HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES April 18, 1996 5:06 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Alan Austerman, Chairman Representative Carl Moses, Vice Chairman Representative Scott Ogan Representative Gary Davis Representative Kim Elton MEMBERS ABSENT All members were present. COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 538 "An Act relating to the establishment of a moratorium for vessels participating in the Bering Sea Korean hair crab fishery; relating to a vessel permit limited entry system; and providing for an effective date." - PASSED CSHB 538(2d FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE GOVERNOR'S APPOINTMENTS TO BOARD OF FISHERIES: GRANT MILLER, DAN COFFEY AND VIRGIL UMPHENOUR PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 538 SHORT TITLE: VESSEL MORATORIUM FOR HAIR CRAB FISHERY SPONSOR(S): COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION 03/06/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124 03/06/96 (H) MINUTE(FSH) 03/06/96 2995 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/06/96 2995 (H) FISHERIES 03/11/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124 03/11/96 (H) MINUTE(FSH) 03/13/96 3113 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) 2DP 3NR 03/13/96 3113 (H) DP: AUSTERMAN, ELTON 03/13/96 3113 (H) NR: G.DAVIS, OGAN, MOSES 03/13/96 3113 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G) 04/17/96 3826 (H) RETURN TO FSH COMMITTEE 04/18/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124 WITNESS REGISTER AMY DAUGHERTY, Committee Aide House Special Committee on Fisheries and Legislative Assistant to Representative Alan Austerman Alaska State Legislature State Capitol Building, Room 434 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4230 POSITION STATEMENT: Explained changes in CSHB 538(2d FSH). JOHN WINTHER P.O. Box 509 Petersburg, Alaska 99833 Telephone: (907) 772-4754 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSHB 538(2d FSH). GRANT J. MILLER P.O. Box 2456 Sitka, Alaska 99835 Telephone: (907) 747-5982 POSITION STATEMENT: Appointee to Board of Fisheries. DAN K. COFFEY 207 East Northern Lights Boulevard, Number 200 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Telephone: (907) 274-3385 POSITION STATEMENT: Appointee to Board of Fisheries. VIRGIL L. UMPHENOUR 2400 Davis Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Telephone: (907) 456-3885 POSITION STATEMENT: Appointee to Board of Fisheries. ALVIN D. OSTERBACK, Mayor City of Sand Point P.O. Box 249 Sand Point, Alaska 99661 Telephone: (907) 383-2696 POSITION STATEMENT: Approved Miller confirmation; testified about Coffey; did not recommend Umphenour. DORNE HAWXHURST Cordova District Fishermen United P.O. Box 939 Cordova, Alaska 99574 Telephone: (907) 424-3447 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified about confirmations. DAN WINN P.O. Box 1272 Homer, Alaska 99603 Telephone: (907) 235-8712 POSITION STATEMENT: Voiced concerns about Coffey. TAMMIE SHRADER P.O. Box 2601 Homer, Alaska 99603 Telephone: (907) 235-7670 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed Coffey confirmation. CINDY AMBERFIELD P.O. Box 2518 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Telephone: (907) 486-3621 POSITION STATEMENT: Urged reconsideration of Coffey nomination. DICK H. BOWER, SR., Member Board of Fisheries P.O. Box 3662 Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Telephone: (907) 262-7132 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported confirmation of Miller and Coffey. JIM RICHARDSON 308 G Street, Number 103 Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Telephone: (907) 279-2883 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported Coffey confirmation. BILL SULLIVAN P.O. Box 943 Kenai, Alaska 99611 Telephone: (907) 283-4850 POSITION STATEMENT: Strongly opposed Coffey confirmation. LOU CLARK United Cook Inlet Drift Association 2840 Porcupine Trail Anchorage, Alaska 99516 Telephone: (907) 345-0817 POSITION STATEMENT: Strongly opposed confirmation of Coffey and Umphenour; supported Miller confirmation. JOHN McCOMBS P.O. Box 87 Ninilchik, Alaska 99639 Telephone: (907) 567-3334 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed confirmation of Coffey and Umphenour; supported Miller confirmation. DAVID HORNE HC 2, Box 543 Kasilof, Alaska 99610 Telephone: (907) 262-4551 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed Coffey confirmation; supported Miller confirmation; testified about Umphenour. LARRY VAN SKY HC 1, Box 1330 Kenai, Alaska 99611 Telephone: (907) 776-8627 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed confirmation of Coffey and Umphenour. BEN ELLIS, Executive Director Kenai River Sportfishing Association P.O. Box 1228 Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Telephone: (907) 262-8588 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported confirmation of Coffey and Umphenour. GARY HOLLIER P.O. Box 2965 Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Telephone: (907) 262-9185 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported Miller confirmation; opposed Coffey confirmation. GRACE KENDALL P.O. Box 2523 Sterling, Alaska 99672 Telephone: (907) 262-6130 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed confirmation of Coffey and Umphenour. PAUL SHADURA P.O. Box 1632 Kenai, Alaska 99611 Telephone: (907) 262-1632 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed Coffey confirmation. DENBY LLOYD, Chief Resource Analyst Aleutians East Borough 1600 A Street, Suite 103 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-5146 Telephone: (907) 274-7555 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported confirmation of Miller and Coffey. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 96-18, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIRMAN ALAN AUSTERMAN called the House Special Committee on Fisheries meeting to order at 5:06 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Austerman, Davis and Elton. Representatives Moses and Ogan joined the meeting at 5:12 p.m. and 5:15 p.m., respectively. HB 538 - VESSEL MORATORIUM FOR HAIR CRAB FISHERY CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked Amy Daugherty to explain how the current committee substitute for HB 538 differed from the previous one. Number 0063 AMY DAUGHERTY, Committee Aide, House Special Committee on Fisheries, and Legislative Assistant to Representative Alan Austerman, said the committee substitute that had passed out of committee previously was a general moratorium for the Bering Sea Korean Hair Crab. After it reached the House Rules Committee, there had been misgivings about it, especially by the representative of the district most directly affected by the bill. MS. DAUGHERTY explained the current draft established a five-mile buffer area around the Pribilof Islands, to be utilized exclusively by small crabbing vessels no greater than 58 feet in length. Ms.Daugherty said a compromise among many people had been reached and that, to her knowledge, everyone was currently satisfied with it. Number 0178 REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON made a motion to adopt work draft 9- LS1736\Z, dated 4/18/96, CSSB 538. There being no objection, it was so ordered. MS. DAUGHERTY referred to the intent language on page 2, lines 15- 16, and said, "The Department of Fish and Game has been through this document and this plan, and they felt very strongly that we needed to leave the ... 100 percent observer program intact, or at least put intent language in there so that that would remain." CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if that was new language. MS. DAUGHERTY affirmed that. Number 0270 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON noted that it maintained 100 percent observer coverage for all vessels engaged. He asked if that meant skiff fishermen around the Pribilofs would need an observer aboard. MS. DAUGHERTY replied that the department was concerned about the resource. There were also several other species of crab in the area. "That's exactly what it is right now, 100 percent crab observer coverage," she said. "Since we are essentially providing for that fishery, they wanted us to include that. The industry has not resisted that yet." She pointed out that within the five-mile zone, there was not much of an industry, nor many boats 58 feet or less. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON suggested it was almost mutually exclusive language if they were trying to establish a skiff fishery. Number 0361 MS. DAUGHERTY explained it was not a skiff fishery. "I'm sure the waters are way too rough for a skiff fishery," she said. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON replied he may be misstating it. He asked whether a boat in the small-boat fleet off the Pribilofs would be required to have an observer on board. MS. DAUGHERTY affirmed that. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON maintained that it still might be mutually exclusive. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted there was already 100 percent coverage with the existing fishery. If more boats were entering the fishery, the department wanted to continue to have 100 percent coverage to protect this fragile fishery. Chairman Austerman called on Mr. Winther to testify. Number 0433 JOHN WINTHER testified that he owned a vessel that fished for hair crab in the Bering Sea. He agreed there had been compromises on both sides and said, "Our group can live with what's been done here. We're happy with it. And the alternative, we know, would be nothing. And if that happens, after this year, we can forget about trying to do something for the fisheries because of the added effort that will come into the fisheries the next season, November1." Mr. Winther indicated the reason there was currently 100 percent observer coverage was the high number of small king crab stocks in the general area, the by-catch for which the department wanted to monitor closely. "So, they want to continue to have 100 percent observer coverage on any vessel that might participate in this fishery," he said. "And it's a real fine line. You can be fishing along and, all of a sudden, just get into the king crab. And they have to monitor that very closely." Mr. Winther thanked everyone for their work in reaching the compromise. Number 0530 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there was discussion. REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS made a motion that CSHB 538 move from committee with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN objected so that his presence could be noted, then withdrew his objection. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there were further objections. There being none, CSHB 538 moved from the House Special Committee on Fisheries. GOVERNOR'S APPOINTMENTS TO BOARD OF FISHERIES: GRANT MILLER, DAN COFFEY and VIRGIL UMPHENOUR Number 0601 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted the next order of business was a hearing on the confirmations of Grant Miller, Dan Coffey and Virgil Umphenour to the Board of Fisheries. All three nominees were present on teleconference. Chairman Austerman called on Mr. Miller to speak first. Number 0669 GRANT MILLER testified via teleconference, saying he had been a self-employed commercial fisherman for 30 years and was dependent on fisheries resources as his sole source of income. His wife and two sons, who were 19 and 20 years old, also participated in the fisheries, including the halibut longline, herring gillnet, salmon seine and troll fisheries. "I'm dependent on these resources and intend to do the best I can to see that we continue to have these resources," he concluded. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Miller which fisheries he participated in. Number 0781 MR. MILLER said although his main fishery currently is Southeast salmon seining, he spent most of his time since 1977 as a troller. "My wife and I trolled with the Johnny Roger up until three years ago, when we bought a seine permit, and we continue to fish together as a family," he said. "I still hold my troll permit and I fish in the winter ... troll fishery and also in the experimental hatchery openings in the spring with the troller. I also currently operate a herring bait pound in Sitka sound, which ... the last two years has not managed to get any herring, so that hasn't produced anything for me. I also have some IFQ shares in halibut, which we fish with the troller, the Johnny Roger." Number 0841 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said the biggest complaint he heard about the Board of Fisheries, which he believed was a public perception by a significant proportion of Alaskans, was that the board was biased towards commercial fishermen. He asked Mr. Miller to comment on that and on how objective he could be. He also asked whether Mr. Miller could manage the fisheries on a sustained-yield principle and recognize the growing competing interests of sport fishermen, tourists and others. Number 0891 MR. MILLER pointed out that the make-up of the board was not biased towards commercial fishing. "I believe we have three people on the board who own commercial fishing permits," he said. "I believe I'm the only one whose sole source of income is commercial fishing. Then we ... also have Trefon Angasan, who does hold a permit in Bristol Bay, and Dr. White, whose main income is dentistry, who also holds a ... permit in a small gillnet fishery, I believe, on the Kuskokwim. So, I don't believe there's a bias there on the board." MR. MILLER continued, "At this time, in terms of how I approach it, my main concern is the resource, and I believe that I make my decisions based on the best available information provided to me by our Department of Fish and Game. And my first consideration is the resource and its ability to sustain and produce, for all users. And, as may be evidenced by our recent meeting in Cook Inlet, we have made decisions that aren't necessarily biased towards commercial fishermen. And I would say that some may interpret the decision ... at Cook Inlet to be particularly favorable towards the sport fishermen. I believe that's possible for all of us, and I think, ... given the information that we get from the Department of Fish and Game, all of us appear to have the same concern about the resource. And I don't believe that I would be biased unduly towards the commercial fisheries versus other users." Number 1010 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that the question was a difficult one for an appointee to answer. He noted committee packets contained something he considered relatively extraordinary, a letter endorsing Mr. Miller, signed not only by commercial fishing interests but also by Carl Rosier on behalf of the Alaska Outdoor Council, one of the most vocal sport entities in the state, and by Bill Foster on behalf of "day charter people." Representative Elton concluded that while Mr. Miller did a good job of answering the question, perhaps even a better answer was what some of the sport fishing people said about him. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN clarified his question was categorical, not personal. He declared he was not saying there was a bias but a perception of bias. "And for many people, the perception is reality," he said. "So, thank you for that answer." Number 1098 MR. MILLER assured Representative Ogan he did not take offense and had been asked that question, which was important, before. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there were questions from the committee and then requested that Mr. Miller stay on line. DAN K. COFFEY testified via teleconference from Anchorage, saying he was a 49-year Alaska resident and single parent of three sons who made his living as an attorney and businessman. "In the past, I have been a commercial fisherman," he said. "Most recently, I was the owner of a 80-foot halibut schooner, which I sold ... to my partner in 1990. I was then, and always have been in Alaska, a sports fisherman, so, I have had ... interests on both sides of this." MR. COFFEY said as an attorney, he spent a lot of time prior to his appointment reading the constitutional provisions, statutes and case law. "And the three meetings we've had as a board, what I try to do most is read all of the volumes and volumes of material that is given to us, take policies that the board has had for 20 years or more and apply the facts, as we learn them, to the policies that this board and the prior boards have adopted, and make decisions that are, first, in the interests of conservation and sustained yield," he explained. "And then, the more difficult questions, which are ... somewhat subjective, are the ones of allocation between beneficial users, which ... [are] the ones that cause the most argument between the people, but [I] try to apply those decisions in a fair and equitable manner as best I can. I think if I am confirmed, that that's the way I would continue to run my tenure on the board." Number 1233 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON noted that Mr. Coffey's resume listed service on the board of F.I.S.H., Inc. He asked if Mr. Coffey was still on the board or involved with it in any way. MR. COFFEY replied, "When I made the application for the Board of Fisheries, I resigned from the board of F.I.S.H., Inc." He indicated that was in December. "I was also the registered agent of the corporation and I resigned from that position and severed all my ties to the organization, returning files. And I had the corporate book and I gave that back to the president, things of that nature, because it, to my way of thinking, would have been inappropriate to remain on the board of F.I.S.H., Inc., and also serve in the capacity as a member of the Board of Fisheries. So, I've severed all my ties with the organization." Number 1284 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked about the board of F.I.S.H., Inc. MR. COFFEY explained that F.I.S.H. was an acronym for "Fairness in Salmon Harvest". It was a corporation formed for the purpose of drafting and getting on the ballot the F.I.S.H. initiative, which was currently on the ballot and had recently withstood legal challenges in Southeast Alaska. "It basically is an allocative direction to the Board of Fisheries," Mr. Coffey said. "If this passes, it will be similar to a statutory provision which would require a certain allocation of fish between commercial and sports fishing interests. And the corporation was the vehicle that was used to draft and sponsor and push this initiative." REPRESENTATIVE OGAN indicated it could be argued that involvement with F.I.S.H. could give a bias towards sport fishermen. He asked whether Mr. Coffey could be fair towards commercial fishing interests in decisions that might be contrary to what he had worked for on the F.I.S.H. board. Number 1373 MR. COFFEY responded, "Well, I believe so, and I will certainly strive to be that. Much as what Mr. Miller just said, our first and primary objective - and I haven't seen anybody on the board currently who doesn't share this - our first and primary objective is ... for the conservation of the salmon stocks and the crab stocks, or whatever they may be, and their sustained yield. Whenever we have conservation issues, there's no argument among board members. We have to face those issues first." Number 1401 MR. COFFEY recognized that many commercial fishermen believed he had a bias. "But my goal, again, is to take what is a public resource, look at it in light of the demands that are made upon that resource, look at the policies that the board uses - and these are adopted in regulation, there are various policies, the Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan is one of them, and that's what we dealt with in Cook Inlet - take those policies, which are of many years' duration, and apply them to our decision-making process," he said. "And sometimes that comes down on the side of commercial interests and sometimes it comes down on sport interests." MR. COFFEY cited the example of Cook Inlet, where some board decisions were supported in part by sports interests and some, involving the Northern District of Upper Cook Inlet, were strongly supported by the set net commercial fishermen in that district. "I knew this would be controversial when I got on there because of the perceived bias," he said, adding that he tried to make the best decision based on the evidence and material provided to the board. MR. COFFEY emphasized that the fisheries were fully utilized. "So, when you make decisions to change the status quo, you are taking from one and giving to another, or things of that nature, so it's very difficult," he said. Number 1508 REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS asked how much time Mr. Coffey spent as an attorney and on business interests. MR. COFFEY indicated his practice involved commercial law with a heavy emphasis on liquor law and licensing. "And there's not many other people who do that at all, so, it's a very specialized practice," he said. "And I'm able to do that in such a manner that I probably spend half of my time on my law practice and the rest of my time is on my business. I would now say that it's probably 40 percent on law and 40 percent on the business, and 20 percent on the Board of Fisheries." Number 1538 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said articles had suggested Mr. Coffey was a one-issue appointee. "It's indicated that you've publicly stated that yourself, and that issue is to take fish from the commercial fishery in Cook Inlet and ... reallocate them to the sport fishing, guiding and tourism industry," he said, asking Mr. Coffey to address that. MR. COFFEY replied he had never said that. He explained, "Mr. Miller and I were appointed two days before Cook Inlet started. So, from the very get-go, in those meetings, I was asked, both by members of the public, as well as the press, if I was going to resign after the meetings on Cook Inlet and if ... this was the only thing I was interested in. And I told them - I'll tell you - that that's not my nature. I didn't ... agree to take this job so I could sit there for three weeks on the Cook Inlet board and then walk away. And I think if you ask people who have observed me in the shellfish meetings, and people who have observed me in the recent meetings on the June fishery and Area M, they will tell you that I read the material and I work real hard to participate, as best I can, in all of the things that the board is doing. So, if I am confirmed by the legislature, then I will work hard on all issues in all areas of the state to try to fulfill the duties ... that a member of the Board of Fisheries needs to do." CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there were further questions for Mr. Coffey and asked him to stay on line. He then called on Virgil Umphenour. Number 1677 VIRGIL UMPHENOUR testified via teleconference from Whitehorse, British Columbia. An Alaska resident since 1971, he owned and operated a small fish and meat processing plant in Fairbanks. He bought commercially caught fish, primarily from the Upper Yukon, and custom processed sport-caught fish and game. In addition, he was a big game hunting guide. Mr. Umphenour had been on the Board of Fisheries almost two years, having been reappointed at the time Mr. Coffey and Mr. Miller were appointed. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked Mr. Umphenour to characterize the board and his impressions of it. Number 1726 MR. UMPHENOUR responded, "Well, there's a lot of issues before the board and it's a lot of work and requires a lot of research and a lot of paying attention at the meetings. And it makes a lot of hard decisions pertaining primarily to allocation. But some of the hard decisions are what to do about some of the various conservation concerns that we have cyclically, king crab in Bristol Bay and a lot of other concerns. But I believe that our system is the most democratic system, probably, of any of the states, where the public is allowed to participate and get their ideas across. Anyone that wants to can make a proposal and the proposals are heard. And the department has to ... make comments on the pros and cons of the proposal that the public puts in. So, I feel it's a very good process." Number 1775 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if Mr. Umphenour believed the issue around False Pass had been resolved. MR. UMPHENOUR's reply was indiscernible. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked what action had been taken. MR. UMPHENOUR responded, "Action that was taken at this last meeting was that we put mandatory retention for all salmon caught in the fishery. And I think that that action will stop a lot of the mortality of chum salmon in that fishery, that are migrating through, in the June fishery. So, it will put a lot more fish into the terminal areas that ... they're bound for." REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Umphenour to explain what had occurred previously, how that differed, and what his position was on it. Number 1831 MR. UMPHENOUR replied, "What was going on before is a number of the fishermen, which are purse seiners and drift gillnet fishermen, would catch chum salmon and then release them back into the water. And there's no way to know how many of those fish are going to die. And the indications are that a very large portion of those fish are going to die, especially the ones caught in gillnets. If they're gilled, they're going to die. And there was no accountability for how many of these fish were being caught and then released. And we have a chum cap in that fishery, and the chum cap was put there by the board first in 1986, and it was to conserve chum salmon headed for the Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim (indisc. -- coughing). (Indisc.) again, at this board meeting just this past week, and I supported it fully." Number 1874 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the chum were a by-catch of another species being targeted, with the chums being pitched because they were of lower value. MR. UMPHENOUR replied, "Partially correct but not completely correct. The chum cap is there to conserve chums. The targeted specie is the sockeye that are bound for Bristol Bay. And if they catch 700,000 chums in that fishery, then the fishery is supposed to close. And so, it's a conservation measure to try to encourage the fishermen to target sockeye and not chum salmon." Number 1898 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked: "And so, what you're saying ... is that the chum cap, if they turned the fish back when they caught them in the nets and kicked them back, that wasn't counting against the cap?" MR. UMPHENOUR said that was correct. "And then, a certain amount of those fish naturally die, and there's no way to quantify exactly how many of them die, but in tagging studies that the department has done in that area on sockeye and chum salmon both, the figures used ... for tagging mortality, in which the fish are handled as gently as possible, are as high as 50 percent, the estimates on the mortality," he said. "And so, a fish that's caught and not handled gently is going to have a higher mortality than one that is handled gently, and especially a fish caught in a gillnet, because ... if they're gilled, they're going to die. There's no question about it. The fish that are caught in that fishery are headed for the Kuskokwim, the Yukon, Norton Sound and Kotzebue, the ones that are in the conservation concern mode. And some of those systems are ... in excess of 1,000 miles in the ocean before they get to the river they're going to go up. And then, some of those fish, in the case of the Yukon, have in excess of 2,000 miles to travel up the river. And then, they lose scales and have other physical damage to them that exposes them to infection and bacteria and fungus and, also, increased predation." Number 1980 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked what the estimated catch was of fish being kicked back from that fishery. MR. UMPHENOUR replied, "I've had a number of people tell me that it's a very large amount, but there's just no way of knowing it," he said. "I know that the Department of Public Safety, when they did their investigation into it last year, they reported that they were ... `frequently' returned to the water." REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked: "So, if this chum cap ends up with an adequate escapement to the Yukon-Kuskokwim, ... would you be willing to relax that? And I would assume this probably has a devastating impact on the Area M fishermen, doesn't it?" Number 2021 MR. UMPHENOUR responded, "Now, people could say it has a devastating impact on it. Maybe it does. But the people have to consider the impact on the fisheries like Norton Sound, where the commercial and sport fishery have both been closed since 1988. And portions of the subsistence fishing have been closed since 1990, I mean totally closed. There's four rivers there that are totally closed to subsistence fishing and have been since 1990, and six more rivers that have had severe subsistence restrictions put on them. The Area M fishery doesn't only fish in June, but, in the case of the Norton Sound fishery, that's the only salmon fishery they have, and ... it has a long history of fishing. And they used to average catching between 65[,000] and 70,000 chum salmon in the Nome Subdistrict back in the 50s, when the salmon stocks were low statewide." MR. UMPHENOUR continued, "Their average catch in that district now, for subsistence only, because that's the only fishery that's allowed, is in the neighborhood of 3,000 chum salmon. And the AreaM fishermen also have other fishery resources that they can fish for besides salmon. But they fish for salmon all the way up into September. So, they have many other ... alternative resources. But the people in Norton Sound, the people in the Kuskokwim and Yukon and Kotzebue Sound, have no alternative fishery resources to speak of. And, also, the people in the Yukon here in Canada. That's why I'm here now, is discussing the rebuilding of the salmon stocks on the Canadian side of the border." Number 2095 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON posed a question to be answered by Mr. Coffey and Mr. Miller, as well, in their closing statements. He asked Mr. Umphenour whether he made a distinction between Alaska anglers and the guided sport or sport/commercial fishery. MR. UMPHENOUR replied, "Yes, I do." REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked how Mr. Umphenour would apply that distinction regarding policy. MR. UMPHENOUR responded, "My recommendation is this. Hunting guides are required, for a number of reasons, to have an experience factor of having hunted part of five years in the state of Alaska. That's for a number of reasons, especially when they're taking people on dangerous rivers and remote areas where there's lots of bears around. That's my first recommendation. My second recommendation is that non-resident alien sport fishermen should have to be guided. There was a case on the upper Susitna, not this year but the year before, where a fishing guide from the Netherlands sunk a boat and drowned and ... neither him nor any of his clients even had a life jacket on. But these people can't read the regulation book. They don't know what the regulations are because they can't read the regulation book. They have no concept whatsoever of conservation of the resource and they should be required to be guided just like non-resident aliens are in the big game industry. ... Because there are a very large number of non- resident guides, where their fisheries have been destroyed in the Pacific Northwest, and some of them as far away as Florida, that are coming up to Alaska, paying the $25 and declaring themself a sport fish guide, and they are very unethical. I've had complaints from a number of resident guides on the Gulkana River in the Glennallen area, on the Kenai River and the Susitna drainage in Bristol Bay, that have all complained to me about the unethical activities of these non-resident guides that are coming up here to make the big bucks and head back to Florida or California or wherever they come from." Number 2223 REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES said, "You've mentioned that enforcement reported a high percentage of what is commonly known as `chum chucking'." He asked where Mr. Umphenour got that information. MR. UMPHENOUR replied he got it from Colonel Glass of the Department of Public Safety, who was the head state trooper for fish and wildlife protection. "And it was in a report that he presented to the Board of Fisheries," he said. REPRESENTATIVE MOSES asked if there had been any arrests or violations written up. MR. UMPHENOUR responded, "Yes, there were, but not on that issue, because there is no way to determine it. There was a loophole in the regulation and there was no way to determine whether the fish were dead or alive, because they sink." Number 2259 REPRESENTATIVE MOSES indicated that was different from the report he himself had received. MR. UMPHENOUR stated, "The report from Colonel Glass said that the fish were released frequently." REPRESENTATIVE MOSES asked whether Mr. Umphenour felt there is adequate enforcement and administration in Norton Sound and on the Yukon River. Number 2270 MR. UMPHENOUR replied that he felt there is. "In the Yukon River, the state troopers in 1994, ... for the Anvik River fishery, they had four undercover troopers observing twenty fishermen fish," he said. "And in Norton Sound, that fishery's closed. And the Yukon River fishery, for the fall chums, was closed in 1992, 1993 and 1994 for commercial and sport fishing, and in 1993, totally closed for subsistence, also, due to lack of chum salmon, while the AreaM fishery still fish as much as they could. ... In fact, in 1994 ... and '95 both, they continuously fished the last 15 days of ... June on those same fish stocks." REPRESENTATIVE MOSES stated, "It has been reported to me that you've made the statement you didn't care what the testimony was or what the facts were, you wanted Area M closed." He asked if that was a true statement. MR. UMPHENOUR replied, "No, that's a false statement." Number 2330 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN thanked Mr. Umphenour and asked all appointees to stay on line, informing them they would have an opportunity for closing statements following public testimony. Number 2352 ALVIN D. OSTERBACK, Mayor, City of Sand Point, testified that he was a fisherman from Area M and had attended the recent Board of Fisheries meeting. He spoke on each appointee. "I would hope that the legislature would go ahead and approve Grant Miller," he stated. "I worked with him in the past on the UFA board of directors. I think he is quite knowledgeable, has a lot of fishing experience, and he's a good addition to the Board of Fish[eries] and to the process." MR. OSTERBACK stated, "We had mixed feelings on Mr. Coffey. I sat at the past couple of board meetings watching him work. I know that he spends a lot of time learning the issues, studying the documents before him. Knowing that he hasn't been involved in the process in the past, I wanted to see how he would react to the issues that were in front of the board. I think he did all his homework." Mr. Osterback said he had been attending Board of Fisheries meetings ever since there was a 13-member board. Mr. Coffey was the first board member he had seen organizing in boxes all the data pertaining to each item as it came up. "And I was kind of impressed with that," he said, adding that he felt Mr. Coffey was trying to be fair. "We didn't come out of this last meeting real pleased with what we wound up with, but I think he did a fair job on the issues that we were dealing with, so, I would recommend that he would be a fair and good balance to the board process," he concluded. Number 2430 MR. OSTERBACK referred to Mr. Umphenour and said, "I think if I [were] you, I would listen to some of the tapes from the past board meetings before I made a decision. And my personal opinion is that he has a closed mind and is just plain not capable of learning. And I don't think he wishes to. I think he's there with a set agenda. I'm sorry, I wouldn't recommend him." DORNE HAWXHURST, Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU), testified via teleconference that she represented several hundred fishermen in what was referred to as "ADF&G Management Area E." She stated CDFU was concerned about the appointment of Mr. Coffey. TAPE 96-18, SIDE B Number 0005 MS. HAWXHURST expressed CDFU's concern about bias on the part of Mr. Coffey stemming from his involvement with the F.I.S.H. initiative, which she said was a direct attempt to by-pass the Board of Fisheries process. Number 0081 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Osterback whether he thought Mr. Umphenour had so much influence on the Board of Fisheries that he could adversely impact his fishery. MR. OSTERBACK replied, "I believe that with the amount of members that you have on the board, I think what you should be looking for is to have a board that's impartial and looks at all the information before them that they get from the staff, the biologists, public testimony that comes in. ... I feel that if you have a board member ... that basically has his own agenda, does not respond to staff reports, public testimony, then I feel that you, in fact, have one member that's not acting in the best interests of the state or the fishing industry. And with the fishing industry being one of the largest employees and a large part of the work force in the state of Alaska, I feel that ... you're doing an injustice to the fishing industry by having somebody that sits there and continually pushes his own agenda, and refuses to look at the data presented to him." Number 0146 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that Mr. Umphenour had quoted data and said many fish runs were severely depleted. He said the bottom line was that without escapement, everybody loses. "And if there's a problem in the Yukon River, which apparently there is, then while ... the different user groups are fighting amongst themselves, the run crashes and nobody wins," Representative Ogan stated. He acknowledged that the three appointees had different interests but suggested on the whole, there was balance. He asked: "Do you think that that's impossible with Mr. Umphenour?" MR. OSTERBACK responded, "Yes, I do." He said the main issue in his area was over chum, which had been under consideration for 15 years. He noted he had perhaps missed one board meeting over the years. He believed fishermen, as a whole, were conservative and wanted to see the fish come back forever, especially in areas such as his, where there were generations of fishermen, and up in the AYK. MR. OSTERBACK said there were problems, which he believed the board realized. He said, "Yes, we've participated in ... the tagging study that was done. We've participated in anything that the state has asked us to do in trying to help out with the conservation problems up in the AYK area. ... I just feel that, with the amount of effort that everyone puts into it from both areas, that Mr. Umphenour fails to look at the issues that are presented, to look at the facts that are presented to him, and basically has an agenda." Number 0272 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented that there was a history of overfishing nationwide. "And I don't know whether it's fishermen or where you point the fingers, but fishing's gone everywhere else," he said. "That's why they're coming here." MR. OSTERBACK suggested listening to the tapes. Number 0297 DAN WINN testified via teleconference from Homer, saying he was a commercial fisherman who had lived there since 1970. He believed Mr. Coffey's position, as expressed in the F.I.S.H. initiative, was extremely radical and not good for the state or the fishery in general. Although he appreciated efforts of members of the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game, he hated to see either board be radicalized and wished to see someone more reasonable appointed. He emphasized that if a commercial fisherman came up with something as radical as the F.I.S.H. initiative, but "on the other side", he would not support that person being on the board, either. Number 0384 TAMMIE SHRADER testified via teleconference from Homer, saying she adamantly opposed the confirmation of Dan Coffey. She believed he could not be impartial dealing with commercial fishing issues and cited the F.I.S.H. initiative as a reason. MS. SHRADER asked why the confirmation hearings were not held in February, when more fishermen were available for public comment. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN acknowledged that was a good question for which he had no answer. He suggested that perhaps the legislature needed to consider that for next year. Number 0443 CINDY AMBERFIELD testified from Kodiak, saying she owned a candy store and had experience representing a local group called Alaskans for a Fishing Future, which had been involved in commercial fishing issues in the past year. She said, "I am appalled that ... neither of the gentlemen from Kodiak who were nominated for a position on the board have been accepted for that position or are a part of this confirmation hearing." She said there was no representative on the board from Kodiak. "And these are the people whose lives are most affected by board decisions," she said, emphasizing the importance of commercial fishing to Kodiak's economy. She urged reconsideration of Mr. Coffey's nomination. Number 0526 DICK H. BOWER, SR., Member, Board of Fisheries, testified via teleconference from Anchorage, noting that he lived in Soldotna. He pointed out that Mr. Umphenour, who had previously been confirmed by the legislature, had spent considerable time on the board. Mr. Bower believed that the public and the legislature could judge his performance based on that. MR. BOWER recalled that he had faced a situation 26 months earlier similar to that faced by Mr. Miller and Mr. Coffey. Within a month of being appointed, Mr. Bower had been involved in meetings involving some of the most contentious issues faced by the board. Confirmation following those meetings was one of the most difficult situations he had faced in his professional life, he said. On that basis, he was commenting on performance by Mr. Miller and Mr. Coffey during the two meetings in which they participated as members. MR. BOWER said both Mr. Miller and Mr. Coffey did a fine job in quickly determining the rules and the direction under which the board operates. Both had proven very effective at taking the masses of material they had to go through, along with public testimony and staff reports, to fully participate in "the proposal and the province that the board faced." Both showed themselves to be articulate, critical thinkers who asked questions to obtain needed information from staff, public testimony, or the reactions of fellow board members. MR. BOWER noted that Mr. Miller had provided relevant information in a couple of instances, and given valuable advice. He believed Mr. Coffey was able to carefully analyze information. Mr. Bower had written a set of findings with Mr. Coffey in connection with the last board meeting and believed Mr. Coffey had done a fine job with that. Mr. Bower stated, "He's able to bring to us his knowledge of the law and the way that we need to approach some of these things where, unfortunately, the board seems to find it's continually faced with some kind of conflict or some kind of litigious situation." He concluded by stating his full support for confirmation of Mr. Miller and Mr. Coffey. Number 0747 JIM RICHARDSON testified via teleconference from Anchorage in support of Mr. Coffey's confirmation. Involved with management of commercial and sport fisheries, as well as "management of recreational users" on the Kenai River, he had watched the board process for 20 years. He referred to Cook Inlet and said there was a growing population that wanted to see change, whereas the board process had been directed to protect the status quo. Mr. Richardson believed change was needed and that people like Mr. Coffey, who had the necessary skills, intelligence, and ability to take a stand, should be on the board. MR. RICHARDSON said Mr. Coffey could not be intimidated and indicated people had been physically threatened and board members "almost pushed around" at a recent board meeting. "Mr. Coffey, who is up for confirmation, was threatened that if he didn't vote a particular manner on an issue, that his confirmation would be blocked," Mr. Richardson asserted, indicating that if the game was to be played that way, the legislature should get rid of the board process altogether. He pointed out the amount of time required of board participants and said "we should thank our lucky stars that he's there to take that on." Number 0909 BILL SULLIVAN testified via teleconference from Kenai that he strongly opposed Mr. Coffey's confirmation. "When Governor Knowles lobbied the commercial fishermen for their vote, prior to being elected, he stated that he would not allow a board appointee to act on issues in the Board of Fish[eries] prior to being confirmed by the legislature," Mr. Sullivan stated, indicating he did not believe Mr. Coffey could divorce himself from the F.I.S.H. initiative, for which he understood Mr. Coffey to be a co-author. Mr. Sullivan believed the initiative was irresponsible. MR. SULLIVAN stated he was bothered that Mr. Coffey had not divulged his connection with the Cook Inlet Sportfishing Caucus, for which, to Mr. Sullivan's understanding, Mr. Coffey was and might still be an attorney. He noted that Bob Penney was president of that caucus. Number 0990 LOU CLARK, United Cook Inlet Drift Association, testified via teleconference from Anchorage, saying he had fished in Cook Inlet for over 30 years. He strongly opposed confirmation of Dan Coffey and Virgil Umphenour and stated concern about bias in both instances. However, he supported Grant Miller, who, he believed, could look at both sides of the coin. JOHN McCOMBS testified via teleconference from Kenai in opposition to the appointment of Dan Coffey, who he believed had been cavalier in procedures regarding allocation criteria during board meetings. Like previous testifiers, he was concerned about bias related to the F.I.S.H. initiative. He was also concerned about conflicts of interest involving other clients, for whom he wished to see a list. He spoke against Mr. Umphenour's appointment. However, he favored Mr. Miller's confirmation and believed he had a broad enough background to do a good job. Number 1081 DAVID HORNE testified via teleconference from Anchorage in opposition to Mr. Coffey's confirmation. He referred to the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), from whom he had a copy of a letter addressed to Mr. Coffey as the attorney for the Cook Inlet Sportfishing Caucus. "And there are three pending allegations that have not been resolved," he said. He also believed having three sport fishing representatives from Cook Inlet was overkill on the board. He said the action at the last board meeting effectively crippled the commercial fishing industry in Cook Inlet. MR. HORNE spoke in favor of Mr. Miller. He felt Mr. Umphenour had done a credible job and listened to both sides, although he did not vote the way Mr. Horne would have wanted. Number 1193 LARRY VAN SKY testified via teleconference, saying he had lived in North Kenai since 1952. He related that he had just spent five days in Anchorage at the Board of Fisheries hearings, his first experience there, and was disappointed in how he perceived the board to receive its information. Mr. Van Sky said he was "very perplexed with Dan Coffey" and spoke against his appointment. He cited concerns about bias and impartiality due to other affiliations. MR. VAN SKY questioned the inclusion of three board members from the Cook Inlet area, Dan Coffey, Larry Engel and Dick Bower, all affiliated with sport fishing organizations. He believed the board had a built-in bias towards sport fishing and asked how one could suggest there was a bias towards commercial fishing, which he believed was less well represented. He further noted that no board member was from Kodiak or Prince William Sound. Referring to the Kenai River, he suggested there had been attempts, successful thus far, to allocate fisheries towards the tourist industry in Alaska. "And I'm not opposed to tourism, but ... I would just like to see them be more impartial on how they look at the commercial interests, as well," he stated. MR. VAN SKY said he opposed the appointment of both Mr. Coffey and Mr.Umphenour. He concluded with comments about commercial fishing in Cook Inlet and said what was currently happening with the board limited his ability as a recent purchaser of a commercial license to tell what would happen with Cook Inlet's fishery. Number 1454 BEN ELLIS, Executive Director, Kenai River Sportfishing Association, testified via teleconference that his nonprofit organization, based in Soldotna, supported confirmation of Dan Coffey and Virgil Umphenour. He cited dedication to the protection of genetic diversity and the resource as reasons, indicating non- commercial users had a constitutional right that should be met before allowing responsible commercial harvest. He recalled that Mr. Coffey had been praised during the board hearings on Cook Inlet by Paul Ruesch, commercial fisheries regional biologist with the Department of Fish and Game, who told Mr. Ellis he had gained tremendous respect for Mr. Coffey, as he asked good questions and was very willing to learn. "We totally agree," stated Mr. Ellis. He referred briefly to Virgil Umphenour, saying he was highly qualified and placed the resource first. Number 1606 GARY HOLLIER testified via teleconference that he had been an Alaska resident in the Kenai area for 42 years. He thought Mr. Coffey could do a fine job in any area of the state besides Cook Inlet, where Mr. Hollier felt Mr. Coffey was biased against commercial fishermen. He cited the F.I.S.H. initiative and Mr. Coffey's affiliation with Bob Penney, who had "tried for years to cut back and eliminate the commercial fishery in Cook Inlet." MR. HOLLIER recalled that a commercial fisherman had testified before the board against proposals that would have restricted his ability to make a living, urging the board not to do anything to cause further habitat damage to the Kenai River. His first time to testify, the fisherman was nervous, Mr. Hollier said. "When he was done, Mr. Coffey jumped down his throat," he said. "I thought he was very arrogant and his attitude towards this fisherman was uncalled-for." He referred to the Blanchard Line, about which Mr. Coffey had no knowledge at the meetings, and said, "If you don't understand that, you cannot make any sound decisions when it comes to Cook Inlet allocation with red salmon." MR. HOLLIER pointed out that even if commercial fishermen had dominated the Board of Fisheries, they had come from Elfin Cove, Sand Point, Sitka, or the Yukon River, for example. There had never been three people from the same interest group on the Board of Fisheries, he stated, reiterating his desire not to see Mr. Coffey confirmed. He concluded by stating his full support of Grant Miller and added, "I don't have much comment on Mr. Umphenour." REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if Mr. Hollier was asserting Mr. Engel was biased. Number 1788 MR. HOLLIER replied he thought Mr. Engel was biased towards sport fishing efforts. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked: "And do you believe the agenda of the "Fearsome Three" [Coffey, Engel and Bower] is to eliminate ... commercial fishing in Cook Inlet? Is that what your testimony is?" MR. HOLLIER said he definitely got that feeling at the last meeting. "There was no biological data to indicate that there should be more red salmon put into the Kenai River," he said. "In fact, testimony was overwhelming not to put more red salmon into the Kenai River to exasperate habitat damage. If we're not going to listen to our biologists, let's get rid of them. ... The testimony was overwhelming not to do it, and this board went and did it. Now, if you can tell me that that isn't a preconceived agenda, then I missed the big picture there." Number 1893 GRACE KENDALL testified via teleconference from Kenai in opposition to Mr. Coffey and Mr. Umphenour. "I think their political agenda has no place on the fish board," she said, indicating this was particularly true for Mr. Coffey. She stated that the board had become so unbalanced and political that it appeared hardly anyone remained on the board who was truly interested in the health of the salmon runs or the rivers. Number 1995 PAUL SHADURA testified via teleconference from Kenai in opposition to confirmation of Dan Coffey, whom he characterized as a "back door man" and a "magician". He indicated Mr. Coffey should divulge his client list so the public could see if there is a conflict of interest. He also suggested the legislature should not condone ethics violations. Number 2071 DENBY LLOYD, Chief Resource Analyst, Aleutians East Borough, testified via teleconference from Anchorage, saying he had experience in state management of fisheries and had been around the Board of Fisheries process for some time, as well as the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council process. His impression of the board appointees had developed from a wait-and-see attitude. Given that the board was supposed to have people of divergent views from around the state, he thought the best that could be hoped for was that those on the board would be intelligent in their understanding of information and respond to public concerns. He said it was unusual for the borough or him personally to comment on confirmations. MR. LLOYD said although he had no familiarity with Mr. Coffey before the last meeting, he was more than pleasantly surprised with his performance. "Mr. Coffey not only was exceedingly diligent, particularly for a first board member, but I think in comparison to any board member, in his pursuit of the information and pursuit of a wide variety of views on the issues before him and in his analytical ability to cut through some of the fluff, cut to the kernel of things and make his personal judgment on that and bring that to the board." MR. LLOYD said he had similar comments for Mr. Miller, with whom he had been familiar previously from involvement with fisheries issues. He emphasized Mr. Miller's fair manner. Mr. Lloyd concluded by saying his personal recommendation, as well as that of the Aleutian East Borough, was "a hearty confirmation for Dan Coffey and Grant Miller." Number 2342 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there were others who wished to testify. He then asked if the committee had specific questions, noting that all three appointees would provide closing statements. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON prefaced his question by saying Mr. Umphenour had already addressed it. He asked Mr. Coffey and Mr. Miller to address, in their closing statements, whether they believed there was or should be a distinction between Alaska anglers and the guided sport/commercial fisheries. [END OF TAPE - COMMENTS BY CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN CUT OFF] TAPE 96-19, SIDE A Number 0005 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN called upon Grant Miller to make a closing statement. MR. MILLER said, "First of all, ... I very much support this board process. I believe it is a system that has worked well for this state. It obviously has areas where it needs improvement, and one of those you just identified in terms of the issues that continue to be taken up during the out-of-cycle process. I think that there are some options that we can look at to make this board more efficient. I would like to see some mechanisms whereby, possibly, we strengthen the advisory committee and require that proposals pass through these advisory committees before they reach the Board of Fish[eries]. It would certainly, I think, help to eliminate the volumes of proposals that we get before this board. And it would also, I would think, help to get those issues out on the table in the regions from which they come, so that much of that is not ended up being discussed at the Board of Fish[eries] level to the extent that it is now." Number 0133 MR. MILLER suggested at meetings he had attended, there was a common theme, particularly involving Cook Inlet. "We continually get issues before us that are very difficult for this board to reach a resolution on, either because research is limited, in some cases, non-existent," he said. "Enforcement problems are another common concern that people have brought to us. And the other is habitat protection." MR. MILLER noted the guided sport fishery was expanding, whereas almost all commercial fisheries were limited and the resident sport effort had remained relatively constant. "And when it comes to allocation issues, that is always a point that brings a great deal of contention in these discussions," he said. "I guess what I would like to see ... the state do is take a lead in providing funding for research, for enforcement, and particularly for habitat protection, and I think these things are very critical to the board making good decisions and to preserving and protecting the resources that we have here, that are the best in the world and I would like to see remain that way forever." Number 0278 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said it had been asserted there was a conspiracy by the board to eliminate commercial fishing. He asked whether Mr. Miller thought that was a well-founded assertion. MR. MILLER responded that he had never felt there was any kind of conspiracy in regards to that. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "Whenever there's an allocation with game, commercial users - I'm talking about guides, primarily - readily accept the fact that they're the first to go. And it doesn't seem to be the situation with commercial users of fish. ... Residents take priority in game allocation issues." He asked Mr. Miller to comment. Number 0383 MR. MILLER replied, "Well, I would certainly like to think that Alaska residents would have priority over their resource, regardless of whether it's fish or game. ... At this point, I think we have a relatively adequate resource ... that we can provide some ... usage by great numbers of people. But I think that unless we have some kind of a handle on fisheries such as the guided sport fishery, which is expanding, we will probably continue to have things of a contentious nature appear before this board regarding allocations of the resource, which does have a limit. And it is fully utilized at this point." REPRESENTATIVE OGAN concurred. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN thanked Mr. Miller and called upon Dan Coffey. Number 0452 MR. COFFEY said it was important to understand that prior to his appointment, Governor Knowles did not ask him to do anything in particular or anything specific. "In fact, in the two meetings we had, he stressed over and over again that he wanted me to support the board process," Mr. Coffey said. "And I know why the F.I.S.H. initiative rose. It rose out of frustration with the board process. And I know that the Governor does not support that initiative and he wants the board process to work." MR. COFFEY continued, saying the best way to make the board process work is to appoint diverse people who are willing to work hard and do their best to serve the interests of all people in Alaska, recognizing that the resource is public and nobody has a claim on it. "The sports people don't have a claim on it, the commercial fishermen don't have a claim on it," he said. "It's a common resource and we have to share the resource." MR. COFFEY promised to support the board process, which to him meant showing up for meetings, reading the material and doing his best to understand the issues and consequences. "I have to listen to all the people who testify," he said. "And I don't think any of those people in Kenai who testified against me would deny that I would come out into the audience during breaks and I would talk to them and we would discuss and debate it. Their problem is, they don't like the way we voted on a couple of issues, and so, they're against me ... and that's fine. That's their choice. But I did that because I thought that was the best way to go, not to get them or punish them or do anything evil to them, but that's just the way I saw the issues. So, I support the board process. And that's the way it will be as long as I'm permitted to serve on the board." Number 0596 MR. COFFEY suggested Mr. Shadura could obtain his client list, which had been on file for several weeks, from the Alaska Public Offices Commission. "I wanted also to answer the APOC issue relative to Cook Inlet Sportfishing Caucus," he said. "In 1994, I was hired to represent that caucus in a matter before the Alaska Public Offices Commission. We filed various reports, and ..., I think, ... sometime in early 1995, the last matter was filed before the APOC. Nothing was heard from the APOC for months, until certain commercial fishing interests in Kenai reactivated the investigation, and I then received this letter, to which one of these gentlemen, I believe Mr. Horne, referred to." MR. COFFEY continued, "Immediately upon receiving a letter in a matter that was more than a year old, I contacted another attorney and the case has been handed off to him. That's Mr. Dan Hensley. It was my thought that the matter had been resolved in late '93 or early 1994, with the final (indisc.), and inasmuch as nothing more had been heard for a year or more, thought nothing of it, although I did ... disclose that on my initial ethics statement, to the initial meeting of the board, that in the past I had represented Cook Inlet Sportfishing Caucus, and that was on the record at the very first meeting and the very first ethics disclosure." Mr. Coffey asserted he had no affiliation with it and said it would be inappropriate. Number 0723 MR. COFFEY noted that on the issue of putting more fish in the Kenai River, the vote on the board was 7-0. He referred to the issue of Alaska anglers versus guided sport and said the board had heard a lot of testimony about that. "And the problem that we faced in trying to deal with it was that the guided sport are not commercial fishermen by statutory definition," he explained. "Therefore, we were faced with a situation where statutorily and on regulation, we could not do anything to differentiate between Alaska anglers and guided sport." MR. COFFEY continued, "My understanding is that there's legislation pending in front of you folks that would change that definition and make it possible for this emerging commercial industry to be subject to regulation, either by the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission or by the Board of Fish[eries]. And my feeling is that, as any other takers of the resource, they ... need to be regulated and their harvest and their methods and their means, and all these other things that relate to how they operate, needs to be brought under the control of the Board of Fish[eries] or some other regulatory entity. And I believe that, based on everything I've seen, that the Board of Fish[eries] would be the best for that. And I would like to see us have the ability to do that, because we were hampered in our efforts to do that because of existing statutory schemes." Number 0827 MR. COFFEY indicated the out-of-cycle problem had been a matter of debate among board members. "It's a problem which is a problem," he said. "If it continues to grow, we would probably be in a situation where the state would be better served by a full-time professional board much like the Alaska Public Utilities Commission, because we'll get overwhelmed with it. Right now, it takes somewhere in the neighborhood of a third of a year for people to deal with these issues. ... And I, for one, would like very much to keep everything in cycle. We were, I felt, compelled to deal with Area M out of cycle because of a statement by Judge Erlich in Nome, which in essence closed an entire commercial fishery. And so, we called a special meeting because his ruling was that `if the board would give findings as to why they did what they did, then my injunction would be lifted'. And so, we met and spent the extra time to ensure that there would be a commercial fishery where there has been a commercial fishery since, at least, from our data, ... 1910." MR. COFFEY continued, "So, we get faced with some of those things that are outside of our control, that mandate we do it. But to the extent that we allow ourselves to get out of the three-year cycle, I think we're doing a disservice to the public and I think we're burdening ourselves unnecessarily. So, I, for one, am a board member who supports keeping things in cycle and not taking them out of context. That lends continuity to the fisheries and it limits the amount of work that the board is forced to do in its very limited time." Number 0934 MR. COFFEY referred to statements made by Mr. Hollier, who believed Mr. Coffey was biased with regards to Cook Inlet. He asserted that the reason for opposition to his appointment was disagreement with decisions made. "But his comment about I would do a good job elsewhere is probably more telling, because I will work real hard to do a good job elsewhere and I will treat this common resource in a manner which is, in my opinion, fair and equitable to all the people in the state of Alaska," Mr. Coffey concluded. Number 0982 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said there had been discussion in committee about the fairness of making legislative appointments after a person had served. "And I'm not going to second-guess any of your judgments from the previous Board of Fish[eries] meeting," he said, "because that's not fair to you and I wouldn't want anybody to be making any decision on the board based on whether they thought it would help them get confirmed or not." REPRESENTATIVE ELTON expressed appreciation for Mr. Coffey's statement of commitment to the board process. However, he said, "There are some, and I probably count myself as one of them, ... who would say if you're committed to the board process, an allocation of a common property resource through the board, that that commitment can best be expressed by opposing the F.I.S.H. initiative." He asked for Mr. Coffey's response. Number 1051 MR. COFFEY stated, "The best place to do Board of Fish[eries] business is on the Board of Fish[eries]. The next best place is the legislature. And the worst place is in the initiative process. And had the frustration level not been so high with the process at the board level, I do not believe the F.I.S.H. initiative ever would have come to life." MR. COFFEY offered an example, saying, "There is an Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan, which deals with how Upper Cook Inlet salmon stocks will be dealt with, based on nature of the species and the time of the runs of those species. And only at this last board meeting did we address some of the issues relative to how that plan would be implemented. And that plan has been in effect since 1979. So, that's where the frustration level comes from. And so, I don't believe that the F.I.S.H. initiative is a good solution. It ... cast in concrete a methodology that the board would have to apply.... I'm trying to say that the board should be allowed the discretion. If what works in Year 1 doesn't work in Year 5, the board should not be hamstrung to the point where it can't get around things based on either statute or initiative or any other legislative way of doing business. ... I much prefer the board process. I think it's the best of all three ways." Number 1142 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said the answer that would have given him the highest comfort level would have been an expression of belief by Mr. Coffey that the board, which he was now a part of, was capable of making allocation decisions. He further would have liked to have heard that Mr. Coffey strongly believed, and advised his former cohorts thus, that the initiative process was the wrong way. MR. COFFEY replied, "Well, I do believe that the board is capable of making allocation decisions. And I do believe that we do not need the F.I.S.H. initiative." Number 1190 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said one problem was lack of confidence in the board process, not necessarily because of what the board had or had not accomplished. "For example, I can make an argument that the board has been extremely effective in the last two decades, given that we are now harvesting ten times as many salmon as we did in the mid-1970s," he said. "And I think that's a strong indication of success. But despite that, there is a perceptual problem." Representative Elton asked if Mr. Coffey saw a problem with the position he was now in. He said, "I have the sense that you could speak with the voice of God, and many Alaskans are going to hear not what you're saying but what they think you're saying. ... And I guess if I were in that position, I'm not sure I'd want to put myself on the board." MR. COFFEY replied, "After three meetings of the length and duration and amount of effort that we've had to put out, I'm not so sure, either." He said he had lived in Alaska for 50 years and very much believed in the public process, which he had been involved with in elections and political life for a long time. "I thought I would bring something of value to the board," he said. "Certainly, I have concepts and ideas and beliefs that I bring with me. ... And I think that my strength is that I'm willing to work and be analytical about things, and I try to have an open mind about things. Have I done things that put some fear in people? Absolutely, I've done things. But there are some things they ought to think about, too. ... I had a commercial fishing vessel for six or seven years. And I understand ... some of the fears that these people have relative to the commercial fishery. And it's particularly exacerbated ... this year with the low fishing prices and the farm fish and all these things that lead people to believe that their livelihood and their lifestyles are in jeopardy. And those factors all go into consideration when we make decisions. Beyond that, I don't know how to respond." Number 1359 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to testimony about threats made at a board meeting. He asked if that was factual and whether it concerned him. MR. COFFEY replied, "No. As I said earlier, I have a kind of specialized practice. I do represent liquor license clients. ... I have been threatened, both physically and with confirmation, but it's people who are angry and fearful. ... And sometimes people say things that they ... really don't mean just because they're angry and fearful. And, so far, there hasn't been anything overt. And the people who are opposed to me have been mostly decent, courteous folks, which they are, and they have mostly spoken out against my views and not against me, personally, although that's not entirely true, you know, there's a couple of people who get into ... a personal thing, rather than my views. ... I'm not easily intimidated, nor am I afraid that something will happen to me, either physically or otherwise. And if I'm confirmed, I'll work hard. If I'm not confirmed, ... I'll go on with my life." CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN thanked Mr. Coffey and called on Virgil Umphenour. Number 1448 MR. UMPHENOUR stated, "I do have an agenda. And my agenda is to look out for the sustained yield of the resource in this state. We have a lot of areas in the state where we have conservation problems, and there's various reasons why they do. And it's the board's mandate to manage the fisheries for sustained yield, from the constitution of the state. And the only thing is, the constitution defines sustained yield in some cases; in the case of fish, it doesn't. And so, it's up to each individual board member to more or less formulate his own definition of what sustained yield is. And I'd like to give you my definition." Number 1491 MR. UMPHENOUR said, "Sustained yield is the amount of fish - if we're talking about salmon - that it takes to spawn, on the spawning grounds, that will provide an average historical harvest by all consumptive users. ... When we have fisheries, when we have all consumptive use eliminated, and we still cannot get the biological escapement, well, then, we don't have sustained yield and ... we have to try to figure out how ... to get it accomplished. Now, in the case of my agenda as far as the Area M fishery, in our shellfish meeting we just had, I was the board member that made the motion to give the seiners that live in Area M twice as many crab pots as the big vessels that come primarily from Washington state. And if I was biased against them, I would not have fought as hard as I did for about four hours on that one proposal. And I was successful in getting it passed." He said, "I'm not biased against those people. I'm biased to get sustained yield in the fisheries ... to give back the fisheries that used to have sustained yield but now are closed." Number 1556 MR. UMPHENOUR said, "For the proposals that come up out of cycle, ... the board has a petition process and we also have an agenda change process. And both processes, the board has a very narrow policy that they measure these requests by. And they have to meet some kind of emergency; otherwise, the board does not take them up. And there's a number of unforeseen emergencies in resource situations that have to be brought up out of cycle. And so, I'm frustrated with the number of proposals that are basically the same thing, and we have to address each one of them one-at-a-time. And what Mr. Miller said, about ... more of a goal for the advisory committees, I think could be helpful as far as having the bulk of proposals that we get. I know that for the Southeast meeting that's coming up this winter, there's already over 400 proposals been submitted to the board. And I'm sure that a lot of them will be redundant. And so, maybe the advisory committee process, if it was strengthened a little bit or modified a little bit, that it could cut down on some of that work load." Number 1634 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked: "Did I understand you correctly, then, that you don't consider that there is a problem with the out-of- cycle hearings that you hold?" MR. UMPHENOUR replied, "No, I don't really think it's a problem, because a number of emergencies come up, and that's the reason for having our petition policy, that we have to have a finding of emergency. And some things are emergencies; some aren't. We addressed, I believe, three of these at this meeting that we just concluded this past week. And we didn't find an emergency in any case. Sometimes things come up that are a bona fide emergency and need to be addressed, so we have to have some way to address them. But there is a problem with too many proposals that are redundant." Number 1671 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Umphenour to respond to the allegation that there was a conspiracy or that "the fearsome threesome" were trying to eliminate commercial fishing. MR. UMPHENOUR replied, "There's no conspiracy. People get upset and they say a lot of things and a lot of people maybe feel that their livelihood is threatened. But it's not the Board of Fish[eries]' problem that we're in the situation of an absolute glut of salmon on the worldwide market and the prices are so low. That's what the problem is." Mr. Umphenour brought up an issue that he said was not Board of Fisheries business. He had contacted Senator Stevens's office and Don Young's office suggesting having the federal government put salmon steaks and fillets in the federal supply system so that salmon could be fed to people in the military, the federal prisons, and so forth. "And that would be one giant step to introduce the American public, especially in the military, to something that they've never eaten before in their life," he concluded. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded, "Good idea." Number 1745 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN thanked Mr. Umphenour for his comments. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that while there was diversity on the board and different opinions, and even different agendas and biases, to a certain extent, he tended to believe that when people take positions of authority, they were apt to do the right thing. He noted that legislators also represented different constituencies and interests. Speaking to Chairman Austerman, he said, "However, I think the common denominator that you and I have, and I respect you tremendously for, sir, on the record, is ... I think we both are trying to look out for the bottom line, which is the resource. And I just hope that those on the board process and those that are listening tonight will realize that we all have a common interest ... in protecting that resource, and that is our common strength. And even though we have conflicting interests, we all work for that goal." Number 1812 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he was going to do something a little bit different. "And I appreciate the time that a lot of people have put in. I mean, this has been a long meeting, but I think it's probably one of the more important meetings that this fish committee is going to have. And I'm going to make a motion that is not necessarily the same as one of the usual motions. And so I move we report out of committee the name of Virgil Umphenour, with a recommendation that he be confirmed, and ask members to vote no." REPRESENTATIVE OGAN objected and asked if it was in order. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN ruled the motion out of order and said the decision as to whether they would be appointed would be made on a full vote of the floor, rather than as an individual committee member or as a committee itself. Number 1873 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked to speak to that ruling and said, "Mr. Chair, I checked before I made the motion, this afternoon. And my understanding is that it is in order, and that the motion that you're talking about is a motion that is a standard motion, but is not anything that is mandated one way or the other. So, ... I'm not going to withdraw my motion." REPRESENTATIVE OGAN restated his objection, saying it was highly irregular and that only three of the five members were still present. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said, "I can see we'll be stymied without the other members here. At this point in time, the best thing would be to hold their recommendation for forwarding their names until we can get a full committee." Number 1931 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that he was not withdrawing the motion. "I'd like to respond to the previous speaker," he said. "This is not a motion that is out of order. This is ... a motion that is maybe uncomfortable. But I think that the members of the full house, that we're forwarding this to, have a right to know what our individual opinion is. We're the ones that sat in committee. We're the ones that heard the testimony. And I think that that should carry some weight." He concluded by saying, "I do want the record to reflect that there is a quorum here, that I think the motion is in order, and I'm not going to withdraw the motion." REPRESENTATIVE OGAN, in response to mention of a quorum, said, "Not any more," and left the room. Number 1973 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted there was no longer a quorum and recessed the meeting, at 7:17 p.m., to the call of the chair.