium. Ms. McDowell
related her belief that the language on page 4, lines 10-11,
means that "whatever kinds of permits you're issuing under this
thing the eligibility criteria must include minimum requirements
for past and present participation."
REPRESENTATIVE OGG expressed interest in the language [on page
4, lines 8-9 and lines 10-11] to "track the same."
Number 2009
MS. McDOWELL returned to her sectional analysis. In Section 7,
subsections (g), (h), (i), and (j) are necessary to address a
vessel-based program because current law only pertains to
person-based permits.
CHAIR SEATON surmised then that there is no relationship between
current vessel licenses and the vessel license fees that are
charged on that and the vessel permits under this legislation.
Therefore, this legislation proposes a vessel permit exclusive
of the current vessel license system.
MS. McDOWELL agreed, and added that in a vessel-based moratorium
the skippers will have to obtain interim-use permits to run the
vessel that has a permit to participate, as is the case in an
open access fishery. Ms. McDowell continued with Section 7(k),
which she explained is trying to discourage speculation.
Furthermore, this provision also means that one participating
during a moratorium doesn't have a claim for a permanent permit.
However, there may be reasons to include a combination of pre-
moratorium and moratorium participation in a subsequent
limitation. The aforementioned decision would be made when a
permanent program is proposed. She reiterated that this
provision puts people on notice that any future limitation may
be based strictly on pre-moratorium participation.
CHAIR SEATON surmised then that the provision means that [CFEC]
may or may not base [participation] on past catches.
Number 2206
MS. McDOWELL moved on to Section 7(l), which makes the general
provisions pertaining to interim-use permits under the standard
program applicable to person-based moratorium permits. Section
7(m) is standard boilerplate language in the existing program
specifying that nothing in this provision limits the powers of
the Board of Fisheries and ADF&G. Section 7(n) addresses the
fishing history of applicants. If a vessel-based program were
used, there could be a dilemma in which the catch history in a
fishery is based on fish tickets, which are in the name of the
skipper with the interim-use permit. The aforementioned is
confidential information that's only releasable to that skipper.
The vessel owner wouldn't have access to that information.
Therefore, without [Section 7(n)] a vessel owner may not have
any legal access to the records of his vessel, which are
necessary to prove the participation of the vessel in order to
apply for a vessel-based permit.
CHAIR SEATON requested that Ms. McDowell discuss [Section 7(n)]
in relation to the individual fishery quota (IFQ) program and
the halibut and sable fishery, in which the federal government
gave all the rights to the vessel owner while the fishing
history was held by the skipper. This provision would allow all
information to be available to the vessel owner.
MS. McDOWELL clarified that the amount of information necessary
to prove the participation of the vessel would be releasable [to
the vessel owner]. Both the hair crab and scallop fisheries
have provisions such as [Section 7(n)].
Number 2368
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG related his impression that some of
these vessels have multiple skippers. He asked if [Section
7(n)] allows the fishing/harvest history to be released to other
captains or is it from each individual captain to the vessel
owner.
MS. McDOWELL replied, "The latter." Under Section 7(n), the
applicant, the vessel owner, would apply and the information
would be made available by the applicant. The CFEC has this
fish ticket information. When there is an application period,
CFEC notifies the applicant of his or her fishing history per
CFEC's records. If the applicant believes he or she has fishing
history that CFEC isn't aware of, then the applicant has to
bring in documentation of that.
CHAIR SEATON recalled that currently ADF&G has a form for the
vessel owner to use to obtain the vessel's history from each
operator.
MS. McDOWELL referred to the aforementioned as a third-party
release.
CHAIR SEATON inquired as to the result of this in the case of a
lease. He recalled that this was a large issue in the halibut
and sable fish fisheries. He further recalled that if the
vessel was leased, the leasee would have the rights to the
fishery whereas the vessel owner would retain the rights to the
fishery if a skipper was hired.
MS. McDOWELL explained that in this general portion of the
legislation, it says that a moratorium may be to the person, the
skipper, or to a vessel owner. Therefore, whether there was a
lease wouldn't be an issue because the permit would go to the
vessel or its owner. In further response to Chair Seaton, Ms.
McDowell said that if a vessel-based moratorium occurred,
ownership would be established by regulation. She mentioned
that under the vessel-based limitation programs in hair crab and
scallop fisheries, there are detailed definitions in the
regulations regarding documenting the owner.
Number 2608
REPRESENTATIVE OGG said that this legislation doesn't establish
the authority to issue vessel permits, which will have to be a
later statute.
MS. McDOWELL interjected, "Or permit program."
REPRESENTATIVE OGG posed a situation during the period of 1998-
2004 in which someone sells his or her vessel in 2002. He asked
if the intent is for the latest owner to receive all the
information or would the information related to the period of
ownership be given to each owner.
MS. McDOWELL reiterated that such would be defined under any
regulations implementing a program. Most likely, it would be
defined as the current owner at the date of the effective date
or the moratorium, she said. In further response to
Representative Ogg, Ms. McDowell said that the language could be
included in the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG clarified that he is trying to avoid
ambiguity because there could be two different owners under the
current language. There could be an owner for a period of time
and the vessel could be sold to another owner. Representative
Ogg suggested that the language could refer to the present owner
or the history during a period of ownership.
MS. McDOWELL, in trying to provide Representative Ogg some
comfort, suggested that the language could refer to the "release
to the current owner" because that's the intent.
Number 2711
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if the aforementioned is usually in
statute or regulation for other fisheries.
MS. McDOWELL answered that definitional language is usually done
in regulation. However, under the existing program it's simple
because it [refers] to human beings who [don't change identity]
whereas a vessel can go through a name change, a number change,
and vessel owner change. It's more complicated when dealing
with vessels, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG recalled when the halibut fishery went to an
IFQ under which he said he believes one with previous ownership
could obtain an IFQ for that period. Therefore, he expressed
the need to be clear.
MS. McDOWELL reiterated that this refers to a temporary
moratorium not a transferable-use privilege.
CHAIR SEATON posed a situation in which a vessel that was fished
in 1998 was sold to someone in San Diego, California. If the
"current owner" language is utilized, the information would be
given to the owner in San Diego who would qualify for this
moratorium permit based on another owner's participation in
Alaska.
MS. McDOWELL clarified that this section [Section 7(n)] strictly
addresses who has access to the fishing history of a vessel.
Under the other provisions of this moratorium provision, the
CFEC would have to establish the criteria to obtain a moratorium
permit. More than likely, eligibility would require the vessel
to have made landings in certain years or even at a certain
threshold. The [current] vessel owner would have access to the
fishing history of the vessel, while there would be regulations
that would determine whether one would get in. The [fishing
history of the vessel] would allow the owner to determine
whether it's worth applying for a moratorium permit.
Number 2939
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said that the owner of a vessel would be
the current owner, and therefore she questioned why the word
"current" would be added.
CHAIR SEATON specified that the discussion also involves the
fishing history of the vessel. Often the sale of a vessel
contains contractual provisions saying that they retain the
fishing history or rights of the vessel. However, this
legislation proposes that the fishing history is transferred to
the new [owner].
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON maintained that "current" isn't necessary.
TAPE 04-17, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said, "I'm either the owner or I'm not."
REPRESENTATIVE OGG agreed with Representative Wilson, but
pointed out that the fishing history goes back to prior owners.
CHAIR SEATON reiterated that this provision transfers fishing
history information from a past owner to a current owner. Often
in rationalization/restructuring programs, the permit holder
will have [the fishing history]. This provision isn't
attempting to establish policy for the program, rather the
question is whether some policy changes may preclude future
choices.
Number 2924
REPRESENTATIVE OGG said that he merely wanted clarity in this
area because standard language in sales contracts specify that
the [vessel] is being sold but any and all fishing rights and
"Exxon" rights and anything that may accrue to the vessel during
the period of ownership [accrue to the vessel owner].
Therefore, the new owner wouldn't have any of that information
[or rights from the time period under the former owner]. This
legislation would now say that the new owner would have the
right to review the aforementioned data even if it isn't
included in the contract. Therefore, the question and concern
is in regard to whether the [legislature] wants to over power
the contractual right explained above.
MS. McDOWELL reiterated that this section only pertains to
whether [a vessel owner] may know the fishing history of his or
her vessel. This section doesn't grant anything. Furthermore,
this section wouldn't impact the data that's collected. The
same information will be collected with or without this section;
the fish tickets will specify which IUP holder sold the fish and
the vessel on which it was landed. This section merely
addresses with whom the information may be shared.
Number 2745
MS. McDOWELL continued the sectional analysis with Section 8.
She explained that if a fishery has been under a moratorium and
is subsequently limited under CFEC's traditional program, then a
qualification date may be used to review participation, which
may or may not include time during the moratorium. Since this
legislation isn't available now, ADF&G and the Board of
Fisheries have proposed creating a section that would
statutorily create a moratorium for the ground fish fisheries,
for which there is no time.
Number 2663
ED DERSHAM, Chair, Board of Fisheries, informed the committee
that for several years NPFMC has been working on the goal of
rationalizing the groundfish fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska.
About nine months ago, the Board of Fisheries started a process
to consider what the state would do in reaction to a finalized
NPFMC rationalization for groundfish fisheries in the federal
waters. A working group and the Board of Fisheries have met on
this matter and so far it has been determined that [NPFMC] will
try to finalize the rationalization process sometime in 2005.
MR. DERSHAM noted that most of his comments will be about
Pacific cod because it engenders most of the discussion in the
groundfish fishery. In the Pacific cod fishery there is a
parallel fishery that takes place in the state waters the same
time the federal fishery occurs in the Pacific cod fishery.
There is a separate state waters fishery at other times in which
pots and jigs are allowed from Prince William Sound to the
Southwest Peninsula. There are restrictions in some areas, he
noted. From the working group it is clear that the status quo
can't be maintained in the state waters until the
rationalization process is finalized. Furthermore, the Board of
Fisheries will be very limited in its options if there isn't a
moratorium on the groundfish fishery participants first. Mr.
Dersham said that with a completely open entry, it would become
a huge derby that would impact the fishermen and the resource
itself. Therefore, the working group recommended that a
moratorium is a necessary first step in order to identify the
participants in the fisheries and the waters, and determine the
best way for the state to react. The options range from the
aforementioned open state water fishery to an integrated process
that would approximate what occurs between the two fisheries.
The latter would probably require legislative action, but would
still need to meet constitutional standards, in particular the
least impingement clause. The Board of Fisheries is very
focused on what is best for the state and the economies of the
local regions. Without a temporary moratorium, most of the
options are eliminated and [the state would be] left with only
the large state water fishery and may only be limited to pot and
jig gear types. Mr. Dersham said that basically the desire is
to keep the options open and this legislation is a necessary
first step in that venue.
MR. DERSHAM explained that the first eight sections are a
consensus recommendation of the work group, but the problem is
the timeline. With the timeline, a moratorium from CFEC
couldn't begin in time to deal with the reaction to the process
on the federal side.
Number 2233
CHAIR SEATON asked if the Board of Fisheries took a position
with regard to the vessel permit structure versus the normal
CFEC limited entry interim-use permit structure.
MR. DERSHAM replied, "No." He explained that the vessel-based
provision came from the department. In further response to
Chair Seaton, Mr. Dersham confirmed that the Board of Fisheries
didn't take any counteraction. In fact, most of the board
members spoke in favor of a vessel-based moratorium. However,
it wasn't unanimous and the work group and the Board of
Fisheries didn't take a specific position.
CHAIR SEATON requested that Mr. Dersham discuss why the Board of
Fisheries doesn't believe it could regulate under the same
provisions currently being used in the parallel fishery.
MR. DERSHAM informed the committee that he has been informed
that there may be some by-catch apportionment problems with
managing the longline fishery in state waters. Therefore, he
said he feels that without a moratorium [the state] would have
less options.
CHAIR SEATON surmised then that the conflict with the parallel
fishery isn't in regard to the provisions that violate the Board
of Fisheries guidelines for establishing a new state fishery.
MR. DERSHAM confirmed that this is related to something other
than by-catch that the department brought forward.
Number 2042
SUE ASPELUND, Federal Management Resource Coordinator, Office of
the Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G),
began by announcing that ADF&G supports efforts to amend CFEC's
statutory authority as in Sections 2-8 of the legislation. As
Mr. Dersham described actions pending in the NPFMC will likely
limit entry or rationalize the Gulf groundfish fisheries. The
state is working a similar process. However, neither action is
likely to occur prior to the 2006 Gulf groundfish fishery's
seasons. Ideally, the department would like for the state to be
able to take administrative action to institute a moratorium.
However, even if provided with that statutory authority, it's
unlikely that CFEC, given the complexities of the state's Gulf
groundfish fisheries, would be able to implement a moratorium
within the timeframe the department believes necessary to
adequately protect the fisheries from speculation and the
increased pressures resulting from the federal groundfish
rationalization process. Therefore, ADF&G supports the Board of
Fisheries finding for the immediate implementation of a
moratorium on the entry of new vessels into the state groundfish
fishery as requested in its finding, 2004-FB-228, of February
23, 2004. She highlighted the language in Section 1(b)(1),
which specifies the purpose to be immediately imposing a
moratorium on entry of new vessels in the state's groundfish
fisheries.
MS. ASPELUND explained that when a fishery has been identified
for limitation, a pattern of speculation has been observed.
Speculation exacerbates the problems that a proposed limitation
seeks to prevent, such as increased competition, additional
capitalization, decreased economic viability for the
participants, localized depletion, et cetera. Ms. Aspelund
emphasized the need to remember that [the department] is seeking
only a moratorium in SB 347. The proposal in the legislation
isn't the permanent program. She then turned attention to
Section 9, which describes the fisheries that would be included
in the moratorium. She pointed out that vessels were chosen for
limitation over persons because it's believed it would define a
smaller pool of participants during the period of the
moratorium, which would more effectively achieve the goal of
controlling the growth during the development of the permanent
program. Initially, this legislation included the Gulf
groundfish fisheries in Southeast Alaska, but those were removed
in the Senate Resources Standing Committee. The Southeast
participants believe the nature of their fishery is such that
they don't fit the more general demographic of those fisheries
that have been included. Furthermore, the jig fisheries were
exempted from the legislation in order to provide entry-level
access to Gulf groundfish fisheries throughout the Gulf.
Section 9(b) specifies that a vessel use permit is a use
privilege rather than a property right. Section 9(c) provides
the date of implementation of the moratorium while Section 9(d)
describes the qualifying years for the moratorium. Ms. Aspelund
explained that the years 1998-2003 were used because the Board
of Fisheries first authorized a state water Pacific cod fishery
in 1997. Therefore, it wasn't until 1998 that there was a full
state waters Pacific cod fishery, which is why that was chosen
as the qualifying year. She further explained that the
aforementioned is believed to maximize the benefits to Alaskan
residents.
MS. ASPELUND pointed out that Section 9(e) is hoped to be a
disincentive for a race for fish during a moratorium. Section
9(f) specifies that CFEC regulations can supersede subsections
(d)-(e). Section 9(g) allows for the substitution of a vessel
in the event of loss, destruction, and damage. Section 9(h)
allows for sales of vessels during the provisions of the
moratorium. Section 9(i) addresses the vessel's size
restriction and allows the transfer of a vessel permit to a
vessel that's shorter. Section 9(j) establishes fees for the
vessel permits. Ms. Aspelund emphasized that Section 9(k) is of
particular importance because it directs CFEC, in corporation
with ADF&G and the Board of Fisheries, to conduct necessary
investigations to determine appropriate alternatives for
management of entry and to bring those proposals back to the
legislature if statutory or constitutional amendments are
necessary to implement the recommendations. Section 9(l)
authorizes CFEC to adopt regulations. Section 9(m) exempts the
halibut and black cod fisheries. Section 9(n) provides
definitions. Sections 10-11 correlate with a previous section
regarding access to landing. She concluded the sectional
analysis with Section 12, which is a cleanup section.
Number 1635
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to the definition of "Gulf of
Alaska" on page 10, line 17. He asked if the definition means
to include all of the waters to the end of the Aleutian Islands.
MS. ASPELUND deferred to other department representatives.
Number 1535
MICHAEL RUCCIO, Fishery Biologist, Division of Commercial
Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), related his
understanding that NPFMC's directive is to only rationalize Gulf
fisheries and for those purposes the Gulf of Alaska would end
170 degrees west longitude, which is in the vicinity of the Four
Mountain Island in the Aleutian Chain. Beyond the 170 degrees
west longitude, that portion of the Aleutian Islands is
considered part of the Bering Sea Aleutian Islands Management
Area and isn't slated for rationalization by NPFMC.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that this legislation is speaking to a
moratorium, not NPFMC.
MR. RUCCIO acknowledged that and clarified that his response was
framed in terms of the fact that 170 degrees west longitude is
the end of the Gulf of Alaska as defined by NPFMC.
CHAIR SEATON reiterated that this legislation in no way relates
to NPFMC or the federal program. He related his understanding
that this legislation addresses a state water moratorium for
state waters, and the state waters are defined as all waters
west of Cape Suckling to the end of the Aleutian Islands.
Therefore, he indicated the need to obtain further clarification
on this point.
MS. ASPELUND turned attention to a map in the committee packet
labeled Figure 2, which shows the South Alaska Peninsula, Area
M. The line between Area M and the Bering Sea is what is
described in the definition of the Gulf of Alaska. She related
her belief that "this is the state's definition of Gulf of
Alaska waters." She offered to check on this matter.
MS. ASPELUND directed attention to page 10, line 10, which
specifies "In this section". Therefore, the definitions listed
only pertain to this legislation. In response to Chair Sutton,
Ms. Aspelund said that she listened to the work group and was
support staff for it.
Number 1292
CHAIR SEATON asked if, under vessel licenses, the work group
considered the amount of [vessels owned by] residents versus
nonresidents.
MS. ASPELUND related that the data isn't yet available. She
informed the committee that one of the difficulties and
complexities in this process is juxtaposing federal data and
state data.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked if the work group discussed who
actually fished the boats as opposed to who were absentee owners
who didn't fish.
MS. ASPELUND said that is included in the data request regarding
residency, which isn't available yet. The [work group] has
mainly focused on the statutory and constitutional boxes by
which they're constrained. Many folks are familiar with the
federal statutes and regulations, but less familiar with the
state process. Therefore, most of the discussion has been in
regard to the state's authority.
CHAIR SEATON recalled that Mr. Dersham had said that the
department had said [the Board of Fisheries] didn't have the
ability to manage a longline fishery or the parallel fishery.
The aforementioned seems to be the driving force [behind the
legislation]. Therefore, he requested an explanation.
Number 1087
HERMAN SAVIKKO, Fisheries Biologist, Division of Commercial
Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), turned to
the question of gear. He explained that when the Board of
Fisheries originally developed a state water fishery for Pacific
cod, the gear in use was reviewed. Of the four major gear group
users, the pot and jig have the least impact on halibut by-
catch, which is why the fishery within 0-3 miles was restricted
to that gear. However, the department doesn't have the ability
to allocate additional prohibited species catch in that 0-3
miles.
CHAIR SEATON recalled the change in the state water Pacific cod
fishery, which was partially based on the halibut [by-catch in
the 0-3]. He asked if the board's guidelines are problematic
because they include low by-catch gear and don't allow the board
to regulate the parallel fishery.
MR. SAVIKKO clarified that halibut are an international treaty
fish and the [International Pacific] Halibut Commission actually
dictates the allowable catch and the allowable by-catch in those
fisheries. A number for the by-catch in the 0-3 mile fishery
isn't specified. In further response to Chair Seaton, Mr.
Savikko specified that he is referring to by-catch retention.
He explained that in order to have a fishery from 0-3 miles, a
specific amount of halibut by-catch wouldn't be allocated to
longline gear.
CHAIR SEATON offered, "I guess it's a prohibited species in the
P-cod [Pacific cod] fishery wherever it occurs so it's not
allocated to the P-cod fishery in federal waters either. So,
... it has to be thrown back from January 1 until the opening of
the halibut fishery." He questioned whether he is missing
something.
Number 0828
GLENN MERRILL, Sable Fisheries Division, National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), explained that when the federal
government establishes by-catch rates for various fisheries,
it's done in concert with the International Pacific Halibut
Commission (IPHC). When the aforementioned is done, specific
rates are established for certain time periods based on the
amounts necessary to maintain the groundfish fishery. In the
case of the longline fishery, there is a specific allocation of
by-catch mortality, which is provided on an annual basis and
broken into seasons. The aforementioned can be taken in federal
and state waters during the parallel fishery. However, he
understood Mr. Savikko to be pointing out that there isn't a
separate process for establishing a halibut by-catch cap or
mortality cap within state waters specific to a state-managed
fishery. The aforementioned would need to be negotiated
separately with IPHC.
CHAIR SEATON surmised then that the fish with an established by-
catch rate and by-catch mortality rate caught with longlines in
the parallel fishery in state waters aren't currently allocated
to a state water fishery because it hasn't been established.
However, if that same fishery continued to occur, he asked if
Mr. Merrill is saying the council or the IPHC wouldn't extend
the same by-catch and mortality rate in the fishery as it
currently occurs.
MR. MERRILL replied that the state could negotiate that with the
IPHC in concert with the council. However, the point is that it
doesn't currently exist.
Number 0607
DAVID POLUSHKIN, K-Bay Fishing Association, informed the
committee that the K-Bay Fishing Association is a small boat
longline fleet out of Homer. The boats in the fleet range from
32 feet to 50 feet. Currently, there are 34 members in the
association and the membership is 100 percent Alaska residents.
He noted that during the winter the members fish mostly out of
Kodiak. Mr. Polushkin opined that SB 347 is intended to curtail
the race for fish while the federal government proceeds through
the rationalization of the Gulf of Alaska. The state is also
doing its part of the process, he remarked. Mr. Polushkin
related that the K-Bay Fishing Association does support SB 347
as it's the beginning of the rationalization process and will
help those currently participating in the fishing industry.
Furthermore, it will help those Alaska residents fishing in the
Pacific-cod fishery.
Number 0485
JULIE BONNEY informed the committee that she represents 25 trawl
vessels that fish out of Kodiak in the Central Gulf of Alaska
regulatory area. Most of the vessels aren't operated by the
owner. Therefore, if there is a move to a permit-based skipper
program, there will be a disconnection which the owner won't
have a permit to access inside (indisc.). In order for the
fishery to operate efficiently, the owner on shore deals with
the vessel to deal with the mechanics, gear, and delivery to the
processor. It's normal for the owner not to operate the vessel
in this gear type.
MS. BONNEY pointed out that the federal process has looked at
the ownership of limited liability partnerships (LLPs). For
groundfish in the North Pacific, it has been found that the Gulf
of Alaska has the highest amount of Alaska residents that
participate in that fishery. In the central Gulf of Alaska, 85
percent of the fixed gear vessels are owned by Alaska residents.
Within the trawler fleet, Alaska ownership is between 30-50
percent whereas the AFA and the pollock in the Bering Sea only
have about 6 percent Alaska ownership. Therefore, giving
permits to vessels really means giving permits to Alaskans. Ms.
Bonney concluded by urging the committee to forward SB 347 and
to ensure that vessel owners have access to obtain the permit.
MS. BONNEY, in response to Chair Seaton, suggested that he
request from ADF&G documentation provided by Northern Economics
regarding the number of Alaska residents versus nonresidents for
every groundfish fishery in the Gulf of Alaska.
MS. ASPELUND indicated that the aforementioned information would
be provided to the committee.
Number 0183
JOE SULLIVAN, Attorney at Law, Mundt MacGregor L.L.P., informed
the committee that he represents the City of Kodiak in Gulf
groundfish rationalization issues. He mentioned that he is a
member of the board's Gulf groundfish rationalization task
force. He said he supports the general changes to the
moratorium provisions. Furthermore, he said he supports the
adoption of the Gulf groundfish moratorium components of SB 347.
Rationalization is important for the Gulf of Alaska, in terms of
addressing resource issues and the need to address economic
stability in the Gulf of Alaska. It's necessary to level the
playing field as there are other groundfish fisheries, such as
Bering Sea pollock, halibut, and sable fish, that have been
rationalized. Mr. Sullivan highlighted the importance of the
groundfish fishermen in the Gulf of Alaska having the same tools
available as is to other fisheries.
MR. SULLIVAN turned to the point of view of the task force, and
commented that the moratorium is intended to be a placeholder
rather than a program. The notion behind this is to stabilize
the fishery while the ultimate program is being developed
through the CFEC [process].
TAPE 04-18, SIDE B
MR. SULLIVAN said that a vessel-based approach is preferable for
purposes of maintaining the stability within the fleet currently
participating in the Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries.
Often, vessels have skippers who are individuals other than the
owners and sometimes there are multiple skippers. He
highlighted that a person-based permit system may strand a
vessel and it's crew with the owner being unable to employ the
boat. The aforementioned situation could also result in
allocating a number of permits, which could increase the amount
of participation in the fishery.
Number 0105
MR. SULLIVAN opined that the committee has identified a couple
of important issues that should be addressed in connection with
the legislation. One such issue is related to what is done when
a vessel has been lost or transferred during the moratorium
qualification period. The legislation contemplates the
aforementioned situation after the moratorium permits have been
issued. However, the legislation doesn't contemplate a
situation in which one party owned the vessel while it made the
qualifying landings and transferred the vessel to another person
while the seller retained all the fishing rights. Unless there
are provisions to allow the seller to apply for a vessel permit,
there will be problems. Therefore, one should consider how to
address the aforementioned situation.
MR. SULLIVAN turned to the long-term program and said that it
wasn't the expectation of the members of the task force that it
would necessarily consider a vessel-based program going forward.
The discussions were about working on a program that would
address a trans-boundary fishery because the pollock and cod
stocks in the Gulf of Alaska move back and forth between the 3-
mile line. Without a companion system under which a state
system is coordinated with a federal system, there is the
potential to disrupt the activities of the fishing fleet that
has fished those trans-boundary stocks. The NPFMC has been
reviewing a person-based system, and therefore he surmised that
the state would want to review how to develop a person-based
eligibility and rationalization system that would meet the
state's constitutional requirements and policy goals while
coordinating with the federal system that is expected to be
person-based as well. He concluded by reiterating that he
didn't believe the ultimate system should be vessel-based.
Number 0425
SAM COTTON, speaking on behalf of the Aleutians East Borough,
informed the committee that he is also a member of the Board of
Fisheries groundfish committee. He explained that the Sand
Point, King Cove, and False Pass areas have resident fleets that
use trawl, pot, and jig gear to harvest groundfish, primarily
Pacific cod and pollock in the western Gulf. Most of the hook-
and-line fishing is done by nonresidents. Mr. Cotton related
that there is support for this proposed moratorium from his
communities, especially in light of the possibility of an
expanded state fishery. As Mr. Dersham pointed out, there are
two different state fisheries. Under the Gulf of Alaska
rationalization proposals, there is a risk that the state would
lose management control over some of those fish that have
historically been harvested in state waters.
MR. COTTON acknowledged concerns with regard to owner versus
operator issues. There are also concerns with regard to boats
larger than 58 feet that fish in the parallel fishery that would
be grandfathered in somehow. In the state water fishery, the
boat must be 58 feet or smaller in the western Gulf. However,
during the parallel fishery in state waters larger boats can
enter and have a great advantage because they can put more gear
in the water. Therefore, he wasn't sure how folks would react
to grandfathering those boats into a state fishery. There is
also concern because although there may be restrictions related
to size, the ticket could be passed to another boat. Moreover,
there is concern regarding whether this could apply to pollock
as well as cod. There are a few local boats that are capable of
harvesting all of the pollock that's allowed. In fact, as much
as 75 percent of the pollock harvested in the western Gulf has
been taken within state waters.
MR. COTTON related his understanding that SB 347 won't be
reported from committee from today, which would [be agreeable
because it would] allow the advisory committees to meet and
discuss the issues. Most of the members of the advisory
committees are fishermen and have been fishing as the jig
fishery is still open, he noted.
CHAIR SEATON confirmed that the legislation will be held over.
MR. COTTON turned to the statistics describing boat size and
other issues and informed the committee that the department has
provided some raw data. He opined that once the data is
complete, it's the data to which folks should refer because it
will be the most recent and most exhaustive research.
Number 0833
GLENN CARROLL, Fisherman, informed the committee that he has
fished in the pot and jig fishery for Pacific cod for about 10
years and has participated in the Board of Fisheries task force
group. Mr. Carroll related his view that the task force and the
Board of Fisheries envision most of the issues and concerns will
be taken up next year. Mr. Carroll related that in general he
supported the legislation. However, as a result of this
[legislation] the jig fishery will be disenfranchised. Again,
he expressed hope that the jig fishery can be addressed once the
moratorium is in place.
Number 0963
BUCK LAUKITIS, Fisherman, commended the goal of SB 347 and the
Board of Fisheries and Mr. Dersham for their work on the Gulf of
Alaska groundfish rationalization. The Gulf groundfish
fisheries issues are complex. As a state issue, there are more
species, vessels, gear types, and communities involved than
probably salmon limited entry in the 1970s. Mr. Laukitis opined
that there is the potential to unlock economic benefits for
coastal communities in the state, if all rationalization was
handled successfully. A well-developed plan would make it
possible to control rates of harvest, improve product quality,
promote harvest during processor synergies, enhance safety, and
ensure the sustainability of the resources. However, the
failure to act would seriously disadvantage state water
participants because of the pending rationalization program.
Although SB 347 is an interim step toward a more comprehensive
groundfish rationalization plan, he opined that the use of
vessels rather than permits probably predetermines the outcome
of the final plan. The aforementioned is a significant policy
that should be fully addressed.
MR. LAUKITIS related his own experience in the state water cod
fishery in which he has been an owner and operator of his own
family-owned boat. He recalled that he has been in the
following situations: running a boat as a hired skipper;
leasing a boat that he operated; hiring a skipper to run his
boat; and being a skipper of a boat that he owned with a
business partner. Therefore, in six years he has fished under
five different business structures on four different boats. Mr.
Laukitis said that a vessel moratorium will work for him as will
a permit-based system because an owner and/or operator would be
covered under either situation. He related the following,
"Permits are issued to individuals in state water fisheries
because the state thought it would be a good policy to ensure
that persons, not companies, canneries, banks, or investment
groups be allowed to control the privilege to harvest the
state's resources." Mr. Laukitis stressed the need to realize
that non owner-operated business structures are disenfranchised
by a permit moratorium while skippers are disenfranchised by a
vessel moratorium. Therefore, the question is regarding whether
it's possible to develop moratorium criteria to include both
permits and vessels. He related his belief that the
aforementioned is possible, and therefore it's important to
pursue this.
Number 1313
YAKOV REUTOV, Fisherman, related his support of SB 347.
ALAN PARKS said that although he supported SB 347, he was
concerned with the vessel-based permit system. He reminded the
committee of his testimony regarding the Korean hair crab
fishery in which he had feared [moving to a vessel-based permit
system] would be used as a precedent, which is what is
happening.
ILIA KUZMIN, Fisherman, informed the committee that he has
fished in the Gulf of Alaska for about 10 years. He said that
he supports SB 347 and Mr. Laukitis' testimony.
Number 1471
JOE CHILDERS, Director, Western Gulf of Alaska Fishermen,
informed the committee that Western Gulf of Alaska Fishermen
consist of 23 vessels that are combination vessels that fish in
most of the fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska. The commonality in
the group is that all [the vessels] are Western Gulf-based
trawlers. Mr. Childers related that the organization supports
the legislation. He opined that the most important aspect of
this is the fact that this issue has been elevated so high in
the Alaska State Legislature. This is a very important piece of
legislation that will be a part of the rationalization of the
Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries and the remaining
unrationalized fisheries in Alaska. He explained that this
legislation is trying to address the fact that there is a state
water fishery, a parallel fishery, and a federal fishery. The
parallel fishery is managed by the state and federal government
and it overlaps state water boundaries. Therefore, any efforts
implemented on behalf of the federal system for the
rationalization effort are fairly well nullified by the fact
that people can fish state water under the same tax and thus
create a race for fish inside state waters. The Board of
Fisheries task force, of which Mr. Childers is a member, has
been grappling with this issue for some nine months. The
moratorium is basically an effort to stop folks from piling into
the fisheries that aren't economically viable today. It's true
that fewer people are participating today than in the past. In
fact, many of these fisheries are very depressed. Mr. Childers
informed the committee that the Western Gulf of Alaska Fishermen
support the moratorium legislation and being vessel-based. The
support for the vessel-based system is because these fisheries
don't need to have more participants eligible than have ever
fished. The efficacy of the vessel-based moratorium is that it
places a cap on participation. Mr. Childers concluded by
highlighting that the moratorium legislation is just that, not
rationalization legislation.
Number 1701
CHAIR SEATON announced that there would be another hearing on SB
347. [SB 347 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:3
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|