Legislature(1995 - 1996)
09/21/1995 09:00 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
September 21, 1995
9:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative William K. "Bill" Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative Eileen MacLean
Representative Irene Nicholia
Representative John Davies, via teleconference
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Pete Kott
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Fish Allocation Between Canada and Alaska
WITNESS REGISTER
JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Robin Taylor
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 30
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3873
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Senator Robin Taylor.
CHUCK MEACHAM, House/Senate Majority Staff
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 208
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3720
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided background information on the Pacific
Salmon Treaty, Endangered Species Act and
litigation against Alaska by Pacific Northwest
tribes.
BRUCE M. BOTELHO, Attorney General
Department of Law
P. O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99801-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented status of litigation and appeals.
SCOTT MARSHALL, Southeast Regional Supervisor
Division of Commercial Fisheries Management & Development
Department of Fish & Game
P. O. Box 240020
Douglas, AK 99824
Telephone: (907) 465-4250
POSITION STATUS: Gave overview of Chinook salmon fishery.
GARY FREITAG
Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association
2721 Tongass Avenue
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-9875
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as a member of the Chinook Salmon
Technical Committee, Pacific Salmon Commission
KAY ANDREWS, Gillnetter
506 Tower Road
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-2463
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified about her fishing experiences at the
Alaska/Canada border.
MEREDITH MARSHALL
P. O. Box 7418
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-2134
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged state to assert sovereignty over its
natural resources.
GEOFF BULLOCK
United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters
P. O. Box 6616
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-9295
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified urging state support and continued
funding.
LONNIE HAUGHTON, Ketchikan Trollers Association
Ketchikan Sports and Wildlife Club
P. O. Box 3005
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-1289
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified encouraging the state to continue
funding.
ANGELO L. MARTIN
536 Schoewdar Road
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-3259
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified asking the committee and the state to
stand up and yell a little bit louder.
BARRY McCLELLAND, Commercial Fisherman
P. O. BOX 9291
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-5671
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that Southeast Alaska is threatened
with closure of its access to the Chinook
salmon resource.
BERNARD GUTHRIE, Commercial Fisherman
P.O. BOX 95
Metlakatla, AK 99826
Telephone: (907)886-7128
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified asking if the federal treaty
violates the state's right to manage its own
fishery.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-69, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS called the House Resources Committee
meeting, in Ketchikan, to order at 9:15 a.m. Members present at
the call to order were Representatives Williams, Ogan, Austerman,
and MacLean. Representative Davies was on teleconference from
Fairbanks. Members absent were Representatives Nicholia, Barnes,
Green and Kott.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS referred to media coverage over the past few
years about how Alaska fishermen are being so greedy and supposedly
not caring about the fish stock throughout the West Coast. He
said, "We also know that the way Alaska is portrayed in the outside
press is not always correct. As the salmon wars have heated up
this summer, I have been in contact with the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game so I could keep track of what was going on. I called
this meeting today so that the Resources Committee and the general
public could hear directly from the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game experts about what the real situation is."
Number 046
JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor,
welcomed the committee members to Ketchikan. MR. AMBROSE provided
background information about Senator Taylor's early involvement in
the Alaska fishing industry and his efforts in the Alaska State
Legislature on behalf of the industry:
"Senator Taylor applauds your efforts Mr. Chairman and that of this
committee to stay abreast of the issues surrounding the treaty and
the current involvement of the courts. Senator Taylor is convinced
that what is going on now, that is - court interference in issues
that should properly be addressed by the process of negotiation is
really a subterfuge. It is long-felt that the interest of Canada
and the Pacific Northwest believe they can more easily prevail if
the current treaty process is abandoned and the issues are settled
in direct talks between the governments in Ottawa and Washington,
D.C. The people of the Pacific Northwest, Western Canada and
Alaska have made their choices on the resource issues long ago.
The people of the Pacific Northwest chose cheap power over their
fish stocks. The people of Western Canada chose to exploit their
resource. The people of Alaska chose to manage their resource for
the future of future generations. Now we are being asked to make
up for the poor choices already made by our neighbors.
"Senator Taylor also asked me to convey a word of warning to this
committee. There are those at work trying to implement the old
principle of divide and conquer. Consensus was achieved under the
original treaty. Those who would advocate a new consensus are
jeopardizing that hard won agreement. We are also hearing from
those who advocate letting the troll fishery go extinct.
Allocation decisions, especially those forced upon us relative to
king salmon are leading to a rift between commercial fishermen and
the guided sport industry and between resident and nonresident
fisheries. Given time, Alaskans can sort through those problems,
but for now, we must remain united and we must remain assured that
Alaska is represented by the `A Team' both in court and at the
negotiating table and that they have unanimous support of all
Alaskans."
Number 087
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted that Representative Irene Nicholia had
arrived.
Number 089
CHUCK MEACHAM, Legislative Leadership Staff, stated that he
appeared before the committee on behalf of the Alaska State Senate
and House Leadership. He said he had been asked to provide general
background information on current salmon problems associated with
Canada and Pacific Northwest states and Indian tribes as they
affect Alaska. By way of personal background, he said:
"I have a bachelor and masters degree in fisheries, I have spent 21
years with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. I was Alaska's
commissioner on the Pacific Salmon Commission and the Pacific
States Marine Fish Commission. I also commercial fished for four
years and worked for seafood processors as well. Most recently, I
was retained by the Alaska legislative leadership to brief and
advise them on state and federal fisheries matters. I will provide
some general background information on three separate salmon issues
of critical importance to Alaska fisheries. First, the Pacific
Salmon Treaty which was signed in 1985; second, the federal
Endangered Species Act that has impacted Alaska's fisheries for the
past few years; and very briefly, about more recent litigation
against the state of Alaska by Pacific Northwest tribes that
resulted in closure of our commercial Chinook salmon fishery."
Number 110
MR. MEACHAM continued his testimony stating other representatives
of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and, by teleconference,
the Department of Law will be able to provide further detail on all
of these matters. He said he would also provide current
legislative leadership perspectives and actions taken to address
some of these problems.
Number 114
MR. MEACHAM said, "First, what is a Pacific Salmon Treaty and why
is it such a problem for Alaska? It is a federal treaty, it is not
a state treaty. It is a federal treaty signed by the United
States and Canada in 1985. The treaty deals with the conservation
and fair-sharing of certain salmon stocks off Oregon, Washington,
British Columbia and Southeast Alaska. Salmon stocks in all of
these jurisdictions intermingle and generally migrate north to
Canada and Alaska where they feed and grow. Cooperative management
was viewed as necessary, in the earlier years, for conservation of
these stocks and I think it was.
MR. MEACHAM continued, "The Pacific Salmon Treaty is actually
implemented through a bilateral pacific salmon commission. Actions
of the commission are directed by four Canadian commissioners and
by four United States commissioners. The four U.S. commissioners
represent Alaska, Pacific Northwest Indian tribes, the combined
states of Oregon and Washington, and the federal government. In
this process, the federal commissioner has no vote and consensus
agreement is required of the other three commissioners in order to
implement any action within the U.S. section. Unfortunately,
dramatic production differences between many Alaska salmon stocks
and many Canadian and Pacific Northwest salmon stocks have
developed. These differences have resulted in two diametrically
opposed perspectives on salmon conservation and fair-sharing that
make the consensus positions within the commission extremely
difficult to achieve.
MR. MEACHAM proceeded, "Washington, Oregon and the Pacific
Northwest tribal fishermen probably do understand that their salmon
stocks are severely depressed due to hydroelectric development,
primarily, general habitat degradation; and very unfavorable
environmental conditions such as the `El Nino' warm temperatures;
and quite honestly, frequent inability or unwillingness to manage
their own jurisdictions to implement the strict conservation
measures that are necessary. Nevertheless, these people do look to
Alaska to pay the price for these environmental and self-made
problems. Stock productions differences have also resulted in
Canada believing it is disadvantaged because Canadian catches of
Washington and Oregon north migrating salmon have been reduced.
Canada is also unhappy because increased numbers, but not
proportions of some north migrating Canadian salmon stocks are
caught incidentally as bycatch by Alaska fishermen as fishermen are
targeting record levels of our own production.
Number 155
MR. MEACHAM, "Therefore Canada, Washington and Oregon, Pacific
Northwest tribes and certain elements of the federal government,
because of the Endangered Species Act, are aligned against Alaska
within the Pacific Salmon Commission. So it is of critical
importance to understand this process."
MR. MEACHAM discussed the Endangered Species Act and how it affects
Alaska's salmon fisheries saying this is a federal act initially
passed in 1973. "It was last amended in 1988, and it is currently
before Congress for reauthorization again. The concept behind the
Endangered Species Act really was to protect species from
extinction. There are a number of serious problems with this act
as it is currently written including the definition of species to
include distinct population segment. Here in Alaska, most of us
pretty well understand the behavior of salmon. He defined what a
distinct population segment of a species is saying, "for salmon the
fish in each stream can represent a distinct population segment.
There are literally tens of thousands of salmon streams, each of
which is inhabited by one to five salmon species.
Number 190
MR. MEACHAM continued, "Among the distinct population segments
currently listed by the federal government as threatened is a stock
of Chinook salmon from a tributary of the Columbia River in Idaho.
It is called the Snake River. I am sure you have all heard of the
Snake River fall Chinook. Unfortunately, a few of these fish are
taken in Alaska by Alaskan fishermen; and, it is truly just a few.
Alaska fisheries are believed to cause about a quarter of 1 percent
of human induced mortality to Snake River fall Chinook. Hydro-
system operations, on the other hand, are associated with about 95
percent of the mortality. That is where the problem lies.
Number 201
MR. MEACHAM said, "Federal law requires that in order to take a
threatened species, a special permit needs to be obtained from the
federal government. Without such a permit, fishermen in Alaska
cannot take any of these threatened fish. So in order to obtain an
incidental take permit, the state of Alaska had to agree to reduce
fishing time in 1993. In 1994, negotiations with the federal
government resulted in an approximate 23,000 fish reduction from
what was agreed to through the Pacific Salmon Commission process.
In 1995, negotiations related to the Endangered Species Act brought
about further reductions with a limit of 230,000 as compared with
263,000 salmon that would be approved under the commission process.
Unfortunately, legal action brought against Alaska by Pacific
Northwest Indian tribes further reduced our take of fish. What
were the benefits to the spawning grounds of these Endangered
Species Act restrictions placed on Alaska fisheries? They were
absolutely minuscule and impossible to measure.
Number 230
MR. MEACHAM said the last items he wanted to touch upon were legal
actions taken against Alaska in 1995 that resulted in the closure
of the Southeast Alaska commercial Chinook fishery. "Indian tribes
from the Pacific Northwest initiated legal action against us in
August. The case was heard in the United States federal district
court in Seattle, Judge Barbara J. Rothstein presiding. The judge
ruled against Alaska and prohibited the state from authorizing
marine fisheries directed at Chinook or the incidental retention of
Chinook taken in other fisheries. The prohibition did allow,
however, for a 2,000 sport harvest to be taken. Alaska did appeal
this injunction but lost, unfortunately, before the same judge and
that occurred earlier this month. This judgment is effective
through the Pacific Salmon Commission accounting year which ends
September 30. Appeals are continuing, but unfortunately the fish
lost cannot be regained. Pacific Northwest tribes are also
pursuing litigation against Alaska in an attempt to apply some of
the provisions of the Judge Boldt decision to fish caught in
Alaskan waters. This case is scheduled to be heard in April of
next year before the same court and the same judge.
MR. MEACHAM said, What are the actions taken to date and the
approaches being considered by the state and House leadership?
Fisheries issues have always been important to the Alaska
legislature. This year, however, a new urgency has developed
especially in the area of state and federal management authority.
Accordingly, the legislature has a significantly increased role in
this area.
Number 259
MR. MEACHAM continued, "The leadership is supporting strong legal
action taken in all these fronts. We have no alternative. We must
take strong, strong legal action. Legal action, while critically
necessary, does need to be coupled with an effective communication
package and sensitive negotiations undertaken directly with the
parties involved. In this instance, Alaska fishermen simply cannot
afford to wait on the federal courts. Furthermore, court mandated
solutions, at least by my experience, are seldom best for the fish
or the fishermen. The Leadership has also been very proactive in
working to amend the federal Endangered Species Act. Both the
President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House provided
written and oral testimony at federal hearings dealing with
reauthorization of this act, and that includes a hearing yesterday
before the U.S. committee on resources. That testimony is
available. Many specific recommendations have been provided
including the need to modify the definition of species to exclude
`distinct population segments.' The vast number of distinct
population segments that exist just for salmon provide too many
opportunities for misapplication of the act by special interest
groups including our own federal government. Really, application
of the act to distinct population segments of salmon defies Mother
Nature and is simply contrary to common sense. Population segments
of a salmon species spread from the center of their range until
living conditions are marginally habitable. At the periphery of
any species range, population segments are constantly in a
threatened and an endangered status. If this were not the case,
then every species of salmon would be found everyplace on earth.
Number 290
MR. MEACHAM continued, "With regard to the Pacific Salmon
Commission, serious consideration needs to given to entering in to
negotiations with a greater sensitivity to the real Pacific
Northwest and Canadian salmon problems. I do not say that lightly.
It is not that Alaska is the cause of these problems, nor can
Alaska be much of the solution. But, I do think that rhetoric and
confrontation, while making some of us feel good, myself included,
needs to be reduced if the fish and our fishery are going to
survive in the long term. While Alaska can do nothing to eliminate
problematic and climatic events such as "El Nino", we can be of
significant assistance in providing technological help and proven
effective fisheries management expertise. Further consideration
should be given to a north - south split within the commission
process. This would enable Alaska to work directly and effectively
with British Columbia without the extraneous complications
associated with Washington, Oregon, and Pacific Northwest tribes
being involved. Many problems could be solved for transboundary
Stikine and Taku Rivers as well as the Alaska/B.C. northern
boundary fisheries. Not all salmon problems would be directly
solved especially for Chinook, that is clearly the case. But, a
more productive working relationship would develop which could
benefit Chinook as well. Northern British Columbia and Alaska
really do have much in common, much that can be taken advantage of
mutually.
Number 320
MR. MEACHAM concluded his testimony, "Lastly, consideration must
also be given to public outreach programs directed towards Pacific
Northwest states and the tribes and the Canadians. The Alaska
legislature is active in a number of forums with Pacific Northwest
states; one of these being the Pacific States Marine Fish
Commission. The commission met last week in Oregon; earlier this
summer they met in Homer and at that time, Alaska did have their
position put forward. These kind of opportunities exist. We need
to take advantage of them. Even more effective would be `fishermen
to fishermen' forums. I feel these could be arranged using
existing organizations such as the Alaska Trollers Association,
United Southeast Alaska Gillnet Association and the Southeast
Alaska Seiners Association. There are probably others as well.
Our salmon resource is of vital importance to Alaskans and the
legislature. We all know that. I hope this background information
was helpful to you. I would also ask the public to please share
your views on these matters with this committee and the Senate and
House Leadership."
Number 346
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked members if they had questions of Mr.
Meacham.
Number 349
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN addressed Mr. Meacham's testimony
regarding the 1994 negotiated settlement of reducing 23,000 fish
and asked, "Is there anyway of knowing how many of the 23,000 are
the threatened stock that they are concerned about?"
Number 357
MR. MEACHAM responded that estimates were made by the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. "Again, these are estimates but it is
just a few fish. Some calculations suggest that it is less than
one fish. Other ways of calculating it come up with a handful or
so. They are just minute, minute numbers. The expense to Alaska
is obviously great, 23,000 fish. I suspect that the department can
provide a more recent estimate, perhaps. But, it is very, very few
fish."
Number 367
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked Mr. Meacham, "Have they done
any GSI studies?"
MR. MEACHAM said that there have been all kinds of studies that
have taken place with regard to the Snake River fall Chinook. "The
estimates of our harvest of Snake River fall Chinook are based on
coded wire tag hatchery fish from an adjacent hatchery. So quite
honestly, it is being used as a surrogate in just making an
estimate, which is better than a guess, but not a lot. It is based
on coded wire tagging. I do not think that there have been any
other genetic study used to try and identify these threatened or
endangered fish in Alaska waters."
Number 378
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked Mr. Meacham, "Who represents Alaska
on that commission?"
MR. MEACHAM said that on the Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has one position
held by David Benton; the legislature has a position presently held
by Senator Loren Leman; and one public commissioner position held
by Dale Kelly who is head of the Alaska Trollers Association.
Number 390
MR. AMBROSE asked Mr. Meacham to elaborate on the pending
litigation by the Pacific Northwest tribes as far the Boldt
decision. He asked what provisions are we talking about and what
would the impact be if they were successful in their suit.
MR. MEACHAM responded that it is very difficult to know. "One of
the primary inducements to Alaska signing the treaty in 1985 was
that this suit be set aside. So, at that time, when it was
seriously evaluated by the attorneys and the Alaska fishermen they
felt it was of sufficient concern to put aside. That was
sufficient incentive to sign the treaty. The Boldt decision
prescribes that 50 percent of the salmon taken down South go to
tribal people. There is a 50/50 mandated split. Initially this
was begun for salmon, since that time it has been expanded to other
species including shellfish. Whether or not they can argue
effectively that the salmon caught in Alaska, they are entitled to
50 percent of those that are going back down there, is arguable.
That is why it is important."
Number 419
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN addressed Mr. Meacham saying that he had
recently read a newspaper article in reference to the federal
government dividing the West Coast into four or five distinct areas
of drawing lines as to where they are looking at the salmon coming
from. He asked if that is having any impact on this treaty or the
threatened and endangered decisions that they are making.
MR. MEACHAM answered that what he thought Representative Austerman
was recalling was the aggregations of coho salmon stocks along the
Pacific Northwest into distinct population segments. He said there
is not any direct linkage to the Pacific Salmon Treaty. "There is
not any direct linkage in terms of the most recent court suit that
came our way. The linkage that exists would be with the Endangered
Species Act and if it is reauthorized in a fashion that calls a
`species being a species' rather than a `distinct population
segment' then we would probably not be negatively affected. On the
other hand, my understanding of some of these coho is that they do
move into Alaskan waters and, perhaps, even to a greater extent
than do Snake River fall Chinook which could be a problem for us."
Number 450
REPRESENTATIVE EILEEN MACLEAN referred to the Endangered Species
Act asking if Chinook salmon is considered endangered.
MR. MEACHAM replied, "Chinook salmon as a species are clearly not
endangered. However, the distinct population segment of Chinook
from Snake River is threatened. Some people think it should be
called endangered. It is truly troubled, there is no question
about that. In my view, while there is an obligation to do what we
can for the salmon, I think it ought to be promoted by the federal
government. I think it ought to be implemented at the state and
local level. I do not think the federal government has any
business coming in and controlling major areas of the state, or
multiple states, associated with the fish coming from one small
tributary. That is what is happening with Alaska."
Number 478
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked Mr. Meacham if the state had ever
formed a commission for the salmon treaty.
MR. MEACHAM responded that we have a group of fishermen that are
working together in a group known as the `northern panel' of the
Pacific Salmon Commission.
Number 509
BRUCE BOTELHO, ATTORNEY GENERAL testified. "Judge Rothstein, who
is the current U. S. District Court judge supervising the lawsuit
known as the Confederated Tribes v. Baldridge, Baldridge was
Secretary of Commerce in 1980, set a hearing on August 11 on a
request by the tribes joined by Oregon and Washington with Canada
participating as an amicus or friend of the court to consider the
question of whether Alaska had violated either the terms of the
treaty or at least the terms of the stipulation when it proceeded
with its abundant space methodology for computing a harvestable
rate for Alaska. We participated in that hearing.
MR. BOTELHO continued, "In retrospect, we went with great optimism
that there should be really no controversy in the law at all.
Alaska had voluntarily reduced its harvest ceiling based on its own
methodology from that which had been the regime in place from the
1991-1993 season of 263,000 to a catch limit of 230,000. We were
stunned when Judge Rothstein at that point issued a temporary
restraining order and agreed to then schedule a hearing on
preliminary injunction for August 30. In that time, the state was
able to assemble a very strong litigation team that was made up of
not only of state lawyers but a coalition of interests both in
terms of gear groups and Native entities who made available lawyers
to be part of team.
MR. BOTELHO continued, "There was a three-day trial which resulted
in the decision issued on the 8th of September by Judge Rothstein
in which she purported to conclude that she was not ruling on the
treaty process at all, simply that we had violated the stipulation
which Chuck Meacham referred to tangentially entered in the
Baldridge case that led to actual creation of the treaty in 1985.
The stipulation that terminated that litigation presumably stopped
bringing Alaska into the U.S. v. Washington -- that is the Boldt
decision controversy in exchange for setting up a treaty regime.
Her rationale was that Alaska had agreed to be bound by the treaty
process and by its act unilaterally implementing its abundant space
methodology without first getting prior approval by at least the
U.S. section of the Pacific Salmon Commission and prior review of
the Chinook technical committee we had breached our implied duty of
good faith and fair dealing under the terms of the stipulation
which she analogized to a contract. Having found that implied
violation of this contract, she employed a balancing test,
balancing of the hardships which she is required to do and despite
the fact that she generally accepted our proposition that a
reduction of some 55,000 Chinook in Alaska would perhaps return at
most some 400 fish to the terminal fishery and cause economic
hardship for Alaskans that this loss to Alaskans was outweighed by
the duty to rebuild the stocks primarily on the Columbia since that
was the primary area of potential injury. We asked her to stay her
decision because the consequence of it was to shut off the
remainder of the 1995 Chinook harvest in Alaska. She refused to do
so.
MR. BOTELHO continued, "We petitioned the ninth circuit again on
jurisdictional grounds as well as the actual balancing of the
hardship of the misapplication of that task and asked them to issue
an emergency stay which they rejected. We now have that matter
pending on expedited appeal in front of the ninth circuit. The
court, uncharacteristically but, I think partly as a consequence of
our taking the position that the ninth circuit should be split into
a twelve circuit and one of our reasons for making that pitch was
the lengthy delays in getting decisions has put this issue on an
emergency briefing schedule with the state's brief due on October
6 and theirs to be followed two weeks later and a final briefing
due at the end of October with oral arguments to follow
immediately. That is the status of that particular episode.
MR. BOTELHO continued, "The consequence of this particular case in
parallel developments undertaken to form a strike force on this.
What is not quite clear is that the tribes in particular have
orchestrated a strategy that makes use of their biologists; in the
technical process they go with marching orders about how they are
going to proceed. The commissioners on the U.S. section who
participate are also being coordinated by lawyers and all of this
playing in the courtroom where we believe that this should not be
happening and our position has been that the courts are not the
place to settle this issue. But, as a consequence of their
strategy, it is quite clear that we need to have a similar
coordinated effort. That is what we do in the treaty process needs
to fit also with our litigation strategy. As a consequence of
that, there are basically four things that we are doing at the
state level.
MR. BOTELHO said, "In terms of our own litigation force, I have
retained Mike Stanley, a private practitioner who has represented
gear groups from around the state but is in Southeast and the lead
attorney for the Southeast seiners. As special assistant to the
attorney general to lead up our efforts working with the Department
of Fish and Game and the treaty process and to lead our litigation
efforts in both U.S. v. Washington and in Confederated Tribes v.
Baldridge. I have two assistant attorneys general who are assigned
full time on this to work with him. In addition, we have had
pledges of support and are developing a coordinated effort with a
coalition led by the Alaska Trollers Association in the form of
Bruce Wyrock, and in Seattle, John Casperson. Tlingit Haida
Central Council and Grand Camp of ANB have joined to make David
Crosby available to this effort and finally Klukwan, Inc. and Shee
Atika and Goldbelt have made available Bob Blasco to serve again as
part of this team on an ongoing effort.
Number 739
MR. BOTELHO continues, "As I have said, we are really working on
four fronts. I have told you that we are working specifically to
appeal Judge Rothstein's decision in the ninth circuit. We also
are anticipating a possible repeat of what happened in 1995. That
is the tribes in Oregon and Washington trying to make use of Judge
Rothstein's court to leverage a lower ceiling for 1996. We also
have the lawsuit U.S. v. Washington. That case has been going on
for a quarter of a century. Judge Boldt's decision that Chuck
Meacham referred to was the most notorious issue until 1974 and,
alternately affirmed by the U.S. Court in 1979, would allocate 50
percent of the harvestable return to the tribes as a result of an
interpretation of the so-called `Stevens Treaties' that were
entered into in the 1850s between various tribes in Washington and
the United States. What has happened is there have been a number
of subproceedings that have kept this case alive and as Chuck
outlined briefly we are now litigating the question...." (end of
tape)
TAPE 95-69, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. BOTELHO said, "...since the treaty was entered into with the
United States and is binding on all citizens of the U.S. that the
tribes are entitled to 50 percent of the harvest everywhere, not
simply at the terminal, and therefore have a right to extend their
claims to those species that migrate into Alaska waters. It has
not been limited only to salmon but the claim that they have
asserted would also extend to bottomfish like halibut. Shellfish
have already been determined to be included. So the major threat
for Alaska. The matter is scheduled for trial. Alaska was
basically brought into the proceedings about nine months ago, it is
scheduled for a three-week trial in March of 1996 in Seattle. We
are nominally, at least, in this litigation aligned with Washington
and Oregon but our major efforts right now we have motions for a
partial semi-judgment which the judge has refused to rule which
would have precluded Alaska from being bound from the outcome of
the case. So, we are proceeding on the assumption that we will
have to fully litigate the case in trial itself. So, that is the
third prong. The fourth prong is developing strategies in front of
the various treaty agencies so that we have a case that is
consistent, that we have developed a record there that shows
Alaska's commitment both to sustained yield and rebuilding which
has been our watchword that is proceeding on the basis of sound
science. That Mr. Chairman, in a nutshell, is where we are today."
Number 031
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked MR. BOTELHO if the Administration has
formed a commission for the state of Alaska instead of going with
a federal commission on fisheries.
MR. BOTELHO answered in the negative saying not on this issue. "It
is clearly because it is a treaty matter and is one controlled by
both federal treaty, which was ratified by Congress, and a specific
statute that preempts Alaska from being able to act unilaterally."
Number 060
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES testified via teleconference from
Fairbanks and asked Mr. Botelho to give a sense of how much of the
disagreement rests on procedural things and how much of it is based
on technical disagreement over the actual harvest.
MR. BOTELHO responded that the battle, however couched, is
politically driven to reach a predetermined result which is to
maximize allocations to the South at Alaska's expense.
Number 078
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA addressed Chuck Meacham clarifying that the
Legislative Leadership was strongly supporting action against the
federal government in application of the Endangered Species Act
against Alaska and others; she asked about the projected timeline
of the lawsuit.
MR. MEACHAM explained that it was difficult to project a timeline
for court cases. He said a reauthorization of the Endangered
Species Act might take place this session.
Number 090
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA followed up by asking if this case had been
filed in the court system.
MR. MEACHAM responded that there have been multiple cases filed in
the court system.
Number 099
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked for further information and
clarification of the Endangered Species Act. She asked if the act
was primarily for commercial or sports fisheries.
MR. MEACHAM replied that in Alaska the emphasis was related to
commercial fisheries but that all fisheries are involved in the
Endangered Species Act.
Number 126
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked whether others besides British
Columbia vehemently opposed fisheries in Alaska.
MR. MEACHAM said the fisheries in Canada were managed exclusively
by the Department of Fish and Oceans, a Canadian federal government
organization. It is British Columbia that borders Alaska and the
Pacific Northwest tribes, but they do not have management
authority. He emphasized there are innumerable opportunities where
both Alaska and British Columbia fishermen and fish could benefit
by working together.
Number 166
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA referred to the north/south split and asked
Mr. Meacham for his views.
MR. MEACHAM responded, "There are a number of panels within the
existing commission process; he foresees the transboundary river
annex (Stikine and Taku Rivers) and the northern boundary annex
fisheries (Noyes Island seine fishery and Tree Point gillnet
fishery) could be negotiated strictly between the Northern Panel
Alaska people and the British Columbia fishermen and biologists.
The problems that exist with regard to southern stocks and Fraser
River sockeye could be negotiated by the Pacific Northwest tribes,
and the states of Oregon and Washington directly with Canada."
Number 215
SCOTT MARSHALL, Southeast Regional Supervisor, provided background
information about himself:
"I came to Southeast Alaska to work on the treaty process in 1983
when I was stationed out of Anchorage and have been involved since
that time. In that time, I have served on essentially every
technical committee on the commission for Alaska. I served in the
department as the chief fisheries scientist. As the fisheries
scientist, for the Pacific Salmon Treaty affairs and since being
regional supervisor, I have been on the Northern Panel.
Number 239
MR. MARSHALL began his overview of the Pacific Salmon Treaty using
visual aids during his report. "The most important thing to
understand is that the majority of Pacific salmon, when they
migrate out of their natal streams and into the Pacific Ocean, turn
right and go north. This unique migratory behavior is the
underlying reason why there is a need to cooperate in the
management, research, conservation and enhancement of these
critters. The basic issue that people need to understand is that
when Pacific salmon come out of natal rivers, they spawn in the
tidelands and upper reaches of rivers from Cape Falcon on the
central Oregon coast to the north. As juveniles, they move out
into the Pacific Ocean, migrate to the feeding grounds along the
western coast of the North American continent and feed and grow.
Because of that they are susceptible to harvest in various
jurisdictions. Fish know no political boundaries, they go to where
the herring and needlefish are. There are some significant
differences among the stocks.
Number 291
MR. MARSHALL said, "There are some significant differences among
the stocks. First, in the South beginning at Cape Falcon on the
central Oregon coast, up to about the north coast of Vancouver
Island, there are significant runs of coho salmon and chum salmon
that move out of Oregon and Washington that migrate to (indisc.)
and feed on the southern British Columbia continental shelf and are
susceptible to fisheries. For coho salmon, they are primarily
susceptible to the Canadian troll fleet off the west coast of
Vancouver Island and chum salmon are primarily susceptible to the
net fisheries in Johnstone Strait on the east coast of Vancouver
Island. In addition, there are a group of Chinook salmon which
tend to spawn in the lower reaches of the Columbia River and Puget
Sound; these fish are primarily susceptible to the recreational and
troll fleets of Canada. The other groups of Chinook stock that
come out of primarily the upper reaches of the Fraser River and the
upper reaches of the Columbia River and, to some extent, small
streams from the west coast of Oregon that move and migrate as far
as Southeast Alaska to rear and grown. What you end up with is
jurisdictions like Alaska and British Columbia and states of
Washington and Oregon who all have an interest in the harvest
patterns of fish that originated in their waters by other
jurisdictions."
Number 330
SCOTT MARSHALL continued with historical background on the
fisheries discussing the first international cooperation between
Alaska and Canada in the 1920s over Fraser River sockeye. "By the
1930s, the United States and Canada crafted a treaty to share in
the harvest and cooperate in the management and enhancement of that
stock. By the 1950s, migratory patterns of the Chinook and coho
from Washington and Oregon to the west coast of Vancouver Island
became fairly well known. Those catches of Chinook and coho
spawned in Washington and Oregon by the Canadians was probably the
impetus for renewing negotiations over a broader spectrum of
fisheries issues between the countries.
MR. MARSHALL continued, "In the early 1970s, there were ongoing
negotiations between Canada and the United States over what we call
`stocks of mutual concern.' There was a long series of
negotiations through the 1970s and, at that time, the primary
emphasis was one of trying to determine the extent of
interceptions. Interceptions are defined for treaty purposes as
stocks that spawn in one country but which are harvested by another
country. At that time, the Canadians brought forth a view that the
two countries ought to develop schemes for `balancing the
interceptions.' Despite the lack of data, the countries began
putting together reports. Canada's view at that time was that
`interception balancing' ought to involve computing the ex-
processor's value of the fish that spawned in Oregon and spawned in
the United States and were caught in Canada and the fish spawned in
Canada were caught in the United States.
MR. MARSHALL said, "From 1969 and until 1982, the United States and
Canada entered into `on again, off again' very intense negotiations
over these issues. In 1982, in Washington we struck what we called
the `Lynwood Accord' which was a draft treaty to help resolve these
issues. In our judgement, and the judgement of then Governor
Sheffield and Senator Ted Stevens, this treaty was not in Alaska's
best interests and we asked the negotiators to go back to the
table. In 1985, we finally struck a deal. Two main principles
include the principle of conservation and trying to attain maximum
sustained yield for our fish stocks that we share an interest in.
The second principle is called the equity principle in which each
country is entitled to benefits equivalent to the production of
salmon originating from its waters."
Number 430
MR. MARSHALL said he wanted to list what he sees as the main issues
from the Department of Fish and Game's prospective that we are
trying to deal with at this juncture in this very long process.
"The primary issue that has separated the United States and Canada
and has separated Alaska from the southern delegation has been the
equity principle.
MR. MARSHALL stated, "Recently, the tribes have sued us under the
Baldridge stipulation because they believe the technical basis for
our Chinook salmon management is flawed. The tribes have
resurrected under the Baldridge stipulation their right to
determine their property rights to Chinook that originate in the
Puget Sound and Columbia River that are caught in Southeast Alaska.
We are forced by 1996, as an agency to resolve the technical
matters surrounding how to implement an abundance based management
program for Chinook salmon. We are forced over the next six months
to support, defend and put forth the abundance based approach for
equity. This will be a major battle. Canada, over the last two
years, has made a major issue of our catch of coho salmon that come
out of northern British Columbia and we are in for a battle of our
lives there. Under the Endangered Species Act, we are not only
trying to deal with Snake River fall Chinook, but coho salmon from
the southern jurisdictions have been listed as well as steelhead
and incidental catches."
Number 523
MR. MARSHALL said that in his opinion, "Since working in fisheries
since 1969, this is a major turning point particularly for
Southeast Alaska." He personally feels that the Department of Fish
and Game is not staffed nor funded to deal with the broad-sweeping
list of issues.
Number 540
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Marshall how the Resources Committee
could help continue the fight.
MR. MARSHALL replied, "In 1986, we had a budget problem in this
state, which was the first year of the implementation of the treaty
with the federal funds. One of the things that happened in
Southeast was that we took over $1,000,000 out of the southeast
regional program in general funds and moved those to help buffer
impacts in other parts of the state in that budget reduction. The
problem is that we are still fighting those treaty battles and now
over the years, federal funds are diminishing. We are, in my
judgement, seriously underfunded at this point."
Number 599
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Marshall to explain the abundance
factor.
MR. MARSHALL said, "In 1979, the treaty tribes came to the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council which was just after passage of
the Magnuson Act and, under the Magnuson Act, they took oversight
of our troll fishery in Southeast Alaska. The treaty tribes came
up at that time from the Columbia River and argued that the
abundance was down from up-river stocks and because those fish
migrated to and reared in Southeast Alaska and were caught all
along the migratory path, they argued to the North Pacific Council
to reduce Alaska's catch to provide some conservation for fair
sharing. In 1980, the Council agreed and Alaska put its first
numeric ceiling on Southeast Alaska fisheries. By 1985, when we
signed the treaty, we had two basic choices on how to implement
Chinook management: (1) was harvest ceilings in the various
fisheries of troll and sport fisheries in Southeast Alaska and
British Columbia; or (2) try and come up with a scheme that would
share in the proportion, a harvest rate approach, a percent of the
stock share. The negotiators chose harvest ceilings for the
northern fishery. When abundance goes up and there is lots of
fish, our fishermen would like a bigger share: When abundance goes
way down there needs to be some sharing of the conservation burden.
This would in essence develop a partnership between the different
fishermen; an incentive to boost production if everybody shares
proportionately. Beginning this year, with the forecast down on
abundance of Chinook stocks coastwide, we made a proposal that we
should move away from fixed ceilings to an abundance based
approach.
MR. MARSHALL continued his testimony, "We asked ourselves how are
we going to do an in-season assessment of abundance for coastwide
Chinook salmon, and we came up with a very good relationship
between the post season estimated abundance and the catch during
the first five days of July of our troll fishery." He went on to
explain other complicated, technical issues that staff has been
working on for the past six months. He said, "We proposed what we
believe is a scientifically more rigorous approach and were willing
to live and die by the outcome of that without knowing in advance
what catch that would be. The tribes simply did not like the
number and they sued us."
TAPE 95-70, SIDE A
Number 000
MR. AMBROSE said he thinks there is a misunderstanding on the part
of the general public basically saying that Alaska needs to get out
of the treaty. People do not understand that we are not signatory
to the treaty. This is between the federal government and the
government of Canada. Is there a mechanism other than the
ratification process through the United States Senate? Is there a
way that Alaska could, in fact, withdraw from the process?"
MR. MARSHALL said, "Alaska cannot withdraw on its own. The United
States needs to serve notice of its intent and there is a one-year
waiting period. That is obviously a political decision that would
be taken to the very highest levels of government. The President,
himself, would be intimately involved in any decision like that to
serve notice."
Number 024
MR. AMBROSE asked Mr. Meacham if he knew of any other example where
participants in a treaty process ended up suing each other in
federal court.
MR. MARSHALL answered, "By and large treaties provide no private
right for redress. That is the legal jargon. It means that
participants in something like the Pacific Salmon Treaty are
precluded from relief from federal court. This is very unique
because they didn't sue us under the treaty; they sued us as part
of the Baldridge stipulation. The Baldridge stipulation in simple
terms was back in 1982 when Alaska and Governor Sheffield backed
away from the Lynwood Accord because it wasn't in our best
interests to support that draft treaty. The tribes moved forward
to exert the treaty fishing rights. What we thought we got to
settle that issue was their agreement not to sue us. What they
thought they got ... and what we thought they thought they got was
our willingness to support ratification of the treaty. I have
studied the Baldridge stipulation for years and it wasn't until
this judge got involved that I understood that it meant a lot more
than that."
Number 052
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN referred to migratory routes and the
interception of fish on the coast line. He asked, "The migratory
routes do not take just the coast line into consideration, do
they?" "Do we have technical studies or data that show exactly
where the migratory routes of the salmon are in the Gulf of
Alaska?"
MR. MARSHALL responded that there are limited studies. "The
primary tool we have today is the coded microwire tag. It is a
very small piece of stainless steel wire, microscopic implanted in
the snout of fish when they are very small. We have sampling
programs to recover those tags in our coastal fisheries and that
has provided a fair amount of information for the stocks that are
tagged."
MR. MEACHAM added that coded wire tag technology has resulted in a
tremendous amount of information being made available. The panel
discussed methods and accuracy of tagging various fish groups at
length.
Number 157
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Marshall if he was familiar with
Representative Don Young's bill to amend the Endangered Species Act
HR2275.
MR. MARSHALL said he had not read the bill and said it is premature
for him to comment on the specifics. "I am sure that the agency
will be doing an analysis of that bill. There are many, many
issues and trying to find a bill that doesn't throw the baby out
with the bath water. It is real important."
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked Mr. Marshall to brief him on how
the coded wire tags are recovered. "Is this a volunteer type
activity on the part of commercial and sport fishermen or do you
have people in the field that are doing sampling, et cetera.?"
MR. MARSHALL said the coded wire tag program began in mid 1970s.
"It is now a coordinated coastwide recovery program and our goal is
to sample 20 percent of the harvests. It is the biggest single
field program that I have in Southeast Alaska. We actually do the
physically sampling of the commercial catch. We do Chinook and
coho regionwide and we have some locations in the southern end
around Ketchikan when we sample for chum salmon because we have had
chum salmon programs going on in the area. The program, in my
judgement, has been very successful. It does not require volunteer
effort. We get tremendous cooperation from the fishermen and from
the processing industry, in particular, to go into their plants and
get scales, ages, interview fishermen, everything. We keep our
data as precise as to location and time as possible. All of the
data is computerized and shared up and down the coast on a strict
timetable."
Number 230
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked Mr. Marshall, "Is the department
getting enough information from the federal observer program on
high sea troll fleet to give you a good idea as to what is going
on.
MR. MARSHALL said, "The Chinook bycatch in those fisheries is
fairly small in relation to the other Chinook catches we are
talking about here. The incidents of the stocks of concern to the
Pacific Salmon Commission are fairly small in those fisheries. The
federal government provides reports on those, but it is such a
small fraction of the catch that it is not dealt with actively."
Number 245
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES referred to coded wire tagging saying that he
had heard about "otolith banding" (thermal otolith marking) and
asked, "Can that method could be applied to also disentangle this
information?"
MR. MARSHALL replied otolith banding, in certain situations, can be
used. "One of the problems is there is a limited number of banding
patterns that can be used. So on a coastwide program, it would
require tremendous coordination and we may run into problems in
developing enough unique bands. I do not see that that technology
offers a lot to Chinook. I think it offers a lot to mass produced
species like pinks and chums. It has been a very good program for
sockeye salmon."
Number 275
GARY FREITAG, Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association,
testified:
"I am a member of the Chinook Technical Committee of the Pacific
Salmon Commission. I have been on it since the very beginning.
There were several comments made by the folks here suggesting how
much of the decisions being made are technical in nature: How much
are being allocated or political in nature. I think all along the
Chinook Technical Committee has tried to strive to do something on
an unbiased technical forum. I think underlying that there has
always been an agenda by non-Alaskan biologists on that committee
to reallocate fish to the south. It has always been there, it is
very subtle, it has always been in the process. I think this last
meeting that I attended, about a month ago, when we reviewed the
technical merits of Alaska's abundance based approach that was
proposed this year. It was the first meeting where I saw a blatant
"ratchet-up" in the political allocative nature of what the
technical people from the southern United States, as well as
Canada, were coming in. They had an agenda, they had an agenda to
stop Alaska's position from being a reasonable and logical way of
going. It was obvious to me at that meeting that there was another
step up in the political allocative nature of the decisions that
were being made and the discussions that were being made on
technical basis.
MR. FREITAG said, "I have looked at Alaska's approach in being a
nonstate member. It had more merit than most of the management
schemes than I have seen in all the years I have been involved in
this. The relationship that Scott alluded to being extremely good
between the first five days and actual abundance that occurred in
the past was dramatic in comparison. The variables involved here
are so complex and there are so many of them, you cannot pinpoint
why that works so well, but it does. In fact, the relationship was
good. It is very easy when you have got 50 variables to
technically point out 4 or 5 things that can not be right and that
is what I think the scientists from the south used to tell this
judge and she made the decision that this approach was a bunch of
`hogwash.' I think it was politically stemmed and not technical.
I think the state's approach, technically, is sound. The data
suggests that it is a good management tool and it is the best that
I have seen in all the years I have been involved in this process."
Number 330
KAY ANDREW, Gillnetter, said she and her husband gillnet on the
Canadian-Alaskan border. MS. ANDREW thanked the Administration and
the House Resources Committee for coming to Ketchikan. She said,
"We have had a lot of conflicts in the last two seasons on the
border down there. Mainly, with the Canadians coming over and
fishing on the American side. They do not seem to have any fear or
respect of our government at all. They are allowed to do this
because they are allowed to come into the state of Alaska with
their gear aboard their boats. Not only gillnetters, but trollers,
too. They are allowed to come over and anchor on the American
side, the trollers at night, because they do not have any other
place to go if they are fishing on the outside. They take great
advantage of this and they abuse this privilege. I must say I am
also pleased with the Coast Guard because they patrol the area down
there and they arrested a lot of them and fined them with some
pretty stiff fines.
MS. ANDREW said, "On to the problem on hand, I think that Alaska
has gotten a lot of bad publicity on this subject and we should get
an active campaign going in the press to clarify our position. I
do not think Alaska has done that and I think it is very important
that we start fighting back so to speak. This is being tried in
the press and we have not stood up and said exactly what Alaska is
or has done to ratify this treaty all these years and to negotiate
with British Columbia. We need to be telling Washington and Oregon
and the United States, in general, and British Columbia what is
really happening between us and British Columbia in the Lower 48;
such as why is British Columbia able to keep four Chinook for sport
fishing. We are not allowed to. Why are British Columbia trollers
allowed to fish four trolling lines than our Alaska trollers are.
That has been going on for years, also. Alaskan trollers have been
continually taken down in the numbers of fish that they have been
allowed to catch. Alaska has conserved not only in the troll
fleet, but sportfishing, gillnetting, seining. Everyone has done
their turn through the years to try to conserve that are going
through here. Yet, where are this fish? Who can guarantee that
these fish are ever going to get to the creek or streams or
wherever they are supposed to be going? Alaska sat at the docks in
the late 1960s and early 1970s because they over fished their
stocks and they decided to rebuild them or we were not going to
have fisheries and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game took the
necessary measures to do this. They have rebuilt our stocks in the
state, we have the best stocks of anywhere."
MS. ANDREW asked, "Did we not when we became a state have a signed
agreement with the United States, with the federal government that
allowed us to manage our own fisheries? If that is so, how can a
federal judge come in and tell us how to manage our fisheries?"
She suggested that Ketchikan and Southeast should actively, in the
press, encourage our residents not to travel to British Columbia.
"Keep our dollars at home." She related that an Alaskan fisherman
was killed in Prince Rupert this summer.
MS. ANDREW further suggested, "The judge should be made to
guarantee that the fish that had to go by, that were taken away
from the troll fleet and the sports fishermen; can she guarantee
that those fish are going to reach the migrating streams. Alaska
should demand it! Why are we seeing in the paper that there is
Columbia River Chinook king salmon for sale at Pike's Place Market,
fresh? Who is catching these fish? Who is allowed to sell king
salmon in Washington State? We are not allowed to keep them here!"
She exclaimed that the Attorney General's office should become more
involved and keep the fishing industry informed. Her final
question was, "How can Canada be allowed to sign on a lawsuit with
two Native groups in the states of Washington and Oregon? It is a
foreign country!"
Number 540
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS agreed with Ms. Andrew 100 percent on all of
her issues and said the committee would try to answer her
questions. He continued, "The fishing boats that are coming into
Alaskan waters, Senator Taylor's office had a bill passed this year
to try to take care of this through the board of fish." He also
expressed agreement with Ms. Andrew's recommendation to not spend
money in British Columbia, especially after what has transpired.
"I do not know what the legislature will be thinking about. We do
have support for the fishing industry, there is a lot of support
for the fishing industry in the legislature. The Attorney
General's Office is involved in the legislation and one of the
reasons that he was unable to attend this hearing is because he is
working on this specific issue."
Number 575
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN encouraged Ms. Andrew and others to join him
and Senator Taylor in the fight to assert the state's rights. He
said he and Senator Taylor had authored similar legislation which
Senator Taylor's version passed unopposed in both houses and was
put on the Governor's desk which would have required the state to
scrutinize any federal mandates for cost effectiveness,
constitutionality, and initiated legal challenge. There is a
national movement to reassert our state's rights. There is some
interesting model legislation that is being proposed, both
resolutions and state statutes, and possibly some changes to the
United States Constitution that would give authority to the states
to repeal any federal law or regulation on a referendum with a
resolution from two-thirds of the states which would give more
authority back to the states to manage their own affairs.
Number 623
MR. AMBROSE asked Mr. Meacham, for the point of clarification, "Who
is suing who?" "Who are the parties to the suit?"
MR. MEACHAM responded that the party was the confederated tribes,
others have signed on in agreement with them, but they are the ones
that are driving this thing.
MR. AMBROSE asked if the Canadian government could submit a brief?
MR. MARSHALL replied the Canadian government petitioned the court
to be `amicus curiae' for another court and we objected and the
court let them in.
MR. AMBROSE commented in reference to Ms. Andrew's testimony saying
his only comment is, "As Kay is advocating her boycott, she really
should not forget our friends in Seattle."
Number 644
MEREDITH MARSHALL of Ketchikan encouraged the committee and the
state to continue in every way possible to assert our Alaska state
sovereignty over all resource issues. "In whatever way possible in
working with Congress to resolve those issues, we need to assert
our sovereignty over our natural resources." She suggested that
one thing the legislature can do is to provide adequate financial
resources to the Department of Law and fishermen in going forward
with their court battles. Money is going to drive this issue, she
said and remarked the legislature should ensure there are adequate
loan guarantees for the fishermen and, perhaps, forgiveness of
interest for those who had their seasons cut back.
Number 700
GEOFF BULLOCK, UNITED SOUTHEAST GILLNETTERS, said he echoed Ms.
Andrew's comments. "The one good thing that has come out of this
is that the fishing groups in Southeast Alaska are working
together." He expressed amazement at department statistics showing
Alaska being flatlined while Canada is catching 600,000 king
salmon. He talked about concerns of the fishermen and a new
coalition headed up the trollers. He said the city of Ketchikan had
contributed over $18,000 and the borough contributed over $18,000
from the raw fish tax, Juneau has, as well as all the communities
in Southeast Alaska. "But, it is going to take from $150,000 to
$200,000 in attorney bills to keep fighting this thing. We are not
in a position to step back and say, okay state, take it and we will
work with you. This is our livelihoods. We have to be there to
file our own papers and to work on it with the state."
TAPE 95-70, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. BULLOCK said, "The state is paying 3 percent for hatchery, they
are paying more for the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute. If we
are going to continue to fight, we need the resources to do it and
that is one of things that we are going to have to come to you this
year to say help."
Number 007
LONNIE HAUGHTON, Ketchikan Trollers Committee, thanked the
committee for their attention to this issue. He said it had been
several governors and several parties since Alaska has had such
clear focus from the Administration. He urged the committee to get
the funding to fight this thing through. "As Scott Marshall
mentioned earlier, this is a major turning point in the future of
Southeast Alaska fisheries - king, coho, steelhead. If we can let
a half-baked pseudo-science dictate the management of our king
salmon fishery, then the same people using the same half-baked
science before the same judge will be managing our other fisheries
in the same way. If three or four Snake River salmon can devastate
our Chinook fisheries here, three or four sockeye from the coast of
Oregon, could end up making a major change in the Sand Point
fishery or Kodiak fishery. It is just a matter of someone starting
the legal process using the half-baked science. Now is the time
for the state to make the longterm commitment to follow through on
this."
Number 060
ANGELO L. MARTIN said he had been involved with king salmon in the
Ketchikan community since 1980. He related his experiences
assisting the fishing community and working with Senator Robin
Taylor's office to implement fisheries programs. He said his
feeling is if the fishermen can not catch the fish, they will not
want to raise fish. He said there are more hatchery fish in the
Ketchikan area than wild stocks. He suggested that the price of
fish is too low, somebody is controlling these fish prices; drawing
the fish prices down and putting us into this type of situation.
He encouraged the committee and the state to stand up and yell a
little bit louder.
Number 180
BARRY McCLELLAND, commercial fisherman, remarked that he had been
a member of the Alaska delegation to the treaty talks in 1984-1985,
appointed by Governor Sheffield. "I have a knowledge of some of
the problems presented by the treaty and the Endangered Species
Act. I have read the Baldridge stipulation and other related
documents, I think the problem confronting us here which is really
another wave in a continuing assault on our fisheries by the down-
south interests. This is a very, very serious problem, and, I for
one, have not seen the kind of reaction that I would hope to come
out of this because what we are threatened with is a closure of our
access to a very precious resource, the Chinook resource. That
closure is a result of, indirectly, the Boldt decision in 1974
which awarded 22 treaty tribes in Washington and Oregon 50 percent
of the fish, run by run, river per river, in the major watersheds
of Washington and Oregon.
MR. McCLELLAND stated, "To fight this and to retain our access to
this resource, it is going to require an extraordinary effort by
the state and not only by the state, but by all the organizations
that represent the people who value this resource. I am speaking
not only of commercial interests but of the charter interests, the
sports fishermen. I think you ladies and gentlemen in the
legislature are going to need to consider appropriating additional
funds to help the state fight this problem. Many towns and
organizations in Southeast Alaska have contributed money to a legal
fund that has been set up to help out. Speaking for myself, I hope
that we can see a ground swell come and get going. I hope the
state will try to publicize the matter and you, Chairman Williams,
are doing a good job publicizing it here. I think we need more of
that. I urge you to put this on the front burner and to do
everything you can because the citizens of Southeast who value this
resource are counting on the legislature and the state's agencies
and the state's officials to defend us in this matter."
Number 240
BERNARD GUTHRIE, commercial fisherman, expressed concern with the
media. He asked, "Does the federal treaty conflict and violate our
state rights to manage our own fisheries. What is the
Administration's stand? What is the legislature going to pursue?"
MR. GUTHRIE asked for a copy of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, copies
of testimony and a copy of the meeting minutes. He recommended as
the committee proceeds with the treaty, not to include the
Endangered Species Act.
Number 280
MR. MARTIN said in Southern Southeast Alaska, there is more king
salmon now than there ever has been. "If we are doing something
wrong, what is it?"
Number 287
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referenced earlier testimony regarding natural
stock salmon in the Snake River and asked Mr. Meacham to verify if
there is and how much. "Are we talking about protecting hatchery
fish here with the Endangered Species Act."
MR. MEACHAM said it was impossible to answer the question directly.
"The reason being that hatcheries have been in existence for a
considerable period of time down there and there has been a mix of
hatchery and wild fish to the extent that it is really impossible
to tell. There have been some wild fish that have managed to stay
wild, but there is no question that the hatchery stocks have
interacted with the wild fish and they are behaving as one in many
instances."
Number 318
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said it seemed prudent to him for the state of
Washington to increase their hatchery effort in that area instead
of just going to court to shut our fisheries down. "Has anybody
talked to them about that or is the state of Alaska wanting to
offer some assistance and expertise in that area to help them build
their stocks back up somewhat. Is that possible?"
MR. MEACHAM said, "We have come a long, long way in terms of
implementing good hatchery management processes in Alaska. Some of
the hatcheries on the Columbia and other locations in the Lower 48
did not function well have resulted in doing more harm than good.
At this point, we have the capabilities to do some tremendous
things and increase production significantly through hatchery
operations. They have to be carefully controlled and releases have
to be carefully planned. Unfortunately, some of the constraints
associated with the Endangered Species Act are such that it
precludes reasonable efforts in terms of producing fish in the
hatchery." He talked about the willingness of the Department of
Fish and Game to participate and help them out. He said he was
confident there is a willingness to offer our expertise both in
technology and basic fisheries management which is seriously
needed.
Number 363
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said REPRESENTATIVE DON YOUNG is in the process
of working on the Endangered Species Act. He asked if there is any
communication going on as far as asking the act to be amended to
make it easier for hatchery fish programs to be expanded.
MR. MEACHAM answered in the affirmative saying there are a number
of beneficial provisions within that bill. He explained provisions
in the bill and said the bill is a step in the right direction.
Number 406
MR. AMBROSE thanked the committee for coming to Ketchikan and hoped
the committee came to the realization that this issue is not just
a regional issue.
Number 413
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN talked about the `tenth amendment movement' he
and Senator Taylor are working on. He said the Governor had vetoed
that one particular piece of legislation. He encouraged the
audience and members of the public to let the Governor know that
the people would like the state's rights asserted, and to be
sovereign over the federal government the way the framers of our
Constitution intended it to be rather than the other way around.
Number 433
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN thanked Representative Williams as the
Chairman of the Resources Committee for holding this meeting.
"Coming from Kodiak, it is just as important to me as it is to
you." He thanked the audience for their comments and encouraged
further comments be submitted during the legislation session so the
legislature will be better informed to make appropriate decisions.
Number 450
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA thanked Mr. Meacham, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Botelho for providing additional information on the negotiation.
As a former member of the Yukon Salmon Negotiation Treaty between
Canada and the United States. She said, "I firmly understand the
problem you have here in the Southeast." She hoped that ANILCA
Title VIII will not be confused with the Pacific Salmon Treaty
problem. "Otherwise, that will draw problems with the rural
legislators during the legislative session." She recommended not
having these two issues together in the same fight.
Number 480
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS thanked everyone for participating in the
oversight hearing. He said, "We have learned here today that
Alaska has done a very excellent job in taking a conservative
management approach to our salmon stocks. The science behind our
salmon management is very complex as you have heard, but it gives
us a very sound basis on which to set our harvests limits. CO-
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS in conclusion, "Clearly, there are outside
interests who want us to limit our salmon harvests and pad their
pockets. It is flat out wrong. We all understand that a federal
judge can not understand the science that we have lived with for
many years here in Alaska. I do think it is right for us to be in
court and I will lobby for what the Administration would like to
see happen and see how this legislature can help. I will work with
the Administration on that. Alaskans are not responsible for the
decline in salmon runs south of us. We are not responsible and we
should not be held accountable for any of the blame. Unfortunately,
our fishing industry is forced to fight for survival in the courts.
Other harvesting industries have been fighting for their life in
courts for sometime now. These harvesting industries have many
things in common. I have been and will continue to get our
different resource industries to work together. The bottom line is
that if our resource extraction industries are going to survive, we
must all work together."
Number 530
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct, CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS
adjourned the House Resources Committee meeting at 12:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|