HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE April 11, 1994 8:15 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Bill Williams, Chairman Representative Bill Hudson, Vice Chairman Representative Con Bunde Representative Pat Carney Representative John Davies Representative David Finkelstein Representative Joe Green Representative Eldon Mulder MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Jeannette James OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT Representative Richard Foster Representative Carl Moses Representative Irene Nicholia COMMITTEE CALENDAR Confirmation Hearing: Board of Fisheries: Kay Andrew Dick Bower Larry Engel Board of Game Richard Burley Ed Grasser Ernest Polley Big Game Commercial Services Board Scott Ogan Thomas Scarborough Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission Dale Anderson Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Tuckerman Babcock NO ACTION TAKEN WITNESS REGISTER KAY ANDREW P.O. Box 7211 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Phone: 225-2463 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions DICK BOWER P.O. Box 3662 Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Phone: 262-7132 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions EDDIE GRASSER P.O. Box 1350 Palmer, Alaska 99645 Phone: 745-3772 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions RICHARD BURLEY 1165 Coppet Street Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Phone: 474-0188 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions ERNEST POLLEY 634 W. 12th Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 Phone: 586-1437 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions SCOTT OGAN HC 04 Box 9248 Palmer, Alaska 99645 Phone: 376-7243 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions THOMAS SCARBOROUGH 1676 Taroka Drive Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Phone: 479-6602 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions DALE ANDERSON 9040 Glacier Highway Juneau, Alaska 99801 Phone: 789-1965 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions TUCKERMAN BABCOCK HC 01 Box 6219 C Palmer, Alaska 99645 Phone: 746-7632 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 94-49, SIDE A Number 000 The House Resources Committee was called to order by Chairman Bill Williams at 8:26 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Williams, Hudson, Carney, Finkelstein, and Green. Members absent were Representatives Bunde, Davies and Mulder. CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS announced there is a quorum present. He said the meeting is on teleconference with Anchorage, Bethel, Cordova, Dillingham, Fairbanks, Ketchikan, Mat-Su, Nome, Petersburg, Sitka, and Kenai/Soldotna. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS explained the Governor submits to the House and Senate, a list of appointments he has made since the last legislative session, which are required by statute to be confirmed or rejected by the legislature. That vote of acceptance or rejection must be made in a joint session, where the full House and Senate meet together to vote on each appointment. He said the joint session normally occurs near the end of the legislative session. Before the joint session occurs, each appointment is referred to the legislative committee which oversees the appropriate subject area. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated after considering the qualifications of the appointees, the committee members will sign a committee report on each appointee, stating their individual recommendation to the full House regarding whether or not the person should be confirmed to serve in the capacity to which they have been appointed. He stressed votes at the committee level are not binding but strictly advisory. He said it is the committee's responsibility to review the resumes, talk with the candidates, listen to public opinions, and then offer an informed opinion to the full House regarding a recommendation on how members vote in the binding vote, which is the one that will be taken during the upcoming joint session. (CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES joined the committee at 8:35 a.m. and REPRESENTATIVES NICHOLIA and MOSES were also present.) Number 061 KAY ANDREW, APPOINTEE, BOARD OF FISHERIES (BOF), KETCHIKAN, testified via teleconference and stated she is a lifelong resident of Ketchikan, married, and has two grown children. She has been involved in commercial fisheries issues for approximately 15 years. She has served on the BOF since November and has gone through one cycle of meetings. REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA quoted several statements which Ms. Andrew had said at a recent BOF meeting. Representative Nicholia stated people in her district lost their right to subsistence fishing for fall chum on the Yukon River this past summer. She said Commissioner Rosier recommended lowering the chum cap in the False Pass area from 700,000 to 300,000 chums. She noted that Ms. Andrew had voted against the commissioner's recommendation and took no action to lower the 700,000 chum cap. She emphasized by not lowering the chum cap by even 50,000 or 100,000, Ms. Andrew had illustrated that her priority is ensuring that the mixed stock fishery in Area M catch all of their sockeye allocation. REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA stated Ms. Andrew had placed the entire burden of chum salmon conservation on terminal, subsistence and sport fishermen of Western Alaska. She asked Ms. Andrew to explain to the committee why she did not lower the chum cap, given both the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's (ADF&G) recommendation and the undeniable fact that depressed Western Alaska chum salmon are caught in the False Pass area. Number 090 MS. ANDREW responded she reviewed all of the information and steps which had been taken in Area M to cut back the catch of chum salmon over the past years. She also asked the department many questions, including how many fish would be saved by lowering the cap to 300,000. She stated ADF&G responded that approximately 4,000 fish would make it to the entire AYK area spawning beds, but only if those 4,000 fish were not intercepted by any other fishery between area M and the AYK areas, including the commercial fishery, the roe stripping fishery or any other fisheries in the river system. She said the BOF asked the department to pinpoint a river and one of the rivers they chose was the Nome River, stating approximately 20 fish would be (indiscernible). MS. ANDREW said she realized the subsistence fishery would close down and added that the BOF tried to take steps to try to prevent that from happening. She noted that according to the department, the subsistence fishery for fall chum salmon was closed for three weeks last year. The rest of the subsistence fishing was open for the entire season. She stressed this information was what she based her decision on. She stated the BOF also expanded a fishery in the Yukon River and allowed the department to do a test fishery, to determine if the fishery could be used for subsistence. With the information given to the BOF by the department, she felt the people in Area M had done a lot of conservation in trying to keep from catching chum salmon and the amount of chums which would be caught if that cap was lowered and if 400,000 fish would be taken away from them, the people could not make enough money to survive. MS. ANDREW said with all of the information she was given, she felt lowering the cap to 300,000 would not give the people an opportunity, but rather cause problems in two areas instead of one area. She also tried to get other BOF members to talk about a different number such as 400,000 or 500,000 and no one was willing to consider another number. Number 143 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said she did not see the Area M subsistence fisheries shut down but saw the subsistence fisheries shut down in the Norton Sound and Yukon areas. She stated the Area M Management Plan states that the Board of Fisheries will not support any significant increase in the interception rate of chum salmon in the south Unimak and Shumagin Islands' June salmon fisheries. These stocks are probably fully utilized in existing terminal fisheries of long standing. She noted that Commissioner Rosier stated that the interception rate had been increasing the past few years. She asked Ms. Andrew to explain to the committee why she disagreed with both the Management Plan and the commissioner's recommendation. MS. ANDREW responded the only portion of the Management Plan that the board disagreed with was the cap. The board went along with the rest of the plan. She said BOF members are only given a certain amount of information to review, on which to base a decision. She did not feel by capping the Area M fishery at 300,000 that enough fish would be saved to do any good in the AYK area. She stressed what was being discussed was 2.5 million fish missing and if Area M was closed, those 2.5 million fish would still not be there. There are other huge problems in the area, including the troll fishery and bycatch. (CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE MULDER joined the committee at 8:37 a.m.) Number 178 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES asked why no move was made to separate out the Area M set netters from the cap and then proceed with a vote on just limiting commercial fishing. MS. ANDREW stated the department did not come forth with any proposal to separate any of the fisheries in Area M. The BOF felt at that time, most of the public testimony had been completed, all of the reports were done, and the public had not had any input on how they would feel about separating the fisheries. She said her suggestion to the set netters was that Area M was coming up next year on (indiscernible) and if they desired to be separated from the other fisheries, they should get proposals in by the deadline. REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said ADF&G did not say only 20 fish would get to the Snake River, but rather Larry Edfeldt had given that information. She stated the commissioner had said getting even 100 fish back to one of these systems would be significant. Number 207 MS. ANDREW responded the BOF took a one and one-half hour break to allow the department to determine the amount of fish which would be saved. At the same time, the department over and over again stated there were no guarantees that any of the fish saved, if the board chose to put a cap on them in Area M, would ever get to the spawning grounds of any of the rivers. She said the board asked ADF&G to separate the numbers and tell the board what number of fish would be saved, so they could have information to base their decision on whether or not to drop the cap from 700,000 to 300,000. According to ADF&G's information, at least 50 percent of those fish that are caught in Area M are going to Bristol Bay (indiscernible) chum salmon. REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA requested Ms. Andrew to give the committee information on how she sees the fisheries management priorities and rank the importance of commercial fishing, subsistence, and sustained yield. She asked Ms. Andrew to explain her answers in light of her actions on the BOF. MS. ANDREW responded subsistence should come first. Sustained yield is part of what the board's job is. She said after those two priorities, then comes commercial, sport, and personal use fisheries. (CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE joined the committee at 8:40 a.m.) REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN stated it is important for someone who sits on a board or commission to treat the public with respect and be willing to be fair to those members of the public who come forward to testify, even if one does not agree. He said although he has not been at any of the BOF meetings, there is written testimony from a number of sources indicating that at a number of meetings, Ms. Andrew had been hostile and had used prosecutorial remarks toward certain members of the public, when they came before the BOF to testify. MS. ANDREW replied she does not consider herself a hostile person and added that the previous BOF chairman had cut the public speaking time down to three minutes, which she refuses to adhere to. She felt three minutes is a short amount of time for members of the public to explain their feelings regarding their livelihood being taken away. She was surprised at the remarks made about her. She said the advisory committees have also been allowed to speak longer. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if Ms. Andrew believed that the chum salmon stocks were in such bad shape that another 50,000 or 100,000 fish would not make any difference. MS. ANDREW responded that was not what she was saying at all. The BOF was being asked to lower a 700,000 cap to a 300,000 cap and in doing that, the BOF would provide an opportunity for the Area M people to try and catch the 8.3 percent sockeye allowed plus their own stock. Many BOF members wanted to know the number of fish which would be saved by lowering the cap and drastically doing something to one fishery, while having a goal of getting fish into the spawning grounds and trying to keep the subsistence fishery open at the same time. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES thought it was strange that when there is an awareness of a huge problem, there is no willingness to cut one fish from the Area M fishery in order to increase a subsistence capability in the Interior fisheries. He observed that if Alaska does not begin to pay attention to the major spawning areas in the major river systems, Alaska will be in the same position as fishermen are in off the coast of Washington. He hoped the BOF would begin listening to the ADF&G Commissioner, the Governor, and the people in the Interior of the state and at least make a token effort to improve the situation in that area of the state. Number 335 MS. ANDREW stated much has been done in the Area M fisheries to conserve the catch of chum salmon, with no difference in the escapement in the AYK area. She stated there needs to be a determination as to the cause of 2.5 million fish being missing. She does not believe that Area M is the sole problem. REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY said a memo in committee member folders indicates that Ms. Andrew's husband works in the Area M fishery. MS. ANDREW responded her husband does not fish in the Area M fishery. He is a drift netter in Southeast Alaska and fishes on the Alaska/Canadian border. REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE expressed concern about the growing problem of subsistence take being used commercially. MS. ANDREW stated that issue has never been brought forth to any BOF meeting. The roe fishery was talked about sensibly because there were two proposals in the package which dealt with the roe fishery and she was the only person who voted for curtailing that fishery. She also talked to the Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection about the illegal roe stripping which has been ongoing and the Division did not feel there is a problem, yet when she talked to the Division of Protection, they had several ongoing cases. She stated future boards will need to address the taking of subsistence fishery and it being sold as commercial take. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he was interested in Ms. Andrew's personal philosophy regarding the selling of subsistence take. MS. ANDREW said her understanding has always been that subsistence is to live on for food. Since being on the BOF, she has learned there are different styles of how one lives on subsistence. She stated since she lives in Southeast Alaska, she has not seen the intense subsistence uses as seen in Western Alaska. She would have to look at the information and see how much of the subsistence take is really being utilized in that aspect and make a decision based on that information. REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked Ms. Andrew to explain how she applies the mixed stock policy when dealing with river systems facing severe conservation problems. She also asked, when severe conservation measures have been taken to the extent of subsistence closures and river systems not meeting escapement, how does Ms. Andrew justify maintaining existing harvest levels in the mixed stock fishery which also hits on these fisheries. MS. ANDREW said the mixed stock policy was adopted by the BOF in March 1993 and she does not believe the policy has been applied to any of the fisheries, including the Kodiak/Cook Inlet fishery. She stated the public seemed more interested in having a task force addressing that particular problem rather than the entire BOF dealing with it. She said the mixed stock policy will apply to getting fish back into the river systems because if that particular fishery along the route was interfering with any of the fish stock... She stressed no one really knows what happened to these fish. MS. ANDREW has also questioned, in regard to the patterns of these fish traveling up the coastline, who interacts with these fish between the peninsula and the river systems. ADF&G cannot answer most of those questions because they have no studies. She stated 99 percent of the problems she has faced while serving on the BOF since November is the lack of information needed to make good decisions. REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA inquired if the mixed stock policy was used when the fall chum collapse on the Norton Sound and the Yukon River was being discussed. MS. ANDREW responded the BOF did not use the policy. REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA clarified the mixed stock policy has no use with the BOF, even though it is a written policy. MS. ANDREW said the mixed stock policy has its uses. She has been told by some people that if the BOF was ever going to use the mixed stock policy, it should be used in the Cook Inlet/Kodiak areas. However, the public indicated that rather than have the BOF address that issue at that time, they preferred to have a task force assigned to determine possible solutions. She stated the mixed stock policy has not been applied to any fisheries since it was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER wondered what the status of the task force is which was appointed in relation to the Cook Inlet fishery, Kenai. MS. ANDREW stated she did not know and suggested asking someone who is on the task force such as Larry Engel. She said a lot of effort was put forth to ensure a good representation on the task force and she felt it was going to work. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked when the task force report is expected back and what are the expectations in regard to acting on their recommendations. MS. ANDREW responded the report is due in early November. The report will be reviewed and decisions will be made. Recommendations will be discussed at the March 1995 meeting. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER felt a task force was a good idea and expressed his appreciation for Ms. Andrew's effort. Number 568 DICK BOWER, APPOINTEE, BOARD OF FISHERIES, SOLDOTNA, testified via teleconference and stated he has been in Alaska since 1973, primarily involved with education administration. He said during that time, he has had the opportunity to work throughout the state with the exception of the North Slope Borough. In the past ten years, he has been involved primarily in volunteer type activities. He emphasized since the early 1950s, he has committed a large amount of his time to various natural resource issues-- conservation, environmental education, and in many cases, marine and fisheries resources. MR. BOWER felt not only is he bringing an administrative and planning background to this position, but his sensitivity to many natural resource issues as well. He indicated having actually grown up on an island in Puget Sound, he is familiar with what has occurred there. He expressed hope that Alaska not see that same type of situation occur in this state. He felt strongly that the BOF must take actions to avoid that occurring in Alaska. He said the complexities of the problem are such that there are no easy answers and no matter what decisions are made, there will be a large body of people who will disagree with what the BOF is doing or how they are doing it. He felt it is not a problem which can be solved easily or quickly. MR. BOWER stressed there is a critical shortage of information on everything from ocean currents, migration patterns of anadromous fish, to the effect of one fishery on another. He said there is so much that the BOF needs to know, which they do not know, placing the board in an extremely difficult position to be able to make decisions that are going to be adequate and in many cases, are even going to be recognized as the first step toward the ultimate objective. Number 684 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES clarified that if a cut is made in Area M, the number of fish being able to get to the Yukon region is so small and the fishery is in such bad shape that a cut would not make a difference. MR. BOWER stated that is not a fair characterization since there are many complexities to consider. There is a belief that all salmon go from the North Pacific into the Bering Sea by passing around the western end of Unimak Island. Migration patterns seem to show that also. He stated there is evidence that fish travel in other ways toward that direction, including a route coming from the other direction. There is no real identity of the significance of these migration patterns. He said many of the fish who pass around the end of Unimak Island are actually heading into Bristol Bay and into various streams along the northern side of the Alaskan Peninsula. There are spawning streams throughout that area. MR. BOWER stressed the BOF does not have sufficient information to be able to make that decision as to what the board's action is going to mean. TAPE 94-49, SIDE B Number 000 MR. BOWER hoped the BOF actions would not be viewed as a token effort. He recalled an earlier statement that the commissioner had indicated the catch of chum salmon had increased significantly over the past few years. He was not sure the commissioner in fact had said that. He stated when the BOF reviewed past data including the cap, findings issued by every board who had dealt with this question of a chum cap over the past few years, and bars and graphs, it was determined that the chum cap had not been exceeded except for a time or two in the last ten years. Therefore, it was not a case of there being a significant increase in the catch of chum salmon. He reminded members it is not necessarily chum salmon going to the AYK area because the primary fishery in the south peninsula is occurring around the (indiscernible) Shumagin Island and on the southern side of Unimak Island. For that reason, the fishery is not occurring in the passage where people think all these fish are going. MR. BOWER said a reduction from the present 700,000 cap to a 300,000 cap would mean, based on ADF&G's figures, a potential of denying those fishermen about 2.6 million sockeye salmon. He felt 2.6 million sockeye salmon which might not no longer be available for them to catch is somewhat (indiscernible) or even viewed as a token. He emphasized that other requests from ADF&G which the BOF did act on include the management of ADF&G responsible for the catch in Area M this season, would be able to move the actual fishing time on the calendar and make adjustments they felt necessary to ensure minimum interruptions or interception of chum salmon bound for the Bering Sea. MR. BOWER said Area M fishermen have had previous adjustments as to when they could fish. This year, given the tools that ADF&G has, even that decision can and will be changed. Another consideration of the BOF was the commissioner had indicated that in view of conservation and being able to apply the tools the department now had, it was within his power to take whatever other actions necessary to protect the survival of the chum salmon. Mr. Bower would prefer to see that authority deferred to ADF&G if they have the ability and knowledge and feel they can take the action, rather than have the BOF establish a 300,000 chum cap by regulation that could have a much heavier penalty upon those fishermen than perhaps what is necessary. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES recalled there had been a lot of discussion about a critical shortage of information available and asked if the BOF has ever passed a resolution or taken any action to try and increase the amount of research effort ongoing or to change the focus on research ongoing within the department. MR. BOWER responded there has been no major effort in that direction. He said if he is going to sit on the BOF and it is within his power to ensure that research is done, not only with the state agencies but also tie it in with the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, federal agencies and the University of Alaska, he will do so. Considering that the state's fisheries resource is the number two economic and important resource, he felt the lack of knowledge and effort committed to the resource is deplorable. He noted there are excellent professional biologists and fisheries people available but every direction which is taken, there is no money to do sampling, genetic studies, test fishing, etc. He said even in terms of enforcement, there are only a handful of people involved. He stressed it is appalling to think that a resource which is so important to the state, which represents economic income and activity and is so important under the state Constitution to all of the people, has involved such shortsightedness in the gathering of information in order to make sound judgments. Number 117 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA stated Mr. Bower had voted against lowering the chum salmon cap in Area M as another conservation tool for ADF&G to use in managing the state's resources. Last year, subsistence closures were seen in Norton Sound and the lower Yukon. She said Mr. Bower had voted against lowering the 700,000 chum cap yet he said, "it has been said there was a linkage between the catch in Area M and the various river systems to the north and that is based on the tagging study. I think everyone agrees that based on the tags retrieved, there was indeed a linkage." She asked Mr. Bower, why at the last BOF meeting did he vote against reducing the catch of AYK chum in Area M. She noted that Mr. Bower had changed his vote several times after the vote on the chum cap had been taken and asked if Mr. Bower understood what he was voting on at the time. MR. BOWER said at the time he voted, it both angered and embarrassed him. The vote was taken late at night and he was either the last one or close to the last one to vote. He stressed he did not change his vote because of any change in information. At the time he voted, he said yes when he meant to say no. Although he knew his vote would not make any difference because the die was cast, he wanted his vote to reflect how he viewed the situation. He stated even though linkage exists, it must be looked at to determine its significance. He noted that one fish may accomplish linkage but in looking at that one fish, there would be a need to know if there is a significant number of fish involved in that linkage and then determine if the actions taken make a significant difference in ensuring the fish reach the spawning area. MR. BOWER stated he was not convinced, based on all of the information available, that the number of fish involved would make a sufficiently significant difference in the fish reaching the spawning areas or fish being available for the subsistence fishermen on the river, to be able to justify making the strong statement in the Area M fishery by lowering that cap of 700,000 to 300,000, particularly since it was his impression that the commissioner would be able to take whatever action he felt necessary if the run was not developing. He added there was no firm figure given to the BOF which said that in 1994, the run in the Yukon, Kuskokwim, or even in the Norton Sound area is going to be at the level projected. Number 186 REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON recalled there had been a lot of discussion about the need for open ocean research, effects of troll, effects of currents and water temperatures, etc., which will take a tremendous amount of money not available. He asked Mr. Bower how he would characterize the general interaction of the BOF members themselves, given the information available and does he feel the BOF, as currently constituted, is capable of reaching decisions on the basis of science. MR. BOWER responded given his experience thus far, the BOF is fully capable of being able to discuss and make decisions based upon scientific knowledge, data, etc., available from the department and other sources. He said there are many things which the BOF should know before making a decision. He felt the BOF is not utilizing data already available, much of which the BOF may not even know about. He gave examples. He emphasized people selected for the BOF are not selected because they may be fishery authorities but rather are selected to bring various kinds of experience and knowledge to the board. MR. BOWER said the BOF must depend upon ADF&G to provide direction and recommend what the BOF is supposed to do. He stressed he does not agree with ADF&G taking a neutral position on allocation issues because he felt the BOF must be dependent upon the department staff, who are the most knowledgeable people that public money has been able to buy. With ADF&G's assistance, the board can be assured the department will be able to manage better, the protection division will be able to carry out enforcement better, and the best decision has been made. He noted the BOF cannot say anything about budgeting or many things which are imperative to enabling the board to do a good job. He stated the BOF is not spending time on planning or policy matters which would give statewide direction to the fisheries resource, but rather is spending all of its time on adjudication, negotiation, and arbitration matters. Number 307 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Mr. Bower his opinion about the commercial selling of subsistence caught fisheries. MR. BOWER discussed the illegal taking of roe and actions taken. He responded he does not favor subsistence caught fish being sold commercially. Number 410 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked Mr. Bower in regard to the mixed stock fishery, to comment on fisheries management priorities. She requested Mr. Bower to rank the importance of commercial fishing, subsistence, sustained yield and explain his response in light of his actions on the BOF in regard to the mixed stock fishery. MR. BOWER responded sustained yield means looking at a resource and saying this much of the resource will be viewed as a yield, meaning it is usable. He said his number one priority is to ensure that a sufficient number of fish reach the spawning grounds and in turn, spawn and produce the fish needed. He thought perhaps that could be viewed as sustained yield but stressed it has a different emphasis because there has to be a determination and the knowledge that those fish are reaching the spawning grounds and are effectively spawning and producing fry, smolt, etc. He stressed his second priority is subsistence which is established by regulation, law, and historical use. MR. BOWER stated after those two priorities, allocation issues are involved. He said if the Constitution, the mandate of the BOF, and the mixed stock fishery are reviewed, allocation issues are the controversial issues that everyone is caught up in. He felt the number one allocation is one which provides the broadest public use as possible, which in existing circumstances, would be noncommercial uses. Based on that approach, he felt the commercial allocation is the lowest priority even though there is a benefit to the state. He thought the commercial allocation needs to be tempered upon meeting first the spawning requirements, second the subsistence requirements, and finally the noncommercial fishery which may be utilized by the largest number of residents of the state as well as other people in the United States who may come here to participate in the state's fisheries resource. REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said in light of the fall chum salmon crash in the Norton Sound, Yukon, and Kuskokwim areas, the need for subsistence fish and the fact that Mr. Bower stated subsistence is a priority over commercial fishing, she does not understand why he allowed the catch to remain at 700,000 in Area M which is a commercial fishery. She does not see Area M subsistence fishery being shut down and yet there still is a 700,000 chum salmon cap. She asked Mr. Bower if he sees any relationship between the two. MR. BOWER stated there is a linkage, but there is no way to look at a 700,000 cap and say by lowering the cap to 300,000, a significant difference will be made in the number of fish reaching the rivers. He said at the December BOF meeting, a bar graph was presented which went back about 20 years and showed the catch of chums in the Kuskokwim River. During the earlier years, the graph showed the subsistence catch. Around 1972, there was a commercial fishery introduced in the river. The bar representing the commercial fishery grew year by year to a very significant level in recent years. On top of that bar was another bar which represented the subsistence catch. Immediately upon the introduction of the commercial catch, the subsistence bar became shorter and shorter. During that meeting, he asked ADF&G why that was happening. The department responded there was not any known reason for the subsistence catch getting lower and lower and the commercial catch getting larger and larger. MR. BOWER said in the case of the Yukon River, the department indicated one of the reasons subsistence was not present was because people were obtaining a commercial permit. Consequently, the people were harvesting fish as commercial fishermen. The people were taking and selling the roe commercially while utilizing the meat of the fish for subsistence purposes. MR. BOWER stressed there is no way, after attending only two board meetings, he could say this is an emergency and all commercial fishing should be eliminated. Therefore, the BOF has to measure the action and the consequence. He felt it is unfair to say the Area M fishery is totally commercial because there is subsistence fishing there and about 70 percent of the commercial permits are held by people who actually live there. Number 593 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated the committee has been talking to two appointees for an hour and a half. He said there are many people who would like to testify and there is only an hour remaining. He felt there is a need to talk about the qualifications of the appointees rather than issues. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON suggested holding over the appointees of the Board of Fisheries and go on to the other appointees, especially those who are present. TAPE 94-50, SIDE A Number 000 EDDIE GRASSER, APPOINTEE, BOARD OF GAME, PALMER, stated he is a lifelong resident of Palmer, Alaska and his family has been involved in the professional guiding business. He has hunted and fished throughout the entire state and was involved in polar bear hunting when it was legal. He felt he has a wide range of experiences in the Alaska out-of- doors. He noted he also worked for Representative Larson in the legislature. He has served as president of several sportsmen organizations, including the Alaska Outdoor Council. MR. GRASSER felt because of his past experience as a guide, his hunting experience, his political experience, and other facets of life, he will bring a valuable asset to the Board of Game's process of managing the state's wildlife resources and determining allocation issues. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Grasser to comment on the role of the Board of Game. MR. GRASSER responded the fundamental role of the Board of Game is to work with ADF&G and the public to ensure healthy animal populations on a sustained yield level and to ensure those populations are allocated in a fair way for use by the public, both hunting and viewing. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated he has observed Mr. Grasser's involvement and activity over the years and has found him to be very professional and a credit to the board. (CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER was in the audience.) Number 038 RICHARD BURLEY, APPOINTEE, BOARD OF GAME, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and stated he served a three- year term on the board, and was recently reappointed. He said an addition to his resume is the fact he recently retired from the job he had held for 33 years. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Burley to comment on the fundamental role of the Board of Game and what the priorities should be in the allocation of resources. MR. BURLEY responded the Board of Game is responsible for managing the wildlife resources of the state of Alaska on a sustained yield basis, taking into consideration the needs of all user groups--subsistence, consumptive, and nonconsumptive uses. Number 068 ERNEST POLLEY, APPOINTEE, BOARD OF GAME, stated he has been active in sport hunting and fishing for most of his life. He began his career in game management. He felt the role of the Board of Game is to protect the resource and ensure there is as much equal access to the resource as possible by members of the various publics in the state. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he had worked with Mr. Polley for many years and found him to be extremely honorable and knowledgeable. SCOTT OGAN, APPOINTEE, BIG GAME COMMERCIAL SERVICES BOARD (BGCSB), PALMER, testified via teleconference and stated his past membership on the board has been satisfying and interesting. He felt the BGCSB is an important board and noted that the BSCSB has had the awesome responsibility of remapping the entire state of Alaska. He felt one of the most important roles of the board is keeping guide operations ethical and in line with the law. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES expressed support for Mr. Ogan's reappointment. THOMAS SCARBOROUGH, APPOINTEE, BGCSB, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and stated he has served two years on the BGCSB. He felt much progress has been made in getting the entire system reorganized and getting the licensing procedures for assistant guides and guides under control. DALE ANDERSON, APPOINTEE, COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY COMMISSION, stated he has lived in Juneau for 40 plus years and has a family of four children and a grandson. His activities in small business over the past twenty years gives him the qualifications needed to sit on the board and serve in the adjudicatory position. He felt he could bring integrity and common sense to the board and make decisions without bias. TUCKERMAN BABCOCK, APPOINTEE, OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and stated he was appointed to the commission last June. He felt he has demonstrated that he is well suited for the position and gave examples of his experience. He said it has been a rewarding experience and as a public member of the commission, he hoped he has added a different dimension to the commission. He asked committee members for his support. Number 163 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he has known both Mr. Anderson and Mr. Babcock for a number of years and felt their character is of the highest and their intelligence leans well toward the commissions they have been appointed to. ANNOUNCEMENTS CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced since many of the committee members have left due to a minority caucus, the committee will take public testimony and hear from Mr. Engel on Wednesday, April 13 at 8:15 a.m. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the House Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 10:15 a.m.