Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 124
04/29/2005 08:45 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Board of Fisheries | |
| Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (cfec) | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
April 29, 2005
8:56 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas, Co-Chair
Representative Jim Elkins
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Woodie Salmon
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Harris
Representative Mary Kapsner
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
Board of Fisheries
Rupert Andrews - Juneau
John Jensen - Peterburg
Melvan Morris - Kodiak
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC)
Peter Froehlich - Juneau
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to report.
WITNESS REGISTER
JULIE KAVANAUGH
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Posed questions and comments to the
appointees.
CARL CROME
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of reconfirmation of
John Jensen and Mel Morris.
RUPERT ANDREWS, Appointee
to the Board of Fisheries
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Fisheries.
JOHN JENSEN, Appointee
to the Board of Fisheries
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Fisheries.
MELVAN MORRIS, Appointee
to the Board of Fisheries
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Fisheries.
PETER FROEHLICH, Appointee
to the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC)
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR BILL THOMAS called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 8:56:12 AM. Representatives
Thomas, LeDoux, Wilson, and Elkins were present at the call to
order. Representative Salmon arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
^Board of Fisheries
CO-CHAIR THOMAS announced that the only order of business would
be the confirmation hearings for four of the governor's
appointments to various boards as listed above in the committee
calendar. He stated that the committee would hear public
testimony first before addressing the nominees.
8:56:46 AM
JULIE KAVANAUGH asked the Board of Fisheries members if the
board would continue exclusively using its subcommittee on Gulf
of Alaska groundfish rationalization as the board's sole
resource for guidance, "or will this board take advantage of its
local advisory committees [on] which the board has depended on
in the past for advice and local insight?" She continued:
I also was interested in an opinion from the [Board of
Fisheries] on the existing examples of unequal shares
- one example has been presented as a setnet shore
lease - due to the fact that these sites are
historically better producing than others. It is well
noted that a site lease does not predetermine a
specific amount of catch or imply that a claim, prior
to catching it, is there. Hard work, skill, [and]
weather factor into this. The failure of equipment
and lost opportunity can prevent any shore lease from
producing. Maybe [the Board of Fisheries] could
explain how a predetermined claim to a resource is
different than a special privilege.
MS. KAVANAUGH continued:
I would also wonder how this [Board of Fisheries]
considers consolidation benefiting the fixed gear
fleet and small boat fleet. ... I was wondering if
this [Board of Fisheries] could expand on the
difference between limiting the access rights under
the limited entry versus assigning allocations of
resource by history.
8:59:37 AM
CARL CROME stated that he has been commercially fishing for 45
years. He testified in support of the reconfirmation of John
Jensen and Mel Morris to the Board of Fisheries. He commented
that Mr. Morris and Mr. Jensen "bring lots of expertise and
experience to the board; they can be very objective and open-
minded on matters before the board."
9:01:47 AM
RUPERT ANDREWS, Appointee to the Board of Fisheries, presented
his background information to the committee. He explained that
he is finishing his first three-year term on the board. He came
to Alaska in 1959 to work with the Alaska Department of Fish &
Game (ADF&G), where he worked for 23 years. He stated:
I consider working on the Board of Fisheries sort of
finishing up a wonderful career in fisheries in
Alaska. But it's also a real honor to be able to
represent the resource and the users, and to see what
I can do to help them, using my experience and my long
time in Alaska. I think the last three years [were]
... the most important of my life and I learned so
much. There are new fisheries going on now that
weren't when I was in the department. And I consider
it a fascinating thing to do. It's also an important
thing. ... There's some grim things happening out on
the coastal communities of Alaska, and that is they're
disappearing one person by one person because they
can't make a living. And I think that the board ...
can play a bigger part in improving the quality of the
fisheries in getting a better price to the fishermen,
if possible. And I think we can do that through the
regulatory means.
9:04:51 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked Mr. Andrews to comment on Ms. Kavanaugh's
questions regarding the use of local advisory committees, rather
than the groundfish stakeholders committee, in the discussion of
groundfish rationalization.
9:05:59 AM
MR. ANDREWS replied:
[The state only has] authority out to three miles, and
then rationalization has been a federal program, not
only in bottom fish but in crab. And so we don't
really get involved in that. But within the three-
mile limit we do. And we use all the information that
we possibly can and we seek it constantly from
advisory committees, and any other committee too that
happens to be formed for the purposes of professing
and pushing our fisheries in some way that's going to
be productive. ... But we only get involved in
rationalization as a partner ... through our board
committee with the ... North Pacific Fishery
Management Council.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX commented, "You're probably going to be getting
pretty involved with that in the next couple of years as the
[North Pacific Fishery Management Council] goes ahead with their
groundfish rationalization programs. Are you familiar with SB
113?"
MR. ANDREWS replied that he was not.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX explained that SB 113 would give the Board of
Fisheries and the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC)
the legal authority to create [dedicated access privileges
(DAP)] regarding the fish within the three-mile limit.
9:08:01 AM
MR. ANDREWS remarked, "That sounds logical to me."
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX continued:
The question is, if you are given the authority to
[create DAPs] within the three mile limit, will you be
working with the ... fisheries advisory committees in
the local communities, as opposed to strictly the
groundfish stakeholders committee, which I think was
set up through the [North Pacific Fishery Management
Council].
MR. ANDREWS responded:
A committee set up by the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council probably would take a situation of
advisory to us on the board, and we would work more
with the state advisory committees, which we have.
It's a matter of record at every board meeting that
the recommendations and suggestions of the advisory
committees are well considered and for the most part
are taken into the final deliberations and wind up in
the final solution. So I'm not sure how we would fit
in with the federal rationalization committee. We
consider anything between the beach and three miles
out as state water....
9:10:00 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked Mr. Andrews if he has any feelings about
limited access and programs like the Individual Fishing Quotas
(IFQs) within the three-mile limit.
MR. ANDREWS answered:
No, I don't. I think that the IFQs, from my viewpoint
in what I've seen so far, in the halibut fisheries
work very well. Halibut is now being fished 10 or 11
months out of the year. You buy fresh halibut on the
market in Alaska, it's $10 a pound; that's the highest
I've ever seen since 1949. So I think that IFQs are
working for the fishermen and for the industry.
Obviously, the public is doing the buying and wanted
fresh fish. And the IFQs did away with the salmon
derby-type of mentality and people are able to fish in
more moderate weather; there's a safety factor also
involved in that. So I think that they've worked
really well for the halibut fisheries, and I don't see
how it wouldn't work the same way for other IFQs,
whether you're talking crab or whatnot. And the
village communities have also received IFQs, too, so
it's worthwhile for the remote coastal communities.
9:11:29 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX related her understanding that only the smaller
villages have received IFQs. She asked Mr. Andrews, "How do you
feel that the IFQ program has worked as far as larger
communities are concerned, and your whole feeling about
consolidation to communities, for example, that might not be
buying IFQs?"
MR. ANDREWS asked for clarification of what was meant by "larger
communities."
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX used Kodiak as an example of a larger community.
MR. ANDREWS replied, "I think the definition so far would not
fit a situation like Kodiak."
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX commented, "I know it doesn't fit Kodiak, so my
question for you is, 'How do you feel that consolidation of the
fisheries are affecting coastal communities such as Kodiak? Do
you think [consolidation] is a good thing or do you think this
is a bad thing?'"
9:13:17 AM
MR. ANDREWS responded that he cannot give Representative LeDoux
an answer to that until he had given it more consideration.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked, "Is that one of the things that you're
going to be considering when you consider [DAPs] vis-à-vis
groundfish rationalization - the effects on communities?"
MR. ANDREWS replied, "Again, I can't answer that either for the
simple reason that that ... would be up to the chairman of the
board to see how that would be brought up. And then we'd have
to have a lot of testimony on it before we could make a
decision."
9:14:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Mr. Andrews how often he has not
been able to testify at a Board of Fisheries meeting due to a
conflict of interest.
MR. ANDREWS replied that he has never recused himself.
9:14:50 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS pointed out that [HB 241] would allow commercial
fishermen to participate in discussion regardless of whether
they have a conflict of interest. He asked Mr. Andrews if he
supported this idea.
MR. ANDREWS responded, "It's not a matter of whether I support
or reject it. We work for the legislature; you extend your
authority to us. If you pass the bill, that's exactly what
we'll do...."
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked Mr. Andrews if he thought the board had
the ability to make positive decisions without the input from
commercial fishermen on fishery issues.
MR. ANDREWS replied:
Yes, sure. ... In my experience on the board, every
single board member has always done their best to look
at all the facts and whatever the situation is. ... I
think you have to keep in mind also ... the public
views our actions closely, and they must have a lot of
confidence in the actions of the board. And if they
feel that because members have conflicts and they're
still voting, [the public] may not have the same level
of confidence in our decisions.
9:16:49 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS pointed out that the Alaska Supreme Court
recently ruled against the allocation of salmon in the Chignik
fishing cooperative. He asked Mr. Andrews if the board will
review that issue again, or if the board has given up on that
idea.
MR. ANDREWS answered:
It is my understanding that we will try to resolve
that question by emergency order. There's fifty-five
families out there that, if [the board doesn't] do
something soon, ... will completely go under, and I
can't stand to see that happen to Alaskans. And it
will happen. The supreme court, in our view, made an
error in judgment and the error was they used the
limited entry law to say that the Board of Fisheries
had no authority to regulation [cooperatives]. It
even goes a little bit farther than that: there is, as
you know, a legislative committee to restructure the
salmon fisheries in Alaska. And we just lost one of
our important tools; we've lost authority. And I hope
that we get that back in legislation next year. But
for this year, it's a very serious matter to the
people in Chignik. We [the Board of Fisheries] will
probably be meeting in the next five to ten days, or
as soon as possible, to try to resolve the situation
for those 55-60 families out in Chignik.
9:18:38 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS noted that United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) and
Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) have submitted letters of
support for Mr. Andrews.
9:18:53 AM
JOHN JENSEN, Appointee to the Board of Fisheries, presented his
background information to the committee. He said that he was
born and raised in Petersburg, and has fished commercially for
40 years. He noted that he is finishing his first three-year
term on the board, which has been a "very intense learning
experience." He commented, "I'd like to see a strong, healthy,
sustainable fishery for the future for all user groups, and I
enjoy dealing with the issues...."
9:20:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Mr. Jensen how many times he has
been conflicted out on the board so that he was not allowed to
testify.
MR. JENSEN replied:
I couldn't give you a number right now, but it seems
like ... I end up sitting on the bench quite a bit,
and it's fairly frustrating, especially when, during
deliberations they start working on the fine points
and I'm not able to offer my expertise on different
subjects that come up. ... It's just real hard for me
to sit out in the audience and not be able to help
with the small details, for instance, like cotton
twine in crab pots, etcetera. ... Some of the board
members aren't familiar with it; it's hard for them to
understand, and I have a hard time sitting out there
and not being able to explain it to them.
9:21:57 AM
MR. JENSEN, in response to Representative Wilson, explained that
board members are allowed to give three minutes of public
testimony, but members are not put on subcommittees if they have
been conflicted out on the issue.
9:22:56 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX, regarding SB 113, asked Mr. Jensen if the Board
of Fisheries would gather public testimony from the communities
to be affected by the DAPs.
MR. JENSEN replied that he had heard about SB 113, and he
commented, "We do listen to the advisory people very closely
when they're talking about something very close to their homes."
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked if Mr. Jensen has any preconceived
feelings about DAPs in state waters.
MR. JENSEN responded, "I'm a little bit nervous about dedicated
access privileges.... There's both good and bad points on the
quota shares that have happened ... since [1988 or 1989]. I've
seen both positives and negatives. It's good biologically for
the stocks, but it hasn't been all that great for some of the
coastal communities, especially the one that I live in. There's
been some definite set-backs."
9:24:50 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked Mr. Jensen if he would envision
formulating a DAP program in conjunction with the fisheries
advisory communities, or if he would rely mostly on the
groundfish stakeholders committee.
MR. JENSEN answered that all participating people would need to
be involved.
9:25:55 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS noted that UFA and ATA endorsed Mr. Jensen.
9:26:12 AM
MELVAN MORRIS, Appointee to the Board of Fisheries, stated that
he grew up in Kodiak and still resides there. He has a degree
in wildlife management and worked in fisheries management. He
currently owns a small seafood marketing company. He commented:
I've enjoyed the two and a half years that I've spent
on the Board of Fisheries; it's been an opportunity to
sort of extend my career a little bit. ... It's
interesting to go around the state and meet old
friends and find out what the issues are with other
people and try to deal with issues that are critical
to them. It's been a good experience working with the
board. I think we work well together. Obviously [we]
don't always agree; in fact [we] don't agree most of
the time, but we hear all sides of every issue and are
able to participate in critical issues that will form
the future of our fisheries.
MR. MORRIS pointed out that he participates in the joint
protocol committee, which is a committee of three board members
and three North Pacific Fishery Management Council members. He
also is a member of the Gulf of Alaska Groundfish
Rationalization Committee and the Crab Rationalization
Committee, and he is chair of the Prince William Sound
Allocation Committee. He said, "I feel there is some work left
to be done; I'd like to be a part of it."
9:29:40 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked Mr. Morris to answer the same questions
she had posed to the previous nominees.
MR. MORRIS replied:
In reference to your first question, what sort of help
we would be looking for in making decisions, supposing
that SB 113 is turned into [law]: we would certainly
be looking for participation from all parties, as we
have with the committee that we now have. We have
been open to testimony and we've actually received a
good deal of it. Whether the committee could be
restructured or whether we would be looking at setting
up separate meetings; all these things ... would be
pretty much at the forefront with what the chairman
felt we could do with the time constraints and the
fiscal constraints that might be upon us. But
certainly we would be looking ... to comments, advice,
anything that might pertain.
As to the impact of IFQs on communities: it is a
difficult social issue. Certainly the people who live
in the communities that are now getting $3.50 a pound
for halibut could probably relate back to the days ...
[when prices were lower]. There's a big difference;
there's been some marketing improvements over the
years. This was done, I think, because there was an
IFQ program that allowed people to bring in fresh fish
pretty much year-round....
As far as DAPs, we're not talking about an IFQ
program; we're talking perhaps about a version, but
dedicated access privilege means only that the person
would have the opportunity to lease the resource from
the state. There'd be no ability to take the [DAP]
and go out, like you can with an IFQ, and sell it.
And I think this is especially beneficial to the
communities because certainly ... you have the ability
to reward owner on board as opposed to just an owner
perhaps buying all the IFQs. ... And of course at some
time the DAP would have to be renewed under the
provisions of a renewable lease. And so I think
there's some significant differences.
MR. MORRIS continued:
We all know that the program has not been worked out
to its finality. There's a lot of things to be asked
and answered. The people who are especially concerned
about their history in state waters that would like to
see it being allocated to them under federal terms,
permits, quite frankly, I can understand their
frustration and their desire to see that. But we
don't have the authority to do that, and the [federal
government doesn't] have the authority to take it away
from the state waters fishery to give it to them. And
so we're proposing what we think is the best possible
solution, and that is to look at history that's been
generated in state waters and say, 'We can develop
some sort of a semi-seamless approach to federal and
state waters that does give you history.' ...
Twenty years ago there was no market for bottom
fish.... And in the last 20 years this fishery ...
has just blossomed, it's exploded exponentially every
year. ... As the fisheries developed we could process
pretty much year-round. We could develop sort of a
business plan, although we had to develop marketing
concepts over the years. We're down to a few days of
fishing in just about all of our fisheries. In my
opinion ... is that without some sort of restriction,
some way to put an end to put a race for fish, the
derby-style fishery ... we'd be looking at something
like we ended up with in the crab fisheries, where
every year the board was trying to make it less
efficient by cutting the pot limits and restricting
everything, and we still were down to an 80 hour
fishery in the Bering Sea this year.... I don't see
the state being able to afford a buy back program, and
... I don't see us being able to sit here and hope
that things will get better. ... I think we have to
have this bill in order to be doing our job as a
board.
9:37:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Mr. Morris if he has ever been
conflicted out during a meeting and why.
MR. MORRIS replied:
Yes, I have been disqualified in a couple of different
meetings. And to explain what we have to do now under
the Ethics Disclosure Act: we have to evaluate that
personally and decide whether there's a potential for
ethics disclosure and for conflict of interest. And
so it's left up to the individual, and I always take
the conservative approach and say that ... I don't
want anything to happen that might turn into a lawsuit
later that we can't defend. So I've taken that
approach, and one major issue was the Cook Inlet
fisheries.... As I mentioned, I [market] a small
amount of sockeye there.... And I think I have a lot
to offer, particularly as it relates to quality of the
products and what is good for the fisheries. But I
feel like I shouldn't be excluded from those comments
and I certainly have missed hearing from [Mr. Jensen]
on his issues. ... I support [HB 241].
9:40:56 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS noted that UFA and ATA endorsed Mr. Morris.
^Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC)
CO-CHAIR THOMAS turned the committee's attention to the
appointee to the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission.
9:41:13 AM
PETER FROEHLICH, Appointee to the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC), Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G),
commented that he retired [as a District Court Judge for Juneau,
Alaska] in January. He stated:
I'm excited about being on the verge of starting a new
career. I've always been interested in fishing
generally. ... I earned my way through law school in
the Kodiak area, crab fishing and salmon tendering,
and dabbled in hand trolling here in Southeast
Alaska.... I've been interested in the commercial
fishery entry system, sort of academically; it's a
pretty unique ... model that's been looked to even by
other nations. It's been adapted in different forms
by other states, other countries, and the federal
government in the IFQ system. And I feel that I'm
pretty uniquely qualified to work as a limited entry
commission because of my fishing experience on the
water, my experience advising and representing the
limited entry commission in the late 70s, when things
were really churning....
I was involved in working with limited entry
commission issues as an attorney in the attorney
general's office for several years and after that I
was working in the AG's office with all agencies'
regulations and bill proposals ... so I still worked
with limited entry quite a bit then, because ... every
time they adopt a new fishery, they have to adopt a
new big set of regulations....
9:44:27 AM
MR. FROEHLICH continued:
I think that my experience as a judge has given me
some practice with dispute resolution and
adjudication, and the commission does act as an
adjudicatory body sometimes on appeals. And basically
I'm interested in this because I feel like I'm ready
for a change of pace, a change of career....
If any of what's being proposed with the [Gulf of
Alaska] groundfish situation or any other fisheries
[that are going to have] maximum numbers set, I would
hope that I would be able to travel ... around the
state for hearings.
9:46:39 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked if Mr. Froehlich thought the Board of
Fisheries has the authority to overrule the Alaska Supreme Court
through an emergency regulation in the Chignik fishery.
MR. FROEHLICH replied, "I'm not sure, of course, but my gut
reaction was that it would take a legislative fix because ...
the court was interpreting the legislative grant of authority in
the first place. So I think that the issue is probably in the
lap of the legislature more than the board."
9:48:11 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS expressed concern for people who had
not been issued limited entry fishing permits,
although he felt they ought to have.
MR. FROEHLICH responded:
I hope that that can be moved. ... One of the big
issues for limited entry and for fishing management in
general is what they're calling restructuring; I
understand there's some sort of legislative committee
looking at that. ... Reducing the amount of gear in
the water and being more efficient with it, [and]
buyback is another way to do it, but that takes some
bucks. But one of the easiest ways is just resolving
these [interim use permit (IUP)] appeal things.
9:50:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to forward the names of Rupert
Andrews, John Jensen, Melvan Morris, and Peter Froelich to the
joint session of the House and Senate for confirmation. There
being no objection, the confirmations of Rupert Andrews, John
Jensen, Melvan Morris, and Peter Froelich were advanced from the
House Special Committee on Fisheries.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 9:52:12
AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|