Legislature(1995 - 1996)

03/11/1996 05:04 PM FSH

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= 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                   
 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                   
 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                
 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           
 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.             

Document Name Date/Time Subjects