Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
03/10/2009 10:15 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR21 | |
| HB143 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HJR 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 143 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 10, 2009
10:20 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Chair
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 21
Requesting the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to cease
consideration of an amendment package that would require a
Pacific cod endorsement for a license limitation program license
holder to participate in the Pacific cod fisheries in the Gulf
of Alaska.
- MOVED HJR 21 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 143
"An Act repealing the termination of licensing and regulation of
sport fishing operators and sport fishing guides and licensing
and registration of sport fishing vessels; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HB 143 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 21
SHORT TITLE: GROUNDFISH FISHERIES LICENSES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) AUSTERMAN
02/27/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/27/09 (H) FSH, RES
03/10/09 (H) FSH AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 143
SHORT TITLE: NO REPEAL OF SPORT FISH GUIDE LICENSING
SPONSOR(s): FISHERIES
02/23/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/23/09 (H) FSH, RES
02/26/09 (H) FSH AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
02/26/09 (H) Heard & Held
02/26/09 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/10/09 (H) FSH AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 21, as prime sponsor.
JULIE BONNEY, Representative
Alaska Groundfish Databank
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 21.
JEFFERY STEPHAN, Representative
United Fishermen Marketing Association
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 21.
ALEXUS KWACHKA
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 21.
RYAN JOHNSON
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 21.
LINDA KOZAK, Consultant
Kozak & Associates, Inc.
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 21.
JERRY BONGEN
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 21.
AL BURCH, Owner
AWTA & Burch Brothers
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 21.
STEPHEN TAUFEN, Founder
Groundswell Fisheries Movement
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 21.
SHAWN DOCHTERMANN
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 21.
DAVID POLUSHKIN, Representative
K-Bay Fishing Association
Willow, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 21.
ILIA KUZMIN, Representative
K-Bay Fisheries Association
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 21.
BRENDAN HARRINGTON
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 21.
CHARLIE SWANTON, Director
Division of Sport Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 143.
RICKY GEASE, Executive Director
Kenai River Sportfishing Association (KRSA)
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 143.
KEN LARSON, Secretary
Prince Wales Sound Charter Boat Association (PWSCBA)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 143.
MELVIN GROVE
Valdez, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 143.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:20:40 AM
CHAIR BRYCE EDGMON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:20 a.m. Representatives
Edgmon, Johnson, Kawasaki, Keller, Buch, and Millett were
present at the call to order. Representative Munoz arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HJR 21-GROUNDFISH FISHERIES LICENSES
10:21:01 AM
CHAIR EDGMON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 21, Requesting the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council to cease consideration of an
amendment package that would require a Pacific cod endorsement
for a license limitation program license holder to participate
in the Pacific cod fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska.
10:22:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN, Alaska State Legislature,
established the timeliness of passing the resolution to have it
available for presentation at the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (NPFMC) [referred to as Council] April 1,
2009, meeting, and introduced HJR 21, paraphrasing from the
sponsor statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
House Joint Resolution 21 requests the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) to cease
consideration of an amendment package that would
require a Pacific cod endorsement for a license
limitation [permit] (LLP) license holder to
participate in the Pacific cod fixed gear fisheries in
the Gulf of Alaska. It also supports the continuation
of the existing LLP program for groundfish in the Gulf
of Alaska, and supports a policy of broad
participation in the harvest of marine resources in
the Gulf of Alaska.
The NPFMC is the federal regulatory body that oversees
management of the federal fisheries off the coast of
Alaska, in the area from 3 to 200 miles from shore.
The NPFMC is currently considering regulatory action
that would create and require Pacific cod
"endorsements" on Gulf of Alaska fixed gear license
limitation program (LLP) licenses in order to harvest
the Pacific cod resource. (In this proposed action,
"fixed gear" includes pot and longline gear types.)
These endorsements would be placed on only those LLPs
that have been used in a specific range of recent
years. LLPs without Pacific cod endorsements could
not be used to fish for Pacific cod. This action
renders those LLPs functionally useless and valueless
to their owners and increases the barriers for re-
entry or new entrance into the Pacific cod fisheries.
Of the LLPs that would be impacted by this action,
more than 60% are estimated to be owned by Alaska
residents.
Pacific cod is among the most important of the fishery
resources harvested in federal waters in the Gulf of
Alaska. Pacific cod is harvested by four different
gear types, and on vessels ranging in size from very
small (<30 feet) to relatively large (>100 feet). The
greatest number of vessels harvesting Pacific cod in
the Gulf of Alaska use pot, longline or jig gear, and
the vast majority of these vessels are =60 feet in
length. This is the core of the coastal Alaska
resident fleet in the Gulf of Alaska. Pacific cod are
also harvested using trawl gear.
The creation and requirement of Pacific cod
endorsements for participation in federal Pacific cod
fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska would create
significant barriers for new entrants to Alaska's
commercial fisheries, and for re-entrance by fishermen
who did not participate in a specific range of
qualifying years. It would also impact a group of
recent fishery entrants who made their fishery
investments after the qualifying years. Impacted
individuals would include young Alaskans and
enterprising crewmen looking to advance into ownership
positions in the industry. This action is also likely
to lead to consolidation of the fishing fleet and
concentration of LLP ownership in fewer hands.
Expected results of this action would include
consolidation of the Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod fixed
gear fleet, fewer crew jobs, less demand for support
sector services in Alaska's coastal communities, and
increased costs of entry into Gulf of Alaska
fisheries.
In absence of a biological concern for resource
sustainability, it is important to maintain fisheries
with relatively low entry barriers to encourage and
allow the entrance of the next generation of fishermen
into Alaska's fisheries. While HJR 21 carries no
legal force, it put the Alaska Legislature on record
as supporting a policy of broad participation in Gulf
of Alaska groundfish fisheries.
10:24:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN reported that the initial action
considered by the Council was to eliminate 65 percent of the
LLPs; a program initiated in 2000 to control the number of boats
entering the cod fishery in the Gulf. Initially, about 800
permits were issued, and anyone who had made a landing prior to
2000 was eligible to receive an LLP. Today, he said, an average
of 300 boats are active in the fishery. The NPFMC tends to
allocate quotas based on fishing history, which will be one of
the options that will be considered to limit the cod permits.
The Council has been scrutinizing the fishery for six years and
has determined an endorsement policy that requires a fisherman
to have landed cod within the allotted time period. Other
groundfish species will remain, as originally established on the
LLP, but the cod endorsement will be a new requirement.
10:26:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH noted that the endorsement requirement
appears to be acting as a restriction.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN agreed that it is a restriction and
underscored that only those with the endorsement will be allowed
to fish cod.
10:27:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN restated the 65 percent reduction that
allows 45 percent of the fleet to fish, to emphasize that these
would be the only participants in the fixed gear fishery. This
action has created a "rub" with the fishermen, and the Council
is being asked to maintain cod as an open fishery. The jig
fishery is an open fishery, but it has developed differently,
and does not provide the same opportunity. He also stressed
that cod is the last fishery that allows new entrepreneurs to
readily enter, from a financial standpoint. For comparison, he
equated the cod fishery development to the evolution of the
salmon fishery. The federal and state governments approach
fishery management very differently, and it is important to
maintain this last vestige of an accessible fishery in Alaska,
he opined.
10:30:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON queried if there is a past historical
model to consider; perhaps from another state.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN recalled the halibut fishery IFQ, as a
similar situation. When the number of permits is reduced, the
basic result is limited access. The time frame is also an
issue, because in the past two years fishermen have purchased
permits/equipment to enter the cod fishery. Despite their
investment, these fishermen will automatically be disqualified.
He stressed the importance of protecting Alaska's interest for
entering the cod fishery. To a question from Representative
Buch, he said that the history of the NPFMC indicates a trend to
turn responsibility over to the fishermen and stay out of the
management realm. When the American Fisheries Act effectively
narrowed the pollock fishery to only seven or eight vessels,
Alaska did not get involved because the boats were not Alaskan,
he reported, however the halibut IFQ and the Bering Sea crab
fishery are examples of how fisheries become restricted, via
Council actions.
10:35:40 AM
CHAIR EDGMON asked how many fishermen have entered into the
fisheries in the last few years, and how many are Alaskans.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said he could not provide that
information. Having the Council consider that number is a goal
of some fishermen/associations, and the commissioner of ADF&G.
10:36:56 AM
CHAIR EDGMON referred to the committee packet and the Council's
submission titled "North Pacific Management Council, December
2008 C-2(a) Gulf of Alaska Fixed Gear Recency Motion." He noted
that ALTERNATIVE 1 is to take no action. The analysis of that
non-action suggests that this would dilute the revenue stream
for the existing, long term, vested participants, who would like
to see the cod fishery managed similar to other rationalized
fisheries throughout the state.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN held that the definition of a
rationalized fishery may vary, and he opined that salmon has
become a rationalized fishery. The cod fishery is already
rationalized based on the issuance of 800 LLPs; no more will be
issued. Fishermen enter the industry to be in a competitive
business, however, some boats fish only to gain the history that
may potentially add value to their permit. The ability to then
sell the permit does not protect Alaskan fishermen. If we can
stop this practice, we will have done a good deed, he said.
10:41:03 AM
CHAIR EDGMON opened public testimony.
10:41:24 AM
JULIE BONNEY, Representative, Alaska Groundfish Databank, stated
opposition to HJR 21, paraphrasing from a prepared statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
I represent fishermen that have License Limitation
Permits (LLPs) that are endorsed for fixed gear in the
GOA. Some of these fishermen will not receive a
Pacific cod endorsement while other will if the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council or NPFMC)
implements the recency action. Overall these
fishermen realize that the Council must manage the
fishery resource for sustainability, management easy
and economics of the fishery. We do not support House
Joint Resolution 21.
The resolution pits Alaskans against Alaskans both
individually as well as individuals within
communities. Those Alaskan's that are historically
dependent on the Federal Pacific cod fishery against
those Alaskan's that have not participated in the
fishery. Basically this resolution puts the Alaska
Legislators squarely in the middle of fish allocation
decisions. However, you have not been involved in the
lengthy Council public process over the last two years
to understand the debate. The resolution is poorly
written, contains many inaccuracies, and totally
misrepresents what the Council recency action hopes to
accomplish.
The reality is that the recency amendment package
tries to balance protecting historically dependent
license holders yet create entry level opportunities
for new participants at a modest level. Below is a
set of questions and responses that will help you
understand whether this action is good for Alaska and
compares this action with the State of Alaska limited
entry system that is in place for many state
fisheries.
Who wins and looses based on the recency threshold of
one landing for the time period 2000 to 2006?
The recency action will increase Alaska ownership for
those licenses that receive a P cod endorsement in the
overall license pool (see table 1 attached), assumes
recency threshold of 2000 to 2006.
For the WGOA, there are presently 264 endorsed
licenses, 58% of these licenses are held by Alaskans
and 42% are held by non-Alaskans. If the recency P
cod endorsement amendment package moves forward then
Alaska ownership will increase by 11% to 69% and non-
Alaska ownership will decrease by 11% to 31%.
For the CGOA, there are presently 883 CGOA endorsed
licenses, 69% are held by Alaskans and 31% are held by
non-Alaskans. If the recency P cod endorsement
amendment package moves forward with one landing 2000
to 2006 then Alaska ownership will increase by 11% to
80% and non-Alaska ownership will decrease by 11% to
20%.
The recency action will not disproportionately
disadvantage small boat vessels (see table 2
attached), assumes recency threshold of 2000 to 2006.
For the WGOA there are presently 154 licenses for the
vessels less than 60 foot and 110 licenses for vessels
60 feet or greater, 58% versus 42% respectively.
After recency the number of licenses with P cod
endorsements would be approximately 76 licenses for
less than 60 feet and 23 licenses for 60 feet and
greater, 77% and 23% respectively. The pool of
licenses will increase by 19% for the less than 60
foot vessel class.
For the CGOA there are presently 702 licenses for the
vessels less than 60 foot and 181 licenses for vessels
60 feet or greater, 80% versus 20% respectively.
After recency the number of licenses with P cod
endorsements would be approximately 240 licenses for
less than 60 feet and 59 licenses for 60 feet and
greater, 80% and 20% respectively. The pool of
licenses available for the less than 60 foot vessel
class will not change.
The recency action will remove a large portion of the
Catcher processor licenses endorsed for the Western
and Central GOA. Removing Catcher Processors will
reduce competition with the Catcher Vessel sector for
the available quota. Catcher Processors compete with
the Catcher vessel sector if they are less than 125 ft
and process less than 126 MT per week for the
available Pacific cod quota. In the CGOA CP licenses
that could participate in the Pacific cod fisheries
would be reduced by 71% and in the WGOA by 48% if one
landing from 2000 to 2006 is the recency threshold.
Why are there so many licenses available in the GOA?
The Limited License Program (LLP) limits access to the
Federal groundfish in the GOA. Fishing under the
program began in 2000. The LLP defined a general
qualification period (GQP) and an endorsement
qualification period (EQP) both of which must have
been satisfied. The GQP period is from Jan 1988 -
June 27, 1992 requiring one landing of any groundfish
and the EQP requiring one landing for < 60 ft vessels
and one landing in at least two calendar years from
Jan 1, 1992 to June 17, 1995 for vessels equal to or
greater than 60 feet. Vessels that landed two to
three groundfish, which could be taken incidentally in
other fisheries, qualified a vessel for a license.
This was a minimal threshold that created a large
number of licenses and gave license holders the
opportunity to invest and participate in the
groundfish fisheries. The action now being considered
by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
examines whether LLP holders actually took advantage
of the opportunity. The recency action is considering
minimal thresholds for a period of up to 2000 to 2008,
a nine year period.
Presently, there are more LLP licenses available than
the fishery can support. National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) has stated that if all LLPs
participated in the Pacific cod fishery that they
would have no choice but to close the fishery since it
would be unmanageable.
How does this action compare to the limited entry
system in place for State fisheries?
The state of Alaska limited entry system that is in
place for many state fisheries such as salmon and
herring is no different than the license limitation
system in place for federal fisheries for the Gulf of
Alaska. In either case license holders' race for the
available common quota; quota is not allocated to
individuals.
In the first stage of the state limited entry system,
a fishery is limited by adopting a "maximum number" of
permits and issuing those permits to the highest
ranking applicants under a hardship ranking ("point")
system. By law and court decision, the maximum number
for a fishery should be no less than the highest
participation level in any one of the four years
immediately prior to the qualification date.
In the second stage of limited entry, the law directs
the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (commission
or CFEC) to determine an "optimum number" for the
fishery. The optimum number should represent a
reasonable balance of three general standards
specified in the law (see AS 16.43.290). The three
standards include economic, resource conservation, and
management concerns.
The federal action is much less restrictive then state
limited entry system since the qualification period
for the federal action at a minimum is five years
(2002 - 2006) and at a maximum is nine years (2000 to
2008) compared to four years for the state system. In
other words, state limited entry is more restrictive
with regards to recent participation than what is
being considered for the federal action.
How many licenses will remain after a recency action?
The number of licenses that will be endorsed for
Pacific cod would be appropriately 200% of the average
number of licenses that has participated in the
fishery from 2000 to 2008 if the threshold time period
of 2000 to 2006 was adopted.
Jig sector entry level opportunity?
The NPFMC is considering exempting jig gear from any
LLP requirements or Pacific cod endorsements. In
addition the Council is considering allocating this
sector a non-historical share of the Pacific cod
federal quota in the sector split amendment package.
Typically Jig gear cannot compete with the other
sectors during the winter months and typically jig
gear harvests less than 1% of the available federal
quota. The sector split amendment is contemplating
allocating 5% of the federal TAC to these
participants. Most jig gear operations do not have an
LLP but instead participate inside the state parallel
zone of 0 to 3 miles. With the exemption vessels
would have access to fishing grounds from 0 to 200
miles and up to 5% of the federal quota.
For Alaskan's this opportunity is much more viable
then leaving a bunch of licenses in the fixed gear
sectors available for any US citizen to access. Jig
gear is really only viable for Alaskan residents since
the fishery is not efficient enough for non-residents.
Weather impacts the fishery and trip ex-vessel values
are usually less than $2,500 per trip. It only makes
sense for residences that live in Alaskan coastal
communities. Additionally, cod jigging is a good
supplemental income for many fishing operations in the
winter and spring months. If the Council stops action
on the recency action then the jig sector
opportunities would most likely be stopped since this
is part of the trade off for the overall action of
recency and sector splits.
How can fishermen enter the Pacific cod fishery?
There are many methods to access the Pacific cod
resource in the GOA besides receiving a Pacific cod
endorsement for an LLP. These options included:
Fish in the parallel fishing zone without a cod
endorsed LLP.
Participate in the State of Alaska Pacific cod
fisheries which have been allocated 25% of the federal
Acceptable Biological Catch limit.
Buy a LLP with an endorsement from another license
holder.
Participate in the newly created Jig fishery (if both
the recency and sector split actions move forward).
Participate in the WGOA B season which would allow an
LLP holder to participate (no P cod endorsement
required).
Why protect License holders?
According to Alaska statue "Economically healthy
fishery" is defined in AS 16.43.990(2) as follows:
(2) "Economically healthy fishery" means a fishery
that yields a sufficient rate of economic return to
the fishermen participating in it to provide for,
among other things, the following:
(A) Maintenance of vessels and gear in satisfactory
and safe operating condition;
And
(B) Ability and opportunity to improve vessels, gear
and fishing techniques, including, when permissible,
experimentation with new vessels, new gear, and new
techniques.
Allowing excessive entry will not provide for an
economically healthy fishery. Data in the Council
analysis for gross revenues data indicate that the
majority of fixed gear catcher vessel and catcher
processor licenses that did not have any qualified
fixed gear landing during the proposed qualifying
period elected to participate in other Alaska
fisheries during this period.
Out of 264 Western GOA licenses, there are 171
licenses that did not have any qualified landings
during 2000-2006. However, 144 of the 171 licenses
had landings in other Alaska fisheries. Western GOA
licenses that did not have directed Pacific cod
landings, but were active in other fisheries, had
revenues mainly from the IFQ halibut (35.4%) and
sablefish (21.4%) fisheries, and the BSAI trawl
fisheries (31.1%). Less than 1% of revenues were from
GOA Federal (0.8%) or State waters (0.3%) fixed gear
fisheries. In contrast, most Western GOA licenses
that had at least one fixed gear groundfish landing
during 2000-2006 also participated in the State waters
Pacific cod fisheries (72 of 93 licenses), and many
licenses had landings in the Central GOA fixed gear
Federal fisheries (20 licenses). The majority of
active Western GOA licenses also had shellfish,
salmon, and IFQ halibut landings. Gross revenues for
licenses with qualified Western GOA landings were from
IFQ halibut landings (29.5%), shellfish (33.4%), and
salmon (19.9%). Notably, GOA trawl groundfish
fisheries comprised 18.8% of revenues for licenses
with at least one qualified landing, and landings from
the Western GOA directed Pacific cod fishery comprised
only 11.0% of gross revenues.
Of 883 Central GOA licenses, 614 licenses did not have
at least one directed Pacific cod landing during 2000-
2006; 500 of these non-qualified licenses had landings
in other Alaska fisheries. Similar to nonqualified
Western GOA licenses, the majority of revenues by
these licenses were from IFQ halibut (35.0%) and
sablefish (21.3%), and the BSAI trawl fisheries
(13.6%). Only a small proportion of revenues by these
licenses were from the fixed gear groundfish fisheries
in the Western GOA (0.7%) or from the GOA State waters
Pacific cod fisheries (1.4%). Most Central GOA
licenses that made at least one directed Pacific cod
landing during 2000-2006 also participated in the
halibut IFQ fisheries (226 of 269 licenses). These
licenses also fished for salmon (164 licenses), IFQ
sablefish (141 licenses), State GOA Pacific cod (140
licenses), and shellfish (123 licenses). Revenues by
active licenses were from halibut IFQ landings
(45.1%), followed shellfish (10.3%). Directed Pacific
cod landings from the Central GOA comprised 10.0% of
gross revenues by Central GOA licenses with at least
one qualified landing during 2000-2006.
When comparing annual gross revenues per license, the
most apparent difference between catcher vessel
licenses with directed Pacific cod landings and
licenses without qualified landings is that they are
participating in a different suite of fisheries.
Western GOA CV licenses with at least one qualified CV
landing during 2000-2006 had annual gross revenues of
$274,608 per license. In contrast, Western GOA CV
licenses without qualified landings had substantially
higher revenues, averaging $622,658 per license.
There was not a large difference between annual gross
revenues for Central GOA CV licenses with qualified
fixed gear landings ($319,458) and without qualified
landings ($353,067). Many of the fisheries that non-
qualified licenses participate in are difficult for
Pacific cod dependent license holders to enter. Entry
for the following fisheries -- IFQ sablefish, IFQ
halibut, IFQ BSAI crab, AFA pollock and state limited
entry fisheries such as salmon and herring - all would
come at a substantial cost to gain access for
participation. Allowing other non-dependent LLPS to
enter the GOA Pacific cod fishery with limited costs
seems wholly unfair to these economically depend fixed
gear participation.
In conclusion my member fishermen do not support HJR
#21. We believe the appropriate forum to advocate for
fish allocations and management of fisheries resources
is at the respective fishery management bodies - the
Alaska Board of Fisheries and the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council.
MS BONNEY elaborated on her written testimony to point out that
Kodiak has historically opposed limiting the fishing industry.
However, to protect the sustainability of the resource requires
that it not be left open for everyone, as the fishery is not
endless or unlimited. She mentioned other fishery issues that
she opined the committee should take time to address, and
maintained that the Council has worked to create balance in the
fishery.
10:45:51 AM
JEFFERY STEPHAN, Representative, United Fishermen Marketing
Association, stated opposition to HJR 21, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
HJR 21 addresses a proposed regulatory action that is
under consideration by the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council ("NPFMC" or "Council"). The
proposed regulatory action is intended to add gear-
specific (i.e., pot, hook-and-line, and jig) Pacific
cod "endorsements" to fixed gear licenses for the
purpose of limiting entry to the directed Pacific cod
fisheries in Federal waters of the Western Gulf of
Alaska (WGOA) and the Central Gulf of Alaska (CGOA).
Briefly, licenses that meet the selected catch
threshold (1, 3, or 5 landings, or 5 mt, 10 mt, 25 mt,
or 100 mt of directed Pacific cod catch) using pot,
hook-and-line, or jig gear would receive gear-specific
Pacific cod "Endorsements". The NPFMC has the
flexibility to select different catch thresholds for
vessels within the array of gear (i.e., pot, hook and
line, etc.), operation type (i.e., catcher vessel,
catcher processor, etc.) and vessel length sectors
that are included in this proposed action.
It is important to note that the proposed action to
implement Gulf of Alaska (GOA) fixed gear P. cod
Endorsements provides needed stability for the Alaska
resident fleets that participate in the WGOA and CGOA
fixed gear P. cod fisheries, and incorporates several
tools to ensure ample opportunities for new
participation and entry-level participation in these
fisheries. The proposed Endorsements action seeks to
arrest an ongoing and continued deterioration of, and
to provide necessary protection for, the social,
cultural and economic characteristics of WGOA and CGOA
communities, and those fishing businesses, vessels,
vessel owners, operators, crews, support businesses,
etc. that are so important to Kodiak and other Alaska
coastal communities, and that depend on stability and
growth in the CGOA fixed gear P. cod fishery. The
proposed GOA fixed gear P. cod Endorsements action
adopts a fleet management protocol that is very
similar to that which is instituted in the State of
Alaska Limited Entry system; that is, the proposed
Endorsements action creates licenses that have a
similar purpose and function, for example, as the
Limited Entry Licenses that are created by the State
of Alaska in the Kodiak salmon, herring and tanner
crab fisheries.
We respectfully request that the House Fisheries
Committee please understand that a regulatory process
has been underway for a long period of time to develop
a proposed action for GOA (Gulf of Alaska) fixed gear
P. Cod Endorsements. Many of the Alaskan communities,
fishing businesses, vessels, vessel owners, operators,
crews, and support businesses, etc. that depend on the
GOA fixed gear P. cod fishery would be detrimentally
impacted by the adoption of HJR 21. We fear that the
individuals, businesses, and coastal communities who
are in need of the proposed Endorsements action may be
harmed by legislative insertion into this process that
may be caused by HJR 21. HJR 21 seeks to insert the
Alaska Legislature into a regulatory process that is
governed by a federally established entity that has
developed the proposed initiative for GOA fixed gear
P. cod Endorsements. However, HJR 21 falls far short
of providing an accurate, thorough, complete, and
comprehensive consideration and understanding of the
issues that are associated with the proposed
Endorsements action. We fear that a significant
investment of their time and attention to fully and
completely understand the significant complexity,
considerations, ramifications and details of the
statutory, regulatory, social cultural, economic and
statistical considerations and analysis that have
heretofore already been invested in the Endorsements
initiative.
To be clear, we respect and support the authority,
interests and prerogatives of the Alaska Legislature,
on behalf of the State of Alaska, its resources and
its citizens, to convey official expressions and
resolutions of interest, intent and policy for the
purpose of addressing specific resource management
initiatives that may otherwise lie within the official
jurisdiction of a resource management entity that is
officially established apart from the jurisdiction of
the State of Alaska. However, the action that is
proposed in HJR21 is misdirected, unproductive, and
unreasonable, and leads to no practical or beneficial
result whatsoever. And the accuracy, efficacy, manner
of expression and foundation of the provisions therein
contained are in large part hyperbole, malapropos,
uninformed and inaccurate. HJR 21 suggests action
that would significantly disadvantage and harm Alaska-
resident harvesters and Alaska coastal communities,
and instead, permit the continuing erosion of Alaskan
interests in the GOA fixed gear P. cod fishery that is
caused by non-Alaskan interests, and other interests
that are otherwise enriched by favorable management
programs in other fisheries.
Please bear in mind that the consideration of the
proposed action for GOA fixed gear P. cod Endorsements
is given by federal statute to a federally established
entity (i.e., the NPFMC) in which the State of Alaska
has statutorily been provided with significant
official standing, involvement, influence and
participation. The State of Alaska has reasonably
sufficient and experienced professional resources with
which to engage, and which have, in fact, reasonably
engaged, in the development of the proposed
Endorsements action. The State of Alaska has
significant and ample opportunity to consider,
balance, judge and advocate the details and impacts,
and the policy and other considerations, that are
associated with the proposed Endorsements action.
Importantly, the proposed Endorsements action that is
referenced in HJR 21 has been under development for
several years, and is scheduled for final action
during the April 2009 , NPFMC meeting. The proposed
action is very important to the stability, survival,
and future growth of the traditional and customary
social, cultural, economic, and business framework of
Kodiak and other Alaska coastal communities. In fact,
aggressive action to address the problems, challenges
and threats to such stability, survival and future
growth, such as are addressed in the proposed GOA
Endorsements action, should have been taken and
implemented many years ago.
We respectfully request that the house Fisheries
Special Committee, the House Resources Committee and
the Alaska Legislature please do not insert themselves
in the proposed GOA fixed gear P. cod Endorsements
initiative, especially in the manner that is expressed
in HJR 21.
MR. STEPHAN added that the NPFMC recency action does not
constitute rationalization, consolidation of the fleet, or the
creation of individual transferable quotas. He stressed that 25
percent of the Pacific cod quota is reserved for state waters,
without entry restriction. Neither are restrictions placed on
the jig or state water parallel fisheries. He reported that the
800 permits were established by the Council in 1995, and many of
them are held by people who are no longer active in the fishery.
The recency requirement could most closely be compared to the
limited entry fisheries for tanner crab or salmon.
10:49:22 AM
ALEXUS KWACHKA expressed support for HJR 21. The LLP reduction
will act as a stepping stone towards privatization, and he
predicted that it will progress to a sector split, followed by
an IFQ issue. Additionally, young fishermen will not be able to
afford to participate in the fleet. This cod fishery often
provides additional income for fishermen who experience a low
yield salmon season. It would be important for Alaska to
consider what it would like its fishing communities to "look
like in the future." The Council process does not address this
picture, he said.
10:50:47 AM
RYAN JOHNSON stated support for HJR 21, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I am a small boat fisherman from Kodiak. I am 36
years old and have fished out of Kodiak since 1993 and
resided in Kodiak since 1997. Since 2001 I have
participated in the Pacific Cod fishery using posts
and longlines on board my very small 38 foot boat, the
Cyclone. I currently own a Central Gulf LLP for the
Cyclone that is valid for boats up to 46 feet in
length, and all of my catch history has been with this
LLP. In January of 2008 I purchased a new vessel, the
Castle Cape, which is 48 feet long and came with
another Central Gulf LLP that does not have any recent
history. I've since learned that the NPFMC is
attempting to revoke LLPs that don't have any history,
which would effectively ban me from a fishery that I
have participated in for seven years.
As a year-round resident and home-owner in Kodiak, I
depend on several fisheries throughout the year to
make my business plan work. Pot fishing for cod in
the January and February seasons is crucial to my
winter survival and to the servicing of the debt that
I have taken on with my fishing business. I have
borrowed substantial sums over the years, not only for
my vessels, but for my pots and gear such as haulers,
launchers, bait-choppers etc. I employ local
crewmembers who also live year-round in Kodiak and
have families with small children. It is with great
dismay as I watch the Council yet again run roughshod
over the majority of Alaskan stakeholders for the good
of only a few. Most of the beneficiaries of this
action are large boat owners who are approaching or
beyond retirement age, and who already received huge
private quota allocations in the Halibut/Sablefish IFQ
Program and/or the Bering Sea Crab IFQ Program. If
this action passes, the LLPs that are left will take
on a much larger value, and I will be forced once
again to take on more debt just to continue to
participate.
I applaud the efforts of Representative Austerman and
others to stand up for working Alaskans and oppose
this harmful Council action.
10:52:35 AM
LINDA KOZAK, Consultant, Kozak & Associates, Inc., indicated her
concern for HJR 21, paraphrasing from a prepared statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
In reviewing HJR 21, I have concerns regarding the
resolution that I would like to address. These
concerns are divided into three categories in the hope
to more efficiently articulate my thoughts. My
proposal to the North Pacific Council can be found at
the end of this document.
History of the Issue and Some Facts
In regard to HJR 21, I wonder how many members of the
Legislature or staff have bothered to read the 80-page
analysis or reviewed the problem statement or the
history of this issue. In 1999, the Council, at the
request of industry, began working on a comprehensive
program that would provide individual fishing quotas
for the Pacific cod fishery participants in the Gulf
of Alaska. By April of 2003, the Council was prepared
to begin discussions on a preliminary alternative for
defining the program. The full analytical process
began and for three years, hearings were held.
In 2006, shortly after a change in administration, the
State of Alaska successfully removed the IFQ
alternatives from the discussion and instead began to
look at stabilizing the Pacific cod fishery by
revising the limited entry licenses that are in place
for groundfish and for creating sector allocations.
The recency proposal was to provide for a specific
endorsement to fish in the directed Pacific cod
fishery and participation in that directed fishery
would be necessary in order to receive the
endorsement. It is important to note that when the
original groundfish licenses were initially
distributed that any landing of any type of groundfish
qualified a person to receive the license. The
proposal now is to simply provide a directed Pacific
cod endorsement for those who have actually fished
Pacific cod in the last nine or ten years.
The North Pacific Council has been dealing with the
Pacific cod issue since 1999 and final action on this
item is scheduled for April of this year. There has
been plenty of time for people to provide comments and
recommendations in the last ten years. Many Alaskan
fishermen who are dependent on this fishery support
the Council moving forward and providing some
stability in this fishery.
Agency Authority for Fishery Management
For the state waters fisheries including salmon and
herring, the authority to manage lies with the Alaska
Board of Fisheries, with limited entry proposals being
addressed by the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission. For the federal fisheries, the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council is tasked with
recommending to the Secretary of Commerce various
management and allocation decisions, as well as
limiting access to the resource. Each of these bodies
has a process for their decision-making, which
includes proposals, analysis, hearings, and appeals.
In regard to the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council, the governor of the State of Alaska is
represented by the ADF&G Commissioner or designee and
there are five other Alaskans on the Council.
When the United States Congress or Alaska Legislature
intervene in the management of fishery issues,
problems are inevitable. Many times elected officials
have been lobbied on an issue by a segment of the
industry focused on achieving a specific goal, and
they approach a friendly elected face to promote that
idea. It is often the case that the information
presented is lacking or even misleading and very
little time is spent on attempting to understand the
issue.
Specific Concerns Regarding the Resolution
The resolution is specific to limited entry, but the
WHEREAS statements mix limited entry with individual
fishing quotas which results in a confusing and
misleading document.
Some observations regarding specific sections are
shown below:
Page 2, line 6:
The action in question is only for the federal waters
and inside three miles, which are state waters, no
limited entry exists. This is confusing.
Page 2, line 12:
The North Pacific Council under the leadership of the
State of Alaska, in fact, reversed course in 2006 and
is now only focused on the limited entry aspects of
the fishery. This is not considered "rationalization"
and should not be confused with an IFQ or cooperative
fishery.
Page 2, line 16:
Limited entry is not known as "rationalization".
Page 2, line 18:
The action being considered is not "rationalization"
and other limited entry programs such as salmon and
herring have not demonstrated significant job losses
or consolidation, rather they have served to stabilize
the industry.
Page 2, line 20:
The action being considered will not have negative
impacts on businesses in coastal Alaska. Again, the
action will not promote consolidation or job loss.
Page 2, line 22:
Active participation in a fishery is considered by
some to be owner on board, while others consider it to
be a vessel owner who hires a qualified skipper and
crew to run their vessel. The tradition in the
Pacific cod fishery in the Gulf is for some owner on
board and some hired skipper situations. This will
not change in the limited entry action being
considered.
Page 2, line 25:
This statement does not appear to be factual.
Page 2, line 27:
All limited entry fisheries have some entry costs.
The cost for entering the Pacific cod fishery will be
substantially less than that for many salmon or
herring fisheries in the state. This statement seems
to say that all fisheries should revert to open
access. Most salmon or herring permit holders would
not agree.
Page 3, lines 15 - 29:
It is difficult to agree that all groundfish fixed
gear licenses without a cod endorsement would be
valueless. If you have never fished for Pacific cod
and don't get an endorsement to fish Pacific cod in
the directed fishery, you have lost nothing.
Page 4, line 2:
A limited entry program is not a natural progression
towards "rationalization".
Page 4, lines 4 - 12:
The number of participants will not decline under one
of the Council's alternatives. Instead it will simply
grant an endorsement to participate in the directed
Pacific cod fishery for those who already are or have
even made one landing since 2000. No jobs will be
lost or demand reduced for shore side support or
services.
Proposal for the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council.
The proposal that I have been promoting for some time
is that if anyone has demonstrated dependence in the
last ten years by either purchasing a license or
making even one landing, they would receive a fully
transferable Pacific cod endorsement. This seems very
generous and would not shut anyone out of the fishery.
If you haven't made even one landing in ten years, you
aren't dependent on the fishery.
In speaking with Council staff, there are about 900
groundfish licenses in the Central Gulf and around 300
in the Western Gulf for fixed gear. If the Council
chose to award Pacific cod endorsements for those
vessel owners who have made at least one landing in
the last ten years, regardless of poundage, this would
result in around 300 licenses in the Central Gulf and
150 in the Western Gulf. This action would provide
stability for the fleet that is dependent on the
fishery, demonstrated by their actual participation.
The Council action would not preclude halibut IFQ
harvesters from retaining cod taken incidentally, nor
would it limit in any way the jig fishery. Of course,
the state waters fishery has no license restrictions.
10:54:56 AM
JERRY BONGEN concurred with the earlier comments of Linda Kozak,
that comparing the Council's recency action to rationalization
is a gross misrepresentation. In past fishery policy actions,
rationalization has been used to award catch history to
individuals, boats, and co-ops. This action in no way attempts
to do that, he said. The vast majority of the LLPs issued in
1995 were generated by incidental landings of Pacific Cod during
other fisheries. The LLPs were a windfall for the fishermen, at
that time, who were actually fishing for halibut or black cod.
The fishery is fully prosecuted, he reported, and a recency
action is needed to stabilize the fishery. At present there are
less than 100 pot boats participating. Of those, six are less
than 50 feet. To be economically viable in the cod industry an
investment of $400,000-$500,000 would need to be in the hand of
a young entrant, he opined, and it is essential to ensure
economic stability. By leaving the fishery open, opportunities
for young fishermen to enter the industry will be diminished, as
they will have no assurance of economic success.
10:58:14 AM
AL BURCH, Owner, AWTA & Burch Brothers, stated opposition to HJR
21, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
The Alaska Whitefish Trawlers Association urges you to
NOT SUPPORT HJR21. AWTA represents approximately 40
trawl vessels that fish out of Kodiak.
The resolution seeks to stop the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council's (NPFMC) consideration of a
recency amendment package regarding the Pacific cod
fishery in the Gulf of Alaska.
The NPFMC recency amendment package, seeks to protect
those fishermen who have historically fished Pacific
cod, while establishing a clear path for future
entrants into the fisheries. At the same time it
allows new interests to the fishery. It protects the
interests of those who took all the risks and
financial commitments to develop and set the
foundations of Kodiak's cod fisheries.
Another big consideration regarding HJR 21, is that it
puts the legislature in the position of regulating and
making decisions on fisheries that are most
appropriately handled by the North Pacific Fisheries
Management Council and by the Alaska Board of Fish.
The resolution puts the Legislature smack-dab-in-the-
middle of fish allocation issues that will pit
Alaskans against other Alaskans. That is not an
appropriate place for legislators, nor is it
appropriate to manage fish allocation issues by
legislative resolution. It sets a bad precedent that
will leave Alaska's fishermen and Alaska's fish
resource the worse for it.
I have lived in Alaska since Territorial days, 40
years of it here in Kodiak. I've fished Alaska waters
for more than 50 years. I've also been involved in
fish politics and am familiar with the process of fish
management conducted by the Alaska Fish Board and the
North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC).
11:01:33 AM
STEPHEN TAUFEN, Founder, Groundswell Fisheries Movement, stated
support for HJR 21, paraphrasing from a prepared statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The Groundswell Fisheries Movement [is] a public
advocacy established to recover the $2 Billion
shortfall every year in Alaska fisheries due to the
global structure of the corporations involved, and
their international tax strategies. I also am an
Input/Output economist who did work for over 20
country programs for the Northwest tree fruit
industry, for 7 years. I also spent two decades in
Alaska fisheries accounting & operations management;
and now represent the citizen-taxpayers.
When I first heard the word RATIONALIZATION show up in
Alaskan fisheries, I understood immediately what it
was, because it has a 150-year old history. It is the
substitution of globalized corporations extracting the
wealth and subjecting peoples to their whip - in order
to serve their stockholders and their strategies - it
is the destruction of local economically sustainable
agricultural systems. And it put the fear of God in
me.
There is a vast difference between being 'rational' -
as if that word is a goal - and the kinds of
'rationalization management schemes' (or 'regimes'),
which is their proper term (at the NPFMC): the "Ism",
the ideology of PRIVATIZATION practiced by the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Being rational is having annual privileges. (Fish is
harvested by working participants.) It is taking a
look at maintaining local sustainability.
Rationalization is privatization of a PUBLIC ASSET.
(Economist) John Maynard Keynes called it 'ASSET
COMMODITIZATION' -you take and pull all of the future
annual values into the present day (represented by
salable quotas). And it does not resolve
OVERCAPITALIZATION: it causes it! It has caused
hundreds of millions of dollars from INVESTOR CLASS
people to come into our fisheries, yet do nothing
actually for the operation of those fisheries.
Being rational concentrates on SELLERS having control.
That is why the IFQ program worked so well to raise
Halibut (prices in our state).
Rationalization is designed to serve a BUYER'S CARTEL.
It establishes the mechanisms of Price-Fixing and
causes Restraints of Trade, Fleet Consolidations and
Job Losses.
Being rational is PUBLIC SERVING. It serves the
Public Commons. And preserves Opportunities for
Individuals
.
Rationalization's purpose is to remove from the Public
Commons the People's rights -natural resources, air,
salt, water, … where does it stop? - to serve a few
Investor Class people, intent on getting rich.
People ask, "Where has the value gone?" But there has
been testimony at the Council showing over 7 years of
groundfish values in Japan ports versus United States
ports. And those numbers, in Japan ports, for the
same kind of fish, pollock, were 2.4 to 3.8 times
higher (paid by many of the same global firms
operating here).
Cod is similarly undervalued. Bristol Bay sockeye
salmon, too.
What Alaska has failed to do - and there are 22 states
or so in this Nation that are united dealing together
with democracy and trade issues for the benefit of the
local and state levels - is govern the Conduct of
Trade.
Alaska has failed to establish a Resource
Accountability and Transparency Board (RATB) - and to
form a Trade Oversight Commission.
I support HJR021, as a way to slow things down - and
to give you folk's time to join the modern world of
enforcing fair, reciprocal trade conduct.
Alaska's bountiful natural resources promised vast
public wealth and the creation of a large middle class
sharing in it. But when a few carpetbagger
corporations intended to take all those profits, just
for themselves, and employed a few corrupt politicians
to do it - repeating the resource extraction history
in countries all over the world - then we become
subjected to what political economics calls a RESOURCE
CURSE.
Adding insult to injury, those same powerful
corporations then work politically to dominate the
very regulation-making oversight bodies that would
otherwise strongly protect public rights. This
condition is known globally as REGULATORY CAPTURE.
And many of you have heard the complaints about the
NPFMC being captured by "the industry" - i.e.
corporatocracy players and government participants
with conflicted interests. Such KLEPTOCRATS operate
purely on Greed.
Making Regulatory Capture by an Industry's dominant
players into a criminal offense is for many nations,
today, in the top-four on their priority list of
measures needed to ensure greater Accountability and
Transparency and fairness in the global Conduct of
Trade.
11:05:11 AM
SHAWN DOCHTERMANN stated support for HJR 21, and opined that it
will serve to protect communities and future fishermen. The
NPFMC is not following the mandates of the Magnuson-Stevens
[Fishery Conservation and Management Act], he asserted. The
Council's scheme is to hand out privileges for the future to
past participants who have already benefited from the fishery.
Given the operation costs, the jig fishery in the state waters
may not prove to be viable. He cited a disconnect of "boots on"
fishermen, not being granted the privilege of fishing, while
other, non active fishermen have the protection and control of
holding a permit.
11:08:05 AM
DAVID POLUSHKIN, Representative, K-Bay Fishing Association,
stated opposition to HJR 21, paraphrasing from a prepared
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I am representing the K-Bay Fisheries Association Inc.
We are all Alaska Residents and small boat fishermen
all of our members are longline and drift salmon
fishermen.
We have 44 members in our Association and all of the
members are owner/operators of 50 feet and under
boats. All the members participate in the P-Cod
fishery during the federal seasons. We have members
that live in Willow, Wasilla, Nikolaevsk, Kachemak
Selo, Voznesenka, Razdolna, and Afognak Villages of
the Russian communities.
We oppose HJR 21 as it is not productive for the
legislature to insert themselves in complex fishery
management issues.
In HJR 21 there are misrepresentations and incorrect
assertions, such as consolidation of vessels,
reduction of participants, and elimination of crew
jobs.
It is totally false because with the LLP recency
action that the Council will take will actually save
crew jobs, protect long time local Alaska fishermen
that have been dependent on P-Cod fishery, protect
small boat owner/operations from being pushed out of
the fishery by bigger so called "super 58 footers"
that have just recently started fishing and are taking
a bigger chunk of the TAC.
With the current final action that the Council is
considering there will still be anywhere from 110 to
306 permits that will qualify.
With this action there will be more than enough
participation that will protect the resource and the
historical participants that rely on the fishery.
There is assertion that the fishermen will not be able
to enter into the fishery? That is not true they can
enter the fishery by fishing in the state waters that
are inside 3 miles you do not need an LLP in state
waters.
This is nothing new that is just coming down the pike
this has been discussed for a long time people knew
that something was going to happen, yet they still
chose not to participate in the fishery. It shows
that they do not rely on the fishery.
There is assertion that all the supporters are big
boat owners that are ready to retire which is far from
the truth majority of our members are under 40 years
of age and are all small boat owner/operators.
We do not support HJR 21 and urge you to let the
Council process work as it is intended and formed for
this task as managers of our resources.
11:11:06 AM
ILIA KUZMIN, Representative, K-Bay Fisheries Association, stated
opposition to HJR 21, paraphrasing from a prepared statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
[I am a] long time cod participant in the Gulf of
Alaska, specifically in [the] Central Gulf but based
out of homer.
We have to end this race for fish due to safety as
[our] number 1 priority.
We oppose House Joint Resolution #21 as it is not
productive for the legislature to insert themselves
into complex fishery management issues.
In HJR 21 there are misrepresentations and incorrect
assertions, such as consolidation of vessels, [and]
reduction of participants of crew jobs.
So we ask the committee to let the Council do its job
to complete this process of LLP Recency.
11:12:21 AM
BRENDAN HARRINGTON, stated support for HJR 21, paraphrasing from
a prepared statement, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
I'm 28 years old, from Kodiak, and I've been fishing
professionally in Alaska for all of my adult life and,
as a second generation fisherman, most of my childhood
as well. I've recently begun to make the transition
from working on the back deck of a boat to running a
boat myself. I'm here to speak in favor of HJR 21, as
it stresses the importance of protecting an important
public resource, and of securing a future for young
Alaskans who wish to make a life for ourselves in the
fisheries.
The attempt to apply cod restrictions to existing LLPs
effectively shuts down one of the few remaining
avenues to break into a fishery that my generation of
fishermen has open to us. It would effectively keep
us out of the wheelhouses and relegate us to the back
decks. As it stands today, the cod fishery is the
last major holdout against a tide of consolidation in
the industry.
Similar actions have already been taken in other
fisheries. I have fished halibut and black cod since
I was 14 years old, but I've reached the glass ceiling
in that fishery, as it's already been apportioned out
to private interests, and I don't have the
considerable financial resources that it takes to buy
my way in. This is a situation that you find across
the spectrum of fisheries. As it stands today, the
cod fishery is the only holdout that is financially
viable, and introducing these proposed cod
restrictions would effectively scuttle this.
I find the justification for these cod restrictions
disingenuous at best. It's just bad policy. the way
that the system functions now, the inactive permits
serve primarily to keep the market prices for LLPs
down to a level which is affordable for a young
fisherman who is just starting out on his or her own.
They can be bought for only a few thousand dollars,
and leased even more reasonably. Compare this to
IFQs, where the amount of money needed to buy into the
fishery is measured in the quarters and even halves of
millions of dollars.
There is no evidence that the cod fishery is anything
but totally healthy, so it's hard to see how reducing
the number of permits is a biological and
environmental necessity. It would serve only to drive
up the prices of the remaining, usable permits to a
level which would shut out the younger generations of
fishermen.
Furthermore, many boats that would otherwise not be
fishing cod are running unprofitable cod operations
just now, because they've seen the writing on the wall
in regards to the consolidation of public resources,
and they are fishing for catch history. if the
Council were to take actions that make clear their
intentions to keep the fishery open, it would most
likely reduce the number of boats that are out there,
which would be welcome news to the people who are
actually out there doing the fishing, who find
themselves fishing cod to break even, or even at a
personal loss, just so that they can hold onto their
jobs for the more profitable fisheries, and help to
secure more control of the public resources into the
hands of the boat and permit owners. These people are
in effect helping to dig their own graves, and many of
them know this, but have no choice.
In conclusion, I would like to stress the importance
of maintaining fair access to our public resources and
of carefully evaluating the unintended consequences
that these changes in regulation would bring about.
Please help keep young Alaskans involved in the
fisheries in a real way, and help keep the doors of
opportunity open to us.
11:19:14 AM
CHAIR EDGMON closed public testimony.
11:19:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN referred to the comments that the
legislature should not be involved in relegating fishery limits.
On a state level, he maintained, that such actions should be
left to the BOF. However, regarding federal policies, it is
important for the legislature to become involved, he opined.
11:20:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HJR 21, Version 26-
LS0668\E, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HJR
21, Version E was reported from the House Special Committee on
Fisheries.
11:21:55 AM
The committee took a brief at ease from 11:22 a.m. to 11:25 a.m.
HB 143-NO REPEAL OF SPORT FISH GUIDE LICENSING
11:25:41 AM
CHAIR EDGMON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 143, "An Act repealing the termination of
licensing and regulation of sport fishing operators and sport
fishing guides and licensing and registration of sport fishing
vessels; and providing for an effective date."
11:25:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt HB 143, Version 26-
LS0622\A. With no objection, Version A was before the
committee.
11:26:42 AM
CHARLIE SWANTON, Director, Division of Sport Fisheries, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), directed attention to the
committee packet and the briefing document titled "Brief for HB
143: NO REPEAL OF SPORT FISH GUIDE LICENSE (Reauthorization of
Sport Fish-Guide Licensing Legislation) March 10, 2009," that
indicates the license fee requirements being maintained at
current levels. It also provides background information,
effected legislation, and companion regulations associated with
HB 143. The second page includes the benefits and utility of
the data, participation statistics, and information on the
department's initiative to modernize to electronic reporting.
11:28:20 AM
CHAIR EDGMON opened public testimony.
11:28:45 AM
RICKY GEASE, Executive Director, Kenai River Sportfishing
Association (KRSA), expressed support for HB 143, stating that
log books are an important component of sustainable, responsible
fisheries management. The KRSA supports the department's
efforts to convert the gathered data for use via a modern
analysis/reporting system.
11:29:23 AM
KEN LARSON, Secretary, Prince Wales Sound Charter Boat
Association (PWSCBA), stated opposition to HB 143, reading from
a prepared statement, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
When the Guide License fee was first introduced, many
of us, including PWSCBA, were lead to believe that
ADF&G was undergoing significant funding shortfalls
and needed our help thru this and other measures, and
it would help us Charter Operators with their support.
As always, actions speak louder than words and once
pro-COMFish Denby Lloyd was appointed commissioner it
was obvious we made a mistake with our support. And
Commissioner Lloyd obviously still supports the
COMFish-sponsored Sport Fish Guide License Board,
which we all feel is not required and ludicrous. If
the COMFish folks were really serious about safety and
professionalism they should support 100% US Coast
Guard licensing of 100% of their COMFish vessel
skippers, just like what is required for all of us
Charter vessel operators.
It appears that the guide license fees we are now
forced to pay have created and financed an ADF&G data
collection department that we don't derive any
additional benefit from. The ADF&G-required Logbook
administration requires more time from us charter
operators that we should be reimbursed for also, IF
ADF&G can collect a guide license fee.
I am speaking for Prince William Sound Charter Boat
Assn's 28-members and we request that the Guide
License and Fee be allowed to Sunset in 2010 or better
yet be eliminated now and our 2009 fee be rebated. In
other words, we are AGAINST passage of HB-143, because
we want the Guide License Fee to sunset.
11:31:10 AM
MELVIN GROVE, stated opposition to HB 143, citing the lack of
benefit received from providing the log book information, thus
far. If a business man's tax is to be raised it could be done
via other means, he opined.
CHAIR EDGMON closed public testimony.
11:34:01 AM
MR. SWANTON commented that the data gathered has been presented
to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, the
International Pacific Halibut Commission, and to the Board of
Fisheries on numerous occasion. He cited other uses of the
data, within the department, and noted that the preliminary
information from the log books is quality material. The
department is working do determine the best means to move
forward in reporting and utilizing the information.
11:36:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked how long the data has been collected.
MR. SWANTON the log book data collection began in 1998 in the
marine fisheries, and since 2004 in the freshwater fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH queried if there have been other
reports/updates, or if the pending December report will be the
first culmination of the data.
MR. SWANTON responded that it is not the first culmination of
the data. However, it will be the first opportunity to compare
the two data collection methods to ascertain which is more
precise and comprehensive as a data set for management purposes.
11:37:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI referred to the department's brief and
the listed benefits that the bill would provide. He asked
whether the boat owner is not already bound to comply with
United States Coast Guard requirements, and how the provisions
of this bill would increase an operator's level of safety.
MR. SWANTON answered that the reference to safety would be for
insurance not previously required of sport fishing guides.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI followed up, asking if there is an
insurance requirement under the operator's business license.
MR. SWANTON pointed out that the guide license requires CPR,
first aid, and insurance; the business license may be different.
11:40:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HB 143, Version 26-
LS0622\A, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB
143, Version A was reported from the House Special Committee on
Fisheries.
11:40:31 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries* meeting was adjourned at 11:41
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Board of Fish--JohnstoneCV.PDF |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM HFSH 3/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
|
| City of Ouzinkie.PDF |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21--CharliePeterson.PDF |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21--Chris Holland.pdf |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21--City of Akhiok.PDF |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21--Frank Miles.PDF |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21--City of Port Lions.PDF |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21--Chignik Lagoon Village Corp.PDF |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21--Chignik Lake Traditional Council.PDF |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21--Akhiok-Kaguyak.PDF |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21--AkCoastalCommunitiesCoalition.PDF |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21--Alvin Burch.PDF |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21--Iver Holm |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21--Julie Bonney.pdf |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21--KoniagIncorporated.PDF |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21--LarsenBayTribalCouncil.PDF |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21--Kozak & Associates.pdf |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21--Michael Nelson.PDF |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21--Metlakatla.PDF |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21--Native Village of Eyak.PDF |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21--Native Village of Port Lions.PDF |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21--Village of Chignik Lagoon.PDF |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21--Ryan Johnson.pdf |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21--ShaanSeetLtr.PDF |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21--UFMAStephanTestimony.pdf |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21--Village of Kasaan.PDF |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21--VillageOfPortGraham.PDF |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21UnitedCookInletDriftAssociation.PDF |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HJR 21 |