Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/11/1994 08:15 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 11, 1994
8:15 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Williams, Chairman
Representative Bill Hudson, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Pat Carney
Representative John Davies
Representative David Finkelstein
Representative Joe Green
Representative Eldon Mulder
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jeannette James
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Irene Nicholia
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Confirmation Hearing:
Board of Fisheries:
Kay Andrew
Dick Bower
Larry Engel
Board of Game
Richard Burley
Ed Grasser
Ernest Polley
Big Game Commercial Services Board
Scott Ogan
Thomas Scarborough
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Dale Anderson
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
Tuckerman Babcock
NO ACTION TAKEN
WITNESS REGISTER
KAY ANDREW
P.O. Box 7211
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Phone: 225-2463
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions
DICK BOWER
P.O. Box 3662
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Phone: 262-7132
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions
EDDIE GRASSER
P.O. Box 1350
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Phone: 745-3772
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions
RICHARD BURLEY
1165 Coppet Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Phone: 474-0188
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions
ERNEST POLLEY
634 W. 12th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 586-1437
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions
SCOTT OGAN
HC 04 Box 9248
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Phone: 376-7243
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions
THOMAS SCARBOROUGH
1676 Taroka Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Phone: 479-6602
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions
DALE ANDERSON
9040 Glacier Highway
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 789-1965
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions
TUCKERMAN BABCOCK
HC 01 Box 6219 C
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Phone: 746-7632
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-49, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by
Chairman Bill Williams at 8:26 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Williams, Hudson, Carney,
Finkelstein, and Green. Members absent were Representatives
Bunde, Davies and Mulder.
CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS announced there is a quorum present.
He said the meeting is on teleconference with Anchorage,
Bethel, Cordova, Dillingham, Fairbanks, Ketchikan, Mat-Su,
Nome, Petersburg, Sitka, and Kenai/Soldotna.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS explained the Governor submits to the
House and Senate, a list of appointments he has made since
the last legislative session, which are required by statute
to be confirmed or rejected by the legislature. That vote
of acceptance or rejection must be made in a joint session,
where the full House and Senate meet together to vote on
each appointment. He said the joint session normally occurs
near the end of the legislative session. Before the joint
session occurs, each appointment is referred to the
legislative committee which oversees the appropriate subject
area.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated after considering the
qualifications of the appointees, the committee members will
sign a committee report on each appointee, stating their
individual recommendation to the full House regarding
whether or not the person should be confirmed to serve in
the capacity to which they have been appointed. He stressed
votes at the committee level are not binding but strictly
advisory. He said it is the committee's responsibility to
review the resumes, talk with the candidates, listen to
public opinions, and then offer an informed opinion to the
full House regarding a recommendation on how members vote in
the binding vote, which is the one that will be taken during
the upcoming joint session.
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE
DAVIES joined the committee at 8:35 a.m. and REPRESENTATIVES
NICHOLIA and MOSES were also present.)
Number 061
KAY ANDREW, APPOINTEE, BOARD OF FISHERIES (BOF), KETCHIKAN,
testified via teleconference and stated she is a lifelong
resident of Ketchikan, married, and has two grown children.
She has been involved in commercial fisheries issues for
approximately 15 years. She has served on the BOF since
November and has gone through one cycle of meetings.
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA quoted several statements
which Ms. Andrew had said at a recent BOF meeting.
Representative Nicholia stated people in her district lost
their right to subsistence fishing for fall chum on the
Yukon River this past summer. She said Commissioner Rosier
recommended lowering the chum cap in the False Pass area
from 700,000 to 300,000 chums. She noted that Ms. Andrew
had voted against the commissioner's recommendation and took
no action to lower the 700,000 chum cap. She emphasized by
not lowering the chum cap by even 50,000 or 100,000, Ms.
Andrew had illustrated that her priority is ensuring that
the mixed stock fishery in Area M catch all of their sockeye
allocation.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA stated Ms. Andrew had placed the
entire burden of chum salmon conservation on terminal,
subsistence and sport fishermen of Western Alaska. She
asked Ms. Andrew to explain to the committee why she did not
lower the chum cap, given both the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game's (ADF&G) recommendation and the undeniable fact
that depressed Western Alaska chum salmon are caught in the
False Pass area.
Number 090
MS. ANDREW responded she reviewed all of the information and
steps which had been taken in Area M to cut back the catch
of chum salmon over the past years. She also asked the
department many questions, including how many fish would be
saved by lowering the cap to 300,000. She stated ADF&G
responded that approximately 4,000 fish would make it to the
entire AYK area spawning beds, but only if those 4,000 fish
were not intercepted by any other fishery between area M and
the AYK areas, including the commercial fishery, the roe
stripping fishery or any other fisheries in the river
system. She said the BOF asked the department to pinpoint a
river and one of the rivers they chose was the Nome River,
stating approximately 20 fish would be (indiscernible).
MS. ANDREW said she realized the subsistence fishery would
close down and added that the BOF tried to take steps to try
to prevent that from happening. She noted that according to
the department, the subsistence fishery for fall chum salmon
was closed for three weeks last year. The rest of the
subsistence fishing was open for the entire season. She
stressed this information was what she based her decision
on. She stated the BOF also expanded a fishery in the Yukon
River and allowed the department to do a test fishery, to
determine if the fishery could be used for subsistence.
With the information given to the BOF by the department, she
felt the people in Area M had done a lot of conservation in
trying to keep from catching chum salmon and the amount of
chums which would be caught if that cap was lowered and if
400,000 fish would be taken away from them, the people could
not make enough money to survive.
MS. ANDREW said with all of the information she was given,
she felt lowering the cap to 300,000 would not give the
people an opportunity, but rather cause problems in two
areas instead of one area. She also tried to get other BOF
members to talk about a different number such as 400,000 or
500,000 and no one was willing to consider another number.
Number 143
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said she did not see the Area M
subsistence fisheries shut down but saw the subsistence
fisheries shut down in the Norton Sound and Yukon areas.
She stated the Area M Management Plan states that the Board
of Fisheries will not support any significant increase in
the interception rate of chum salmon in the south Unimak and
Shumagin Islands' June salmon fisheries. These stocks are
probably fully utilized in existing terminal fisheries of
long standing. She noted that Commissioner Rosier stated
that the interception rate had been increasing the past few
years. She asked Ms. Andrew to explain to the committee why
she disagreed with both the Management Plan and the
commissioner's recommendation.
MS. ANDREW responded the only portion of the Management Plan
that the board disagreed with was the cap. The board went
along with the rest of the plan. She said BOF members are
only given a certain amount of information to review, on
which to base a decision. She did not feel by capping the
Area M fishery at 300,000 that enough fish would be saved to
do any good in the AYK area. She stressed what was being
discussed was 2.5 million fish missing and if Area M was
closed, those 2.5 million fish would still not be there.
There are other huge problems in the area, including the
troll fishery and bycatch.
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE
MULDER joined the committee at 8:37 a.m.)
Number 178
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES asked why no move was made to
separate out the Area M set netters from the cap and then
proceed with a vote on just limiting commercial fishing.
MS. ANDREW stated the department did not come forth with any
proposal to separate any of the fisheries in Area M. The
BOF felt at that time, most of the public testimony had been
completed, all of the reports were done, and the public had
not had any input on how they would feel about separating
the fisheries. She said her suggestion to the set netters
was that Area M was coming up next year on (indiscernible)
and if they desired to be separated from the other
fisheries, they should get proposals in by the deadline.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said ADF&G did not say only 20 fish
would get to the Snake River, but rather Larry Edfeldt had
given that information. She stated the commissioner had
said getting even 100 fish back to one of these systems
would be significant.
Number 207
MS. ANDREW responded the BOF took a one and one-half hour
break to allow the department to determine the amount of
fish which would be saved. At the same time, the department
over and over again stated there were no guarantees that any
of the fish saved, if the board chose to put a cap on them
in Area M, would ever get to the spawning grounds of any of
the rivers. She said the board asked ADF&G to separate the
numbers and tell the board what number of fish would be
saved, so they could have information to base their decision
on whether or not to drop the cap from 700,000 to 300,000.
According to ADF&G's information, at least 50 percent of
those fish that are caught in Area M are going to Bristol
Bay (indiscernible) chum salmon.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA requested Ms. Andrew to give the
committee information on how she sees the fisheries
management priorities and rank the importance of commercial
fishing, subsistence, and sustained yield. She asked Ms.
Andrew to explain her answers in light of her actions on the
BOF.
MS. ANDREW responded subsistence should come first.
Sustained yield is part of what the board's job is. She
said after those two priorities, then comes commercial,
sport, and personal use fisheries.
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE
BUNDE joined the committee at 8:40 a.m.)
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN stated it is important for
someone who sits on a board or commission to treat the
public with respect and be willing to be fair to those
members of the public who come forward to testify, even if
one does not agree. He said although he has not been at any
of the BOF meetings, there is written testimony from a
number of sources indicating that at a number of meetings,
Ms. Andrew had been hostile and had used prosecutorial
remarks toward certain members of the public, when they came
before the BOF to testify.
MS. ANDREW replied she does not consider herself a hostile
person and added that the previous BOF chairman had cut the
public speaking time down to three minutes, which she
refuses to adhere to. She felt three minutes is a short
amount of time for members of the public to explain their
feelings regarding their livelihood being taken away. She
was surprised at the remarks made about her. She said the
advisory committees have also been allowed to speak longer.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if Ms. Andrew believed that the
chum salmon stocks were in such bad shape that another
50,000 or 100,000 fish would not make any difference.
MS. ANDREW responded that was not what she was saying at
all. The BOF was being asked to lower a 700,000 cap to a
300,000 cap and in doing that, the BOF would provide an
opportunity for the Area M people to try and catch the 8.3
percent sockeye allowed plus their own stock. Many BOF
members wanted to know the number of fish which would be
saved by lowering the cap and drastically doing something to
one fishery, while having a goal of getting fish into the
spawning grounds and trying to keep the subsistence fishery
open at the same time.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES thought it was strange that when there
is an awareness of a huge problem, there is no willingness
to cut one fish from the Area M fishery in order to increase
a subsistence capability in the Interior fisheries. He
observed that if Alaska does not begin to pay attention to
the major spawning areas in the major river systems, Alaska
will be in the same position as fishermen are in off the
coast of Washington. He hoped the BOF would begin listening
to the ADF&G Commissioner, the Governor, and the people in
the Interior of the state and at least make a token effort
to improve the situation in that area of the state.
Number 335
MS. ANDREW stated much has been done in the Area M fisheries
to conserve the catch of chum salmon, with no difference in
the escapement in the AYK area. She stated there needs to
be a determination as to the cause of 2.5 million fish being
missing. She does not believe that Area M is the sole
problem.
REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY said a memo in committee member
folders indicates that Ms. Andrew's husband works in the
Area M fishery.
MS. ANDREW responded her husband does not fish in the Area M
fishery. He is a drift netter in Southeast Alaska and
fishes on the Alaska/Canadian border.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE expressed concern about the growing
problem of subsistence take being used commercially.
MS. ANDREW stated that issue has never been brought forth to
any BOF meeting. The roe fishery was talked about sensibly
because there were two proposals in the package which dealt
with the roe fishery and she was the only person who voted
for curtailing that fishery. She also talked to the
Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection about the illegal
roe stripping which has been ongoing and the Division did
not feel there is a problem, yet when she talked to the
Division of Protection, they had several ongoing cases. She
stated future boards will need to address the taking of
subsistence fishery and it being sold as commercial take.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he was interested in Ms. Andrew's
personal philosophy regarding the selling of subsistence
take.
MS. ANDREW said her understanding has always been that
subsistence is to live on for food. Since being on the BOF,
she has learned there are different styles of how one lives
on subsistence. She stated since she lives in Southeast
Alaska, she has not seen the intense subsistence uses as
seen in Western Alaska. She would have to look at the
information and see how much of the subsistence take is
really being utilized in that aspect and make a decision
based on that information.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked Ms. Andrew to explain how she
applies the mixed stock policy when dealing with river
systems facing severe conservation problems. She also
asked, when severe conservation measures have been taken to
the extent of subsistence closures and river systems not
meeting escapement, how does Ms. Andrew justify maintaining
existing harvest levels in the mixed stock fishery which
also hits on these fisheries.
MS. ANDREW said the mixed stock policy was adopted by the
BOF in March 1993 and she does not believe the policy has
been applied to any of the fisheries, including the
Kodiak/Cook Inlet fishery. She stated the public seemed
more interested in having a task force addressing that
particular problem rather than the entire BOF dealing with
it. She said the mixed stock policy will apply to getting
fish back into the river systems because if that particular
fishery along the route was interfering with any of the fish
stock... She stressed no one really knows what happened to
these fish.
MS. ANDREW has also questioned, in regard to the patterns of
these fish traveling up the coastline, who interacts with
these fish between the peninsula and the river systems.
ADF&G cannot answer most of those questions because they
have no studies. She stated 99 percent of the problems she
has faced while serving on the BOF since November is the
lack of information needed to make good decisions.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA inquired if the mixed stock policy
was used when the fall chum collapse on the Norton Sound and
the Yukon River was being discussed.
MS. ANDREW responded the BOF did not use the policy.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA clarified the mixed stock policy has
no use with the BOF, even though it is a written policy.
MS. ANDREW said the mixed stock policy has its uses. She
has been told by some people that if the BOF was ever going
to use the mixed stock policy, it should be used in the Cook
Inlet/Kodiak areas. However, the public indicated that
rather than have the BOF address that issue at that time,
they preferred to have a task force assigned to determine
possible solutions. She stated the mixed stock policy has
not been applied to any fisheries since it was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER wondered what the status of the
task force is which was appointed in relation to the Cook
Inlet fishery, Kenai.
MS. ANDREW stated she did not know and suggested asking
someone who is on the task force such as Larry Engel. She
said a lot of effort was put forth to ensure a good
representation on the task force and she felt it was going
to work.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked when the task force report is
expected back and what are the expectations in regard to
acting on their recommendations.
MS. ANDREW responded the report is due in early November.
The report will be reviewed and decisions will be made.
Recommendations will be discussed at the March 1995 meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER felt a task force was a good idea and
expressed his appreciation for Ms. Andrew's effort.
Number 568
DICK BOWER, APPOINTEE, BOARD OF FISHERIES, SOLDOTNA,
testified via teleconference and stated he has been in
Alaska since 1973, primarily involved with education
administration. He said during that time, he has had the
opportunity to work throughout the state with the exception
of the North Slope Borough. In the past ten years, he has
been involved primarily in volunteer type activities. He
emphasized since the early 1950s, he has committed a large
amount of his time to various natural resource issues--
conservation, environmental education, and in many cases,
marine and fisheries resources.
MR. BOWER felt not only is he bringing an administrative and
planning background to this position, but his sensitivity to
many natural resource issues as well. He indicated having
actually grown up on an island in Puget Sound, he is
familiar with what has occurred there. He expressed hope
that Alaska not see that same type of situation occur in
this state. He felt strongly that the BOF must take actions
to avoid that occurring in Alaska. He said the complexities
of the problem are such that there are no easy answers and
no matter what decisions are made, there will be a large
body of people who will disagree with what the BOF is doing
or how they are doing it. He felt it is not a problem which
can be solved easily or quickly.
MR. BOWER stressed there is a critical shortage of
information on everything from ocean currents, migration
patterns of anadromous fish, to the effect of one fishery on
another. He said there is so much that the BOF needs to
know, which they do not know, placing the board in an
extremely difficult position to be able to make decisions
that are going to be adequate and in many cases, are even
going to be recognized as the first step toward the ultimate
objective.
Number 684
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES clarified that if a cut is made in
Area M, the number of fish being able to get to the Yukon
region is so small and the fishery is in such bad shape that
a cut would not make a difference.
MR. BOWER stated that is not a fair characterization since
there are many complexities to consider. There is a belief
that all salmon go from the North Pacific into the Bering
Sea by passing around the western end of Unimak Island.
Migration patterns seem to show that also. He stated there
is evidence that fish travel in other ways toward that
direction, including a route coming from the other
direction. There is no real identity of the significance of
these migration patterns. He said many of the fish who pass
around the end of Unimak Island are actually heading into
Bristol Bay and into various streams along the northern side
of the Alaskan Peninsula. There are spawning streams
throughout that area.
MR. BOWER stressed the BOF does not have sufficient
information to be able to make that decision as to what the
board's action is going to mean.
TAPE 94-49, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. BOWER hoped the BOF actions would not be viewed as a
token effort. He recalled an earlier statement that the
commissioner had indicated the catch of chum salmon had
increased significantly over the past few years. He was not
sure the commissioner in fact had said that. He stated when
the BOF reviewed past data including the cap, findings
issued by every board who had dealt with this question of a
chum cap over the past few years, and bars and graphs, it
was determined that the chum cap had not been exceeded
except for a time or two in the last ten years. Therefore,
it was not a case of there being a significant increase in
the catch of chum salmon. He reminded members it is not
necessarily chum salmon going to the AYK area because the
primary fishery in the south peninsula is occurring around
the (indiscernible) Shumagin Island and on the southern side
of Unimak Island. For that reason, the fishery is not
occurring in the passage where people think all these fish
are going.
MR. BOWER said a reduction from the present 700,000 cap to a
300,000 cap would mean, based on ADF&G's figures, a
potential of denying those fishermen about 2.6 million
sockeye salmon. He felt 2.6 million sockeye salmon which
might not no longer be available for them to catch is
somewhat (indiscernible) or even viewed as a token. He
emphasized that other requests from ADF&G which the BOF did
act on include the management of ADF&G responsible for the
catch in Area M this season, would be able to move the
actual fishing time on the calendar and make adjustments
they felt necessary to ensure minimum interruptions or
interception of chum salmon bound for the Bering Sea.
MR. BOWER said Area M fishermen have had previous
adjustments as to when they could fish. This year, given
the tools that ADF&G has, even that decision can and will be
changed. Another consideration of the BOF was the
commissioner had indicated that in view of conservation and
being able to apply the tools the department now had, it was
within his power to take whatever other actions necessary to
protect the survival of the chum salmon. Mr. Bower would
prefer to see that authority deferred to ADF&G if they have
the ability and knowledge and feel they can take the action,
rather than have the BOF establish a 300,000 chum cap by
regulation that could have a much heavier penalty upon those
fishermen than perhaps what is necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES recalled there had been a lot of
discussion about a critical shortage of information
available and asked if the BOF has ever passed a resolution
or taken any action to try and increase the amount of
research effort ongoing or to change the focus on research
ongoing within the department.
MR. BOWER responded there has been no major effort in that
direction. He said if he is going to sit on the BOF and it
is within his power to ensure that research is done, not
only with the state agencies but also tie it in with the
North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, federal agencies
and the University of Alaska, he will do so. Considering
that the state's fisheries resource is the number two
economic and important resource, he felt the lack of
knowledge and effort committed to the resource is
deplorable. He noted there are excellent professional
biologists and fisheries people available but every
direction which is taken, there is no money to do sampling,
genetic studies, test fishing, etc. He said even in terms
of enforcement, there are only a handful of people involved.
He stressed it is appalling to think that a resource which
is so important to the state, which represents economic
income and activity and is so important under the state
Constitution to all of the people, has involved such
shortsightedness in the gathering of information in order to
make sound judgments.
Number 117
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA stated Mr. Bower had voted against
lowering the chum salmon cap in Area M as another
conservation tool for ADF&G to use in managing the state's
resources. Last year, subsistence closures were seen in
Norton Sound and the lower Yukon. She said Mr. Bower had
voted against lowering the 700,000 chum cap yet he said, "it
has been said there was a linkage between the catch in Area
M and the various river systems to the north and that is
based on the tagging study. I think everyone agrees that
based on the tags retrieved, there was indeed a linkage."
She asked Mr. Bower, why at the last BOF meeting did he vote
against reducing the catch of AYK chum in Area M. She noted
that Mr. Bower had changed his vote several times after the
vote on the chum cap had been taken and asked if Mr. Bower
understood what he was voting on at the time.
MR. BOWER said at the time he voted, it both angered and
embarrassed him. The vote was taken late at night and he
was either the last one or close to the last one to vote.
He stressed he did not change his vote because of any change
in information. At the time he voted, he said yes when he
meant to say no. Although he knew his vote would not make
any difference because the die was cast, he wanted his vote
to reflect how he viewed the situation. He stated even
though linkage exists, it must be looked at to determine its
significance. He noted that one fish may accomplish linkage
but in looking at that one fish, there would be a need to
know if there is a significant number of fish involved in
that linkage and then determine if the actions taken make a
significant difference in ensuring the fish reach the
spawning area.
MR. BOWER stated he was not convinced, based on all of the
information available, that the number of fish involved
would make a sufficiently significant difference in the fish
reaching the spawning areas or fish being available for the
subsistence fishermen on the river, to be able to justify
making the strong statement in the Area M fishery by
lowering that cap of 700,000 to 300,000, particularly since
it was his impression that the commissioner would be able to
take whatever action he felt necessary if the run was not
developing. He added there was no firm figure given to the
BOF which said that in 1994, the run in the Yukon,
Kuskokwim, or even in the Norton Sound area is going to be
at the level projected.
Number 186
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON recalled there had been a lot of
discussion about the need for open ocean research, effects
of troll, effects of currents and water temperatures, etc.,
which will take a tremendous amount of money not available.
He asked Mr. Bower how he would characterize the general
interaction of the BOF members themselves, given the
information available and does he feel the BOF, as currently
constituted, is capable of reaching decisions on the basis
of science.
MR. BOWER responded given his experience thus far, the BOF
is fully capable of being able to discuss and make decisions
based upon scientific knowledge, data, etc., available from
the department and other sources. He said there are many
things which the BOF should know before making a decision.
He felt the BOF is not utilizing data already available,
much of which the BOF may not even know about. He gave
examples. He emphasized people selected for the BOF are not
selected because they may be fishery authorities but rather
are selected to bring various kinds of experience and
knowledge to the board.
MR. BOWER said the BOF must depend upon ADF&G to provide
direction and recommend what the BOF is supposed to do. He
stressed he does not agree with ADF&G taking a neutral
position on allocation issues because he felt the BOF must
be dependent upon the department staff, who are the most
knowledgeable people that public money has been able to buy.
With ADF&G's assistance, the board can be assured the
department will be able to manage better, the protection
division will be able to carry out enforcement better, and
the best decision has been made. He noted the BOF cannot
say anything about budgeting or many things which are
imperative to enabling the board to do a good job. He
stated the BOF is not spending time on planning or policy
matters which would give statewide direction to the
fisheries resource, but rather is spending all of its time
on adjudication, negotiation, and arbitration matters.
Number 307
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Mr. Bower his opinion about the
commercial selling of subsistence caught fisheries.
MR. BOWER discussed the illegal taking of roe and actions
taken. He responded he does not favor subsistence caught
fish being sold commercially.
Number 410
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked Mr. Bower in regard to the
mixed stock fishery, to comment on fisheries management
priorities. She requested Mr. Bower to rank the importance
of commercial fishing, subsistence, sustained yield and
explain his response in light of his actions on the BOF in
regard to the mixed stock fishery.
MR. BOWER responded sustained yield means looking at a
resource and saying this much of the resource will be viewed
as a yield, meaning it is usable. He said his number one
priority is to ensure that a sufficient number of fish reach
the spawning grounds and in turn, spawn and produce the fish
needed. He thought perhaps that could be viewed as
sustained yield but stressed it has a different emphasis
because there has to be a determination and the knowledge
that those fish are reaching the spawning grounds and are
effectively spawning and producing fry, smolt, etc. He
stressed his second priority is subsistence which is
established by regulation, law, and historical use.
MR. BOWER stated after those two priorities, allocation
issues are involved. He said if the Constitution, the
mandate of the BOF, and the mixed stock fishery are
reviewed, allocation issues are the controversial issues
that everyone is caught up in. He felt the number one
allocation is one which provides the broadest public use as
possible, which in existing circumstances, would be
noncommercial uses. Based on that approach, he felt the
commercial allocation is the lowest priority even though
there is a benefit to the state. He thought the commercial
allocation needs to be tempered upon meeting first the
spawning requirements, second the subsistence requirements,
and finally the noncommercial fishery which may be utilized
by the largest number of residents of the state as well as
other people in the United States who may come here to
participate in the state's fisheries resource.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said in light of the fall chum
salmon crash in the Norton Sound, Yukon, and Kuskokwim
areas, the need for subsistence fish and the fact that Mr.
Bower stated subsistence is a priority over commercial
fishing, she does not understand why he allowed the catch to
remain at 700,000 in Area M which is a commercial fishery.
She does not see Area M subsistence fishery being shut down
and yet there still is a 700,000 chum salmon cap. She asked
Mr. Bower if he sees any relationship between the two.
MR. BOWER stated there is a linkage, but there is no way to
look at a 700,000 cap and say by lowering the cap to
300,000, a significant difference will be made in the number
of fish reaching the rivers. He said at the December BOF
meeting, a bar graph was presented which went back about 20
years and showed the catch of chums in the Kuskokwim River.
During the earlier years, the graph showed the subsistence
catch. Around 1972, there was a commercial fishery
introduced in the river. The bar representing the
commercial fishery grew year by year to a very significant
level in recent years. On top of that bar was another bar
which represented the subsistence catch. Immediately upon
the introduction of the commercial catch, the subsistence
bar became shorter and shorter. During that meeting, he
asked ADF&G why that was happening. The department
responded there was not any known reason for the subsistence
catch getting lower and lower and the commercial catch
getting larger and larger.
MR. BOWER said in the case of the Yukon River, the
department indicated one of the reasons subsistence was not
present was because people were obtaining a commercial
permit. Consequently, the people were harvesting fish as
commercial fishermen. The people were taking and selling
the roe commercially while utilizing the meat of the fish
for subsistence purposes.
MR. BOWER stressed there is no way, after attending only two
board meetings, he could say this is an emergency and all
commercial fishing should be eliminated. Therefore, the BOF
has to measure the action and the consequence. He felt it
is unfair to say the Area M fishery is totally commercial
because there is subsistence fishing there and about 70
percent of the commercial permits are held by people who
actually live there.
Number 593
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated the committee has been talking to
two appointees for an hour and a half. He said there are
many people who would like to testify and there is only an
hour remaining. He felt there is a need to talk about the
qualifications of the appointees rather than issues.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON suggested holding over the appointees
of the Board of Fisheries and go on to the other appointees,
especially those who are present.
TAPE 94-50, SIDE A
Number 000
EDDIE GRASSER, APPOINTEE, BOARD OF GAME, PALMER, stated he
is a lifelong resident of Palmer, Alaska and his family has
been involved in the professional guiding business. He has
hunted and fished throughout the entire state and was
involved in polar bear hunting when it was legal. He felt
he has a wide range of experiences in the Alaska out-of-
doors. He noted he also worked for Representative Larson in
the legislature. He has served as president of several
sportsmen organizations, including the Alaska Outdoor
Council.
MR. GRASSER felt because of his past experience as a guide,
his hunting experience, his political experience, and other
facets of life, he will bring a valuable asset to the Board
of Game's process of managing the state's wildlife resources
and determining allocation issues.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Grasser to comment on the
role of the Board of Game.
MR. GRASSER responded the fundamental role of the Board of
Game is to work with ADF&G and the public to ensure healthy
animal populations on a sustained yield level and to ensure
those populations are allocated in a fair way for use by the
public, both hunting and viewing.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated he has observed Mr. Grasser's
involvement and activity over the years and has found him to
be very professional and a credit to the board.
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE
FOSTER was in the audience.)
Number 038
RICHARD BURLEY, APPOINTEE, BOARD OF GAME, FAIRBANKS,
testified via teleconference and stated he served a three-
year term on the board, and was recently reappointed. He
said an addition to his resume is the fact he recently
retired from the job he had held for 33 years.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Burley to comment on the
fundamental role of the Board of Game and what the
priorities should be in the allocation of resources.
MR. BURLEY responded the Board of Game is responsible for
managing the wildlife resources of the state of Alaska on a
sustained yield basis, taking into consideration the needs
of all user groups--subsistence, consumptive, and
nonconsumptive uses.
Number 068
ERNEST POLLEY, APPOINTEE, BOARD OF GAME, stated he has been
active in sport hunting and fishing for most of his life.
He began his career in game management. He felt the role of
the Board of Game is to protect the resource and ensure
there is as much equal access to the resource as possible by
members of the various publics in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he had worked with Mr. Polley for
many years and found him to be extremely honorable and
knowledgeable.
SCOTT OGAN, APPOINTEE, BIG GAME COMMERCIAL SERVICES BOARD
(BGCSB), PALMER, testified via teleconference and stated his
past membership on the board has been satisfying and
interesting. He felt the BGCSB is an important board and
noted that the BSCSB has had the awesome responsibility of
remapping the entire state of Alaska. He felt one of the
most important roles of the board is keeping guide
operations ethical and in line with the law.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES expressed support for Mr. Ogan's
reappointment.
THOMAS SCARBOROUGH, APPOINTEE, BGCSB, FAIRBANKS, testified
via teleconference and stated he has served two years on the
BGCSB. He felt much progress has been made in getting the
entire system reorganized and getting the licensing
procedures for assistant guides and guides under control.
DALE ANDERSON, APPOINTEE, COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY
COMMISSION, stated he has lived in Juneau for 40 plus years
and has a family of four children and a grandson. His
activities in small business over the past twenty years
gives him the qualifications needed to sit on the board and
serve in the adjudicatory position. He felt he could bring
integrity and common sense to the board and make decisions
without bias.
TUCKERMAN BABCOCK, APPOINTEE, OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION
COMMISSION, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and
stated he was appointed to the commission last June. He
felt he has demonstrated that he is well suited for the
position and gave examples of his experience. He said it
has been a rewarding experience and as a public member of
the commission, he hoped he has added a different dimension
to the commission. He asked committee members for his
support.
Number 163
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he has known both Mr. Anderson
and Mr. Babcock for a number of years and felt their
character is of the highest and their intelligence leans
well toward the commissions they have been appointed to.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced since many of the committee
members have left due to a minority caucus, the committee
will take public testimony and hear from Mr. Engel on
Wednesday, April 13 at 8:15 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House
Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting
at 10:15 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|