Legislature(2007 - 2008)BARNES 124
01/21/2008 08:30 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of Subsistence | |
| Adjourn |
* 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
January 21, 2008
8:42 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME
DIVISION OF SUBSISTENCE
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous committee action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
ELIZABETH ANDREWS, Director
Division of Subsistence
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of the Division of
Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G).
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 8:42:43 AM. Representatives
Seaton, Johansen, and Edgmon were present at the call to order.
Representatives Johnson, Holmes, and Wilson arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
^OVERVIEW: Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of
Subsistence
8:42:53 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced the committee would hear an overview of
the Division of Subsistence today.
8:44:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked what percentage of the harvest
"piece of the pie" is allocated to subsistence.
ELIZABETH ANDREWS, Director, Division of Subsistence, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), told members it varies by
area, but the amount is roughly 1-2 percent.
8:45:22 AM
MS. ANDREWS then directed members' attention to the committee
packet and proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation. She told
members the following:
Thank you, Chairman Seaton, and committee members, for
this opportunity to speak to you about our program.
As mentioned, my name is Elizabeth Andrews and I am
the director of the subsistence division. I do have
the handout there and you can follow along there.
I just want to mention, some of this may be a review
from last year. Some parts will sound familiar to
some of you. I wanted to first mention for the
state's subsistence division our mission and purpose.
In 1978, that's when the Alaska statute first
recognized the economic and cultural importance of
wildlife in the lives of Alaskans and passed the law.
This provided a priority for customary and traditional
uses for subsistence and I'll talk about that a little
more shortly. It preceded the 1980 federal law,
[Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act]
ANILCA, in part so that the state could retain
management authority over all lands.
8:46:42 AM
MS. ANDREWS continued:
Our mission, as a division in the department, has four
... basic elements. It is to gather information on
subsistence uses, it's to quantify it, evaluate it,
and report that information and it includes both
fisheries and wildlife.
What are subsistence uses? They are the non-
commercial customary and traditional uses. That is
different from personal use because it has a customary
and traditional component that each board, Board of
Fisheries and Board of Game, has to identify. The
Alaska regulations since statehood and preceding the
state's subsistence law did provide for subsistence
fishing. It didn't just come with the 1978 statute
but the priority did.
Fisheries resources are important to Alaskans and this
includes subsistence fisheries and, in fact, in many
communities the fish harvest for subsistence accounts
for anywhere to one-third to two-thirds of the total
food harvest. Again that varies by area. It's marine
fisheries as well as freshwater fisheries.
8:48:14 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether in certain areas, such as the Yukon
River, the subsistence harvest may exceed the commercial and
sport harvest combined.
MS. ANDREWS responded that along the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers
where the commercial harvest has diminished considerably, the
subsistence fisheries harvest is greater. However, the
subsistence harvest for all resources ranges from one-third to
two-thirds around the state.
8:49:31 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if that applies to a variety of species, for
example sheefish, and whether a commercial fishery for such non-
salmon fisheries exists.
MS. ANDREWS answered that varies by area; the sheefish harvest
is particularly significant in the Northwest Arctic. ADF&G
sometimes issues permits for small commercial and sport
fisheries; however, the majority of the sheefish take is for
subsistence.
CHAIR SEATON questioned whether the one-third to two-thirds
amount applies to salmon.
MS. ANDREWS said that amount includes all fish and wildlife
species statewide.
8:51:14 AM
MS. ANDREWS continued her presentation:
In terms of our program, our mandate is to conduct
applied research so we're not the management divisions
- commercial fisheries and sport fisheries are the
management divisions. But it's to conduct the applied
research and to provide the information for
implementing the state subsistence law.
We've prioritized the work so that basically we're
doing two things and these tie into our core services
and that is to provide the information to the boards,
whether it's fisheries or game, so that they can
provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses.
It's also to provide the information to the manager so
that it factors into the overall management of the
fish stocks or populations.
As I mentioned, subsistence fishing management is
handled by the management divisions' commercial
fisheries and sport fisheries. They also have their
own research arms but we do the research on
subsistence uses, again whether it's fisheries or
wildlife.
8:52:02 AM
MS. ANDREWS continued:
In 1990, as I know many of you are aware, the
management of subsistence fishing became more complex
with the federal government beginning to manage
subsistence hunting, trapping and, at that time,
fishing in non-navigable waters. In 1999 they then
added management on all federal public lands and
waters within their jurisdiction.
8:52:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked if Ms. Andrews' role changed with
the 1990 and 1999 changes.
MS. ANDREWS said she had been with the division for 18 years and
then left and returned two years ago. The division still does
research but the federal government is now involved in
management and has a regulatory arm that is focused on regional
advisory councils. The ADF&G divisions and private businesses
get [federal] funding to competitively bid project contracts.
She said the managers have faced considerable challenges when
federal programs try to extend jurisdiction or promulgate
regulations that do not align with state regulations. The
Division of Subsistence gets information on subsistence uses
regardless of location and is challenged to keep up with
proposal review for the federal program. The division's
priority is to review and analyze the proposals that go before
the Alaska Boards of Fish and Game. The division's
participation in reviewing proposals for the federal government
has diminished; other ADF&G staff has taken over that duty.
8:55:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked how the Division of Subsistence
interacts with the decision makers and whether the division
feels it impacts those decisions.
MS. ANDREWS said a special assistant to the commissioner gathers
information from the division managers and chairs a liaison team
comprised of a staff member from each division. The department
is recruiting an assistant director to lead that team. The
department's commissioner or his/her designee has a seat on the
federal subsistence board. The team leader will decide who will
attend the federal meetings to discuss the proposals.
8:57:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN noted that subsistence was a huge issue
in the 1990s. He asked whether the Administration would prefer
to revert to the 1999 changes to give the division more control
or whether it is content with the status quo.
MS. ANDREWS said she is unaware of a desire on the
Administration's part to revisit ANILCA or change the
subsistence law. The department's approach during the last
several years, with the help of the Department of Law (DOL), has
been to challenge any regulations or decisions it believes are
inappropriate or unsubstantiated with evidence.
8:59:01 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that the Division of Subsistence's
function is research, not management; however, the sport fish
and commercial fish divisions manage the fisheries and also do
research. He asked whether the sport and commercial fish
divisions research stock assessments while the subsistence
division does utilization and need assessments.
MS. ANDREWS said the other divisions have management and
research functions but the subsistence division only has a
research function.
9:00:32 AM
CHAIR SEATON questioned whether the subsistence division does
research on stock assessments and determining allowable limits
or looks at community needs and utilization.
MS. ANDREWS said the division focuses on the human uses;
patterns of use and geographic areas of use. That information
is fed into the management allocation decisions made by the
boards.
9:01:26 AM
MS. ANDREWS continued her presentation:
Okay, just moving to this one, subsistence opportunity
and subsistence preference, and this kind of follows
along with what we were just talking about. It is the
Board of Fisheries that implements the state law by
providing the reasonable opportunity for subsistence
fishing. So this is not a guarantee of amount of fish
or unlimited fishing time but it is what is considered
reasonable, considering the customary patterns of use.
That's the opportunity aspect of the subsistence
statute and the preference aspect is only when it's
necessary to restrict harvest does the Board of
Fisheries provide a preference over other uses. Up
until that point all uses are provided for.
9:02:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN questioned how many times a harvest was
restricted and preference was given to subsistence users.
MS. ANDREWS said that can happen anytime but the most extreme
example was an occurrence in the Nome salmon fishery, which had
a tier two fishery at that time. Commercial fishing had been
closed for years but stocks were still not doing well. Sport
fishing was cut back and escapements were poor. Restrictions
among subsistence uses were put into effect. On the Yukon
River, management plans lay out at what point commercial, sport,
and other uses will be restricted. First commercial fishing
would be restricted and then stopped, then sport fishing would
be restricted and stopped, and then subsistence fishing would be
restricted. During that course the Board could decide, for
conservation reasons, to cut back subsistence. She explained
that conservation trumps subsistence and the process is one of
ratcheting down.
9:04:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked whether a commercial or sport
fishery has been closed to provide for a subsistence fishery in
the last four or five years.
MS. ANDREWS said earlier in the decade, poor escapements caused
a salmon disaster in the Kuskokwim River area. The early run
assessment showed the run was not materializing so no commercial
fishing was allowed. She said she would have to get specific
numbers and dates from managers.
CHAIR SEATON asked Representative Johansen whether he is
specifically referring to fish.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he is also interested in getting
the same information about wildlife.
CHAIR SEATON said he is interested in the drastic allocation
changes and restrictions in the Koyukuk River area.
9:06:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON requested that the committee receive a
written report of the number of times and where a sport or
commercial fishery was closed to subsistence over the last five
years.
9:06:52 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked how specific he would like the report to be,
such as whether a fishery was never opened during a year.
9:07:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he would like to know of any time a
fishery had to be scaled back. He said he does not want the
report to be time or labor intensive. For example, he wants to
know whether a fishery has been closed five times in the last 10
years.
9:08:07 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he is trying to hone the committee's request
and asked Ms. Andrews what she could provide.
MS. ANDREWS said she will need to request that information from
the other division managers. She said they make those
determinations based on assessments of the runs.
9:09:35 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he is attempting to provide parameters for a
report.
9:10:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he would like to get a report on the
times and places when a commercial and/or sport fishery was
ratcheted down or closed and subsistence was affected. He said
he is interested in the more extreme situations, not, for
example, when a fishery was closed for one day or when a bag
limit changed.
9:11:41 AM
CHAIR SEATON thanked Representative Johnson for the
clarification.
9:12:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN referred to AS 16.05.258 and said it
appears to stipulate three conditions. He stated:
One, if the harvestable portion of the stock is
sufficient to provide for all uses; two, if a portion
of the stock is sufficient to provide for subsistence
uses and some, but not, other uses; and then c, if the
harvestable portion is sufficient to provide for
subsistence use and no other uses. So it seems like
there are three different levels in the statute here
so I'm not sure exactly how far, if we go to number
two or number three, whether it restricts it a little
bit or whether it completely shuts out other uses.
9:12:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said for the sake of reasonableness the
report should:
... get that third trigger in there where it's cut off
for subsistence only or severely curtailed. I think
I'd like it if the season was cut in like two-thirds,
I think that would be significant so a significant
change in commercial or sport fishing but I would be
satisfied with just the third trigger if it was
totally cut off to everything but subsistence.
9:13:26 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Director Andrews what level of restriction
should be targeted to produce a reasonable report and whether
the definition of a closure of a commercial fishery or a
restriction within the sport fishery would provide a reasonable
report.
MS. ANDREWS replied affirmatively and estimated the number
should be less than a handful. She said she is familiar with
the Kuskokwim, Yukon, and Kvichak closures since 2000. She
added that subsistence, depending on the species, has prevailing
restrictions. It is not open, particularly for salmon
fisheries, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. For example, the
subsistence opening might be for two 48-hour periods.
9:15:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said that would be satisfactory.
9:15:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked if the number of times fisheries
have closed to subsistence fishing since 1990 could probably be
counted on both hands.
MS. ANDREWS said that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON noted that by-catch levels have impacted
commercial and sport fishing and said he would follow up
independently on the reason for the closures.
9:17:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated his interest is in the management
of fish stocks for preservation reasons, not which group
triggered a cut back. He expressed interest in the number of
times the subsistence allocation was cut back because that might
signify that a particular stock is in danger. He clarified that
his intent is not to get information to debate the value of
commercial versus sport fishing.
9:18:26 AM
MS. ANDREWS said she is comfortable with the committee's
description of the information members want. She then continued
her presentation, as follows:
Again, I think I've already covered this pretty much,
our core services are basically derived directly from
our statutory mandate. It provides information
directly into management by the department's fisheries
managers as we just discussed and also for the
allocation decisions that the Board of Fisheries
makes. We also contribute to the fisheries management
plans and, again, I just earlier described some that
are in regulation. There are others that aren't as
well as to other management and allocation bodies, and
these would be, for example, just as Representative
Edgmon mentioned the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council, the International Pacific Halibut Commission,
the U.S./Canada Yukon Salmon Panel, of which I am the
co-chair. I didn't know if you have any questions
about that. I could perhaps answer those now or
continue with this.
9:19:36 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked for a description of the division's research
methodologies.
MS. ANDREWS said the methodology is area dependent and the
division's research funding comes largely from contracts and
other entities rather than from general funds. Depending on the
needs identified by an entity, such as subsistence information
for the International Halibut Commission, a different
methodology might be required than for research requested by the
Board of Fisheries on Bristol Bay salmon.
9:20:48 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked about the process for determining the
research methodology. He questioned whether the division
develops a scientific survey method when the International
Halibut Commission makes a request, which the commission then
approves.
MS. ANDREWS said the International Halibut Commission has a
scientific review team that reviews the questions the division
will ask and the methodology. Sometimes those questions also
get reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. The
commission established halibut subsistence standards which
underwent a review process. For example, the commission
established a permit system [for subsistence take] and wanted to
know the number of halibut taken from each of 14,000 permit
holders. That study required the use of a different methodology
than getting that information from 1,500 permit holders in
Bristol Bay.
9:22:35 AM
MS. ANDREWS returned to her presentation:
Again, as I said, our subsistence fishing research -
and to summarize our division's main responsibilities,
it's basically to conduct the research and document
these subsistence uses as identified in statute,
estimate subsistence harvest levels, and to evaluate
the potential impacts to subsistence uses from other
uses. We do compile the information into different
formats for the regulatory issues and we provide it to
the state and federal agencies, as well as other
researchers. We're also involved in baseline data
collection so that we can evaluate trends over time.
We're involved in one of the climate change studies
right now with the Bering Sea ecosystem project that
the North Pacific Research Board has. We do resource
development related impact studies and you may
remember last year I mentioned research we were doing
under contract with Rond (ph) Associates on the Pebble
Mine proposed development and now there is a proposed
expansion to the Red Dog Mine in Northwest Alaska and
we're subcontracting with Rond Associations for that
work also on subsistence uses.
9:24:09 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked what role the division plays with the North
Pacific Council or through ADF&G to the Council regarding the
by-catch of king salmon being problematic for subsistence uses.
He questioned whether that is simply a stock assessment number.
MS. ANDREWS said ADF&G is represented by the commissioner on the
Council so the king salmon by-catch would come into play in
terms of overall salmon production. The division provides
information to Council staff for presentations on halibut
harvest. The US/Canada Yukon Salmon panel has written letters
and had people give testimony about the salmon by-catch issue
and will continue to do so. The number of Yukon bound salmon is
unknown. The Canadian stocks were not as productive as usual
this year on the U.S. side. The Yukon stocks met their
escapement but the Canadian stocks did not. The panel is
interested in getting more genetic stock identification to get a
better estimate of the Yukon stock taken as by-catch and in
developing alternatives to reduce the by-catch.
9:26:52 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the king salmon taken in the by-catch are
retained not for sale but for distribution to food banks and
whether any genetic stock analysis occurs on the by-catch.
MS. ANDREWS offered to provide that information at a later date.
She said ADF&G wants to involve the industry in getting samples
but she was unsure of the amount of observer coverage at this
time.
9:27:55 AM
CHAIR SEATON said 100 percent of the Bering Sea boats have
observers but he was wondering if the panel had requested an
analysis of the by-catch.
MS. ANDREWS said the panel has requested that information for
Yukon stocks but not just for subsistence purposes. She noted
the panel has a treaty obligation to get a certain number of
fish across the border.
9:28:34 AM
MS. ANDREWS continued her presentation:
Just to move onto our program, our office and staff
locations - as you know, we're a small organization.
We have 25 full-time staff and five seasonal or part-
time. We have two regional research programs; one is
north of the Alaska Range with a regional office in
Fairbanks and a field office in Kotzebue and one south
of the Alaska Range with the regional office in
Anchorage and field offices in Dillingham and Juneau.
The third part of our program is the information
management program, which is the core for the data
compilation analysis and disseminating that
information to the public, as well as to others.
Our current FY 08 actual budget is $3.2 million;
nearly 50 percent of that is general funds and 50
percent from other funding sources. The general fund
provides for program management and fixed costs and
partially for the information management but, as I
mentioned earlier, no research. So the other funding
sources provide for the applied research that we do.
Our targets and measures associated with our ....
9:29:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON interjected to question the topics of the
non-fisheries research.
MS. ANDREWS said the topics include migratory birds, marine
mammals, wildlife, resource development projects, such as the
Pebble Mine, and comprehensive harvest surveys including
fisheries.
9:31:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked if the division uses ADF&G's
public information officer.
MS. ANDREWS said the funding she was referring to is all
research related and is used to disseminate technical reports
and to post information on the web. The public information
officer provides press releases. The division has a
communications person who contributes to on-line newsletters.
9:32:52 AM
MS. ANDREWS returned to her presentation:
Our targets and measures are associated, as you can
see on your slide, with conducting the studies and
gathering the information. I try to balance it across
all regions of the state. We analyzed, as I mentioned
earlier, the regulatory proposals to the Board of
Fisheries as well as Game and we report on that at
those meetings. We report and disseminate the
results. We're involved in the management planning of
the different divisions and then the information
management, which is a database I'll talk about here
shortly.
9:33:52 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Ms. Andrews to provide the committee with a
copy of a survey and the data produced.
MS. ANDREWS said the surveys vary but that she would provide a
copy of a current survey on the expansion of the Red Dog Mine.
The division coordinated with the U.S. Department of Agriculture
on food related questions on that survey. She noted sometimes a
contractor requires a suite of questions. The division attempts
to design its surveys so that it can track consistencies over
time.
9:35:27 AM
MS. ANDREWS presented the final slide, which bulleted the FY09
budget request focal points and told members the following:
Mr. Chairman, for the FY 09 budget request and some of
our key challenges, looking forward we have two
increments you'll see in the governor's budget and a
CIP [capital improvement project] request to insure
that we do meet our core services and these are
predominantly related to fisheries management.
One is to get our subsistence salmon harvest database
accessible to managers, researchers and the public by
making it web accessible and to have it integrated
into the database and format used by the fisheries
managers in the Commercial Fisheries Division. We
want to also be able to continue to divide an annual
statewide report of the subsistence salmon harvest.
9:36:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked how that is currently handled.
MS. ANDREWS said the salmon harvest information is in a data
base right now but it is not web accessible so providing that
information requires that it be manipulated. When it becomes
web accessible users can quickly sort it as desired. The
Division of Commercial Fisheries' data is already web
accessible. The Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development's web database allows a user to get data by
community very easily. The salmon harvest database will be
similarly designed.
9:38:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked if the information will be entered
by the users into the database or whether ADF&G employees will
do the data entry.
MS. ANDREWS said making the data web accessible is the current
goal and that the data will be entered by ADF&G personnel. She
said the division does not have an "e-landing" system yet but is
interested in working on that. She said not all villages have
Internet or electronic capabilities.
9:39:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN noted that Representative Foster
discussed the challenge of direct data input from the villages
but he hoped Director Andrews was able to make the process as
paperless as possible.
9:40:30 AM
MS. ANDREWS continued reading the bulleted slide, as follows:
The second increment is to be able to annually assess
and evaluate the fish harvests and trends,
particularly in Bristol Bay and Southeast and the
Yukon Kuskokwim Delta and then also to continue
ongoing harvest monitoring studies. At this point
we're not at a situation where even though we have the
data in different databases to be able to have our
research analysts, for example, really go through and
evaluate what the trends are and to determine as we
know - I mean there have been changes in some areas
and there may be opportunities for other fisheries,
for example, and we just - until we can actually have
some money to analyze the data in that way, we aren't
ready to identify those but we think it's important to
be able to do so. We get questions from the Board of
Fisheries, for example, that will say well, why is
this going on in the extreme upper Kuskokwim and these
changes going on and we haven't really had a chance to
evaluate that information. We know there [have] been
changes and we know there have been in some areas
declines that aren't related to abundance. There are
other things happening in some of these communities.
The third is a CIP request, which is to integrate the
technical and scientific reporting into the, again,
the Department's on-line accessible publication
systems.
9:42:01 AM
MS. ANDREWS continued:
The two fisheries divisions have already accomplished
this. The Sport Fish Division took the lead on that
and got it up and going and Commercial Fisheries has
been doing it the last couple of years and I think all
of theirs are now in that system. We've been trying
to format all of our reports accordingly to match that
and so we have a request to be able to then get the
information into the same - exactly the same and just
as accessible so all of the fisheries related reports
a person can get through a single portal.
And then lastly it's important to maintain our own
capacities in terms of staffing, information
management and with the joint fisheries management,
and I know that you heard from the other directors and
I'm sure not just in this department, about
recruitment and retention challenges. I guess lastly,
as I said, it's essential for us for information
management because they really are the ones - it's
almost like the engine, I mean they compile all of the
information. They are the ones that get it back out
to the other folks but we need to make sure that those
staff are retained. They carry a lot of knowledge
with them and we need to maintain that capacity.
I know you've been asking questions along the way, but
if there are any other questions, I'd be glad to
answer them.
9:43:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how much of an increment the
division needs and, regarding hiring and retention, whether
ADF&G requires employees to serve a certain amount of time in
the department before advancing.
MS. ANDREWS said there is no requirement. It is the function of
the job classification to ensure that the employee has performed
at that same level and has relevant experience and that could be
in the private sector.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON questioned whether an education trade-off
is allowed.
MS. ANDREWS said that depends on the job classification. She
explained that while some job qualification requirements accept
experience, others might require a Bachelor's degree and one or
two years of experience or a Master's degree and one year of
experience.
9:45:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON commented that so many departments are
limiting their recruiting abilities [with that system] because
Alaska is doing some very unique things. He said he would like
to see the experience requirements eased to allow educated
applicants to be hired.
MS. ANDREWS agreed and said she has been working with the human
resources staff to revise the minimum qualifications to broaden
the base of interest and widen the scope of applicants.
Regarding the increments, the increment for database
accessibility is $156,000. The second increment for evaluating
the harvest assessment data is $142,800. The capital increment
is about $140,000 for the technical publications.
9:48:56 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked about Ms. Andrew's experience finding
qualified personnel in the last year.
MS. ANDREWS said it appears that many applicants self-eliminate
during the application process because of the advertised
requirements so the qualifications are being re-written to
minimize that situation. It is common to get one or two
applications for a position. Also, the division's minimum
qualifications for a job are often broader than the human
resources division's interpretation. For example, if the human
resources staff too narrowly defines the term "closely related
field," the division must go through an appeal process, which is
time consuming. People often apply for several jobs
simultaneously so the top candidates may have moved on while a
description is being appealed. In addition, federal programs
offer considerably higher pay.
9:51:59 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if working with the unified human resources
system is less efficient than working with a human resources
unit within the department.
MS. ANDREWS said the human resources division has been
tremendously helpful and that she has not had any problems
caused by restructuring that function, but the problems
associated with hiring difficulties need to be identified, such
as the job classifications.
9:53:23 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked about the cost savings to the division of
having a unified human resources section.
MS. ANDREWS said she is not in a position to respond to that
question because she was not involved with the hiring process in
the same detail in her prior position.
9:54:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON recalled discussing at last year's
overview that the Subsistence Division's name may not represent
its purpose because its role is support services, analysis, data
collection, and doing surveys. He asked whether any further
discussion about renaming the division has occurred.
MS. ANDREWS said she discussed that with management and other
staff. They said the existing name reflects what is in the
statute but the division's focus is on research. She believes
the Division of Subsistence Research would be better. She said
the name could be changed administratively. If the desire
exists, the division would be agreeable to doing so.
9:56:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said he wasn't expressing that desire, he
was inquiring as to whether the division feels a name change is
necessary.
MS. ANDREWS said the statute requires the establishment of a
division of subsistence hunting and fishing, which is less
useful.
CHAIR SEATON suggested coordinating a name change when hiring
letterhead stationary.
9:57:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked about the level of genetic
identification used. He said the discussion of genetic
identification makes him uneasy because discrete stock
management could become an issue.
MS. ANDREWS said the agreement with Canada requires the U.S. to
get a certain number of fish across the border. When fish are
sampled at the mouth of a river, the Canadian stocks can be
identified.
9:59:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN recalled legislation from the 1990s
about discrete stock management that became quite controversial.
He then asked when, how, and why the Division of Subsistence
decides to challenge a federal decision.
MS. ANDREWS said ADF&G's liaison team evaluates the federal
decisions with the commissioner and determines which ones the
state will challenge.
10:00:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked Ms. Andrews if she has a seat at
that table and provides input about subsistence uses.
MS. ANDREWS said she does and that ADF&G challenged the federal
decision making process on its rural/non-rural review last July.
10:01:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked if ADF&G has challenged the whole
process, as well as individual decisions and whether Saxman's
designation was reviewed and not challenged.
MS. ANDREWS said the Saxman designation was not reviewed.
10:01:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked if the Saxman designation was left
standing without any push back from the state.
MS. ANDREWS said that is correct. She continued, "It is part of
the general package of challenging the process that they went
through on that and we could have that brought to the
commissioner's attention for further examination or some
examination of Saxman specifically if you'd like."
10:02:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he thought he was clear about his
desire to do that last year.
10:02:43 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if an individual legislator would make a
direct request to the commissioner to challenge such a decision.
MS. ANDREWS said the request should be made directly to the
commissioner.
10:03:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN commented it is ADF&G's charge to review
all federal decisions that impact Alaskans.
10:04:08 AM
CHAIR SEATON agreed and added he was asking about the protocol.
He said he thought a new commission was established last year to
review and challenge the impacts of the federal fisheries and
wildlife management agencies.
MS. ANDREWS noted she did pass Representative Johansen's request
last year on to the special assistant on federal/state issues.
She said she will bring it to the attention of the new person in
charge.
10:05:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said his request obviously fell through
the cracks but he would like an answer.
CHAIR SEATON thanked Ms. Andrews for her presentation and asked
her to contact the committee through the liaison about any
information she believes it should be kept abreast of.
10:06:41 AM
CHAIR SEATON commented that today is Martin Luther King Day. He
noted that Alaska's population is diverse, which he appreciates,
as well as the division's role in acknowledging that diversity.
10:07:38 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 10:07
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|