Alaska Legislature: House Fisheries, 4/7/26, 10am

Good morning everyone. This meeting of the House Special Committee on Fisheries will come to order. Time is 10:05 on Tuesday,

April 7th, 2026.

Members present are

Representative McCabe, Representative Elam, Representative Himshoot, Representative Kopp, and myself Chair Stutes. We have a quorum to conduct business.

As usual, I will remind everyone to silence their phones and not approach the desk here.

If you have to get a message to any one of us, please get a hold of my committee aide,

Jane Pearson,

and she would be delighted to help you out.

I'd like to thank Andrew Magnuson. Welcome back,

Andrew.

Drew, and we from the House Fisheries, he was the House Fisheries Committee Secretary,

and we have Chloe Miller from the Juno LIO. Thank you, Chloe.

Nice to see you.

At today's meeting,

we will have the second hearing on Senate Bill 158, Cook Inlet New Administrative Area by Senator Bjorkman. Welcome, Senator.

Senate Bill 58 was first heard by the Fisheries Committee on March 26th, and at that meeting we heard invited testimony and had questions left for both CFEC and the Department of Fish and Game.

At this meeting, I'd like to get committee members'

questions answered and proceed with...

with public testimony. Therefore, I would now like to invite Senator Bjorkman and his Chief of Staff Conrad Jackson to the table. If you would both put yourself on the record and give us a recap of Senate Bill 158.

Thank you very much, Madame Chairman. For the record, my name is Senator Jesse Bjorkman and I represent the northern and central portions of the Kenai Peninsula. It's my pleasure to be before you all today.

Senate Bill 158 simply creates a new administrative area in Cook Inlet for the purpose of allowing unique management that already occurs for the east side set net fishery in Cook Inlet and so that the permit owners who have traditionally fished the east side of

side of Cook Inlet on the shores of the Kenai Peninsula can have some self determination and choice about what they would like to do with their permits in the future. And so that CFEC can manage those permits uniquely just as fishing game already does for the purpose of managing the mixed stock salmon runs in Cook Inlet.

All that this bill does is simply draws lines on a map to create a new administrative area and keeps

permits that fish in other parts of Cook Inlet from moving in to the east side. Right now, the whole Cook Inlet north of Anchor Point is managed as one administrative area.

In order to keep those permits from moving around, permits that fish on the west side in the northern district from moving to the east side, um a new administrative area is needed. This bill does exactly that of creating a new administrative area.

Thank you Madam Chair.

Thank you. And I'm going to take a moment to recognize we have Representative Vance with us online.

She joined us at ten o seven. Welcome Representative Vance.

Um let's see here. Do we have questions from this committee?

We also have CFEC commissioner Rick Green. Let me double check that.

Hmm. Oh, there he is. And Forrest Bowers, uh Director of Comm Fish at the Department of Fish and Game.

So, um if we have no further questions, I would like to open public testimony. Oh, sorry, Representative McCabe.

Thanks madam Chair, um so Senator Bjorkman through the Chair, I'm just wondering um I see an um email in here from somebody that supported this and then after the board of fish proposal he doesn't support it. Can you maybe run through that a little bit why he's concerned about?

Thank you very much through the Chair to Representative McCabe. Yes, I spoke with Mr. Clark yesterday on the phone and we had a good conversation about his concerns. The action or inaction of the Board of Fish on proposal 192, I think

Mm-hmm.

that really will not change the outcome of this bill.

In fact, it will likely, if the board takes up that action and institutes what they would like to do regarding seine gear,

it probably creates more of a need for this new administrative area to keep additional permits from coming into the east side and applying to fish with seine gear.

That would only add to the problem and make it worse. So if anything,

the new admin area is more warranted if the board takes that action.

I hope that the board does not, however that's not in my purview here.

Cool. Thanks.

Cool.

Thanks.

Thank you. Other questions?

Okay. Now we will open up public testimony. Is there anyone in the room that would like to testify?

Seeing none,

we will go online and we will start with Ellen Crookston. Mr.

Crookston,

if you would identify yourself please and begin your testimony.

Yes,

my name is Alan Crookston.

I'm a commercial fisherman down the east side.

I'm the owner of Tide Chaser Fisheries.

I'm a small business owner that, you know, I've been running this fish site with my wife and my kids and my father and my brother and these small family farms, I'm going to call them, think of it like a small family farm for Alaska,

that is what these small businesses and fish sites are.

I would just like to state that I am in favor of SB 158.

for years to get a side sleep and then kind of escape goat for cooking the conservation issues.

I think SB 158 is a critical step that will allow the decision makers to give them the tools that they need to have to manage our unique fishery.

Um,

it's a unique area, unique geography with two main river systems and mineral systems being right there where the people can access the fish.

And so I am in favor of this and urge the community to stand with these commercial fishing families.

Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any questions for Alan Crookston?

Seeing none,

we will now go to Paul Crookston.

If you would identify yourself

Yes,

for the

record,

please, and any affiliation

you may have.

Paul.

Okay.

Go

ahead.

My name is Paul Crookston.

I am also a permit holder on the east side, and I am Alan Crookston's brother.

And just want to echo what he said.

I've fished here my whole life and seen some of the fishery issues and just believe that SB 158, I'm in favor of it.

It may help our fishermen determine the best trajectory for a healthy Eastside SedNet fishery and give us more opportunity for a voice for the boundaries of these fisheries and hopefully have a positive path forward.

Um,

I also echo everything that Alan just said as well.

Thank you.

Thank you. I do have a question just for my own information.

Did you at one time live on the Kenai?

Myself,

Yes.

I've never actually lived there year-round.

Yes.

I have never lived—

I have been going up there my entire life, ever since I was an infant.

And like, so I'm third generation, and my children are also fishing on the site as well.

We do employ people in the area every single year. Most of our crew is actually local people that live there on the peninsula.

But I know you live in Utah,

is that correct?

I do live in Utah, that's correct,

yes.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any further questions?

Seeing none,

we will go to Ted Crookston.

Yes, my name is Ted Crookston.

I didn't quite realize we're all calling in independently, but I guess we were paying attention to the clock and all got on early on, but I'm all related.

I'm the father of both Paul and Alan and have been fishing there since the mid-'60s and have been a permit holder all of my adult life, and I just am in favor of this Bill 158.

We've seen it go through different iterations over the years in trying to get this passed, and it's certainly overdue, if anything,

and there's no downside to this.

It's only an upside. It creates more options for the administrators and more options for the permit holders going forward.

And there's no downside that I can see or that I've ever heard before by anybody that's aware of the details.

The fishery can still be managed exactly as it was and has been historically, but there's more options going forward.

And so I would urge you to support Bill 158,

and I'll make just a couple of sentences while I have the air of the DOER, the Fisheries Committee.

I just make note that the board of fish is...

It is acting in ways that are similar to a loose cannon taking actions of this statewide fishery that affect our cooking in the area when there's no representation and just such a need for legislative reform of this board official.

That's my comments. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I do have a question.

Do you live in Kenai?

No,

No, I've wanted for years to actually build a home so that we could,

but in the last 25 years when that was part of my plan,

the restrictions have been so extreme that it has not been financially possible to make. So our, of our homes there, we have to board up for the wintertime.

And so I've always had

interests in the other states, so I just have to balance them as best I can. And I'm there. I've been there year-round before, but currently it's not economically possible.

And where do you live?

I'm in Utah when I'm not in Alaska.

And is that the same with Alan?

It is scattered

It is.

Thank you.

We're scattered around down here, but the answer is yes.

Thank you.

Do we have any further questions?

Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony.

Next,

we will go to Nate Patzos.

Did I get that right?

Uh, yeah, Nate Patzos.

If you would identify yourself in any affiliation for the record,

please.

Hi, my name is Nate Passos. I'm representing myself and I live in Colonna,

Alaska and I'm a third generation Eastside set net fisherman and I'm in favor of SB 158.

I think this is a pretty common sense decision because the east side set net fishery is already treated as its own unique area with a lot of unique regulations and restrictions and the fishermen here target sockeye from the Kenai to Seelock rivers and this bill would just help focus the effort for that area.

and make it easier for pavement and regulators to do what's best for the local economy and our local salmon resource.

Thank you. Do we have any questions?

Seeing none,

thank you for your testimony.

Next we will go to Daniel Norman.

Mr.

Norman,

if you would identify yourself for the record, please.

Yeah, good morning. My name is Dan Norman.

I'm a Kenai resident for now, but should close on a house in the coming week or so in Soldotna.

I'm testifying in strong support of Senate Bill 158. My wife and I are small business owners in Kenai, and my children are fourth-generation Setnetters, and our business is being deliberately targeted.

It's nothing new.

In fact, it's been going on for decades.

So SB 158 is going to create this new admin area for

for us Cook Inlet Setnet permit holders, and it's going to make us Eastside Setnet permit holders. So not a lot of change there, but has, you know, a lot of good ramifications down the road.

You know, it's pretty straightforward, it's targeted for protection for our community.

That's under pretty unprecedented threat, and our community is over 80% local resident families.

So just for context,

Alaska has 18 stocks of concern across all its salmon fisheries.

And in every other case, the management response has been to follow science,

work through the stock of concern process,

implement management plans,

and adjust through the board cycles, through the Board of Fish.

Cook Inlet seems to be the lone exception.

The Cook Inlet, or the Kenai River Chinook, is the only stock of concern where the Board of Fisheries is making a special meeting that's been called to eliminate the public engagement process that they're so proud about and they gloat about as being the most transparent process in the country.

Now they're going totally against that to target us specifically.

It's not designed to refine management.

It's not to improve any escapement goal.

It's a special meeting specifically to eliminate an entire gear type.

They're going to carry out this meeting due to special interests from pretty powerful sport lobby groups and eliminate setnets.

Now these are families in our community, generational businesses,

communities all along the peninsula built their lives around this fishery, and it's under— has been a real threat.

So the Kenai River Chinook Stocking Steward Management Plan exists precisely to guide the process.

There's a path forward. It doesn't require eliminating setnet fishing.

This bill is going to help hopefully protect the permit holders that are in the area, and we can work through the Board of Fish process better.

You know, we can't ignore what was said openly at the board level.

You know, one board member stated that he wanted to eliminate all gillnets.

That's not management.

That's just a blatant target on our fishery. It's a predetermined outcome from, again,

these sport fishing lobbies

and should concern every commercial fisherman in Alaska regardless of the gear type, because if it can happen to us, it can happen to anyone anywhere.

So SB 158 is a reasonable, responsible legislative process to protect the east side setnet permit holders when it's time to preserve some due process.

So urging the legislature's support to pass this.

It's going to have no bearing to any other user group or gear type within Cook Inlet or anywhere else in the state,

so the drifters, it has no impact to them.

It's very targeted and it sets a framework how fisheries can be managed for our unique area and all of that while having no fiscal responsibility from the state.

So thanks for your time.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Representative Vance, if you have any questions, just give us a holler and we'll acknowledge your questions right then.

Next we have Tanya Dorner.

Ms.

Dorner, if you could identify yourself and

Yeah

Perfect.

Thank

My

you.

name is Tanya Doner.

I'm testifying on behalf of myself and we are, our grandchildren are fifth generation set matters and I am in support of bill 158. We have had repeated disasters that are very specific to our fishery.

Our fishery. The best course of action would be self-determination and we should be managed.

managed differently we are managed differently but we should be recognized as a fishery where we get to participate in some of our management needs and right now we're we're not we're just kind of

lumped together we don't get a say of anything that happens the board of fish has just run away with it but we also the biggest issue to me would be let's say three years from now king salmon stocks return we're supposed to have a huge red run you have all cook inlet permits that can come over and fish on the east side and therefore you're right back in the same place again and the east side is

is specific and it needs to be blocked to where people can't move permits in anymore and so I am in support of this.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Any questions? Seeing none.

And lastly, we have Gary Hollier.

Mr.

Hollier, if you could give us your name for the record and any affiliation you might have.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the House Fishers Committee.

My name is Gary Holier,

72-year-old lifelong resident of Kenai, Alaska.

My family, four generations of fishing,

set netting. I've fished on the east side for 50,

six years,

got an original limited entry permit.

Uh, this is a—

This is a, I'm in full support of 158. We are in a unique situation.

I won't try to.

Talk about what everybody else has said,

but there is no fiscal impact on this.

There is no allocation decisions.

This is the board of the Department of Fish and Game about six weeks ago shut down set netting and cooking,

but for the summer,

the board of fish on 10 minutes of a statewide meeting provided a bill that would eliminate all upset nets in Cook Inlet.

Oh, now, Eastside, during a king salmon stock, a management concern.

This is wrong,

but this little bill,

150.

It isn't a major leap forward,

but it's a small step to try to let us self-regulate this unique fishery, because for a 140-year-old fishery, we are getting kicked to the curb,

and I would certainly hope that this House Fishery Committee can pass this out, and this can get passed in the legislature,

and thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Mr.

Hallier. Any questions?

Seeing none,

and I see no further individuals for public testimony,

so with that I will close public testimony.

And I do myself have a couple questions.

Does anybody here have any questions?

Um,

Senator Bjorkman,

in one of the emails we got,

somebody mentioned a potential conflict for you,

and since we're on record,

it might be a good opportunity for you to explain to us what your relationship might be to this.

Thank you, Chair Stutes. I currently have two cook inlet drift permits, and if this bill were to pass, and if it meant more set netting opportunity for set netters, I would stand to gain potentially less money.

So I'm confused as to what Mr.

Ducker feels like my conflict might be in the past.

Members in my fishery have

have come out against this item because they somehow have ill will toward set netters and that's really too bad.

But yeah,

if this bill were to pass and somehow would allow for some fishing opportunity,

I would not be enriched at all. In fact it's likely that the opposite is true.

Appreciate that, Senator.

A little explanation on the record always helps us understand a little bit better.

Representative Elam, you have a question?

Thank you for the insight as well.

So we talked about this a little bit, uh, at the last hearing, and so I was just kind of curious,

um, the bill itself really just gives more granular management of the, of the Cook Inlet fishery, if, if I'm understanding everything here correctly. And then also I was curious what the dynamic between the drift net versus the set net management potential would be there as well.

Thank you for the question through the chair to Representative Elam. Um the bill very simply creates a new administrative area

on the east side of Cook Inlet so that those permits can be managed uniquely and it keeps permits from the west side and the northern district from moving into the east side of Cook Inlet,

where people are concerned about king salmon catch as well as the amount of red salmon that are caught. As we look at the fishery itself, when commercial fishing opportunity is offered,

Um

You know, the fish managers have to make a decision about offering time and area based on how many fish are being caught. When the set net fishery is operating, that would lead to a higher commercial catch and less potential openings for drift net fishermen.

However, as we kind of look at the fishery as a whole,

many times those two fisheries are open in tandem as has happened in the past.

However, management practices by the Board of Fish and the department instituting the management plan, they have to take into account uh run timing and run strength when managing time and area in any fishery.

Thank you.

Thank you. Other questions?

Seeing none, well, okay.

With that, we are going to set this bill aside. I am not going to set an amendment deadline today,

but I am going to email out an amendment deadline when we've had a little more interaction with the sponsor on that.

So thank you, Senator Bjorkman, and thank you, Mr. Jackson.

Appreciate it.

Seeing no further business to come before this committee— wow, how was that, 25 minutes?— we will adjourn at 10:30.