Legislature(2021 - 2022)DAVIS 106
04/10/2021 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Board of Fisheries | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
April 10, 2021
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
Representative Josiah Patkotak, Chair
Representative Calvin Schrage
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Ronald Gillham
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
Representative Geran Tarr, Chair
Representative Louise Stutes, Vice Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Andi Story
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative Kevin McCabe
MEMBERS ABSENT
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
Representative Grier Hopkins, Vice Chair
Representative Zack Fields
Representative Tom McKay
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Fisherman's Fund Advisory Board & Appeals Council
Marilyn Charles Emmonak
Renee Alward Homer
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Melvin Smith Juneau
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
Board Of Fisheries
John Jensen Petersburg
McKenzie Mitchell Fairbanks
Marit Carlson-Van Dort Anchorage
Abe Williams Anchorage
John Wood Willow
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
MARILYN CHARLES, Appointee
Fishermen's Fund Advisory Board & Appeals Council
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD)
Emmonak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Fisherman's
Fund Advisory Board & Appeals Council.
RENEE ALWARD, Appointee
Fishermen's Fund Advisory Board & Appeals Council
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD)
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Fisherman's
Fund Advisory Board & Appeals Council.
VELMA THOMAS
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
Marilyn Charles and Renee Alward, appointees to the Fishermen's
Fund Advisory Board & Appeals Council.
MELVIN SMITH, Appointee
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC)
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission.
JOHN JENSEN, Appointee
Board of Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Fisheries.
MCKENZIE MITCHELL, Appointee
Board of Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Fisheries.
MARIT CARLSON-VAN DORT, Appointee
Board of Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Fisheries.
ABE WILLIAMS, Appointee
Board of Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Fisheries.
JOHN WOOD, Appointee
Board of Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Willow, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Fisheries.
HOWARD DELO
Big Lake, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmations
of John Jensen, McKenzie Mitchell, Marit Carlson-Van Dort, Abe
Williams, and John Wood, appointees to the Board of Fisheries.
CLIFTON IVANOFF
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Marit Carlson-Van Dort, appointee to the Board of Fisheries.
MARCI NELSON ORTH
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Marit Carlson-Van Dort, appointee to the Board of Fisheries.
GREG JOHNSON
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Marit Carlson-Van Dort, appointee to the Board of Fisheries.
CHUCK MCCALLUM
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmations
of McKenzie Mitchell, Marit Carlson-Van Dort, and John Wood,
appointees to the Board of Fisheries.
TIMOTHY GERVAIS
Ruby, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented in regard to the Board of
Fisheries' decision regarding the 2020 Cape Igvak fishery, and
testified in opposition to the confirmation of Abe Williams,
appointee to the Board of Fisheries.
NORRIS JOHNSON
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Marit Carlson-Van Dort, appointee to the Board of Fisheries.
FRANCES LEACH, Executive Director
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Marit Carlson-Van Dort, appointee to the Board of Fisheries.
SUSAN DOHERTY, Executive Director
Southeast Alaska Seiners Association (SEAS)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: In regard to the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission confirmation hearing, urged that the committees
demand the appointment of a highly qualified candidate. In
regard to the Board of Fisheries confirmation hearing, spoke in
support of the confirmation of John Jensen and spoke in relation
to Marit Carlson-Van Dort, appointees to the Board of Fisheries.
BEN MOHR, Executive Director
Kenai River Sportfishing Association (KRSA)
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmations
of John Jensen, McKenzie Mitchell, Marit Carlson-Van Dort, Abe
Williams, and John Wood, appointees to the Board of Fisheries.
LORENA SKONBERG, Acting Chair
Ouzinkie Native Corporation (ONC)
Ouzinkie, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Marit Carlson-Van Dort, appointee to the Board of Fisheries.
ERNIE WEISS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
John Jensen, appointee to the Board of Fisheries.
MOLLY MILLER
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Abe Williams, appointee to the Board of Fisheries.
NATE ROSE, President
Kodiak Seiners Association (KSA)
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Marit Carlson-Van Dort, appointee to the Board of Fisheries.
ALEXUS KWACHKA
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the
confirmations of Marit Carlson-Van Dort and Abe Williams,
appointees to the Board of Fisheries.
GEORGE PIERCE
Kasilof, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the
confirmations of McKenzie Mitchell, Marit Carlson-Van Dort, and
Abe Williams, appointees to the Board of Fisheries.
VIRGIL UMPHENOUR
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmations
of John Jensen, McKenzie Mitchell, Marit Carlson-Van Dort, Abe
Williams, and John Wood, appointees to the Board of Fisheries.
GARY HOLLIER
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented in regard to McKenzie Mitchell
and Marit Carlson-Van Dort and testified in support of the
confirmations of John Jensen, Abe Williams, and John Wood,
appointees to the Board of Fisheries.
DENISE MAY
Port Lions, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Marit Carlson-Van Dort.
CHELSEA HAISMAN, Executive Director
Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU)
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Marit Carlson-Van Dort and in support of the confirmation of
John Jensen, appointees to the Board of Fisheries.
JULIE KAVANAUGH
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
John Jensen, in opposition to the confirmation of Abe Williams,
and expressed concern about McKenzie Mitchell, Marit Carlson-Van
Dort, and John Wood, appointees to the Board of Fisheries.
RAYMOND MAY
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Marit Carlson-Van Dort, appointee to the Board of Fisheries.
BONNIE LILLEY
Houston, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Abe Williams, appointee to the Board of Fisheries.
DYLAN BEAN
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Marit Carlson-Van Dort, appointee to the Board of Fisheries.
SPENCER ROBINSON
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Abe Williams, appointee to the Board of Fisheries.
DUNCAN FIELDS, Chairman
Kodiak Salmon Work Group
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Marit Carlson-Van Dort, appointee to the Board of Fisheries.
GARY CLINE, Regional Fisheries Director
Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation (BBEDC)
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Abe Williams, appointee to the Board of Fisheries.
SYLVIA KAVANAUGH
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
John Jensen and expressed concern about the confirmation of Abe
Williams, appointees to the Board of Fisheries.
BRENT BORCHERD
(No city provided), Michigan
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to any employee of
Pebble Mine being on the Board of Fisheries.
DANIEL MILLER
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Abe Williams, appointee to the Board of Fisheries.
ERIN WILLAHAN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Abe Williams, appointee to the Board of Fisheries.
KIRIL BASARIGIM
K-Bay Fisheries Association
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the
confirmations of Marit Carlson-Van Dort and Abe Williams,
appointees to the Board of Fisheries.
RICK DELKITTIE
Nondalton, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Abe Williams, appointee to the Board of Fisheries.
JEFFREY MOORE
Chignik Lagoon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmations
of John Jensen, McKenzie Mitchell, Marit Carlson-Van Dort, Abe
Williams, and John Wood, appointees to the Board of Fisheries.
SUE MAUGER
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Abe Williams, appointee to the Board of Fisheries.
BENJAMIN ALLEN
Chignik, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmations
of McKenzie Mitchell, Marit Carlson-Van Dort, and John Wood,
appointees to the Board of Fisheries.
BRIAN MCWETHY
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Marit Carlson-Van Dort, appointee to the Board of Fisheries.
TOM MANOS
Girdwood, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Marit Carlson-Van Dort and in support of the confirmations of
John Jensen, McKenzie Mitchell, Abe Williams, and John Wood,
appointees to the Board of Fisheries.
ED MARTIN
Cooper Landing, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the State of
Alaska having boards and commissions.
RAECHEL ALLEN
Chignik, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmations
of McKenzie Mitchell, Marit Carlson-Van Dort, and John Wood,
appointees to the Board of Fisheries.
PAUL A. SHADURA II
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the
confirmations of McKenzie Mitchell, Marit Carlson-Van Dort, and
John Wood, appointees to the Board of Fisheries. Testified in
opposition to the confirmation of Melvin Smith, appointee to the
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission.
DANIELLE RINGER
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Marit Carlson-Van Dort, appointee to the Board of Fisheries.
AXEL KOPUN
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmations
of Marit Carlson-Van Dort and John Wood, appointees to the Board
of Fisheries.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:07:06 PM
CHAIR GERAN TARR called the joint meeting of the House Resources
Standing Committee and the House Special Committee on Fisheries
to order at 1:07 p.m. Present at the call to order from the
House Resources Standing Committee were Representatives Schrage,
Gillham, Hannan, Rauscher, Cronk, and Patkotak. Present from
the House Special Committee on Fisheries were Representatives
McCabe, Vance, Story, Stutes, and Tarr. Representatives Kreiss-
Tomkins and Ortiz, both from the House Special Committee on
Fisheries, arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^CONFIRMATION HEARINGS(S):
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS(S):
^Fisherman's Fund Advisory Board & Appeals Council
Fisherman's Fund Advisory Board & Appeals Council
^Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
^Board of Fisheries
Board of Fisheries
1:08:06 PM
CHAIR TARR announced that the only order of business would be
confirmation hearings for governor's appointees to the
Fishermen's Fund Advisory Board & Appeals Council, Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission, and Board of Fisheries.
1:09:31 PM
MARILYN CHARLES, Appointee, Fishermen's Fund Advisory Board &
Appeals Council, Department of Labor and Workforce Development
(DLWD), testified as appointee to the Fisherman's Fund Advisory
Board & Appeals Council. She stated that this is her third year
on the council, and she enjoys serving because she gets to help
local fishermen on the Yukon River. She said she represents
about 500 fishermen in this area, and she would like to share
with them that they have another resource to go to. Before she
was appointed, she'd never heard of this program, so she wants
her people to know that they have this available to them. Not
only is she part of the community, but that community comprises
her family members and relatives. The people in these small
communities don't have much information given to them due to the
lack of information for resources. The fishermen fish for the
local fish processing company, Kwik'Pak Fisheries LLC, which is
98 percent local. She added that she enjoys working with the
people on the board and thinking of ideas for further helping
the fishermen fishing in Alaska's waters.
1:12:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked how many members are on the board.
MS. CHARLES replied six.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether there are other people on
this council from Ms. Charles's community.
MS. CHARLES responded no, but [representing] the region next to
her is Moses Toyukuk who is Yup'ik also, and then there are
other people from the different regions.
1:13:35 PM
RENEE ALWARD, Appointee, Fishermen's Fund Advisory Board &
Appeals Council, Department of Labor and Workforce Development
(DLWD), testified as appointee to the Fisherman's Fund Advisory
Board & Appeals Council. She stated she has finished her fifth
year with the council. She related that her impetus for taking
a position on the board was being a part of the fishing
community and also having a history working in the medical
field, so it was a natural to advocate for fishermen and
something she was comfortable with. She and her husband are
still in commercial fisheries and have raised three kids in the
commercial fisheries, two of whom still participate. She does
the books and the fleet mothering for seven tender vessels. The
Fishermen's Fund is an amazing program. It is solely funded by
proceeds from commercial fishing licenses and permits, so it is
self-funded and dedicated to providing last resort payment for
injured fisher people who might not otherwise be able to have
the resources to heal. She is excited by what the council has
done and what it will do in the future for an important plan for
a huge part of the state.
1:15:33 PM
CHAIR TARR explained that the Fishermen's Fund Advisory Board &
Appeals Council consists of six members, five of which are
appointed by the governor from five specific districts listed in
statute. [Ms. Alward] is the District 3 nominee and Ms. Charles
is the District 5 nominee.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked what the districts relate to.
CHAIR TARR answered that each district is set out in Alaska
statute: District 1 is Wrangell and areas south; District 2 is
north of Wrangell to include Yakutat; District 3 is west of
Yakutat to east coast of Alaska Peninsula, including Prince
William Sound, Cook Inlet, and Kodiak; District 4 is west of
Alaska Peninsula to Cape Newenham, including Bristol Bay area;
and District 5 is north of Cape Newenham, including Kuskokwim,
Yukon, Kotzebue, and the Arctic.
1:16:49 PM
CHAIR TARR opened public testimony on the appointments of
Marilyn Charles and Renee Alward to the Fishermen's Fund
Advisory Board & Appeals Council.
1:17:08 PM
VELMA THOMAS testified in support of the confirmation of Marilyn
Charles and Renee Alward, appointees to the Fishermen's Fund
Advisory Board & Appeals Council. She noted she is the program
coordinator with the Division of Workers' Compensation and also
the Fishermen's Fund administrator. She said she is available
for questions and to give public testimony for Ms. Charles and
Ms. Alward. She stated that they are great assets and resources
on the council and bring special knowledge so when reviewing the
claims they know exactly what is happening in the community and
how that affects the injured fisherman. She added that it is an
honor to work with them.
MS. THOMAS, responding to Chair Tarr, explained that the
division has two technicians who handle all the claims that come
in from injured workers in Alaska. The number of claims
averages about 300 a year. The claims are cyclical, with the
most claims coming in between May and the end of September. A
percentage of the license fees and permit fees provide the
funding for the Fishermen's Fund and the administrative staff
can pay benefits of up to $10,000. For claims over $10,000 the
fisherman must file an appeal and the Fishermen's Fund Advisory
Board & Appeals Council, which has the sole authority to approve
anything above $10,000, looks at those claims. The council also
reviews all of the claims that the administrative team could not
approve. It's a really good process, she stated, and the team
reaches out to fishermen to help them get through the process,
which can be tedious because of the various documents that are
needed to help them meet the requirements. But once they meet
the requirements they are entitled to benefits. She's been with
the fund for about 10 years, and it has been a pleasure to
serve.
1:20:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether the council meets on a case-
by-case basis, or quarterly or biannually on a set schedule and
addresses a lump of appeals at a time.
MS. THOMAS replied that the council typically meets twice a
year. The council then reviews all the claims that need to be
reviewed within that time period. But, she noted, the council
can meet if there is a need for an emergency meeting as long as
the council provides sufficient notice.
1:20:54 PM
CHAIR TARR closed public testimony for the Fishermen's Fund
Advisory Board and Appeals Council after ascertaining no one
else wished to testify.
1:21:18 PM
MS. ALWARD thanked Ms. Thomas for being at the helm of the
council. She said Ms. Thomas keeps the meetings tight, is a
great advocate, and always has the answers that members seek
from her to perform their duties.
1:22:22 PM
CHAIR TARR passed the gavel to Chair Patkotak.
1:22:50 PM
MELVIN SMITH, Appointee, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC), Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), testified as
appointee to the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC).
He related that he was born and raised in the Aleutian village
of False Pass and has been fishing since age six. At a young
age he was taught by his father to operate the vessel, set gear,
navigate Alaska waters, and be a commercial fisherman. For more
than 26 years he has owned several limited entry fishing permits
and fishing vessels. As is customary in this industry, and like
his father before him, he passed on his permits and fishing
operations to his son. The passing of the torch is critical to
address the greying of the fleet and to provide training and
economic stability to the next generation of fishermen and
fisherwomen. Once a fisherman, always a fisherman, and to this
day he still has a thorough knowledge of the areas he fished.
He operated his permits and gear along the Alaska Peninsula, in
the Bering Sea, and in the Gulf of Alaska.
MR. SMITH stated that more recently he has been at his latest
job with the Aleut Corporation for more than 23 years, where he
has been a manager in the natural resource department and
responsible for the corporation's land holdings, natural
resources, and commercial real estate. He has many years
working with various boards, committees, and their employees in
his past positions as a corporate manager. The skills he has
acquired working in a corporate environment will serve him well
in his capacity as a commissioner of the CFEC. His goal is to
use his many years of management and knowledge of the fishing
industry to keep the CFEC running smoothly and continuing to
ensure that commercial fishing remains a viable industry for all
of Alaska.
MR. SMITH said he has been in contact with CFEC Commissioner
Dale Kelley and staff to be briefed on current CFEC matters. He
understands his duties but fully admits there is much to learn
regarding the policy and procedures of the CFEC. His experience
and team player skills will keep important matters from slipping
through the cracks. He is ready to hit the deck running, and he
will utilize his years of fishing, management experience, and
knowledge of the fishing industry to keep CFEC running smoothly.
He looks forward to giving back to an industry that helped form
who he is and helped feed his family.
1:26:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN noted that this is a paid, full-time job,
and asked whether Mr. Smith is prepared to exit his current
employment to assume this position. She further asked when Mr.
Smith's start date would be.
MR. SMITH replied that he has already resigned from his position
at the Aleut Corporation and his start date as a commissioner at
CFEC was 3/1/21.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired whether Mr. Smith would be
relocating from Anchorage to Juneau where CFEC is headquartered.
MR. SMITH responded that he understands the job is to be in
Juneau and he is currently in Juneau.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN observed that Mr. Smith has a number of
letters of support, mostly from the westward region of Alaskan
fisheries. She asked where Mr. Smith, after five weeks of being
on the job, sees the bulk of the issues that CFEC will be
addressing statewide over the next year or two, such as fleet
consolidation and permit buyback.
MR. SMITH answered that right now the Cook Inlet is a hotspot
for setnet with optimum numbers and the buyback, and there might
be issues in Kodiak. He stated he has been on the job for five
weeks and is still learning the policies and procedures of CFEC.
1:29:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ noted Mr. Smith's position at the Aleut
Corporation wasn't related to the fishing industry. He asked
what skills Mr. Smith would bring specific to this job of CFEC
commissioner other than previously being a commercial fisherman.
MR. SMITH replied that he was a manager at the Aleut Corporation
for many years, so his managerial skills will help along with
his knowledge and skills from previously being a fisherman.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ requested Mr. Smith to elaborate on his
duties while with the Aleut Corporation and how they would
connect directly to his duties as CFEC commissioner.
MR. SMITH responded that he began at the Aleut Corporation as a
resource and fisheries specialist and then he switched up to
manager. When the Aleut Corporation developed a real estate
organization, he was basically the land manager and natural
resource manager, and then he took over the commercial real
estate along with those other duties.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked what other jobs Mr. Smith has had,
besides his work [with the Aleut Corporation] and being a
commercial fisherman, that would provide him the experience for
doing the job of CFEC commissioner.
MR. SMITH answered that he went right from fishing to the Aleut
Corporation, and given that once a fisherman always a fisherman
he feels he can help all the fishermen throughout the state.
1:33:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated it is normally customary
that nominees deliver autonomous and independent testimony, and
he heard some whispering on the line during Mr. Smith's answers
to previous questions. He asked whether Mr. Smith is delivering
testimony by himself to the questions being presented today.
MR. SMITH replied yes, he is giving his own answers.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there are currently
any fisheries in Alaska for which Mr. Smith believes an optimum
number study needs to be conducted.
MR. SMITH responded that right now CFEC is dealing with the
setnet in Cook Inlet and a possible buyback, and it depends on
where that goes. He stated his understanding that there are 66
limited entry fisheries in Alaska and only three optimum number
studies have been done. So, he said, at some point it may be
necessary to do an optimum number study for the other fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS inquired whether he is correct in
understanding that Mr. Smith is saying he is not aware of any
other fisheries in Alaska outside of fisheries within the Cook
Inlet region that Mr. Smith believes might merit an optimum
number study given his present knowledge.
MR. SMITH answered that that will come with time as he learns
more of the CFEC. The economics of each fishery needs to be
looked at. If he is confirmed, and as he gets more involved, he
and the CFEC will look at those things in the future.
1:36:09 PM
CHAIR TARR related that in the past some of the commissioners
with CFEC have been attorneys. Given the decision-making and
adjudicatory role that Mr. Smith will have, she inquired about
his preparation in that regard and whether he has worked on that
with his CFEC counterpart, Ms. Kelley.
MR. SMITH replied that the CFEC has attorneys in-house. He
reiterated that he is still getting to know his co-commissioner
and the rest of the CFEC staff.
1:37:40 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK opened public testimony on the appointment of
Melvin Smith to the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. He
closed public testimony after ascertaining no one wished to
testify.
1:38:17 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK returned the gavel to Chair Tarr.
CHAIR TARR opened the confirmation hearing for John Jensen,
McKenzie Mitchell, Marit Carlson-Van Dort, Abe Williams, and
John Wood, appointees to the Board of Fisheries (BOF).
1:39:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES, at the invitation of Chair Tarr and in
light of the upcoming Board of Fisheries appointees testifying,
spoke to the balance of the Board of Fisheries. She stated that
while it's true there are no designated seats in statute for the
Board of Fisheries, the history of appointment and the
confirmation process is one of achieving a delicate balance
between the commercial, sport, personal use, and subsistence
interests. Regional balance has long been established precedent
as well, she continued, and that process and that balance have
been lost, depriving coastal communities everywhere of a voice.
Currently the board has only one coastal member, John Jensen
from Petersburg. The other six members are from Anchorage,
Willow, Eagle, and Fairbanks. The balance is not acceptable to
any community that relies on commercial fishing, one of Alaska's
greatest industries. Operating with four of seven board members
unconfirmed by the legislature, the board has had its share of
controversy too. She can personally attest to that this last
year when they arrived in Kodiak with a predetermined course of
action and a disregard clearly for local input on some extremely
impactful proposals. Further, current chair Marit Carlson-Van
Dort had a very questionable conflict of interest at that
meeting. Another board member John Wood was on a state contract
reporting directly to the governor at that time.
1:40:45 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:40 p.m. to 1:42 p.m.
1:42:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES continued speaking to the balance of the
Board of Fisheries. She stated she is trying to bring into
light that it's important that all of Alaska, whether coastal or
any waterway, have appropriate representation on the board.
1:43:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE thanked the appointees for coming forward
in this process again. She stated that it's one of the highly
contentious appointments and boards. She further thanked the
appointees for their participation in a Zoom meeting with her
district so she could have a more hands-on approach because
there's so much involved with this with the allocations. The
appointees have already been through this and didn't get
confirmed and they're going through it again. All of the
governor's appointees have been asked to go through this
difficult process twice. She said she wants to thank them ahead
of the public testimony for doing that even though it is
challenging. Their service means a lot to Alaska's fishermen
and she hopes legislators can keep their respect going forward
and be able to bring some things to light that would be helpful
to all the fishermen.
1:44:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER offered his appreciation for the
learning experience and the chance to hear from each one of the
appointees. He said he is an open book and here to listen.
1:44:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ offered his thanks to the nominees for
their willingness to come forward and put up their names for
this important organization, the Board of Fisheries. He stated
that he shares in the concerns brought forward by Representative
Stutes in relation to the history of the Board of Fisheries
being one that represented a balance between commercial fishery
interests versus sports fish interests and also represented
somewhat of a geographic balance as well. He added that he is
here with an open mind to all the nominees, but in the end if he
would choose not to vote for a particular nominee it wouldn't
necessarily be a reflection on that particular person's name in
any way, it would be more about the concerns that have been
there and continue to be there with the need for there to be a
balance on the [board], one that has historically been there,
and it's important going forward that it continues to be there.
1:46:32 PM
CHAIR TARR, in response to Representative Rauscher, clarified
that voting on confirmation of the appointees will not happen
today [during the joint meeting], but in the future [before a
joint session of the full legislature]. This situation is
unusual, she explained, in that the legislature didn't get
through its confirmations last year so things got out of sync.
As well, the board meetings have been out of sync given the
COVID-19 pandemic. There is much anticipation, she added, of
what's happening with the new members on the Board of Fisheries.
1:47:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated he is here to learn and, like some
of the board nominees, has had "a foot in both camps." He said
he has an open mind, doesn't know the history, and his request
is that the nominees convince him.
1:48:04 PM
JOHN JENSEN, Appointee, Board of Fisheries, Alaska Department of
Fish & Game (ADF&G), testified as appointee to the Board of
Fisheries. He said it is an honor to be reappointed to the
board to serve a seventh term, which would run from 2021-2024.
He stated he has over 50 years of professional mariner's
experience in Alaska as a commercial fisherman, fishing vessel
and permit owner, and hired captain of larger fishing vessels.
He has participated in multiple individual commercial fisheries,
gear types, and species prosecuted in all coastal regions of
Alaska. Since 2010 he has owned a seasonal self-guided
recreational skiff rental business in Petersburg, providing
boating adventures for sport fishing, hunting, camping, whale
watching, glacier viewing, and local exploration.
MR. JENSEN addressed why he wants to serve on the Board of
Fisheries. He explained that as a lifelong resident of a
coastal community he has experienced all aspects of the historic
dependence on fisheries resources, which includes personal,
subsistence, recreational, sport, and commercial fishing. He
has been a lifelong commercial fisherman, and this has instilled
in him a keen interest in the regulatory process. In the Board
of Fisheries process, he supports all efforts to maintain the
customary and traditional lifestyles for all users in Alaska and
to continually strengthen the economic stability of coastal
communities and ports of call for the fishers and fishing
fleets.
MR. JENSEN stated that throughout his 50 years as a commercial
fisherman he has endeavored to work alongside those who are in
position to make the best decisions possible for Alaska's
fishing resources. His enthusiasm for this work never waivers.
The overarching goal is to work to provide sustainable fisheries
for all user groups in Alaska. What he brings to the process is
the privilege of serving on the Board of Fisheries for 21 years.
He has an in-depth understanding of the regulatory process for
Alaska-managed fisheries. As an Alaska fisherman he can
contribute a well-informed working knowledge of the fishing
industry from all around the state. He is a strong advocate for
fair, equitable allocation of the resource to the user groups
based on the best science available.
MR. JENSEN addressed the topic of public input to the Board of
Fisheries. He stressed that proposals for change, verbal and
written testimony, and meeting attendance are all vital to the
system for making better decisions. The takeaway from these
participants is an increased awareness of accountability and
stewardship of the fisheries and fresh perspective from all
sides of the issues. This process belongs to the people and he
will always let the voices of participants be heard, he added.
MR. JENSEN concluded by recognizing that there are significant
challenges on the horizon. He said he is prepared and committed
to playing a positive role in addressing them while upholding
the goals of sustainability, fair allocation, conservation,
preservation of lifestyle, and economic resilience of Alaska's
communities for all participants.
1:51:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN noted Mr. Jensen's long tenure on the
Board of Fisheries. She asked how frequently Mr. Jensen has
found himself as a board member needing to be conflicted out
from the board's decision making.
MR. JENSEN replied that in Southeast specifically he has sons
and brothers who all participate, as well as himself. He said
Southeast Alaska meetings are usually 15 days long and there are
usually 200-250 proposals. Sometimes he is conflicted out of
between 40 and 50 proposals because of his relationship to his
brothers and sons.
1:52:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE related that Mr. Jensen is one of the
members she has heard people speak of with deep respect during
his tenure of serving. She has not heard any negative comments
about Mr. Jensen's service as a board member, she continued, but
she has had one person tell her that Mr. Jensen has been on the
board so long that there should be someone new for that merit
alone. She requested Mr. Jensen's response to that statement.
MR. JENSEN responded that he understands the question and why
that question comes. He said that given the current board being
relatively new, it is nice to have somebody with a bit of
background. He stated that if confirmed, this will be his last
term and he will make way for new blood. He noted that it is
really hard to find somebody to commit to this process, as a
board member is totally engulfed in this process. While board
members may only be in meetings for 45 days a year, members are
on call 365 days a year.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE thanked Mr. Jensen for the historical
value, expertise, and experience that he brings to the board.
She expressed her hope that Mr. Jensen will continue to share
that wisdom with the other board members to carry on the
knowledge that is needed for the history of the fishery itself.
1:54:41 PM
CHAIR TARR announced that sign-up for public testimony today
would be cut off at 2:15 p.m. because 56 individuals are already
signed up and she wants to ensure there is time to get through
all the people who are signed up.
1:55:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked how the process of conflicting out
works. For example, whether the board member conflicts himself
or herself out, the board conflicts the member out, or the
member goes to the board and asks for the board to vote on
conflicting out.
MR. JENSEN answered that it is a process. He explained that
before the start of a meeting, he goes through all the proposals
with the board's legal advisor and usually the director of the
Division of Commercial Fisheries. It's first degree of kinship,
so a member would be conflicted out if a brother, son, or father
fishes and for any fishery that they are involved with the board
member is considered to have a conflict because the member could
influence the vote to monetarily increase their income. He
pointed out that for sport fish a board member doesn't have to
conflict out because everybody is able to do sport fish.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE posed a scenario of a father that was
retired from commercial fishing and asked whether that would be
considered a conflict.
MR. JENSEN replied no, it would not be a conflict; it has to be
an active fisher that has a permit in one of the fisheries being
dealt with at the time.
1:57:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER noted there is a bill in the House for
term limits that can't get a hearing, so he would say Mr. Jensen
is safe on the merits of what Representative Vance brought up.
1:57:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ thanked Mr. Jensen for his years of
service. He requested Mr. Jensen to speak to the constitutional
language that it's the job of ADF&G and other groups that have a
handle on the question to manage Alaska's resources to the
maximum sustainable yield. He asked what role the Board of
Fisheries plays in relationship to that mandate. He further
asked whether the current model is the best possible to fulfill
that mandate.
MR. JENSEN used the Stikine River as an example to explain
maximum sustained yield. He said there is a problem with the
king salmon run on the Stikine and consequently all the
fisheries around that river get shut down to conserve on king
salmon. At the same time, that sometimes results in over-
escapes of the sockeye run going up the Stikine because they
aren't being caught while it's closed for king salmon. So, it's
a balance and the department does a very good job in that. The
board's primary goal is allocation after escapement goals have
been met, at which point the board allocates to the various user
groups in all the fisheries. It's a balancing act; for instance
in Behm Canal there are several king salmon runs that are
distressed and considered a stock of management concern.
Consequently [the board] has to really limit fishing time in the
lower Clarence Straits area where the fish pass through, as well
as from above where they pass through coming from the north.
It's always a balancing act in that to maintain maximum
sustained yield of one fishery, a fishery must be closed to save
another fishery, so many times there are different systems that
over-escape because of that.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ said he understands it's a complex issue
when trying to go about fulfilling that mandate. He recalled
Mr. Jensen talking about the importance of sustaining economies
and sustaining the fishery industry as a whole as a primary
goal. He inquired whether, ultimately, the bottom line comes
down to sustainability, both in theory and in reality, on the
decisions that are being made.
MR. JENSEN confirmed the bottom line is that it is both.
2:01:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked what kind of procedure or vote the
Board of Fisheries would undertake to affect sustainability when
a salmon run has totally collapsed, such as the Chignik collapse
in 2018 and 2019.
MR. JENSEN answered that it's all contained in management plans
and there are a lot of what-ifs. He explained that if the run
in Chignik isn't doing a certain number of fish by a certain
date the fisheries either east or west of it get cut back. All
fisheries along the coast are intercepted fisheries in some
form. Below Kodiak, for example, a fishery was limited to the
Kodiak fishermen to help provide more fish westward bound to
Chignik. Likewise, on the other side, the peninsula fishery,
there are always concerns about the intercepted fisheries to
Chignik. Chignik does have some problems, he continued, and he
doesn't know of anybody who is really sure what the problem is.
It is not necessarily overfishing or interception for other
groups, but when it looks like that fishery is going to fail
other groups are held way back and the closer to the fishery the
more restrictive it gets.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE surmised that when trying to protect the
Chignik fishery by making cutbacks on the larger Kodiak fishery
and on fisheries west of the Chignik, tension would be created
between the major fisheries that have a lot of participants and
the Chignik fishery that is minor and has fewer participants.
MR. JENSEN replied that the crux of the whole Board of Fisheries
job is allocation and creating management plans that will
sustain fisheries. He said one of his biggest worries right now
is that the Chignik fishery, for whatever reason, is definitely
having very serious issues and "we definitely have to take all
measures we can to ... make that fishery sustainable again."
2:04:31 PM
CHAIR TARR referenced Mr. Jensen's length of time on the board,
the state's budget cuts, and the board's reliance on ADF&G to
provide science information, and cuts to multi-year salmon
studies. She requested Mr. Jensen to reflect on what he is
seeing at the department and whether the point has been reached
of being unable to keep up with everything that needs to be done
to keep up with the science and, in turn, how that impacts the
allocation decisions.
MR. JENSEN responded that he is amazed how well the department
does with what it has. The department is doing an excellent
job, he said, but some of the studies have been cut back or
removed. The department is operating under a strict budget and
everything gets more expensive each year. It's a hard situation
with the state's finances and having to cut the budgets of all
departments, not just ADF&G's budget.
CHAIR TARR asked whether the Board of Fisheries is still getting
the information it needs.
MR. JENSEN answered that the board realizes ADF&G is getting cut
back. He said board travel has also been reduced and it is no
longer able to go out for the side trips that are so helpful,
such as trips to the Yukon or Cook Inlet to observe fisheries.
That makes it more difficult for the board to make decisions, as
it is important for board members to have hands-on or eyeballs-
on to understand what people are talking about with fisheries.
So, the board's best source of information is the department and
the public when they come testify or talk to the board. He
added that he has high accolades for how ADF&G is operating
under these hard financial times.
2:07:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK thanked Mr. Jensen for his service. He
expressed his belief that the Board of Fisheries and the Board
of Game represent the best system for Alaska and in the country
in how Alaska manages its fish and game.
2:08:30 PM
MCKENZIE MITCHELL, Appointee, Board of Fisheries, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), testified as appointee to the
Board of Fisheries. She stated that she was born and raised in
northern California and her outdoor-loving parents exposed her
to camping, hiking, and a bit of hunting and fishing. The
minimal exposure to hunting and fishing influenced her decision
at the age of 20 to buy a one-way ticket to Alaska. Upon
arriving in Anchorage she took the city bus from the hostel she
was staying at to the city library where she researched hunting
and fishing operations in Alaska. She called various operations
and told them she would work for room, board, and industry
experience. A lodge in Kodiak accepted her offer on the
condition that she not have green hair given she was from
California. She flew to Kodiak the next day and then to the
remote hunting and fishing lodge where she worked for several
years.
MS. MITCHELL related that she acquired her captain's license,
sport fish guide license, and assistant hunting guide license,
and she started to make a wage as well. She worked full-length
seasons, beginning in April with spring bear hunting, then
summer fishing, and then fall bear and deer hunting seasons that
ended in November and December, at which time she would travel
to the [Lower 48] to work hunting and fishing shows, such as
Safari Club International. While her calling was working in the
hunting and fishing industry, she still wanted a college degree,
so she enrolled at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. She
majored in economics and eventually received a graduate degree
in resource and applied economics.
MS. MITCHELL said her definition of resource economics is the
supply, demand, and allocation of earth's natural resources. A
graduate degree in resource economics, she continued, prepares
students to use economic tools to evaluate the allocation and
the utilization of resources to achieve optimal environmental
and social benefits. It also helps in understanding the market
and values associated with the environment and resource use, as
well as resource management decisions. She is fascinated by
this economic way of thinking and its application to natural
resources. With its incredible resource endowment, Alaska is
largely resource dependent and that makes for great economics
and a great lifestyle.
MS. MITCHELL stated that a large part of her education centered
on economic methods for valuing nonmarket goods. She said this
is important when applied to resources because many resources
provide utility but do not necessarily have direct or observable
market prices. Simply following monetary flows to determine the
economic importance of a natural resource will understate its
true value every time. Of equal importance in her opinion is
the process at which natural resources are allocated for
consumptive purposes. The allocative decisions intended to
optimize social and environmental welfare over time require
evaluating the resource and the user groups by assigning values
that may not be directly observable. Alaska's commercial
fishery is incredibly important and has incredible economic
opportunity for maintaining generational heritage of families
and communities across the state, as well as maintaining an
incredibly powerful position as a leading supplier of fish to
the world market. Alaska's subsistence and personal use
fisheries are incredibly important because the health of an
economy and the strength of state are greatly supported by the
wellbeing of its people and the ability of people to feel
unified under tradition and belief system. Alaska's sport
fishery is incredibly important for reasons spanning from
significant growth over the past two decades to its influence in
maintaining Alaska's status as a premier travel destination.
MS. MITCHELL noted that she currently teaches economics and
recreation management courses at the University of Alaska
Fairbanks. She also works part-time in the winter months at a
flight school as a ground instructor and advance instrument
ground instructor. She continues to work seasonally as a
hunting and fishing guide. She concluded by stating that she is
incredibly passionate about Alaska, Alaska's resources, and her
Alaskan lifestyle, and would be honored to participate at the
Board of Fisheries level.
2:13:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN stated her belief that Ms. Mitchell has
served on the Board of Fisheries for two years. She asked
whether Ms. Mitchell has had to conflict out during her time on
the board or foresees proposals in which she would be conflicted
out. She allowed this would be unusual given Ms. Mitchell works
sometimes as a sport fishing boat captain.
MS. MITCHELL replied that [board members] prepare an ethics
statement disclosing any information at which they think would
be a conflict for them. She said [board members] also consult
with the Department of Law (DOL) and the chair member who helps
to determine whether a board member is in a position of
conflict. She stated she has not had a reason thus far in her
participation at the board level, however she has made it open
in her ethics statement that at some point she intends to have
her own fishing operation. At this time and over the past
decade, she continued, she has worked for other fishing
outfitters as a boat captain and sport fishing guide.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN pointed out that people understand the
direct connection for a commercial fisherman's conflict of
interest in a specific fishery. However, she continued, by law
none of Alaska's sport fisheries are called commercial fisheries
even when guided and lodge-based; rather they are called sport
fishing. She surmised that as an economist Ms. Mitchell would
understand that it is an economic benefit to Ms. Mitchell
personally and to the industry to have lodges with those. She
therefore asked whether Ms. Mitchell could foresee that there
would be conflicts that Ms. Mitchell would have the inability to
act on under current policy because of her present position as a
licensed boat skipper for Raspberry Island Remote Lodge.
2:16:00 PM
CHAIR TARR interjected that it is 2:15 p.m. and the cutoff to
sign up for public testimony has been reached. She noted that
about 66 people are now signed up to testify and testimony would
be taken in the order in which people had signed up.
MS. MITCHELL responded to Representative Hannan that she
provided an updated resume that hasn't been distributed and she
doesn't currently work for Kodiak Raspberry Island Remote Lodge.
She stated she does not currently see herself as having any
conflicts with any of the things that have been presented to the
board thus far. She will continue to monitor that in the event
that at some point she may be operating in an area where the
board is currently looking at proposals. As she progresses her
personal career and, at some point, opens her own sport fishing
business, she will continue to consult with the Department of
Law to make sure that she is not in conflict with anything that
is being taken up by the board.
2:17:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES inquired whether Ms. Mitchell has been on
the Board of Fisheries for one year or two years.
MS. MITCHELL answered she was appointed to the board in spring
[2020]. However, the COVID situation caused challenges in the
confirmation process and so she has maintained a board position
until this confirmation process.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked what percentage of time Ms. Mitchell
spends as a fishing guide versus a hunting guide.
MS. MITCHELL replied that her time is split within the seasons,
but her fishing season is typically cut a little bit short.
Depending on the year, she continued, she will typically run a
sport fishing boat from mid- to end-May through July, sometimes
August, and sometimes through the middle of September, which
typically is when the sport fishing season closes for the year.
Year-to-year that changes. She works for about a half dozen
different outfitters across the state, and she fluctuates
depending on the work opportunity. Over the past decade, it
probably averages right at 50-50.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES inquired whether she is correct in
recalling from last year's confirmation hearing that when asked
why she didn't apply for the Board of Game, Ms. Mitchell replied
that someone had called her and asked her to put forth her name
to the Board of Fisheries.
MS. MITCHELL responded that she had a conversation with Reed
Morisky where the idea of potentially putting her name in for
the Board of Fisheries came about. She said she thought what an
honor it would be to serve because she had been passionate about
fisheries in the state since the day she moved to Alaska and she
continued to work within fisheries both academically and within
the industry. She therefore put her name in and is honored to
be before the committees today.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked Ms. Mitchell how much exposure she
has had to the commercial fishing industry.
MS. MITCHELL answered that this is going to be a very large
learning curve for her, and that it's pretty well known at this
point. Her background is in academia, she continued, and her
academic experience is in having read hundreds of academic
journals on property rights, fishing quotas, economic principles
in sustaining multi-use fisheries, appropriate economic measures
for valuation, and allocating harvest between competing user
groups. Her industry experience is more on the sport fish side.
If confirmed for this position, she stated, it would be only
appropriate that she would seek out significant education within
the commercial fisheries and all fisheries so that she can do
the best job she can in serving the board.
2:21:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated that economics is the study of
scarce resources. He asked whether Ms. Mitchell, given her
knowledge of economics and knowledge of the study of scarce
resources, could be fair in evaluating the need for decent
allocation between sport fish and commercial fish when required
to vote, despite her being a sport fish kind of person.
MS. MITCHELL replied that her industry experience is in sport
fish, but as a board member she wouldn't say that she is sport
fish or any other kind of proponent of a specific user group.
She said she believes all the user groups in the state need to
find a way to co-exist and, in that, is the very challenging
process of allocation. As a board member everything is going to
be based on the situation and it's really not fair to direct
attention towards one user group over another because of the
vast geographic differences and the importance of the resource
to different user groups in different areas of the state. To be
able to make decisions, it is a reliance on looking at the data,
talking to the stakeholders, and understanding the resource and
its importance to the people who are utilizing in that area.
2:24:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM recalled that in the early 1960s, the
first commissioner Andy Anderson told the board that if they
over-escaped the fishery, then they would be reprimanded, and if
they under-escaped it, they would be fired. He further recalled
that Andy Anderson said regardless of the pain inflicted on
people he was managing for the fisheries, not for politics. It
was a harsh way to manage, but by the early 1980s Cook Inlet had
record fish runs. Representative Gillham asked whether Ms.
Mitchell would be willing to follow that example and manage in
that harsh of a situation.
MS. MITCHELL responded that she believes certain situations call
for more drastic measures. She said she also believes that
that's all situational based, and without the information in
front of her, she cant blatantly say something across the board
like that. She stressed that Article VIII [of Alaska's
constitution] is a guideline that the Board of Fisheries
follows, which is to utilize, develop, and conserve the natural
resource for the maximum benefit of the people. Sometimes to
benefit the people the most, drastic measures need to be taken
to rebuild fish stocks, but she would not feel comfortable
stating that she would just blatantly take that drastic measure.
She would make decisions that matched the situation given the
information provided.
2:26:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES requested Ms. Mitchell to comment on how
an unlimited potential demand on resources, as in the personal
use fishery or sport fisheries in urban areas, would play into
allocative decisions.
MS. MITCHELL answered that in the first week of every economics
course she teaches, an assumption is made that people have
unlimited wants and there is a limitation on resources. She
said she understands that that situation exists within sport and
personal use fisheries. However, she continued, she believes
that that situation exists in everything that [people] do, and
so that conversation is had within every decision, not just
within those two user groups.
2:27:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE recounted that when Ms. Mitchell was first
appointed there was a lot of consternation about her lack of
experience with the Board of Fisheries. However, she related,
she has received a lot of good feedback that Ms. Mitchell is
willing to roll up her sleeves, dig in, and bring her education
to the table. She further related that a previous board member
spoke to her about the need to have an economist on the Board of
Fisheries because it deals with livelihoods and the economy of
Alaska. She said she is hearing from Ms. Mitchell's testimony
that Ms. Mitchell cares deeply about sustaining the fishery and
making sure there is a balance. She asked what metric Ms.
Mitchell uses to weigh the balance of sustaining the fishery and
providing for the maximum benefit to the economy.
MS. MITCHELL responded that there is a lot of science that
supports what needs to happen and helps to set [the board's]
total allowable catch and helps [the board] to determine
escapement goals to sustain the fishery, which is so valuable
and so important. However, she said, the Board of Fisheries
deals almost primarily and exclusively with allocative
decisions. The board is not just looking at the biology and the
science of the resource itself anymore. The board is looking at
the way that humans interact with the resource, and economics is
typically the study of human decision making under scarcity. It
is that interaction, she continued, where she could potentially
bring something forth to the board in helping to look at the
human interaction with the resource because sustaining it based
on the science and the need of the resource itself doesn't allow
[the board] to necessarily produce the benefit to the people by
continuing to utilize the resource. Putting those two together
is an important component in making the allocative decision.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated she appreciates those elements in a
board member. She asked what Ms. Mitchell, at the end of her
term if appointed, would deem as one of her greatest successes
of the value that she brought to the board.
MS. MITCHELL replied that if confirmed and given the opportunity
to serve, she would consider her greatest contribution to be
having listened to the stakeholders, and to having read and
applied her knowledge and education to making calculated
decisions in an effort to support the resource and the people
who utilize the resource. That would be her goal in serving.
2:31:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY stated she thinks it's important that the
Board of Fisheries have some regional and sector preference
balance. She said she also thinks it's important that all board
members can make decisions based upon scientific recommendations
and not just a regional or sector preference. She inquired
whether Ms. Mitchell feels she can do that, and requested Ms.
Mitchell to provide an example of the time on the board where
she has done something like that.
MS. MITCHELL stated she was unable to hear the question.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY rephrased her question. She asked whether
Ms. Mitchell feels she can make decisions based on scientific
recommendations and not regional or sector preference and, if
so, to provide an example of when Ms. Mitchell has done that.
MS. MITCHELL answered that every decision she has made on the
board so far has been based on the information provided by the
department, her conversations with stakeholders and fishery
managers, and the information that has been provided to her.
She stated she would continue to make decisions based on
evaluation of all the information and conversation with
stakeholders, and not influenced in any other way.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY understood Ms. Mitchell to be saying that
she doesn't have a particular example but that is how she tries
to make every decision.
MS. MITCHELL replied correct, she has talked to stakeholders
regarding every decision that she has made on the board at this
point, along with the information provided to her.
2:34:53 PM
MARIT CARLSON-VAN DORT, Appointee, Board of Fisheries, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), testified as appointee to the
Board of Fisheries. She said she is a born and raised Alutiiq
Alaskan from the southern Alaska Peninsula. She attended school
in Juneau during the winters and spent her summers in Chignik
Bay with her extended family and many generational fishermen.
She has resided in Anchorage since 2015 and prior to that her
entire life experience was living in coastal Alaska.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT related that Chignik is a small village
with a long history in fisheries. She noted that while various
fisheries have come and gone over the years, the village is
supported almost entirely by sockeye salmon. In the early
1990s, when she was about 13 or 14, she was offered a job on her
grandfather's seine boat. She spent the next 13 or so summers
seining for salmon in that fishery, as did her mother for 24
years, as did her grandfather for well over 60 years, and as did
both of her great grandfathers before him. These early
experiences and being a lifelong subsistence user inspired her
interest in ecology and natural science.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT said that after graduating from Juneau-
Douglas High School she earned a Bachelor of Science degree in
Conservation Biology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
She allowed that Wisconsin may not be known as a hotbed for
salmon research, but pointed out that the university pioneered
the science of limnology and fish ecology in fresh water systems
in North America especially, and it was in that course work
where she concentrated most of her studies. She continued her
education at the University of Alaska Southeast in Fishery
Science where she was particularly interested in large
population dynamics in salmonid species, and also in the Master
of Arts teaching program where she studied secondary education
with a math/science emphasis.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT stated that how Alaska protects, manages,
and uses its many resources has remained central to both her
personal and professional interests. As a former legislative
staffer, she spent many hours assigned to the Senate Resources
Standing Committee. She served as a former legislative liaison
to the Department of Environmental Conservation. More recently
she shifted to the private sector and moved to Anchorage where
she continued working in public affairs and government affairs
in areas that were associated with state and federal regulation,
environmental policy, permitting, development, and community
outreach and engagement.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT specified that she is currently employed as
the President and CEO of Far West Incorporated, the Alaska
Native village corporation for Chignik Bay formed under the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). She related that
the Far West board of directors recognizes that managing Far
West lands for subsistence and cultural resources remains the
highest priority and best use of the corporation's lands. As
such, aside from the lease to permit guided bear hunting on Far
West lands, and very limited rentals of a couple apartments in
the village, the corporation derives no revenue from fisheries
or any other business interest in the village. Far West
shareholders primarily reside in Southcentral Alaska and in
Kodiak, the two locations between which the corporation
alternates hosting its annual shareholders meetings.
2:38:54 PM
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT explained that her interest in serving on
the Board of Fisheries came about because of what seemed to her
to be very significant changes and dramatic shifts in many of
Alaska's fish populations and their behaviors in recent years.
She said she is very interested in trying to understand what is
causing these changes and ensuring that fisheries management
policies are appropriately responsive to what is being observed
locally and reflected in the scientific data. Most important,
management needs to be for long-term sustainability and to her
that means first and foremost that sufficient numbers of fish
are returning and reproducing to renew wild populations.
Second, there must be management for a sustainable surplus,
primarily based on maximum sustained yield principles. Third,
Alaska has a subsistence use priority, and it is important to
her that fish resources are available to Alaskans as a reliable,
affordable, and accessible source of healthy protein to support
Alaskan's bodies and feed Alaskan families. Ms. Carlson-Van
Dort further stated that Alaska's commercial fishing industry is
an incredibly important industry for the state's economy, and it
is also an important part of bolstering Alaska's food security
and making fish available to Alaskans who for whatever reason
may or may not be able or willing to access the resource for
themselves. She said she fully recognizes the importance and
value of Alaska's subsistence, commercial, sport fishing, and
personal use fisheries to the culture and economies of Alaskan
communities, most especially rural communities.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT addressed some recently distributed talking
points that have come to her attention, and that in her view
contain a variety of falsehoods and inaccuracies. In regard to
the assertion that she currently occupies a commercial fishing
seat, she noted that she was appointed in spring 2019 to fill
the seat that was occupied by Orville Huntington when he made
the move to the Board of Game. At that time she was unanimously
confirmed by the legislature to complete the remaining two years
of his three-year term. As discussed today, she continued,
there are no designated seats on the Board of Fisheries, but
informally Mr. Huntington was seated in a subsistence seat.
John Jensen, Fritz Johnson, and Gerad Godfrey occupied the
commercial fishing seats. Reed Morisky, Israel Payton, and John
Wood occupied the sport fishing seats. She would maintain her
position as a so-called subsistence seat on the Board of
Fisheries that the committees are presently considering.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT spoke to the Upper Cook Inlet meeting where
she provided plenty of justification for the proposals that she
supported and didn't support. She noted that the record and her
voting record are available for everyone to look at. She said
it is inaccurate to claim that her only support is sport fish
proposals over commercial fish. She did not come to that
meeting with her mind made up. She asked questions of the
department and staff and the public, and worked hard on
brokering compromise between commercial and sport fish interests
on addressing a late run Kenai king salmon conservation
management plan; precisely the process and type of communication
in board members that is valued by stakeholders.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT said she was surprised by the assertion
from commercial fishermen that she doesn't engage. She pointed
out that she has on multiple occasions been invited and met with
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) leadership and members. She
participated in a panel hosted by UFA last fall during its
virtual fish expo. She has met in person with members of the
Kodiak Salmon Working Group. She has met in person with Cook
Inlet drift permit fishermen and setnetters. She has met with
sport fish guides and conservation groups from the Lower Cook
Inlet to the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. She has met with Chignik
area stakeholders, with hatchery representatives, and folks from
Alaska Native regional and village corporations and tribes. She
has spoken on the phone with stakeholders, and she has
communicated by email. She has done her very best to be
available to Alaskans because they deserve no less.
2:43:07 PM
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT discussed another assertion she was made
aware of. She stated there was no vote strictly for Chignik
fishermen that are also shareholders and directors of the
Chignik village corporation that she works for. The corporation
has shareholders that are Chignik permit holders as well as
shareholders that are Kodiak seine permit holders. The two
communities have a history that is decades long, if not
centuries long, of transportation back and forth between them.
She said the board made a very difficult and unpopular
allocation decision to decrease the time and percent allocation
allowed to the Kodiak fleet to prosecute a very specific
intercept fishery on a struggling Chignik run that has failed to
meet minimum escapement goals for the last three years.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT refuted the last assertion, stating she did
not work with a cousin to submit proposals to the board. She
pointed out that the proposals were submitted long before she
had an interest in being appointed to the Board of Fisheries and
had never worked with her cousin in crafting any proposals. She
said she also had no knowledge of her uncle's transfer of his
seine permit prior to the Kodiak meeting, and he has submitted
to the committees a sworn affidavit affirming these facts. She
related that when drafting her ethics disclosures she has always
checked the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission website to
ensure that her disclosures were accurate. Ms. Carlson-Van Dort
said she disclosed that [her uncle] held a permit in the two
prior meetings in which she had participated at the work group
and in Lower Cook Inlet; as well she disclosed at the Kodiak
meeting that [her uncle] had held a Chignik permit. Prior to
deliberations, she continued, she also disclosed on the record
that she had a first cousin who had submitted some of the
proposals that were before the board. She consulted with the
Department of Law and the board chair as the ethics supervisor
on all of these disclosures, she said, and she was advised that
there was no conflict of interest under the Alaska Branch Ethics
Act ("Ethics Act"). Lastly, she continued, during board
discussion she did use the word "we" in referring to the loss of
two processing plants that occurred in the community of Chignik
in the last few years, and she admits it was a mistake. She
did, however, work very hard and late on drafting her comments
and reviewing department data related to proposals about the
Cape Igvak Salmon Management Plan. She stated that she did work
with Chignik stakeholder groups to make sure that the intent and
the effect of the proposed policy change was accurate. "Isn't
that the job of a board member?" she asked. She pointed out
that she is but one vote on the board and that that particular
proposal, which was not submitted by her cousin, passed 4-1.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT concluded by stating that everyone has deep
and meaningful ties throughout Alaska. She said she believes
that all the appointees care very deeply about Alaska's
fisheries. She expressed her honor and pride to be the first
woman and the first Alaska Native woman to ever be elected as
chair of the Board of Fisheries. Alaska's fish resources mean a
great deal to her and they have given her a lot, she continued.
Alaska's fish have afforded her a great education and now she
wants to give back, and that is the reason she is before the
committees today asking for re-confirmation.
2:46:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE offered his appreciation for Ms. Carlson-
Van Dort's testimony and speaking to the accusations leveled
against her by some fairly big groups. He posed a scenario in
which a Kodiak fishery failed in the same way as has the Chignik
fishery, and asked whether Ms. Carlson-Van Dort would vote in
the same way to support that fishery by decreasing the intercept
catch in one of the other sectors.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT replied yes. She said her first focus is
on the biological needs of the resource and then on bolstering
and maintaining a surplus that is harvestable. She has often
questioned whether or not that same vote would have occurred
with respect to the Cape Igvak Salmon Management Plan if Chignik
had not experienced the last three years, and she would venture
to guess no. She said she looks at the conservation principles
irrespective of whether the conservation issue is in her
hometown or anywhere else in the state of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE remarked that he understands from Ms.
Carlson-Van Dort's testimony that she is filling the unofficial
subsistence position. He noted that a lot is heard about
commercial fish and sport fish, but not a lot about subsistence
fish; it always seems to be a tension between commercial fish
and sport fish. He requested Ms. Carlson-Van Dort to relate her
experience as a subsistence fisher and how important she thinks
that is to her job for Alaskans, and to Native Alaskans who seem
to have a vested interest in her position on the board.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT responded that being able to practice the
same activities accessing the same food sources that your
ancestors did is a huge part of personal and cultural identity,
and whether that is for Alaska Native peoples or for anyone who
has an intimate relationship with the land and water resources.
Personally, her family has grown up subsisting on salmon
primarily, but many other sources as well such as berries,
halibut, crab, moose, and caribou. "Salmon is a cornerstone of
so much of who we are," she added, "what we do with the fish
pickle it, smoke it, can it, jar it ... make it fish pies, the
works, and so ... it is an intrinsic part of my personal
identity."
2:50:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE thanked Ms. Carlson-Van Dort for her
service, but said she cannot ignore the overwhelming testimony
against the appointee's confirmation. She related that people
have said in emailed testimony that Ms. Carlson-Van Dort's claim
of being the subsistence representative on the [board] makes
them defensive. There are statements that Ms. Carlson-Van Dort
has never relied on subsistence for her food. Another statement
was that tribal people should not take from one another,
especially when the allocation has been set in place for so
long. A lot of the testimony has very strong feelings about it,
Representative Vance continued. She asked Ms. Carlson-Van Dort
what she has to say to the people who feel that she has not
represented subsistence given her board seat is considered the
traditional, although not statutory, subsistence seat.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT answered that she thinks she has been very
consistent in supporting the subsistence proposals that have
come before the board since she became a part of the board.
However, the board's job is to represent the interests of the
fish and of all Alaskans, she stated. Her perspective is most
strong in subsistence and commercial fishing and she has less
experience in sport fish and personal use. Her experience is
her own, which is what she is sharing with the committees today.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that Ms. Carlson-Van Dort just said
her experience is in subsistence and commercial fishing, and yet
the overwhelming testimony is that the appointee's vote lean
more to sport fish decisions than they do subsistence and
commercial. She requested the appointee's response to that.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT replied that her response is to review her
votes. She would say that her votes are very consistent on
subsistence interests, and her votes go back and forth on the
sport and commercial fishing interests.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE offered her appreciation for Ms. Carlson-
Van Dort's honesty. She stated that there is much deep emotion
because this deals with people's livelihoods, culture, and way
of life with a very scarce resource. She related that [as a
legislator] she must weigh and balance the needs of all Alaskans
in her decision. The opposition cannot be ignored, she
continued, because there has been much more than just "hey we
don't like her because of her votes," there have been
accusations that Ms. Carlson-Van Dort hasn't taken consideration
to get perspective of all groups. Legislators must weigh how
the appointee has conducted herself as a board member in light
of the people's perspective since it is those people who
legislators must represent. Legislators are filtering through
the truth, she continued, so as much as Ms. Carlson-Van Dort can
speak to putting her perspective on the record, and what has
actually taken place on the record, will help legislators in
their decision making.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT responded with examples relative to the
subsistence issues. She said she believes she voted in favor of
creating an amount necessary for subsistence for Seldovia
subsistence users and also creating additional opportunity for
those subsistence users. She voted in favor of a very good
conservation proposal put forth by the Tyonek Native Association
to substitute sockeye or other species of salmon for king
salmon. She also voted in favor of increasing subsistence
opportunity in the upper Yentna River. There were only several
subsistence related votes in her limited tenure of about one
year on the board, she noted, and she thinks those subsistence
interests were represented and she voted in favor of them.
2:56:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES offered her understanding that Ms.
Carlson-Van Dort is still the CEO of Far West Incorporated.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT answered correct.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES offered her understanding that Ms.
Carlson-Van Dort checked with [the Department of Law] on her
conflicts of interest in relation to her votes. She noted that
personal interests are defined as "an interest held or involved
by a public officer or the officer's immediate family member or
parent, including membership in any organization, whether
fraternal, nonprofit, for profit, charitable, or politic, from
which or as a result of a person or an organization receives a
benefit. Representative Stutes asked whether it is a fact that
many of the shareholders are indeed permit holders in the
Chignik area.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT replied she is not sure how many permit
holders are left in Chignik that actually participate in the
fishery; she does know of a few. She said she doesn't know how
many there are that are actually fishing any longer, although
that is neither here nor there because if they hold a permit
that is the asset in question. But, she continued, there are
also permit holders around the state, including some from the
community of Representative Stutes.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES agreed, but maintained that there is going
to be a conflict somewhere when someone is sitting on the Board
of Fisheries and making a decision while also sitting as the
head of Far West Incorporated. She recalled Ms. Carlson-Van
Dort saying that she is only one vote and the vote passed for
the Igvak area 4-1. Representative Stutes asked whether it is
correct that it takes four votes to pass anything and that if it
had been a vote of 3-1 it wouldn't have passed.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT responded, "I don't know," and said it
would depend upon if a quorum were represented.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES offered her understanding that a quorum on
a vote or for a pass on the Board of Fisheries is four votes.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT answered, "If it was a 3-1 vote, yeah, it
probably wouldn't have ... passed because ... there would have
been I think a failure to meet a quorum no, no there would
have been a quorum." In regard to the earlier question of
whether there was a conflict, she stated that a conflict as she
understands it is defined as a financial interest of an
immediate family member. She said Far West has over 500
shareholders and she thinks it is a minority of those
shareholders that currently hold permits.
2:58:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES pointed out that there are [Far West]
members that hold permits and that it takes four votes to pass
anything, and Ms. Carlson-Van Dort was the fourth vote because
she didn't declare a conflict.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT replied that she didn't declare a conflict,
but she did put all of that on the record. When preparing her
ethics statement she consulted with the ethics chair and the
Department of Law, and it was determined by them that there was
no conflict. "There is a process at the board level for
addressing conflicts amongst the members," she continued. "The
chair asks if any members have questions, comments, and at that
time any member can raise an issue that the board would then
vote on; that didn't happen."
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES stated, "I think we're getting crosswise
here with a perceived conflict and a by-the-book conflict." She
related that she attended that board meeting, and someone
directly tied to the Board of Fisheries told her during a
conversation that he/she couldn't understand why they were in
Kodiak because the decisions had already been made and it was
just a trip over.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES requested Ms. Carlson-Van Dort's opinion
on whether shifting the management of the Chignik area to a
mixed stock fishery would allow a more accurate accounting of
the brood table for sockeye in the Chignik system, and thereby
help management rebuild the Chignik runs.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT responded:
No, probably not, at least not initially, it depends.
The two sockeye runs that are Of primary concern are
the two sockeye runs that go into Chignik Lake and
into Black Lake. Both of those genetically distinct
populations have been really struggling. ... There are
coho that come through there as well, and then there
are surrounding humpy streams that supply pink
opportunities, pink and chum opportunities to that
fishery as well, I believe. I'm not sure that ...
switching it over to a mixed stock fishery would help
address the sockeye issue. But I'd certainly be
interested in having that conversation evaluating ...
any recommendations from the department on that front.
3:03:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked whether Ms. Carlson-Van Dort recalls
seeing a letter from the Area M Seiners Association out of Sand
Point, Alaska.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT answered she has not had the opportunity to
review all of the significant numbers of public comment that
have come through since last night and this morning. She said
she was focused on preparing her comments and making sure she
was prepared to address questions.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ read three lines from the Area M Seiners
Association letter signed by Kiley Thompson, President, which
state: "During her time on the Board, Ms. Carlson-Van Dort has
significantly leaned towards the sport fish sector. She has
voted against proposals that could benefit commercial fisherman.
In 2019, she voted to support proposals that solely benefitted
Chignik commercial fishermen." He asked whether Ms. Carlson-Van
Dort would say this is accurate or false.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT replied that it is not accurate. She
agreed she did vote for a proposal related to the Cape Igvak
Salmon Management Plan, as was previously discussed. It did
absolutely benefit Chignik fishermen, she continued, and was an
allocative decision. However, she noted, she did vote against a
Chignik plan that was submitted in what she believes was the
statewide crab meeting. So, it is not entirely accurate, she
stated. In terms of the sport fishing interests, she said she
is interested in making sure that struggling fish populations
are appropriately conserved. By and large in the state, it is
king/Chinook salmon issues that are going to be looked at. So
no, that statement is not entirely accurate, she said.
3:05:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked whether Ms. Carlson-Van Dort knows
how many of the Far West people have sport fishing licenses.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT responded she could not venture a guess,
probably not too many, but she has no idea.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE recalled the earlier discussion about
perhaps a conflict of interest because some Far West corporation
[people] have commercial fishing permits. He said he assumes
some of those Far West corporation people also have subsistence
permits from ADF&G, and some probably also have sport fishing
licenses. He inquired whether Ms. Carlson-Van Dort would say
that she should recuse herself from any board decisions or board
deliberations because, or based on, the possible financial
implications of having a sport fishing license or subsistence
permit as well.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT answered that each of those ethics
determinations, and determinations of whether there is or is not
a conflict, is done on a case-by-case basis and on the
situational information. She said it gets really complicated,
and the Ethics Act is crafted the way it is because Alaskans
have so many ties to each other. Certainly, a determination
must be made about whether or not a conflict exists and how big
the pool is. For example, to deem it a financial interest, is
the threshold 100 shareholders, or 500, or 1,000? All of those
things with all of the information come to bear when making that
decision. It really is done on a case-by-case basis, she
reiterated, so she would be hard pressed to answer that.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE recalled that the Chignik fishery that Ms.
Carlson-Van Dort voted on had a vote of 4-1. He surmised that
if she changed her vote, then it would have been 3-2, not 3-1.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES interjected no, not if [Ms. Carlson-Van
Dort] had recused herself.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE responded that now he understands. He
noted that Chignik has suffered a huge failure. He inquired
whether Ms. Carlson-Van Dort thinks her vote was right and would
she make the same vote today to protect the fish knowing the
opposition she was going to get from the Kodiak fisherman, UFA,
and others.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT answered yes.
3:09:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked what Ms. Carlson-Van Dort believes is
a solution to addressing the king salmon returns.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT replied that king salmon return is going to
be one of the greatest challenges that will come before the
board and the department in the future. It is something with
which the Kenai is very familiar, she stated, but she sees
evidence of struggling Chinook salmon runs all over the state.
The challenge particularly is how to conserve those king salmon
but also allow opportunity to harvest on the other mixed stocks
that may be passing through at the same time. It is incredibly
challenging and very difficult, and the board is in a tight spot
to balance those king runs and providing that opportunity. It
is going to be a collective effort between the department,
between the board, and also between the fishermen. She said she
appreciates the proactivity of some of the fishermen,
particularly those on the Kenai who are innovating with their
gear and harvest method to reduce their take of king salmon and
be more targeted in their efforts to prosecute on the sockeye
salmon that are passing through. It is an opportunity missed,
she continued, but it's a very difficult decision to restrict
that opportunity on the sockeye in the interest of king
conservation. That is a place she would like to focus some of
her interests if she is reconfirmed to the board, she stated.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE noted some people feel the hatcheries have
something to do with the aforementioned. She requested the
appointee's thoughts on the sustainability and longevity of
Alaska's hatcheries in regard to king salmon as well as salmon
hatcheries overall.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT responded that she thinks the hatcheries
are really important and have done incredible work in providing
additional opportunity for mostly commercial fishermen, but also
sport fishermen since there are sport fish hatcheries too.
However, she cautiously said, the environment is changing so
much, and a lot of fish are being released into the environment,
and she doesn't think the science has been done or it isn't yet
understood what the implications are of doing that. She has
read arguments on both sides regarding the potential impacts of
the large volumes of hatchery fish that are being released into
the North Pacific. So, she continued, she cannot answer the
question, but she can say it's important and she would like to
see some type of partnership with either academia or federal
fisheries managers to try to get a better sense of what the
scientific data might show with relationship to the hatchery
productions and their effects on wild stocks.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed appreciation for the appointee's
thoughtful response, and said there's a lot of inconclusive
data, but that is one of the top issues.
3:13:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether there has been any change in
the Chignik fishery since the changes were implemented.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT answered she doesn't know, but she can say
they struggled again last year, and she doesn't believe the
minimum escapement goals were met last year either.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES inquired whether there has been any effort
to determine what the etiology problem really is in that area.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT replied she sure hopes so.
3:13:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN related that a saying she heard when first
running for office was that it is always more challenging to get
elected for a second term because there are now specific votes
or issues to which people turn. With that said, there has been
criticism of very specific actions. She requested Ms. Carlson-
Van Dort to reprise the part of her opening statement of why she
is interested in continuing to serve on the Board of Fisheries.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT responded she is interested in continuing
to serve primarily for many of the reasons discussed during this
meeting today. The environment and the ocean are changing, she
said. Those changes aren't fully understood, and the science is
not yet had to support explanations for all of those changes.
However, she continued, it is known that things are changing and
so [the board] needs to conservatively manage and make sure that
its management policies are responding to those changes as best
they can with the data available. Data is incomplete, and in a
perfect scenario there would be lots of funding to conduct all
the scientific studies needed to inform board decisions. As Mr.
Jensen said, the board would be able to fly out and visit those
fisheries, get to know them more intimately, see how they are
prosecuted, and get to know the nuances; but it is impossible at
this point. So, she stated, the board is tasked with making
very difficult allocative decisions based on the best available
information and best available science before it at the time.
She expressed her hope that that will change. The board does
its best, she added, and she does her best to bring fairness,
balance, and integrity to her decisions on the board.
3:16:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK thanked Ms. Carlson-Van Dort for her
openness at the beginning in addressing some of the issues and
bringing them to the forefront. He noted that the Copper River
and Yukon River are in his district, and for his district that
is primarily food. There is commercial fishing on the Copper
River, but some of the lower villages haven't really been able
to participate much in that. These two rivers interest him a
lot because it comes down to the question of putting food in
people's freezers, so if Ms. Carlson-Van Dort is confirmed he
looks forward to working with her in addressing the issues at
hand on those two rivers.
3:17:19 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK stated that a couple things come to mind after
listening to the back and forth and his not having any real
exposure to the commercial fishing industry. He said he has
been a part of village politics, and folks call into question
[his] decision-making, and sometimes [he] has to explain [his]
frame of thought. He has always relied on being transparent and
honest and not looking after some personal gain in any way.
Based on today's discussion and back-and-forth it seems there
has been a question of integrity and transparency. From what he
understands, he continued, Ms. Carlson-Van Dort has disclosed
any potential conflicts through the Department of Law and the
board chairman, yet she still needs to represent the voice that
she was assigned to represent on the Board of Fisheries. He
asked whether Ms. Carlson-Van Dort can honestly tell the
committees today that she has maintained those thresholds of
integrity while going down all the rabbit holes and trails.
MS. CARLSON-VAN DORT answered she has done all that she knows to
do to make sure she has been honest and transparent with the
public. Everybody knows the Board of Fisheries process is a
very public and very involved process, she stated, and that is
what makes it so unique and effective in terms of how Alaska's
common property resources are managed. She said she relies on
the advice of the Department of Law and the ethics chair, and
she did everything she knew to do to make sure she was being
fully transparent with the public in disclosing any and all
financial interests required under the law.
CHAIR PATKOTAK thanked the appointee. He noted this is his
first time in being involved with the governor's appointees, but
he would like to give Ms. Carlson-Van Dort kudos as an Alaska
Native woman applying herself and "facing the fire."
3:20:48 PM
The committees took an at-ease from 3:20 p.m. to 3:28 p.m.
3:29:24 PM
ABE WILLIAMS, Appointee, Board of Fisheries, Alaska Department
of Fish & Game (ADF&G), testified as appointee to the Board of
Fisheries. He testified he is a lifelong Alaskan born and
raised in King Salmon where he lived for 39 years, and has now
been a resident of Anchorage for 11 years. He said his past
experiences include: fifteen years as president of Afognak
Native Corporation; three years' service on the Bristol Bay
Borough Assembly; six years' service on the Bristol Bay Borough
School Board; nine years' service on the Naknek/Kvichak Fish &
Game Advisory Committee, six of which he served as the co-chair;
and three years' service on the Bristol Bay Regional Seafood
Development Association (BBRSDA) board.
MR. WILLIAMS stated he is currently a member of the Naknek
Native Village Tribe, and is presently employed as Director of
Regional Affairs at the Pebble Limited Partnership. He said he
owns and operates a Bristol Bay commercial fishing operation
alongside his three sons. He has been involved with the fishery
for more than 39 years and continues to do so as a fourth
generation commercial fisherman of Bristol Bay. He owns and
operates a business in Naknek that services the commercial
fishing industry with the help of his family. He and his family
enjoy the outdoors and share a love for Alaska and the plentiful
resources that it has to offer.
MR. WILLIAMS thanked the members of the committees for their
service to the state. He said he looks forward to a productive
conversation today and into the future. He requested support
from the members of the committees for his confirmation. In
response to Chair Tarr, he said he was appointed in spring 2020
and therefore has served on the board for about a year.
3:31:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE thanked Mr. Williams for participating last
year in a Zoom meeting that she held with her district. She
related that her district has a lot of consternation because of
Mr. Williams's involvement with Pebble Mine. She asked whether
Mr. Williams has had to declare any conflict of interest on the
Board of Fisheries with regard to Pebble Mine.
MR. WILLIAMS replied no, he has not.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE noted that the Pebble project is currently
paused. She inquired whether there could be times that Pebble's
interest would cross over into Board of Fisheries decisions.
MR. WILLIAMS responded he doesn't have an example of when that
happened or when it could potentially happen. He pointed out
that there is a process for determining a conflict of interest.
He said he doesn't know that there will be or that there has
been an instance where he would need to determine that conflict.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE, given that her district has such a direct
interest in how Mr. Williams would be able to represent the
Board of Fisheries, asked whether Mr. Williams could reconcile
the relationship he has with the fishery and with Pebble Mine.
MR. WILLIAMS answered that because he is Director of Regional
Affairs for the Pebble Limited Partnership, he engages with
communities that have been closely related to the project. He
said he also has engaged with fishermen over the years and
continues to do so. Additionally, he has fished in Bristol Bay
for 39 years, continues to do so alongside three of his sons,
and will continue doing so until he can't handle it anymore.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE requested Mr. Williams to elaborate on what
it looks like to be Director of Regional Affairs in regard to
the communities in Bristol Bay. For example, she continued,
what the direct activities are, what the purpose is, and what
the hoped-for outcome is in that position.
MR. WILLIAMS replied he works with tribal entities, Native
corporations, contractors, and maintains relationships with
those that have worked closely or around the project itself. He
has also participated in forums where the opposition is the
focal point.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE noted Mr. Williams has been a Bristol Bay
fisherman for many years. As far as the board's balance, she
stated, the board needs a coastal fisherman to represent coastal
communities. But, she continued, there is much consternation as
to whether Mr. Williams would put the interest of Pebble above
the fishery in serving on the board. She asked whether Mr.
Williams would be able to objectively focus on the fishery alone
when serving in this capacity.
MR. WILLIAMS responded, "Absolutely." He stated he doesn't know
that there would ever be an instance where this board would take
up anything that pertains to the Pebble project. He said he
believes the state has processes in place that will address the
project if deemed necessary.
3:36:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN noted that before becoming a board member
Mr. Williams was involved in advocating for and/or making
proposals before the Board of Fisheries for permit stacking in
Bristol Bay fisheries. She asked whether Mr. Williams would, as
a member of the board, continue to advocate for permit stacking.
MR. WILLIAMS answered that he doesn't know whether he would be
allowed to do so as far as ethics are concerned. He said he
believes there is a certain need for conversation like that.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN requested Mr. Williams to clarify whether
"conversation" is in regard to permit stacking or conflicts.
MR. WILLIAMS replied that the conflict process is very sound,
and it would determine whether he could participate in any
proposal that was deemed potentially a conflict of interest for
him. He said permit stacking has been discussed for many years
and while looking at advancing something of that nature he has
spoken with many fishermen and many folks in the region that
support permit stacking. To say there is clearly overwhelming
support or overwhelming opposition to it isn't that easy. He
explained that the topic came about during the mid to early
2000s when the price for sockeye was 39-40 cents a pound, and
people were leaving the fishery and selling their permits for
$20,000 each. Records at the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC) show a drastic loss in permit ownership in
rural communities like Naknek, Dillingham, Egegik, and the
Iliamna Lake region. Those are things that stick in his mind as
to how to maintain local participation in the fishery and at the
same time how to achieve optimum numbers for the Bristol Bay
fishery.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired whether Mr. Williams has had to
conflict out of proposals during his year on the board and, if
so, how frequently.
MR. WILLIAMS responded that he has not had to conflict out of
proposals in the most recent months. He pointed out that the
[COVID] pandemic has really put constraints on the ability of
the Board of Fisheries to meet and deal with proposals.
3:40:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE noted that Mr. Williams lives in Anchorage
but fishes in Bristol Bay. He asked how much time Mr. Williams
spends in Bristol Bay.
MR. WILLIAMS answered that he would typically be out there now,
but for the late breakup and winter continuing. He said he goes
out there in April and returns to Anchorage the first week of
August. He and his sons then go back out for moose hunting
season in September and they are home by October.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE related that he has a relative who is a
limit seiner in the region. The relative does virtually the
same thing, except the relative lives on the Kenai Peninsula.
But he considers himself a coastal resident of Bristol Bay. He
asked whether Mr. Williams spends so much time in the Bristol
Bay area that he considers himself a resident.
MR. WILLIAMS replied he does consider himself as a resident. He
said many of the folks he sees out there say he probably spends
more time out there now than when he claimed residency there.
Ultimately, he does have close to his heart the residency that
he's grown to know out there, and at the same time he is very
happy to be a resident of Anchorage as well.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE summarized that Mr. Williams considers
himself a resident or semi-permanent resident of the coastal
area of Bristol Bay, while also being in the Pebble issue, which
seems as division as the fish issue. He inquired whether Mr.
Williams would ever make a decision for Pebble over fish, given
that his livelihood right now is fish and Pebble isn't even a
project yet. Representative McCabe related that there seems to
be some consternation that Mr. Williams has some sort of
relationship with Pebble but at the same time everybody is
discounting the relationship of Mr. Williams with fish. He
requested Mr. Williams to explain the tension between the two in
his own mind.
MR. WILLIAMS responded that throughout all his years living in
Naknek and King Salmon he was very active in local, Native,
community, and school board politics. He stated that watching
the issues in the communities is what prompted him to look at
Pebble from a different perspective. It would have been easy
for him as a fisherman to say no, absolutely not, and he thinks
that's where the angst from some of his colleagues comes from.
But, he continued, he has a certain respect and a love for the
communities of Bristol Bay to be the type of person who sits
down and looks at a project like this for the potential it has
in a region like Bristol Bay.
3:44:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK said that in looking at the comments on the
appointees he saw 29 that were from out of state relating to Mr.
Williams. He stated that first and foremost he is a
representative of Alaska and it should concern everybody that
people who don't live in Alaska are trying to influence who is
put on Alaska's boards. He said that kind of influence concerns
him, he doesn't appreciate those comments, and he wants Alaska
to be run by Alaskans.
3:45:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked Mr. Williams whether he feels he can
make decisions based upon scientific recommendations and not on
regional or sector preferences. If so, she further asked that
he provide an example from his year on the board.
MR. WILLIAMS answered yes. He said he has always prided himself
with the ability to sit down and listen to both sides and
maintain a level of awareness that would propel him to make a
decision based on both science and the factual information
presented. Within the limited time he's been on the board, he
would say that most recently the board was grappling with how to
make up time for its lost effort due to the pandemic. He
related that each and every board member expressed the desire to
catch up and get back on cycle knowing there were concerns
within ADF&G and others. But, he continued, the communities in
many ways felt that that may have been a little too aggressive
and trying to do that would potentially disenfranchise regions.
A great deal of comments were coming in that were complement to
the potential efforts there, and the majority of the comments
said to push this thing out a year and then regain ground in a
more meaningful way. He said that's when he agreed, and on
advice from ADF&G, staff, and many stakeholders throughout
Alaska, the board chose to do that.
3:48:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN stated for the record that she has
received dozens of letters from nonresidents of Alaska
advocating for the confirmation of Mr. Williams. While she did
not do a tally, most of them were blanket statements saying all
four appointees should be confirmed. If it were a non-Alaska
address, she just deleted it, but she said she would go back
through the trash to check that it was dozens. She further
stated that a couple hundred emails have been received about
Board of Fisheries appointees, pro and con, and it's fairly easy
to cast out the nonresidents and then return to what the
residents of Alaska say, which has been both pro and con.
MR. WILLIAMS commented that in Bristol Bay there is a little
over 1,800 drift permits, with more than half of those permits
owned by folks in the Lower 48. He said that throughout his
years of work he has never begrudged his colleagues from the
Lower 48; he respected their comments and their position with
regard to his work. However, he pointed out, it highlights the
problem of permits leaving Alaska's rural communities and
coastal communities, and ending up in out-of-state hands or
other places than for which one would think they were intended.
3:51:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated that in reading about permit
stacking, it sounds to him that the ideas of Mr. Williams on
permit stacking are an attempt to keep permits in Alaska. He
further stated that this has been seen many times - from beach
seines to setnet permits to individual fishing quotas (IFQs).
They all get sold and eventually they get sold to people from
out-of-state, which may or may not be good. It seems it would
be better to keep or sell them within a family, he continued.
He asked whether that is what Mr. Williams was after.
MR. WILLIAMS replied yes, that is part of the equation. He
stated that the fishery in Bristol Bay is very congested and
kind of oversubscribed, which has been highlighted by optimum
number studies done by ADF&G over the years. A multiple pronged
approach here would achieve what Representative McCabe is
talking about and at the same time would allow for a reduction
of gear in Bristol Bay and a more meaningful fishery. Many
families that live in the region either sold or transferred
permits out of their family because they weren't able to hang on
to them and fish them in a more meaningful way.
3:53:29 PM
JOHN WOOD, Appointee, Board of Fisheries, Alaska Department of
Fish & Game (ADF&G), testified as appointee to the Board of
Fisheries. He stated that after fulfilling his commitment to
the Louisiana Legislative Council he moved to Alaska in 1971
where he has made his home since. Upon arriving in Alaska he
worked with the Alaska Court System as a court attorney,
standing master, and acting probate master before going into
private practice. Now retired, he still works piecemeal on
contract with the State of Alaska, pursuant to which he advises
and reports directly to the governor on primarily labor related
issues; nothing relative to fisheries is involved in that
contract. Regardless, at every Board of Fisheries meeting he
has disclosed in his disclosure statement the existence of this
contract, and the board has never questioned that it does not
constitute a conflict of interest.
MR. WOOD said he believes strongly in volunteering his time and
talents to his community. He has served in many positions
during his 49 years in Alaska, including being elected for three
terms for almost 10 years on the Anchorage Assembly and serving
as chair for one of those years, active member of the Mount
McKinley Lions Club, board member of Greater Anchorage Inc.,
numerous years as board chair of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough
(MSB) Animal Control, member of the MSB Fish & Wildlife
Commission for several years, chairman of the MSB Salary and
Emoluments Committee, president of Alaska Sled Dog Racing
Association, director of the Montana Creek Dog Mushers, and
director and board member of the Alaska Power Boat Racing
Association.
MR. WOOD related that in 2013 he worked as staff for Senator
Dunleavy where he handled fishery issues. As such, he attended
the pertinent Board of Fisheries sessions, but also took it upon
himself to travel on his own time and nickel to actually visit
the fishing sites and speak directly with several east side
setnetters, as well as tour two processing facilities to get
their perspective. He has focused entirely on the health of
Alaska's fish stocks and ensuring the best chance for them to
flourish and return to their historic levels in both size and
numbers through all species. That remains his emphasis and he
approached a recent Board of Fisheries cycle with this as his
overriding goal.
MR. WOOD specified that since his initial appointment to the
Board of Fisheries he has continued reaching out to all
stakeholders. He related that on his own nickel and time he
attended the North Pacific Council Salmon Committee in Homer,
and while there he met with several seine netters as well as a
Homer processer. On his return home he spent an extra day to
meet with three east side setnetters about their fishery and the
legislative efforts underway to provide a buyout system that was
being moved by Senator Micciche. Because their arguments were
persuasive, at the board meeting he spoke strongly in favor of,
and voted for, their proposal that provided backfill provisions,
which is a key component of that buyback program. Also, he took
the opportunity to meet with Roland Maw and others at the
headquarters of United Cook Inlet Drift Association (UCIDA),
where he was given his first opportunity to read UCIDA's federal
Ninth Circuit lawsuit as well as listen to their concerns being
considered at the upcoming cycle.
3:58:08 PM
MR. WOOD stated that this last Board of Fisheries cycle dealt
with many contentious issues with strongly held beliefs and
convictions by all stakeholders involved. No participant in
past meetings would have predicted what occurred, he said.
Stakeholders who had been bitter rivals and barely spoke with
each other opened dialog and negotiated approaches that each
could live by and preserve their lifestyle. Who would have
thought that the Kenai River Sportfishing Association (KRSA),
Kenai River Professional Guide Association (KRPGA), and Eastside
Setnetters would actually work together to create a plan for
that area? They came extremely close to a total agreement but
fell short on one or two of the issues. Nonetheless, the dialog
was open, and he hopes it continues into the next round.
Equally amazing, Mr. Wood continued, is that the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough Fish and Wildlife Commission and the "northern
setnetters" did the same and together succeeded in strengthening
the paired restrictions while making them fairer. Additionally,
as the Kodiak meeting was winding down their advocacy group, the
Kodiak Salmon Work Group, initiated RC 131, which reached out to
create a study on all fisheries from Unimak Island to Prince
William Sound, including Cook Inlet, patterned on a highly
successful study conducted in Western Alaska. This Kodiak RC
131 was subsequently supported by a resolution of the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough Assembly.
MR. WOOD opined that there are those who wish to perpetuate the
fish wars for whatever reason, whether political, economic, or
simply harboring old grudges. He said his approach was and will
continue to be to listen and learn from all perspectives, as
well as to act as a catalyst to bring competing parties together
in a constructive setting and encourage them to work out their
differences. The parties will be much better served, and the
result will be accepted and honored if it is their own plan that
they created. He noted that he went through three legislative
hearings last year and participated in Representative Vance's
district meeting. He asked that his nomination be confirmed and
that the records of those three hearings be made a record within
this hearing. In response to Representative Tarr, he said he
was appointed to the Board of Fisheries in spring 2019 and has
gone through one full cycle, plus this year.
4:01:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES recalled Mr. Wood's statement that he has
a contract with the administration, reports directly to the
governor, and the contract has nothing related to fisheries.
She asked whether she is correct in understanding that Mr. Wood
is currently involved in the labor contract with some of the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game's employees.
MR. WOOD replied that the "supervisory employees union" has some
employees in the union that are at ADF&G.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES inquired whether Mr. Wood perceives that
to be a conflict in any capacity.
MR. WOOD responded, "Absolutely not, I'm at the 30,000-foot
level." He stated that other than Bob Murphy, who is on the
negotiating team, he wouldn't know who in ADF&G is a member of
that union.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether Mr. Wood is still on the MSB
Fish & Wildlife Commission.
MR. WOOD answered no. He stated that he resigned on the day he
was appointed to the Board of Fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES related that the MSB Fish & Wildlife
Commission met prior to the Board of Fisheries meeting in
Kodiak. Present at the commission's meeting were Mr. Wood, the
ADF&G commissioner, and a couple other Board of Fisheries
members. She said she had the opportunity to review the minutes
of the commission's meeting, "and a portion of the meeting
consisted of the anticipation of how and what you were going to
do at the Kodiak meeting and kind of determine which way it was
going to go." She asked whether she was looking at those
minutes with a tainted view and whether Mr. Wood could help her
understand it.
MR. WOOD replied he doesn't have a copy of the minutes in front
of him and doesn't recall a reference to the Kodiak meeting.
Perhaps it took place, he continued, but he doesn't remember it.
He said his purpose in being at the meeting was that the
commissioner was going to update the commission on the status of
the [Matanuska-Susitna] Valley.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES offered to provide Mr. Wood with a copy of
the minutes, but surmised Mr. Wood might have access to them.
4:04:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated she has tried to not like Mr. Wood
as a board member because of statements she heard a while back
that Mr. Wood said one of his goals was "to get fish in the Mat-
Su." So, automatically that created a conflict with the
interest of her district in the Cook Inlet. But, she continued,
one of the things she looks at in a board member is how he or
she interacts with all of the stakeholders and whether the board
member is truly fighting for the fishery itself. Because she
represents all the different fishing groups in her district, she
wants someone who can do no harm. She related that she did see
Mr. Wood at the meetings in Homer and he was interacting
directly with the different users. She added that she has heard
how Mr. Wood has been one of the most diligent members in
seeking everyone's input, which she appreciates. Because Mr.
Wood has continued to seek insight from all the different user
groups, she said she would like his insight on bycatch and what
the Board of Fisheries could do to strengthen Alaska's position
as a state for the fishery.
MR. WOOD responded that what jurisdiction the Board of Fisheries
would have on regulating in open water is highly questionable.
Coming up with a bottom line on what is actually happening is
needed so that it can be dealt with accordingly. He noted that
a question was asked earlier about what could be done to
increase the king salmon returns. He urged the committees to
invite Dr. David Welch of Kintama Research Services [a marine
environmental consultancy in Nanaimo, British Columbia] to
present his study findings that many of the problems are out in
the blue water and the bycatch is out in the blue water.
4:06:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE remarked that bycatch is of interest to all
stakeholders. She asked for Mr. Wood's opinion about what could
be a solution to sustain Alaska's king salmon runs.
MR. WOOD answered that he agrees with the earlier speaker who
said it's not particular to one region but is a problem
throughout the state. He related that while at the Anchorage
meeting, he met with Duncan Fields of Kodiak and Dr. Robert Foy,
[Science and Research Director of the Alaska Fisheries Science
Center], National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
He related that Dr. Foy said [NOAA] had several federal research
vessels working in Alaska waters and was in danger of losing one
to the Lower 48 because of lack of work. So Dr. Foy was trying
to solicit the state to join with the [federal government] to do
research in blue water; the money for the research facilities
was already in place and Dr. Foy had the vessels. Mr. Wood said
he spoke with U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan's office to see if the
senator could get on board and move it along because apparently
a word of authorization was needed, but it never caught traction
at that level, and he hasn't pursued it any further. He stated
that the single most important thing to deal with the king
salmon issue is to find out what is happening in the blue water
and then respond accordingly. Every net and line can be pulled
out of the water and still not have any positive results if the
problem is in the blue water, he added, and it seems to be.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated she too has heard from NOAA about
blue water, which is facing all fisheries, not just king salmon
returns. She returned to her statement regarding her bias
against Mr. Wood based on his stated goal to get fish up in the
Mat-Su. She asked what Mr. Wood sees as his role on the Board
of Fisheries and whether he still holds his previously stated
goal as his primary focus.
MR. WOOD replied that his primary focus is to get fish back into
all the streams, not just the Mat-Su. He said he doesn't recall
making the aforementioned statement, but nonetheless he looks
out at the resource before he even considers looking at the
allocative issues.
4:10:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE recalled Mr. Wood mentioning some new
relationships that have developed over his tenure on the board,
and remarked that it sounded like perhaps somebody with
interest-based negotiating experience had their hand on the
tiller. He inquired whether that was Mr. Wood.
MR. WOOD responded, "Yes it was and continues to be." He added
that he could provide other examples as well.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE thanked Mr. Wood and said he hopes Mr.
Wood will continue doing so.
4:11:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked why Mr. Wood's contract as a labor
negotiations consultant is through the governor's office rather
than through the [Division of Personnel and Labor Relations] in
the Department of Administration.
MR. WOOD answered that it is with both - the Department of
Administration as well as the governor's office.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired whether Mr. Wood is the person
behind the pay cut proposal that's before the supervisory union.
MR. WOOD replied no, he simply advises and monitors the
negotiations as they take place and advise the governor. The
decision as to what strategy to follow or take is up to the
governor and the chief of staff.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN related that a criticism brought to her
attention is that Mr. Wood was personal staff to Senator
Dunleavy and now has a substantial contract with him directly.
Even though that isn't a conflict of interest in the Board of
Fisheries conflict out context, she stated, it seems to be a
direct hand of the governor on the board. She requested Mr.
Wood to explain that he isn't there simply voicing the
governor's actions but rather is there as an objective member of
the Board of Fisheries.
MR. WOOD answered that that is a tough question to respond to
because what he says won't be given much credibility. He stated
that people who would jump to a conclusion such as that don't
know either Mike Dunleavy or John Wood. [Governor Dunleavy], he
continued, "would not ever put himself in a position of trying
to direct me to take any course of action on the Board of Fish
or anywhere else, nor would I allow it." Mr. Wood further
stated that the totality of the governor's comments over the
last two years has been the sarcastic remark of, "Are you having
fun yet?" when the publicity was ongoing and, "Do you think
what's being done at that Board of Fish is going to be
effective?" to which Mr. Wood said he responded that he hopes so
and time will tell.
4:13:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER addressed Mr. Wood's earlier response
that he would like to see fish go up a lot of the streams in the
state of Alaska. He offered his assumption that it takes fish
to make fish and they're not made in the ocean. He asked
whether that is the basis for Mr. Wood's comment.
MR. WOOD responded correct. Another element that goes along
with that, he added, is dealing with the habitat that the fish
are returning to.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER requested Mr. Wood to elaborate.
MR. WOOD stated that there are some changes being made, whether
it is the introduction of northern pike or elodea. For example,
during the Kodiak meetings he was told by Mr. Duncan Fields that
changes in one of the Chignik lakes may be either contributing
to or responsible for a lot of the [salmon] numbers falling
down. Habitat, Mr. Wood related, is something to look at to see
if there is indeed an issue there. He related that at the last
meeting he asked ADF&G to consider designating the Chignik lakes
as a stock of concern because this designation would require
that a plan be put together and the habitat would be part and
parcel of that plan.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER commented that he has known Mr. Wood for
10-15 years and has "never known him to be a yes-man to
anybody." He said Mr. Wood "definitely believes what he says
and says what he believes, and he'll tell you how it is no
matter what it is."
4:15:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ recalled Mr. Wood's opening comments that
he came from Louisiana, worked primarily in the legal world once
in Alaska, and served on community boards. He asked what Mr.
Wood thinks is the primary reason that Governor Dunleavy
nominated him to serve on the Board of Fisheries. He further
inquired about what specific experiences or past history of Mr.
Wood's would show the governor that he is qualified to serve on
the Board of Fisheries.
MR. WOOD replied that as staff to Senator Dunleavy he handled
all the fishery issues. In the [Matanuska-Susitna] Valley, he
stated, the impact of the lower fish numbers and closures
directly resulted in most of the lodges closing, many fish
businesses closing, and people in economic distress. He and
Senator Dunleavy were in daily communication at that time, and
it caused frustration that he spent so much time on the fish
issue. So, Governor Dunleavy knew of his knowledge of the Board
of Fisheries process. He surmised that Governor Dunleavy's
answer to the question would most likely be that they both
believe the primary concern is to get the fish returning in
sufficient numbers consistently in order to rebuild the stocks.
Once the stocks are rejuvenated, he continued, all users/all
harvesters will then benefit, but don't put the cart in front of
the horse.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked whether Mr. Wood is familiar with
all, some, or none of the letters of opposition to his
nomination. If familiar, he requested Mr. Wood's response to
the statements of opposition.
MR. WOOD responded he has not read all the statements that were
put into the record as he ran out of time this morning. He said
he is willing to answer any direct question that Representative
Ortiz may have.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ drew attention to a letter from the Kodiak
Seiners Association (KSA).
MR. WOOD said he did read that particular letter.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ requested Mr. Wood to summarize KSA's
points of opposition and provide his response to KSA's reasoning
of opposition.
MR. WOOD answered that his take of the letter is that it says he
is carrying the water for Governor Dunleavy and KSA doesn't feel
that is something that should be on the Board of Fisheries, but
no specific example was given. He said he doesn't recall KSA
reaching out to talk about it.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked what Mr. Wood would say to the
concern in general that the Board of Fisheries has traditionally
shown a balance between the interests directed toward commercial
fisheries and sports fisheries. He further asked whether Mr.
Wood thinks there is an importance to that balance and, based on
the current list of nominees, whether the needed balance would
be there.
MR. WOOD replied that he sees the current panel as having three
active people related to the commercial fishing industry - Mr.
Jensen, Mr. Godfrey, and Mr. Williams; three with noncommercial
interests - himself, Mr. Payton, and Ms. Mitchell; and Ms.
Carlson-Van Dort has formerly done commercial work. If there is
an imbalance, he continued, it is more toward the commercial end
of things, not the other way around.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ reiterated his question about whether Mr.
Wood thinks there is an importance to balance. He further asked
whether Mr. Wood thinks geographics should also be considered.
MR. WOOD responded that statute addresses geographics pretty
clearly. There is a value to it, he agreed, but what importance
is placed upon it - there are 60 legislators so there are
probably 60 different opinions. He said it helps to be able to
talk to Mr. Jensen on Southeast matters, and when he worked for
Senator Dunleavy, he talked several times with [previous board
member] Orville Huntington regarding subsistence issues. Each
person brings a different lifestyle to it, just as he brings a
different lifestyle to it.
4:21:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE noted that commercial fish, sport fish,
and subsistence fish have been talked about, but said that maybe
things should be a bit different. Perhaps being wrapped up in
one world, such as commercial fishing, is the wrong way to do
it, he opined, and maybe a wider, varied background such as
economics and negotiation would bring the parties together. He
inquired whether Mr. Wood thinks that is as important as
geographics or previous fishing experience.
MR. WOOD answered:
To me it is of utmost importance that you have
somebody on that body that understands how to bring
competing interests together. Even if you don't end
up with a final product that they all buy off on, you
start a dialog. And once that dialog starts and they
build trust amongst each other the conflicts will
diminish and the need for the board to be used in
intervention will diminish as well, and it will
benefit the fishery. But if you don't have any
dialog, they're just rolling the dice as to how many
of the board members they can convince to go their way
and it doesn't have to be a win or lose situation.
MR. WOOD continued his answer. He said economics is of critical
importance because, by law, two of the criteria used in
allocation deal with economics. Right now the board has no
access to an economist and the department has no economist, yet
two of the criteria deal specifically with that.
4:26:18 PM
CHAIR TARR opened public testimony on the appointments of John
Jensen, McKenzie Mitchell, Marit Carlson-Van Dort, Abe Williams,
and John Wood to the Board of Fisheries.
4:26:34 PM
HOWARD DELO testified in support of the confirmations of all
five appointees to the Board of Fisheries. He noted that he is
a former Board of Fisheries member. He said he hasn't met or
dealt with Ms. Mitchell or Mr. Williams in the context of board
operations, but has an extensive history dealing with Mr.
Jensen, a little bit shorter with Mr. Wood, and then Ms.
Carlson-Van Dort, and he was impressed with all three. It has
always been his opinion that the primary interest of a Board of
Fisheries member should be taking care of the resource first and
then worry about how to allocate it. All five nominees have
expressed that interest. The slate of nominees is impressive.
He urged that all five nominees be confirmed.
4:28:07 PM
CLIFTON IVANOFF testified in opposition to the confirmation of
Ms. Carlson-Van Dort. He stated he is a lifelong Alaskan who
grew up in a fishing family and he has commercially fished for
the last 25 years. He maintained that Ms. Carlson-Van Dort is
serving her personal interests over her civic duties and has
conducted herself unethically. She has proven she is biased
against the commercial fishing industry and should be replaced
with a nonbiased open-minded board member and not a sport
advocate pretending to be a commercial fisher supporter.
4:29:32 PM
MARCI NELSON ORTH testified in opposition to the confirmation of
Ms. Carlson-Van Dort. She said she is an Alutiiq woman
originally from the village of Afognak and later Port Lions.
She currently lives in Wasilla but still has a home in Port
Lions. She grew up in a family that fished Kodiak waters for a
livelihood for generations prior to that fishery being severely
stunted for Kodiak fishermen. In the past she personally fished
as a crewmember in the same areas, and has deep cultural roots
with fishing as not only her livelihood but also her
subsistence. Based on information gleaned throughout this past
year, her opinion is that Ms. Carlson-Van Dort should not be
confirmed and should be replaced with an open-minded
representative who will self-conflict out of proposals if
necessary, and will truly advocate for all fishermen's interests
in the state of Alaska.
4:30:54 PM
GREG JOHNSON, testified in opposition to the confirmation of Ms.
Carlson-Van Dort. He stated he was at the last board cycle in
Kodiak and was amazed at Ms. Carlson-Van Dort's obvious conflict
with her roots in Chignik. He couldn't believe she was allowed
to sit on the board and be involved in such big decisions that
were happening to the [Kodiak] fishery. Mr. Wood tried to find
solutions to problems and work with people, whereas Ms. Carlson-
Van Dort was the only one who didn't see the conflict with own
self. She didn't know how many people were fishing there and
she didn't have any answers to the questions that were asked of
her. He opposed her confirmation based on how she conducted
herself at that meeting. The board needs people who can find
solutions for what is going on in Chignik. There are problems
with the lake, it isn't everybody catching their fish; there are
no fish to catch because there are problems with that system.
4:32:18 PM
CHUCK MCCALLUM testified in support of the confirmations of Ms.
Mitchell, Ms. Carlson-Van Dort, and Mr. Wood. He said he is a
retired fisherman from Chignik, now residing in Anchorage.
Having participated in Board of Fisheries meetings for over 30
years, he has observed many board members over that time span.
Ms. Carlson-Van Dort consistently engages with stakeholders in
an effort to establish middle ground and identify negotiated
solutions to regulatory challenges. That some commercial
stakeholders are unwilling to compromise should not minimize her
efforts to achieve consensus in an increasingly polarized
process. Mr. Wood has demonstrated an extraordinary ability to
listen and understand all sides of complicated issues and to
work for reasonable and equitable management compromises. He
also brings an independent point of view and keen discernment
skills. The board needs intelligent, perceptive, and fair-
minded individuals like Mr. Wood. Both Ms. Carlson-Van Dort and
Mr. Wood have shown a willingness to listen, be thoughtful in
deliberation, and committed to working towards fair decisions on
challenging issues. Ms. Mitchell has served on the board since
July 1, 2020. She has limited experience in the Board of
Fisheries process, but she has made an effort to educate herself
in the last year and presents herself as a fair and open-minded
person. She has the makings of a good board member.
4:34:14 PM
TIMOTHY GERVAIS spoke to the conversation between Representative
Stutes and Ms. Carlson-Van Dort regarding the January 2020
Kodiak Board of Fisheries decisions. He stated that Cape Igvak
fishing didn't come into effect at all in 2020. The sockeye
escapement at the Chignik weir was so low that even under the
old regulations the Cape Igvak fishery wouldn't have been
opened. To date, there has been no economic loss to Kodiak
permit holders due to the 2020 Cape Igvak Board of Fisheries
decisions. In regard to the confirmation of Mr. Williams, Mr.
Gervais related that in a number of public forums he has read
and heard the position and opinion of Mr. Williams on the
Bristol Bay salmon fishery and Bristol Bay fish habitat. He
said the positions of Mr. Williams have been against fish,
against fisheries, against fishery habitat, against the Bristol
Bay commercial fleet, against the subsistence economy, and
against sport fishing. He regards Mr. Williams as a shill and a
promoter for the Pebble Partnership. The relationship of Mr.
Williams with the Pebble Partnership creates a bias against
healthy fisheries and against sustainability. He urged that the
committees not forward the confirmation of Mr. Williams and that
the legislature not approve the appointment of Mr. Williams.
4:36:18 PM
NORRIS JOHNSON testified in opposition to the confirmation of
Ms. Carlson-Van Dort. He said he has been a Kodiak fisherman
all his life. Mr. Johnson said that in the last Kodiak meeting
John Jensen voted against the seaward zone change for Kodiak and
testified that he knew he was speaking to deaf ears. Mr.
Johnson further said that the "corrupted position" of some of
the new board members was clear, specifically Ms. Carlson-Van
Dort. He continued:
Ms. Carlson had so much special interest, in regards
to Chignik, it was obvious that she shouldn't be
voting on that proposal. If her uncle hadn't sold his
Chignik permit two weeks before that meeting, she
would not have been allowed to vote on the proposal.
While her uncle selling [his] permit made her vote
legal, it did not change her special interest. This,
along with the fact that Ms. Carlson is president of
the Chignik village corporation, shows how much she is
invested into one specific fishing area and she should
have removed herself from voting on that proposal.
Her bias is further emphasized by a slip of her tongue
at the Kodiak meeting when on record she said "we"
instead of "I," indicating that she and Chignik were
one party instead of herself singularly. I think that
that was poor judgment on her part to not remove
herself from that decision and that that means that
she shouldn't be qualified to serve on the Alaska
Board of Fish.
MR. JOHNSON addressed an earlier conversation regarding there
being three board members for other areas who could have voted
against Ms. Carlson-Van Dort. He stated that two out of the
three didn't vote -- one left early and the other one couldn't
vote because he had a conflict of interest for Kodiak. The
proposals implemented on Kodiak were not protecting the fish
because there was already a plan in place for that, he said.
Sustainability and making the runs come back is up to ADF&G, not
the Board of Fisheries.
4:38:55 PM
FRANCES LEACH, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska
(UFA), testified in opposition to the confirmation of Ms.
Carlson-Van Dort. She noted that United Fishermen of Alaska
(UFA) is a statewide commercial fishing organization with 37
fishing member groups specializing in the best interest and
advocacy for commercial fishermen in the state. She said UFA is
aware that the Board of Fisheries has no designated seats in
statute, but UFA also knows that each board member comes with
his or her own expertise or background in fisheries or science.
Every user group knows what side of the fence each member of the
Board of Fisheries sits on. In this case, regardless of which
seat she represents, Ms. Carlson-Van Dort is an advocate for the
sport fish sector. Ms. Carlson-Van Dort's voting record shows
that she leans pro-sport and is biased against commercial
fishing proposals unless they benefit Chignik's commercial
interests. Alaska's people and resources cannot afford to have
biased board members who are willing to hurt user groups and
resources for the benefit of their own interests. The balance
issues on the Board of Fisheries must be fixed so that user
groups will stop fighting this ridiculous war over who gets to
manage Alaska's fishery resources. Until this deep-rooted
imbalance is fixed, individuals who openly wear their biased
positions should not be appointed.
4:40:37 PM
SUSAN DOHERTY, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Seiners
Association (SEAS), in regard to the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC), pointed out that these commissioners are not
like other commissioners in the state's system. She said the
CFEC department, and its commissioners are fully funded by fees
commercial fishermen pay for their licenses. A postage stamp-
sized department, the CFEC is responsible for ensuring that
fishermen have every opportunity to prosecute their fishery
without glitches to their annual permit renewal or transfers.
This requires prompt and oftentimes compassionate help from CFEC
staff to deal with a myriad of individual hardships that may
occur. The CFEC has only two commissioners who oftentimes have
to roll up their sleeves and help staff. The current
commissioner's term will expire in one year, and if history is
any indication, she will not be reappointed. That will leave
the CFEC with a commissioner at the helm with one year of very
limited knowledge and experience. The CFEC has two attorneys,
one is a hearing officer and the other is a law specialist.
During questioning, the appointee didn't seem to understand that
the hearing officer breaks the tie for cases when the two
commissioners disagree. This does not negate the appointee's
need to understand and be able to come to a legal decision on
his own. Ms. Doherty said SEAS is disappointed that the
administration didn't reach out to identify candidates that are
already highly qualified instead of spending the fishermen's
hard-earned dollars and the remaining time of the current
commissioner on training and educating the second commissioner
instead of doing the work that could be done this year. Making
Mr. Smith the chair adds insult to injury. She implored the
committees to demand an appointee that is highly qualified at
the time of hire so as to not jeopardize this very important
commission.
MS. DOHERTY, in regard to the Board of Fisheries, offered the
support of SEAS for the confirmation of Mr. Jensen. She noted
Mr. Jensen has served since 2003 and has a wealth of knowledge.
Continuity is desperately needed on the board, she added. In
regard to Marit Carlson-Van Dort, she stated that when the
governor submitted Ms. Carlson-Van Dort's name he highlighted
her experience as a commercial fisher as justification for
appointment to add balance to the board. While Ms. Carlson-Van
Dort has reached out to user groups prior to the official
meetings, it's imperative that all user groups have access to
the board while information is given during public testimony and
dialog at the Committee of the Whole and during breaks. Ms.
Doherty said this is where people are speaking from that there
was no access to Ms. Carlson-Van Dort and that her mind was
already made up. Ms. Carlson-Van Dort's efforts to educate
herself prior to the meetings are appreciated, but that
relationship is only the beginning. In regard to Ms. Carlson-
Van Dort's comments that she satisfied everything required under
the law about conflict of interest, Ms. Doherty said that that
does not speak to transparency and humbling one's self to the
people a board member has agreed to serve.
4:46:55 PM
BEN MOHR, Executive Director, Kenai River Sportfishing
Association (KRSA), testified in support of the confirmations of
all five appointees to the Board of Fisheries. He explained
that KRSA is a charitable nonprofit dedicated to ensuring the
sustainability of the world's premier sport fishing region,
which is Alaska. He said KRSA believes a balance between all
user groups provides the best management of Alaska's fisheries,
and these five appointees represent a balance between sport,
commercial, and subsistence user groups. These appointees have
demonstrated an understanding that service on the Board of
Fisheries is a public trust responsibility and that their
decisions are answerable to all Alaskans. The board members
have proven to be accessible to the public, and they provide
thoughtful consideration of all perspectives brought before
them. He said Chair Carlson-Van Dort has been a welcome
presence on the board. Her decision-making has indicated a
preference for accuracy and precision in management and for
ensuring long-term sustainability of Alaska's fisheries. Mr.
Wood's hallmark at the Upper Cook Inlet meeting was to encourage
collaboration between stakeholders, and constantly encouraging
different sectors to work together to reach the board's ultimate
goal of conserving and developing Alaska's fisheries resources.
Mr. Jensen has served Alaska with distinction for many years.
His experience and knowledge of Alaska's fisheries sectors is an
asset to the state. Ms. Mitchell brings to the board a new and
fresh perspective and her position as an economist will help
influence the decision making process of the board when it comes
to the board's core goals. Mr. Williams has been an active
participant in the Bristol Bay commercial fishery for the better
part of 30 years, and has often been one of the most successful
fishermen in the district.
4:49:40 PM
LORENA SKONBERG, Acting Chair, Ouzinkie Native Corporation
(ONC), testified in opposition to the confirmation of Ms.
Carlson-Van Dort. She stated that the Ouzinkie Native
Corporation has worked with the Board of Fisheries for decades,
and in doing so at the board's January 2020 meeting in Kodiak
ONC found Ms. Carlson-Van Dort's actions offensive and wrong,
the details of which were submitted [to the committees] in
writing yesterday. The Ouzinkie Native Corporation supports the
Board of Fisheries process with the expectation that board
members will use their knowledge and experience to evaluate and
make decisions on conflicts and difficult fishery issues, being
unbiased, open minded, and not having economic or personal
conflicts of interest. By her actions and interactions with
stakeholders, Ms. Carlson-Van Dort has demonstrated that she has
a strong bias, has personal conflicts of interest, and has shown
little interest in better understanding complex fishery issues.
4:51:09 PM
ERNIE WEISS testified in support of the confirmation of Mr.
Jensen. Mr. Weiss noted that he is a member of the Anchorage
Fish & Game Advisory Committee, but qualified that today he is
speaking on behalf of himself. He emphasized that Mr. Jensen is
effective in interacting with stakeholders and in general public
outreach. Mr. Jensen has the experience and the ability to get
work done on the board and has a perspective that is needed on
the board as a long-time board member, as a lifelong Alaskan and
fisherman, and his experience on other management bodies like
the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Above all, Mr.
Jensen is fair and will continue to work with all stakeholders
for the best fishery management decisions for the people and
fishery resources of the state. He offered his appreciation for
Mr. Jensen's willingness to serve one more term.
4:52:15 PM
MOLLY MILLER testified in opposition to the confirmation of Mr.
Williams. She stated she was born and raised in Kodiak, got her
start in commercial fishing on her father's boat in Kodiak, and
is currently a permit holder in Bristol Bay. She expressed her
belief that the connection of Mr. Williams to the Pebble Mine
constitutes a conflict of interest with being on the Board of
Fisheries. She stated that it shows Mr. Williams does not put
the resource first, nor the fishery first. The potential
impacts of the Pebble Mine on the Bristol Bay fishery are
devastating, she added. She expressed her concern about the
lack of representation of coastal communities within this group
of appointees and urged that members of the committees keep this
in mind when considering the appointees.
4:53:35 PM
NATE ROSE, President, Kodiak Seiners Association (KSA),
testified in opposition to the confirmation of Ms. Carlson-Van
Dort. He said KSA represents over 100 active seine permit
holders in the Kodiak area, as well as a number of crewmembers
and local area businesses. He noted that under AS 16.05.221,
regardless of whether statute determines that a seat is a
commercial, sport, or subsistence seat, the fact of the matter
is that members are appointed to the board with a view to
providing diversity of interests and points of view in the
membership. The board is currently skewed and the diversity of
interest, while some of the individuals have participated in
every sector, there is no diversity of interests when it comes
to the actual votes being taken. Regardless of her user group
affiliation under this statute, Ms. Carlson-Van Dort's voting
record is that she votes with sport fish interest groups. The
governor's appointees should provide diversity, and Ms. Carlson-
Van Dort cannot do that in an unbiased manner that doesn't put
her self-interest and the interest of the Chignik region over
sustainability of the runs.
4:56:12 PM
ALEXUS KWACHKA testified in opposition to the confirmations of
Ms. Carlson-Van Dort and Mr. Williams. He said he is a 43-year
resident of Alaska, 34 years as a resident of Kodiak. A sport
fisherman, subsistence user, and commercial fisherman, his
household owns four limited entry permits from Kodiak to Bristol
Bay. He said Ms. Carlson-Van Dort should have recused herself
in the Kodiak meeting because there was an association and a
bias of opinion, and it was egregious to be sitting in the
audience. People who have not been confirmed to the board are
making decisions and voting; if not confirmed a person should
not be voting. In regard to earlier comments about influence by
outsiders, he pointed out that the Pebble Partnership is an
outside foreign entity that would potentially undermine Bristol
Bay, something he is worried about. In regard to earlier
comments about bycatch and blue [water], he noted that those are
federal waters. Alaska has six voting members on the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council, which votes on bycatch, so
that is the place to address bycatch, given Alaska has the
controlling number of votes on that body.
4:58:28 PM
GEORGE PIERCE testified in opposition to the confirmations of
Ms. Mitchell, Ms. Carlson-Van Dort, and Mr. Williams. He stated
that some of the appointees to the Board of Fisheries are out of
touch with Alaska's fishery. There's controversy over Mr.
Williams who is Director of Regional Affairs for Pebble Mine,
Ms. Carlson-Van Dort who is a former director with the Pebble
Mine, and Ms. Mitchell who is one-sided. The problem is special
interest groups. Most of these nominees are inland
representatives; only one is a coastal representative. This is
a stacking of the deck, a big red flag, and a joke on Alaskans
and Alaska's fish. Fish are a renewable resource, mining isn't.
Alaska is a fish state and Alaskans are opposed to the Pebble
Mine. He urged that freshmen legislators listen to Alaskans,
not lobbyists.
5:00:57 PM
VIRGIL UMPHENOUR testified in support of the confirmations of
all five appointees to the Board of Fisheries. He noted he used
to be a commercial fisherman on the Yukon [River], owns a meat
and fish processing plant in Fairbanks, served three terms on
the Board of Fisheries, and has been a member of the "Yukon
River Panel to the salmon treaty with Canada" since 1988. He
offered his belief that Ms. Carlson-Van Dort has a great degree
of integrity and moral courage. He stated that the United
Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) went after him on each of his
appointments using false innuendos and statements, just as UFA
is doing now to Ms. Carlson-Van Dort. To be a good board member
requires doing research and knowing science and Ms. Carlson-Van
Dort does that. Ms. Mitchell is new and while in college was a
student of one of his daughters at the University of Alaska
Fairbanks (UAF). He urged members of the committees to go along
with what the actual record says, not what UFA says. Her
decisions on Upper Cook Inlet were based on conservation. The
Board of Fisheries did the same thing when he was on the board
and after he got off the board Mr. Jensen and others reversed
it. Now it has been reversed again to get escapement on the
Yentna River and up the Susitna drainage.
5:03:01 PM
GARY HOLLIER commented in regard to Ms. Mitchell and Ms.
Carlson-Van Dort and testified in support of the confirmations
of Mr. Jensen, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Wood. Mr. Hollier stated
he is a lifelong resident of Kenai and an eastside setnetter in
contentious Cook Inlet. He related that he has been to every
Upper Cook Inlet Board of Fisheries meeting since 1986 and has
personally interacted with 59 different board members. To be a
good board member requires being available, using the best
science available, and being fair when allocating, which is what
the Board of Fisheries is all about. He said he doesn't know a
thing about Ms. Mitchell except for her statement that Reed
Morisky asked her to apply for the board. Mr. Morisky, he
continued, was on the board for three terms, never once voted in
a positive for commercial fishermen, and was biased and
hopefully Ms. Mitchell isn't. He stated that Ms. Carlson-Van
Dort made herself very available at the Upper Cook Inlet meeting
in 2020; she listened to the science but didn't follow it, and
while there she never voted for a commercial fishing proposal.
He said he doesn't know a thing about Mr. Williams, but liked
his presentation and therefore is in favor of his confirmation.
He urged that Mr. Jensen be confirmed and offered his hope that
Mr. Jensen would stay on the board for five more terms because
he is one of the best board members Alaska has had. He
specified that he didn't know Mr. Wood until three or four years
ago when Mr. Wood showed up at his beach site and asked many
questions. Mr. Wood has tried to solve a lot of problems in
Cook Inlet and is an excellent board member. He said he hopes
Mr. Wood is confirmed.
5:04:57 PM
DENISE MAY testified in opposition to the confirmation of Ms.
Carlson-Van Dort. She said she is Ag'Wanarmiut Afognak people
from Kodiak Island Archipelago. She said she attended the
Kodiak meeting and was not impressed by Ms. Carlson-Van Dort at
that meeting, but she was impressed by today. It had nothing to
do with the vote, it had to do with Ms. Carson-Van Dort's
demeanor and her ability to sit and listen and understand some
of the Kodiak issues and to engage with that. Ms. May said she
was disappointed because she always supports her fellow Native
women in leadership, but she was disappointed in Ms. Carlson-Van
Dort's demeanor. The [appointees] just went through a job
interview and people are at their best at a job interview, she
continued. Look at the record and see what Ms. Carlson-Van Dort
has done and see if she has followed the science and decide
based on that because a lot of things were not addressed that
Ms. Carlson-Van Dort did and it's not good if someone is going
to represent people. No core Native values were seen in Ms.
Carlson-Van Dort at that meeting, and while maybe she has on
other days "that day was a bad day for all of us and it divides
people and we're not about dividing people."
5:06:54 PM
CHELSEA HAISMAN, Executive Director, Cordova District Fishermen
United (CDFU), testified in opposition to the confirmation of
Ms. Carlson-Van Dort and in support of the confirmation of Mr.
Jensen. She referenced the questions surrounding the perceived
conflict of interest in Ms. Carlson-Van Dort's decisions at the
Kodiak meeting. She said it is critical that board members take
the time to listen and engage with the public regardless of the
user group in which they participate. It is also critical for
board members to weigh their decisions carefully using the
information presented in written and verbal testimony, reports
provided by ADF&G, and during committee work within the
meetings. Additionally, CDFU has significant concerns that the
balance of the board has recently deviated from historical norms
and precedents. Coastal communities are intimately tied to the
decisions made by the Board of Fisheries, but are vastly
underrepresented. The divide between rural and urban areas has
become more pronounced, and the balance between user groups
remains heavily weighted toward sport fish interests. She
encouraged legislators to carefully consider the comments
provided today and ensure that the balance of the board is not
too heavily weighted toward urban, noncoastal regions, or toward
one user group over others. She said CDFU supports Mr. Jensen
given his history on the board as a fair, engaged, and well-
rounded board member. Mr. Jensen has been involved in all user
groups over the last 30 years and his experience within both the
sport and commercial sector makes him an ideal candidate for
this position.
5:08:32 PM
JULIE KAVANAUGH testified in support of the confirmation of Mr.
Jensen, in opposition to the confirmation of Mr. Williams, and
expressed concern about Ms. Mitchell, Ms. Carlson Van-Dort, and
Mr. Wood. Ms. Kavanaugh said she is 100 percent dependent on
state and federal fisheries resources. She noted she serves on
the Kodiak [Fish & Game] Advisory Committee to the Board of
Fisheries, the advisory panel to the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council, the Joint Fisheries Work Group for the City
& Borough of Kodiak, and as an elected official in her
community, but specified that this is her personal testimony.
She stated she supports the confirmation of Mr. Jensen and said
he is a valuable direct link and liaison to the federal process
as a member of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.
She stated she opposes the confirmation of Mr. Williams.
MS. KAVANAUGH stated she is concerned about Ms. Mitchell, Ms.
Carlson Van-Dort, and Mr. Wood due to their lack of regional and
stakeholder diversity and specifically their lack of coastal and
commercial fishing representation, more specifically the
representation for harvesters that utilize fish for consumers
via retail stores, restaurants, and direct sales. There is no
balance, she continued, and any link that has been expressed is
tenuous and vague. Ms. Kavanaugh related that she attended the
2020 Board of Fisheries meeting in Kodiak, and after public
testimony a non-confirmed member stated, "That was a great
therapeutic exercise for those involved." She said another
member commented that the extensive work and reference material
presented by the Kodiak Fisheries Work Group was overdone and
too extensive, which she interpreted to mean it was unnecessary.
She was told directly prior to this meeting not to expect
agreement when it comes to salmon issues in Kodiak. She said
that this testimony is difficult for her and that there are many
communities and individuals wanting to testify but they are
concerned with the potential damage to relationships with the
decision makers that have a stranglehold on their livelihoods.
5:10:49 PM
RAYMOND MAY testified in opposition to the confirmation of Ms.
Carlson-Van Dort. He stated he is a lifelong Alaskan, a third
generation fisherman, his grandparents came from Afognak Island
and Kodiak Island, and he owns multiple permits across the state
of Alaska in multiple state fisheries. He said he attended the
Kodiak meetings and believes Ms. Carlson-Van Dort is unethical,
comes with a pre-determined judgment on issues, and is a
difficult board member to speak with. He heard Ms. Carlson-Van
Dort say she was there to bring compromise, but said compromise
isn't taking from one person and giving to another, so there was
no compromise. There are many other things he could point out,
he continued, but he is putting himself on the line here because
of being a multiple permit holder across the state and he must
deal with whoever is confirmed for years to come. It was a big
step for him to come forth and speak against someone, he added,
but rather than representing the state of Alaska Ms. Carlson-Van
Dort has a personal agenda and she is carrying out.
5:12:37 PM
BONNIE LILLEY testified in opposition to the confirmation of Mr.
Williams. She stated that Mr. Williams, as a director with the
Pebble Mine, and Pebble Mine having filed a lawsuit to keep the
fisheries from opposing someone with a mining interest to be
allowed on the board, should be enough to not confirm him. It
is obscene to believe there is no conflict of interest, she
continued. Mr. Williams just confirmed that he looks at Pebble
Mine in a different light, already clearly supporting Pebble
Mine and, in her opinion, it is impossible to not influence
Pebble Mine's goals, which have been opposed over and over by
the people of Alaska, overwhelmingly. Saying it is out-of-
staters trying to direct Alaska's decisions is a ridiculous
statement, as the majority of Alaskans have opposed the mine.
It is hard for the people of Alaska to learn what is truly going
on because of nondisclosure laws. Members of the committees
should put the people of Alaska first, a requirement that
legislators agreed to do when accepting their positions, and
which makes this decision easy. More time should be set aside
to give everyone wishing to speak the ability to do so. Today,
people waited four hours to speak and then were only given one
and a half minutes. Many people are unable to take the whole
day waiting to be able to speak.
5:14:39 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK reminded the public to submit written testimony,
which legislators look forward to reading while they contemplate
their decisions.
CHAIR TARR added that the cutoff for witnesses was so that
everyone who had signed up to testify could be heard today. She
allowed it would be up to the committees to decide whether to
have additional testimony.
5:15:19 PM
DYLAN BEAN testified in opposition to the confirmation of Ms.
Carlson-Van Dort. He noted he is a lifelong Alaskan and a
combination fisherman who fishes the entire Gulf of Alaska. He
stated he believes Ms. Carlson-Van Dort displayed extreme bias
at the last meetings in Kodiak and that she made decisions on
emotion and personal interest, not science and fact. If allowed
to stay on the board, she will damage the legitimacy and
reputation of the board, he continued. As long as she is on the
board, people in Kodiak and other areas surrounding Chignik will
never get a fair trial. Ms. Carlson-Van Dort said in her
opening statement that her grandfather's father and generations
of her family have fished Chignik in that water, and that Alaska
fisheries paid for her schooling and many things in her and her
family's lives. It has to be assumed that it was Chignik reds
that were paying for all those things. So how can she tell the
state that she is not biased toward that water system, which her
family lineage has been a part of for 7,000 years? People in
Kodiak have strong ties to villages and the people in them, and
know the connection there, and so he is not buying that Ms.
Carlson-Van Dort is unbiased.
5:16:58 PM
SPENCER ROBINSON testified in opposition to the confirmation of
Mr. Williams. He specified that he was born and raised in
Alaska and is a young fisherman. He has fished four seasons in
upper eastside Cook Inlet and will be fishing in Bristol Bay
this summer. In regard to Mr. Williams, he said there isn't a
more clear-cut conflict of interest than Pebble Mine, and it is
ridiculous to entertain the idea that that isn't going to have
implications on decisions made on the Board of Fisheries. He
said he doesn't see how someone holding seats on both the Board
of Fisheries and the Pebble Mine can be interpreted as something
that is not a concern for commercial, subsistence, and sport
fishing interests.
5:18:07 PM
DUNCAN FIELDS, Chairman, Kodiak Salmon Work Group, testified in
opposition to the confirmation of Ms. Carlson-Van Dort. He
related that this would be his sixtieth season fishing the same
place on Kodiak Island. He said the Kodiak Salmon Work Group
represents Kodiak Island's salmon fishermen from all gear types
as well as the processors and community stakeholders. Working
primarily on Board of Fisheries issues, the group develops
materials, information, and data to present at the board's
meetings, and has been engaged in the board process for 30
years. He stated that the Kodiak Salmon Work Group's
opposition to Ms. Carlson-Van Dort is based on her failure to
disclose personal conflicts of interest, and on which the group
has submitted a detailed seven-page letter relative to the legal
basis. She failed to disclose her personal conflicts of
interest when looking at the sum total of the circumstances of
her engagement with Chignik as a community and with the Chignik
fisheries. Mr. Fields maintained that two misconceptions should
have been clarified in Ms. Carlson-Van Dort's presentation.
First, the Igvak Management Plan was not, and is not, a
conservation issue. The plan first provided that Chignik gets
the escapement that it needs and then it provided an additional
100,000 fish to Chignik fishermen, all before the Kodiak fleet
even went fishing. It was a $6-$8 million guarantee to the
Chignik fishermen before the Kodiak fleet went fishing. It
wasn't a conservation issue, he continued, it was straight up an
allocation decision made in 1968 that balanced the equities
between the two fishery groups. A single Board of Fisheries
member who had personal conflict of interest disrupted that
balance at the last Kodiak meeting. The second issue had to do
with the question from Representative Stutes about how sockeye
are counted in Chignik and whether it should be viewed more as
mixed stock fishery. [Indisc.] biological issues in Chignik
Lake because they count all of the sockeye of Chignik fish, so
they overestimate the amount of fish available for that system.
It is a detailed biological argument and Representative Stutes
is on to something and Ms. Carlson-Van Dort should have owned up
to there being biological concerns with the identification of
Chignik for the mixed stock fishery.
5:21:28 PM
GARY CLINE, Regional Fisheries Director, Bristol Bay Economic
Development Corporation (BBEDC), testified in opposition to the
confirmation of Mr. Williams. He related that BBEDC represents
17 communities and roughly 6,000 residents in the region. He
said it is appalling that the governor would appoint someone to
the Board of Fisheries that currently works for the Pebble Mine,
especially when the main role of the board is to conserve and
develop the fishery resources of the state. This presents a
huge conflict of interest, he continued, as a member of the
Board of Fisheries should not work for a highly controversial
project that could devastate the ecosystem and economy of the
Bristol Bay salmon fishery. The BBEDC firmly believes that the
Bristol Bay salmon fishery has been so resilient and sustainable
because the natural environment is still intact and unscathed.
It's clear the Pebble project would destroy certain drainages
and salmon populations of the Nushagak and Kvichak rivers.
Furthermore, if Pebble were to be developed it could potentially
disrupt the marketability of Bristol Bay salmon for future
generations. This was demonstrated when the superior court
judge dismissed the lawsuit that Abe Williams was a part of when
trying to sue the Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development
Association (BBRSDA) for funding groups opposed to Pebble Mine.
Additionally, this would undermine all the efforts that fishers
have made to improve the quality and value of their catch,
including the marketing endeavors by Alaska Seafood Marketing
Institute (ASMI) and BBRSDA. The BBEDC believes it's important
to see more representation on the Board of Fisheries from
residents that actually reside in rural coastal communities
where the fisheries take place, as they bring invaluable
knowledge to the board on how proposals may impact the
stakeholders that participate in those fisheries.
5:23:18 PM
SYLVIA KAVANAUGH testified in support of the confirmation of Mr.
Jensen and expressed concern about the appointment of Mr.
Williams. She said she is a lifelong Kodiak resident who comes
from a commercial fishing family. She worked for her father for
many years in a variety of fisheries, and now as the mother of
two girls her family remains reliant on commercial fishing for
its household income, as her husband is also a commercial
fisherman. She said she supports Mr. Jensen's confirmation
because he has been a longstanding member of the Board of
Fisheries and holds a unique position as a former working
fisherman with a depth of understanding that comes from years of
involvement directly through the process and active engagement.
She said the appointment of Abe Williams is quite concerning
given his affiliation with the Pebble Mine. It is untenable to
the majority of the groups that benefit from Alaska's salmon
resource that he is a Pebble Mine employee.
MS. KAVANAUGH stated that she has a general concern about this
administration's appointments overall, and the balance of
representation is not reflective of all stakeholders. The other
nominees have very tenuous links to coastal Alaska, do not
reside there, and have demonstrated a bias for specific regional
goals. During the January 2020 Board of Fisheries meeting in
Kodiak, hundreds of testimonies were taken on salmon issues, but
the board demonstrated a lack of consideration or responsiveness
for the overwhelming testimony. Residents from Kodiak were
asked in the stakeholder meeting if they felt their testimony
mattered. Not a single person felt that his or her comments
were taken under advisement, and a common opinion was that the
outcomes were predetermined. It's difficult to oppose
appointees when they may become successfully seated and have
leadership roles that could impact one individual's access. The
lack of diversity within the appointees is disappointing, and
Mr. Jensen is the only appointee she can support.
5:25:48 PM
BRENT BORCHERD stated he is a nonresident and finds it extremely
insulting that Representatives Cronk and Hannan think
nonresidents have no say in the world-class fisheries that
Alaska has to offer. He said he is a recreational fishing guide
who makes one-third to one-half of his income from guiding
people on their bucket list trip in Alaska. Everyone that pays
taxes in Alaska and contributes to the world-class fisheries in
Alaska should have a say. He is against any Pebble employee who
has had a dime put into their bank account from Pebble being on
the Board of Fisheries because anything that a Pebble employee
says has a bias on this. He thanked [the Board of Fisheries]
for its many years of work to make Alaska continue to be a
bucket list trip for people all over the world.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked what tax Mr. Borcherd pays in
Alaska.
MR. BORCHERD replied he pays employment taxes. Responding
further to Representative Stutes, he said State of Alaska taxes
are taken out of his paychecks.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES pointed out that the State of Alaska has
no taxes, but there are federal taxes.
MR. BORCHERD responded he would talk to his accountant.
5:28:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked whether Mr. Borcherd, as a sport
guide working in Alaska, thinks there is a need to take a look
at limited entry for sport guides in Alaska or whether the
current situation is okay in terms of promoting stability and
sustainability of Alaska's fisheries overall.
MR. BORCHERD answered he thinks there should be limited use on a
lot of the premier rivers. Over his 15 years of guiding, with a
few years off to raise his children, the increase of pressure on
the recreational fisheries out there has gone through the roof
astronomically. The fishery should be limited to protect the
overall recreational stability and recreational enhancement of
the tourists' enjoyment. It is turning into Disneyland with a
cattle line of guides and clients going down rivers every day.
Some kind of permit system, or something to protect that
situation, [is needed] because these are the nursery rivers of
the salmon and it needs to be protected with historical clients
and historical lodges.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked about Mr. Borcherd's main residence.
MR. BORCHERD replied he lives in Michigan and goes to Bristol
Bay every summer to take clients out. Working at fly-out lodges
in the Bristol Bay region he has guided thousands of clients.
5:30:29 PM
DANIEL MILLER testified in opposition to the confirmation of Mr.
Williams. He related that he has lived in Kodiak continuously
for 45 years and has been a commercial fisherman that entire
time. He sold his Bristol Bay permit to his daughter who fishes
Bristol Bay now. He stated that Mr. Williams is an advocate for
Pebble Mine and was also involved in a lawsuit suing a marketing
association, trying to silence the group with a frivolous
lawsuit. As a strong advocate for Pebble, Mr. Williams would be
a terrible board member. Mr. Miller related that last year a
friend of his who is an investor in Northern Dynasty told him
that Pebble would provide lots of jobs for the local people
taking mine tailings down the rivers. Pebble is going to be a
terrible marketing problem for Bristol Bay, he continued, if not
an environmental disaster. The strong stance of Mr. Williams on
permit stacking is another reason for his opposition. Mr.
Williams wants to be able to own a permit and not go out on the
boat. Somebody can stack a bunch of permits and not hire
anyone. His daughter actually works on a boat, as do a lot of
people because they don't have to own the boat, but they fish on
it, and that option should be left open for those people.
5:32:24 PM
ERIN WILLAHAN testified in opposition to the confirmation of Mr.
Williams. She noted she is a lifelong Alaskan and currently an
eastside setnetter in Upper Cook Inlet. She stated that even
though she respects his experience and agrees with some of the
points Mr. Williams brought up about keeping permits in Alaska,
particularly creating opportunities for permits to stay in the
hands of rural Alaskan residents, having an employee of Pebble
Mine is a clear conflict of interest and also erodes the trust
in the Board of Fisheries. She urged the appointment of a less
divisive candidate who doesn't have present ties to Pebble Mine.
Fisheries management is obviously inextricably linked to the
protection of the habitat that makes Alaska's fisheries possible
in the first place. There is no way to reconcile the conflict
of interest brought between managing allocation of fisheries and
a vested interest in the Pebble Mine.
5:33:51 PM
KIRIL BASARIGIM, K-Bay Fisheries Association, testified in
opposition to the confirmations of Ms. Carlson-Van Dort and Mr.
Williams. He related he has been fishing since he was born in
Alaska. His parents are from Cordova and the Aleutian Islands
back to Bristol Bay. He said his association represents 48
fishing members and over 200 families from Alaska who were and
still are fishermen for half a century. They reside from north
in Delta all the way down to the Peninsula of Homer, including
the Kodiak islands. He stated that the association strongly
opposes Ms. Carlson-Van-Dort's confirmation because of her
conflict of interest from her strong ties to the Pebble Mine
project and Far West Incorporated, which have no interest in
helping Alaskas fisheries become sustainable. She does not
rely on the highly respected Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G), the science studied by ADF&G, and the hard work put
into helping to keep Alaska's oceans sustainable. An example
is when fish come into contaminated lakes to spawn, almost more
than half or none of the fish come out of the lake because their
bodies have been deceased by the contamination." He stated that
K-Bay Fisheries Association also opposes the confirmation of Mr.
Williams due to his conflict of interest in the Pebble Mine
project. The interests of Mr. Williams are making bigger
profits for the Pebble Mine project instead of sustainability
for Alaskan fisheries and not for the fishermen and fishing
communities in Alaska.
5:37:12 PM
RICK DELKITTIE testified in opposition to the confirmation of
Mr. Williams. He said he is a subsistence user and opposes Mr.
Williams because the conflict is imminent. He explained that he
relies on the fisheries resource in this region, along with 32
other villages, and that proposal does not complement any other
infrastructure in this region. The science that has been
discovered to date indicates an adverse impact on all the fish
in this region. A person holding a chair on the Board of
Fisheries must have 100 percent participation in the voting,
which means he or she cannot be in conflict and unable to vote
on an issue. Any individual on the Board of Fisheries must be
able to vote on every issue because of their importance. He
further stated that the fisheries are in trouble, and
regulations are needed on when the fishing starts after the fish
have come into fresh water.
5:39:36 PM
JEFFREY MOORE testified in support of the confirmations of all
five appointees to the Board of Fisheries. He related that he
is a subsistence user, and has been involved in the commercial
fishery since 1976. He has owned eight vessels, owns six
limited entry permits for herring and salmon, and has setnetted,
gillnetted, seined, longlined, pot fished, dragged, and fished
for salmon, herring, halibut, groundfish, and shellfish all over
the state of Alaska. He stated he has known Ms. Carlson-Van
Dort and Mr. Williams for 35 years and both are quality people.
There is so much contention over Ms. Carlson-Van Dort, he
continued, but this goes back before she was even born, and it's
an allocation issue. In previous years there were Board of
Fisheries members from Kodiak who didn't recuse themselves for
that allocation meeting in Kodiak. Chignik is getting another
biologist this year, probably the fourteenth, so there isn't a
consistent biologist for Chignik. The current problem is
because of how the state has managed it and now [Chignik's] run
is gone. There is no longer a salmon fishery or a processor,
and a processor had operated continuously for 138 years. He
said he supports all five nominees because all are well
qualified.
5:43:04 PM
SUE MAUGER testified in opposition to the confirmation of Mr.
Williams. She said she is a personal use fisherman, but most
importantly she is someone who cares about trust in Alaska's
policy decision making. Trust is an incredibly important part
of the way that power is given to people who are nominated to
help make decisions. She thought it very telling that when
testifying today, Mr. Williams didn't introduce himself as an
employee of the Pebble Partnership. Further, when
Representative Vance asked questions about the concerns from her
constituents, of which she is one, about his role in the Pebble
Partnership, Mr. Williams was very dismissive and did not offer
much for people to feel less concerned. Being dismissive is
probably the worst quality in a candidate. She urged that
legislators opposed the confirmation of Mr. Williams.
5:44:53 PM
BENJAMIN ALLEN testified in support of Ms. Mitchell, Ms.
Carlson-Van Dort, and Mr. Wood. He noted he is from a multi-
generational fishing family, uses subsistence in sea life as
well as game, serves on a number of boards and committees, and
has a deep appreciation for the continuation of Alaska's
resources. He said Board of Fisheries members make difficult
decisions for the entire state. Every community is different
and having diverse members on the board is important. It is a
great time of change in Alaska and fisheries are not the same as
the days of plenty, he continued. Evaluation of climate and
technology changes is very necessary. All user groups are very
important and need to have representation. Mr. Allen said is
seeing difficulty in maintaining sustainable fisheries occurring
in the Gulf of Alaska, with dramatic changes in focusing on
conservation concerns of the fish. From what he has seen now,
the concerns of fish are going underneath the concerns of income
in the short term and he believes that Ms. Mitchell, Ms.
Carlson-Van Dort, and Mr. Wood have a willingness to maintain
long-term viability over the quick buck. Users use fish and
cannot be expected to protect them, and sometimes need to be
told not to use them. Though the decision is painful, the board
must make it and these three nominees would do the job well. He
said Kodiak was given the Igvak plan to help when it was
suffering, and the change made by the board was given to Chignik
for that same opportunity now. Ms. Carlson-Van Dort made her
mainland and Igvak decision to help bolster the recently damaged
terminal fisheries and was given a hard push for helping ADF&G
keep its ability to maintain sustainability. He added that he
doesn't always agree with the board members' decisions, but
extends his appreciation to all past and current board members
who have a difficult task.
5:47:48 PM
BRIAN MCWETHY testified in opposition to the confirmation of Ms.
Carlson-Van Dort. He noted he is a second-generation fisherman,
and stated that much of what he wanted to say in regard to his
opposition has already been said. In regard to the changing of
the Cape Igvak Management Plan, he related that the plan has
been in place since the induction of limited entry in those
areas, and isn't helping the Chignik run at all. Previous to
the change, Chignik fishermen in the initial season needed to
harvest 200,000 fish before [Kodiak fishermen] even got a fish,
sockeye that is, a $6-$8 million value as previously stated by
Mr. Fields. When Ms. Carlson-Van Dort made that decision, he
continued, she took the two worst proposals for Kodiak and
meshed them into one. They doubled the threshold and halved the
allocation for Kodiak. Historically, Kodiak got a harvest 15
percent of what Chignik harvested in that area, and that dropped
to 7.5 percent. It was a very biased decision, he said; she
never wanted to hear [the Kodiak] side of it and came in with
her mind made up. He lost a lot of trust in the board and he
wants someone on the board who is going to be honest and
straightforward, hear everyone out, and make the best decision
for everyone involved. He offered his understanding that
Chignik is suffering and has been for a couple years, but said
it isn't the fault of Kodiak or Area M; that system is not
producing, [Kodiak fishermen] haven't fished in that area.
5:50:23 PM
TOM MANOS testified in opposition to the confirmation of Ms.
Carlson-Van Dort and in support of the confirmations of Mr.
Jensen, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Wood. He noted he
has commercially fished in Alaska for 45 years, primarily along
the south peninsula. He is in the process of passing the baton
to his sons and several other young fishermen to provide good
employment for 20 young Alaskans. He has participated in the
Board of Fisheries process for 40 years. Though he doesn't
always agree with the decisions made, he feels that the process
has been instrumental in making Alaska fishing a healthy
sustainable business, perhaps the most successful fishery
resource utilization in the world. He said Ms. Carlson-Van Dort
comes with a regional bias and a strong sport fish bias, as
evidenced by her record. She does not fairly represent [the
commercial] industry and the fishers that are an important part
of the Alaska economy. A fair and thoughtful Board of Fisheries
is critical for the viability of Alaska fishing, he continued,
and it's important to the health and resource of all the user
groups. He said he supports the confirmations of Mr. Jensen,
Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Wood. He offered his
respect for the hard work and dedication of board members.
5:52:34 PM
ED MARTIN stated he is a 56-year resident of Alaska and the son
of a homesteader. He stated that the first duty of legislators
is to Article VIII of the constitution in establishing,
protecting, and utilization of Alaska's resources. For almost
four hours he has listened to controversy on whether the
legislature should install another lieutenant to do its work in
the fish wars that go on and separate urban and rural areas in
the competition and allocation of that resource that belongs to
all Alaskans. Legislators need to cut the budget and in doing
so there are 140 boards and commissions. The duties of Alaska's
legislature need to be re-evaluated and Alaska should go to a
biennial legislative session. He urged that none of the
nominees be appointed and that the board be abandoned completely
because prior legislatures have created a fish war that doesn't
have to exist.
5:54:58 PM
RAECHEL ALLEN testified in support of the confirmations of Ms.
Mitchell, Ms. Carlson-Van Dort, and Mr. Wood. She related that
she fished on her father's boat through the 1980s, ran her own
seiner for 20 years, and has passed on the seiner to her husband
so she can raise her children. She further noted that she is
secretary of the Chignik [Fish and Game] Advisory Committee.
She stated that last week she purchased a Kodiak permit because
it is very unlikely that Chignik is going to have a fishery for
this next year, and fishing is her family's only source of
income. It should be acknowledged that both of the lake systems
are failing. [Chignik] has a subsistence problem, the in-river
escapement goal for subsistence is not being reached. [Chignik]
has a sport fishery problem, the Chignik sport fishery is
getting shut down. As well, Chignik has a commercial escapement
problem, a river problem. With all those problems in mind, she
continued, her family picked up a permit for Kodiak to be able
to continue fishing. She said she supports Ms. Mitchell, Ms.
Carlson-Van Dort, and Mr. Wood because they will support
protecting salmon. Right now, protecting the sustainability of
the salmon and the sustainability of the escapement should be
the main focus for most of Alaska, and that cannot be done
without protecting the terminal harvest. If Ms. Carlson-Van
Dort has any bias, it is a bias to protect salmon, so she highly
supports her confirmation, as well as the confirmations of Ms.
Mitchell and Mr. Wood.
5:57:57 PM
PAUL A. SHADURA II testified in opposition to the confirmations
of Ms. Mitchell, Ms. Carlson-Van Dort, and Mr. Wood, appointees
to the Board of Fisheries; and testified in opposition to the
confirmation of Mr. Smith, appointee to the Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission. He began his testimony by reading an excerpt
from a report to the people from the Alaska Constitutional
Convention: "The future wealth of the state of Alaska will
depend largely on how it administers the immense and the varied
resources to which it will fall heir." He said he resides on
the Kenai Peninsula and has been a commercial setnet fisherman
in Cook Inlet for 53 years, and an active participant in the
Board of Fisheries process since the early 1970s. He has served
on many resource-related committees, including the
Kenai/Soldotna Fish and Game Advisory Committee as a designated
commercial interest seat for many of those years.
MR. SHADURA, in regard to the confirmation hearing for the
appointees to the Board of Fisheries, stated that past governors
have been cognizant of the immense responsibilities toward the
people of the state and therefore have strived to balance the
expertise through the representation process. An unwritten
policy is three commercial interest seats, three sport fishing
interest seats, and one primary subsistence stakeholder who may
participate in other multiple uses. Alaska's supersize requires
some sensitivity to regional perspectives, and currently there
is a severely disproportionate board representation issue.
Because of this, he said, he cannot support the confirmations of
Ms. Mitchell, Ms. Carlson-Van Dort, and Mr. Wood.
MR. SHADURA, in regard to the confirmation hearing for the
appointee to the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC),
read from a recent Alaska Supreme Court decision having to do
with AS 39.05.080, Procedures for All Appointments. He urged
that appointee Melvin Smith not be confirmed at this time.
6:01:29 PM
DANIELLE RINGER testified in opposition to the confirmation of
Ms. Carlson-Van Dort. She said she was born to fishermen and
raised in Homer, and operates a small-scale fishing vessel with
her husband who was also born and raised in Alaska. She stated
that based on Ms. Carlson-Van Dort's resume she would be
inclined to support her, aside from the appointee's [past]
employment with the Pebble Partnership, which really bothers
her. More Indigenous and female representation is needed on the
Board of Fisheries, she continued. However, after firsthand
experience watching the appointee function as a board member at
the last Kodiak meeting, she said she believes Ms. Carlson-Van
Dort arrived in Kodiak with her mind already made up about
Chignik proposals, some of which were written by her family
members, and she didn't seem to take into account the public
testimony or the scientific data. Ms. Carlson-Van Dort said
earlier today that she has worked hard to broker compromise, but
it seemed to be the opposite of that in Kodiak. Testifying
[before the Board of Fisheries] can be very intimidating, yet
the Kodiak community showed up to teach the relatively new board
members about the mixed commercial and subsistence fishing in
the Kodiak region. The Kodiak community's words were lost on
Ms. Carlson-Van Dort, who appeared wholly uninterested in what
people were sharing. Alaskans deserve a balanced board with
diverse geographic and stakeholder representation with members
who are held to the highest ethical standard. Ms. Ringer
requested that members of the committees oppose the confirmation
of Ms. Carlson-Van Dort.
6:03:25 PM
AXEL KOPUN testified in support of the confirmations of Ms.
Carlson-Van Dort and Mr. Wood. He stated he is a fourth-
generation Native Alaskan commercial and subsistence fisherman.
He grew up between Kodiak and Chignik and has fished Chignik his
entire life. He said that with all the struggles and changes
going on lately in the Gulf of Alaska, there has been a lot of
need for fresh eyes on the salmon fisheries, and the nominees
for the Board of Fisheries provide just that. The various
backgrounds and expertise that they hold are what is needed at
this point. Some of the struggles going on are what have led to
a lot of the current contention.
MR. KOPUN stated that Board of Fisheries meetings are especially
contentious when they get between areas that traditionally fight
over fish resources. Kodiak hates Chignik, he said. Ninety-
nine percent of today's comments against the confirmation of Ms.
Carlson-Van Dort have come from Kodiak. They're all based on
two proposals at the 2020 Board of Fisheries meeting in Kodiak.
He urged that that be taken with a grain of salt and that
members of the committees understand what is really going on.
Chignik is a small fishery that is in between the two largest
interception fisheries in the state of Alaska. [Chignik] has to
fight all the time just to get its fish back to the rivers and
[Chignik] has been unable to fish two of the last three years
because of not getting the escapement. So, there is a lot of
contention.
MR. KOPUN further stated that he has been going to Board of
Fisheries meetings since 1998 and over 23 years of observation,
and intense interaction with the board members, he truly
believes that Ms. Carlson-Van Dort and Mr. Wood have what it
takes to move Alaska into this new era, that may or may not be a
permanent change. Ms. Carlson-Van Dort and Mr. Wood are quick
thinking and intelligent and independent-minded, he continued.
They don't take marching orders from a certain sector or a
certain political group that informs them how to vote. They
vote what they think is right for the fish. It's all about the
fish let the fish get back to the streams and everything else
will take care of itself. He noted he has submitted in writing
some points about the fallacies and misrepresentations,
including on Ms. Carlson-Van Dort's voting record.
6:06:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ agreed it's all about the fish. He asked
whether Mr. Kopun sees any problems with Ms. Carlson-Van Dort's
prior connection to the Pebble project and Mr. Williams.
MR. KOPUN replied he doesn't see what it has to do with making
decisions on the Board of Fisheries. In his 23 years of going
to board meetings he has never heard a proposal come forward
that is going to deal with mining. He said he doesn't know Abe
Williams, but he doesn't see how it would ever come into play.
He doesn't see how those two worlds interact on the regulatory
level where a Board of Fisheries member would have to make a
decision. If for some reason it did, he imagines there would be
a conflict of interest with being an active board member with
Pebble. He personally has no problem with it.
6:07:55 PM
The committees took an at-ease from 6:07 p.m. to 6:09 p.m.
6:09:01 PM
CHAIR TARR closed public testimony for the Board of Fisheries
confirmation hearings. She urged the public to submit written
testimony to: [email protected].
6:09:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM stated there were many good comments and
conversation. He expressed his hope for legislators to make the
right decision.
6:09:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY thanked committee members for their good
questions to the nominees and the public for listening and
giving their comments.
6:10:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE thanked the public for waiting so long to
testify. She also thanked her constituents who have called her
and sent messages. She said these communications are read and
considered and do help in making a decision. She hasn't yet
made a decision because the controversy needs to be weighed.
6:10:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE thanked Chair Tarr for running a good
meeting and thanked the public for staying on for so long and
listening. He said he's confused as to why being associated
with Pebble Mine is such an issue. He questioned whether being
pro-Pebble means someone is anti-fish.
6:11:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK thanked everyone who testified. He
expressed concern about the statement that rivers are congested
and said taking a look at why they are congested may be needed.
6:12:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE thanked the appointees for putting their
names forward and thanked the public for speaking and submitting
written comments. He said the testimony really does help in
making a decision.
6:12:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN commented that this is a reminder that
democracy is a messy process and only works if people
participate. She thanked the public for spending five hours
with the committees today.
6:13:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER thanked Chair Tarr for running a good
and fair job running the meeting. He thanked the public for
waiting hours and hours online to provide testimony. He offered
his apology for the one-and-a-half limit on testimony, but said
members took notes. He said his mind is not yet made up and he
will be reviewing his notes and the testimony. He gave credit
to the appointees for stepping up, taking on so much work, and
facing a lot of hard questions.
6:14:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ concurred with the other comments and
stated his mind is not yet made up either. It's a big decision,
he continued, and the length of time people waited to testify
shows that.
6:15:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES stated this shows how important fisheries
are to Alaskans and she is grateful to the public and members of
the committees for their time today. She said she takes
exception to the disparaging comment that was made towards UFA.
She pointed out that UFA is membership group with 37 member
groups and over 500 individual members, and she doesn't think
that would be the case if going after someone were UFA's mode of
operation. She added that UFA has participated and done a lot
of good for the fisheries.
6:16:31 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK offered his appreciation to those who spoke and
participated in the public process. The comments are of help to
him because, he quipped, whale wars are what he is used to, not
fish wars. He thanked Chair Tarr.
6:17:24 PM
CHAIR TARR noted that Board of Fisheries member, Israel Payton,
called her office and expressed his support for the five people
under consideration for the board. Mr. Payton had good things
to say about the nominees and she agreed to share his thoughts
with the committee. She pointed out that the committee heard
from people in numerous communities all over the state. She
expressed her appreciation for the testimony.
6:18:34 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK reminded the two committees that signing the
report regarding appointments to boards and commissions is in
accordance with AS 39.05.080 and in no way reflects individual
members' approval or disapproval of the appointees, and the
nominations are merely forwarded to the full legislature for
confirmation or rejection. [The names advanced to the full
legislature were: Marilyn Charles and Renee Alward, appointees
to the Fisherman's Fund Advisory Board & Appeals Council; Melvin
Smith, appointee to the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission;
and John Jensen, McKenzie Mitchell, Marit Carlson-Van Dort, Abe
Williams, and John Wood, appointees to the Board of Fisheries.]
6:19:21 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committees, the joint
meeting of the House Resources Standing Committee and the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 6:19
p.m.