Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/17/2004 03:20 PM House L&C
| 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 CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the final 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." [In packets was a proposed committee substitute, Version D.] Number 0250 REPRESENTATIVE CHERYLL HEINZE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 452, began by crediting the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) with helping to craft a good bill. She explained that previously she'd owned a fishing and guiding lodge near Lake Creek that employed five guides. Currently, the only information provided to ADF&G is garnered from sport fishing registrations, which have no information regarding catch. She said fishing guides increased from 3,800 in 1998 up to 4,559 in 2003. The percentage of nonresident fishing guides has been increasing as well, and the average percentage of resident guides from 1998 to 2003 was 72 percent. She told members: This bill established mandatory reporting requirements for all sport fishing businesses and sets license fees that cover the cost of the licensing program. House Bill 452 deals with two major needs in the sport fishing guide industry: first is the need for increased information gathering. This bill would provide the Department of Fish and Game comprehensive information on the number of fish caught, the location of the catch, and number of boats used. This information tool helps the department make informed decisions that will help protect fish stocks and their habitats, and to maximize their current and future yields. This benefits not just the sport fishing industry, but also ensures that we fulfill our constitutional mandate to manage Alaska's resources to their maximum sustained yield. Number 0404 REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE continued: The second part of the bill is the need for standardized consumer safety. By mandating minimum requirements for sport fishing guides and operators, such as Red Cross first-aid training and liability insurance, we can be sure that guides are trained in the event of an emergency and that consumers are covered under their insurance. Thirdly, consumer confidence is improved by the guarantee of certain standards, protections, and training that their guides and operators will have. The sport fishing industry is an important and driving factor in Alaska's economy. No one believes that more than I do. Such a vital industry needs to be protected and supported in order to ensure that it remains that way. Number 0463 JON BITTNER, Staff to Representative Cheryll Heinze, Alaska State Legislature, addressed the fees, noting that there are two separate categories of license proposed. One is for a sport guide operator, a $100 fee, and one is an actual sport guide. If someone wants both the guide and the operator licenses, it's still a flat $100 fee; they aren't "stackable." Discussing the fiscal note from the Division of Sport Fish, he said: The total operating expenditures for fiscal year 2005 that would be incurred by the increase of work brought on by the extra reporting that the division would have to do is roughly $345,000. The revenue brought in by the fees from the two separate categories of licensing would be $355,000. So this is not an unfunded mandate. MR. BITTNER concluded there'll be adequate funding for the increase in jobs, four full-time employees and one part-time, as well as the increase in equipment needed to handle the increased work. Number 0638 JIM PRESTON, Owner, Big Jim's Charters, a fishing and sight- seeing operation that operates out of Auke Bay, began by saying he wasn't certain Representative Heinze had offered the proposed CS. Number 0700 REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS), Version 23-LS1619\D, Utermohle, 2/27/04, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version D was before the committee. MR. PRESTON continued: That version came as a result of many operators throughout the state making comments. ... They responded ... favorably. This legislation is very similar to legislation that was here in the 1990s; [then-Representative Alan Austerman] had presented this. It actually passed the House; it had gone to the Senate and, unfortunately, it died in the Senate. As a result of that, ... regulations were implemented, which basically are what we're living under now. For saltwater guides, the regulations that we live under is basically what this committee substitute bill is about, that is, that we have to register as an operator, we have to register as a guide, we have to make reports through the logbooks. ... The difference is that we are not required by the regulations to have an insurance policy, nor are we required to have a first-aid card by the state. Of course, anyone who does operate knows that the Coast Guard does require that we have the first-aid certification. For many years, many of us have tried to professionalize our industry. It is an industry that is one of the bright spots, I believe, in the Alaskan economy, and it brings an awful lot of money in here. When we go to the Board of [Fisheries] and argue our case ... in terms of allocation issues, we keep being told the same thing over and over: Go back and regulate yourselves. Some of you have sat and listened to some of us talk about moratoriums; some of you have sat and listened to us talk about other kinds of issues. Number 0831 MR. PRESTON continued: Not all, but many, many operators are very supportive of the committee substitute for this as a definite step in the right direction for being self-regulated. It would do many things. It would, for once and for all, list us formally as a sport fishing entity. The issue of commercial fishing versus sport fishing will go away with this. We'll be licensed as a sport fishing entity, as charter operators, as a service provider to sport fishermen. To me, that in and of itself is worth the $100 fee that I would have to pay as a combined operator and provider. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked why Mr. Preston wasn't in favor of the original bill. MR. PRESTON said the number-one objection was to divulging the confidential lists of clients and their license numbers. He said there were inconsistencies with sport fishing clubs, and subsistence and personal use fishing versus sport fishing, and that these ambiguities were removed from [Version D]. Number 1084 KELLY HEPLER, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, introduced deputy director Rob Bentz and said they'd listen and be available for questions. He informed members that his department strongly supports this bill. Number 1150 GEORGE PATTERSON, Owner, "Catchalot" Charters, testified as follows: I completely agree with the bill that Representative Heinze has here. I do have one concern on the fee of $100. I believe that you need a nonresident fee such as the commercial fishing crew have. In Alaska the fee is $60 for resident and $180 for nonresident, and I do believe that the nonresident should pay more for their fishing fee. Another ... item I have is: How are you going to enforce this? The public safety, the park rangers, the troopers, [and the Alaska Department of] Fish & Game are stretched to the limit right now. ... I would address this to Representative Rokeberg there. I do believe that the sport fishing license should have some real meaning to it. ... It should be set up like our real estate license here in the state of Alaska where new folks going into the sports fishery need to pass a test [at] a certain level and some sort of a continued education where they ... get their Coast Guard safety, [and the Alaska Department of] Fish & Game can give regulation courses. Number 1320 DALE BONDURANT, Soldotna, said it appears HB 452 is an attempt to place the commercial fishing industry within the same constitutional protection as the sports fish guiding industry. However, he finds that the two industries have been proven by the Alaska Supreme Court to have nothing in common. He indicated a court opinion said the following: Admittedly, there is a difference between the commercial fisherman and the professional guide. A commercial fisherman takes his catch before selling it to others for consumption while a guide does not actually take game or fish, a privilege reserved for the client. We view this as an insignificant distinction that does not remove the (indisc.) guides from the protection under the common use clause. The work of a guide is so closely tied to the initial taker that there is no meaningful basis distinguishing between the rights of the taker under the common use clause. MR. BONDURANT said this clause is contained in Article VIII, Section 3 [of the state constitution], Common Use, which says, "Wherever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use." Mr. Bondurant concluded: I've seen all this argument about "the commercial fishing commission would submit their problems and the guides would submit theirs." I figured then that they were in the wrong field to that system. I also oppose any additional fee for nonresident fishermen. They had this problem with commercial fishing and I understand that Alaska's going to have to eventually pay $3 million because they were charging the commercial fishing people nonresident license. So I'm against that. This is a common property and resource, and I think it's open for everybody. Number 1562 JOEL HANSON, The Boat Company, noted that this company is a 25- year-old Alaska corporation that operates educational charters, sightseeing and shore excursions, and sport fishing. He pointed out that four categories of concern with this bill had been outlined in written testimony he'd provided. [Those concerns related to new licenses and fees without new privileges and benefits; the "chain of guilt" that creates liability for fishing violations committed by a client; the unreasonable burden to "physically possess" paperwork; and the unreasonable burden to uphold unreasonable recording requirements.] Number 1687 ROBERT WARD, Homer Charter Association, concurred with the testimony of Mr. Preston and said: There are two of us here representing 80 people in total. ... We would like to see some adjustment on the first fine, the first-offense penalty. At $500 it seems like it's a little bit too (indisc.). We're not dealing with a resource here; we're dealing with paperwork, strictly administration. Other than that, we feel that we can support the bill as it's substituted. Number 1725 TIM EVERS, Deep Creek Charter Boat Association, testified that he was in accord with the previous testimony of Mr. Preston and Mr. Ward. He said he felt the $500 fine was excessive and should be reduced to $200. He also said many of his membership want the fees for nonresidents in the industry raised over and above those of the resident guides. Number 1785 MARK HEM, Owner, Hem Charters, informed members that he didn't support HB 452 because he felt the added burden of fees and paperwork was excessive to operators. He said he didn't believe the information contained in the required paperwork would necessarily aid in management or protection of the fishery, and he expressed concern about this bill's giving the Board of Fisheries additional authority. CHAIR ANDERSON asked whether Mr. Hem had Version D. MR. HEM replied that he'd just received a copy and hadn't had time to look at it closely. CHAIR ANDERSON asked whether Mr. Hem could hold off and testify at the next hearing. MR. HEM agreed to testify again. Number 1905 ALAN LeMASTER, Owner, Copper River Salmon Charters; Secretary, Klutina River Association in the Copper Valley, testified: Last Monday the Klutina River Association had a lengthy discussion on HB 452 at our regular membership meeting. As you might imagine, the concern was significant. The objections were many and the fear by some is that it will only foster more state control, higher costs, greater workload, with little or no return to those of us that are required to apply. Many of our members expressed an understanding for the reasons of the ADF&G and have little objection to the support of the spirit of the bill. Most, however, expressed a fear that it opens the door to the state's ability to scrutinize our books, thus leaving us open to criticism, regulation, penalties, fines, fees, burdensome control by the state. Most of the objections expressed by the membership concern an inordinate amount of record keeping required and fears that the persons outside the ADF&G's "need to know" would pirate much of that information, placing our businesses in jeopardy. CHAIR ANDERSON asked if Mr. LeMaster was referring to Version D. MR. LeMASTER affirmed that and continued: Additionally, the fees suggested are only a beginning point. Our fear is that all too often we see fees like these escalate to much higher numbers in only a few short years as the costs to maintain the program increases. A case in point: the DEC [Department of Environmental Conservation] passed regulations a few years ago that required user fees of $50 for inspections of food establishments. Now that fee has expanded to $150 and, in my case, they are assessing two or three different fees for the same business because we have little differences within our business. So, over the years the inspections have been reduced and, in some cases, discontinued altogether, and yet the fees go up. We call that double taxation. In principle [that] will, without a doubt, happen with the sports fishing industry as the agencies learn that the maintenance costs of the program are significant, rather than [those] being suggested in your fiscal notes. Number 2032 MR. LeMASTER continued: Right now, in order for me to put my people on the rivers up here in the Copper Valley, I have to buy a business license, a Coast Guard license; I have to have fishing permits; I have to have a driver's license; I have to have insurance; I have to have a fishing license and a king stamp; I have to have a permit at the local store down here; and the guides have to have a letter that shows that they work for me. There's about 10 or 12 things they have to have. And after you compile all of this information, ... what do you do about the people that aren't being guided - which in our case in this valley are at least as many, if not twice as many, people as are being guided on our rivers. You're getting no information from them, so how valid can all of this information be that you compile, when it's only a significantly small portion of the total amount that you need in order to make good decisions? So with that, we as an association took a vote, and it did not pass to support this bill at this time. CHAIR ANDERSON announced that HB 452 would be held over, allowing for additional testimony.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|