HB 251: MANAGEMENT AND ALLOCATION OF FISH CHAIRMAN MOSES, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 251, told the committee HB 251 was introduced at the request of former Governor Jay Hammond and others who believe the Board of Fisheries needs a definitive policy from the Alaska Legislature for management and allocation of fisheries resources. According to the Chairman, the constitution mandates that these resources be utilized to the maximum benefit of Alaska and its residents. Although there are federal constitutional concerns, he noted it has become apparent to many fishermen in watching the struggles of the Board of Fisheries over the years that further policy guidelines are necessary in order to comply with the constitution to the extent legally possible. CHAIRMAN MOSES advised HB 251 would establish such a policy in statute and make clear the policy of the state is to maximize benefits for the state's resources consistent with the sustained yield principle and with the least adverse impact on the people of the state. Number 048 GERON BRUCE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT WITH THE ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (ADF&G), told the committee the ADF&G was still reviewing HB 251 and had faxed it to members of the Board of Fisheries for their comments before developing a position. MR. BRUCE gave a brief history of the efforts behind HB 251. Alaska's fishery resources were originally developed by residents of the Pacific Northwest and California, and MR. BRUCE noted the long struggle to wrestle control over those interests and get the resources into the hands of Alaskans. He said that the ADF&G supports efforts to achieve this goal. MR. BRUCE explained that the legislature several years ago adopted criteria in an attempt to do this kind of thing, and one of the provisions talk about the number of residents and non-residents who have participated in the fishery in the past, and the number that can be reasonably expected to participate in the future. The purpose of this criteria was to do what is being proposed in HB 251. However, there are complications in dealing with federal law, especially the provisions not to discriminate against non-residents in matters affecting interstate commerce. MR. BRUCE informed the committee the Department of Law has advised the Board of Fisheries not to utilize this particular criteria when they are making allocation decisions for Alaska's fisheries resources. It would be important in reviewing this legislation, he advised, to get an opinion from the Department of Law regarding whether or not the approach proposed in HB 251 would be a more effective tool to have and whether it would fall prey to the same problems the earlier criteria did. MR. BRUCE also explained the recent history of this legislation. Two years ago when the Board of Fisheries took up proposals concerning the Bristol Bay fisheries, there was a section of regulation dealing with setnet fishing in the Kvichak section of the Naknek-Kvichak District. This setnet section allowed for additional time for setnetters in excess of what was given the driftnetters, recognizing that setnet gear was fixed and the driftnetters could move around and have other opportunities. The only way for the setnetters to make up for interceptions was to fish some extra time. MR. BRUCE added the Board took public testimony and decided to remove section f from the regulation book, primarily because they were concerned there wasn't specific enough criteria to the department for implementing section f. The department believed it was putting them in the position of making an allocation call instead of the Board. The job of the department is to manage, not allocate. MR. BRUCE passed out graphs developed by the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission that showed the consequences of repealing section f, which caused people to question the wisdom of the Board's action. In the Naknek-Kvichak, only 30% of the value of the harvest in the driftnet fishery is taken by the residents of the state of Alaska, whereas in the setnet fishery, almost 75% is. The argument runs that by eliminating the section f provision, the opportunity for Alaskans to maximize benefits from the resources was reduced. The Board of Fisheries ended up revisiting this issue this past winter and reinstated the section f provision. MR. BRUCE disclosed Governor Hammond's argument is that a lot of energy and time went into this exercise, and if there had been something in statute that would have made it clear that the Board should not do things that would reduce the opportunities for Alaskans to benefit from the fishery resources, they would have quickly disposed of the original proposal as not being in the interest of the state of Alaska. Number 140 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS expressed interest in the percentages in the graphs, noting there was probably a similar situation in Cook Inlet. MR. BRUCE affirmed they would be waiting to hear from the Board of Fisheries and the Department of Law before completing their analysis. He explained that the original criteria was sponsored by Senator Vic Fischer in the mid-1980s. He said the criteria was used, except for the one provision concerning residents and non-residents, which they have been advised not to use. He believed HB 251 would certainly be challenged by residents from outside the state There was some discussion between REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS and CHAIRMAN MOSES over who in their districts could be impacted by this legislation. CHAIRMAN MOSES noted it was typical of attorneys to be overly cautious about something that might happen and the legislature should not always act on something that might happen. HB 251 WAS HELD FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN MOSES adjourned the meeting at 9 a.m.