Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/17/2000 01:45 PM 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
March 17, 2000
1:45 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chair
Representative John Cowdery, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative John Harris
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 429
"An Act extending the termination date for the vessel permit
moratoria for the Bering Sea Korean hair crab fishery and the
weathervane scallop fishery; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED HB 429 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 175
"An Act relating to state mining law, to methods of locating
mining claims, to the granting of larger mining claims using a
legal subdivision based on rectangular survey descriptions, and
to mandatory rental payments for prospecting rights."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 238
"An Act establishing a federal tax obligation loan program under
the commercial fishing loan program."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 429
SHORT TITLE: MORATORIA: HAIR CRAB & SCALLOP FISHERIES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/03/00 2396 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
3/03/00 2396 (H) RES
3/17/00 (H) RES AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
LIZ CABRERA, Staff
to Representative Bill Hudson
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 108
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: As committee aide for the House Resources
Standing Committee, introduced HB 429.
MARY McDOWELL, Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
8800 Glacier Highway, Suite 109
Juneau, Alaska 99801-8079
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 429.
KURT SCHELLE, Researcher
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
8800 Glacier Highway, Suite 109
Juneau, Alaska 99801-8079
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 429.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
1255 West Eighth Street
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 429.
JOE KYLE, Chief Operating Officer
for a CDQ Company and a fisheries consultant, and voting
member of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
(Address not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 429.
JOHN WINTHER, Participant
in the Bering Sea Korean hair crab fishery
(Address not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 429.
PAT PLETNIKOFF
P.O. Box 46
Saint Paul Island, Alaska 996600
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that HB 429 alone is good and the
moratoria should be continued; however, he expressed concerns.
GORDON BLUE
P.O. Box 1064
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 429.
GEORGE PLETNIKOFF, Executive Director
United Aleut Nation
4300 Old Seward Highway, Suite 300
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 429 that the moratoria
should continue; however, he expressed some concerns.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-21, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR HUDSON called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:45 p.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives Hudson, Cowdery, Morgan, Barnes,
Whitaker, Joule and Kapsner.
HB 429 - MORATORIA: HAIR CRAB & SCALLOP FISHERIES
Number 0069
CO-CHAIR HUDSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 429, "An Act extending the termination date for
the vessel permit moratoria for the Bering Sea Korean hair crab
fishery and the weathervane scallop fishery; and providing for an
effective date."
LIZ CABRERA, Staff to Representative Bill Hudson, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking as committee aide for the House Resources
Standing Committee [which had sponsored the bill], read the
following sponsor statement:
HB 429 extends the current vessel moratoria on the
Korean hair crab (AS 16.43.901) and weathervane scallop
(AS 16.43.906) fisheries. These moratoria were enacted
by the legislature in 1996 and 1997, respectively.
These extensions are necessary because the legislature
has not yet created a viable limited entry or
moratorium program for the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission [CFEC] to use after these vessel moratoria
expire. Without some type of program in place, these
fisheries will likely have to be reopened to a
potential influx of new participants or be closed
entirely. In addition, the state risks federal
preemption of state management of these fisheries.
When the legislature enacted these moratoria, it
recognized that these fisheries might not lend
themselves to limited entry under existing state
statute. With that in mind, the legislature
implemented the moratoria and directed CFEC to submit
legislation for a vessel-based limited entry program
the following year. Legislation authorizing a vessel
permit limitation system was introduced in the House
and Senate, but neither bill has moved out of its first
committee of referral. It appears that legislation
will not be passed in time to implement vessel
limitation programs in these two fisheries prior to the
expiration of the moratoria.
The weathervane scallop and Korean hair crab fisheries
occur in both state waters and in adjacent federal
waters of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), but the
state has assumed management of both fisheries.
Number 0354
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated that she does not support HB 429
because in both 1996 and in 1997, when the legislature was being
asked to enact this moratorium, they were told that there were no
uncertain terms: the first time, it was for one year, and the
second time, it was for two years, she indicated. Representative
Barnes further indicated her belief that entry is being limited
through moratoria.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON pointed out that last year there was the issue of
transferability, which Representative Barnes opposed, and that is
the reason that this year there is a simple extension of the
moratoria authorization. He indicated that he does not view HB
429 as institutionalizing limited entry. Rather, the goal is to
have CFEC come back to the legislature with something other than
just continuing this. He said he understands Representative
Barnes's point of view, but he thought they had taken care of her
principal concern, the issue of transferability.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stressed that it was a big concern.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON indicated that they did try to address it.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY wondered how big the hair crab fishery is
and why it is mixed with scallops.
Number 0653
MARY McDOWELL, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission, stated that the CFEC supports HB 429 because it
provides a stop-gap measure needed to avoid some possible chaos
in these two fisheries. She indicated that there is some
confusion about the various measures that have been before the
legislature. The bill last year, HB 104, was a separate measure
that would authorize the CFEC to implement moratoria in fisheries
when necessary; one provision in that bill would have allowed the
CFEC, through regulation, to extend an existing moratorium. She
pointed out that HB 104 is in the Senate and has not moved. The
other bill that is related to this measure is SB 143, which the
legislature had directed CFEC to draft and bring back to the
legislature.
MS. McDOWELL pointed out that the state's current limited entry
program is an individual-based permit program, based upon the
owner-operator model that is typical in salmon fisheries. The
legislature passed the Limited Entry Act 27 years ago; since that
time, the number and scope of Alaska's fisheries have grown. The
characteristics of some of the new and evolving fisheries are
quite different from that owner-operator model, which
characterized the fisheries that were the norm at the time the
permit program was created. This is especially true of the
larger vessel fisheries in the EEZ, so it is important that
Alaska's laws and programs be updated, as needed, to keep pace
with the changing needs and realities of the resource uses.
MS. McDOWELL indicated the legislature had recognized that; in
passing the two moratoria - hair crab and scallops - it gave
those temporary permits o the owners of the vessels. In those
fisheries, the investments in the vessels are made by people, in
most cases, who do not operate the big vessels but hire skippers
to do so. The legislature had directed the CFEC, during that
time, to bring legislation back that would create an alternative
program that could be used to permanently limit fisheries like
that; they did that, and it was introduced as SB 143, which has
not moved.
MS. McDOWELL said her point is that these fisheries that are
under moratoria are about to go back to open access, because the
legislatively enacted moratoria will expire. She said that
[CFEC] does not have a tool to limit them, which is the dilemma.
Number 1018
CO-CHAIR HUDSON asked Ms. McDowell to respond to Representative
Cowdery's question regarding how large the hair crab fishery is
and why the two fisheries are mixed together. He also asked what
the dollar value is and what the significance is to the
communities where the product is actually landed.
MS. McDOWELL clarified that the legislature had enacted two
separate moratoria - two separate bills - a year apart. One was
for hair crab, and one was for scallops. One expires this year,
and one expires next year. The only reason they are mixed
together is that both will need an extension; therefore, rather
than introducing two separate bills extending the moratoria
separately, this bill [HB 429] changes the expiration date of
both moratoria in one bill.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY wondered if the fisherman affected by the
bill all fish for hair crab and scallops.
Number 1116
KURT SCHELLE, Researcher, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission,
answered that they are two separate fleets. In the Bering Sea
Korean hair crab fishery, 25 vessels are eligible for permits;
under the moratoria, the participation of vessels has ranged from
19 down to 8. There has been a decline in the guideline harvest
in the [hair crab] fishery in recent years, with the stocks going
down. He indicated the scallop fishery is a completely different
fishery, with a different moratorium. In both the state and
federal moratoria, there are 18 vessels total; under the state
moratoria in state waters, there are 10 vessels total.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked how they catch the hair crab.
MR. SCHELLE replied that it is a pot fishery.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES indicated it appears that most of the
vessels are registered out-of-state.
MR. SCHELLE said that is correct. In the Bering Sea Korean hair
crab fishery, the majority of the vessel permits are going to
owners that have nonresident addresses. He pointed out that for
the vessel permit, there is no residency declaration, so they are
basing it on the entity that owns the vessel. Of those who
renewed permits over the 1996-to-1998 time period and who are
eligible to renew them this year, 76 percent are nonresidents.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked if one can presume, then, that except
for what the crews are being paid, most of the money for the
fishery is going out-of-state.
MR. SCHELLE responded that there is a lot of activity associated
with the vessel; there is the landing of the product and the
shipping of the product.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON pointed out that often there are taxes that go to
the communities when the product is landed. He wondered
approximately how much money goes to the communities.
MR. SCHELLE said he has not calculated that.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON wondered if there is a percentage.
MS. McDOWELL indicated that the fisheries business tax goes to
the general fund.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said it goes through the general fund and
back to the communities.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON indicated that could be looked into further. He
asked whether it is known where the crew is from, because the
hair crab fishery is lucrative, being valued at a million
dollars. He wondered what the value is on the scallop fishery.
MR. SCHELLE responded that the scallop fishery in 1999 was
estimated to have a value of $2.7 million. He said that in the
past it has been valued higher, up to the $7 million range.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON asked how many of the vessels involved in the
scallop fishery are also coming from the Lower 48.
MR. SCHELLE replied that it is a mix. Over the moratoria years,
state scallop permits have been about 67 percent nonresident and
33 percent resident.
Number 1602
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE wondered why there are so few resident
permits.
MS. McDOWELL indicated it is hard to know. She pointed out that
these fisheries are large-vessel fisheries that operate out in
the federal waters and cross into state waters. They are not
typical Alaskan fisheries; the [CFEC] program is designed for the
typical Alaskan fishery, which consists of smaller vessels and
owner-operator type situations. She explained that the dilemma
is to make it manageable and to maintain management of the
resource. She said [the state's] only other option would be to
open access and not limit the numbers, but they have no reason to
believe that the [hair crab] fishery would become more Alaskan by
opening it up further; rather, there would probably be more
"outside" vessels.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to a comment by Mr. Schelle, with
regard to the hair crab fishery, about the vessel participation
declining from 19 to 8. He wondered if it has to do with the
availability of the resource.
MR. SCHELLE indicated that the Korean hair crab resource has been
declining in the past two or three years. The ADF&G has reduced
the guideline harvest, so there has been a falling off in
participation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE wondered if ADF&G is doing any checking on
the availability of that species and what the trends are.
MS. McDOWELL replied that ADF&G is responsible for that.
Number 1802
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, explained that the survey of
the hair crab is conducted by the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), which also conducts the surveys on the opilio
crab and other crab resources in the Bering Sea. He pointed out
that [the fishery] is in federal waters and is managed by the
state under a fisheries management plan adopted by the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), which delegates
actual in-season management authority to the state. He indicated
that the state receives federal funding, and the federal
government contributes the survey. The survey information is
then analyzed by scientists from both ADF&G and NMFS, and an
annual quota is established.
MR. BRUCE pointed out that the stock is declining, and it is
characteristic of crab stocks, in general, in the Bering Sea. He
indicated that the department believes that, to some extent, it
is due to environmental factors and may also be due to fishing
practices. He said people are examining that now and trying to
come to some answers as to why the declines are occurring and
what can be done to prevent further decline. He added that if
the moratoria were to come off of these fisheries now, while the
crab stocks are down - and considering that the federal
government recently entered into a license limitation program for
groundfish, including pollock, cod and flounder in offshore
waters - there is the potential for large vessels to be excluded
from those fisheries, and they will be looking for other
opportunities. If the moratoria were to come off of the Korean
hair crab fishery, in particular, many of those vessels could
immediately switch to the [hair crab] fishery; given the small
size of the resource to begin with, it would cause some real
conservation concerns for the department. He explained that it
would be harder to manage a small quota with an unlimited amount
of effort than it would be to manage it with limited amount of
effort.
Number 1995
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES wondered if one of the problems that they
have been having with the crab fishery and other bottom fisheries
relates to dragging the bottom.
MR. BRUCE indicated there is certainly a lot of concern about the
impact on crab of on-bottom trawling, because crab is a bottom
species. He said the department and NPFMC have tried to address
those concerns, and there are areas that are important to crab
that have been closed to trawling. It is not the only factor,
but it is one factor.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES wondered if it is possible to regulate the
fishery through quotas and seasons instead of through moratoria.
MR. BRUCE indicated that [ADF&G] may use many tools to manage the
fisheries, including having a quota, gear limitations, seasons
and size limits. He pointed out that the reason it is also
important to limit fishing power is that it plays a very big part
in the equation, especially for vessels in the 100-to-160-foot
range that can stay out in any kind of weather and fish
effectively. He added that "effort" is a very important factor
and a variable that needs to be considered in managing for
conservation.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to Mr. Bruce's comment with regard
to fishing around the clock.
MR. BRUCE clarified that [ADF&G] could take measures to restrict
the efficiency, but there is a balancing act between restricting
efficiency and the economics of the fishery; if they get too far
out of line, then the fishery is no longer economically viable.
Number 2180
CO-CHAIR HUDSON agreed that bottom dragging affects crab and
other species in that area. He pointed out that it is difficult
to know what is going on out there in those fisheries, as opposed
to the salmon fishery, which is right here in Southeast Alaska
where they can keep a watchful on eye on it. We wondered if
there are any state observation vessels out there.
MR. BRUCE answered that there are only a couple of state vessels
that would be capable of operating out there. He pointed out how
expensive it is to put a state observation vessel on patrol out
there when the gross vessel value is a million dollars. There
start to be diminishing returns, where the cost to the public of
administering and enforcing the fishery start to be greater than
the value of the fishery; then they have to question the purpose
of the fishery. He added that those are the kinds of concerns
that the state struggles with. It is expensive, and the hair
crab fishery is a relatively small fishery.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES commented:
Who's to say what is a small fishery, and who's to say
... who won't participate if it drops below, say, a
million dollars? But the problems I have with these
moratoriums is that the time is going to come when
we're going to see -- you know, we've got letters here
from the Aleut people, and what you'll end up having is
these people that are fishing these waters, out-of-
staters, they'll be grandfathered in, and the people
that rightly ought to be able to fish that [hair crab]
fishery are not going to have that opportunity. I've
sat here too many years not to know whereby I speak, so
I would just ask that the committee members read these
letters from the Aleut people and from other calls that
I've had, and understand what my concerns are, that
Alaskans should have some opportunity to participate
and not be grandfathered out of a fishery, and that's
what I see coming down the pipe.
MR. BRUCE pointed out that under the current moratorium, there is
an open access area of five miles around the Pribilof Islands for
smaller vessels to participate. So far during the moratorium,
only two vessels have taken advantage of that.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES pointed out that the Aleut people in their
letters are saying that they are trying to acquire larger boats.
She stressed that she hates to see the people that live in an
area get ripped off by people living thousands of miles away.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY wondered if there are processing ships out
there to buy the product.
MR. BRUCE indicated that he believes participants come to shore
to sell the product.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON pointed out that when the product is landed it is
taxed, which goes to the state and the community.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY wondered where the market is for hair
crab.
MR. BRUCE responded that he believes it goes to a live market in
Asia.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stressed that by pulling the opportunity
for the state managers to manage the [hair crab] fishery, [the
legislature] could be capitulating to be managed by the federal
government.
Number 2550
MR. BRUCE indicated it is the state's goal to see that Alaskans
benefit from these fisheries. He explained that the reason that
the fishery looks the way it does now is that the Bering Sea crab
fisheries were developed primarily by large fishing fleets based
out of Seattle, Washington. He pointed out that now [the state]
has a tool to move toward getting more Alaskans participating in
those fisheries, which is the community development quota (CDQ)
program. Some CDQ groups are moving into those fisheries, and
certainly a management system that provides more control,
definition and long-range sustainability could offer that
opportunity to Alaskans to increase their participation. He said
it is a long-term vision and something that the state could work
towards. He added that maintaining the status quo in this
fishery could help to develop some additional tools that could
assist the state to move in that direction.
JOE KYLE, Chief Operating Officer for a CDQ Company; fisheries
consultant; and voting member, North Pacific Fishery Management
Council, urged the committee to pass the bill and move it
forward. He indicated that when looking at the bill for the
moratorium, they tried to factor in a 58-foot exemption so that
the coastal residents of Alaska could get into the [hair crab]
fishery and it would not be totally locked up by out-of-state
fisherman. He explained that they are talking about offshore
deep-water fisheries where they do not have the typical
management found in the near-shore coastal fisheries, which the
Board of Fisheries usually manages.
MR. KYLE told members that limited entry systems are being placed
on all the fisheries in the Bering Sea by federal fish managers.
It is kicking a lot of out-of-state folks out of those fisheries
because they do not have enough participation to qualify.
Therefore, those folks are looking to in-state-water fisheries
that are not currently limited or to fisheries like the hair crab
fishery, which would not have a limitation if the moratorium were
to lapse. He noted that ironically there are two types of people
that can enter the fishery: those who have never done it before
and displaced fisherman from out-of-state. He stressed that the
outside world is going to impinge on them, and it is going to
"kill" the few Alaskans that are in this fishery if they do not
use moratoria and limited entry in small fisheries that the state
is managing.
JOHN WINTHER, Participant in the Bering Sea Korean hair crab
fishery, stated that he has been in the commercial fishing
business for 36 years and has the only crab vessel that
participates in most of the crab fisheries in the Bering Sea. He
said he was a prime supporter of the current moratorium; he
indicated that many of the same arguments that were given then
are valid today. He pointed out that the hair crab fishery is
the only fishery that does not have an offshore processor;
currently every crab caught is delivered to shore in Alaska,
which is the highest economic value that they can get for the
crab. If the moratorium expires, that will change. He explained
that the main facility is in Saint Paul, and they pay a sales
tax, which is 2 percent of the sale value. He noted that the
quotas vary every year and have been as high as 2 to 3 million.
In the early 1980s the fishery declined; it was closed for a
number of years and then the stocks rebounded.
TAPE 00-21, SIDE B
MR. WINTHER added that two recent factors would affect the hair
crab fisheries. First, there is the drastic decline of the
opilio crab resource, as mentioned earlier. In the year 2001, it
looks as if there will be no [opilio resource], which will result
in bankruptcies and financial disasters that he predicts will be
more severe than with the king crab fishery in 1981. He noted
that 250 vessels participate in the opilio fishery; without a
moratorium, these vessels will try to make every dollar possible
in the hair crab fishery before [declaring] bankruptcy. Such
action could bankrupt a vessel that has been marginally making it
in the hair crab fishery. Therefore, the trickle-down effect
could come into play if outside entrants were allowed in the hair
crab fishery.
MR. WINTHER continued. He reported that the second recent factor
is the American Fisheries Act, which mandated that the pollock
fishery, the largest fishery in the world, name the participants
that can share in the resource and those that own the resource.
He clarified that the American Fisheries Act divides the resource
among shore-side catcher vessels, offshore factor trawlers, and
one or two offshore processors with catcher vessels. Vessels
that have their pollock resource can lease it to other vessels,
which frees that vessel to do something else. He suggested that
vessels capable of fishing in the crab fisheries would possibly
move to the hair crab fishery, if allowed to. The residency
issue has been an issue, he added. Mr. Winther surmised that
Alaskans are a minority in almost every fishery there.
MR. WINTHER answered, in response to Co-Chair Hudson, that he has
been an Alaskan for 56 years, of which 36 years have been spent
in the fishery business. Mr. Winther informed the committee that
in the hair crab fishery the state has total management; it is
the only such fishery in the Bering Sea. He said he did not want
the federal government in this [the hair crab fishery] because
the management would be out of control until the federal
government gets a handle on it, which usually takes them years.
Furthermore, the federal system usually involves the most recent
participants; thus there would a period of time in which people
would enter the fishery and it would be unmanageable. Therefore,
this moratorium is important in order for the state to maintain
control of the effort.
MR. WINTHER addressed earlier comments regarding the need to see
what goes on out there. He informed the committee that every
vessel has to hire observers, who get paid $200-$300 per day.
Without the observers, one cannot fish. He noted that there is
no way to monitor the Bering Sea fishery with overflights or
boats. Mr. Winther pointed out that the moratoria created the
zone around the Pribilof islands, which is specifically for small
vessels from the area (the King Cove and Sand Point areas). In
conclusion, Mr. Winther urged the committee to keep the moratoria
and allow for time to try to develop the system.
MR. WINTHER, in response to Representative Barnes, agreed that
each vessel is required to have an onboard observer. In response
to Co-Chair Hudson, he explained that the onboard observer is
hired through a contractor, and the information is obtained by
the management authority; the vessel owner pays for the onboard
observer, who does not have enforcement authority.
Number 2648
CO-CHAIR HUDSON inquired as to what would happen if HB 429 were
"killed."
MR. WINTHER reiterated that without HB 429 there would not be a
fishery. If the stocks rose to historical highs and there were
250 boats looking for something to do, it would be doubtful if
there would be a fishery. He predicted that it would probably
happen so quickly that the quota would be overshot substantially.
Mr. Winther informed the committee that these boats were once not
interested in the hair crab fishery because there were other
fisheries such as the opilio crab fishery. Because the seasons
have been condensed, [the operators of] these boats are looking
for something to do.
Number 2533
PAT PLETNIKOFF testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He
said HB 429 alone is good, and the moratoria should be continued.
However, there is a question regarding the dates. Furthermore,
HB 429 does not include all the pieces of legislation for last
year with regard to vessel size limits, the CDQ percentage and
the 5 mile question. Mr. Pletnikoff expressed concern that HB
429 only refers to the years 1993-1995 in terms of qualifying
[for this fishery]. The other troubling aspect of HB 429 are the
rules and regulations that may be adopted by the commission. He
hoped that some of these issues can be discussed and some of the
aforementioned missing provisions could possibly be included in
HB 429. He also expressed the need to further discuss and review
the qualification years.
MR. [PAT] PLETNIKOFF echoed earlier comments regarding the
expense to get into this fishery. Many are building up to
[purchasing the expensive gear]. He acknowledged that the hair
crab fishery is a small fishery in comparison to others; thus he
is concerned with the health of the stock and whether enough
surveys are being performed. Typically, the hair crab fishery is
a near-shore fishery. He encouraged the hair crab fishery to be
established as a near-shore fishery for vessels 60 feet and
under; local development is critical, he noted. Mr. Pletnikoff
reiterated the need to include some of the aforementioned missing
provisions in HB 429. He said a moratorium should be maintained
because no more entrants can be supported by the [hair crab]
fishery.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON requested that Ms. McDowell speak to the
questions and concerns mentioned by Mr. Pat Pletnikoff.
MS. McDOWELL explained that all the provisions with regard to
leaving the near-shore areas open to access - which were put in
the original moratoria legislation - remain. This bill, HB 429,
merely takes that statute and changes the ending date of the
moratoria. Therefore, all the provisions included under the
original moratoria remain unchanged.
MR. [PAT] PLETNIKOFF indicated that he is glad to hear that the
provisions with which he expressed concern, regarding local
effort, are in regulation.
Number 2297
GORDON BLUE testified via teleconference from Sitka. He informed
the committee that he fishes in the Bering Sea and is the owner
and manager of two vessels, both of which have partnerships with
the Aleut People on Saint Paul Island. In fact, there is a
double partnership with the local village corporation and the
community village development corporations for Saint Paul Island.
He stressed that he is an advocate of local participation in this
[hair crab] fishery and in the other fisheries in the Bering Sea.
Mr. Blue informed the committee that he has been a vessel owner
and operator in the hair crab fishery since that fishery
restarted.
MR. BLUE informed the committee that the [hair crab] fishery was
first developed in the early 1980s after the collapse of the red
king crab fishery, when those fishermen looked for new fisheries
to go into. The red king crab fleet entered the hair crab
fishery; within two years there was no fishery. It took almost
ten years to rebuild that fishery, at which time only two
[vessels] returned to the fishery. He noted that those two
operators, of which he was one, entered the hair crab fishery
because they were operating locally out of Saint Paul Island. He
informed the committee that of the first 12 vessels that entered
the hair crab fishery after it reopened, six were Alaskan.
Ground can only be lost if this fishery is reopened to open
access, Mr. Blue emphasized. He echoed earlier comments
regarding the collapse of the opilio stocks, which has left many
looking for something to do [another fishery].
Number 2085
GEORGE PLETNIKOFF, Executive Director, United Aleut Nation,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He told members he
would like to see these moratoria continue; however, he expressed
concern with the statement in the bill that speaks to the years
from which people could qualify. He echoed earlier comments that
the Aleut People, who own approximately half of these vessels
fishing in the Bering Sea, have not had the opportunity to
develop any of these fisheries. Mr. Pletnikoff said:
We need to ensure that the CDQ program that was enacted
ten years ago, that's enabling us to go from 28-foot
boats to 32-foot boats to 42-foot boats - and now we're
working on 58-foot boats, after 15 years - we need to
ensure that these vessels have an opportunity to
participate in all these fisheries.
MR. [GEORGE] PLETNIKOFF urged the continuation of the moratoria;
however, he stressed the need to take care when setting
qualifying dates. He pointed out that if he wanted to fish for
hair crab this year, he would not be able to, even though he is a
Aleut. He stressed the need to [enter the hair crab fishery]
after the CDQ halibut is over. Therefore, he urged the committee
to include some language in HB 429 to protect the future
investment [of the locals] in the fishery.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON related his understanding that the smaller boats
do not have to qualify for the near-shore fishery, and that CFEC
and ADF&G are trying to keep the door open for the smaller boats
in the near-shore fishery.
MS. McDOWELL noted that HB 538 is the bill that enacted these
moratoria; the language in HB 538 would carry over, and HB 429
would merely extend the expiration date. She pointed out that in
HB 538, AS 16.05.835(b) says, "A vessel engaged in the Bering Sea
Korean hair crab fishery within five miles of the shore may not
be longer than 58 feet overall length."
MR. GEORGE PLETNIKOFF commented that from historical bottom
dragging around the Pribilof plateau, it is known that much of
that area is becoming a desert. He indicated the five-mile
limit, although another restriction, is a good thing. Perhaps
there should be a limit on the vessel sizes versus having a
mileage restriction, he concluded.
Number 1739
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to move HB 429 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, it was so ordered
and HB 429 was moved from the House Resources Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:03 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|