HB 110-BARBED HOOKS  10:05:06 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 110, "An Act prohibiting the use of barbed hooks in certain freshwater areas." [Before the committee was Version 28-LS0360\U.] CHAIR SEATON noted that the committee was also considering a resolution for the lowering of Chinook salmon by-catch in the Gulf and Bering Sea troll fisheries. 10:06:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 110, labeled 28-LS0360\N, Bullard, 3/11/13, as the working draft. 10:06:52 AM CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion. CHAIR SEATON explained that the proposed committee substitute would move this statutory prohibition on the use of barbed hooks from AS 16.10 to AS 16.05, which would now include this restriction with other similar violations. 10:08:09 AM CHAIR SEATON removed his objection, and there being no further objection, Version N was adopted as the working draft. 10:08:47 AM The committee took a brief at-ease. 10:09:22 AM CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 28-LS0360\N.1, Bullard, 3/11/13, which read: Page 1, following line 13: Insert a new subsection to read: "(d) In this section, "barbed hook" means a hook with at least one subsidiary point facing in the opposite direction of the main point of the hook; "barbed hook" does not include a hook from which all barbs have been pinched down, filed off, or otherwise removed." CHAIR SEATON explained that the purpose of the proposed amendment was to add a definition for barbed hook into the regulation. 10:10:44 AM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON objected. 10:11:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON removed his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. 10:11:23 AM CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 28-LS0360\N.2, Bullard, 3/11/13, which read: Page 1, following line 13: Insert a new subsection to read: "(d) In this section, (1) "freshwater" means all inland water; (2) "inland water" means water separated from salt water at the mouths of creeks and streams and rivers at a line between the extremities of a river's banks at a mean low tide or at a point to be determined and adequately marked by the department." 10:12:06 AM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON objected for discussion. CHAIR SEATON explained that, as it was necessary to define the fresh waters affected by the proposed bill, proposed Amendment 2 offered that definition. 10:12:41 AM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON removed his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. 10:13:21 AM CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony. 10:14:23 AM BURKE WALDRON, Captain; Operations Commander, Division of Alaska Wildlife Troopers, Department of Public Safety, suggested that a re-wording of the description for barbed hooks in Amendment 1 to read "a separate or different direction," instead of "the opposite direction" for the point of the primary hook would lend greater clarity. He announced that he was still evaluating the definitions for "fresh water" and "inland water" in Amendment 2, and that he would comment on this at a later time. 10:15:57 AM ERIC JORDAN, Commercial Fisherman, stated his support for HB 110 and his support for conservation. He questioned why the House Special Committee on Fisheries was involved with this, as, he opined, it was an Alaska Board of Fisheries issue. CHAIR SEATON explained that both the Alaska Board of Fisheries and the legislature addressed issues, and that the legislature had the responsibility to "look out for the resources of the state." MR. JORDAN said that he strongly supported the proposed bill. 10:19:34 AM CHAIR SEATON directed attention to a letter from the United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA), dated March 11, 2013 [Included in members' packets] which expressed its support for reducing catch mortality, but emphasized that this was an issue which should be addressed by the Alaska Board of Fisheries, and not the Alaska State Legislature. He introduced an article by Alex Wertheimer, "Hooking Mortality of Chinook Salmon Released by Commercial Trollers." [Included in members' packets] He reported that Mr. Wertheimer worked for the National Marine Fisheries Service at the Auke Bay Laboratory in Juneau in 1988, when this article was published. Reading from the Abstract at the top of page 1, he stated: "The recalculated estimate of total hooking mortality for legal and sublegal fish, based on wound severity, was 23.5 percent." He reported that the committee had pondered any means for limiting "all kinds of unintended mortality." 10:21:13 AM DAN DUNAWAY expressed his objection that the legislature was "encroaching into the, what I see as, the realm of the Board of Fish, that's the whole reason we have a Board of Fish." He opined that a major reason for statehood had been for more public involvement, and to remove some of these issues from "the political arena." He offered his belief that the Alaska Board of Fisheries was a more appropriate assemblage. He referenced numerous fresh water studies that showed "a minimum biological gain for a significant social cost." He said that the definition of "barbless" often brought inadvertent violations and "squabbles" that alienated an otherwise supportive public. He offered his belief that there was not a significant gain from these regulations. He reported that Idaho was in the process of repealing its "barbless" rules and that Montana had also decided not to adopt "barbless" regulations. 10:23:54 AM CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony. 10:24:00 AM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON offered his belief that, although Chinook Salmon fisheries required a triage treatment to specific drainages, this was similar to applying a "Band-Aid to a very severe injury." CHAIR SEATON, in response, stated that all aspects of the low stock returns of Chinook Salmon were being reviewed. He reflected that the committee had agreed to sponsor a resolution to lower the troll by-catch limits. He referenced testimony from commercial fishermen that the release of wounded by-catch had a significant, though unintended, mortality. He reported on the studies from Washington and Oregon which indicated a need to change fish harvesting operations in order to protect Chinook Salmon from unintended mortalities. He reflected that the problem was complex with many pieces, including species interactions and habitats, and that one solution would not fix the problem. He suggested that the purpose of the proposed bill was to address one piece of the many problems. 10:27:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON questioned whether the legislature should be involved and reduce the number of catch and release per day. CHAIR SEATON replied that even a small reduction in the mortality rate could be important, and that it was an idea worthy of further discussion. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked about the positions of Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) and the Alaska Board of Fisheries on this legislation. 10:29:19 AM CHARLES SWANTON, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), stated that ADF&G had a neutral stance on the proposed bill. He announced that the Alaska Board of Fisheries, amidst a lot of public input, had dealt with similar issues in past years. 10:30:16 AM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked if the Alaska Board of Fisheries had taken a position on any similar legislation. MR. SWANTON replied that he did not recall that it had taken a position on any legislation. In response to Representative Herron, he opined that the board was "generally silent or neutral." In response to an earlier question from Representative Herron, he stated that some fisheries which potentially had an issue with mortality, had options for restrictions, including a prohibition for removal of the fish from the water. 10:31:54 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for a definition to "significant probability." MR. SWANTON surmised that, as referenced in the proposed legislation, there would be a discussion between ADF&G and the Alaska Board of Fisheries for what would constitute significant probability. He acknowledged that, although he had given this significant thought, he had not arrived at a simple answer. He offered that significant would constitute greater than 50 percent, but, dependent on the situation, it could be as high as 95 percent. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if one fish would be significant in any stock of concern. He questioned whether this would vary by stream, or by management of an area, and asked how this would be designated. MR. SWANTON acknowledged that it would need to be situational. He explained that the answer became more complex when contrasting Chinook Salmon escapement goals with other species involved. 10:34:23 AM CHAIR SEATON referred to Version N, page 1, line 7, and read: "a person may not use a barbed hook when participating in a freshwater fishery in which more than one species is present if there is a significant probability of catching a species that may not be retained under a regulation adopted by the Board of Fisheries." He asked which would make the determination, the significant probability or the Alaska Board of Fisheries. MR. SWANTON agreed that this would require a conversation with the Alaska Board of Fisheries. CHAIR SEATON clarified that the intention of the proposed bill was not to stipulate an absolute, but to allow the Alaska Board of Fisheries the latitude to make a determination. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered a different interpretation for the language of the proposed bill. CHAIR SEATON expressed his agreement for the necessity to clarify the intention, as stated in Version N, page 1, lines 11 - 13. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed his understanding that the Alaska Board of Fisheries would determine the need for action, but he questioned what defined the significant probability and how that would be managed. 10:38:14 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, noting that commercial fishermen had mentioned significant mortality for Chinook Salmon, asked whether the commercial fishermen were using barbless hooks. CHAIR SEATON referenced a previous proposal for the commercial fishery to use barbless hooks which had not been adopted. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested that HB 110 could be amended to include barbless hooks for fisheries in both salt and fresh water. CHAIR SEATON agreed that it was possible to expand the bill for recreational and commercial fisheries, as well. He pointed out that the legislature had also imposed a 58 foot limit on seiners, and that additional legislative action had determined allowable types of fishing gear. 10:40:02 AM MR. SWANTON added that in some high use, low retention fisheries, a large number of lodges and guiding operations had voluntarily required the use of barbless hooks by the guides and guests. He clarified that there was a low percentage of difference for mortality between a barbed and barbless hook. He pointed out that the measuring for fisheries management was not so refined to discern the difference between two and three percent mortality. He stated that the department would, instead, close the fishery rather than "shoulder the risk of trying to deal with small percentages." CHAIR SEATON stated that, as the decline of king salmon had become an extensive problem for much of the state, the question was whether or not to wait for more research or to search for a solution. He said that it would continue to be difficult, especially given the data for unintended mortality. He shared his encouragement for the number of guides who required the use of barbless hooks. He pointed out that the impetus for the proposed bill had come from fly fishermen on the Kenai River. 10:45:04 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS expressed that there was a difference for fishing guides using barbless hooks and fishermen "putting food in the freezer." She asked for clarification that this additional dimension to fisheries would not have any fiscal implication. She declared that she would not fish "for catch and release." MR. SWANTON explained that ADF&G worked with the Alaska Board of Fisheries, and would bring it up at a statewide meeting. REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS opined that, as this would add another duty, if it did not have an additional cost, then "something's gonna be spread thinner." MR. SWANTON replied that this would depend on the meeting time and comprehensiveness for the amount of additional work during the regulatory meeting. He said that although there would be more focus on those specific fisheries issues, they would not really be "spread thinner." 10:48:54 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS explained that she was addressing the cost of enforcement that should be reflected in a fiscal note. MR. SWANTON deferred. 10:49:49 AM CHAIR SEATON asked to clarify if this would require more enforcement with this regulation. CAPTAIN WALDRON replied that the fiscal impacts could not be determined until the language of the proposed bill was completed. [HB 110 was held over.]