Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/11/1997 01:14 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 151 - BIG GAME GUIDES AND REGISTRATION AREAS Number 0092 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the first order of business was House Bill No. 151, "An Act relating to personal hunting of big game by big game guides while clients are in the field and to use area registration for portions of additional guide use areas by registered guides." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN, sponsor, explained the bill essentially cleans up a major overhaul regarding guides from the previous year. A couple of inadvertent omissions had been brought to his attention. Number 0140 REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE said he had just received the materials. Whether or not this was a controversial bill, the process was set out at the beginning of session. He would appreciate having bills the day before a hearing. He asked that HB 151 be rescheduled. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN indicated he would consider Representative Joule's objection after hearing the bill. He acknowledged that the proposed committee substitute was unavailable until shortly before the meeting. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON suggested that since people were waiting to testify, the committee hear the bill, take testimony and then hold the bill over if Representative Joule so wished. Number 0457 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON expressed concern similar to Representative Joule's. However, he also recognized that people were expecting to testify. REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES said she would need to look at a guide bill a long time before saying another one should be passed. She wanted to know for certain how this bill expands guide areas, for instance. Number 0599 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced they would hear the bill, then hold it over if so desired. He agreed they all must make good on committee rules. Number 0628 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said HB 151 is fairly innocuous. Section 1, requested by the Administration, closes a loophole. Current law does not allow felons to become guides. Under Section 1, an assistant guide with a previous felony conviction is not allowed to upgrade to guide status. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said Section 2 adds a subsection, which used to be in regulation, that disallows hunting by a guide, an assistant guide, or anyone associated with the guiding operation, while in the field with a client. That was inadvertently omitted in the previous year's legislation. As an example, hunting while accompanying clients opens the potential for guides to trade tags with clients so the latter can take a bigger moose after shooting a small one. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said reputable guides generally believe it is inappropriate to hunt while in the field with clients. He recalled that while he was on the Big Game Commercial Services Board, they suspended a master guide's license for a man who shot wolves while guiding. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said Section 3 makes it a misdemeanor to hunt while in the field. Section 4 allows the court to suspend a guide's license for that violation. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said Section 5 used to be allowed in regulation but was not included in the statute. Currently, guides are allowed three guide use areas, which are sub-units of a game management area. Sometimes state and federal guide use areas overlap. This allows a guide to add one portion of the federal area that would normally go unused, if it is adjacent to the guide's existing area. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN called a brief at-ease at 1:27 p.m. Number 0890 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN called the meeting back to order at 1:29 p.m. He offered the proposed committee substitute, 0-LS0618\B, Utermohle, 3/11/97, as a work draft. Number 0931 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES suggested the language in Section 5 allows both federal areas and permit areas. "By putting this `if' section in this bill, it is no longer housekeeping," she stated. "It's simply an expansion of the guide areas, which I don't support. Even before you put in the federal big game guide in the permit areas." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted the proposed committee substitute was not yet adopted. Number 0989 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to adopt 0-LS0618\B, Utermohle, 3/11/97, as a work draft. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked how the language in Section 1, which addresses only a portion of the law, accomplishes the purposes set forth in the Sectional Analysis. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN called upon Catherine Reardon to respond. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked what the intention was with the modification. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said the intention was to keep convicted felons who currently hold a lower class of license from upgrading to a guide. Number 1077 CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, Department of Commerce and Economic Development (DCED), said the DCED now administers the guide licensing program in the absence of a guide board. MS. REARDON said Section 1 is at the DCED's request. She explained, "The portion of the law that you don't see there said that a person who has been convicted of a felony involving a crime against a person, I believe it is within the last five years, is ineligible for a guide license. Then this section (b) you see here was a transition exemption to that prohibition against people who committed felonies in the last five years. And what it says is that people who already had their guide licenses, under the previous guide law, could keep them even if they did have a felony within the last five years, so that someone who was holding an assistant guide license wouldn't get it taken away ... as a result of the new guide law." MS. REARDON said the wording of this transition, however, was such that it also applied to someone with an assistant guide license under the old law, who was applying to take an exam to upgrade to be a registered guide or a master guide. That person could have applied, even if they had a felony conviction within the last five years. MS. REARDON noted that some applicants for the upcoming test have substantial felony backgrounds. "And we felt that while it was okay to keep them at that same level of assistant guide, held harmless by this transition to a new law, that probably it would be better to wait 'til they've been clean of felonies for at least five years before allowing them to upgrade," she explained. "So that was our purpose in requesting that amendment." Number 1190 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he had no objection so long as there is a time limit, so that felons who have mended their ways and have a clean record can go on in their chosen profession, and so long as it is limited to crimes against persons. MS. REARDON read from the applicable statute and commented: "It says that someone is ineligible for a license if they've committed a felony within the last five years, any kind of felony - I misspoke - or a felony offense against the person, a crime of violence against a person, as defined in AS 11.41, within the last ten years. So ... any kind of felony for five years, a crime against a person for ten years." Number 1242 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said many guides in Alaska had been convicted of illegal hunting, wanton waste or other crimes relating to fish and game resources. "We've even had State Troopers that do that," she added. She asked if this bill allows them to continue with their licenses. MS. REARDON responded that Section 1 attempts to tighten up on people with felony convictions. It excludes some people with felony convictions from being able to upgrade, which they otherwise could do without the amendment. Number 1293 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked why a big game guide with a felony offense should be able to continue guiding, whereas a class-A assistant guide could not upgrade. MS. REARDON said that was a policy choice the legislature apparently made when it passed the guide law last year, to have this new felony restriction but hold harmless people who held licenses previously. She was trying to fill in a little gap that perhaps the legislature had not thought of. She was not suggesting getting rid of (b) altogether, and not holding them harmless, because she believed the legislature had already decided that. Number 1380 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES did not recall details of the final guide bill passed the previous year. She asked, "As I'm understanding correctly, what we've said as a legislative body, that if you have a felony conviction and you are a registered guide, you can continue pursuit of your occupation? Is that after five years? Or do you just continue on?" MS. REARDON replied that people who already had convictions before the law came about get to carry on. New people are blocked from entry or from renewal of their licenses. Number 1429 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES suggested that set up two separate classes of people, those with felony convictions and those without. She believed that was wrong. She did not believe guides should be given more leeway with their felony convictions than class-A assistant guides were given. MS. REARDON responded that it applies the same way to assistant, class-A and registered guides. It just has to do with whether a person held that license before the new law or was a brand new entrant coming in. The exception in Section 1 only applies to convictions prior to the new law. "If you're one of these guides who held a license under the old law, and you're convicted tomorrow, you won't be able to renew your license," she added. Number 1496 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she had read articles about crimes committed by guides and noted that class-A assistant guides work under a guide. "So they may be working under a felon, and they, because they've had a past conviction, they can't move up to be a felon with a felon," she stated. "There's something basically wrong with that." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked whether Section 5 came from the department. MS. REARDON said only Section 1 came from the department. Number 1546 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained that the concern was whether to make it retroactive. As the argument could be made that it was paying twice for the same crime, it was not done retroactively. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN pointed out that a registered guide is criminally and civilly liable for everything that guide does in the field. The way the guide law is written, guides are just as responsible for actions by assistants as they are for their own actions. The bill tightens this up so that assistant guides who are felons do not become guides. Number 1620 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES mentioned debates through the years over guiding. She believed there was always an attempt by registered guides to ensure people did not challenge them for areas. She expressed concern that, felon or otherwise, there was a problem with this section. Number 1645 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted there was a motion on the floor. He asked if there was further discussion or any objection. There being none, 0-LS0618\B, Utermohle, 3/11/97, was adopted as a work draft. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that Kurt West was present to explain guide use areas. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she would not support the bill if it expanded the guide areas, which she believed to be exclusive use areas. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN responded that they are not exclusive. Litigated in the Owsichek decision, exclusive use areas had been eliminated. Although guides are limited to three guide use areas, those are not exclusive. Guides can move from year to year into those areas. Number 1730 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked whether she could go in and guide in those same areas. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said yes. Anyone can guide in any of the areas by simply registering into the area. Number 1770 KURT WEST, Licensing Supervisor, Division of Occupational Licensing, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, came forward with a large map showing boundaries for individual guide use areas and Unified Coding Units (UCUs). The building blocks of the guide use areas, UCUs had already been established by the Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and used for harvest data for over 20 years. These tended to follow drainages. MR. WEST said the Big Game Commercial Services Board had attempted to follow the UCUs in establishing use areas. However, that was not always the case. There were instances, such as in Units 9, 26, 24 and 19, which contained some of the larger parks, where federal agencies had been unwilling to budge on boundaries relating to the state's ability to follow the UCUs. Consequently, some land ownership did not fall within a guide use area. MR. WEST, using the map, cited an example where Doyon land may have extended, through oversight, into a guide use area, with the board subsequently granting use on a small piece of land that otherwise would not be used. Number 1877 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that the proposed committee substitute only addressed federal land. MR. WEST said this only affected a dozen individuals, who received land authorization, looked at their boundaries and discovered those boundaries did not follow the land management boundaries. Number 1897 MS. REARDON explained that the old statute allowed the guide board to set up the guide use areas through regulation. The guide board had a regulation that said, "You're limited to three areas unless you need a little piece of a fourth one because it will be unutilized otherwise." MS. REARDON said under the new law, the guide use area system was put into statute. The board was abolished, and the DCED has no discretion to adjust the use area system. She said that is fine. However, when the legislature passed the new law, they decided three areas was the limit. There was no exception for this situation. "And the sponsor, through this bill, is trying to recreate that possibility of getting a little piece of a fourth area that otherwise wouldn't be used," she explained. Number 1936 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked the size of the largest area that would be added on to a guide use area. MR. WEST did not know the square mileage. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether the additional areas were fairly small. MR. WEST said yes. In some instances, it was an access point. He was aware of a couple of instances where someone had an extension of authorization into another use area. It just happened that within that extension was the access to their entire area. This included a landing strip or boat access. However, Mr. West was unaware of anyone receiving a large portion of another area. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked about the possibility of this being perceived as a land grab. MR. WEST replied that it did not appear to work that way, due to there only being 10 or 12 people who came before the board and applied for that exemption. Number 2018 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE requested that if the DCED had a map delineating who is affected by whom, and in what areas of the state, he would like to see it. Mr. West's map showed one section. However, 12 areas were apparently affected. MS. REARDON responded, "It's not like we did a survey of the whole state and decided where it could happen. Instead, guides would ask for a fourth area, and it would be considered by the board. So if we show you which 12 qualified, at least we could tell you where those were located, those overlaps." REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said that would be helpful. Guiding in his area was very active. He wanted to see the implications in his district and others. MS. REARDON pointed out that the state's granting of a guide use area to a guide does not mean that the landowner, whether it is federal, private or Native land, must allow that person to guide there. The landowner still has the right to say nobody may guide there or to specify how many. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said he did not need to see names. He just wanted to see how it all works. Number 2120 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said when he first served on the Big Game Commercial Services Board, they had just finished the mapping process. He asked Mr. West to explain why the state guide use areas did not necessarily line up with the federal areas. MR. WEST said they did for the most part. At a "push-shove meeting" in Fairbanks in September 1992, the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service absolutely did not want to allow boundaries for several guide use areas to differ from what they had traditionally used for their concession permits. For the most part, the majority of the state conformed to the UCU-building-block method of creating those use areas, "but there were a few instances where they would not budge." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN emphasized this would simply allow use of areas that would otherwise be unused by hunters. Those holding federal permits are the only ones allowed to hunt there, and the boundary does not coincide with their state areas. "So this allows them to access that little chunk of federal area that didn't quite jive with the lines," he said, calling it the "weasel clause." Number 2209 REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked how many permit holders there are in Alaska for big game guiding. MR. WEST replied that there are about 500 registered and master guides, about 330 of whom are active. He said that translates into about 750 guide use area permits. "So there is a lot of overlap, a lot of joint use of areas," he added. Number 2233 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked how many were nonresidents, whether it was 50 percent, for example. MR. WEST said he did not have that figure. His guess was 40 out of that. [Secretary's note: Confirmed with Mr. West by telephone 3/19/97 that this refers to individuals, not a percentage.] Number 2245 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said that is a large percentage. She asked whether there is any way to curtail that legally. She commented that that is a lot of revenue leaving the state. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said one provision he was proud of in the previous year's legislation was the loosening of requirements for assistant guides. Many rural Alaskans who might make excellent assistant guides could not pass the test. Now, guides could hire an assistant guide just on a recommendation. Guides are legally responsible, civilly and criminally, for all their actions in the field anyway. Nor does the state tell a cabinet maker, for example, whom to hire as shop help. Co-Chairman Ogan suspected many more people were guiding than before because of this. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said over time, people would step up to the plate as they realize these opportunities exist. Number 2299 MS. REARDON, acknowledging she was not an attorney, mentioned local hire constitutional issues. The current legislation requires the DCED to charge twice as much for a nonresident guide license. For the first time, the DCED must identify who is a resident and who is not. She suggested even that could be skating a line. She noted there are, however, techniques such as requirements for having held an Alaskan hunting license for a certain amount of time or that type of experience that could be required. Number 2346 CAPTAIN JOEL HARD, Commander, B Detachment, Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection, Department of Public Safety, testified via teleconference. Referring to Section 1 of the proposed committee substitute, he said it allows people who were grandfathered in to upgrade. Although not part of the previous year's process, he supposed the grandfather issue was a legal issue brought forward by the Department of Law, as was generally the case. CAPTAIN HARD said Section 2 is the most important to his division from an enforcement perspective. It returns to statute the prohibition against big game guides personally hunting while clients are in the field. It lessens the opportunity for unethical or illegal activities. It also makes over-limit violations such as using another person's tags more difficult. It would improve his division's ability to enforce complaints arising from guided hunts. CAPTAIN HARD referred to Section 5 and said whether guides have three areas or four is of little consequence to his division, so long as they have the proper registration. Number 2443 WAYNE WOODS testified via teleconference. He said most of the guides in the area, including himself, were not prepared to address the bill, as it was last-minute. MR. WOODS said transporters remaining in the field with clients and taking game is not addressed in HB 151. However, that was the overriding concern of registered guides the previous year, with transporters not being regulated to the degree that guides are. None of the guides he had spoken with oppose closing the loophole of guides taking game in the field with clients. However, they want transporters included in this category. MR. WOODS advised that he did not have a copy of the committee substitute. TAPE 97-25, SIDE B Number 0021 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained that the new committee substitute only includes federal lands, and it tightens the language. He said through an oversight, the drafter had said guide use areas, plural, which might be conceived to mean they could get more than one additional area. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said there is language in the new committee substitute, just for the guide, for when an area would otherwise remain unused by a registered guide because the boundaries of the guide use areas do not coincide with boundaries of federal big game concession or permit areas. It would only be for one guide, and it would only be if it did not coincide with the federal big game concession or permit areas. It was basically the old "H clause" or "weasel clause" in the regulations. Number 0082 MR. WOODS said he and most of his fellow guides wanted guide use areas changed to align with game management unit sub-units. He believed that would alleviate many problems that operators see in the field as far as avoiding increased competition with transporters or resident hunters. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked what "H" or "weasel" sections were. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied that was lingo relating to the old Big Game Commercial Services Board regulations. The "H clause" was essentially the same as Section 5 of HB 151, relating to weaseling into a little more of an area. Number 0158 GORDON BISSELL testified via teleconference. He expressed concern over how this was put out to people in the guiding community. Few he had spoken to were even aware of some pending bills and regulations. He suggested precluding convicted felons from holding any guide license until passage of at least three to five years, in which they showed they had changed their ways, whether they were registered guides, class-As or assistants. He believed felons had "screwed up somewhere along the road" and should take time to reflect on the way they live their lives. MR. BISSELL expressed concern over how guide use areas are set up from the ADF&G's UCU maps. The previous year, he and three other guides, as well as two transporters and numerous resident hunters, had hunted in an area that he had as a guide use area. That area measures approximately 40 miles by 10 to 15 miles. Due to regulations last year, he was forced to try to make a living out of this area, he said. MR. BISSELL believes guide use areas should coincide with the game management sub-units. This would allow guides who encounter additional activity in one area to spread their activity elsewhere. MR. BISSELL noted that this does not address tour guides, which he sees "cropping up, predominantly in the Talkeetna Mountains." Referring to the taking of game by guides, Mr. Bissell said he does not see transporters being put to task over this. If it affects game guides, it should affect everyone equally, including transporters and tour guides. Game guides are being singled out and heavily regulated. Number 0292 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Kurt West to comment on the transporter issue. He understood that currently transporters cannot take game nor assist in any way while they are in the field. MR. WEST said licensing and regulation of transporters has not changed. They are allowed to transport clients from point A to point B, but not to accompany them into the field nor stay with them unless it occurs at a permanent lodge, cabin or boat owned by the transporter. Number 0317 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked whether transporters were transporting for specific guides or just dropping people off. MR. WEST said both. Some guides use a commercial transporter. Some do their own flying or boating. And many clients, both resident and nonresident, use a commercial transporter on their own, without a guide. Number 0346 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that the transporter statute is AS 08.54.650(c). He read: "A transporter may not provide big game hunting services without holding an appropriate license." He believed that transporters are not precluded from hunting while they are in the field. He suggested it might be worth tacking that onto the bill. Number 0430 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN, noting Representative Joule's absence, announced he would hold HB 151 over in respect to Representative Joule's concerns.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|