Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/24/1997 05:06 PM House FSH
Audio | Topic |
---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CSSB 7(RLS) AM - HUNTING SPORT FISH TRAPPING FEES/LICENSES Number 031 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN announced the first order of business to be CSSB 7(RLS) AM, "An Act reducing certain resident sport fishing, hunting, and trapping license fees, increasing certain nonresident sport fishing license and tag fees, and relating to nonresident sport fishing and hunting licenses and tags; and providing for an effective date." He asked Senator Donley to present the bill. Number 060 SENATOR DAVE DONLEY stated that the bill does several things. The first section lowers the current combination fee for residents, for hunting, trapping, and various combinations of sport fishing licenses, by one dollar for each of the multiple licenses. If there are two licenses, it lowers it by one dollar if there are three licenses, it lowers it by two dollars. This is the savings to the state because the state pays a commission to vendors to sell the licenses, therefore they only pay the commission once if a combination license is sold. He stated that it gives an incentive to people, within our cost savings, to buy a combination license. Number 177 SENATOR DONLEY stated that Section 4, deals with nonresident sport fishing licenses. He stated that currently there are four types of nonresident sport fish licenses: a 1-day license for $10, which this legislation does not change; a 3-day license for $15, which this legislation proposes to change to $20; this legislation proposes to create a 7-day license for $30; a 14-day license for $30, which this legislation would raise to $50; and currently there is an annual nonresident license for $50, which would no longer be available under this legislation, except under the provisions of Section 5. Number 255 SENATOR DONLEY stated that Section 5 specifies that to be eligible for an annual nonresident sport fish license, one needs to possess a sport fish guide license or be employed by somebody who does. The reason for this exemption is that typically these people are already licensed commercially to the state, already paying a fees for the licenses and because the House was proposing that commercial sport fish guide license holders would be required to have an annual sport fish license, so the Senate, in an effort to eliminate a conflict in bills, wanted to make sure there was a provision for it in this bill. He stated that the guidelines are that if one holds a current sport fish guide license or air taxi commercial operators certificate where you are licensed to carry passengers for hire by the coast guard, you could buy an annual license for $150. This would also apply to those people who are employed by these license holders. Number 359 SENATOR DONLEY stated that Section 6 is a technical change because by repealing the annual sport fish license section, a technical change was needed because it was wrapped up with game tag language, it does not change anything but just restates existing language. Number 401 SENATOR DONLEY stated that Section 7 makes a parallel provision for King Salmon tags following the same scheme as the increased fees for nonresidents for ordinary fishing licenses. A 1-day tag is still $10, a 3-day tag would be $20, a 7-day tag $30, a 14-day tag $50 and there is no provision for an annual tag. Number 454 SENATOR DONLEY stated that the legislation makes no proposed changes to the military, so there is a status quo for any current military in Alaska. He stated that there as been a request to add to Section 5, provisions for people who hold current limited entry permits issued by the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) and that there be a provision for a crew members license. He stated that this would be acceptable if it is couched in the frame that a person could sport fish while they are actively engaged in the commercial fishing ventures. He stated that it does make sense if this is done in the down time when commercial fishing, but he did not want to see having a crew member license justify people who are nonresidents staying all year and fishing all the time. Number 584 REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS stated that needed to make a conflict of interest statement in that he has money in a guiding outfit. Number 604 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked if on page 2, line 28, the definition of prepared for storage, is taken out of a regulation and codified in statute. Number 655 SENATOR DONLEY stated that it is a section that is word for word as it appears in existing law but needed to be restated here because they deleted a section of statute that overlapped with this regarding sport fish, so none of the language in Section 6 is a change from existing law. This language had appeared in a different section of existing law that is repealed on page 4, line 1. He stated that it repealed the present annual nonresident sport fish license and eliminated this language as well, therefore, it needed to restated in another section. Number 721 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated that he has mixed emotions on the increase in fees. He stated that he realizes there is a problem that needs to be solved with people canning red salmon to pay for their vacation but he is not sure that this would be a deterrent for someone coming up here and doing that. Number 786 SENATOR DONLEY stated that there have been quite a few hearings on this legislation in the Senate and this cite has been around for four years. He stated that there are no changes in this proposal to the 1-day license and it still keeps the 3-day license cheap at $20 and everyone agrees that the 7-day license is a good option for people visiting Alaska. This bill is really designed to discourage long term usage by nonresidents of our sport fish, while not penalizing people that are visiting for a short period of time. He stated that someone who wanted to abuse it could be continuing to buy the 14-day licenses but that person will send up a red flag for enforcement officials to see what they are doing with those licenses. For the people that are visiting for a summer it would be a lot easier to buy a 1-day license when they want to fish rather than being in a continual harvest mode. Number 913 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked that unless the enforcement capabilities are increased, would this solve the problem. Number 925 SENATOR DONLEY stated that there was a major enforcement effort on the Kenai Peninsular last season where fish and wildlife tried to target some of the worst abusers to fine and prosecute them. He stated that we could also use more enforcement but the public safety budget is an area where we are maintaining our current level of commitment, not increasing it. Number 982 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that on page 2, Section 5, it has allowed for the possibility of a nonresident license for $150 and on page 3, Section 7, there is no allowance for a King Salmon tag for a nonresident. Number 996 SENATOR DONLEY replied that because it is so competitive, King Salmon tags are a special issue. There would still be the option for people to buy the 1-day King Salmon tag to go with their annual nonresident license or even up to a 14-day King Salmon tag. The focus of this legislation was to create a mechanism to facilitate other legislation that mandates an annual sport fish license for people that own types of commercial licenses so that we were not cutting them off, if we were going to mandate that they have annual licenses. The King Salmon tag did not seem necessary to fulfill that purpose. Number 1057 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that he had a couple of amendments and would entertain a motion to accept the CSSB 7(RLS) AM as a working draft. Number 1069 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN made a motion to adopt CSSB 7(RLS) AM before the committee. Number 1074 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there were any objections. Number 1080 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN objected for discussion purposes and asked why the committee was doing that. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN replied so we would have a working draft before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if there are changes from another bill. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked what he was referring to. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that it was passed over from the Senate. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that he stands corrected and he announced he would take public testimony on the amendments. Number 1131 KATHY HANSEN, Executive Director, United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters Association, stated that the association supports the purpose of the bill and requested that the amendment be inserted for the CFEC permit holders and crew member licenses. She stated that the seasons last for a long time and if a crew member only has a day off they often won't use it to go into town but will throw out a dungeness pot or ring and try to catch something to eat, something different besides what they are fishing for. To do this they will have to buy a 14-day license which would be fiscally difficult for them to do. The association would like to provide a way for the fisherman to catch fish to eat while out commercial fishing. She stated that this is a common practice in the herring and longer salmon fisheries. Number 1238 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked which of the two amendments she was addressing. Number 1246 MS. HANSEN stated that if the association had to go with one of the amendments it would be the commercial limited entry permit holders. A crew member license for a nonresident is only $90, so someone could abuse the system quite easily. She stated that the cheapest entry permit is a hand troll permit which would cost $10,000, someone would not go through that method to abuse the system. She stated that they would prefer the limited entry permit amendment. Number 1270 GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, stated that they have some concerns with the bill. He stated that the lack of an annual nonresident license is a concern. The fee differential between a resident and a nonresident license is a concern because that is an article that may be required in order to engage in a business in Alaska. There is some concern within the Department of Law that it could be challenged by a nonresident guide who is required to have that license, as an infringement of their rights under the U.S. Constitution's, Privileges and Immunities Clause. This clause allows a citizen of one state to have the same privileges of citizens in other states. He stated that they would like to see an annual nonresident license for several reasons. If someone moves to the state with the intention to become a permanent resident, that person would have to buy a series of licenses to fish through the summer. The department is not certain that this should be the state policy towards new residents. Number 1432 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that he is a little confused, he thought this bill had a provision for a nonresident annual sport fishing license. Number 1443 SENATOR DONLEY replied that it is only for people who have other sorts of different licenses. Number 1462 MR. BRUCE stated that the department's recommendation would be to provide an annual nonresident license for people who weren't involved in the commercial industry. The reasons being to accommodate recent residents of the state so that there isn't the burden on them to buy a series of 14-day licenses, to accommodate guests for are visiting for a long time and for the seasonal resident and workers. The option should be available although not at the same cost as a resident. He stated that for a recreational license it is not so difficult to charge a higher differential fee and would suggest that it cost between $100 and $125 a year. Number 1558 MR. BRUCE stated that the public may be concerned how the seasonal bag limits will be enforced. The Board of Fisheries has begun the process to place seasonal bag limits as a solution to the excessive take of King Salmon by nonresidents. He stated that there is the perception that under the 14-day license if they decide to buy another one they get a second or third bag limit. He stated that is not the case, however the license is the mechanism for recording the take, by getting a new license it would be difficult for enforcement personnel to tag that person who already has taken their bag limit. Number 1612 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if there was a way to identify or attached the licenses together, when additional 14-day licenses are issued, for reporting purposes. Number 1652 MR. BRUCE stated that it would be administratively complicated to accomplish that. Number 1659 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if a class 7 is a nonresident license and how long is it good for. Number 1684 MR. BRUCE stated that it would cover a calendar year ending at December 31st of that year. REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated that then there is a mechanism for an nonresident annual fishing license now. Number 1699 MR. BRUCE replied that currently there is, under this bill there would not be, except for people involved in the sport fish guiding industry. Number 1710 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that the 3-to-1 differential is currently being litigated because it is occupational license but if the differential was for a non-occupational license we could get around it. Number 1778 MR. BRUCE stated that the courts do not apply as strict a test as the courts apply to non-occupational licenses. He stated that in the Carlson case, courts have found that you have to look at the amount of state money that is put into the management of the industry and the resources, above and beyond what is contributed by the license holders, to determine whether or not it is reasonable. He stated that you can require the difference from what the state puts in above and beyond what the licenses holders pay to be applied to nonresident licenses. The courts are going through the process of finding out whether the current differential is justified, given the different sources of funds that the state is putting into its management system. Number 1849 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked if it was against the law to have sport caught fish on a commercial boat during a commercial fishery. Number 1868 MR. BRUCE replied that there is such a regulation but thinks that it only applies to the troll fishery in Southeast Alaska and would check further into it. Number 1885 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that he assumes Representative Ivan was referring to the two amendments. He stated that the commercial fishermen exemption that they are talking about in the amendments is that the industry has quite a few closures when the workers will sport fish at that time. Number 1906 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN stated that he is not talking against the amendment or the bill. Number 1916 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated that on the back of his license there are provisions for a 1-day, 3-day and 14-day license for a nonresident and asked why there isn't that option for residents. MR. BRUCE replied that there is one flat annual fee for residents which is $15. ERIC STIRRUP, testified via teleconference from Kodiak, that the bill makes no provision for a nonresident, angler annual license. He stated that there are many nonresident contractors who are building projects on state, federal, borough or city money, who are working on the project for at least two years and are denied the opportunity to purchase a nonresident annual license. He stated that if those people buy more than one 14-day license they are red flagged by the Department of Fish and Game as potentially breaking the law. He stated that they are given no opportunity but break the law from the standpoint that they will have to buy multiple licenses. He stated that this could be solved by having a $150 nonresident angler annual license. He stated that the legislature should stand behind the Board of Fisheries politically, to implement an annual seasonal bag limit for all recreational anglers in the state of Alaska. He stated that some of the biggest offenders of bag limits that he has seen are not from out of state but are living in Kodiak. Number 2083 SENATOR DONLEY wanted to clarify that when Mr. Bruce spoke to the Privileges and Immunities Clause he was really speaking to the Commerce Clause. The Privileges and Immunities Clause does provide for a much greater discrepancy, it is the Commerce Clause that ties us up when we do the 1-to-3 ratio in any commercial operation. He said, "The Commerce Clause does not apply except through this new linkage to the commercial licenses and no one knows, since it has never been done before, how a court would see that particular part." He stated that if there was a bag limit problem it would be under the existing law also because of the options for the shorter licenses. Number 2126 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked what the discussions were on the Senate side of everyone having to pay a $150 dollars. Number 2136 SENATOR DONLEY stated that it is an option for the committee to consider, long time visitors can still fish a day at a time for $10 or a week for $30 and those visitors, because they are here all the time, are going to fish when the fish are in. He stated that it wouldn't be necessary to continually buy 14-day licenses unless they are trying to catch fish as a full time operation. He stated that they have tried to provide options by keeping the 1-day cost low and keeping the short term cost low so that people can continue to utilize the resource without over using it. Number 2189 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked what about the person who moves here and wants to fish all the time. He stated that the differential discriminates against the person who is establishing a residency, buying 14-day licenses adds up to a lot a money, to fish for the summer. Number 2223 SENATOR DONLEY replied that is true. We would be discriminating there, the question is are we unfairly discriminating. He stated that on the House side there is a proposal to determine a permanent resident through the permanent dividend criteria, which is a great idea to reduce some of the abuses we have had with nonresidents claiming and buying resident licenses. He stated that it is not unreasonable to ask new residents to show that they are committed to being here in Alaska, before they are given the benefits of the lower fees for the sport fish license because so much of the cost in Alaska is from state government providing the infrastructure for the roads and the camp grounds that visitors use and are resources that are owned by the people. New residents do not have a good claim on that ownership until they have shown a commitment to be here for a period of time. Number 2286 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked what the other committee referrals are on the House side. Number 2289 SENATOR DONLEY replied the other committees are resources and finance. Number 2298 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated that he would have a difficult time moving this bill out unless it could be assured that there was going to be quite a bit of discussion on an annual fee. He stated that he can understand trying to get a handle on some of the abuses, but would suggest that if someone brought an annual license with an out of state address, that would be a red flag but not diminish the ability for someone that is living here for one year before they have obtained residency to sport fish. He stated that he would like to have some assurances that people who intend to move here to establish a residency are not discriminated against. Number 2349 SENATOR DONLEY replied that the safeguard here is that they can always fish for $10, if they want to fish. He stated that the only person who would have a hardship under this is someone who just moves here, and typically there is just one season to fish, but it is reasonable to expect them to establish residency in a more permanent matter before they reap the benefits in Alaska. He stated that this is asked to be done for the permanent fund dividend and the longevity bonus. Number 2396 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if there has been any discussion whether it would be discrimination for a person trying to establish residency being able to obtain a 14-day license by the Department of Law. Number 2403 SENATOR DONLEY replied that the issue is not whether or not there is discrimination but is the discrimination improper. He stated that we clearly discriminate all through our laws based on residency, the question becomes at what point is it improper discrimination, which is basically determined under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Since it is a sport fish question it is under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, if it was a commercial question it would be under the Commerce Clause. The Privileges and Immunities Clause is a sliding scale of scrutiny based on the importance of the right or privilege involved. He stated that there are different standards for different rights such as welfare, emergency services and employment. He stated that courts are not going to find that this issue is a vital concern to someone being able to survive because it is not a commercial activity, it is a recreational activity. The odds of someone saying they have to have a benefit with less then a year of establishing residency would be very slight. TAPE 97-14, SIDE B Number 006 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that there are a lot of people who get there resident hunting license by lying, and he is trying to deal with that through legislation. He stated that he is concerned that the bill may give people more reasons to lie. He stated that he knows there are a lot of people who move here and lie to buy a resident fishing license and wondered if we were not creating more of that problem by not giving them the opportunity to pay $150 for a year round resident license. Number 059 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN made a motion to move Amendment 1, O-LSO131\PA.2, 3/24/97, for adoption. Number 071 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if these are presented as two amendments or as one amendment. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated two different amendments. Number 083 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN objected that he would favor the other amendment rather than then Amendment 1, for the reasons stated by Kathy Hansen. Number 105 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if everybody understood what the two amendments do. The Amendment 1 on page 2, line 22, following "Guard" inserts ";or (B) a current commercial fishing crew member license issued by the department". The other amendment would insert ";or (B) a current entry permit or interim-use permit issued by the department". He stated that if Amendment 1 passed all commercial fishermen would be covered because they have to have a crew member license whether they have a limited entry permit or not. Number 144 MS. HANSEN stated that one could use their limited entry permit for a crew member license in another commercial fishery and does not know if it that would not hold true in this case. Number 155 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if the limited entry amendment could eliminate some commercial fisherman from getting a sport fish license because they do not hold a permit. Number 163 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if we are debating on both amendments even though there is only Amendment 1 on the table. Number 171 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that we may vote one down in favor of the other so we need to understand what we are voting on. Number 178 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that he is concerned that Amendment 1 would give people the loop hole, for an annual nonresident sport fish license by purchasing a commercial crew license, which is his objection. He asked if the limited entry amendment was being offered as well. REPRESENTATIVE IVAN stated he was offering Amendment 1 but if there are not enough votes he would withdraw it. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if Amendment 1 was accepted would it include limited entry permit holders. Number 229 MR. BRUCE asked if the question is if you had a commercial entry permit would that cover everyone. Number 248 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that the question is if someone held a commercial fishing crew member license would that also cover people that held a limited entry permit license. Number 258 MR. BRUCE stated that it would not in every case. He stated that there are people who fish just as crew members and they only have a crew member license and they do not hold a limited entry permit. He stated that he did not know how many people would fall into that category. Number 278 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if Representative Ogan's objection was maintained. Number 282 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied yes because it seems like Amendment 1 is giving people a loophole and if someone has a limited entry permit they would be able to fish for the crew members on the boat and if the crew wants to sport fish they would have to buy a sport fish license. Number 306 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that he would speak in favor of the motion because of the issue of being a commercial crew member out on the grounds for 30-days to 60-days at a time, during which there are a number of openings and closures. It would not be right for just the skipper to be able to sport fish and a crew member not be able to do the same thing. He stated that if it is to be equitable Amendment 1 would be the one to choose rather the limited entry amendment. Number 317 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that it would be fine unless people figured out the loophole and asked how the sponsor felt about Amendment 1. Number 354 SENATOR DONLEY stated that this is definitely a loophole but they would still have to pay $150 for the annual license which will generate more revenue to helping out the resource. He stated that he is concerned about it but does not have a big objection to it because this is not the group of people who are abusing the annual licenses. He stated that it could have some fine tuning such as stating one has to hold a commercial crew license and be currently employed, which would go a long way to prevent someone from just buying a crew license to be able to sport fish annually. We have done this when trying to figure people who were currently employed in the sport fish industry. He stated that it wouldn't cut all the abuses down but it might tighten them up a bit. Number 449 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked for an at ease. Number 455 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN called for a brief at ease at 6:10. Number 455 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN called the committee back to order at 6:13. Number 464 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there was any further discussion on Amendment 1. Number 467 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that he would like to withdraw his objection because if someone wanted to exploit the resources that badly they would have to buy a commercial fishing crew member license. He stated it could be an out for new residents and it would be a another $150 to fish all year. Number 491 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there were any further objections, hearing none Amendment 1 passed. Number 512 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the limited entry amendment was going to be addressed by the committee. He stated that it needs to be discussed whether or not Amendment 1 includes someone who has a permit issued by the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. He asked if Amendment 1 includes holders of the limited entry permit. Number 552 MR. BRUCE stated that he did not believe it required that they would have to go out and buy a crew member license as well. The entry permit serves in lieu of a crew member license but is not a crew members license. He stated that there is nothing that prohibits them from buying a crew member license and is not sure that they would automatically have that benefit simply by having that entry permit. Number 586 SENATOR DONLEY stated that they asked the Department of Law that question and they think that they are two different groups of people. If the committee wants to extend the privilege for an annual license to permit holders, the limited entry amendment could be adopted as well. Number 605 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if a nonresident wanted an annual sport fish license, and bought a crew members license would that be legal. Number 647 MR. BRUCE replied that he did not believe that would be doing anything illegal. There is no requirement to have to crew in a fishery in order to buy a crew member license. Number 654 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated that this way the nonresident annual license would then be $240. Number 687 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to move Amendment 2, O- LSO131\PA.3, Utermohle, and stated that it needs a technical amendment in the relettering. Number 716 MR. BRUCE stated that he wanted to point out that a difference by doing it this way through a crew members license verses a nonresident annual sport fishing license is that one goes into the general fund and one goes into the fish and game fund. REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked which would be which. Number 748 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN replied $90 dollars goes into the general fund and $150 goes into the fish and game fund. Number 762 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that Amendment PA.3 is before the committee with a technical amendment to change line 5 "(B)" to "(C)" so that it follows the first amendment that was passed. Number 764 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there were any objections to the amendment, hearing none it was so ordered. Number 789 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to move HCSCSSB 7(FSH), with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note. Number 797 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there was an objection, hearing none HCSCSSB 7(FSH) was moved out of the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|