HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES February 21, 2000 5:25 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Carl Morgan, Co-Chair Representative Fred Dyson Representative Hal Smalley MEMBERS ABSENT Representative John Harris, Co-Chair Representative Jim Whitaker Representative Bill Hudson Representative Mary Kapsner COMMITTEE CALENDAR CONFIRMATION HEARING Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission Marlene A. Johnson - Juneau - CONFIRMATION ADVANCED PREVIOUS ACTION No previous action to record WITNESS REGISTER MARLENE A. JOHNSON, Appointee to the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission 9505 Antler Way Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC). ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 00-02, SIDE A Number 0001 CO-CHAIR CARL MORGAN called the House Special Committee on Fisheries meeting to order at 5:25 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Morgan, Dyson and Smalley. CONFIRMATION HEARING Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission CO-CHAIR MORGAN announced that today's meeting is a confirmation hearing for Marlene A. Johnson to the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. CO-CHAIR MORGAN called on Ms. Johnson and asked her to inform the committee members about herself. MARLENE A. JOHNSON, Appointee, Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, came before the committee to testify. She stated the most important aspect of her life is being a grandmother. She is the mother of five children and is married. She has been on the commission for a little over three years now. She is originally from Hoonah where she worked for the Huna Totem Corporation. She was also the chairman of the Sealaska Corporation, and served on its board of directors for 20 years. MS. JOHNSON further stated that she has been involved with fishery issues since she was young. She worked for Ward Cove Packing as an accountant in Hoonah when there was a crab cannery and a fish cannery in Excursion Inlet. She served as chairman of Ocean Beauty Seafoods, and still sits on a university advisory committee. MS. JOHNSON further stated that her involvement with the commission has been interesting and educational. She thinks that she has added to the commission with her knowledge of personnel issues. She has been able to update some of the commission's antiquated policies using her administrative skills. Number 0276 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked Ms. Johnson to discuss the kinds of decisions the commission makes in terms of administering a limited entry system. MS. JOHNSON replied the most important decision is whether or not to limit a fishery. She explained that fishers and groups bring a fishery to the commission and ask that it be limited. The commission then researches and determines whether or not that fishery is in danger. The commission also works with the Department of Fish & Game and uses its resources to help determine whether or not to limit a fishery. Once a fishery is limited, the commission then establishes a point system to determine whether or not a particular fisher should be "in" or "out" of that fishery, which is usually based on a fisher's history. If a fisher disagrees with a decision made by the commission's staff, that fisher can appeal it. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Ms. Johnson whether the commission sends that fisher to a board of appeals. MS. JOHNSON replied the commission is the board of appeal. She explained that initial decisions are determined by staff, and appeals are heard by hearing officers. A disagreement with a hearing officer is then appealed to the commission; it takes two to three commissioners to agree on a final decision. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Ms. Johnson whether a final decision can be appealed to the superior court. MS. JOHNSON replied yes. A person has 30 days to appeal a decision to the court system. In her opinion, the commission has done a great job in issuing decisions. She noted that only two opinions have been overturned by the court system in the last ten years. Number 0510 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Ms. Johnson to explain the criteria that the commission uses in determining whether a fishery ought to be limited. MS. JOHNSON replied upon receipt of a petition the commission normally turns it down. The commission then looks at that fishery, holds hearings in the affected areas, and works with the Department of Fish & Game in relation to its scientific research and knowledge. The commission also works with the Board of Fisheries. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that Ms. Johnson's comments seem to indicate the "procedure." He asked her to explain the "criteria" that the commission uses. MS. JOHNSON replied the criteria is that a resource is in danger. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said, "So it's a management tool to limit the amount of effort." MS. JOHNSON replied right. It's a management tool to limit the amount of effort because a resource is in danger, and because the economy of a fishery is in danger either for the fishers or the industry. She pointed out that by law the commission has to look at the economics of a fishery. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Ms. Johnson whether it's the commission's responsibility by law to look after and protect the economic welfare of a fisher. MS. JOHNSON replied it's the commission's responsibility to look at the economic welfare of an individual fishery as a whole, not the individuals of an industry. Number 0668 CO-CHAIR MORGAN asked Ms. Johnson whether a major criterion for the commission is to determine whether a fishery can sustain itself if it is opened. MS. JOHNSON replied that is one. She said, According to law in the constitution, we need to not infringe upon open fishery as little as possible. If we can leave it open - of course - that would be ideal. But, as Washington, Oregon and other places close down, there gets to be more capitalization into Alaska and so... Normally, it's the fishers themselves that come to us and ask us to limit it because of the--there's too many fishermen in the business. Number 0754 REPRESENTATIVE HAL SMALLEY asked Ms. Johnson what she sees as a trouble area for the commission in the future. MS. JOHNSON replied the dive fishery. The commission has been looking at the dive fishery for about six months to a year - its moratorium will run out in July of 2000. She noted that the commission recently made a decision to limit geoduck, but there is no agreement amongst dive fishers as to whether or not sea cucumbers should be limited. Ms. Johnson also mentioned that the abalone fishery is closed and it wouldn't be able to open again, if there are going to be too many fishers. The commission is currently looking at the sea urchin fishery. Number 0900 CO-CHAIR MORGAN asked Ms. Johnson her opinion on extending the moratorium for the hair crab and scallop fisheries. MS. JOHNSON replied something will have to be done, but the commission doesn't have the ability to limit vessels properly. CO-CHAIR MORGAN asked Ms. Johnson what she sees as the biggest challenge for the issue of limited entry or for a fishery in the future. MS. JOHNSON replied the prices. If the prices keep declining a lot of the fisheries will not be economical [to fish]. It's not so easy for someone who owns a boat to make a living fishing one species anymore. She further noted that keeping limited entry permits in the state is a challenge. She cited that 77 percent of the permits are held by Alaskans, but Bristol Bay is a problem area, as the committee members well-know. Number 1013 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON announced, for the record, that he holds a limited entry permit for Bristol Bay. A person could argue, therefore, that he has a conflict of interest. If he ever went before the commission a person could argue favoritism. Number 1048 CO-CHAIR MORGAN asked Ms. Johnson how she feels about the state buying back permits. MS. JOHNSON replied it is more complicated than it sounds; there are thousands of permits that are not being fished. She said, If you're gonna start buying them back, all these people that aren't fishing them would want you to buy theirs back. So you would not be reducing the actual impact in the water you would not, I don't think, effect...I think there's ways to do a buy-back, but I wouldn't see the state doing that, you know, and doing a good job of it. I thinks there's ways for the private enterprise to help get their own, without opening and buying all the unused permits back. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated he doesn't think that many of the expensive permits in the highly productive areas aren't being fished. He cited Bristol Bay and Chignik Lagoon as examples. MS. JOHNSON said there are some. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied, "But, they're not ones that I don't think were ever purchased on the market." MS. JOHNSON agreed with Representative Dyson's comment. Contrary to what is heard, locals do not sell their permits as often as they give them to family. Number 1184 CO-CHAIR MORGAN asked Ms. Johnson whether she would favor buying back active permits rather than inactive ones. MS. JOHNSON replied she's not sure how that could be done. CO-CHAIR MORGAN asked Ms. Johnson whether the commission keeps records of which permits are active and which permits are inactive. MS. JOHNSON replied, yes, but the commission doesn't have the ability - legally - to not buy back inactive permits. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON mentioned that his friend bought a Bristol Bay limited entry permit for $385,000 about 14 years ago, but it hasn't been worth that since. MS. JOHNSON stated the value of a Bristol Bay limited entry permit is at its lowest. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated he has heard that a Bristol Bay limited entry permit is valued at $85,000 to $90,000 now. Number 1280 REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY expressed his appreciation of Ms. Johnson and her background. He said, "You are a busy person." REPRESENTATIVE DYSON expressed his appreciation of Ms. Johnson and her state service. CO-CHAIR MORGAN expressed his appreciation of Ms. Johnson and her presence this evening. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the committee, Co-Chair Morgan adjourned the House Special Committee on Fisheries meeting at 5:35 p.m.