SB 158-COOK INLET: NEW ADMIN AREA  10:06:44 AM CHAIR STUTES announced that the only order of business would be SENATE BILL NO. 158 am, "An Act relating to administrative areas for regulation of certain commercial set net entry permits; and providing for an effective date." 10:07:22 AM SENATOR JESSE BJORKMAN, Alaska State Legislature, As prime sponsor, reintroduced SB 158 to the House Special Committee on Fisheries. He said that SB 158 would create a new administrative area in Cook Inlet for the purpose of allowing unique management for the East Side Setnet Fishery. He said that the permit holders who have traditionally fished the East Side can have some self-determination and choice regarding how permits are used in the future. He said that all the proposed bill does is draw lines on a map to create a new administrative area and keep permits from other areas from moving into the East Side. He said that currently Cook Inlet, north of Anchor Point, is managed as a single administrative area. He said that this would prevent western set net permits from moving into the East Side. He said that the legislation is required to make these changes to the administrative operating area for set net fishermen. 10:09:33 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked Senator Bjorkman about an email that was received by the House Special Committee on Fisheries that involved a constituent who supported the legislation but following a recent Board of Fisheries (BOF) proposal, he no longer did. He asked for clarification of the concerns. SENATOR BJORKMAN responded that he spoke with Mr. Clark regarding his concerns and reminded him that action or inaction on the BOF would not change the outcome of the proposed legislation. 10:10:52 AM CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony on SB 158. 10:11:12 AM ALLAN CROOKSTON, Owner, Tide Chaser Fisheries, gave public testimony in support of SB 158. He noted that he is a small business owner and runs an operation with his wife and kids. He said that for many years the East Side of Cook Inlet setnet fleet has been subject to conservation issues. He said that this is a critical step to allow decision making. 10:12:46 AM PAUL CROOKSTON, representing self, gave public testimony in support of SB 158. As brother of the previous testifier, noted that he was also a permit holder and has seen East Side fishing issues for much of his life. He also said that he was in support of SB 158. 10:13:47 AM CHAIR STUTES asked Mr. Crookston whether he had lived in Kenai at any point. MR. CROOKSTON responded that he has never lived in Kenai year- round but has been visiting Alaska since he was young. He said that he is a third-generation permit holder who fishes with his kids. He said that he employs people in the area and most of the crew are "local people". CHAIR STUTES said that she noted that he lives in Utah and asked whether this was correct. MR. CROOKSTON responded that he lives in Utah. 10:14:40 AM TED CROOKSTON, representing self, gave public testimony in support of SB 158. He said that he is the father of the previous two testifiers and echoed his support for SB 158. He noted that he felt the bill has gone through different iterations. He said that he has fished in the areas since the 19060's. Furthermore, he said that the BOF is a "loose cannon" and legislation reform was needed for the Cook Inlet fishing area. 10:16:29 AM CHAIR STUTES asked whether he lives in Kenai. Mr. CROOKSTON responded that he does not live in Kenai. He said that he has wanted to build a residence but in the last 25 years has not built one. He said that he has interests in other states and cannot live there year-round like he had in the past. CHAIR STUTES asked where he lived. MR. CROOKSTON responded that he lives in Utah and his sons do as well. 10:17:46 AM NATE PATSOS, representing self, gave public testimony in support of SB 158. He said that he lives in Soldotna and is a third generation East Side set net fisherman. He said that SB 158 is a commonsense decision and the set net fishery is already treated as a unique area. He said that are many unique regulations and restrictions for the area and the fishermen here target sockeye from the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers and the bill would help efforts in the area and make it easier for fishermen and regulators to do what is best for the local economy and local salmon resource. 10:19:08 AM DANIEL NORMAN, representing self, gave public testimony in support of SB 158. He noted that his kids are fourth generation set netters and he was running a small business with his wife. He said that his business is being deliberately targeted and has been for some time. He said the proposed legislation would allow for a lot of good ramifications for down the road. He said that Cook Inlet seems to be an exception to the general process of regulation. He said that the BOF is potentially trying to remove the public engagement process and is targeting certain groups. He said that there are special meetings to eliminate a certain gear type which he felt was the result of sport fishing lobby groups. 10:22:46 AM TANYA DORNER, representing self, gave public testimony in support of SB 158. She said that her grandchildren are fifth generation set netters. She said that there have been repeated disasters that are specific to the East Side Cook Inlet fishery. She said that the best course of action is self-determination with different management. She said that the fishery should be recognized in a way that fishermen can assist with management needs. She opined that BOF has run away with these issues without appropriate stakeholder engagement. She said that maybe in three years, King Salmon stocks would return to the peninsula, and every West Side permit could move over to the East Side. She said that people should not be able to move permits. 10:24:17 AM GARY HOLLIER, representing self, Gave public testimony in support of SB 158. He said that he is a 72-year-old life-long resident of Kenai Alaska and his family have four generations of fisherman. He has fished in the East Set of Cook Inlet for 56 years and is an original permit holder. He said that the set net fishery is in a unique situation and there is neither fiscal impact nor allocation decision tied to the bill. He said that the BOF during a recent meeting had provided a bill that would eliminate all set nets in Cook Inlets East Side given Chinook salmon concerns. He said that the bill is not a giant leap forward but a leap forward to let set net fishermen self- regulate. He said that for a 140-year-old fishery, they are getting "kicked to the curb." 10:26:01 AM CHAIR STUTES after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony to SB 158. 10:26:13 AM CHAIR STUTES asked Senator Bjorkman to speak to any conflict-of- interest concerns that he may have with the proposed legislation given an email that was received by her office. SENATOR BJORKMAN responded that he owned two Cook Inlet Drift Permits which are for an adjacent fishery but an unrelated permit type. He said that if the bill was to pass and it meant more set net opportunities for set netters, he would stand to make less money. He said that he was concerned given conflict of interest concerns, and many members of his fishery believe that set netters would harm his fishery. He said that if the bill would pass and allow for increased opportunity, he would not be enriched, likely the opposite would be true. 10:27:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE ELAM said that it was discussed in the last hearing for the bill [March 3rd, 2026] and asked whether the bill itself gives more granular management of the Cook Inlet fishery and whether the set net versus drift net dynamic could be discussed. SENATOR BJORKMAN responded that the proposed bill would simply create a new administrative area on the East Side of Cook Inlet so the set net permits can be managed uniquely. The bill would keep permits from the West Side or Northern District from moving into the East Side of Cook Inlet. He said that looking at the fishery itself, when opportunities are offered, fish managers often need to decide on time or area depending on catch, he said that when the set net fishery is operating, that would to a higher commercial catch but possibly less openings for the drift fleet. However, often these fisheries are open in tandem. He said that management practices by the BOF need to consider run timing and run strength when managing a fishery. 10:29:38 AM CHAIR STUTES announced that SB 158 was held over.