03/04/2016 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB164 | |
| SB172 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 172 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 4, 2016
3:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel, Chair
Senator Mia Costello, Vice Chair
Senator John Coghill
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Bill Wielechowski
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Bill Stoltze
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 164
"An Act relating to sport fishing, hunting, or trapping
licenses, tags, or permits; relating to penalties for certain
sport fishing, hunting, and trapping license violations;
relating to restrictions on the issuance of sport fishing,
hunting, and trapping licenses; creating violations and amending
fines and restitution for certain fish and game offenses;
relating to commercial fishing violations; allowing lost federal
matching funds from the Pittman - Robertson, Dingell -
Johnson/Wallop - Breaux programs to be included in an order of
restitution; adding a definition of 'electronic form'; amending
Rule 5(a)(4), Alaska Rules of Minor Offense Procedure; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED SB 164 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 172
"An Act relating to management of enhanced stocks of fish;
authorizing the operation of nonprofit shellfish hatcheries;
relating to application fees for salmon and shellfish hatchery
permits; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 164
SHORT TITLE: FISH & GAME: OFFENSES; LICENSES; PENALTIES
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/29/16 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/29/16 (S) RES, JUD
02/22/16 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/22/16 (S) Heard & Held
02/22/16 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/04/16 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 172
SHORT TITLE: FISH/SHELLFISH HATCHERY/ENHANCE. PROJECTS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/05/16 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/05/16 (S) RES, FIN
02/22/16 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/22/16 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/04/16 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
BYRON CHARLES, representing himself
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of amending SB 164.
MIKE TINKER
Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Raised questions about SB 164.
AL BARRETTE, representing himself
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 164 with
amendments.
RICHARD DAVIS
Seafood Producers Cooperative
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Recommended changes to the bill.
BERNARD CHASTAIN, Deputy Director
Alaska Wildlife Troopers
Alaska Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 164.
AARON PETERSON, Attorney
Criminal Division
Alaska Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 164.
SETH BEAUSANG, Attorney
Alaska Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 164.
BRUCE DALE, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed questions regarding SB 164.
FOREST BOWERS, Deputy Director
Commercial Fisheries Division
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed questions regarding SB 172.
SAM RABUNG, Aquaculture Section Chief
Commercial Fisheries Division
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed questions regarding SB 172.
NANCY HILLSTRAND, Owner
Pioneer Alaskan Fisheries
Kachemak Bay, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 172.
STEVE RYKACZEWSKI, Oyster farmer
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to raising permit
application fees for mariculture.
CHERYL RYKACZEWSKI, Secretary
Kachemak Shellfish Mariculture Association
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed concerns with SB 172.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:31:08 PM
CHAIR CATHY GIESSEL called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:31 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Coghill, Costello, Wielechowski, Micciche,
and Chair Giessel.
SB 164-FISH & GAME: OFFENSES; LICENSES; PENALTIES
3:31:49 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced the consideration of SB 164. She noted
that staff at the Alaska Departments of Fish and Game (ADF&G),
Public Safety (DPS), and Law (DOL) testified at a previous
hearing, and she opened up the hearing to public testimony,
limited to two minutes each.
3:33:32 PM
BYRON CHARLES, representing himself, Ketchikan, Alaska, said he
recently saw a dead sea lion with a triple-hook stuck in its
throat, which was likely the result of the sea lion's attempt to
grab a snagged salmon. These "fish wars" in Alaska need to be
better contained to prevent people from hurting each other, he
said. The new policies proposed in SB 164 need serious
amendments, he noted. "What kind of penalty can you put or
impose on somebody when a sea lion has a triple-hook stuck in
its throat?" He said he grew up snagging fish with halibut
hooks, but the triple-hooks need to be outlawed. Additionally,
section 1 of SB 164 "should be fly fishing only," he stated.
3:36:33 PM
MIKE TINKER, Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association,
Fairbanks, Alaska, said the public did not get to testify at the
first hearing, but the first sections of SB 164 are fine, "and
probably going to the class A [misdemeanor] just reflects the
modernization." He questioned the deletion of "upon conviction,"
as it seems a person would have to be convicted before getting
fines and restitutions. The new fines are good, he said, because
some of the current levels are archaic.
MR. TINKER expressed concern in trying to recoup federal
matching funds; "both from the fish side and on the wildlife
side, that's a reimbursement program." When a legislator asks
how much the state has to pay for the management of a caribou in
order to get a reimbursable figure to add into the fine is a
very difficult thing to do, he said, "one that would likely cost
many, many times what would come out of the fine." He said his
point is that if "you took the eligible Pittman-Robertson money
on caribou, for example, where we have hundreds of thousands of
them, and divided it by the hundreds of thousands of dollars we
spend on qualifying characteristics, we'd come up with a dollar
a caribou, and at three-to-one, you could recover three bucks."
He said he does not see how Alaska could do that without
"running the cost of the thing way out into the future." Mr.
Tinker gave the example of someone getting a fine for [taking] a
caribou, "and then the retribution for Pittman-Robertson ...
comes the following October when the state makes its
reimbursement charge." He said it is unclear and he would like
that clarified, but he does not see it "as a doable thing."
MR. TINKER said other amendments are needed, and one thing his
group has been on top of for several years is "geography getting
in the way, and that is the application of restitution" where it
is applied in some cases and not in others. He said first-time
unintentional, technical violators who turn themselves in should
be exempt, "otherwise we're not getting the bang for our buck to
try to get hunters in the field; the idea is not to scare every
single new or inexperienced hunter out of the field because [the
hunter] might get slapped down."
CHAIR GIESSEL suggested Mr. Tinker submit a letter with his
suggestions and questions.
3:40:55 PM
AL BARRETTE, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska, said he is
a member of the Fairbanks Advisory Committee and other outdoor
organizations. He stated that SB 164 is well thought out and
goes in the right direction, but he suggested a restitution
exemption for self-reporting violators who salvage all of their
game and surrender it to wildlife enforcement. [The change] will
not take anything away from public safety, he opined. The court
system uses this penalty arbitrarily, he said, and he gave the
examples of Judge David [Zwink] who adds restitution to plea
bargain deals on self-reported violations and Superior Court
Judge [Richard Erlich] who charged three Point Hope residents
who killed up to 37 caribou without salvaging the meat with
wanton waste and did not issue a fine, community service, or any
kind of education requirement. "He actually said it was a
nominal charge," and that is very disturbing that wanton waste
of Alaska's wildlife is just a nominal incident, he stated.
MR. BARRETTE suggested removing "sport" from resident fishing
licenses, because there are at least 20,000 to 40,000 Alaskans
who subsistence fish and do not contribute since they are not
required to have a license. "I think the second largest users of
our fish resources, which is subsistence, ought to pay a little
bit of something into our management of our fish resources," he
concluded.
3:44:03 PM
RICHARD DAVIS, Seafood Producers Cooperative (SPC), Sitka,
Alaska, explained that the SPC is a fishing business collective
and cold storage in Sitka, owned and operated by 600 fishers,
most of whom are Alaskans. He explained that SPC has been
operating since 1945 when the cooperative provided fish liver
oil for WWII, and it is the oldest and largest fishery
cooperative of its kind in North America. Mr. Davis noted that
section 6 of SB 164 doubles the maximum fines for first and
second convictions for fishery violations but does not double
the maximum fine for a third conviction. In view of Alaska's
demerit point system that fishers operate under, they can only
collect so many points of offenses against their licenses before
losing them for one to three years. "The third conviction could
be any number you wanted to put in there because under the
three-strikes-and-out and the strict liability risk that you
incur if you have violations of a strict liability nature, you
could lose your boat and your permits, and it's been done," he
said. He noted that the current bill version does not double the
maximum fine for any of the 12 listed game species. He said his
fishermen believe that if fines are doubled, it should be done
uniformly across all of the revenues collected through the penal
system. If there is a chronic fisheries compliance problem
somewhere in Alaska that can be pointed out to Mr. Davis, then
he would be willing to reconsider. Alaska's commercial salmon
fishers are earning less money for their products than they were
ten years ago, he stated.
3:46:41 PM
SENATOR COGHILL suggested that Mr. Davis write down specific
concerns about the fines for the committee.
3:47:17 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if there were any witnesses wanting to
testify, and, hearing none, closed public testimony.
3:48:13 PM
BERNARD CHASTAIN, Deputy Director, Alaska Wildlife Troopers,
Department of Public Safety (DPS), Anchorage, noted that a
witness asked why the term "upon conviction" was removed, and he
pointed out that section 16 on page 5 of SB 164 refers to a
person "who is convicted."
CHAIR GIESSEL asked about the reference on page 5, line 26.
3:49:07 PM
AARON PETERSON, Attorney, Criminal Division, Department of Law,
Anchorage, said "upon conviction" was superfluous since
misdemeanor fines are not imposed without convictions.
CHAIR GIESSEL referred to the question about doubling fines for
a second conviction but not for more convictions.
3:50:25 PM
MR. PETERSON said that fines for first and second convictions
were set in 1988, but fines for subsequent convictions were set
later and do not need inflation adjustments.
CHAIR GIESSEL suggested that the fines were not increased so
much as they were adjusted for justification.
MR. PETERSON said he was not involved in setting the fines;
however, the increase does mirror inflation rates.
3:52:12 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said he would like to know when big game fines
were set to see if the adjustments are fair. Adjusting for
inflation is a good way to raise fines, he said. He asked about
a 50 percent reduction in fines for self-reporting violations,
"so we don't have the waste that's associated without that self-
reporting."
3:53:40 PM
MR. CHASTAIN said the legislature set the current restitution
amounts in 1996. He stated that DPS is not concerned so much
with the amount of the fine; however, it supports the concept of
reducing or eliminating restitution for a "self-turn-in" to
encourage people to bring in carcasses. "In fact, that is a
policy of our department to not apply restitution to people who
turn themselves in ... and we have an established history of
doing that," he added. Troopers make such recommendations to
district attorneys, but there have been a few times where judges
have decided it would be more appropriate to apply restitution.
He said having flexibility is important, and not applying
restitution would encourage people to bring in animals that were
illegally taken.
3:55:27 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said it makes people less likely to cut their
gear loose if they "wouldn't be fined by harvesting all the
fish." He said it is something to think about for the next
committee. He said he remains concerned about the tags or
permits in [subsections] (f) and (g) of section 3 that must be
validated upon harvest, because "it clearly doesn't work in
electronic form for something that has to be validated."
3:56:53 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if it is true that subsistence harvesters
do not have to be licensed.
3:57:59 PM
SETH BEAUSANG, Attorney, Alaska Department of Law, Anchorage,
Alaska, said some subsistence fisheries require permits, but not
all.
3:58:22 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if there are 20,000 to 40,000 subsistence
users as stated by the previous witness.
MR. BEAUSANG said he does not know.
SENATOR COGHILL requested the number of subsistence users and
the number of issued sport fishing licenses. It is a legitimate
point if the state does not know how many fish are being taken,
he stated.
3:59:39 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE suggested that the witness was referring to the
difference between subsistence and personal use, where one
requires a license and one does not.
SENATOR COGHILL said the confusion is not surprising, "because
it divides Alaskans pretty well ... between the personal use and
subsistence use; however, it would be nice to know how many
subsistence usage permits are there, if any."
SENATOR GIESSEL asked Senator Coghill to pose his question to
the next witness.
4:01:16 PM
BRUCE DALE, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Palmer, asked him if he is
asking only about personal use fisheries.
SENATOR COGHILL said it is fisheries; how does a person
distinguish between personal use and subsistence fisheries, and
do they both require permits or licenses?
MR. DALE replied that he would get back to Senator Coghill.
4:02:02 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked why [AS 16.05.782(d)] was not in section
8 of the bill.
4:02:45 PM
MR. PETERSON clarified that subsection (d) is not being amended.
SENATOR MICCICHE spoke of a situation where a person who never
breaks laws is hunting bears and stumbles within a half mile of
a solid waste disposal facility and "drops a bear and a brown-
shirt comes." Will there be any leniency if the hunter did not
intend to use the waste facility as bait?
4:04:22 PM
MR. CHASTAIN said that section deals with taking brown bears
near solid waste disposal sites. "What is attempting to be done
here is that it makes it a violation if we cannot prove that
negligence was part of it," he added.
4:05:13 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE interpreted Mr. Chastain's reply to mean that
the DPS would be reasonable in its approach.
4:05:58 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL noted that many concerns with SB 164 are related
to judicial matters, so she advocated moving it on to the Senate
Judiciary Committee.
4:06:25 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO moved to report SB 164, version 29-GS2958\A,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s).
4:06:39 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced that without objection, SB 164 is
reported from committee.
4:06:43 PM
At ease.
SB 172-FISH/SHELLFISH HATCHERY/ENHANCE PROJECTS
4:08:05 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL called the committee back to order and announced
the consideration of SB 172.
4:08:31 PM
FOREST BOWERS, Deputy Director, Commercial Fisheries Division,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Juneau, said ADF&G
can permit shellfish hatcheries that supply aquaculture, but it
cannot permit hatcheries designed to release shellfish into the
natural environment. He explained that SB 172 establishes a
permitting process for hatcheries designed to enhance existing
shellfish resources. The shellfish industry is interested in
doing this, he said, and people are exploring experimental
shellfish aquaculture throughout Alaska. He noted that the bill
is modeled after Alaska's private, nonprofit salmon hatchery
program.
4:10:26 PM
MR. BOWERS said section 1 of SB 172 gives the Alaska Board of
Fisheries the authority to direct ADF&G on how enhanced
shellfish stocks would be managed in "special harvest areas" for
cost recovery. He explained that there are special harvest areas
for salmon hatchery operators to collect fish to recover their
costs, and section 1 of SB 172 does the same for shellfish
hatcheries. He said that once the brood stock needs are met,
cost recovery could then occur in the special harvest area,
which could be "a cost recovery fishery or an assessment that's
supplied to common property harvesters in the special harvest
area; we do both of those now."
4:11:35 PM
MR. BOWERS explained that section 2 is not directly related to
shellfish enhancement, but it increases the permit application
fee for new private, nonprofit salmon hatcheries from $100 to
$1,000. The existing fee has been in place for about 40 years,
he stated, and the new fee will more accurately reflect the cost
of processing the applications.
SENATOR COGHILL said the increase is a big deal, and he asked if
the application must be renewed annually.
MR. BOWERS replied that the fee is not for renewals; it is for
new projects. There is only one or two every several years. New
hatchery applications involve many staff and require public
hearings, genetic assessments, and pathology work, for example.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if [permittees] can do some of that work.
4:13:26 PM
MR. BOWERS said yes. He moved on to section 3, which is the
heart of SB 172 and provides the details of the permitting
process. It addresses cost recovery for hatcheries, sets the
application fee, allows ADF&G to solicit information from
experts, and requires that a hatchery provide a substantial
benefit to the public and not jeopardize natural stocks. Public
hearings and addressing objections from the public are also
required, he explained.
4:15:16 PM
MR. BOWERS said shellfish brood stocks must come from approved
sources, ideally from native or nearby stocks, and released
shellfish will be common property, except in special cost
recovery harvest areas.
4:16:22 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO asked about [publishing hearing notices in a
newspaper], and she recalled that legislation was passed
allowing electronic notices.
MR. BOWERS said that was discussed as being somewhat archaic,
but the Department of Law may have wanted that language.
4:17:30 PM
SAM RABUNG, Aquaculture Section Chief, Commercial Fisheries
Division, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Juneau,
said the bill is verbatim from the salmon statutes, and he did
not make any unnecessary changes.
CHAIR GIESSEL said she was informed that the bill Representative
Costello referred to did not pass.
SENATOR COGHILL said that [allowing electronic notice] may be a
good amendment, and he asked if "designated areas" are proposed
to ADF&G or if they are simply designated by the department.
4:18:18 PM
MR. BOWERS answered that the Board of Fisheries can establish
special harvest areas. They "are also laid out" in the
"comprehensive salmon plan."
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the shellfish industry can propose
special harvest areas.
4:19:08 PM
MR. RABUNG explained that the intent is to harvest the shellfish
that are produced by the hatchery. The hatcheries release stock
to contribute to the common property harvest; however, they are
allowed to harvest a portion of that stock to fund hatchery
operations.
SENATOR COGHILL said that he knows that there are places "that
could or would be proposed, I just didn't know who did the
vetting." He presented a scenario where a person wants to be in
the shellfish industry and tells the state of a good area
"because there's no other shellfish in that area; it's got good
bottom lines in it; the water runs the right way; it's the right
temperature, and Fish and Game says 'well we haven't designated
it, sorry.'"
4:20:37 PM
MR. BOWERS said that scenario could occur, and ADF&G would
evaluate the proposal.
SENATOR MICCICHE said oysters do not reproduce in Alaska, and
"we" purchase spat from the Lower-48. He asked about areas that
are already permitted for oysters and if they can be shipped
around the state for existing aquatic farms.
4:21:22 PM
MR. RABUNG answered that SB 172 addresses indigenous species; it
is for fishery enhancement. Oysters are not indigenous to
Alaska, so farms have to be "under positive control."
MR. BOWERS said there is interest in hatcheries for red king
crab near Kodiak, Sand Point, the Pribilof Islands, and
Southeast Alaska. There is also interest in geoduck, abalone,
and sea cucumber farms in Southeast. The most interest appears
to be in red king crab and sea cucumbers, he added.
4:22:30 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said ADF&G scientists have opposed geoduck
fisheries for many years, although the legislature has now
allowed it. He asked if some ADF&G scientists oppose SB 172.
MR. BOWERS said, "We look at this as a tool." Each project would
be evaluated, he stated, and he would not be testifying if ADF&G
was opposed to the proposal, but there could certainly be a
number of hurdles to overcome with any given project.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked him to provide ADF&G documentation in
opposition, because he wants to hear from both sides. Geoducks
have been a big issue for years, and "I just want to make sure
we go into this with eyes open and that this isn't a political
decision that's being made."
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI then noted that Mr. Bowers has said that
only native species will be used; however, the definition of
"shellfish" in SB 172 includes those that are "authorized to be
imported into the state under a permit issued by the
commissioner." It is a big concern, and he asked if ADF&G would
change the definition of shellfish to exclude nonnative species.
There are horror stories from other states and even in Alaska,
he stated. "All the science in the world supports it at the time
... and it decimates a fishery."
4:25:10 PM
MR. BOWERS said, "We would not object to that."
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there is a prohibition of
genetically modified shellfish in the bill, and he asked if
ADF&G would oppose such a provision.
MR. BOWERS answered that SB 172 does not refer to genetically
modified shellfish, and "I don't think we would object to ...
such a prohibition at all, provided that we could develop a
clear definition of what those organisms would be."
SENATOR COGHILL said if natural stock will be used, "that would
be fair, but if it's going to be enhanced, that could be called
genetically modified."
MR. BOWERS said enhancement relates to increasing abundance or
rehabilitating [stocks], not enhancing organism characteristics.
4:26:41 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said that as long as indigenous stocks are used,
then "the enhancement stays under that category." He said he
wanted it to be clear.
SENATOR MICCICHE said "we" are growing oysters that are imported
and do not reproduce here. There are thousands of acres of them
and we all love them, he added. He questioned disadvantaging
oyster growers by not allowing them to grow spat.
4:27:28 PM
MR. BOWERS answered that spat can be produced in Alaska, and the
existing program permits shellfish hatcheries for the purpose of
supplying shellfish to aquatic farms. He believes there is one
hatchery doing that.
SENATOR MICCICHE questioned why the legislature would not want
to allow nonnative, imported species that were approved by the
[ADF&G] commissioner.
MR. BOWERS noted that SB 172 addresses enhancement of fisheries
by producing shellfish to be released into the wild; it does not
relate to aquatic farms. "We would only be taking brood stock
out of the wild, getting the offspring up to some certain size,
and then releasing them back into the wild for purposes of
enhancing a fishery or rehabilitating a depressed stock," he
explained.
4:29:25 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked about section 6. "You're including
them under the farmed fish definition, and so you would be
banning farmed fishing of shellfish?"
MR. BOWERS said that is correct.
4:29:55 PM
MR. BOWERS said section 3 describes the cost recovery fishery;
section 4 allows the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission to
issue special harvest area permits; section 5 defines the legal
fishing gear for the hatchery, and section 7 provides liability
immunity to nonprofit hatchery operators who donate fish to a
food bank. He said sometimes there is excess brood stock or less
productive stock that hatcheries donate. Section 8 establishes
an Alaska corporate income tax exemption for hatcheries-"that's
the nonprofit part;" section 9 exempts cost recovery fisheries
from business taxes; and sections 10-12 contain standard
implementation language.
4:32:20 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony.
4:32:51 PM
NANCY HILLSTRAND, Owner, Pioneer Alaskan Fisheries, Kachemak
Bay, Alaska, said Pioneer Alaska Fisheries is a 52-year-old
Alaskan corporation, and she has 21 years of experience with
hatcheries and salmon stream rehabilitation. When the original
legislation was written, she stated, it was an innocent attempt
to rehabilitate depressed salmon fisheries while being mandated
to operate without adversely affecting natural stocks.
Unfortunately, she said, the hatcheries are a drain on state
revenues. Adding shellfish hatcheries will further burden Alaska
budgets, because it will be difficult to have adequate
oversight. She stated that "they're having a hard time with the
pink salmon process, and we have a lot of problems down here in
Lower Cook Inlet with strays and fish going up streams and ...
fish not getting mopped up."
MS. HILLSTRAND recommended analyzing the economics of [shellfish
hatcheries] and looking at the underlying causes of shellfish
depletion. She said that in 1976, Commissioner Carl Rosier
admitted that shellfish were overharvested, and after a
political shift in 1977, "we built hatcheries right on top of
the shellfish nursery here in Kachemak Bay." Pink salmon eat
larvae, so the "innocent" legislation now produces almost 2
billion little pink salmon that are eating "our larvae," so
maybe the state should look at the underlying cause of the
shellfish problem. The state has an ideology, she stated, in
favor of hatcheries, and it does not allow open doors of new
information to come in.
MS. HILLSTRAND said that the controversies that surround this
issue show that there really needs to be an open-door situation
for new scientific information in order to prevent mistakes that
will impact Alaska's natural stock. She explained that the
American Fisheries Society has seven points "that they talk
about," and one includes opening the door for science. There are
underlying costs that people are not aware of, she stated. She
asked if all comprehensive measures have been taken to
comprehend, mitigate, and correct underlying causes of localized
depletions of Alaska's shellfish. She does not believe that has
been done; "I think we're actually adding a problem on top of
it." She recommended oversight because the commissioner cannot
do all of these jobs. She said there needs to be an independent,
neutral council, and she suggested using the American Fisheries
Society, "because they seem to have their pulse on what's going
on with hatcheries ... and are more up-to-date than the State of
Alaska." An independent, unbiased group that can bring in the
new science would provide the third leg of the stool, she
stated. She said that some ADF&G staff are not allowed to
discuss hatcheries, unless they agree "with it." She said she is
hoping that SB 172 will not go forward until a cost analysis is
done on existing hatcheries. A report by ISER [Institute of
Social and Economic Research, Anchorage, AK] shows some of the
costs that the state has had to contribute, but a McDowell
[Group] report does not show those costs, she said, which makes
it look like hatcheries are free.
MS. HILLSTRAND said the wording of SB 172 seems to allow the
movement of crab or other shellfish around the state with the
commissioner's blessings. She said that is dangerous and should
not be allowed. She added that there is no definition of
"enhancement," "restoration," or "rehabilitation" in statute,
and these words need to be defined.
4:38:27 PM
MS. HILLSTRAND summarized that there needs to be a debate
pertaining to hatcheries so that Alaska's wild stocks can be
protected.
CHAIR GIESSEL noted that Ms. Hillstrand's written testimony is
available online.
4:39:13 PM
STEVE RYKACZEWSKI, Oyster Farmer, Homer, Alaska, said he was
thrilled that Governor Bill Walker recently established the
Alaska Mariculture Taskforce. He said he has just seen SB 172
and is still trying to understand it. The bill only addresses
enhancement, and that is not his focus, he explained. He said
the Kachemak Shellfish Mariculture Association constructed a
remote setting facility four years ago in response to a West
Coast shortage of oyster seed. A remote setting facility is
where the larvae continue their growth after they are hatched in
a hatchery, he explained. He believes it is the only Alaska
facility producing oyster seed. Two days ago, ADF&G issued a
"fish resource permit," allowing the experimental hatching of
oysters in his existing facility. "If we're successful, we could
become an oyster hatchery in the near future," he said. He noted
that SB 172 might not apply, but it states that the application
fee for a new facility would be $1,000, and "our budget is a
shoestring and we count, literally, every nickel." A $100 fee
seems more reasonable, he said, instead of increasing it by ten-
fold. A diversified mariculture can ultimately provide state
revenue, but "please don't hamstring our efforts at this stage."
4:42:27 PM
CHERYL RYKACZEWSKI, Secretary, Kachemak Shellfish Mariculture
Association, Homer, Alaska, said the association is a nonprofit
organization supporting mariculture in Southcentral Alaska. The
group is 25-years old and the goal has long been to hatch oyster
larvae from Alaskan oyster brood stock, which would come from
local oyster farms, she stated. Currently, the oysters reared in
the group's remote setting facility are placed in Alaska oyster
farms, but the larvae come from Oregon. She noted that her
perspective is from an oyster farming viewpoint, and she is not
sure that SB 172 addresses that; however, allowing and
encouraging shellfish hatcheries in Alaska will help the
shellfish industry grow. Keeping the permit application fees low
will help sustain that growth during its early stages, she
opined.
4:43:59 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced that public testimony would be left
open. She asked Mr. Bowers if the bill applies to oysters.
MR. BOWERS answered that the bill does not cover oyster farming
operations, which are permitted under separate statutes. This
bill addresses the enhancement of wild stocks in Alaska only. It
is analogous to the state's efforts in enhancing the five
species of salmon that are native to Alaska, and SB 172 could
enhance king crab, sea cucumbers, or geoduck clams, for example.
4:45:30 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked Mr. Bowers to address Ms.
Hillstrand's questions and concerns about costs, monitoring,
definitions, and impacts on other species.
MR. BOWERS said Ms. Hillstrand's concerns about independent
oversight are addressed in section 3. "We specifically describe
a mechanism for that where the commissioner would be required to
consult with outside experts ... and they would advise the
commissioner on permit issuance," he told the committee.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked where that language was.
MR. BOWERS said lines 22-24 on page 2 address the concerns
expressed by Ms. Hillstrand. "We also specifically address the
location where brood stock would be taken in relation to their
release site," he stated, desiring that brood stock come from an
area close to where the fish are released. He pointed out that
ADF&G is not taking salmon from Bristol Bay and releasing them
in Southeast Alaska. There may be bays off Kodiak Island where
crab no longer exist or there are too few to collect brood
stock, so ADF&G might take crab from other parts of the island.
4:48:13 PM
MR. BOWERS said ADF&G is going to try to get the brood stock
from the geographic area that it is trying to enhance.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked him to verify the bill section. "I see it
starting on line 11 on page 3; it's a pretty extensive
description." She noted a provision on surplus shellfish on line
28.
4:48:53 PM
MR. BOWERS said that page 5, lines 8-13, states that brood stock
will be native to the area where the shellfish will be released.
Brood stock from other areas would need approval, and "that is
something we would evaluate." It would not be permitted
automatically, he said.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if stock could come from Kodiak and
transplanted to Southeast Alaska.
MR. BOWERS said ADF&G "would go through this review process." He
noted that the department is working on a genetics policy for
shellfish, and it will be a companion to SB 172 because of the
interest in shellfish enhancement. He then said, "I can't say
that we would permit that particular example."
4:50:12 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that he can only read what is in
front of him, and on page 5, lines 11-13, it reads:
(b) Where feasible, shellfish taken by a hatchery
operator shall first be taken from stocks native to
the area in which the shellfish will be released, and
then, upon department approval, from other areas, as
necessary.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI pointed out that the language seems to
allow taking a shellfish from Cook Inlet and transplanting it to
Southeast. He asked if Mr. Bowers would support deleting the
second half of [subsection (b)].
MR. BOWERS said ADF&G would not have any objection to that.
4:51:09 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL thanked the testifiers and asked them to submit
answers to the questions posed by the committee. She said she
will hold SB 172 and take it up in a couple of weeks after she
consults with Senator Wielechowski regarding amendments.
4:52:43 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Giessel adjourned the Senate Resource Committee at 4:52
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB164 ver A.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 164 |
| SB164 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 164 |
| SB164 Sponsor Statement - Governor's Transmittal letter.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 164 |
| SB164-F&G-CO-2-2-16.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 164 |
| SB164-Fiscal Note-DPS-1-29-2016.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 164 |
| SB172 ver A.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB172 Sponsor Statement - Governor's Transmittal letter.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB172- Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB172-DFG-CF-2-5-16.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB172-Supporting Document-UFA Support.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB172-Supporting Document-AKCRRAB Support.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB172-Supporting Document-AFDF Support.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB172-Supporting Document-PVOA Support.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB172-Comment-Nancy Hillstrand.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB172-Supporting Document-SEAFA.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |