Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/31/2004 01:20 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 452 - GUIDED SPORT FISHING Number 1250 CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 452, "An Act relating to licensing and regulation of sport fishing services operators and fishing guides; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 452(L&C).] Number 1290 JON BITTNER, Staff to Representative Cheryll Heinze, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, noted, on behalf of Representative Heinze, that the committee has in its possession a proposed committee substitute (CS). Number 1314 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt the proposed CS for HB 452, Version 23-LS1619\Q, Utermohle, 3/29/04, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version Q was before the committee. Number 1319 REPRESENTATIVE CHERYLL HEINZE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, relayed that she'd at one time owned a sport fish guiding business, and offered that her experiences have given her an insider's perspective on the needs and issues of the sport fishing industry. She said that HB 452 deals with three major needs in the "sport guide" industry: one, standardized consumer safety; two, increased information gathering; and three, improved consumer confidence. By mandating certain minimum requirements for sport fish guides and operators, such as first-aid training and liability insurance, people can be sure that guides and operators are trained and protected in the event of an emergency. REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE said that the need for basic reporting shouldn't be underestimated, and by providing the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) with comprehensive information on the number of fish caught, the effort expended, the number of boats used, and general location where the fish were caught, then the ADF&G will be able to make more informed decisions that protect fish stocks and their habitats, and maximize their current and future yields. Such reporting benefits not just the sport fishing industry, but also ensures that Alaska fulfills its constitutional mandate to manage its resources for their maximum sustained yield. Thirdly, consumer confidence is improved by the guarantee of certain standards regarding protection and training that guides would have. REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE, in conclusion, said that the sport fishing industry is an important and driving factor in Alaska's economy; such a vital industry needs to be protected and supported in order to ensure that it remains that way. She urged the committee to support HB 452. Number 1440 JAMES E. PRESTON, Owner, Big Jim's Charters, said that he wishes to speak in favor of passing the CS for HB 452, and that he agrees with the sponsor's comments regarding the need for the legislation; this is a bill that is a long time in coming and is very similar to a bill sponsored by then-Representative Austerman in the 20th legislature. He relayed, however, that he does not yet have Version Q in his possession, and so his comments relate to CSHB 452(L&C). He said that according to his recollection, there were some proposed changes to the provisions pertaining to penalties and enforcement. MR. BITTNER indicated that the penalties have not been changed in Version Q. MR. PRESTON said that his concern revolves around potential penalties that may arise because of a minor paperwork infraction. Proposed AS 16.40.280, among other things, grants the department the authority to promulgate regulations necessary to implement "this section". Proposed AS 16.40.290 is the penalty provision, and subsections (b) and (c), which refer to violations of proposed AS 16.40.270(e), provide that a person is, for a first offense, guilty of a violation and may be subject to a fine of not more than $500, and is, for a subsequent offense within a three-year period, guilty of a class B misdemeanor. However, because subsection (a) of proposed AS 16.40.290 says that knowing violations of proposed AS 16.40.260 - AS 16.40.299, which would include proposed AS 16.40.270(e), are to be considered class A misdemeanors, it appears that subsection (a) is in conflict with subsections (b) and (c). MR. PRESTON said he hopes that when the bill comes out of committee "there would at least be intent language in there that a person who unwittingly, or for mitigated circumstances, misses a deadline by a day or so, of turning in their logbook, that they would not be guilty of a class A misdemeanor." He relayed an experience he had wherein he'd had a major [equipment] breakdown, forgot to turn in his logbook, and had to pay a $200 fine even though his boat was out of the water. He reiterated that he would prefer that such situations not be charged as class A misdemeanors. Other than that, he concluded, he is very supportive of HB 452. Number 1671 JOEL HANSON, The Boat Company, LTD, after describing how the company he works for engages in sport fishing activities, said that the company has two recommendations for change to HB 452, though he acknowledged that he does not yet have Version Q in his possession. Referring instead, then, to CSHB 452(L&C), he said that the company would like to see the language on page 4, line 24, deleted because it requires an applicant for a guide license to also hold a current fishing license before he/she will be issued a guide license. He noted that such a requirement could be satisfied just by purchasing a one-day fishing license just prior to applying for a guide license, and so the requirement appears to be nonsensical. He opined that a guide should not be required to hold a sport fishing license because a guide doesn't necessarily participate in sport fishing activities as they are commonly defined. He offered that what he is attempting to do is draw a clear distinction between guiding and sport fishing. MR. HANSON, still referring to CSHB 452(L&C), said that the other recommendation the company he works for would offer pertains to page 5, lines 13-14, which requires a guide to possess "the current licenses, tags, and permits that are required to engage in the sport fishery for which the sport fishing guide services are being provided". He went on to say: What this means to a sport fishing guide that's engaging in taking clients out on a saltwater king salmon fishing trip is that he or she must essentially have in possession both a personal sport fishing license and a personal king salmon stamp stuck on the back of the sport fishing license. This all kind of makes sense except [for the fact that] fish and game regulations prohibit the guide from fishing for king salmon or retaining personal catch along [with] the client on a guided king salmon fishing trip. Therefore, there is a conflict with this legislation. ... MR. HANSON said that the company he works for recommends that this language be modified to clarify the circumstances under which a guide would actually need to possess sport fishing licenses. For example, change the language such that, "whenever actively personally participating in sport fishing or retaining personal catch, the current licenses, tags, and permits ..." and then delete the phrase, "for which the sport fishing guide services are being provided". Such a change would absolve the guide from the requirement of having a license and fish tag that he/she is prohibited from using. In conclusion, he said that he appreciates all the work that the sponsor and her staff have put into the legislation. Number 1969 ROB BENTZ, Deputy Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), on the issue raised by Mr. Preston's testimony regarding class A misdemeanors, relayed that this language currently exists in the ADF&G's saltwater logbook program, but if HB 452 is adopted, the language would be altered somewhat and would no longer be exactly the same as in that program. He noted that a class A misdemeanor can result in a fine ranging from zero to $10,000, but the exact amount would be determined by the judge on a case-by-case basis. On the issue raised by Mr. Hanson regarding sport fishing licenses, Mr. Bentz pointed out that language in the bill requires a guide to present a current sport fishing license to law enforcement officers when requested to do so; therefore, a one-day license would not suffice to fulfill the requirement. MR. BENTZ said that the reason for asking a guide to carry a current sport fishing license is because in many cases, both in freshwater and saltwater, guides do fish while guiding clients, particularly if they are trying to teach the clients to fish. Additionally, in the process of assisting clients, guides bait the hooks and use the downriggers - in other words, they are sport fishing. With regard to the assertion that a guide is not allowed to fish for king salmon and therefore there is no need for him/her to possess a king salmon tag, Mr. Bentz said this is not correct; guides in Southeast Alaska are prohibited from retaining king salmon when they have clients onboard, but they are not prohibited from fishing for king salmon and then releasing them. In fact, he explained, a king salmon tag is required when fishing for king salmon, not just when harvesting king salmon. In response to a comment, he said that in Southeast Alaska, one can have up to six lines per vessel in the water, but only as many lines as there are paying clients. However, if a paying client pulls his/her line in, then the skipper can fish. Number 2138 DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Assistant Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), added that these stipulations originated when "we were doing the 'guide/charter task force' through the Board of Fisheries." Clearly, he remarked, many guides across the state have realized that to be a sport fishing guide, one has to be able to show clients how to fish, and this in turn requires having a sport fishing license as part of operating as a responsible sport fishing guide. There is some concern, though, regarding whether one needs to have that license in his/her possession when in an area that he/she is prohibited from fishing in. He remarked, however, that in such situations, the prohibition pertains to certain species or certain times of day. Therefore, he opined, it is not unreasonable to require someone to have the license in his/her possession. REPRESENTATIVE GARA observed that the state may need to limit or reduce the number of guides in a particular area, and so he wants to make sure that they are not giving people a property right that could later be used to say the state can't take away someone's license without paying that person a lot of money. He asked whether current law authorizes the state to limit the number of licenses in the future. Or should HB 452 be altered to clarify that the state retains that right? MR. BENTZ said that the state's ability to limit the number of guides is unclear at this time, though last year, "when the moratorium bill for Southeast [Alaska] came up," the Department of Law (DOL) offered the opinion that the existing "limited entry amendment" to the Alaska State Constitution is perhaps broad enough to include charter vessels. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that assuming the courts affirm that the state is allowed to protect its fisheries by limiting the number of guides on a fishery, he wants to make sure that the state has the authority to limit licensure. MR. VINCENT-LANG pointed out that HB 452 is not a limited entry bill, and opined that neither he nor Mr. Bentz is qualified to say whether licensing a guide would result in giving that person a property right. He said he would ask the DOL whether such would be the case, but noted that it is not the intent of HB 452 to issue a property right to an individual guide. Instead, the intent is to license sport fishing guides, set minimum standards and reporting requirements, and set penalties pertaining to licensing and reporting. Number 2281 REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that is his understanding of the bill's intent as well, and relayed that he would probably be offering an amendment that simply clarifies that intent, that to the extent the department has the authority to reduce the number of licenses in order to protect a fishery, it should be allowed "to do it." CHAIR McGUIRE opined that Representative Gara makes a good point, and surmised that many years ago, when the department was first considering licensure of commercial fisheries, no one would have envisioned that "we would end up with quotas ... or the types of restrictions" that are currently in place. She added that she is vehemently opposed to [issuing property rights via licensure]. MR. VINCENT-LANG reiterated that HB 452 is not intended to be a limited entry bill, which would engender both constitutional and criteria hurdles. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he merely wants to preserve the department's authority - to the extent that the Alaska State Constitution grants the department that authority - to limit the number of guides on a river. CHAIR McGUIRE suggested that the committee could ask Legislative Legal and Research Services about this issue. REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his belief that the bill shouldn't be delayed just to wait for a response from Legislative Legal and Research Services. He then turned attention to page 4, subsection (e), of Version Q, which says that a sport fishing [operator] is not allowed to assist in the violation of AS 16.05 - AS 16.40 or in the violation of the regulations adopted under those provisions of statute. TAPE 04-54, SIDE B Number 2356 REPRESENTATIVE GARA referred to frustration he has heard voiced by some sport fishermen with regard to fishing guides who take clients out for catch and release fishing and leave the fish flopping on the bank while people get out their cameras. He stated that the whole point of catch and release fisheries, citing that the Kenai River has a regulation for rainbow trout that are under 30 inches long, is to maintain the fisheries with a vibrant population of large fish that will exist as long as possible. He stated that behaviors like letting a fish flop around on the bank are things that the fishing community finds completely out of line. He mentioned that would be offering an amendment to add some language that emphasized the rules governing the catch and release of fish. MR. VINCENT-LANG said that the ADF&G feels that the regulations governing catch and release fishing are already in effect via Title 16, and so the proper way to adopt regulations is through the Board of Fisheries. Having said that, Mr. Vincent-Lang acknowledged that emphasizing [the regulations regarding catch and release fishing] in HB 452 would not cause any problems. CHAIR McGUIRE asked if there was anyone else that wanted to testify on HB 452; there being no one, she closed public testimony. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that he wanted to offer a technical, handwritten amendment [later adopted as Amendment 1] that read [original punctuation provided]: page 6 lines 29-30. Strike "and upon conviction is punishable by a fine of not more than $500". page 7 lines 1-2. Strike "and upon conviction is punishable by a fine of not more than $500" REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that he had spoken with Mr. Bittner as well as the drafter of the bill because the term "violation" [which is used in HB 452] is a legal term that is defined in the criminal code in AS 11.81.900(b)(61). Therefore, Representative Gruenberg remarked, these lines do not need to be in the bill. He also cited AS 12.55.035(b)(7), wherein the amount of the fines imposed for violations is set up in statute, and said that he is offering the amendment because the fines imposed may change from time to time and he wants the legislation to be congruent with the normal style and the current code. Representative Gruenberg said that he had pointed this out to the drafter, and the drafter was not aware that the fine for a violation had already been established or else he would have left the language out of the bill. Number 2155 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 1. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 2132 REPRESENTATIVE GARA moved to adopt Amendment 2 as follows: Page 4, line 17, after "person" Insert ", including rules governing the proper release of fish" REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that Amendment 2 would not add any new rules, but would emphasize that violations include violating the current rules governing the release of fish. REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE indicated that she had no objections to Amendment 2. MR. BENTZ said that such was alright with the ADF&G as well. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned the placement of Amendment 2, stating that it might fit better somewhere else in the bill. He then suggested leaving the placement up to the discretion of the drafter. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said it would be fine to leave it up to the drafter to put the language where he saw fit. Number 2060 CHAIR McGUIRE clarified that the committee wanted to conceptually add this language, which would indicate that there is emphasis on rules governing the proper release of fish, knowing that there are already regulations dealing with releasing fish. Number 2052 CHAIR McGUIRE asked if there was any objections to adopting [Conceptual] Amendment 2. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked the sponsor if it is her intention to make the issue of a [fishing license] as a property right limited, as far as the constitution would allow, and noted that licenses are only valid for one year. REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE confirmed that this is her intention. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if it is the intent of either the sponsor or the ADF&G to limit the number of licenses given out in a given area. REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE said that issue isn't dealt with in HB 452. REPRESENTATIVE GARA stated that in the future, it may be determined that there are too many licenses being distributed. He said that limiting the number of licenses may help protect a fishery or someone's right to recreational enjoyment. He noted that there isn't any intention to do that at this time, but merely to think about it for the future. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG shared that it is his understanding that in certain areas, [the ADF&G] limits the number of hunting licenses for guides. He then clarified that although the issue isn't dealt with in HB 452, he wanted to know if something like that would be coming in the future. REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE explained that HB 452 will provide [ADF&G] with the number of guides that fish in particular areas and what kind of load each area can sustain. Number 1971 MR. BENTZ clarified that HB 452 will provide a fair licensing standard across the guide industry. He said it will give the ADF&G an accurate account of who is participating in the guide industry, as well as information that the ADF&G needs in order to manage the fisheries. He stated that if there is ever an attempt to limit guides in the future, there would have to be additional work done in order to do so. He again cited constitutional hurdles as one of the issues that would have to be addressed, as well as setting criteria regarding how the ADF&G is going to limit the licensing. He stated that the ADF&G would probably have to create more legislation just to be granted the authority to do something like that. He reiterated that HB 452 is necessary to get information that the ADF&G needs to manage the fisheries. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if there are any other states that limit the number of licenses being distributed. MR. BENTZ stated that the ADF&G has researched eight western states and only one, Washington, has a moratorium on chartered guiding. He said that this is the only example of states limiting licenses. He followed that up by saying that there are some federal programs, similar to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, that have various restrictive measures. CHAIR McGUIRE shared her concern that licensing sport fishing guides could be viewed as a quasi-property right. She said she doesn't want the licenses passed down from generation to generation, excluding all new entrants that may not have grown up in fishing families from that opportunity at a livelihood. She said she believes that passing HB 452 is the responsible thing to do, and the information that will be gleaned will assist the department in making future decisions regarding fisheries. She remarked that it would be interesting to look back at the discussions had while commercial fishing licenses were being debated, and view the results of those discussions. CHAIR McGUIRE began discussion on what would eventually become Conceptual Amendment 3. She stated that she would like the license referred to in HB 452 to be one that could be withheld for failure to pay child support. She asked Representative Heinze if she would allow this to be included in HB 452. Chair McGuire said that she would offer the amendment conceptually and have a conversation with the drafters about the intent. She stated that she wanted it to be put in the bill under the same context as other bills containing the same penalty. She offered that the forthcoming committee substitute (CS) would be subject to the sponsor's approval before being distributed to the committee. REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE said she would be agreeable to that. Number 1763 CHAIR McGUIRE made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3, that this would be a type of license that could be taken away by Child Support Enforcement Division for failure to pay one's child support obligations, or could be withheld for a certain period of time. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that he is concerned that the ADF&G retain whatever authority it has to protect Alaska's fisheries and to protect the public's right to enjoy the fisheries. He stated that in order to do that, the ADF&G may need to limit the number of guides on a certain body of water. He surmised that given the broad power both the ADF&G and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) have to protect the fisheries and the public's right to enjoy them, there is probably statutory authority already in place that enable the departments to limit the number of licenses issued. With regard to an earlier suggestion that in order to limit the number of guides it would take another piece of legislation, he said that he would hate for that to be the case. Number 1689 CHAIR McGUIRE suggested that the committee resolve the issue of whether to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3. Noting that there were no objections, she stated that Conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE GARA, returning to his earlier comments, stated that he didn't want the bill to be interpreted such that it detracted from ADF&G's ability to limit the number of guides and licenses for a certain area. MR. VINCENT-LANG clarified that there is nothing in HB 452 that would limit ADF&G's authority. He noted the constitutional concerns that the committee had discussed, but reiterated that HB 452 would not take away the existing authority of the Board of Fisheries or the ADF&G to deal with their statutory responsibilities regarding fish and game management. Number 1642 REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE shared her concern regarding the heavy burden that the rivers are taking on now. She said that in the future, as tourism and sport fishing grow, [the legislature] may have to look at that burden and address it. She stated that for now, HB 452 is a good first step to determine the number of guides and the areas that are taking on a heavier burden. She said that limiting the licenses may be step two, but passing HB 452 is step one. CHAIR McGUIRE agreed with those assessments, and shared the concerns that she has regarding the limitation of licenses to guides. She pointed out that having guides available to a family that may not have a lot of resources is a concern that she has. She stated that if the number of guides on Lake Creek was reduced by one half, for instance, the cost of retaining a guide would increase considerably. She shared that fishing has been a considerable part of her life since she was a young girl, and she wants other people to have the same opportunities. She stated that if there aren't the resources available, then a family won't have the opportunity to fish and learn how to do it responsibly. She said that her experience with guides has been positive, and explained that they taught her respect for the resource, how to catch and release, how to trim hooks, and other things that someone probably wouldn't learn if they didn't have a mentor. CHAIR McGUIRE explained that her next concern with limiting licenses to existing fishing guides is that it would not allow new people to venture into the occupation of being a guide. Her final concern dealt with the balance between sport and commercial fishing. She said that fish are a limited resource, and although Alaska is lucky because the resource isn't that limited here, there could be a situation where someone in the ADF&G would have a desire to see more commercial fishing and less sport fishing, and then limit the licenses accordingly. She reiterated that she feels that it is responsible to license sport fishing guides, but she is leery about where the legislature goes from here. She noted that HB 452 does not change any power that the ADF&G has to the extent that the bill is unconstitutional. She said that this is certainly the first step in providing the ADF&G with the information it needs in order to determine whether the number of licenses should be limited. She said that this is going to be the "first tool in that tool belt, and I just hope it's used wisely." Number 1462 REPRESENTATIVE OGG referred to two rivers on Kodiak, and noted that concerns have been relayed to him about aliens - nonresidents from other countries - fishing on these rivers. He observed that page 4 [lines 20-21] contains language that says it's okay for residents of the U.S., Canada, or Mexico to obtain a sport fishing guide license. What constituents have relayed to him is that some visitors from Germany have been forming "clubs" wherein one of them "takes them down the river" without formally claiming to be a guide. Representative Ogg asked whether there is a way, via the bill, to ensure that such groups have a licensed sport [fishing] guide with them. MR. BENTZ opined that the language in HB 452 will strengthen the department's ability to oversee such activities. He elaborated: Right now, currently, anybody can come into Alaska, come to [an] area office of [the ADF&G], and register as a sport fishing guide - costs them nothing - and they can go out the next day and become a so-called professional fishing guide even though it's their first day on a river like the Ayakulik. This [bill] would restrict it down to people from the U.S., Canada, or Mexico at least. So it is a more restrictive version than what we're currently operating under. REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked how they could "get at these club folks." When there is "a shove" for the resource, he remarked, he wants such clubs to be accompanied by a licensed guide. CHAIR McGUIRE mentioned that a licensed guide is much more likely to be aware of what the rules are. MR. VINCENT-LANG said that the department does have concern about requiring every alien to have a guide. He opined, however, that the way HB 452 is written, if an individual is organizing "a club" and an enforcement officer can prove that that individual is providing guide services as defined on page 7, line 12, then that individual would be covered under the bill and would have to obtain both a sport fishing guide license and a business license. He relayed that the reason the U.S., Canada, and Mexico are listed together in the bill is to satisfy North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) requirements. Number 1091 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM turned attention to the fiscal note, and asked why it did not reflect anticipated revenues from the licensing fee. MR. VINCENT-LANG said that it does, and pointed out the sections of the fiscal note that did so. He relayed that revenues from the licensing fee will go into "the fish and game fund" rather than the general fund (GF). MR. BITTNER added that there is "a slight overshoot" on the "fines" that would be taken in. MR. VINCENT-LANG said that the calculation was arrived at from information received from "registration of guides." REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said he wanted to make sure that there is [yearly] oversight on the [fiscal aspect of the bill] so that it doesn't become a burden on the GF. MR. BITTNER, in response to a question, confirmed that the licensing fee was set high enough to cover anticipated costs. MR. VINCENT-LANG, in response to a further question, said: Initially what we did was we took a shot at trying to set this license fee to cover the cost of [the] administration of the program. Now, we're not going to come back annually to ask for adjustments to this. Clearly, the department is probably going to live with this for four or five years, and we'll deal with it in the fish and game fund. But if in fact, in the future, four or five years down the road, we're seeing that the license revenues coming in are insufficient to run the program, then we'll probably be coming back and talking to you about it. But I think this a first good shot at approximating what other states are doing in terms of licensing ... sport fishing guides and what we figured to be the up costs of administering the program. REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked about the NAFTA requirement to include residents of Canada and Mexico in the bill. Number 0854 MR. VINCENT-LANG said: When the guide/charter task force went through this they initially wanted to limit the availability to have a sport fishing guide license to just residents of ... the United States. But when we got a legal opinion back after NAFTA passed, [there have] to be fair business practices across ... the borders of those three countries. So at a minimum, we were told by the Department of Law, you had to include Canada and Mexico. REPRESENTATIVE GARA suggested that it might look poorly upon them if they were to discriminate against residents of other countries, adding that if someone has the qualifications then he/she should be granted a sport fishing guide license regardless of his/her country of residence. He elaborated: I don't know why we should favor a Mexican person over an El Salvadoran person - though I probably will faint the first time I see an El Salvadoran fishing guide on the Kenai River, but it might happen - and ... as unlikely as it might be that we ... get guides from other places in the world, I suppose if we're going to extend it to certain non-citizens, we might as well extend it to all non-citizens." MR. VINCENT-LANG replied: "We're certainly not opposed, if an individual meets the requirements of what it takes to be a sport fishing guide, to granting that privilege (indisc.); I can see cases where somebody (indisc.)." CHAIR McGUIRE asked what the rationale was behind limiting licensure to residents of North America. MR. BITTNER said it was in order to comply with NAFTA's requirements. MR. VINCENT-LANG added that the language in then-Representative Austerman's bill, from which HB 452 is derived, limited licensure to residents of the U.S., but NAFTA required the inclusion of Canadian and Mexican residents. He reiterated that the guide/charter task force wanted to limit licensure to U.S. residents, but he also reiterated that the department would not be opposed to expanding licensure to residents of other countries as well. REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked members what their thoughts on this issue were. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said that if it were up to him, he would exclude residents of Canada and Mexico. Number 0699 CHAIR McGUIRE indicated that she would like to be respectful of the wishes of the industry task force. If there were ever a time when licensure must be limited, she added, then she would prefer that Alaskans get preference, though she acknowledged that such might not be possible. REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE opined that as first step, licensure to non U.S. residents should be as limited as possible. REPRESENTATIVE OGG indicated a preference for limiting licensure as much as possible. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that to the extent feasible, he would like to see the bill grant a preference to Alaskan residents, though the reality is that there are sport fishing guides who are not residents of Alaska and some even that are not citizens of the U.S. He noted that if the bill had not specifically included Canada and Mexico, the issue would not have caught his attention. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON relayed that he knows folks from Switzerland who own a lodge and provide sport fishing guide services and who contribute a great deal to the local economy, and that until now he'd not realized that HB 452 would affect these folks. REPRESENTATIVE OGG remarked that treaty law trumps both state law and constitutional law, adding that he is not prepared to go beyond the provisions of NAFTA and offer rights to other aliens. CHAIR McGUIRE mentioned that the folks that Representative Anderson knows might have to hire local guides in the future. MR. VINCENT-LANG said that the restriction in HB 452 goes to sport fishing guide licenses and not to business licenses, so a foreign company could still have a business license but under the bill would have to employ citizens of either the U.S., Canada, or Mexico as sport fishing guides. REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed that he would not be offering an amendment to expand who could get a license. Number 0279 REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report the proposed CS for HB 452, Version 23-LS1619\Q, Utermohle, 3/29/04, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 452(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|