SB 347-COMM. FISHING MORATORIA, INCL. AK GULF  CHAIR SCOTT OGAN announced SB 347 to be up for consideration. SENATOR BEN STEVENS, sponsor, informed members that after the last hearing, several participants got together to address some of the issues raised during that hearing. He moved to adopt CSSB 347, version Q, as the working document. There were no objections and it was so ordered. SENATOR BEN STEVENS explained the changes made to version Q were a result of discussions among members of the Board of Fish, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC), and some industry representatives. First, references to the Eastern Gulf were removed from the bill. The second change of substance was made on page 9, lines 27 and 28, regarding uncertainty about the permitting and the cost of permits. An agreement was worked out for a single fee for the trawl fishery and a single fee for the pot or longline fishery. The third change on page 9, lines 30 - 31, gives the Board of Fisheries, the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) and the various management agencies the ability to explore and develop limited entry or other management options, but any proposal must be brought before the Legislature prior to implementation. He said he believes all parties are in agreement with these changes. CHAIR OGAN asked where the constitutional amendment provision is located. SENATOR BEN STEVENS said it is on the top of page 10. He told members: We just wanted to say emphatically that if any of the options for management require any sort of legislative change or any constitutional change, that it will come back to us for consideration of the members.... SENATOR ELTON stated his appreciation for the process Senator Stevens used to develop the committee substitute, which reflected concerns expressed by the public. CHAIR OGAN asked for an explanation of what this legislation would fix. SENATOR BEN STEVENS deferred to Mr. DERSHAM for an answer. MR. ED DERSHAM, Alaska Board of Fisheries, explained that a Board of Fisheries workgroup has been working on a reaction to the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council's rationalization of groundfish fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska for several years. That process should be complete in 2005. When completed, it will leave our state waters in a situation to where we can't even do status quo, for example, in our codfish fishery. We couldn't continue to have our state waters fishery, because with the rationalized federal waters adjacent to our state waters, there would be a lot of latent capacity freed up that could just move into our state waters fishery up... and cause that fishery to be a much greater race for fish. We're trying to explore options of how to react to the federal process in a way that best protects the state and our state waters fisheries in all groundfish. In the meantime, we don't have any way to get our arms around the participants in the state water fisheries without a temporary moratorium to control new entrants coming in. That's the reason for step one of having this temporary moratorium. Any reactionary plan developed by the Board of Fisheries or the CFEC, both working with ADF&G, would come before the Legislature. All agencies support that approach, because any allocation scheme would likely need clarification. He said the Board would not be able to protect the state waters fisheries, even as they exist now, without some way to stop an onslaught of new entrants that would come under federal rationalization without this temporary moratorium. SENATOR BEN STEVENS said his brief explanation of why this bill is necessary is outlined in the numbers on the handout he provided on Wednesday. The number of participants in the halibut fishery when the halibut quota management system was first introduced in 1985 almost doubled by 1991 and, by 1994, when the quota system was implemented, the sable fishery had almost four times the number of participants. This bill will prevent that same drastic influx into the fisheries, thereby causing instability to the participants, communities, and processors. He noted the board has been working on this issue for two years and implementation may take another two to four years - optimistically. MR. DERSHAM recounted some concerns expressed at the last meeting by other testifiers that the state's interests would be diluted by coordinating the Board of Fisheries' decisions with those of the NPFMC, although the Board of Fisheries has been very clear throughout this process that the actions it takes will be based on strongly protecting state authority over state waters and that allocations would be based on what is best for the economy of Alaska's coastal communities. CHAIR OGAN asked if this bill would basically give the Board of Fish authority to establish a moratorium whenever needed for these particular fisheries. MR. DERSHAM said that is correct. He explained the bill has two parts - one gives CFEC the authority it needs to work out establishing a moratorium. The second part, beginning with section 9, is a specific moratorium on the groundfish fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska to accomplish the immediate goal that he and Senator Stevens described. CHAIR OGAN asked Mr. Dersham to respond to criticism that this proposal is designed to protect the financial interests of the current participants rather than to protect the resource. MR. DERSHAM said the specific moratorium this bill seeks does not include the jig fisheries for the groundfish species. The board purposely left entry in the jig fisheries open for new entrants in coastal communities and young people. The jig fisheries are growing, but the board believes there is room for additional entrants. "And it's the lowest [cost] cod fishery to get into in the groundfish fisheries so we specifically left that open." He added that the Board and ADFG believe they will be facing local depletion and probable conservation issues in state waters without the moratorium. CHAIR OGAN commented that the 20 halibut per day limit for subsistence with no season limit would do more to deplete a local fishery than anything else. MR. DERSHAM revealed that the Board of Fisheries made several recommendations to the NPFMC to amend the subsistence halibut fishery in areas where the 20 fish limit is in place. Regarding Cook Inlet, a trailing amendment is working its way through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) that should be on the books this summer that would greatly decrease the area in which that subsistence halibut limit would apply. The board will be meeting with NPFMC later this month and will be asking when that will be implemented. SENATOR WAGONER asked if the board would be looking at quotas for specific gear types in addition to the moratorium. He agreed with the decision to leave jig fisheries out of the moratorium to allow people with a limited budget to get into that fishery and asked if giving the jig fishery a percent of the available harvest each year was considered. MR. DERSHAM replied that the current state waters cod fishery has specific quotas for jigs versus pots in each area. The board is also considering a possible expansion of the quota that would be available for jig and new entrants based on protection and the interest of coastal communities. SENATOR WAGONER asked whether the permit would be issued to a vessel or a vessel operator. He recounted that when IFQ shares for halibut were established, many halibut fishers did not receive them because they fished boats for other people. He believes that was handled incorrectly and does not want to see that happen again. SENATOR BEN STEVENS answered that a moratorium is based on the number of vessels participating in a fishery. The concept Senator Wagoner referred to is a quota of distribution, which would happen during the rationalization options. The Legislature should not be the one to design the allocation system. A three- year moratorium on these specific areas gives the CFEC and board time to come up with options to bring back to the Legislature. MR. DANA REED, a Kodiak jig fisherman, thanked Senator Stevens for initiating this legislation because he feels the state has let the federal government lead the way instead of shaping a state fishery. He opined: And leaving the jig fishery out of this moratorium is absolutely asinine. It sounds good sitting from where you are to let anybody who wants to fish come into the only thing that would be left in this fishery. But I'm here to tell you that the jig fishery - we are real fishermen too and we've been at this for a while and I'll tell you who we are, mostly are salmon fishermen who don't make the money we used to, but we need that money to live here and my cod fishery has become a very integral part of the rest of my income for this year. If it's left out of this, it will be a mess. It's almost a mess already. You can see almost everything that floats now has got jig machines on it coming up from this year. And part of it's because of this idea that they better get in here and get a piece of something that might be worth something even if they're not going to make any money doing it. A group of us jiggers have gotten together and discussed some of the possibilities of how to remedy the mess the fishery is becoming and what it would really become if you put a moratorium...[END OF SIDE A]   TAPE 04-21, SIDE B 4:25 p.m.   MR. REED continued: ...on all of the other catching vessels, but not on jiggers. One of the things with exclusive registration for gear boats and fishermen - but that doesn't address the issue of just a lot of people going out there and sucking the quota up and pushing it into a derby and turning a commercial fishery into a joke. It is a true commercial fishery and we thought maybe something a little more palatable would be to take our quota and give a portion of that to open access - 10 percent or 500,000 pounds. Right now we were on 4.5 million pounds just split with the pot fishery, but they let that go over. So now we're cut down below 4 million pounds, which we will address at the Board of Fish.... If there's going to be a moratorium, you have to include everybody and you have to realize that jiggers are fishermen and we are dependent on that income. It's taken us several years to become as efficient as we have. We've spent a lot of time and effort getting into this fishery. If you leave us out, it's really... just pushing us off as a scapegoat and it's not fair and not acceptable. Thank you. CHAIR OGAN thanked him, indicated there were no further participants, and closed public testimony. SENATOR BEN STEVENS summarized: This bill was brought by request from the industry. There were some concerns that were met and some concerns were raised on Wednesday. Some fisheries were excluded by request. The Board of Fish and Commercial Fisheries Limited Entry Commission, Department of Fish and Game, the North Pacific Council all have been involved in this with industry participants and at this point I think it's the development of a process that has a long way to go and I think that we've done about what we can do here. I would suggest that we move on to the next step. This is one of those things, Mr. Chairman, where - it's just the fish business. SENATOR WAGONER said at the last hearing on this bill, two or three people called in expressing gratitude for not including the jig fisheries in this bill so the committee has had to weigh both sides. He said if that issue needs further consideration, that can happen as the bill moves forward. CHAIR OGAN asked for a description of a jig fishery. SENATOR WAGONER said it involves automatic jigs. SENATOR BEN STEVENS added that two people could be working 9 or 10 machines that run 30 to 50 hooks. SENATOR WAGONER moved CSSB 347(RES), version Q, and its attached fiscal notes from committee with individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.