00131 1 2 3 4 5 6 Federal Subsistence Board Meeting
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
00131 1 2 3 4 5 6 FEDERAL SUBSISTENCE BOARD MEETING 7 8 MAY 21, 2003 9 10 VOLUME II 11 12 Millennium Hotel 13 Anchorage, Alaska 14 15 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 16 17 Mitch Demientieff, Chairman 18 Gary Edwards, Fish and Wildlife Service 19 Dr. Wini Kessler, Forest Service 20 Henri Bisson, Bureau of Land Management 21 Judy Gottlieb, National Park Service 22 Niles Cesar, Bureau of Indian Affairs 23 24 Keith Goltz, Solicitor 00132 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 3 (Anchorage, Alaska - 5/21/2003) 4 5 CHAIRMAN DEMIENTIEFF: Okay. We'll go 6 ahead and call the meeting to order. I believe, Mike, you 7 had some issues that we were going to open with on 8 non-agenda items? 9 10 MR. SMITH: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 11 Once again my name is Mike Smith, and I'm here today 12 representing Tanana Chiefs Conference. 13 14 And I'd like to just address the -- what is 15 called the draft Regulatory Coordination Protocol. That 16 was -- it was a small report stuck in the RAC books at the 17 last fall meetings. I've got copies here if you guys don't 18 have one currently available in front of you. 19 20 And I'd just like to express at this time 21 TCC's concerns in the direction that this particular 22 portion of the MOA is going. Tanana Chiefs is a little 23 concern that the -- what -- that the draft called for the 24 una -- the establishment of an additional board. We feel 25 that it unduly insulates subsistence considerations to the 26 full boards. We're a little concerned about the makeup of 27 the board, because with all due consideration, the draft 28 calls for a joint board, subsistence board to be 29 established with three members of the Federal Subsistence 30 Board and three members of the State Subsis -- or the State 31 Board of Game and Board of Fish. We're a little concerned 32 about the appointment of political appointees to a board 33 that will, we hope, will not become a default subsistence 34 board. While it talks about coordinating protocols and 35 issues surrounding subsistence and then making 36 recommendations to the full board, we don't really 37 necessarily see the need for an insulative layer between 38 the RACs, subsistence users, and the Federal Subsistence 39 Board. So we're just a little concerned about the makeup 40 of the board, the impact it might have on the ability of 41 the RACs to communicate effectively with the full Board and 42 additionally the makeup of the board, the proposed board. 43 44 With -- and that's just one thing we wanted 45 to touch on was just this draft regulatory protocol and its 46 current makeup and possibly even problems that may arise 47 with implementation. And that said, Mr. Chairman, I just 48 wanted to bring that attention to the Board. 49 50 CHAIRMAN DEMIENTIEFF: Mike, if we can hold 00133 1 on, I think this is worth exploring. Maybe we'll have Pete 2 Probasco sit next to you, so we can have a little dialogue 3 about it. I think your concerns are well expressed. 4 5 MR. PROBASCO: Good morning, Mr. Chair, 6 Board members. Thank you. I appreciate your questions, 7 Mike, on this draft that we're currently working, and 8 specifically addressing the issue of this additional board 9 as you termed it. 10 Actually what we're looking at is a board 11 made up of -- not board, but members of the board from both 12 the Fisheries Board and the State Board and the Game Board 13 that will assist both respective entities dealing with the 14 workload of coordinating fishery and wildlife proposals. 15 They serve no function as far as making recommendations. 16 Their function is on how to best deal with work with both 17 respective entities, and producing the work that each board 18 requires when they address proposals, so they form no 19 decision-making purpose, with the exception of outlining 20 how to coordinate the workload that we're working on..... 21 22 CHAIRMAN DEMIENTIEFF: So basically..... 23 24 MR. PROBASCO: .....Mr. Chair. 25 26 CHAIRMAN DEMIENTIEFF: .....there are 27 recommendations that are going to be coming from the group, 28 is that what you're saying? 29 30 MR. PROBASCO: The recommendations are just 31 directing staff as they work on developing proposal 32 analysis and coordinating the workload, in developing the 33 work that the Boards require when they analyze regulatory 34 proposals. 35 36 CHAIRMAN DEMIENTIEFF: So you're -- 37 basically it's an advisory group to the Interagency Staff 38 Committee, is that what you're saying? 39 40 MR. PROBASCO: It's advisory group to the 41 staff on dealing with proposals. So for exam -- instance, 42 like this year, if this protocol was in place dealing with 43 the Yukon-Kuskokwim proposals, this group would look at 44 proposals that have joint interest both to the Federal and 45 State board, and look at ways that they could coordinate 46 staff dealing with the proposals, and providing data and 47 information for those proposals. 48 49 CHAIRMAN DEMIENTIEFF: The -- you know, 50 we've been hearing..... 00134 1 MR. PROBASCO: The other thing..... 2 3 CHAIRMAN DEMIENTIEFF: .....for some time 4 now, if I can just..... 5 6 MR. PROBASCO: Sure. 7 8 CHAIRMAN DEMIENTIEFF: .....just give you 9 another little food -- or pursaud (ph) or something you can 10 respond to, we've been hearing concern by RAC members of 11 things coming from the top down, and that these were not 12 dealing with the RAC proposals. And it's a serious concern 13 to me, because of our dependence on the RACs. So maybe if 14 you could also speak to that particular issue, because I 15 don't want to see another group of State and Federales, you 16 know, putting proposals on the table that may -- and, you 17 know, that the RACs have to respond to. We depend upon the 18 RACs, the strength of our system. We've said it over and 19 over again. But if you could speak to that as well, I'd 20 appreciate it. 21 22 MR. PROBASCO: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and 23 before I speak to that, I want -- also want to make it 24 clear that this is in draft form, and it will again go out 25 before the Regional Advisory Councils for their review this 26 fall. It is in draft form, and comments that have been 27 made will be sent back to the drafting team and another 28 draft will be forwarded. Before any of this has been 29 finalized, you, Mr. Chair, and your Board will review it, 30 and have your opportunity to edit and make changes 31 appropriate. 32 33 This process deals strictly with dealing 34 with coordination between the State and the Federal Board 35 on dealing with proposals with the goal of trying to keep 36 us to the best of our legal mandates coordinated in 37 management decisions. This does not take the place of any 38 of the process that's in place dealing with Regional 39 Advisory Councils and the Federal Board. All it is is -- 40 you know how the workloads are, you know how we have 41 different issues that may run head-to-head between the 42 State and the Federal Government. This is just a means to 43 try to better coordinate dealing with regulatory proposals, 44 Mr. Chair. 45 46 CHAIRMAN DEMIENTIEFF: Thank you. Mike, do 47 you have follow-up? 48 49 MR. SMITH: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 50 While we appreciate that we'll have the opportunity in the 00135 1 future to comment on this specific proposal, we're a little 2 concerned in the sense that, you know, the mandates of the 3 Federal Subsistence Boards and the mandates of the State 4 are completely different, and in some instances 5 dramatically so, and we have concerns right now with some 6 of the methodologies and information being used by the 7 Federal Government in regards some of the regulatory 8 schemes, and particularly in regard to fisheries on how the 9 State manages fisheries and the State (sic) manages 10 fisheries. We feel that the Feds have a much different 11 mandate that requires a much different approach to the 12 management of such things. So we're concerned that the 13 specific mandate of the Federal Subsistence Board, that is 14 conservation and subsistence, would somehow, and we feel in 15 the past has, kind of given way to, you know, the sustained 16 yield management scheme offered up by the State. And 17 we're concerned that that has gone a considerable ways 18 already, that we think we need -- the Federal Government 19 needs to pull back a little bit, and rethink their 20 management schemes in light of declining -- and 21 specifically in light of declining fisheries stock. 22 23 So that's, you know, that's pretty much our 24 concern, Mr. Chairman. Once again we appreciate the 25 opportunity that we'll be able to have -- offer comments on 26 this in the future, but we're still concerned about it, and 27 -- plus additionally the ability of Federal Staff and stuff 28 to coordinate and participate and pay for this type of 29 process.