[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 107 (Friday, July 25, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8146-S8147]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         GLACIER BAY MANAGEMENT

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have one more item, relating to 
legislation addressing several important aspects of the administration 
and management of Glacier Bay National Park in my State of Alaska.
  As many of you know, Glacier Bay National Park, west of Juneau in 
southeastern Alaska, has been named as the No. 1 national park in our 
country's National Park System. It is a unique tourist destination. It 
can only really be reached by cruise ship. The season runs roughly from 
Memorial Day to Labor Day, the season for the cruise ships that visit 
southeastern Alaska.
  For the most part, these are the same ships that traverse the 
Caribbean in the wintertime, then move to Vancouver, BC, in order to 
sail to Alaska in the summer. There are probably 30 ships. I believe 
the number of tourists who visit Alaska by cruise ship is somewhere in 
the area of 600,000 in that short 90-day period.
  Because of the popularity of this unique tourist destination, the 
legislation I have introduced would encourage the continuation of the 
Park Service's ongoing efforts to work with concession operators to try 
to improve visitor services, as well as deal fairly and finally with 
the longstanding dispute over the status of the commercial and 
subsistence fishing that has gone on in that park from time immemorial.
  The footprint that any of these activities leaves in this park is 
pretty insignificant in relationship to other parks, because the park 
is seen, for the most part, by visitors on a cruise ship. You might get 
an occasional candy wrapper blown overboard, but the ships are very 
good at keeping their impact to a minimum. The point is, compared to 
impressions left in other national parks by visitors, the footprint 
left by visitors who come to the park on a ship--and never get off--is 
extremely small. That's part of what makes the park so unique--access 
by cruise ship.
  In any event, this bill reflects the progress of several years of 
discussion with local interests and the Park Service. The efforts, I 
think, are positive. But we have been hampered from achieving consensus 
by some groups who seem to be unwilling to compromise for reasons we 
can only guess at--perhaps they don't want to see other visitors during 
that short summer season.
  Insofar as possible, this bill represents an attempt to stake out 
some reasonable, responsible middle ground that would respect the 
wishes of all concerned. The issue of commercial fishing is one where, 
historically, fishermen have plied the waters of Glacier Bay and the 
outer coast, the Gulf of Alaska area now included in the park, for over 
100 years. Local Native villagers, the Huna Tlingit people, have been 
doing so for thousands of years. At no time have their activities 
damaged the park or its resources, nor have they harmed the area's wild 
and scenic qualities in any way. Their presence has provided a colorful 
backdrop to the mystique of the park, as a matter of fact. This simple 
fact I don't think can be overemphasized.
  To put it another way, commercial fishing and local villagers have 
continually fished in Glacier Bay since long before it became a park or 
a monument. The fact that we value it so highly today is proof that 
they have not had an adverse impact on the species in the bay. 
Unfortunately, some interests do not seem to be concerned about 
fairness, or the obligation to the Native people of Alaska, and would 
like to see fishing and gathering banned, no matter how environmentally 
benign or how critical to the local livelihoods it may be.
  On subsistence, this bill corrects inconsistencies in the Alaska 
National Interest Lands Conservation Act, known as ANILCA. Villagers 
living near Glacier Bay, whose ancestors have used the bay continually 
for at least 9,000 years, must be allowed to continue to use the bay's 
resources to feed their families, to fish for halibut, salmon, crabs, 
collect clams, seaweeds, berries, and other foods that are part of 
their traditional culture.
  Let me emphasize, we are talking about a relative handful of 
families--most from the local Native village of Hoonah, which has a 
population of about 900 or so, and a few people from other nearby 
communities such as Elfin Cove, Gustavus, and Pelican. We are not 
talking about thousands of people. These Alaskans do not have the 
convenience of supermarkets or strip malls. They deserve consideration 
and respect. They deserve to have their historic use recognized and 
provided for by this Congress.

  My bill also addresses commercial fishing in the park. For 
generations, commercial fishermen caught salmon, halibut and crabs in 
Glacier Bay and have fished the rich grounds of the outside coast as 
well. And there is no biological reason, none whatsoever, for 
restricting commercial fishing activity anywhere in the park. The 
fishery resources are healthy, they are diverse, they are closely 
monitored by the State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and they 
are very carefully regulated. It should also be noted that, of the 
park's approximately 3 million acres of marine waters, only about 
500,000 are productive enough to warrant real, significant interest.
  There are few anadromous streams in the park--that's streams where 
the salmon go up and spawn--because most of the fresh water that comes 
down comes down from the glaciers and there is simply no place for the 
salmon to spawn.
  In any event, the fisheries are restricted both as to method as in 
the number of participants, and are carefully managed and controlled to 
assure continued abundance. There is nothing in the bill and there is 
no desire by the fishing industry to change these controls or increase 
the level of this sustainable activity. Alaska is a very careful 
steward of its resources. Commercial fishing does not harm the 
environment in any way. In spite of what you hear, Alaska fisheries are 
in very good shape. We have had record runs 8 of the last 11 years. 
Under Federal management, things got so bad there was one year when we 
only took 25 million salmon, but when we became a State that began 
turning around. I think last year we put up 218 million. That's because 
we don't open our season until we have had adequate escapement, that 
is, enough fish to go up the streams to spawn so that we are guaranteed 
renewability of the resource.
  So, in the grand scheme of things, and recognizing consideration of 
the Nation's economy, these fisheries are small potatoes. But to the 
fishermen, the natives who depend upon them, to the families of small 
remote communities in which they live, these fisheries are of the 
utmost importance. They are harm free. And those who partake in them 
deserve this Government's help, not the destruction of their simple 
lifestyle.
  This bill authorizes traditional fishing throughout the park for 
subsistence users as well as historical commercial activities. However, 
because there are special, sensitive areas inside Glacier Bay itself, 
it also designates the waters inside the bay as a special

[[Page S8147]]

reserve, in which a joint team of Federal and State scientists will 
make recommendations on where fishing should occur and at what level.
  A further special provision is also included in one area where there 
is significant potential for conflict between fishermen and certain 
limited nonmotorized uses, such as kayaking, during the brief 3-month 
summer period.
  This area is in the Beardslee Islands, near the entrance of the bay. 
Under this bill, the only commercial fishing that would be allowed in 
the Beardslees would be crab fishing, and that only in a very small 
area, by a very small number of people who historically are dependent 
on this fishing--less than a dozen people. This would only include 
people who can show both a significant history of participation and a 
real dependence on that fishery for their livelihoods. This privilege 
could be transferred to one successor, when the original fisherman 
retires, but will cease after that. And at any point the Park Service 
could eliminate all fishing in the Beardslees with a fair payment to 
the individual fisherman.
  The reason for such a special rule in the Beardslees is simply that 
these fishermen have no other option than fishing in the Beardslees, 
due to the small size of their vessels and their reliance on this one 
fishery, and a few other factors.
  So this bill will not contribute to any increase in fishing. In fact, 
over time the opposite may occur. It will simply provide for the 
scientifically sound continuation of an environmentally benign 
activity. Finally, I think it's important also to note that the 
continuation of both subsistence and commercial fishing enjoys wide 
support from local residents of Southeastern Alaska, including 
environmental groups such as the Southeastern Alaska Conservation 
Council.
  I look to my colleagues for support on the merits of the bill.
  Mr. President, I see no other Senators in the Chamber. I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________