Legislature(2025 - 2026)GRUENBERG 120
04/10/2025 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB111 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 111 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
April 10, 2025
10:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Louise Stutes, Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Vice Chair
Representative Rebecca Himschoot
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative Bill Elam
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 111
"An Act relating to finfish farms and finfish farm products; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PRESENTATION: MARICULTURE IN ALASKA
- REMOVED FROM AGENDA
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 111
SHORT TITLE: FINFISH FARMS AND PRODUCTS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/21/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/21/25 (H) FSH, RES
04/01/25 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
04/01/25 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/03/25 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
04/03/25 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/10/25 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the bill sponsor, House Rules
by Request of the Governor, presented HB 111 and discussed
finfish farming in Alaska.
JOE FELKL, Legislative Liaison
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered the sectional analysis to HB 111.
MARY MCDOWELL, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 111.
JOHNNY FISHMONGER, Executive Director
Wild Salmon Nation
King Salmon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 111.
ADAM CUTHRIELL, representing self
Girdwood, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 111.
JILL WEITZ, Government Affairs
Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 111.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:02:07 AM
CHAIR LOUISE STUTES called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. Representatives
Edgmon, Himschoot, Vance, McCabe, Elam, Kopp, and Stutes were
present at the call to order.
HB 111-FINFISH FARMS AND PRODUCTS
10:02:58 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 111, "An Act relating to finfish farms and
finfish farm products; and providing for an effective date."
10:03:19 AM
CHAIR STUTES noted that committee substitute was available, with
changes made by Legislative Legal Services to conform with the
Legislative Drafting Manual. She noted that the changes made
are strictly technical and not substantial.
10:03:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 111, Version 34-GH1437\N, Bullard,
3/26/25, as a working document. There being no objection,
Version N was before the committee.
10:04:57 AM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish &
Game, on behalf of the bill sponsor, House Rules by Request of
the Governor, presented HB 111 and discussed finfish farming in
Alaska. He said that in the late 1980s and 1990s, salmon
farming in other parts of the world was done exclusively in
large offshore net-pens. He said that given Alaska's abundant
salmon stocks, lots of concerns were raised by Alaskans that
there was a potential for farmed fish to escape and intermingle
with wild fish. Additionally, there was the potential for
farmed salmon to compete for market share against the wild
salmon fisheries. He said that as a result, the legislature
preemptively passed a ban on not only salmon farming but all
finfish farming. He said that for these reasons, salmon farming
was not included in the proposed legislation.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG remarked that there have been rapid
technological advancements which have enabled businesses to
raise commercial quantities of fish in large onshore facilities.
He said that there are many advantages to today's technologies
and one of which was isolation from any wild stocks of fish. He
said that a good example for the use of this new technology is
Norway, which has already implemented fish farming onshore, and
the industry is growing rapidly. Furthermore, many more onshore
fish production businesses are popping up in other states and
bringing fish to market. He said that these advancements have
transformed the fish farming industry and have made finfish
farming more efficient, sustainable, and humane, while meeting
global demand for seafood.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said that an example of this new
technology could include recirculating tanks that filter waste
and recycle water, and this technology allows for a level of
precision that optimizes fish growth. He said that digital twin
technology creates virtual replicas of physical fish farms that
would allow real time monitoring and simulation. He noted that
sensor technology has gotten advanced as well; it provides real-
time data on fish behavior and health which allow for early
detection of problems. He said that given the advancements in
these technologies, there are some real opportunities in Alaska.
These opportunities could even include aquaponics, which
combines hydroponic growing of plants and finfish aquaculture.
10:08:03 AM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG noted that he was recently in
Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada, and had the opportunity to visit [Icy
Waters Arctic Charr], a fish farm, and it was an interesting
experience. He said that all the fish were reared in
recirculating pens and Arctic char were chosen because they are
a cold-water fish, thus the business did not require any
considerable heating expenses. He said Icy Waters Arctic Charr
has a market that sells eggs to other fish farms that are trying
to raise char. Additionally, it provides the fish product to
other Canadian Provinces. He noted that the entire operation
was contained, and every fish was sterile. He said that
amazingly the business was making money, and the species of char
was a niche product.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG noted that HB 111 would authorize
onshore farming of non-salmon finfish species in approved land-
based facilities in Alaska. He said that it would be limited to
an inland closed system water body with a natural or artificial
escape-proof barrier. He said that the bill would allow for a
wide range of fish farming opportunities; however, the Alaska
Department Fish & Game commissioner would have the authority to
determine which finfish can or cannot be farmed in Alaska. He
said this follows a similar protocol as the Yukon Territory in
Canada, where the government can determine eligible species. He
said that the bill includes safeguards to ensure that wild fish
stocks are protected. He noted that offshore fish farming would
continue to be banned, all fish sold must be sterile so they
cannot breed with wild stock, finfish farming activities would
need to be consistent with all existing laws and policy, and
facilities and products would be subject to Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) regulations much like
hatcheries are.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG advised that authorizing finfish
farming could benefit Alaska. He said that the proposed bill
would create a new industry that would create new local jobs,
contribute to economic growth, and support food security for
Alaska. He said that state and local governments would see an
increase in tax revenue, rural communities would gain access to
high-paying jobs to supplement seasonal fishing income.
Stocking activities would also provide Alaska with additional
recreational sport fishing activities. He said that
implementing this bill would allow Alaska to diversify its
economy while supporting sustainable and controlled fish farming
practices.
10:11:14 AM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG noted that many Alaskans were opposed
to farmed fish. He said that this sentiment is rooted in
Alaska's culture and "friends don't let friends eat farmed fish"
is a common phrase throughout the state. He said that the
bottom line is that fish farming in other parts of the world is
not going away. He commented that Alaska imports 95 percent of
its food supply and farmed fish products are already in Alaska
grocery stores. He said that fish farms are growing outside of
the state and were already competing with Alaska fisheries. He
asked whether Alaska would choose to move forward or continue to
overlook farmed fish products that already exist in Alaska
markets. He said that if any form of fish farming is allowed,
it must be done thoughtfully and safely to ensure that Alaska
wild stocks are protected, and the fisheries remain viable in
the marketplace. He said that HB 111 is a beginning to these
discussions.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG ended the presentation by highlighting
that fish farming is already a form of aquatic farming and
Alaska already allows farming for aquatic plants, shellfish, and
ocean ranching through the state's hatchery programs. He said
that hatcheries use similar methods and equipment as fish farms.
He said that the total cost to produce a catchable rainbow trout
is about $4.50 per fish. This includes the price after all the
expenses and wages are considered. He said that discussions
would be needed to determine how to make any fish farming
products viable for market after expenditures. He said that HB
111 would allow Alaska to join a steadily growing multi-billion-
dollar industry across the United States and allow for
additional food security measures as well. He said that one of
the issues that became recently highlighted was an aquaponics
facility in the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Valley that used
goldfish as part of a closed system to produce vegetables.
After attempting to sell the fish, it became legally classified
as fish farming and was shut down. He said that the business
profit margin was built on the vegetable product rather than the
fish. He opined that there were opportunities to do it
internally and he was skeptical about all this until he went to
visit the Whitehorse facility. He said that the Whitehorse
facility has been in operation for 15 years. He reiterated that
globally, farmed fish are not going away and the market is
growing in response to demand.
10:14:55 AM
JOE FELKL, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Department of Fish &
Game, offered the sectional analysis to HB 111. He noted that
the sectional analysis remains the same despite the changes
associated with the CS. The sectional analysis [copy available
in committee file] read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section 1: amends the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) definition for "agricultural facility" to
include a finfish farm.
Section 2: amends the DNR definition for "agricultural
operation" to include finfish farming.
Section 3: amends the powers and duties of the
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Commissioner to
authorize the permitting and regulation of finfish
farming.
Section 4: conforming amendment referencing the new
statute for finfish farm permits in the Board of
Fisheries authority statute that prohibits adoption of
regulations or taking action regarding the issuance,
denial, or conditioning of a finfish farm permit or
the construction or operation of a finfish farm
consistent with existing language for aquatic farm and
hatchery permits as well as aquatic stock acquisition
permits.
Section 5: conforming amendment clarifying the Board
of Fisheries may not adopt regulations for the rearing
and sale of fish from private ponds; this activity is
now authorized under the new statutory framework for
finfish farms.
Section 6: conforming amendment exempting permitted
finfish farm activities as well as a person or vessel
employed in an activity under these permits from other
fish and game statutes related to different uses of
fish and wildlife resources such as hunting and
fishing permits, licenses, and vessel registration
consistent with the current exemption for aquatic farm
and hatchery permits as well as aquatic stock
acquisition permits.
Section 7: conforming amendment to exempt finfish
stock and finfish farm products from purchasing,
identification and other requirements that apply to
fish processors and buyers and commercial fishing
permit holders consistent with existing statutory
language for aquatic farm products and stock from
aquatic stock acquisition permits.
Section 8: amends the Finfish farming prohibited
statutes to allow the growing or cultivation of
finfish under the newly created finfish farm permits.
Section 9: adds new sections for finfish farm permits
and related definitions. The permits are triennial
and subject to restrictions set out in this section,
including the Alaska Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,
permit terms and conditions necessary to protect
natural fish and wildlife, application fees, and
regulations adopted in consultation with the
Department of Environmental Conservation governing all
aspects of finfish farming. This includes
eligibility, location, operations, disease control,
finfish stock and products, and any other matters
necessary to implement this section and protect wild
stocks of fish and game in the state. This section
also requires all finfish at or sold from a farm to be
triploid (sterile). The definitions limit this
aquatic farming activity to bony finfish species
except for salmon and an inland, closed-system water
body enclosed within an escape-proof barrier.
Section 10: conforming amendment to exempt permitted
finfish farm activities from the statutes that
regulate entry into Alaska's commercial fisheries
consistent with existing language for aquatic farm and
hatchery permits as well as aquatic stock acquisition
permits.
Section 11: conforming amendment to the Alaska Seafood
Marketing Institute's definition of "seafood" to
include finfish farm products.
Section 12: conforming amendment to the powers and
duties statutes for the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) Commissioner to authorize the
permitting and regulation of finfish farms, including
standards and conditions of operations, restrictions
on chemical use, monitoring products for compliance,
and other requirements into existing authorities for
aquatic farms and hatcheries.
Section 13: adds finfish farms to the Alaska Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act statute authorizing an officer
or employee designated by the DEC commissioner to
inspect a factory, aquatic farm, or establishment of a
DEC permit holder.
Section 14: adds finfish farms to the Alaska Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act statute authorizing the DEC
commissioner or agent to have free access to a
factory, warehouse, or establishment in which foods or
cosmetics are manufactured, processed, packed, or held
for introduction into commerce to inspect for
violations and secure samples.
Section 15: conforming amendment to add definitions
for finfish farm and finfish farm products to the
Alaska Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Section 16: conforming amendment adding language to
uncodified law requesting the revisor of statutes to
change section heading of AS 16.40.210 from "Finish
farming prohibited" to "Finfish farming prohibited
without a permit" consistent with section 8 of this
bill.
Section 17: immediate effective date.
10:20:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked Commissioner Vincent-Lang when
walleye could be brought to Alaska.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that he asked this question
at the fish farm in Whitehorse, as well as why the company chose
Arctic char. He reiterated that the facility could be run
without heating water because char is a cold water fish. He
pointed out that if Icy Waters Arctic Charr had to heat water,
then the operation would likely not be profitable.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that Minnesota was doing virtually
the same thing and was having discussions regarding farmed fish
and much like Alaska, it has a large sportfishing industry. He
said that discussions are taking place to consider commercial
production of walleye, another cold-water fish. He asked what
the issue would be regarding whether Alaska could ever produce
walleye and why people were opposed to it.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that people are opposed to
having walleye put into lakes that could flood and spread into
other water bodies. He said that in an enclosed facility that
requires sterile fish, even if a fish escaped from an "escape-
proof" area, the concern decreases. He said that the question
is how to permit an activity that prevents escapement into the
wild.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that what is being discussed is like
Whitehorse and regarding holding tanks. He said that one of the
issues for using Arctic char, grayling, or trout was that it
takes a huge tank to support a small number of fish. Tilapia,
however, while needing heated water, could utilize smaller tanks
and support more fish. He surmised that the tank must be big in
Whitehorse. He said that he was also thinking about the
aquaponics side of things and not just growing fish for food.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that he was surprised while
visiting the facility in Whitehorse; it had fish of every stage
of development including 10 to 15-year-old brood stock for egg
production and sales. He said that it was all indoors, but not
necessarily heated. He asked why the facility did not produce
tilapia and they responded that if they heated the water then
they could not compete with other tilapia farms such as those in
Arkansas. He discussed price point and the opportunity to sell
Arctic char as a delicacy item.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that he understands that Alaska is a
wild fish producing state and that there is a lot of resistance
to the idea of aquaculture. However, he said that one of the
things that need to be considered was that going to a restaurant
in the "Lower-48" and ordering tilapia, the odds are it is
farmed fish from Asia and even possibly produced adjacent to
sewage discharge. He said that it would be better to say,
"farmed in the pristine waters of Alaska" and asked whether
marketing it this way was an appropriate way to go.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that right now it is banned
and nobody can even try to determine whether these are
profitable ventures under current law. He said that certainly
species such as snakehead or Asian carp would be prohibited but
nobody could even try to raise Arctic char. He noted that the
Yukon Territory has had fish farming on the books for 20 years
and there is only one farm. He said that it would be difficult
in Alaska, but nobody can even try.
10:25:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELAM asked what kind of revenues were being
generated from the Whitehorse facility and whether it had an
economic impact on the community.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said that the facility has been in
business for 18 years and a lot of their products are eggs that
are being sent to support other fish farms. He noted that Icy
Waters Arctic Charr produces 6,000 fish a month for fresh
market. About 40 percent goes to Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada, and the remainder stays within Yukon. He remarked that
the logistics of getting fresh fish to Vancouver were a point of
difficulty for the business.
10:26:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that she wants to be open minded about
the future and the possibilities but her district and others
across the state have remarked that it is a terrible idea. She
asked how this would work because Commissioner Vincent-Lang had
mentioned that these fish would be in onshore facility tanks
that would be away from the wild stocks, but then he had
mentioned stocking ponds. She asked whether both options were
available for prospective aquaculture activities.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that last year's Thirty-
Third Alaska State Legislature passed a bill that has allowed
private nonprofits (PNP) hatcheries to raise fish and sell them
to individuals if they were triploid under Alaska's fish
transport permit (FTP) processes. He said that right now, a PNP
hatchery could theoretically sell fish and, under the permitting
process, someone could stock them into a lake that is not
publicly accessible. He noted that [ADF&G] cannot stock lakes
that do not have public access. He said that this process is
already in existence and said that HB 111 would allow for the
private sale of this fish into the marketplace.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked for confirmation of her understanding
that the difference between fish hatcheries and fish farming is
that hatcheries utilize wild genetics while farms produce
nonnative varieties.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that the rainbow trout brood
stock production would be a wide mixture of different stocks,
both Lower-48 and Alaska. He said that rainbow trout stocks are
unique and while they have wild genetics, they are not
technically wild.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that one of the concerns that had been
brought to her was that people hear stories about how "nature
will find a way" and it complicates regions with new species.
She said this concerns fishermen regarding complications it
could have with Alaska. Additionally, she noted that the Alaska
Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) Board discussed this idea and
moving away from selling wild Alaska fish to selling farmed
fish. She said that the brand has been built surrounding wild
caught fish and the inclusion of farm raised species may impact
wild sales. She asked whether Commissioner Vincent-Lang had
discussed this with the ASMI Board.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that he did not have any
intention of diminishing the quality of wild products, but the
bill would add another element into it. He said that Alaska
wild fish are the foundation of all fisheries. He said the
fundamental question was whether to allow Alaska to determine
whether any fish farming ventures would be worthwhile. With
regard to genetics, when he spoke with staff at Icy Waters
Arctic Charr, he asked whether those fish were locally sourced.
They had responded that their farm-raised stock was their own
stock much like farm raised cattle. Everything was triploid and
everything was enclosed and isolated from natural systems. He
reiterated that the Whitehorse brood stock was genetically
distinct from wild varieties.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE reiterated the issue of public concern.
She remarked that the department has been very specific about
protecting wild genetics in various Alaska regions. She said
that Alaskans are interested in ensuring the natural environment
is not disrupted.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that is why HB 111 focuses
on onshore production facilities. He said that ADF&G's genetic
policy is to ensure the prevention of intermixing genetics in
wild systems. He noted that farmed fish would never get to the
ocean and genetics were not a concern. He noted that diseases
that coincide with fish farms were a larger risk than genetic
intermixing. He said that he changed his boots six times [to
ensure the sterile environment] when visiting Whitehorse's
aquaculture facility.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE, considering this, asked whether the
statute provided under HB 111 would just permit the private
market to enter the field of fish farming but ADF&G would not
participate.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that for one, the department
did not have the capital to even consider this type of venture
and furthermore, department hatchery programs are focused on
sportfishing purposes. He said that some hatcheries are doing
"ocean ranching" through the permitted process but ADF&G would
not ever get into onshore fish farming.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked, considering the possibility of
disease in aquaculture facilities, whether it would require more
ADF&G staff to monitor this.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that at some point in time
it would require permitting from ADF&G, as well as ensuring
sterility, species type, et cetera. He acknowledged that if the
business grew, then it would require additional resources. He
suspected that this would be a slow-developing process if moved
forward.
10:34:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said that in the movie Jurassic Park,
the actor Jeff Goldblum is quoted saying, "Life finds a way."
She then expressed concern that the bill would not provide
additional funding to the department to support monitoring for
diseases, for example, and asked for an explanation regarding
how triploid fish are produced.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that when the eggs are in
the first stages of incubation, they are either heat sensed or
"basically" cold shocked which renders the fish triploid.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether this procedure was 100
percent successful and where the procedure is conducted.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that the facilities that are
rearing the eggs typically conduct the process of ensuring
sterility. He said that ADF&G would ensure sterility by
analyzing a subsample of fish. He said that it is possible to
have a few fish that do not become sterile but that is the
reason for isolated and enclosed aquaculture.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said that ADF&G may need to monitor the
facilities to ensure that these things don't occur and the zero
fiscal note to the proposed bill was concerning.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that he has given this a lot
of thought and reiterated that when he looked at the bill, he
did not think that things would take off immediately. He said
that this would allow businesses to assess feasibility and if it
grows then he was sure that it was something that could be
monitored by the existing ADF&G staff with the cost being passed
off to the business.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said that she was from the town that
developed the slogan "friends don't let friends eat farmed
fish." She asked how the farmed brand would compete with the
wild brand and asked whether any research has been done on this.
She said that Alaska has fought for the wild brand and asked
whether it was wise to introduce this during a time of poor
market conditions for wild seafood.
REPRESENTATIVE VINCENT-LANG said that currently it is difficult
to buy fresh fish in Alaska and if there was an Arctic char that
was produced then it would be fresh, he said that there is
already Atlantic salmon being sold in Alaska. He said the
question is whether to introduce Alaska varieties.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether there was a shortage of
wild fish in Alaska.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that there currently is a
shortage in the amount of fresh fish that can be purchased in
grocery stores during the wintertime and said that most fish are
produced during the summer. He said that many times wild fish
products in Alaska are sent south and then shipped north again
after they are frozen and processed. He said that he thinks
that this would be a niche market, and it would not compete
against the volume of wild fish caught in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said that she appreciates the
enthusiasm. She asked how the pet stores sell goldfish and
asked whether pet stores were farming fish.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said that he has thought of this and
would need to follow up with an answer.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that her district was quite
clear regarding their opposition to the bill.
10:38:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON remarked that his district was
unequivocally opposed to HB 111 and viewed it as bad judgement
by the administration at a time when the seafood industry was
struggling to make ends meet. He said that there is a lot of
unfair trade practices and cheating and misusing the Alaska wild
brand. He questioned championing something that would have a
miniscule number of benefits and would bring harm to the value
of the wild brand that the state has spent millions of dollars
to establish. He said there are lots of wild salmon in Alaska
and the marketplace should not be confused by the inclusion of
farm raised seafood. He remarked that the bill was bad
judgement and to put the bill forward without talking to
industry members was not ideal.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that the state had his full
commitment to continuing to support the Alaska wild stock
fisheries and he has been a strong advocate for it during this
entire process. He said that he would continue to fight for
wild stocks because they are the foundation of Alaska. He said
that HB 111 is to begin a discussion and reiterated that he
supports wild stocks.
10:41:35 AM
CHAIR STUTES said that she identifies with many of the comments
that Representative Edgmon has made. She said that "make no
mistake" this was not a popular idea or proposed legislation.
She added that public testimony was soon to be heard, and she
was surprised at how few people had called in. She said that
she was not surprised by the amount of opposition submitted via
e-mail.
10:42:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked Commissioner Vincent-Lang whether
there was a commercial freshwater fish industry in Alaska. He
asked whether trout could be netted in a river and then sold to
restaurants.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that he was not aware of one.
He said that salmon can be commercially fished in freshwater but
he was not aware of any trout fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE inquired if one could sell sport caught
freshwater fish in Alaska.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied no.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE commented that he appreciates Commissioner
Vincent-Lang's bravery coming before the committee considering
its make-up. He said that he did not think that salmon and
freshwater fish would compete with one another, but he
understood the angst and what was discussed and did not
necessarily disagree. He said that all this was worth a
conversation. He said there is no way to have freshwater fish
commercially caught in Alaska. He said that coming from
Minnesota, he enjoys walleye. He said that going to a
restaurant and ordering an Alaska trout was impossible.
10:44:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELAM said that he appreciates the conversation.
He noted that the comments from his district have been regarding
the inability to get nets in the water in the Upper Kenai. He
said the opportunity to harvest an abundance of wild red salmon
was his district's priority.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that he bought his salmon
this year from the northern district set netters.
10:45:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said that he does not need to speak to his
constituents to know where they stand on the bill. He commented
on the Battle of Wake Island and Mr. Hernandez, who was
responsible for revitalizing fish hatcheries on Fort Richardson
and Elmendorf. He spoke of the battle with the Japanese and Mr.
Hernandez' experience as a prisoner of war (POW). He said that
there is a long history of ADF&G serving the state.
10:47:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that multiple committee members have
heard from the public regarding the proposed bill. She said
that the timing of the bill is unsatisfactory and she
appreciated Representative Edgmon's comments regarding the bill.
She said that a pin should be in the conversation for the
future. She noted that the commissioner has highlighted that
currently the Board of Fisheries was providing oversight to
hatchery fish and asked why this has not been fixed. She opined
that the Board of Fisheries should be managing wild stocks.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that this is a different
topic, but it is something that would need consideration by the
legislature. In closing, he said that HB 111 is opening a
discussion, and in discussions with the Senate Resources
Standing Committee, similar skepticism and concerns were voiced.
He reiterated that an outright ban has curbed any discussions
regarding market feasibility. He said that ADF&G was open to
any discussions moving forward.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked, since the governor had put in a
request for the creation of a Department of Agriculture, where
any future fish farming would be held, organizationally
speaking.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that ultimately this would be
a legislative decision.
10:50:19 AM
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony on HB 111.
10:50:50 AM
MARY MCDOWELL, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
111. She said that she has had a career serving Alaska's
fisheries including as Senate staff helping assist with the
passage of the fish farming ban in the past. She said that she
was grateful regarding this legislative decision and that it has
allowed Alaska to avoid the consequences associated with fish
farming that were feared and have been realized in other regions
that have allowed finfish farming. She notes that some places
were now instituting bans after large public and private
investment into fish farming because of the consequences. She
noted that onshore fish farming was explored as an alternative
to offshore net pens during the debate over the fin-fish farming
ban, but it was ultimately rejected. She noted that Alaska has
benefited tremendously regarding its ability to bring wild
caught fish to market and even allowing one fish farm would
diminish the branding power of Alaska wild-caught fish. She
expressed concerns about the "slippery slope" of opening the
door to offshore farming by allowing onshore farming. She said
that the zero fiscal note to the bill is unrealistic and there
would likely be costs to the state if the bill were to pass.
She said that Alaska fisheries are facing "enormous challenges
right now" but with support, good fisheries management, and
environmental safeguards wild stocks can thrive into the future.
She said that allowing fish farming would undermine these
efforts.
10:54:37 AM
JOHNNY FISHMONGER, Executive Director, Wild Salmon Nation,
Testified in opposition to HB 111. He remarked that he has been
an Alaska fisherman since he was 18 years old. He said that
fish always escape, and triploid sterility is not an absolute
guarantee. He raised concerns about fish farming and the source
of and industrial processes associated with fish farm food. He
talked about the procurement of fish for later processing into
fish food. He talked about challenges for fishermen including
high fuel prices and low fish prices. He described a list of
experiences that he had while in association with the fishing
industry. He questioned opening "Pandora's box" to fish farming
when advancements need to be made to support the thousands of
Alaska small-scale operations. He said that there is no such
thing as a "small, family-owned fish farm" and the owners of
these enterprises are far from comparable to the small-time
fisherman. He said that over time small producers have been
"gobbled up." He concluded by remarking that he was
participating in an Ashville, North Carolina, chef summit and
was constantly asked by chefs where can they get wild Alaska
salmon, as they could not get enough.
10:59:01 AM
ADAM CUTHRIELL, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
111. He noted that as an Alaska father and an outfitter, he
finds HB 111 a "slap in the face" to Alaskans and all the time
and money spent on the legislation is a waste of time. He noted
that real issues should be addressed such as waste associated
with the trawl fleet, which he opined is "decimating oceans and
creating real issues for Alaskans and the economy." He noted
that fish farming puts native wild stock fish at risk and
remarked on many fisheries in the Lower 48 states that have been
impaired. He noted that salmon, steelhead, and grayling
populations were already facing challenges in Alaska. He said
that HB 111 would "screw over" outfitters and others visiting
Alaska who wish to pursue native wild stocks of fish. He noted
that while concerns over escapement were mitigated by
discussions about triploid fish, escapes happen, and he
commented that "nature will find a way." In conclusion, he
noted that [the proposed legislation] would put Alaska's economy
at risk.
11:01:23 AM
JILL WEITZ, Government Affairs, Central Council of Tlingit and
Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska ("Tlingit & Haida"), testified in
opposition to HB 111. She remarked that for 15 years she has
been able to work alongside tribes, sportfishermen, and
affiliates in all levels of government. She noted that Tlingit
& Haida oppose HB 111 because of the unnecessary risks fish
farming pose to water and air quality in the surrounding
environments. She raised concerns over aquaculture waste such
as pesticides and antibiotics. Furthermore, the bill would
allow nonnative species to be farmed, which would distract
regulatory agencies from focusing on already periled wild
stocks. She remarked that farmed fish have [wreaked] havoc on
Canadian water bodies and ecosystems. Additionally, she noted
that HB 111 would undercut wild stock fishermen.
11:03:42 AM
CHAIR STUTES, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 111.
CHAIR STUTES noted that her office had received so much
opposition to a piece of legislation and noted that it was
important that Alaskans have the opportunity to express that
Alaska is not interested in farming fish at this time. She
expressed respect towards Commissioner Vincent-Lang and Mr.
Felkl and remarked that it was only because of this respect and
the good working relationship between ADF&G and the fisheries
committee that this bill was heard. She indicated her intent to
hold over HB 111 [Version N].
11:04:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE noted that when working with ASMI and
getting updates about the global market, one "sobering" thing
that she learned was that last year, aquaculture surpassed wild
caught fish for the first time. She said that Alaska needs to
recognize this as a state and the technology for farmed fish and
the quality it produces is putting a challenge on wild stock
fish. She said that this is a time when Alaska needs to be
"bullish" regarding wild caught marketing. She said that now is
not the time to step back from continued support for the wild
caught seafood industry. She said that recognizing that
aquaculture is growing exponentially is important. She said
that Alaska competes against Iceland and Norway, which can take
farmed fish and have it on a plate in a European restaurant in
the same day. The conversation is relevant to this issue since
they are direct competitors.
[HB 111, Version N, was held over.]
11:08:12 AM
CHAIR STUTES discussed the upcoming committee schedule and
agenda.
11:08:43 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:08
a.m.