Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/04/2003 01:10 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 163-NONRES. GAME TAG FEES/WILDLIFE TOUR PASS CHAIR FATE announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 163, "An Act relating to an annual wildlife conservation pass and the fee for that pass; relating to nonresident and nonresident alien big game tag fees; and providing for an effective date." Number 0897 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS), version 23-GH1098\D, Utermohle, 3/18/03, as a work draft. CHAIR FATE, hearing no objection, announced that [Version D] was adopted. Number 0832 JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Hugh Fate, Alaska State Legislature, addressed changes from the previous version, indicating Version D consolidated several amendments. On page 1, line 11, new [paragraph] (3) reads: (3) a large portion of the financial resources expended by the state to maintain healthy populations of wildlife directly benefits nonresidents who view wildlife; MR. POUND noted that [paragraph] (4) reads: (4) the $15 fee charged to nonresidents for an annual wildlife conservation pass is less than or equal to Alaska residents' pro rata share of state revenue that is devoted to wildlife-related matters associated with nonconsumptive uses of fish and wildlife, including wildlife viewing; MR. POUND turned attention to [paragraph] (8), language on page 2, line 12, that had been on line 5 in the original bill. In that paragraph, "individuals" is changed to "nonresidents", and on line 13 the words "a portion" have been replaced with "their fair share". Thus paragraph (8) reads: (8) nonresidents who do not obtain a hunting or fishing license and employ a commercial provider for an opportunity to view wildlife should bear their fair share of the cost of wildlife management in this state; Number 0736 MR. POUND explained that on page 4, line 18 [Section 6], which relates to bonding requirements for the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) and the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC), those entities don't have to post a bond in order to sell the wildlife viewing passes. And line 26 [Section 7] allows AMHS and ARRC to collect a fee as any private-sector vendor would. Both entities will incur costs from having to sell these passes, and should be able to keep the funds just like any other vendor in order to offset those costs. Number 0605 MR. POUND drew attention to [Section 12, paragraphs (c)(5)-(7), beginning] on page 6, line 15. He noted that several similar amendments change "person" to "resident" in order to clarify between residents and nonresidents. The exceptions to the change to "resident" are a person under the age of 16 years [paragraph (c)(1)] and a person who is currently employed and has verifiable proof of employment in the commercial provider or transportation industry and provides direct services to tourists in Alaska [paragraph (c)(8)], which he said is individuals working on cruise ships and so forth; they wouldn't be required to have this pass. Number 0525 MR. POUND said the only other change is on page 7, line 26 [paragraph (f)(5)], where the word "ferry" has been added to the list of transportation modes; he said this "rolls back in" with the Alaska Marine Highway System. Number 0481 CHAIR FATE asked whether anyone wanted to testify who hadn't testified previously. Number 0369 BRIAN PETERSON, Licensed Master Guide and Outfitter, spoke on his own behalf. He began by proposing an amendment to the bill to also increase the bison tag fee, suggesting that fee should correlate directly with the current musk ox tag fees. He explained that bison are the wildlife resource in highest demand in the state, with approximately 10,000-12,000 applicants for 100-130 permits. Presently, he said, that would be a $500 resident tag fee, a $1,100 nonresident tag fee, and a $1,600 nonresident alien tag fee. The system used to harvest bison would then be incorporated by the Board of Game, he suggested, using an alternate system that is presently already used by [the Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)] in managing some of the state's brown bear hunts and the musk ox hunt on Nunivak Island. MR. PETERSON offered his belief that this would benefit Alaskan residents because of the need to generate revenue; he surmised there'd be no shortage of applicants, even with the tag fee. He acknowledged that the bill's title would have to be changed if this were added, but said [the bison] isn't a subsistence animal because it was introduced. Mr. Peterson said musk ox and bison have similar histories and he feels it would be very beneficial to make this change now. Offering his understanding that such a tag-fee change can only occur through statute, he told members that this [bill] is the first vehicle that has come along in the several years since nonresident tag fees were updated. Number 0181 MR. PETERSON turned attention to the bill in general, saying he supports it. Noting that he is a member of the Alaskan hunting community and several professional hunting and other associations in the state as well as national and international ones, Mr. Peterson said the industry has a 100-year history of supporting itself. He told members: Right now, we support 80 to 90 percent of wildlife management, harvesting approximately 8 to 12 percent of the game. And we will continue to do that because we do believe in supporting our industry. The one thing I do want to stress is that when you compare our nonresident tag fees for some of the animals that we're looking at, relative to the Canadian provinces that we are having competition with, we are beginning to get significantly above them. And the thing you have to realize, under the present system in Title 8, the product we offer has to be better than what the Canadians are offering in order for us to compete. The last thing we want to see is a decrease in nonresident use of these resources. MR. PETERSON, speaking for himself and not the industry, although he said he'd spoken with many members of the industry, spoke in favor of funding for the industry, but expressed the need to have support for his industry and to have enforcement. TAPE 03-24, SIDE A Number 0001 MR. PETERSON expressed concern that Title 8 isn't enforced anymore, and suggested the need for a new assistant attorney general to pursue wildlife-related crimes. He said a few years ago 30 to 40 violations weren't prosecuted by the Department of Law because of lack of resources. Although these are misdemeanors, Mr. Peterson indicated each carries a punishment of a year in jail and $10,000 to $30,000 in fines. Reiterating support for the bill and surmising that the industry supports it as well, he concluded by stating the need for "enforcement on the issues" and saying [Alaska] is getting out of whack with the international industry on these resources. Number 0140 BRAD PHILLIPS, Owner and Operator, Phillips' Cruises & Tours, noted that his company is in Anchorage and Prince William Sound. He began by questioning whether the bill's drafter knows much about the tourism industry. Calling the bill "a deadly thing," Mr. Phillips said he has been in the industry since 1947, helping to build it and taking lots of risks. In those early days, it was considered a good year if there were 2,000 visitors to Alaska, whereas there are more than 1.5 million visitors a year now. He said: That just didn't happen. We've been doing most of the marketing ourselves in the industry. And the last 10 years the state hasn't helped very much, and we have slipped from number 3 of all the 50 states to number 37 in marketing ... of what we have to sell here. We've taken it on the chin several times during ... this period of time. The 1964 earthquake was devastating, and we had no recovery on that - also, the '89 oil spill. Then when [the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001] came along, that next 10 days we lost a quarter of a million dollars on cancellations, and ... most of our operators in Alaska were off somewhere between 20 and 25 percent last year because people ... aren't traveling. And this war that came on didn't help: I've had cancellations from overseas clients constantly 'cause they're not traveling. And this [proposed legislation]: we've already sold three-quarters or 80 percent of our tickets, and there's no way that I can go back and ask somebody for $15 more for their cruise. ... I'd lose all of my customers, and I'm already losing some tour operators that, when they hear about this ... -- it's going to do a lot of damage .... MR. PHILLIPS questioned whether many committee members had been involved in the tourism industry, and asked them to understand the damage from the proposed $15 fee. He concluded, "We're being targeted for something that we don't have anything to do with, on that $15 thing. And I am absolutely opposed, and so is the rest of our industry." Number 0370 REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Mr. Phillips whether his company does the glacier cruise. MR. PHILLIPS affirmed that. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether that is usually the only [excursion] for people visiting Alaska, or whether it may be their second, third, or fourth one. MR. PHILLIPS said it depends on the tour operator. He added: They ... usually have a land program, and we're part of it. If there are people that just fly up - they're independents - they may do one or two things. If there are crewmembers on, say, Alaska Airlines, that want to have a day there and they want to do something, they come down. But there isn't [one] answer to that .... And I think the administration of this thing would be a nightmare. ... We don't sell all the tickets; they go through travel agents all over the world ... and tour operators, ... and there isn't any way I can know who qualifies and who doesn't Number 0468 REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether a person who buys a $15 pass wouldn't just have it, and the person collecting the charge for the trip would see the pass and would be able to write down the number of the existing pass. MR. PHILLIPS replied that first of all, he wouldn't sell any passes but would let somebody else worry about that. He disagreed with Representative Gatto's perception, however, and said somebody who'd booked a tour in San Diego, for example, wouldn't be seen by Mr. Phillips until they stepped aboard his boat. Not all people who go on the boat are seen in the sales office. He reiterated that it looks like a nightmare. [Chair Fate called upon John Hall, but he wasn't available on teleconference.] Number 0605 ALAN LeMASTER, Owner, Gakona Junction Village, noting that he'd testified the previous week, concurred with the testimony by Brad Phillips in opposition to HB 163. Number 0663 LEN LAURENCE, Mariner Inc., testified that he is a marketing consultant in tourism in Ketchikan, representing a number of businesses; has been involved with the travel industry for 35 years; and is past president of the Alaska Visitors Association. He specified that he was opposing not HB 167, but the $15 wildlife conservation pass. Saying he would echo the sentiments of Brad Phillips 100 percent, Mr. Laurence said the tax poses "significant legal, administrative, and policing prohibitions." MR. LAURENCE explained that this particular tax is highly targeted; will impact a large segment of the industry, creating adverse publicity for Alaskan tourism nationwide because no other state has a similar viewing fee; and falls on the tourist industry without putting additional revenue into tourism marketing. He concluded by adding that he, along with others in the travel industry, isn't opposed to a broad-based tax that will raise money for the state budget and, in particular, tourism marketing. [Chair Fate called upon Brien Salazar, but was informed he wasn't available on teleconference.] Number 0841 ROD ARNO testified that he has been a licensed wilderness tour guide since 1974 and today mainly does big-game hunting tours. He spoke in support of the bill, but said he believes it needs amendments and deletions. Referring to Section 2, page 2, he mentioned separate accounts and said he believes it is inappropriate; instead, it should say that the wildlife conservation pass fee shall be deposited into the general fund; under that, then, it would say the legislature may appropriate matching funds out of the general fund to match the federal CARA [Conservation and Reinvestment Act] money, "which is similar to the Pittman-Robertson money, which is hunter money that's come into the state before statehood to the tune of about $170 million for wildlife management to date." MR. ARNO explained his reasoning, saying there isn't a need for millions of additional dollars to go to ADF&G for management. He said the money that goes to management today from hunters hasn't achieved much. Asking what can be done to increase viewing, he mentioned educational programs and suggested CARA money could certainly take care of that, "but not at that expense." MR. ARNO referred to a survey done in the summer of 1993 by the McDowell [Group]. He indicated it was entitled "Alaska Visitor Expenditures" and was done with the state's Division of Tourism in what was then called the Department of Commerce and Economic Development. Mr. Arno said the greatest impact to Alaska from this "tourist industry that puts very little back into it" is infrastructure in rural areas. He reported that the 1993 survey showed that three-quarters of tourists who came to Alaska - 1.2 million - stayed in urban areas doing day tours and salmon bakes. By contrast, 1,200 people [surveyed] took adventures for wildlife viewing. Clearly, Mr. Arno said, there is an expense to the state: "the infrastructure, the hotels, the railroad, the airport, all of that that these tourists are using, and that there's no money back to the state to take care of these." He said he believes that is more important. Number 1051 MR. ARNO proposed having a resident fee as well as a higher nonresident fee of perhaps $100, for instance. As to the idea that guides who are "operators for watchable wildlife" don't have to buy the license, he indicated every [hunting] guide in Alaska has to buy a state license, and also must purchase and carry a hunting license, regardless of whether that person is hunting. Calling this bill a step in the right direction, he reiterated his concern that the tourist industry has put very little into the general fund in the last 10 years. Number 1123 CHAIR FATE asked whether anyone else wished to testify; he then closed public testimony. He announced that HB 163 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|