SEAFOOD.COM NEWS [Laws for the Sea] by Bob Tkacz - Feb 16, 2010 - A corrected version of HB 266 leaves subsistence harvests as the first priority in a fishery shortfall, but puts personal use beforecommercial or sport uses if restrictions are needed to meet escapement goals. The bill had its first hearing in the House Fish Committee, Feb. 10, and was held for answers to specific questions and what could be intense debate. As introduced the bill put personal use above all other harvests, including subsistence. The substitute adopted by the committee leaves subsistence as the top priority followed by personal use when restrictions are needed to meet escapement goals. The first version of the bill was not written accurately in response to Stoltze 2007 request to legislative drafting attorneys asking for a bill that set personal use harvest head of all other uses except for subsistence. Copies of Stoltze's March 16, 2007 request to bill drafters and a Feb. 5, 2010 apology from legislative attorney Brian Kane were included in background material with the bill. 'I misinterpreted an instruction from your office that led to the introduced bill placing subsistence fisheries incorrectly in order of priority -- not as the top priority as you directed in your original request,' Kane wrote. Positions on the bill split along traditional lines with sport and charter group representatives endorsing the bill and even greater allocation shifts and commercial harvesters opposed. Ken Larson, spokesman for the Prince William Sound Charterboat Association, called the bill 'a good start.' ' When restrictions are needed restrict commercial fishing first, then guided sport, then nonguided sport, then personal use, then subsistence is last priority,' he suggested. Ricky Gease, executive director of the Kenai River Sportfishing Assoc., called the proposal 'consistent with other state policies on subsistence.' Allocation disputes between commercial and sports harvesters have mostly focused on salmon, but HB 266 is not species specific. Gease suggested the policy would be beneficial for crab and shrimp fisheries. 'This is a good prioritization for getting meat into the freezers of people who live here,' he said. Some commercial harvesters suggested the bill was politicizing fishery allocation. 'I'm concerned that this bill is a reallocation of the resource,' said Matt Donohue, a commercial and sport fisherman from Sitka. 'It can be done through the Board of Fish. I don't think the legislature needs to make this a political issue than it's getting blown out right now,' said John Murray, another commercial harvester from Sitka.

Jerry McCune, speaking as president of the Cordova District Fishermen United, said commercial harvesters are already the first to be restricted when salmon returns to the Copper River are low. 'The first that is shutdown is commercial fishing, rightly so. We're the big user and we catch a lot of fish,' he said during the hearing. Copper River driftnet openings are closely regulated by sonar counts while the success of personal use harvesters depends heavily on the water level of the 'raging' river, which could leave abundant stocks out of reach of dipnetters who must often tie themselves to something on shore to avoid being dragged into the river. In response to a question from Rep. Charisse Millett (R-Anch.), McCune said CDFU has confidence in the accuracy of the Dept. of Fish & Game sonar station on the Copper River. When Millett asked Law Dept. attorney Lance Nelson about the accuracy of ADF&G sonar in the Mat-Su Valley he referred her to department managers but said it had been the subject of controversy. 'In a lot of areas of the state we don't have sophisticated fish counting like sonars or weirs,' Nelson said. Stoltze aid Ben Mulligan later said, 'According to ADF&G our sonar doesn't work.' His statement was challenged a few minutes later by ADF&G legislative liaison Jennifer Yuhas. 'We don't want the record to reflect that our sonar don't work. That would be an inaccurate statement.' Earlier in the hearing Yuhas said ADF&G had no position on the bill and takes no stance 'on allocative issues.' Following the hearing Mulligan declined to say whether he stood by his statement. Rep. Bryce Edgmon (D-Dillingham), chairman of the committee, asked for fisheries managers at the bill's next hearing. Nelson, who is legal counsel to the Board of Fisheries, said the bill lacks justification for elevation of personal use harvests on the priority scale and suggested legislative findings to support the shift should be added. 'It would be helpful, if we have to defend the law against a constitutional challenge,' Nelson said. Edgmon said his office has been inundated with comments in support and opposition to the bill.