Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/06/1996 08:08 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 175 SPORT FISH GUIDE LICENSING CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the committee calendar and stated his intent to wrap up testimony on CS HB 175 and move the bill from committee. HB 296 and HB 329 would also be heard. Number 095 REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN felt that the version of CS HB 175 before the committee is good compromise legislation. He said his main objective in sponsoring HB 175 is, (1) it registers sport fish operators, and (2) it requires them to report their catch. Number 240 C0-CHAIRMAN WILLIAM K. "BILL" WILLIAMS asked clarification of the registration requirements. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied that a business license does not register sport fish operators as a guide, it registers them in the state as a business. He said there is no set, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC), code for sport fish operators. Number 336 BARRY BRACKEN, Owner, Kaleidoscope Cruises, testified in support of CS HB 175 recommending that the committee consider a decal, similar to what the game transporters use and the International Halibut Commission posts on all operating vessels. The decal would identify the year, and be issued with the license, making it easier for the Department of Public Safety to identify a legitimate charter operator. He said his only concern is how the funding will be generated for the department's reporting requirements. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Bracken if the decal, he envisions, would be similar to the Coast Guard decal. MR. BRACKEN responded yes, or similar to the International Halibut Commission decal or the game transporter decal. Number 508 KEVIN DELANEY, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) responded to Mr. Bracken's concern regarding how the ADF&G would finance the reporting requirements. The department foresees that the owner/operator guides would be required to purchase their licenses from ADF&G. At that time, they would provide the department with an affidavit saying that they meet the qualifications for the guide license. When they submit their fees, the department would provide their license and issue them a logbook. They would be required to keep a record of their harvest and distribution effort throughout the season. The logbook would be returned to the ADF&G at the end of the season. MR. DELANEY advised the panel that one person would be required to manage the system, assisted by a data entry person to enter that information into the data bank. The ADF&G area managers would then prepare the assessments from that information. The fee structure would cover those expenses and a few other expenses. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted the arrival of Representative John Davies. Number 649 KENT F. HALL, charter operator, stated that he generally supports this legislation. He said he had a concern about enforcement and wondered how the department would ensure that everyone is licensed. MR. DELANEY replied that the fiscal note for CS HB 175 provides for a Reimbursable Services Agreement (RSA) with the Department of Public Safety. The ADF&G and the DPS envision that one person from the Department of Public Safety, the first year, would become an expert in the implementation of the sports fish guide licensing procedures. The RSA would provide for salary and travel to follow this through. He mentioned Sitka, Homer, Valdez, Kenai and the lower Nushagak. Number 804 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES asked if the fee structure in the bill has enough funds in it to offset enforcement requirements. MR. DELANEY replied that it comes close to being a wash. He said the cost of employing one law enforcement staff, some travel and the ability to follow appropriate cases through the court system, for an entire year, would cost $100,000. That would be covered by the license fees. Number 874 DONALD WESTLUND, sport guide/charter operator, stated resentment of the proposed passage of CSHB 175 from the House Resources Committee as the committee had just received it. He said HB 175 will help report the catch, "I do not catch the fish, my client catches the fish." He said the ADF&G creel census takes that into account, and the legislature has not given enough time to the provision that registers guides that was passed last year. He further expressed concern with the issue of enforcement and the method of registering the guides. His closing remarks, "I am not favor of this bill!" CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN informed Mr. Westlund that there have been at least six prior hearings on HB 175. Number 1200 ALAN LeMASTER, testified from Glennallen, stating that the "transporter" can have an enormous affect on the river and felt the committee should give that point more attention. He elaborated on a hypothetical situation where the transporter impacted the river many times greater than the sports fish guide, and suggested that the transporters also be licensed and permitted, just like the guides, and under the same fee structure restrictions. He stated that because the transporters can have such an enormous impact on the river, if we get into a limited entry situation, which is probably not your focus, that should also be a question as to how many transporters would be allowed on the river compared to the number of guides. Number 1359 MR. DELANEY replied that the subject of transporters came up, continually, during the development of HB 175, and said it is very important that it is considered. The original bill had a provision for a transporter license but it is not there at the present time. When the definitions for the services of the operator and the guide were developed for HB 175, they were developed, in part, with an eye toward the transporter. MR. DELANEY said if the transporter of your hypothetical case were to drop everybody off and leave, never stay with them on the gravel bar long enough for them to get their equipment out and begin fishing, and never provide them with advice about the campground and, in the meantime, somebody is out getting their gear together and beginning to cast then, in fact, that transporter would be able to drop folks off and leave and probably escape from the definition and the licensing system in this bill. He said that is rarely the case over the course of a summer. He explained that there may come a day when a transporter provision is necessary, but, presently, it is the committee's intent to capture this in the definitions established by this bill and to keep this licensing system as simple as possible. Number 1449 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN informed the witness that there is a separate resolution that addresses limited entry. Number 1513 MR. LeMASTER contended that if the transporters were not controlled then why should the guides/operators pay all the fees when they can buy a boat, drop off 10 or 15 groups and make the same kind of money and be done by 10:00 or 11:00 a.m. Number 1548 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN apprised the committee of considerable discussion on the transporters. A transporter can be air charter services; how can you require them to report how many fish they brought back in coolers. Is Alaska Airlines a transporter when they carry fish south? The House Special Committee on Fisheries looked at how the ADF&G was managing big game transporters and the board is phasing out that license because of the problems. We do recognize the amount of fish taken because of transporters, but how you regulate them and, actually, gather the information is a step further beyond the original intent of HB 175 in reference to sport fish guiding. He said that transporters can be revisited if it becomes a problem. Number 1626 JOE HANES, President, Kenai River Guide Association, testified for himself and agreed with the testimony of Mr. LeMaster concerning the transporters. He talked about a possible requirement for a guide/operator of holding an Alaska fishing license for three-five years and related that the Coast Guard has a requirement of 365 days of sea time but no manpower to check on that. He described the flow of people, coming and going, who have never seen the Kenai River before being a major safety concern on the river and the enforcement issue of verifying whether or not they held a license and had knowledge of the weather and tides. He debated the reporting requirements and said certain areas are already heavily scrutinized by the ADF&G and rather than duplicate that information, those areas should be excluded. Number 1723 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stated that this issue had been discussed, at length, with the department. We are encouraging them to use other reporting systems, already in place, that provide the same information, separate from the creel count, than enforcing more work upon the operators. REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked if the Department of Fish and Game had provided a letter of support for HB 175. MR. DELANEY said the department did not have a letter but the Department of Fish and Game supports HB 175. He said there is a real convergence of interest between the department, the industry and Alaskans that have struck a good balance, and the department will support the legislation as long as it remains substantially similar. He said it is a good bill. Number 1800 ANDREW SZCZESNY testified from Kenai stating his support of HB 175, but he felt that stricter guidelines for the guides were needed, especially, for the people coming up here who have no experience. Number 1829 RUBEN HANKE testified from Kenai agreeing with Mr. LeMaster on the transporter issue. He said, "As a registered big game guide, I know what kind of problems transporters have caused over the years, and there has to be a way to get a handle on those guides." He felt that controlling the number of people that a guide takes is one possibility. MR. HANKE concurred with Mr. Hanes testimony regarding the guide requirement and the recommended stipulation that a guide should hold a season fishing license for at least five years. He asked if the definition of guide service operators meant that a person had to be a guide or have experience as guide, in order to qualify. MR. DELANEY responded, no. MR. HANKE stated that if that person can contract for services and not be a guide himself, then he was concerned about leaving a loophole for out of state, and out of country, booking agents. Number 1911 MR. DELANEY did not believe that the state can prohibit nonresidents from conducting business in the state of Alaska. The services license is basically a business license for a particular type of business which is sport fish guiding. He said the issue of a three-five year requirement of holding a sport fishing license in the state of Alaska would need to come in the guide licensing where you could make the argument that people who accompany folks in the field need to have that experience, but I do not believe it is legal for us to control who owns and operates a business in the state of Alaska. MR. HANKE said any booking agency, resident or nonresident, would be able to hold a services license and they may not even be present in the area while fishing is being conducted. Who is responsible when something happens? Number 1911 MR. DELANEY stated that there is not a mechanism for that in HB 175. Under this bill, the services operator would be liable for violations that are committed by clients in the field under that persons employ. There is a direct linkage back to the services operator. What we need to do is to get a licensing system in place and, if there are problems with the transporter segment, and, if there is a problem with the services operators not being present in the field while activities conducted by their business are ongoing, I think there will be ample opportunity to revisit that issue. Number 2098 MR. HANKE acknowledged that it would be difficult to create one bill that is all encompassing. He asked if there was time to add a provision for the three-five year fishing license prerequisite before the committee takes any action. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said he was not in favor of adding any new language at this particular point in time. This is the starting point on sport fish guide/operators licensing. Let us work with it for a year and then come back and attend to it, if necessary. MR. HANKE reaffirmed his support of HB 175. Number 2218 BUD HODSON supports the bill as written and said that it is long overdue. He referred to the transporter question and said if somebody is running people up and down the river, accompanying them in the field and providing services for sport fishing, they are outfitting. They are required to have a license. MR. HODSON felt that outside booking agencies wanting to become licensed operators probably would not want to pay $300,000 for an insurance policy. Number 2333 JOHN WITTEVEEN, lodge owner/charter boat operator, testified from Kodiak acknowledging that certain areas of the state are significantly impacted by sport fishing operations. He said contrary to other people's opinions today, we have far too many licensing requirements. He stressed that if this bill becomes law, his business would require somewhere near 11 or 12 licenses just to operate. He suggested that business license coding could be modified to identify the number of people that are in operation. MR. WITTEVEEN felt that HB 175 does not do anything in terms of the quality of the guides or the quality of operations. He said, "I do not think that you should lead yourself to believe that it will." "It does not lay out any minimum requirements." MR. WITTEVEEN further said, in terms of the reporting of the fish caught, one concern that charter boat operators have is some sort of future quota system or a system of limited entry. MR. WITTEVEEN further stated concerns with the reporting system in the bill and professed that he is an advocate of catch and release. He supported the deletion of the transporter license from the bill and asked whether a person can buy a sport fish operator/fishing guide license combination for single operators who are operators as well as guides. Number 2467 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN responded that the sport fish operator and the fishing guide license had been combined to accommodate small operators......(CHANGE TAPE) TAPE 96-26, SIDE B Number 000 MR. WITTEVEEN asked consideration that the licenses be modified to indicate the number of people that are in operation. Number 017 MR. DELANEY appreciated Mr. Witteveen's points about catch and release and record keeping. He responded that utilization of the licensing system data base will enhance the department's ability to characterize the sport fish industry, in an area, that goes beyond just the number of fish that they catch and kill. It will enable us to have a better idea of the harvest potential and to identify what is important and valuable to the sport fishing industry in that area. Those are exactly the types of things that our area managers want to consider when they select between an option that would close a season early, reduce a bag limit, restrict the use of bait or, in some cases, mandate catch and release. Number 075 MR. WITTEVEEN questioned the report logbook and whether the report would indicate what the catch and release totals were. MR. DELANEY replied in the affirmative. MR. WITTEVEEN asked if the bill pertains to only salmon and halibut and does it affect rock fish, ling cod, cod, pollock, or grayling. MR. DELANEY stated that the language in the bill states that we shall report on salmon and halibut. It does not prohibit us from looking at the other species. In most cases, I think we would be looking at the mix of species that go beyond salmon and halibut, but we want to keep it relatively simple from the onset. Number 148 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN commented that Mr. Witteveen is correct, HB 175 is not meant to be a qualifier for guides or operators; it sets up the system that identifies them. This bill is not designed for limited entry, or envisioned as limited entry, although limited entry is always a possibility. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said his office is looking at the issue of multiple licenses and has asked legislative research to conduct a study listing all the different licenses that people have to have. Number 207 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to testimony offered during the February 23rd meeting in Kenai that the state of Oregon was able to limit guiding to instate guides. He asked the sponsor if he had looked at that issue, "It has always been my impression that we were not constitutionally able to limit guides to just Alaskan residents." REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN indicated that he had not followed up on that investigation. Number 269 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN moved Amendment Number 1: Page 3, delete lines 6, 7, 8, and 9. C0-CHAIRMAN GREEN objected for the purposes of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that the amendment would delete the requirement of a general liability insurance policy for operators. He explained that the state of Alaska does not require businesses to have insurance to be on file in order to get a business license. Number 337 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN felt that without this requirement there would no recompense for a negligent operation that ended up hurting or killing someone. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN agreed with the Chairman but remarked that he has general problems with ordering it as a condition for licensing. Number 418 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN clarified that this provision was left in the bill to protect visitors to the state. Number 482 CO-CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS explained that he had worked on similar legislation where companies in Ketchikan wanted assurance that passengers off the cruise ships were well taken care and wanted confirmation that the charter boat operators had insurance. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN concurred with Representative Williams stating that the cruise lines now require a million dollars worth of insurance before they let their passengers fly with an air charter service. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN explained that for operators in Mat-Su Valley, who do not own boats, to have to have $1500 worth of insurance is onerous when all they do is guide (drive) someone to a fishing hole and show them how to bait a hook and how to catch a king salmon. Number 525 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said the discussion of limited entry keeps coming up. If somebody buys $300,000 worth of insurance, then they are obviously not a speculator. Number 576 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that he would maintain his objection to the amendment and called for a roll call vote. Representatives Ogan and Williams voted in favor of the Amendment Number 1. Representatives Austerman, Davies, Kott, Nicholia and Green voted against Amendment Number 1. So Amendment Number 1 failed. Number 615 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved for adoption of Amendment Number 2: Page 3, delete lines 31 and 32. Page 4, delete lines 1 and 2. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN objected for purposes of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN specified that he had philosophical problems with the Department of Fish and Game being the policeman for the United States Coast Guard. Currently, it is illegal for someone to operate a boat for hire without a Coast Guard license; why should the state act as a policeman for the Coast Guard. I think it is inappropriate for the state to enforce federal laws by requiring people to show proof that they have a Coast Guard license to get a state guide license. Number 651 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stated that the language in the bill was requested by a number of the operators. He said Representative Ogan was correct, it is a duplication of enforcing Coast Guard licensing but if we know that operator has a Coast Guard license then we know that he has gone through the testing requirements and has the appropriate number of hours at sea. Number 750 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded to a question from Chairman Green that a person did not need to be a boat operator in order to be a fish guide. He said he knew of several people who will be out of business if this is passed, operating a boat has nothing to do with being a fish guide. Number 786 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN referred to the language on line 32, "if a person uses a vessel in the provision of fishing guide services and the license is required by the Coast Guard." He clarified that rafts and canoes are primarily used upper reaches of some rivers in the Interior of Alaska and that provision was put in there to allow the people who are not using motor vessels to get a license. Number 810 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he stands corrected, but if that language on page 3, line 32, is going to remain; it should be amended to read, "if a person `operates' a vessel." REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said his original objection was that the state could become involved in enforcing federal law. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES referred to page 4, line 32, "for the area in which the fishing guide provides fishing guide services." He said he infers from the language that Coast Guard licenses are specific to an area and require some knowledge of operating vessels in that particular area, and if that inference is correct, then it would seem that this requirement would be useful from the point of view of trying to winnow down the number of people actually providing services in that area to those people who have experience in the area. At least, there is some requirement that a person have some area specific knowledge before operating there and to that extent, I think it is a good requirement. Number 946 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN called for a roll call vote on Amendment Number 2. Representatives Kott and Ogan voted in favor of the amendment. Representatives Austerman, Davies, Nicholia, Williams and Green voted against the amendment. So Amendment Number 2 failed. Number 988 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved for the adoption of Amendment Number 3: Page 4, delete lines 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said his concern is that the fish guide is required to carry around copious amounts of paperwork in the field such as proof of employment, proof of first aid and CPR. Number 1059 MR. DELANEY said the language was an enforcement tool since people licensed as guides are not the people contracting with the clients, those are the services operators. These are people contacted in the field by our people and this will be a quick way to identify the services operator that the guide is associated with. This would be the only tool in the field to make a direct link between the guide and the services operator. He said, in most cases, the enforcement officer will become fairly knowledgeable with the regular services operators and guides. MR. DELANEY related that the affidavit would be used to license the services operators or the service operator/guide combination. These licenses would be issued in the licensing section here in Juneau. He said this section covers the sport fish guides, these are the people that are services operators that accompany people in the field. The reason this was approached differently is because many services operators said that if they needed another guide immediately, then they wanted to get those people licensed through some other mechanism rather than sending a letter to Juneau. We can accommodate that through all, or part, of our vendor system. Number 1236 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he was looking at the practical aspect of packing around all this paperwork and wondered if there was a more efficient way of accomplishing this. Number 1300 MR. DELANEY replied that the paperwork is not a lot of bulk. ADF&G will assess, this first year, the most efficient way to issue guide licenses, not the services operator licenses, but the actual guide license. At the onset, the ADF&G is looking at vendors having the ability to sell that particular license. In future, if somebody is licensed for a number of years, perhaps this could be a multi-year license, similar to the Board of Game. Number 1424 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN discussed a conceptual amendment where the "fishing guide's employer shall keep on file at all times," items 2, 4, 5, and 6. The employer has the guide's license and his identification which is what the field officer needs to see. He said, "We are talking about a $500 fine, and after a second offense, your guiding days are over." Number 1491 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said that would be a major responsibility to the vendors. Number 1565 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said a water proof pouch should not be a burden. Number 1599 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT felt that having to carry the specified amount of paperwork did not seem that onerous. He said that a CPR card is nothing more than a small card in the wallet. He further said that the penalties are for knowingly or intentional violations which would be very difficult to prove. The department's position is a good one. Give it a couple of years to see whether or not we need additional changes, and if the Department of Fish and Game can become a one-stop shop. Number 1706 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN withdrew Amendment Number 3. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN imagined a case where someone lost this packet of identification/information and asked the procedure for reproducing the packet. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN assured the committee that the guide could easily provide positive identification. Number 1737 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES offered an amendment on page 3, line 32, to delete the word "uses" and insert "operates" and continue the same amendment on page 4, line 30. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered. Number 1868 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved that CS HB 175 as amended move from the House Resources Committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. Hearing no objection, CS HB 175 (RES) passed out of the House Resources Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|