03/13/1996 08:10 AM House RES

 HB 511 - DEPOSITS INTO FISH AND GAME FUND                                   
                                                                               
 Number 0282                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN brought HB 511 before the committee.                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN, sponsor of HB 511, explained the bill                    
 originated in response to concerns over inadequate protection of              
 wildlife resources in the state.  In light of declining revenues,             
 dry-docked equipment, and lack of enforcement from the Department             
 of Law, HB 511 was designed to help with cases involving commercial           
 fishing violations.  "Already, civil fines are being deposited into           
 the Fish and Game Fund," he said.  "House Bill 511 adds that                  
 criminal fines would also be deposited into the Fish and Game Fund.           
 And the legislature each year will still have to approve the budget           
 and reimburse service agreements."  He suggested a good example was           
 the Tyson settlement.                                                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked for clarification on how the Fish and             
 Game Fund worked and whether it was a dedicated fund.                         
                                                                               
 Number 0402                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN explained that the Fish and Game Fund was the             
 only dedicated fund, other than funds dedicated by federal law, in            
 the state of Alaska.  Monies from various sources, including                  
 hunting and fishing licenses, tags, and federal monies, went into             
 the fund, he said.                                                            
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE LONG said it appeared that previous legislation had            
 intended that all forfeitures be deposited to the general fund.               
 Now, the legislature was asking that this be deposited into the               
 Fish and Game Fund, which was originally for licenses, fees, and so           
 forth.  "I feel that this may be looking toward a need for a                  
 proposition that the voters would have to consider, making it a               
 dedicated fund for the forfeitures," he said.                                 
                                                                               
 Number 0463                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN indicated HB 511 simply clarified existing law.           
 It was not a constitutional issue, he said.  He deferred to Laurie            
 Otto for an explanation.                                                      
                                                                               
 LAURIE H. OTTO, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division,                   
 Department of Law, read language from the Alaska Constitution,                
 explaining that it helped clarify the general prohibition on                  
 dedicated funds.  The exception to that prohibition said, "this               
 provision shall not prohibit the continuance of any dedication for            
 special purposes existing upon the date of ratification of this               
 section by the people of Alaska".                                             
                                                                               
 MS. OTTO said if a dedicated fund existed when the constitution was           
 adopted, funds could currently be dedicated for that purpose.  "And           
 so, in this bill, what you see is a continuation of the historical            
 practice of dedicating funds that were related to claims or losses            
 caused by damages to fish and game resources to the state," she               
 said, "which is why, if you look at the language of the bill, you             
 will see that it ... only allows deposit into the Fish and Game               
 Fund of fines and forfeitures in cases where there were violations            
 that damaged or present a threat of damage to the fisheries                   
 resource.  The Fish and Game Fund was not historically used for               
 game, and it was not historically used just to enforce general                
 regulations in the fishing arena.  But if it's related to damage or           
 threat of damage to the resource, it's constitutionally permissible           
 to deposit it in the Fish and Game Fund."                                     
                                                                               
 Number 0576                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. OTTO continued, "Now, certainly a past legislature has made a             
 decision in the language that you asked about, to have those monies           
 go into the general fund.  But this legislature, as in all                    
 appropriation areas, is not bound by actions of past legislatures.            
 You can make an independent determination of where you think those            
 monies should be deposited and you can, as Representative Ogan                
 proposes, change the law to allow those monies to go into the Fish            
 and Game Fund, although, as he said, this legislature, and future             
 legislatures, still retain the ability to decide how Fish and Game            
 Funds will be used.  It's an appropriation that you make like every           
 other appropriation."                                                         
                                                                               
 Number 0586                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE LONG said, "You're expanding the definition of the             
 original dedication that's happened earlier.  That's my concern, is           
 that whatever is relating to a fish product of any kind would be              
 dedicated to this fund."                                                      
                                                                               
 MS. OTTO replied, "You are correct that if it tied it to anything             
 relating to fish and tried to put it in the Fish and Game Fund as             
 a dedicated fund, that would not be permissible, because it is                
 broader than the original dedication."  She referred to page 1,               
 line 4, "violations that damage or present a threat of damage",               
 which, she said, was in every section of the bill.  "As long as it            
 is narrowed in that way, that is, in fact, what the original pre-             
 statehood fund was used for," she said.  "And, therefore, it is a             
 constitutionally permissible action of dedicating those funds in              
 the Fish and Game Fund.  You're right, though.  If it were anything           
 relating to fish, that would not be acceptable."                              
                                                                               
 Number 0700                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES voiced concerns.  For example, there was a              
 certain amount of dedicated motor fuels tax, which he believed to             
 be a nickel, in existence at the time of statehood.  He understood            
 that interpretations were that the nickel was dedicated, but that             
 any amount beyond that could not be increased without a vote of the           
 people, as a dedicated fund.  "If that understanding and                      
 interpretation is correct, it seems like this is a similar sort of            
 a thing," he said, "where we're ... expanding the scope of the                
 amounts of money that would go into the fund.  And it would seem              
 like that would require a vote of the people, by analogy of what              
 happened under the motor fuel situation."                                     
                                                                               
 Number 0714                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. OTTO responded she did not know about the motor fuel tax.  "If,           
 in fact, what happened is that there was a specific amount of money           
 identified in the law as going into the motor fuels tax, I could              
 see that that would be limited," she stated.  "But pre-statehood,             
 what happened with [the] Fish and Game Fund, or the predecessor to            
 that, is that any monies were ... dedicated to the furtherance of             
 the protection, rehabilitation, preservation and conservation of              
 the territorial fish and shellfish resources.  And any money that             
 came into the state for that purpose could be deposited into the              
 Fish and Game Fund.  So, it was not limited by any particular                 
 amount of money, as what you're describing with the motor fuels               
 tax.  So, pre-statehood, the money that we're talking about would             
 have gone into the Fish and Game Fund."  She emphasized that pre-             
 statehood dedicated funds were analyzed by what would have                    
 happened, pre-statehood, had the money come into the state.  "Pre-            
 statehood, the money that is identified in Representative Ogan's              
 bill would have gone into the Fish and Game Fund," she concluded.             
                                                                               
 Number 0779                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN offered to clarify the intent of the bill.  He            
 referred to Section 1, relating to purpose.  He said "fisheries law           
 enforcement activities" would include possibly funding equipment to           
 apprehend violators and funding Department of Law personnel who               
 would specialize in such cases.  The Tyson case had resulted in a             
 $4.1 million settlement.  "There may be other violations of this              
 sort going on, that are not being caught just because we ... don't            
 have the resources to do it," he suggested.                                   
                                                                               
 Number 0850                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he did not disagree with the purpose.              
 However, he was concerned about the general prohibition against               
 dedication of funds in Alaska's constitution.  "And every time we             
 do that, we increase the scope or increase the amount or add                  
 another dedication of funds, it makes me nervous," he said,                   
 "because the folks that drafted our constitution recognized that              
 ... every time you do that, you limit the scope of a succeeding               
 legislature to have an adequate array of tools to deal with                   
 problems that are presented to them at the time.  While it is true            
 that the legislature appropriates the money ... out of the fund,              
 the ... purposes for which it can be appropriated are limited by              
 the terms of the dedication of the fund, so they couldn't                     
 appropriate it for general public safety on the highways, for                 
 example."  He emphasized it was a constitutional concern.                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES indicated another way to solve the problem              
 would be to adequately fund the Department of Law and the Division            
 of Habitat and Restoration in the Department of Fish and Game.                
 "While we may disagree on the mechanisms for doing that, I think              
 that that's what needs to be done," he said, voicing his preference           
 to fund it through the operating budget by looking to other revenue           
 sources.                                                                      
                                                                               
 Number 0944                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. OTTO said, "Everybody, I think, who looks at the situation                
 acknowledges that we're not adequately pursuing commercial fishing            
 violations, particularly ones that damage the resource, that there            
 appears to us to be both a significant number of violators who are            
 really damaging one of our really most important renewable                    
 resources, very important to the economy of the state, but also,              
 that we're not capturing the fines and forfeitures because we don't           
 have the resources to dedicate to it.  And I think that essential             
 to understanding what is trying to be done with this bill is                  
 realizing that we are, in fact, creating a new revenue stream into            
 the Fish and Game Fund, money that's not being captured right now,            
 that most of the money isn't money that's being diverted out of the           
 general fund and put into the general fund.  It's mostly money                
 that's not being captured right now."                                         
                                                                               
 Number 1052                                                                   
                                                                               
 DEAN PADDOCK, Bristol Bay Driftnetters Association, testified in              
 support of HB 511, saying, "This association has always supported             
 the conduct of an orderly fishery.  We believe strongly in the                
 protection of the resource.  But there's another element ... and              
 that is the need to provide a level playing field between the                 
 participants in the fishery."  He suggested that nowhere else in              
 Alaska was that as important as in Bristol Bay, where large numbers           
 of fishermen competed for large numbers of fish.                              
                                                                               
 MR. PADDOCK indicated Bristol Bay enforcement was the single                  
 largest operation carried out by the Division of Fish and Wildlife            
 Protection in the Department of Public Safety.  Members of his                
 association, wanting to ensure enforcement presence in Bristol Bay,           
 had suggested supplementing funds by instituting a statutory                  
 assessment on every license sold there.  "As it is now, when the              
 enforcement money runs out, they're gone," Mr. Paddock.  "Maybe               
 there'll be a fly-over by a plane, but the boats, the skiffs, the             
 surveillance, it's gone.  And then, when that happens, the orderly            
 fishery deteriorates and we've got people fishing further and                 
 further outside these lines."  He advocated a "user pay" concept.             
 He concluded by saying he thought this situation applied elsewhere            
 in the state, as well.                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 1300                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was further comment and closed the           
 public testimony.                                                             
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN mentioned a letter received from Larry               
 VanderLind from the Committee to Prevent Illegal Salmon Fishing in            
 Bristol Bay.  Mr. VanderLind indicated that with 1900 drift permits           
 in the Bristol Bay area, the fishermen themselves would like to               
 impose a $250 surcharge, which would total approximately $475,000             
 per year.  That committee had criteria for involvement in setting             
 regulations and policies on how the enforcement would be done, and            
 to ensure it was done correctly, Representative Austerman added.              
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN closed by saying, "They're not doing an                   
 adequate job.  I understand people's concerns with this bill."  He            
 referred to Section 1 and said to the extent permitted by                     
 applicable state and federal law, this would operate within                   
 parameters of existing law.  "If you look, starting from the East             
 Coast and work your way around, Alaska's one of the last great                
 fisheries in the world, and certainly in North America," he said.             
 "And if we don't do an adequate job of protecting the resource, we            
 will be paying dearly for it in the future."                                  
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to Representative Davies' concern about            
 dedication.  He asked if Representative Ogan believed the                     
 legislature would be operating within its purview and its                     
 constitutional rights.                                                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied yes.  He added that they had heard                
 qualified testimony that day asserting that fact.                             
                                                                               
 Number 1473                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN moved that HB 511 move from committee with           
 accompanying fiscal notes and individual recommendations.                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE LONG objected.                                                 
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote.  Voting for moving HB
 were Representatives Austerman, Kott, Ogan, Williams and Green.           
 Voting against it were Representatives Davies and Long.                       
 Representative Nicholia was present via teleconference and did not            
 vote; Representative Barnes was absent.  Co-Chairman Green noted              
 that HB 511 moved from the House Resources Committee.