HJR 38 - SPORT FISHING GUIDE LIMITED ENTRY Number 0057 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN announced the committee would simultaneously take testimony on HB 149 and HJR 38. He stated that HB 149 is, "An Act relating to the management of salmon fisheries; and providing for an effective date" and HJR 38 is, "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to limited entry for sport fish guides and allied professions." He stated that Representative Kohring would provide his sponsor statement on HB 149. Number 0150 REPRESENTATIVE VICTOR KOHRING, Sponsor, stated that he represents Wasilla and Peters Creek. He explained that HB 149 is to primarily direct the Board of Fisheries to give the first priority, after the escapement goals are met, to the consumptive user; which are the sport fishermen and personal and subsistence user. He stated that the bill is only applicable to Cook Inlet. He stated that there are problems with the numbers of coho and red salmon in the Mat-Su valley. The streams that are having problems are Montana Creek, Fish Creek, Wasilla Creek and Cottonwood Creek. He stated that it is reflective of the F.I.S.H (Fairness in Salmon Harvest) Initiative. He stated that the Initiative was found unconstitutional because the court felt the legislature, not the public, should dictate legislation. Number 0644 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING stated that the goal of the legislation is to provide the personal consumptive user group with a 5 percent allocation of the statewide resource, which is just a small percent of the resource. He stated that the intent is to get an equitable share of the resource. He stated that if the bill were to pass, it would be a benefit to everybody because it will protect the resource. Number 0842 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked Representative Hodgins, co-sponsor of HJR 38, to present the resolution. Chairman Austerman noted for the record that Representative Gary Davis was in attendance. Number 0845 REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS, Co-Sponsor, stated that HJR 38 is proposing to change the Constitution of the State of Alaska, by adding a new section to read: "Section 19. Sport Fish Guide Limited Entry. For purposes of resource conservation and to prevent economic distress among sport fish guides and allied professions, the state may, in all or part of the state, limit entry into the sport fish guiding profession and closely allied professions that for compensation directly assist sport fishermen to take fish." He stated that if it passes the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), they would have the ability to limit sport fish guides. Number 1040 RUTH JOHNSON said, "We do not want HB 149. It would put us out of business." (Testimony was indiscernible due to poor sound quality Ms. Johnson provided the committee with a written copy of this statement.) Number 1156 IRV CARLISLE stated that he was Secretary of Kenai-Soldotna Fish and Game Advisory Committee, for 13 years and he was on the Governor's Arbitration Committee to find middle ground on the F.I.S.H. Initiative. He stated that he served a three year term on the Board of Fisheries. He stated that he has never been a commercial fisherman and his interest lies in sport fishing. He stated that he has guided on the Kenai River for two seasons. He stated that in 1959 the legislature appointed the Board of Fisheries to decide on allocation issues. He stated that the misconception is that people from Cook Inlet believe Cook Inlet has the most important fisheries issues in the state of Alaska. He stated that he has traveled to virtually every area of the state listening to residents and every area, that has submitted a proposal to the Board of Fisheries, feels that their issue is the most important. He stated that the legislature is feeling the pressure from large campaign donors but once the legislature starts to allocate fish, they will be expected to decide on allocation issues all over the state. He stated that being a member on the Board of Fisheries is a full time job, as meetings are seven days a week, for a three week period at a specific location with a week off in between locations, for six months out of the year. He stated that it will be a difficult decision for the legislature to make on what allocation issues they are going to decide on and what issues they are going to let the Board of Fisheries decide on. He stated that there are more than 1,000 proposals that came to the board, more than half being allocation issues. He stated that the result of HB 149 or any other allocation legislation will put the fisheries resources in the political arena where decisions are made by a political criteria. The resource will lose in this scenario. He stated that if the legislature is allocating fish there no longer needs to be a Board of Fisheries. He urged the legislature to make better use of their time and leave the allocation issues to the Board of Fisheries. Number 1957 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING stated that his constituents have seen three years of inaction by the Board of Fisheries and ADF&G. He asked Mr. Carlisle what could be done to get more fish in the rivers. He stated he would dispose of HB 149 if he could be assisted to get more fish in their streams and rivers. Number 2125 MR. CARLISLE replied that the first thing he would suggest is to get more active in the process itself. He stated that naturally the west side of Cook Inlet has never been a dynamic fishery as compared to the east side. He stated that the West Side permits were also cheaper than the east side permits. He stated that the continued violations of people taking fish illegally has contributed a great deal to condition of the present fishery. He stated that some Cook Inlet permit holders believe that they should make just as much money as a the permit holders that have paid a much higher price for a permit that allows them to fish in a more productive area. He stated that equal salaries and incomes can not be delegated by the legislature. He stated that they certainly have a sympathetic ear on the Board of Fisheries, regarding the allocation issues in the Mat-Su Valley, because the Vice Chairman of the Board of Fisheries wrote the F.I.S.H. Initiative. He stated that there is no quick fix to this problem. Number 2527 DALE BONDURANT stated that he is in support of the concept behind HB 149. He believed that it is reflective of the certain provisions and clauses of the Alaskan constitution. He stated that equal access and opportunity are the fundamental rights related to the use of the public trust resources. He stated that the bill also complies with amendments of the U.S. Constitution. He continued that limited entry makes commercial fishing a restricted class of fishing with a limited number of participants and should not have priority or preference of use. He stated that consumptive uses makes up 1.5 percent of the statewide salmon harvest. He stated that it is less than the one-third of the 5 percent cap that is proposed by HB 149. He stated that any such cap is not practical for this legislative act, because as the growth of the population increases so should the percentage of the common consumptive use. He stated that restriction on consumptive use should only be restricted by the conservation and the sustained yield mandate of the constitution. Number 3106 MR. BONDURANT stated that there are more fish taken commercially by nonresidents than by nonresident sport fishermen. He stated that the common consumptive user owns the fish. Number 3122 BYRON BONDURANT stated that he would not vote for a Representative of his district if they do not affix their name to HB 149. He stated that the bill reaffirms what is in the constitution. He stated that commercial fishing is not an important or personal use, it is the means of business to use the excess of a resource for commercial gain. He stated that HB 149 recognizes personal use and is a people's bill. He reaffirmed that he would not vote for anyone who did not sign on to this bill. He stated that people turn against government because most of the bills give special interests to a small portion of the population. He stated that HB 149 is for all the people and he stated that he could not believe that it might not leave the committee. He indicated that ADF&G is a political group. He stated that there are a lot of bills passed that go against the constitution and HJR 38 is one of them. Number 3814 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING stated that they are getting a very small percentage of the resource, consequently it is not a threat to the commercial fishing industry. Number 3904 JIM RUSSELL, Commercial Fisherman, stated that he is against HB 149, it would put him and his family out of business and all his income supports local businesses. (Mr. Russell's testimony was indiscernible due to poor sound quality.) Number 4116 DIANE DUNCAN, Commercial Fisherman, stated that she is opposed to HB 149 because of the effects it would have on her business, the Kenai economy and the state of Alaska. She stated that commercial fishing is a viable and historical industry of the Kenai Peninsula. She explained that the rivers and the salmon runs can withstand the commercial fishery because it has taken place for a long time. She stated that if the fishery is continued to be managed biologically it will continue to produce plenty of salmon for all Alaskans. Number 4213 MS. DUNCAN stated that the growing tourism industry is putting more pressure on the river systems. Overcrowding and degradation of the habitat should be of concern. She explained that commercial fishermen have had severe restrictions and fishing has been closed for the months of May, June, most of August, September and October to allow more opportunity to sport fishermen. She stated that escapement goals have increased drastically. She explained that there is a dipnet fishery that takes place below the sonar counters so that the fish taken are not counted towards escapement goals. There is a personal use fishery that takes place before the commercial fishery begins, in an effort to give sport fishermen more of an opportunity to catch fish. She stated that the problem does not lie within the commercial industry because more and more of the resource is taken away from commercial fishermen and given to the sport industry. Number 4325 MS. DUNCAN stated that the Kenai River can not supply all the tourists with fish at the rate nonresident sport anglers are increasing. She stated that a solution is needed and it should not be at the expense of the local residents. She stated that the fisheries need to be managed biologically to ensure the future of Alaska for all Alaskans. TAPE 97-31, SIDE B Number 0335 ROGER HARRIS stated that he was against the F.I.S.H. Initiative and can not believe that it could be brought up again. He stated that he does not always agree with the Board of Fisheries' decisions but it is the forum to decide allocation issues. He stated that he is against HB 149. Number 0423 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING stated that he wrote the bill and it was not because of any special interest group that he is trying to cater to or to seek votes. He stated that he wrote it from his heart with the intent of trying to help people get more fish on their tables. Number 0519 JOE HANES, Sport Fish Guide, stated that he was the former President of the Kenai River Guides Association, and has been guiding on the river for 19 years. He stated that not sure whether or not this bill would be effective and is concerned on the effect it will have on the commercial fishery in this area. He stated that he has spent a lot of time in meetings, surveying the situation. He stated that the coho salmon run has been obliterated. He indicated that both sport and commercial fishermen are going to suffer. He stated that the Kodiak king salmon intercept has gone from 500 fish in 1985 to 40,000 fish as of this year. Number 0735 MR. HANES stated that when a sport fishery doubles in its harvest there are proposals written to curb the catch and he questioned why the same proposals are not done for the intercept fisheries in the commercial industry. He stated that sports fishermen have curved their harvests. He stated that all industries need to curb their harvests because in a few years the commercial fisheries will overfish themselves to extinction. He stated that everybody has a right to harvest the fish. He stated that he does not support HB 149 and asked that the legislature help the fisheries by writing a bill that would stop all sockeye salmon enhancement in Cook Inlet, until there is a rebound in the stocks. Number 1051 MR. HANES stated that he would like to limit guides but he would have a problem with limiting halibut fishing guides because 93 percent of Alaskans access the halibut fishery through guides. He stated he would be in favor of HJR 38 for certain areas in the state even though it could affect his business. Number 1207 JANET CLUCAS stated that she is against HB 149. She stated that it is important to find out the real problem in order to find a solution. She stated that everybody should be able to fish for the resource. She reiterated the months that commercial fishermen were not allowed to fish. (Most of Ms. Clucas' testimony was indiscernible due to poor sound quality.) Number 1406 ROD BERG stated that the present system is not working. He stated that when the fish in the Kenai River are counted accurately, it will be shown that the escapement levels are not being met. He stated that the sonar surveys are not accurate. He stated that he supports HB 149, but he would rather see the Upper Cook Inlet Management Plan changed. He stated that 5 percent is not a large percentage of fish to ask for. He stated that commercial fishermen are given loans and are treated like a special class of people. Number 1815 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING stated that he agreed with him. Number 1821 MARK POWELL, Salmon Buyer, stated the he buys fish from the setnet fishermen. He stated that he is against HB 149. He stated that Alaska's fishing area is larger then the entire coast line of the United States. Pink salmon are harvested in vast amounts though hatchery programs that sustain their commercial viability. To take 5 percent of 180 million fish harvested in the state is not fair. He referred to Representative Kohring's statement that the Board of Fisheries haven't supported the sport fishing interests. He stated that the setnetters had a lot of their season taken away and it is time to look at the guided fisheries impact on the river. He stated that commercial fishermen have existed for many years before problems existed, therefore it is not really accurate to say they are the cause of the problem. He referred to the restrictions on the drifters and the few days that they were allowed to fish. He stated that through these closures the sport fishermen gained more fish. He asked how the bill would work and stated that biological needs and the management of the fish need to be put first. He stated that commercial fishermen support the economy and asked what would happen without the tax that the fishermen pay back to the state. Number 2623 LEON MARCINKOWSKI testified on HB 149. He stated that he has participated in the Board of Fisheries and he believes that the process is working. He asked Representative Kohring to really examine the 5 percent, because if he did he would understand how unfair it is. He stated that if Representative Kohring really had written the bill from his heart he will realize the consequences of the 5 percent. (Most of Mr. Marcinkowski's testimony was indiscernible due to poor sound quality.) Number 3151 BRENT JOHNSON, President, Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association, stated that he is against HB 149. He stated that it appears that 5 percent is not a lot to ask for. He stated that the oil and gas industry in Cook Inlet, compared to the statewide oil and gas industry, is just a drop in the bucket. He stated that there are not that many fish produced in Cook Inlet as compared to the statewide number of fish. He stated that this bill can completely dislocate Cook Inlet commercial fishermen. Number 3399 MR. JOHNSON stated that if an industry relies on a carrying capacity of a certain amount of the resource, there has to be a limit to the people taking that resource. He stated that tourism has become important recently, while commercial fishing has always been occurring. He stated that there has to be a limit because the resource cannot renew as fast as it is being used. Number 3612 MR. JOHNSON stated that he has heard that the bill was written because the Board of Fisheries is not doing their job. He asked if Representative Kohring has ever been to a meeting regarding Cook Inlet issues. Mr. Johnson stated that he has been to every Board of Fisheries meeting regarding Cook Inlet issues. He stated that both Governor Hickle and Governor Knowles, appointed most of the members and they were both running on a "sport fish ticket". He provided the committee with the background of the Board of Fisheries members. Trefon Angasan, Bristol Bay Driftnet Fishermen and Vice-President of the Bristol Bay Native Corporation; Dan Coffey, Lawyer, wrote the F.I.S.H. Initiative; Ed Dersham, Salt Water Sport Fishing Guide; Larry Engel, Biologist, ADF&G, Sport Fish Division and former Lobbyist for the Mat-Su Valley; Grant Miller, Southeast Seiner; Virgil Umphernour, Game and Sport Fish processor and Fish Wheel Fisherman on the Yukon River; John White, Dentist, and Kuskokwim Drift Fishermen. He stated that most are sport fishermen, Virgil Umphernour and John White are both in favor of no interception. He stated that Grant Miller is the only real commercial fisherman on the board. He stated that in the past year the Kenai setnet fishermen have lost one-quarter of their season. He stated that the Board of Fisheries will probably put commercial fishermen out of business in the long run, HB 149 will just do it faster. Number 4227 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING stated that he has been the Board of Fisheries meetings and still maintained that the board is not equipped to address the issues and the problems in the area. Number 4332 KARL KIRCHER, Executive Director, Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association, stated that they have about 400 members. He stated that the association opposes HB 149. He stated that other users should not have a priority over the traditional commercial fishery. He stated that in 1996, 136,000 sockeye salmon were caught by the personal use fishery on the Kenai River. He stated that the sport fishery has grown into another commercial fishery. TAPE 97-32, SIDE A Number 0004 MR. KIRCHER stated that the expansion of the sport fishing industry or overcapitalization is creating a problem for the business owners, so they are looking for more of the resource as the solution. He stated that getting more of the resource will not solve the problem. He referred to graphs that he has made and stated that the commercial fishermen have a viable and healthy industry as prices and harvest are increasing. Number 0306 MR. KIRCHER stated that sport fishermen in Cook Inlet harvest 82 percent of king salmon, 25 percent of the coho salmon and 5 percent of the sockeye salmon. He stated that asking for 5 percent is extremely misleading. He stated that HB 149 is oversimplifying the users of the fisheries and is detrimental to the commercial fisheries. Number 0506 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING asked Mr. Kircher why he felt it was right that the commercial users have priority over the other users. Number 0524 MR. KIRCHER replied that he assumed Representative Kohring was referring to the Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan that gives the commercial fishing industry a priority from July 1 to August 15. He stated that during the sport fish priority there is no commercial fishing allowed, however during the commercial fishing priority all other users are allowed to fish. Number 0712 PEGGY MOORE stated that she is opposed to HB 149. She referred to the sponsor statement and stated that the bill is not really about the common consumptive user. She stated that Representative Kohring has stated that sport fishing restrictions are detrimental to Southeast Alaska's economy and that the Mat-Su Borough's economy is suffering as a result of the recent sport fish closures and restrictions. She stated that she thought the bill was addressing the common consumptive use and not tourism dollars. She stated that the statutes define sport fishing as the taking of fish resources for personal use. Personal use fishing is defined as the taking of fish resources by Alaskan residents. She stated that the definition of an industry is any large scale business activity. She stated that she does not understand how lodge owners and sport guides can qualify as common consumptive users. She stated that by making a profit from the resource disqualifies one as a common consumptive user. Number 1017 MS. MOORE referred to the purpose statement of HB 149, "sport fisheries shall receive a preference to take a portion of the harvestable surplus of salmon stocks in the area." She stated that it does not say throughout the whole state. She stated that the priority of 5 percent of the entire statewide stocks is going to be taken from a small fishing area without distinguishing between stocks or species. She stated that the 5 percent would actually exceed the entire return of all species to the Cook Inlet area and as a result limit all commercial fishing along these stocks' migration routes. She stated that HB 149 would have a negative effect on the economy and the community. She reiterated that she is opposed to HB 149 and did not want to have her livelihood taken away. (Portions of Ms. Moore's testimony was indiscernible due to poor sound quality.) Number 1441 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING stated that he would like to modify his sponsor statement to emphasize more the issue of the personal consumptive user that he is trying to benefit. He stated that he does not deny the sport fishing industry has wonderful economic benefits to the Mat-Su Borough. Number 1540 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN called for a brief at-ease. Number 1738 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER (RECORDING STARTED IN THE MIDDLE OF TESTIMONY) stated that this issue is complicated and it should not be decided in the political arena. She stated that allocation issues need to be done by a group that has the time to research the issue. Number 2114 BOB TOLL stated that the commercial fishing industry in the Kenai Peninsula is critical to the economy. He referred to a report prepared to by the Kenai Peninsula Borough Economic Development Districts. He referred to the result of the report. He asked if HB 149 was really to help the resource or if it is to help an overexpanded fishery. (Most of Mr. Toll's testimony was indiscernible due to poor sound quality.) Number 2540 LAWRENCE RORRISON, Commercial Fisherman, stated that the majority of his income is from commercial fishing and HB 149 would hurt his business. He referred to the problem of the lack of angler success due to overcrowding and stated that it is not going to be fixed by HB 149. He stated that two years ago he was able to catch fish in a small creek in the Mat-Su. He stated that most commercial fishermen, in addition to fishing participate in other professions. He stated that a lot of jobs result from commercial fishing and they have an economic impact on a variety of businesses. He stated that there has already been restrictions on commercial fishing industry in Cook Inlet to accommodate the sport fishermen. He asked why commercial fishermen are not included as a common consumptive user. (Portions of Mr. Rorrison's testimony was indiscernible due to poor sound quality.) Number 3605 COSMO MERCURIO, Commercial Fisherman, stated that he is adamantly against HB 149. He stated that it does not help the resource that he and his community depends on. He stated that more fish will not do anyone any good. Number 3648 JUDY JOHNSON, Setnet Fisherman, stated that she is against HB 149. She stated that she would like to keep this issue with the Board of Fisheries. She stated that the legislature could help by allocating more funds to ADF&G. She stated that the biology department is being cut drastically at a time when there needs to be more information on the resource so Alaska does not lose it. Number 3920 SAMANTHA MILLS stated that she is against HB 149. Number 3937 KRIS NOROSZ, Representative, Icicle Seafoods, stated that they process salmon, crab, halibut, black cod and herring. She stated that there are plants in Seward, Homer and Petersburg. She stated that if HB 149 were adopted, it would be highly disruptive to Alaska's commercial salmon industry. She stated that its impact would be felt by fishermen; processing workers; supporting industries, such as fuel distributors, insurance brokers and grocery stores; and the state of Alaska. Ms. Norosz stated that although the bill was meant to target South Central Alaska, it will also impact Southeast Alaska. Southeast Alaska meets the 500,000- angler-day threshold. She stated that with the increase in road access slated for Prince William Sound, this area will soon meet the criteria as well. Number 4136 MS. NOROSZ stated that members of the public who purchase salmon species would also lose access to these wild fish. She stated that most Alaskans enjoy eating these species, but they may not have the ability to harvest their own. Commercial fishermen and salmon processors provide fish for these consumers. She continued that the statewide catch of king and coho salmon is less then 5 percent of the total statewide salmon harvest. The commercial fleet could lose all access to these very important species. Ms. Norosz stated that the bill would allow any commercial salmon fishery that harvested even a small portion of fish destined for the designated common consumptive use areas to be closed until the priority users get all they want. She continued that closing areas along salmon migratory paths to commercial fishermen until sport, subsistence and personal users get all they want will result in a substantial delay in harvest for commercial fishermen. This will affect the quality of the fish commercially harvested, which is of most importance in salmon marketing. She stated that with the massive quantity of farmed salmon on the market today, the only way wild salmon competes is by being of the highest quality possible. She stated that Icicle Seafoods is against HB 149. Number 4410 DREW SPARLIN, Commercial Fisherman, stated that he is against HB 149. He stated that the most important factor is the resource and it has to be managed biological without political pressures. He stated that the legislature should not get involved in the micro- management of the fish resources. He stated that he has commercial fished for 30 years. He stated that the more pressure that is put on the system, through tourism and adding fish, the faster the destruction of the resource will occur. He indicated that poor management is what killed the resource in the Lower 48. TAPE 97-32, SIDE B Number 0001 MR. SPARLIN stated decisions should be made based on the biological information. He stated that a member of the Board of Fisheries should not be appointed if they have a set agenda. Number 0047 ERIK HUEBSCH stated that he is against HB 149. He stated that the attempt by the legislature to micro-manage fishery resources is short sided and ill informed. He stated that the Kenai Peninsula has a diverse economy, and commercial fishing has been the corner stone of that economy. He stated that HB 149 would ruin the economy of the Kenai Peninsula in order to benefit the Mat-Su Borough. He stated that the Mat-Su borough is the fastest growing area in the state. He stated that residents need to take more responsibility of their actions because their lifestyles are affecting the resource. He stated that the legislature should spend their time trying to allocate money to ADF&G rather than trying to allocate fish. Number 0318 DAVID MARTIN stated that he has been involved with the Board of Fisheries. He stated that 6,000 people are involved in the Cook Inlet salmon fisheries for all or part of their livelihood. He stated that HB 149 would eliminate all of these jobs and fuel the rapidly growing commercial sport fish industry. He stated that the bill is not managing the resource on a sustained yield basis. He stated that it is hypocritical for Representative Kohring to state that HB 149 is not in opposition to the commercial fishing industry. He stated that allocating fish is not the responsibility of the legislature, it is the function of the Board of Fisheries. He explained the proposal process of the board. He stated that they get their information from user groups, advisory committees and biologists. He stated that, hopefully, fisheries regulation will be implemented with the best interest in mind of maintaining the habitat. He stated that HB 149 will fracture the current system of management. He stated that ADF&G needs sufficient funds to manage the fishery and enforce the laws. He stressed that habitat should be the issue. Number 0853 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING stated that he took offense to being called hypocritical. He stated that he is trying to help his constituents and enhance their economy. He stated that he does not have an ulterior motive. He stated that he hopes that everyone can work together to amend the bill so that it is acceptable to both sides. He stated that he is being absolutely truthful when he says that the does not want to hurt the commercial fishing industry, he is trying to help the people in the Mat-Su. Number 1015 MR. MARTIN explained that he stated Representative Kohring's comment was hypocritical. He stated that if one does the math regarding the 5 percent allocation one can see that there will not be any commercial fishing in Cook Inlet, however in Representative Kohring's sponsor statement, he stated that the bill will not affect commercial fishing. Mr. Martin stated, that statement is hypocritical (spectators applause). Number 1113 LIZ CHASE, Member, Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association, stated that she is against HB 149. She stated that the commercial fishing industry has been regulated to the point of "(indisc.)". She stated that she supports a diverse economy. She stated that the wealth of Alaska is in its natural renewable resources. She stated that the resource should be for Alaskans and HB 149 is a step back in history because it is giving the resource to outsiders. She stated that the legislature should look for other ways to make tourists happy rather then by guaranteeing them fish. (Portions of Ms. Chase's testimony was indiscernible due to poor sound quality.) Number 1350 DAN VAN ZEE, stated that he is in favor of HB 149. Sport fishing is a major component of the economy in the Kenai peninsula. He stated that the recorded coho salmon catch on July 20, 1997 was 20,000 fish and on August 4, the reported catch was 130,000 fish. He stated that during the commercial fishing time, sport fishing was cut off and it affected businesses. He stated that the argument over the allocation affects all the businesses in the area. (Most of Mr. Van Zee's testimony was indiscernible due to poor sound quality and piano playing.) Number 1932 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that the committee is trying to find a balance between the commercial fishing industry and the tourism industry. He stated that the legislature does have the authority to delegate power to the Board of Fisheries to make those decisions. Number 2002 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING stated how refreshing it was to hear someone testify in favor of the bill after 22 people in a row stated their opposition. Number 2000 JOHN EFTA read a letter from the Chairman of the Kenai/Soldotna Fish and Game Advisory Committee that stated: The advisory board does not support management of the fish and game resources by the legislature or at the ballot box. The current process has elevated the state of Alaska to a position envied by other states. It has brought Alaska's resources back to current levels after poor management, that nearly destroyed the fisheries resources. The legislature should be more aggressive in funding and supporting ADF&G. The tool that is missing is a limitation on the expanding sport guide industry. If nothing is done there, Alaska's fisheries resource will wind up like the ones on the Pacific Coast. Number 2251 RAYMOND VINZANT, Sport Fisherman, stated that he caught absolutely no king, coho or sockeye salmon this season. He stated that fish are not a natural renewable resource. He said, "They are taking fish. They are raising them in hatcheries. They are putting on federal land, lakes like Hidden Lake. They are stocking it. They are killing off the natural wild fish." He stated that hatchery fish are not native Alaskan fish. He stated that if Alaskans do not do something then the federal government will take over the fisheries. He stated that some parts of HB 149 need to be revised but he his in favor of the bill. He stated that all groups need to work together instead of saying that they don't like HB 149. He stated that he did not like HB 149 but if it could be modified it can be brought to a good conclusion for everybody. Number 2610 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that is one reason why the committee is traveling around the state, to hear testimony from everyone, in order to come up with an answer. Number 2614 THEO MATTHEWS, Executive Director, United Cook Inlet Drift Association, stated that he has a drift permit. He stated that Representative Kohring does have a problem but HB 149 does not even begin to address the issue. He stated that HB 149 can put commercial fishermen out of business. He stated that commercial fishermen are common users and are protected by the constitution. He stated the fact that there is a commercial fishery on a stock does not demand that there be a sport fishery on that stock and vise versa. He listed the resolutions from the Mat-Su area that opposed the F.I.S.H. Initiative. He stated that there is a myth that a sport caught fish is more valuable. He stated that the Board of Fisheries and ADF&G can not sustain the fisheries without adequate funding from the legislature and support from other departments. (Portions of Mr. Matthews testimony was indiscernible due to poor sound quality). Number 3300 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING thanked him for recognizing that there was a problem in the Mat-Su area. He stated that he is working on different wording for the 5 percent allocation because it is unclear at present and it might result in just taking that verbiage out of the bill. Number 3444 MR. MATTHEWS stated that all user groups need to work together. Number 3455 G. KENDALL, Commercial Fisherman, stated that she is against HB 149. She stated that the rivers will not be able to handle more fishermen. She stated this bill would end commercial fishing and eventually, the sport guide businesses because it will destroy the habitat. She stated that too much politics managing the runs are destructive to the resource and does not work. She stated that she has been commercial fishing for 23 years. She stated that Cook Inlet does not get enough fish to support a 5 percent allocation quota. She stated that HB 149 puts at risk many industries and jeopardizes the commercial industry, which is the largest private sector employer in the state. (Portions of Ms. Kendall's testimony was indiscernible due to poor sound quality.) Number 4037 PAUL SHADURA, Commercial Fisherman and Tender Operator, stated that Section 1, of the bill states, "This Act provides that in an area of intense common consumptive use fishing activity, after maintenance for salmon stocks at sustained yield levels ..." He asked what the definition of sustained yield was and stated that at a Board of Fisheries meeting there was a great discussion on what sustained yield actually meant. He interpreted the bill to mean a minimum sustained yield policy and he did not think that any user group would agree with a minimum sustained yield policy. Number 4244 MR. SHADURA read a statement by Paul Krasnowsky, sport fish biologist, that was presented to the Board of Fisheries: "Three hatcheries presently operate in Upper Cook Inlet. All are run by the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Corporation, although two were originally built and operated by ADF&G. Over the years a variety of production programs and species have been dealt with at these hatcheries. Today, most of the enhancement effort is focused on production of sockeye salmon. Returns of hatchery fish have not been of a magnitude to influence the management strategies that were developed for natural stocks." Number 4348 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING stated that the definition of sustained yield would be, to provide sufficient escapement to sustain the resource for everybody's benefit. He stated that the exact number would be up to ADF&G. Number 4505 MR. SHADURA said, "You only need a certain amount of fish to keep coming back and if you put too many fish in a system and you don't change your programs of habitat protection, like in the Mat-Su area, then there will be just a minimum sustained yield goal." He stated that with the 5 percent allocation, there isn't any fish returning to the Mat-Su, therefore the district would be shut down. He stated that he has a problem with the percentages and the lack of definitions for salmon returns in the bill. Number 4622 JEFF BEAUDOIN, Commercial Fisherman (TAPE CHANGE) TAPE 97-33, SIDE A Number 0038 MR. BEAUDOIN stated that he has concerns regarding the salmon industry on the Kenai River. He stated that it is a nonresident versus resident sport fishing issue. He indicated that this would be giving priority to nonresidents. He stated that he is against HB 149 because the consumptive users have already been accommodated by the Board of Fisheries. He stated that in 1995, the personal use fishery had 85,699 sockeye salmon harvested by 5,360 Alaskan residents in the Kasilof and Kenai River. In 1996, the personal use fishery harvested upwards of 136,043 sockeye by 8,888 Alaskan residents. He indicated that the personal use fisheries have taken precedence over commercial fisheries, as certain personal use fisheries occur prior to the commercial openings. He stated that he recognized the viability of the sport fish industry. Number 0539 MR. BEAUDOIN stated that the bill is in opposition to the commercial fishing industry because it takes away Cook Inlet "(indisc.)" and it affects his livelihood. He stated that the Mat- Su problem should remain in the Mat-Su, instead HB 149 would affect regional areas statewide in regards to allocation. (Portions of Mr. Beaudoin's testimony was indiscernible due to poor sound quality). Number 0638 DON JOHNSON stated that he has made money off of both the commercial and sport fishing industry. He stated that the open public fishery that pre-existed the commercial fishery has been absorbed by the commercial fishery. He stated that the commercial fishery takes over 90 percent of the resource and HB 149 is a result of this. He stated that the resource historically belonged to the public and they would like it back. He stated that the "phenomena" that the commercial fishery created has resulted in the subsistence, sport fishing, personal use problems. He stated that HB 149 is the alternative, although he stated he would like to rewrite the bill, it is still better than what exists now. He stated that historically Cook Inlet had a lot of wild stocks but the normal sustained yield has become a manipulated commodity. A lot of people felt that they would be able to get rich because they could manipulate the ratio of fish stocks in Cook Inlet. He stated that the sockeye salmon species has been expanded way beyond anything else and the results are starting to be felt due to mismanagement. He stated that it does not make any sense to enhance one species until it is completely out of control. He stated that sockeye salmon is on a sustained yield plan but the other species are not, which will result in a deteriorating cycle. He stated that HB 149 should be passed. Number 1746 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING stated that he failed to mention earlier that 28,000 people did sign the F.I.S.H Initiative which underscores the fact that there are a lot of people that feel there is a problem. Number 1825 JIM EVENSON stated that he is dead set against the bill and does not see a reason for it. He stated that the commercial fishery has never tried to take fish away or diminish the sport fishery, it has always been the other way around. He stated that it was after statehood that there was good management. He stated that the alliance between sport fishing and tourism scares him and it needs to be monitored. He stated the citizens of this area, that he has talked to, believe that HB 149 is ridiculous. There is not wide spread support for HB 149 (spectators applauded). (Most of Mr. Evenson's testimony was indiscernible due to poor sound quality.) Number 2123 SAM McDOWELL stated that he supports HB 149, however he does not support the 5 percent allocation. He referred to commercial harvest of sockeye salmon and the sport fisheries' intentions of escapement. He stated that commercial fishermen harvested more sockeye salmon in Upper Cook Inlet in 1987 and in 1991 than the previous 16 years before the Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan was passed. He stated that in 1951, the commercial fishery harvested 187,511 king salmon and in 1970 they harvested 8,465. He stated that the commercial fishermen totally wiped out the king salmon stocks in Ship Creek. He stated that biologists set up a management plan of Upper Cook Inlet sockeye salmon to meet Kenai and Kasilof escapement goals and made all other species and areas, secondary. He stated that the records show the most productive spawning areas are in the Northern District of Upper Cook Inlet. He stated that there needs to be a mixed stock fishery from Kodiak to the Northern District. He stated that the bill would allow everyone to participate in personal consumptive fisheries but it should be after optimum sustained yield is met. (Portions of Mr. McDowell's testimony was indiscernible due to poor sound quality.) Number 2718 LARRY VAN SKY, Construction Worker and Commercial Fishermen, stated that he disagreed with the bill. He stated that it is the legislators job to treat all citizens in the state the same. He stated that HB 149 does not treat fishermen fairly. (Portions of Mr. Van Sky's testimony was indiscernible due to poor sound quality.) Number 2904 DONNA SCHOUWEILER testified on HB 149. She stated that she was raised to live off the land. (Ms. Schouweiler's testimony was indiscernible due to poor sound quality.) Number 3544 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN thanked everybody for attending. He stated that there would be one more statewide hearing to take testimony and that will occur in Sitka. He stated that during session the committee will continue to take up HB 149 and then take statewide testimony again to discuss any alternatives the committee may come up with. REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS thanked everybody for attending. He stated that he hoped everyone will be able to move forward towards a solution. He stated that he does not see how HB 149 will assist the Kenai Peninsula and the Cook Inlet area. He said, "I hate to depict this as an industry verses industry type bill and that is basically what it is." He stated that the changes will be sweeping changes, as he stated that he could not accept anything in HB 149. He stated that there are a lot of problems with the fisheries. He suggested that the export of fish by nonresident sport fishermen be limited. He stated that when he was in Budapest, a person told him that he was able to pack out 1,900 pounds of fish from Southeast Alaska. He stated that the solution will need the cooperation of everyone, as there is a problem in the Mat-Su area. He stated that he represents the Kenai-Nikiski district, Chairman Austerman represents Kodiak, Representative Ivan Ivan represents lower Kuskokwim, Representative Gene Kubina represents Valdez and Representative Scott Ogan represents the Mat-Su Valley. He stated that he hopes a solution can be worked out. He stated that the scientific reasons for a low return of fish need to be looked at as well. He stated that he would like to see more funds go towards habitat protection. Number 4054 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING thanked everybody for coming. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN indicated that both bills would be held for further discussion.