Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/11/1996 05:04 PM FSH
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 390 - KING SALMON TAGS & STAMPS/GUIDE FOR ALIEN Number 0046 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN recounted that at the previous meeting, amendments to HB 390 had been passed. He noted that a working draft including those amendments, version F, was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS moved that the committee adopt work draftF, dated 3/7/96, of CSHB 390(FSH). There being no objection, it was so ordered. Number 0155 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked Representative Davis if he wished to make another amendment. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said yes. He referred to page 2, line 27, where a new subsection was to be inserted that read, "The Commissioner shall have the authority to adopt regulations necessary to implement this section." He indicated it would be (f) of that section. Number 0225 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said he would entertain a motion to amend CSHB 390, work draft F, page 2, line 27, by adding a new section (f). REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS clarified it would be subparagraph (f). He moved to amend the committee substitute to add subparagraph (f), as outlined in the written amendment he had submitted. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN, hearing no objection, noted that subparagraph (f) was approved for work draft F. Number 0343 REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON pointed out that the packets contained a new fiscal note from the Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) dated 3/11/96. "That new fiscal note is a tweak of the old fiscal note," he said, "using the new assumptions in the committee substitute." He indicated the essential new assumption related to the $50 fee for the second tag, down from $100. "And I think what the department has already done, too, is refine some of the other assumptions that were in the fiscal note," he said. "But the fiscal note is not dramatically different than the old fiscal note. But for the purposes of the bill packet, I guess I would move the new fiscal note from the Department of Fish and Game, dated 3/11/96." CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN, hearing no objection, noted that the fiscal note was part of the record. He referred to the fees associated with HB 390 and said his initial reaction to the bill had been that he liked it in concept but did not like the fees, which he still considered to be high. "And I guess the amendment we made last week," he said, "taking the second fish to $50, answered ... part of my concern. But I guess when you have a day fishery, a person fishing just during the day, that amendment would solve the problems. The problem I'm having is with the $200 and $300 and $400 fees that we are talking about, particularly with lodge operations where people go fishing for a full week at a time or a week and a half." He asked for further discussion before voting on moving the bill. Number 0511 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS thought that section would probably have a lot of additional debate further down the line and mentioned that it had been discussed in the subcommittee. He indicated there were many different scenarios and options for visitors to the state. He suggested that none of the committee members had a solid understanding of exactly how those fees would be received. Number 0640 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN expressed that with lodge operations, particularly, a person was more likely to take three or four fish at $50 per fish. He thought a person would not be as likely to even come to Alaska if he or she thought it would cost $1,000 for the fishing permits. Number 0667 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON agreed it was difficult to assign a fee. As ADF&G had indicated at an earlier meeting, ten people would have ten different suggested fee structures, some higher and some lower. He expressed concern for what would happen to lodge owners and agreed the impact would be greater on them than on the day charter fleet, especially with the new $50 rate for the second tag. However, he thought if nothing was done to reduce pressure on the resource through an economic disincentive, the most likely reduction would be through time and area closures, perhaps in combination with gear restrictions. Representative Elton thought such closures, which were in-season management tools, would be more destructive to the lodge business. Because most lodge visits were presold months in advance, it would be difficult to sell trips that owners could not guarantee would take place. He suggested that would be more difficult for lodge owners than a high price tag. Number 0880 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON further suggested that visitors arriving in May, for example, might be able to fish, while visitors planning to fish in June, July or August might not have that opportunity. "As onerous and as odious as we may think the Pacific Salmon Treaty stipulations are," he said, "they're there and I'd like to think that logic and reason will mean that we can catch more than 40,000 next year. But I think the most likely scenario is 30,000. So, if nothing else, this may protect lodge owners in that second scenario also, that you don't reach a 30,000 cap nearly as quickly, so you can extend your season further to the salmon angler visitor." He reiterated that he did not mean to diminish the concern for lodge owners. "I don't know what the perfect answer is on fees, though," he concluded. Number 0969 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN reiterated his concern about the disparity between anglers on charter boat day trips, especially for visitors off of cruise ships, and visitors coming to lodges to fish for a week, who spent the majority of their money with a local lodge owner. Number 1096 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referred to the desire to have the bill heard in the House Resource Committee, for which it was not scheduled, rather than in the House Judiciary Committee, and asked about the process for giving the bill an additional referral. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN replied the request would have to come from one of the co-chairmen of Resources if they wished to hear it. Number 1152 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS moved that CSHB 390(FSH) move out of committee with attached fiscal notes and the amendment that had been made, as well as with a letter requesting that the referrals for the bill be amended. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON commented that he felt comfortable with the motion and said he thought it was much more appropriate that the bill be heard in the House Resources Committee. Number 1181 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted that there being no objection, CSHB 390 (FSH) moved out of the committee with individual recommendations.