SB 153 EXCHANGE OF RAW FISH FOR SEAFOOD PRODUCT CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS informed members SB 153 would be heard. He said the committee had its first hearing on the bill about ten days ago and many people did not have the opportunity to testify at that time. He hoped to move the bill out of committee. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated at the first hearing, a proposed amendment, draft number K.2 was considered. The subject of the amendment was possession limits on sport caught fish and it was intended to address a concern about whether the Board of Fisheries needs more clearly defined authority to include processed fish in possession limits, and to set possession limits both in the field and in transport. He said the amendment generated considerable discussion. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced a slightly revised version of the amendment, draft amendment K.3 will be considered. The difference between the two versions is that under the K.2 amendment, the provisions of SB 153 regarding the exchange of raw fish would not have gone into effect "unless and until" the Board of Fisheries took action to address the inclusion of processed fish in possession limits. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said under the K.3 amendment, there is no need for the board to take up the subject of possession limits in order for the exchange provisions to become effective. The K.3 amendment would amend the section of state statute which lists the things that the Board of Fisheries may do, including that possession limits may include processed fish, and that they may establish possession limits both in the field, and in transit to the fisherman's permanent place of residence. Therefore, if the ability to exchange raw fish for processed fish does create, or intensify a problem with the quantities of fish being taken, and at some time in the future, public pressure to address the problem through possession limits compels the board to handle the subject, the board will have the authority to do so. Number 085 SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR stated that SB 153 is primarily a jobs enhancement bill, providing additional utilization of processing facilities throughout the state. He said the bill will not damage custom packers because often in the past they have not followed rules and regulations and if they did, the bill will help make their job simpler and easier to do. SENATOR TAYLOR remarked SB 153 will help get a count on the volume of fish resources actually moving out of state through processing facilities. To date, no one knows how much fish is leaving the state. He told members about a former legislator who had managed a resort several years ago, who said the resort moved over one million pounds of fish on Alaska Airlines. SENATOR TAYLOR noted that people have been concerned about the large volume of fish leaving the state, which is why there is an amendment before the committee about the issue of allocation between resource gatherers. He believed the alternative suggested is a good one and he does support the amendment. However, he felt it could be a volatile issue and rather than lose SB 153 in the process, he hoped the committee might consider those issues and decide if they want to take on a fight on the floor over the allocation question. SENATOR TAYLOR stated SB 153 began first as a jobs bill and second as a bill to get an estimate on the amount of fish leaving the state and determine how severe the problem is. He said once those two things are in hand, there will be a better basis for the third step, which is the amendment before the committee. Number 125 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Senator Taylor to explain the Letter of Intent attached to SB 153. SENATOR TAYLOR responded the Letter of Intent accomplishes almost what the amendment does. He said the Letter of Intent is a proposal suggesting that the issue of large amounts of fish leaving the state be reviewed. However, the problem the Board of Fisheries will have is they do not have any numbers currently, only speculation. Number 141 REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN noted at the last hearing on SB 153, he tried to determine whether or not the Board of Fisheries is allowed to enact regulations on possession limits. He said the Letter of Intent implies that if the legislature asks the board to consider regulations on possession limits, they will do so if they think it is appropriate. However, at the time of the last hearing on SB 153, his understanding was it was not clear whether the board has the power to consider such regulations and the amendment will not require them to do so, but only allow them to do it. He believed the Letter of Intent will not work, since it is not now allowed in present law. SENATOR TAYLOR felt it is allowed and noted that at the last Board of Fisheries meeting, the board changed the bag limit for most of Southeast Alaska to two trout per day. He said if the board has the authority to do that, just through the possession limit alone, they could regulate the process. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the regulation is not viewed as covering possession of processed fish and noted that processed fish includes just frozen fish. SENATOR TAYLOR felt the amendment is really a whole other bill and is a very volatile issue. He pointed out that Deborah Lyons would be seated on the Board of Fisheries were it not for the current issue. He felt the amendment turns the bill into a Deborah Lyons fight all over again. Senator Taylor said the legislature, at some time, will need to address the issue. Number 188 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE stated in Southcentral there is a yearly king salmon limit of five. He said the board can really enact an ultimate possession limit by enacting a yearly limit. He expressed concerns that possession limits are not addressing processed fish and if processing does not include canning, he is even more concerned. He asked Senator Taylor if it was his intent in the bill not to include exchanging fish for canned. SENATOR TAYLOR replied he did not think there were any restrictions on the processing. (CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVES JAMES AND MULDER joined the committee at 8:30 a.m.) SENATOR TAYLOR said the bill does not affect the current process used by fish charter operators. Number 224 REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON noted that the original intent of SB 153 was to provide legally what is already being done illegally throughout the state. He felt that setting limits on the amount of raw and processed fish taken in sport fishing is authorized under bag limits, harvest levels, etc. The difference in the amendment is in the transit area - moving poundage of fish out of the state. He thought the transit requirement will be very difficult to administer. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented they cannot predicate legislation based on scofflaws as they will always find a way around the law. He believed the amendment will set the standard for law abiding people. Number 274 REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS, expressed her support of the ideas in SB 153, but felt there are problems posed by the inclusion of the proposed K.3 amendment. She felt the issue had been generated from controversy over king salmon problems existing primarily in Southeast Alaska. Possession limits on processed sport caught fish has previously been proposed to the Board of Fisheries. The issue was considered by the board and they declined to take action. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said while there is a minor amount of abuse in her Kenai Peninsula district, there is a sense of compliance with the reasonable harvest and use of the area's seafood resources. The overall health of the fishery stocks there is good and there are season possession limits on king salmon which are subject to license marking requirements. She pointed out that any questions on the enforceability of current regulations beg the question on how the state would even begin to address the enforcement of additional regulations on processed fish. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS stressed that the situation in Southeast Alaska may well warrant attention. However, inclusion of the remainder of the state under the blanket of the amendment is unwarranted. She felt a public information campaign, elevating the importance of conservation and reasonable use, and more revenue resources in enforcement of existing regulations is needed to handle the abuse situation. She urged committee members not to adopt the K.3 amendment. Number 316 LEE PUTNAM, VICE PRESIDENT, KETCHIKAN SPORTS AND WILDLIFE CLUB, testified via teleconference, and commented there is a need to restrict the number of fish taken out of state by nonresidents, especially when it causes residents the loss of opportunity to harvest the resource. He said it is distressing to see a small, but organized vocal group of commercial resource exploiters forcing their way on the majority of the residents of Alaska. He felt the K.3 amendment will begin to address the problem of the rapidly expanding guided sport fishing industry and its negative impact on the local and personal use sport fishery which has had little or no growth in the past years. MR. PUTNAM pointed out there are a number of small nonresident harvest and processing operations operating in several areas of the state, canning or freezing a large number of fish. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) usually ignores this (indiscernible) from Alaska's food resources. ADF&G says the limit is unenforceable (indiscernible)... Number 356 GARY PLUMB, CHARTER OPERATOR, KETCHIKAN, testified via teleconference, and expressed his opposition to the proposed K.3 amendment. He felt there is merit in the intent, but thought it will result in restricting the honest, law abiding citizen while the abusers continue to do what they have always done. Number 385 MATT DONOHOE, SITKA, testified via teleconference, and expressed his support of the K.3 amendment. WAYNE CARPENTER, SEWARD CHARTER BOAT ASSOCIATION, testified via teleconference, and expressed his opposition to the proposed K.3 amendment. He believed issues such as what is proposed in the amendment should be addressed on a regional basis. He said he has been working with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council on potential regulation of the guided halibut charter sport fishing industry and they are finding that regulations are not needed in every area of the state. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted the amendment will not make the regulations statewide. In the amendment, the Board of Fisheries has the option to establish limits wherever needed. Number 427 THEODORE JOHNSON, SOLDOTNA, testified via teleconference, and expressed his opposition to the K.3 amendment. He felt the amendment is another knee jerk reaction from the commercial fishing interests to an assumed problem of sport fishermen taking "their" fish. He stressed the importance of enforcing present laws. Mr. Johnson asked if fish will be regulated by poundage or numbers in the amendment. He also wondered how Canada enforces their export limit. He said seeing boxes of fish in the airport makes him happy as it means there are many sport fishermen in the state catching and shipping fish to their homes, which is great advertising for the state. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS replied at the last hearing on SB 153, there was a person from the Department of Public Safety supporting the amendment. On the question of controls, he felt most people are law abiding. He said Canada has very tight exports on fish leaving the country. MR. JOHNSON asked if the state currently has an export limit. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS replied it is against the law to control export limits within the United States. He said possession limits for salmon in British Columbia tide waters are two single-day limits of fresh, smoked or frozen plus ten kilograms canned OR one day limit of fresh, smoked or frozen, plus 20 kilograms canned OR 40 kilograms canned. He also noted that salmon and game fish taken from nontidal waters may be canned only at a person's ordinary residence. Number 524 PAUL GOEDERT, DEEP CREEK CHARTER BOAT ASSOCIATION, NINILCHIK, testified via teleconference, and said most people in Alaska have time to wait on their own fish. Only those people on a tight schedule will be affected by SB 153. He felt a lot of time is being wasted on an unimportant bill. He said the reason he came to speak on SB 153 is the K.3 amendment. Mr. Goedert asked Chairman Williams, referring to the discussion on the large number of boxes of fish in the airport, if he would be so concerned if the boxes were filled with clothes made in Alaska, or coal, etc. MR. GOEDERT stressed that tourism is a major industry in Alaska and sport fishing is a large part of that industry. Tourists taking fish home in boxes shows that the sport fishing guides are doing their jobs. Each fish caught by a tourist represents approximately ten times as much cash as a commercially caught fish, plus the money is spread out more. He wondered how the K.3 amendment will be enforced. For example, if a tourist is taking home four cases of canned halibut, how many 50 pound fish is that? In regard to people coming to the state and taking home enough fish to pay for their trip, he pointed out that if a person has 50 pounds of filet and at Carr's the same filets cost $5 a pound, that person has $250 worth of fish. MR. GOEDERT recalled at the last hearing on SB 153, Representative Bunde talked about the coolers of fish he loaded and flew out as a bush pilot. He asked Representative Bunde how much ice was in the cooler, how many people were involved and how long had they been fishing. He felt the K.3 amendment was wasting a lot of people's time and arguments about curtailing fish exports is part of an agenda by the commercial fishing industry to hamper and limit the growth of the state's most important industry. Number 586 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS responded the amendment was not brought to him by the commercial fishing industry. He said he recognizes the great benefits and potential of the charter industry in Alaska and is convinced that the amendment can be helpful in promoting an orderly and sensible development of the industry while also protecting the resident sport fishermen. He felt in the long run it will be good for everyone. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE assured Mr. Goedert that he can tell the difference between ice and king filets. Number 601 SEAN MARTIN, HOMER CHARTER ASSOCIATION, testified via teleconference, and said he would like to comment on the K.3 amendment. He felt the amendment came about as a result of complaints about large quantities of fish boxes in airports headed for outside the state and about people spending their summers in campgrounds canning fish and leaving the state with large quantities of sport caught fish. He stated that over the years, the people he has witnessed are not taking more than their daily bag limits or season limits. They may be taking more fish out of the state than a resident would probably use, but who is to say they will not use the fish as gifts. He pointed out that millions of dollars are being left in the state by nonresidents. MR. MARTIN stressed it costs a lot of money to get to Homer, go with a guide, get lodging, eat meals, etc., and if a person is able to pay for the trip by selling the fish they catch, they will have to sell the fish at $25 per pound in order to cover their expenses. He reminded members it is against the law to sell sport caught fish and if they know it is being done, they should support the law and turn the offenders in. MR. MARTIN recalled at the last hearing, a legislator mentioned that a group of Germans were leaving the state with so many fish boxes they had to be selling the fish back home. He felt statements like that should not be made by anyone without facts. Those people could have purchased the fish. He wondered if the K.3 amendment passes, what will happen at airports and the borders when an inspector tries to determine how much fish was legally caught and how much was bought. If there is a restriction on the amount of sport fish taken out of the state, he asked if there is also going to be a restriction on the amount a person can buy to take out of the state. MR. MARTIN stated the amount of fish leaving the state is only a reflection of the number of anglers coming into the state, and stressed there will be vast quantities of fish leaving as how else will the fish get out. He felt it is a perception problem not a fishery problem. If taking too many fish are depleting a fishery then it needs to be managed biologically using the means currently in place. The International Pacific Halibut Commission, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, ADF&G and the National Marine Fishery Service are charged with proper management of the fisheries resource and they should close the fishery, shorten the seasons, reduce bag limits or reallocate the fish to a cleaner fishery. MR. MARTIN said at the present time, it is allowable for Oregon and Washington commercial longline boats to remove from Alaskan waters as much halibut as their holds or trips limits will allow and take the fish outside the state and sell it. He wondered why a sport angler should only be allowed to take out of state what is determined to be the proper amount. He commented if there is a concern about the health of the resource, then attention should be given to the by-catch, wastage and over fishing done by commercial fishermen. He felt their fisheries should be cleaned up first and if there still is a biological reason to restrict sport anglers, it should be done using the tools already in place. MR. MARTIN stated the Homer Charter Association is opposed to the K.3 amendment and feels it is politically motivated by commercial fishing interests, who believe that any restrictions placed on sport fishermen means more fish for them. He felt in the long term, it may be that per pound a sport caught fish is far more valuable than a commercially caught one. Number 709 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS commented that the difference between processed sport caught fish and commercial processed fish, is the commercial processed fish is labeled. DENNIS PEIRE, VALDEZ CHARTER ASSOCIATION, testified via teleconference, and said last year he did not get any salmon because of the interception by a commercial fleet. He wondered how people from Fairbanks are going to get their fish back home from Southeast Alaska without being labeled as going out of state. He stated the association feels it is an allocation issue and the resources should be equally divided between all three groups - sport, commercial, and subsistence. Mr. Peire also thought that personal use fish should be classified as subsistence. TAPE 94-12, SIDE B Number 000 BUZZ OTIS, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference, and stated the K.3 amendment is discriminatory to Interior Alaska fishermen. He said they do not have the luxury of fishing on a weekly basis, but rather take short trips south to fish. He noted that if he catches fish, takes them back, cleans them and puts them in the freezer and the third day he goes out, and brings fish back to Fairbanks, he is a criminal according to the amendment. He expressed his opposition to the K.3 amendment and encouraged the committee not to discriminate against fellow Alaskans. Number 025 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, as he reads the amendment, he cannot find language which sets a specific possession limit at this point. It says the Board of Fisheries may set a limit. MR. OTIS responded it gives the board the vehicle to do so. Once the board has the authority, the legislature and the sport fishermen have no control over it. Many times the board makes rules according to perceived abuse and that concerns him. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented that currently there are different king salmon limits in Southcentral and Southeast. He said he encourages the department to write rules which are specific to geographic regions. Number 046 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON remarked the K.3 amendment permits the board to not only set limits on the amount of raw and processed fish taken, but also possession in the field and in transit to a fisherman's permanent place of residence. He expressed concern that a person coming to Juneau from Fairbanks, who catches fish, whatever limit is set for nonresidents, will have to apply to residents also. RICHARD ANDREW, KETCHIKAN, testified via teleconference, and expressed his support of the K.3 amendment. He said why wait until the resource has problems before something is done. Number 068 ROBERT HUGHES, KETCHIKAN, testified via teleconference, and commented that everyone refuses to acknowledge the fact that the visitor industry has gone out of control. The resource needs protection and the commercial, sport and subsistence fisheries should not be penalized when another group is out of control. He said the amendment is the first thing to come along which may address the problem. He expressed his full support of SB 153 and the K.3 amendment. DAVID BRAY, KETCHIKAN, testified via teleconference, and expressed his support of the K.3 amendment. It will give a good record of fish going out of the state. Number 100 ERIC MUENCH, KETCHIKAN, testified via teleconference, and said he supports the K.3 amendment. He felt the amendment will help address ongoing abuse and stressed the problem is the nonresident guided sport fishery, which is a part of the general expansion of the tourism industry, a highly consumptive industry. He emphasized he does not have any problem with the guiding of nonresident sport fishermen, but there has to be a realization that there is a limited resource and it cannot be bonded to tourists. MR. MUENCH remarked the number of tourists coming to the state to fish, even on a one-time basis, can easily overwhelm the local and state population and crowd out local fishermen, impacting the catch limit in the future. Tourists are in direct competition with resident sport fishermen. He felt another problem is the loophole saying a frozen fish is a processed fish as the big charter boats carry large freezer components which the small, local fishermen cannot do. That loophole needs to be plugged. Number 132 DEAN PADDOCK, JUNEAU, stated he felt the issue at hand is a conservation problem and thought many of the expressions he had been hearing are not applicable to where the problem originates. He expressed support of the K.3 amendment and felt it is a tool that the Board of Fisheries needs to use where called for, and a tool they do not have to use it if it is not called for. He stressed it is a complex problem and varies from area to area in the state and species by species. He felt the board really needs help from the legislature. MR. PADDOCK felt the issue is a natural outgrowth of the increasing demand by an increasing number of people. He talked about situations 35 years ago relating to large numbers of fish boxes in airports. He felt the concern expressed by many people is a valid concern and again expressed support for the K.3 amendment. Number 209 RICHARD HOFMANN, JUNEAU, told members he is a commercial fisherman and sport fisherman. He said there has been talk about enforcing the K.3 amendment and explained enforcement of the ADF&G rules in the guided industry are the responsibility of the guide. He stressed there is a benefit to the K.3 amendment and limiting the number of fish an individual can harvest, in that it will spread the catch over a larger number of clients, providing for growth in the charter industry since more people will be serviced. MR. HOFMANN noted there has been comments the commercial fleet is out to get more fish and said he is only asking that the status quo be maintained so that everyone has the opportunity to continue their livelihoods. He pointed out that trollers were told to go to the Board of Fisheries meeting with a plan on how to regulate the fisheries on a long term, based on an allocation which was established. Upon arriving at the meeting, the allocation had been changed. He said without control over the number of sport fish harvested, there will be a demand to change the allocation. MR. HOFMANN said there has been talk about commercial fishermen needing to clean up their fishery. Through management regulations, individual conservation concerns and a desire to continue to fish for many years, the fishery has been cleaned up. He agreed that the people in the Interior might be negatively impacted by the amendment, but felt where a person lives is a personal choice. He said he has limited his opportunity to harvest moose, caribou, etc., by living in Southeast Alaska. MR. HOFMANN remarked that if a special consideration is made to ensure that Interior residents have access to resources in Southeast, then a special harvest opportunity should be established for those who live in Southeast who want to utilize food resources which come out of the Interior. He urged committee members to adopt the K.3 amendment and felt the concept behind the original bill to get more value-added processing in the state is a good idea but will also create problems for the resource if it is done without the amendment. Number 275 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Mr. HofMann if he thought residents can be treated differently than nonresidents in regard to quotas, daily bag limits, number of fish shipped out, etc. MR. HOFMANN responded no, as it is unconstitutional. Number 290 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON expressed his concern regarding how the provisions of the amendment can be accomplished without penalizing a fisherman coming from the Interior. He wondered if perhaps it would be possible to have some sort of certification of the number of days fished, the areas fished, the total number of fish by species taken, the number of fish shipped if processed within the state, the license number of the processor and the fish exchange. That kind of certification could help give the statistical information needed. If a nonresident is given a license and a certification form, the meat hunters will be alerted they will be watched. Number 320 MR. HOFMANN responded there will be an accounting developed through the raw fish exchange and through the guided industry keeping track. ROBERT WARD, A-WARD CHARTERS, ANCHOR POINT, testifying via teleconference, felt the problem is not a biological, but rather an allocation problem. He expressed his unhappiness about the meeting process, who had been allowed to testify and felt the teleconference was biased toward Southeast Alaska. He pointed out that an Attorney General's decision was passed out a couple of years ago to a fish processor because when fish is weighed it comes in as raw fish and then it changes weight, size and shape, providing no accountability between it being checked in and checked out of that processor. MR. WARD expressed opposition to the K.3 amendment and did not feel SB 153 is a jobs enhancement idea, as there will not be a greater demand. He also expressed concerns about the quality of the product when fish are brought in. He felt the entire issue is a presumed problem and that the sport fish industry is under control. Number 392 JOE AMBROSE, AIDE, SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR, told Mr. Ward that the quality issue was addressed in SB 153 as DEC will have oversight over the processors as they do now, and every consideration will be given to the quality of the product; both the product received by the processor and the product provided by the processor to the consumer. In regard to sport fishing entering the commercial market at the end of the cycle, the bill provides that after the first round of exchange, the processor must use sport caught for sport caught at the end of the cycle and anything left over has to be donated to charity. It cannot be sold. Number 413 TOM HAGBORG, MEMBER, SOUTH PENINSULA SPORTSMENS ASSOCIATION, ANCHOR POINT, testifying via teleconference, expressed opposition to the K.3 amendment. He agreed there are millions of pounds of fish going out of the state in boxes every year and it is called commercial fishing. He stressed sport fishermen catch less than five percent of the total catch. Limits have been set to sustain biological fish catches which protect fish stocks. He reminded committee members that nonresident fishing licenses support the fish hatcheries in the state and a large amount of money is received from the licenses. MR. HAGBORG felt it would be difficult for nonresidents to pay for their fishing trips to Alaska with fish caught as the price being paid for fish is very low. He said the association opposes the K.3 amendment and has questions regarding SB 153. He urged members to allow the Board of Fisheries to set biological limits to protect fish stocks. NANCY HILLSTRAND, OWNER/OPERATOR, COAL POINT TRADING COMPANY, HOMER, testified via teleconference, and said her company is a custom processor for sport and commercially caught fish. She expressed opposition to the K.3 amendment and felt the perceived problem can be more efficiently and effectively addressed by the Board of Fisheries. However, she thought it was a moot point, as the amendment cannot be enforced. She also wondered why it was being considered when there is a by-catch of 50 percent of trollers catch, hundreds of millions of pounds, being thrown overboard. Billions of pounds of fish are being shipped overseas as an export. MS. HILLSTRAND stated in regard to SB 153 and exchanging fish, in her company, they refuse to exchange any fish because of the quality of the fish coming into their company. She did not believe leftover fish will be given to charities, but rather it will get sold. She pointed out that her company puts forth a lot of effort to ensure a quality product and they do not want sport caught fish on the market. RICK CONOVER, PRESIDENT, ANCHOR POINT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, testifying via teleconference, advised that the Board of Directors unanimously voted to oppose the K.3 amendment. Tourism is the key industry in Anchor Point and the chamber feels the amendment will adversely affect their only industry. He said there is still plenty of room in Anchor Point for growth in the tourism industry. The main attraction for tourism is sport fishing in the Anchor River and the lower Cook Inlet. Putting any limits on how much fish can be taken home will have an immediate, negative impact on Anchor Point's business community. He stated it is a fact that the sport fish harvested and exported is not affecting the resource. Number 525 MR. CONOVER stated the chamber feels saddened that both sport and commercial fishermen are using the legislature to try and allocate this renewable resource. He felt the legislature should not be involved in any resource allocations. The people in Anchor Point feel if the K.3 amendment passes, it is the beginning of the end of their tourism resource and the current legislature will always be remembered as the legislature that wiped out tourist fishermen and associated businesses. He said it must be remembered that the state's resources are not only for Alaskan residents, but for all U.S. residents. Any bills dealing with allocation of resources by the legislature, such as the amendment before the committee, should be killed. There is no biological data to support the amendment. Number 545 DARREL SHREVE, VALDEZ CHARTER ASSOCIATION, testified via teleconference, and said the issue at hand is a regional one. He felt decisions should only be made after there is a handle on the problem. He expressed opposition to the K.3 amendment. DONALD WESTLUND, KETCHIKAN, testified via teleconference, and pointed out that the comment made earlier regarding sport fishermen catch being five percent is wrong; sport fishermen catch less than two percent and includes subsistence, sport and personal use. Eighty percent of salmon caught in Alaska is caught by commercial fishermen. He expressed his opposition to SB 153 and the K.3 amendment, and felt the amendment is unconstitutional because there can be no differentiation between residents and nonresidents. Since the sport, subsistence and personal use fishery only catch two percent, a higher percentage of fish should be given to those fisheries instead of the commercial fisheries. MR. WESTLUND wondered if the boxes at the airport belong to commercial fishermen going home, taking commercially caught fish which is unreported, unaccounted, etc. He felt the legislature should not be involved in allocation issues. Number 622 ED STAHL, CHARTER BOAT OPERATOR, HAND TROLLER AND SPORT FISHERMEN, testified via teleconference, and stated there is a problem with people setting up small-time canning operations and the bill should address them. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said there are committee members who need to leave the meeting. He suggested the committee talk about the bill as his intention is to move it out of committee. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that although he is neutral on SB 153 and the K.3 amendment, he had not been lobbied by a single commercial fisherman on the bill. The only testimony he had heard from commercial fishermen had been in the committee room. He said he did not see a great juggernaut of commercial fishing pressure pushing the bill. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated he is concerned about equal access to the state's fishing resource. Contrary to the comment made earlier about the resource belonging to the United States, he believes the fish resource belongs to the people of Alaska, just like the oil resource. A person who has chosen to sell fish as a charter boat skipper, does not have any more right to the fish just because they are involved in a commercial enterprise, just as commercial fishermen do not have any more right. He felt if all the people lobbying legislators on the Kenai River reds have to choose between nonresidents taking fish out of the state, sold to them by charter boat skippers, and the personal right to catch "their" fish, the charter boat skippers are going to get left behind. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE believed the charter boat operators might be doing themselves a disservice by so adamantly opposing a possession limit on processed fish. If a person has to choose between catching a few reds once or twice a year and somebody coming to the state, camping for the summer, loading up their motor home with fish or the person who is on vacation who can spend the time and money to go out with a charter skipper compared to the guy just fishing out of his skiff, the charter people are going to lose. He said they should be proactive and prevent the perception from occurring. He would like to see an accounting on the amount of fish being exchanged and either moved around the state or out of state. It may be an insignificant amount which will be a comfort to the charter people. On the other hand, it might be a significant amount and choices will need to be made. TAPE 94-13, SIDE A Number 000 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said he did not want to hold up SB 153 if it has to be fought all the way through because of the amendment. He felt the Letter Of Intent will begin working on the limit issue. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated the K.3 amendment, by making it subject to the discretion of the Board of Fisheries to adopt regulations concerning limits, amounts, field possession, and transit amounts is essentially the same thing as the Letter of Intent. It leaves it up to the board in both instances and because of what has been heard across the state, particularly in regard to regional differences, he felt the original bill with the Letter of Intent is the right way to go. He recommended the committee consider that. Number 020 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS suggested the committee listen to more testimony on teleconference. Number 022 SCOTT ULMER, HOMER, testified via teleconference, and expressed his opposition to SB 153 and the K.3 amendment. He felt the bill will provide a situation which reduces the quality of the product in the state as there will be no control over the quality of fish coming in and therefore, there will be no control over the quality of the fish going out. Most anglers coming into the state are quite concerned about the quality of their fish and want to make sure it is cared for properly, and therefore will not consider exchanging their fish for a lower quality fish. He stated quality will be very difficult to enforce as a DEC agent will have to be present at each and every processor in the state. MR. ULMER felt the K.3 amendment is an allocation issue and the prime agenda of the bill is not jobs enhancement, but rather trying to get a handle on the volume of the product moving out of the state in the sport industry. He pointed out that the percentage of sport caught fish is an insignificant percentage of the resource in the state. Number 055 NOEL PUTNAM, KETCHIKAN, testified via teleconference, and expressed his support of the K.3 amendment. JOE SUYMBERSKY, FRITZ CREEK, testified via teleconference, and expressed his opposition to SB 153 and the K.3 amendment. He believed there are no biological reasons for the bill and does not think it is enforceable. He felt the fish belong to everyone, as they are a public resource and the public is everyone in the United States. ED DERSHAM, ANCHOR POINT, testified via teleconference, and told committee members he had sent his written comments to the committee. He said he was extremely disappointed in the way the meeting and the previous meeting had been run and who had been allowed to testify. He felt the people in Homer had not been treated fairly in the amount of time they had received to testify. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER disagreed with Mr. Dersham and said the Chairman has been fair in running the meeting. Number 100 ROGER WATNEY, ANCHOR POINT, testified via teleconference, and expressed his reservations about SB 153 and opposition to the K.3 amendment. He stated SB 153 has merit, but felt the exchange of fish will be very difficult to regulate. The people he takes out fishing enjoy taking home a fish they personally caught, which was carefully bled, cleaned and chilled. He felt the state's diminishing money should be used more wisely, not on unnecessary regulations. He remarked the K.3 amendment is a back door way to use the Board of Fisheries to allocate more fish away from the sport fisherman. KARAN DERSHAM, ANCHOR POINT, testified via teleconference, and said she would pass, as everything she wanted to say has been said. Number 117 JACK MONTGOMERY, OWNER/OPERATOR, RAINBOW TOURS, HOMER, testified via teleconference, and asked to read a letter from Gregory McIntosh, McIntosh Marinas, Halibut Cove. "I continue to support SB 153 for reasons previously stated; namely the bill will assist in protecting public health (indiscernible) caught fish will not be bartered or sold or otherwise enter into (indiscernible). It will provide a mechanism for distributing uncollected and otherwise abandoned recreational caught fish and seafood products. "I oppose the K.3 amendment. The amendment seeks to establish a framework whereby additional restrictions on possession of recreational caught fish may be inaccurate at some future date. Constraining export of legally caught fish by means of state (indiscernible) laws may not be consistent with the Magnuson Act and therefore is unenforceable. The amendment is also impractical. What is to prevent a fisherman from shipping a load of fish product out of state once the new possession limit is reached. Within 24 hours the product will have reached its destination home and the fisherman can start all over again, thus circumventing the intent of the proposed amendment. Existing recreational bag and possession limits are doing a good job protecting the resource while at the same time allowing (indiscernible) access and opportunity to it. "Restrictions will have a dramatic effect upon outside Anchorage participation in Alaska's fisheries. Any reduction of angler activity will negatively impact Alaska's economy. Recreational fishing contributed over $580 million in the Alaska economy in 1991. ...(indiscernible) dollar values attributed to commercial fishing, recreational fishing dollars stayed in Alaska. If Representative Williams is concerned about commercial traffic of fish and fish products outside of Alaska which would violate existing Alaska statute, he need only to look at the (indiscernible) Act for comfort. I highly suggest they look into that. Clearly, the amendment is proposed for reasons other than responsible conservation management and protection of the Alaska fisheries resource. The proposed amendment is insupportable. Summarized, the K-3 amendment is unnecessary, unenforceable and economically damaging to the state of Alaska." Mr. Montgomery also expressed his opposition to SB 153 and the K.3 amendment. DAN MCQUEEN, KETCHIKAN MARINE CHARTERS, INC., testified via teleconference, and expressed opposition to SB 153 and the K.3 amendment. He stated the bill is a back door attempt to place export limits on nonresident and out of area resident sport fishermen. The cover letter mentions that the K.3 amendment will alleviate the many boxes of fish at airports. He disagreed because in December, when no sport fishing is occurring, he saw six full pallets of fish boxes leaving Sitka alone. MR. MCQUEEN said recently Mary McDowell called and told him that Ketchikan Marine Charters, in its position paper, supported an export limit. He clarified that what the position paper says is, they would like to see a task force of industry representatives formed to work on the issue. Ketchikan Marine Charters believes the original bill will benefit the state, but they oppose the bill if it includes the K.3 amendment. MR. MCQUEEN asked why Alaska resident sport fishermen should be restricted any further than they already are. Many Alaskans do not have any other means of catching their winter supply of fish, so those Alaskans choose to spend 7- 10 days fishing on a charter boat or rent a skiff for that time period. He felt if the state truly wants to swap the people who do abuse the current regulations, the state should only offer two week nonresident fishing licenses. That way a person would not be able to come to the state and fish every day all summer long. This bill will hurt many honest resident and nonresident sport fishermen but most important, it will cost more than it is worth to enforce. GERALD MASOLINI, CORDOVA, testified via teleconference, and said it appears there is a regional problem at hand. He felt there was also an enforcement problem. Number 222 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked whether ADF&G views the existing law as allowing possession limits on processed products. Does the Letter of Intent ask the department to do something they do not have the power to do. JOHN BURKE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SPORT FISH, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, replied once fish is processed, it is beyond possession limits. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to MOVE CSSB 153(RES)am with the Senate Letter of Intent and two fiscal notes out with INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER OBJECTED for purpose of discussion. He clarified the committee is not adopting the K.3 amendment, but is only moving CSSB 153(RES)am out of committee. He WITHDREW his OBJECTION. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted for the record that the representatives from ADF&G have told the committee the Senate Letter of Intent is ineffective and is based on presumption. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said the Letter of Intent is legislative intent language to the Board of Fisheries who he believes has the authority. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated the problem is he has been trying to get an answer during both meetings on this bill and he felt funny passing a Letter of Intent which asks the Board of Fisheries to do something they do not have the power to do. He added, in making the decision not to adopt the K.3 amendment, the committee has decided not to give the board that power. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he stands corrected, as staff told him the board does not have the power and therefore, the Letter of Intent will have no effect. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN suggested the committee just pass the bill since there is uncertainty on the Letter of Intent or handle the Letter of Intent separately from the bill. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON WITHDREW his MOTION. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to MOVE CSSB 153(RES)am with two fiscal notes from committee with INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections to the motion. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he did not object, but commented it would have been more productive if the K.3 amendment had also been passed. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS hearing no objections, said the MOTION PASSED. ANNOUNCEMENTS CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee will meet Monday, February 14 to take up SJR 40 and HB 306. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the House Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 10:15 a.m.