Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
03/25/2011 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB106 | |
| HB173 | |
| HB106 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 173 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 173-SPORT FISHING GUIDING SERVICES
1:27:28 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 173, "An Act amending the termination date of the
licensing of sport fishing operators and sport fishing guides;
and providing for an effective date."
1:28:00 PM
JOMO STEWART, Staff, Representative Steve Thompson; Staff, House
Special Committee on Fisheries, paraphrased from the following
written sponsor statement:
House Bill 173 will ensure the continuation of
Alaska's sport fish guide licensing and reporting
program. Legislation authorizing the program was
passed in 2004 and the program has proven beneficial
to both the sport fishing industry and resource
managers. With more than 1.8 million clients, 88% of
whom are nonresidents, taking more than 460,000 guided
fishing trips in Alaska annually, guided sport fishing
has become an integral part of Alaska's tourism
economy. In fact, a study commissioned by the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game estimated that nonresident
spending on sport fishing was more than $650 million
in 2007.
Since the program's inception, an average of 1,670
sport fishing business licenses and 1,981 sport
fishing guide licenses have been sold annually. 90% of
license holders are Alaska residents and the
professionalization of the sport fishing guide
industry has benefitted both the industry and the
resource. The data collected through the program
provides information state and federal managers need
to sustainably manage sport fish populations. The
program also allows Alaska to receive an exemption
from the National Saltwater Angler Registry; a federal
program that would begin levying fees for registration
in 2011.
Recognizing the importance of the program, the Alaska
legislature extended the program's termination date
for one year in 2010. HB 173 proposes to similarly
amend the program's statutory termination language to
allow this valuable program to continue serving
Alaskans and their valuable fishery resources.
1:31:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to why only a one-year
extension is being proposed.
MR. STEWART noted that the program has regularly come up for
one-year extensions. The program generates a lot of good
information, but because of the way the information has been
gathered it takes some time to process that information. He
related that he has heard that the industry thinks it's good to
have the information, but they would prefer that the information
be better processed and utilized. Currently, SB 24 is moving
through the Senate. The Senate legislation was more ambitious
in that it was going to establish a regulatory board that would
have oversight over the sport fishing and guide licensing
industry. However, SB 24 was placed in a subcommittee for work
over the interim. Mr. Stewart recalled that there has regularly
been discussion of having a more detailed review of the program
and to make recommendations to achieve optimal functioning.
However, it just hasn't happened, and thus the legislature has
regularly made one-year extensions.
1:33:52 PM
CHARLES SWANTON, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), began by relating the
administration's support for HB 173 and the program. The
legislation allows for basic professional standards for the
industry and to collect data on how many are participating in
this industry and where, as well as their activities. From a
manager's perspective it's always a good thing to know how many
people are operating in a particular area, whether it's a
harvest or catch activity. Mr. Swanton informed the committee
that the legislation enacting the program included a three-year
sunset, after which the program was placed on a one-year sunset
cycle.
1:35:09 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked if there is any advantage to extending the
program for more than one year.
MR. SWANTON related his preference for a three-year sunset. In
further response to Co-Chair Feige, Mr. Swanton acknowledged
that, like any new program, there are issues to be addressed.
Some believe that the data being collected isn't to their
advantage to being collected, especially when that information
is placed in a regulatory format. He then told the committee
that there have been improvements to the program. For instance,
the saltwater logbook sheets, which were a cumbersome size at
11.5" X 17", have been changed to a standard 8.5" X 11" size.
The program is moving from entering the data via key punch to a
scannable program for the salt water this year. The hope is to
work out any technical problems. The department also plans to
institute a scannable spreadsheet for fresh water in 2012.
Those improvements, he opined, will result in an improved
timeliness with regard to the availability of the data.
1:37:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON questioned whether it's difficult to
work on something for which it is unknown whether it will be
continued in the next year.
MR. SWANTON reiterated that he would like the program to be
extended for three years, but related that in his line of work
much isn't set in concrete and thus he works with it as best he
can.
1:38:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER inquired as to which groups aren't in
favor of extending the program for more than a year.
MR. SWANTON answered that he didn't believe it's necessarily any
one group, per se. For a program with over 3,000 participants
there will be those who don't agree with the program for a
variety of reasons, including the belief that the state should
pay for the program rather than the participants.
1:40:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked whether an extension for more than
one year could be achieved if the budgeted amount was reduced to
$240,000. To further clarify his question, Representative
Herron asked whether the program could be run for $240,000
rather than the expected $400,000.
MR. SWANTON responded no, not without substantial decreases in
terms of the effectiveness of the program and timeliness of the
data. He noted that efficiencies have been gained by
distributing the logbooks and answering questions to the 22-plus
area management offices throughout the state. However, he
acknowledged that adding to area managers' duties is difficult
to do without some pushback. Mr. Swanton stated that it would
be very difficult for the program to operate with a budget of
$240,000.
1:42:19 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON, referring to the fiscal note, inquired as to
why there is a $400,000 appropriation for 2013 when the program
is scheduled to end in 2013.
MR. SWANTON explained that the logbooks are issued in January of
a year, and thus it's the beginning of the sequence. Part of
the disparity in the money taken in and the cost of the program
has to do with the start of the program when registration for a
sports fishing guide was voluntary. Therefore, from the outset
the cost of the program and the receipts from the guides were
disparate with each other. The $400,000, he specified, is the
cost to run the program for 12 months, while the $240,000 is the
receipts received from the fees from the guides and the owners
of the businesses.
1:44:29 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON pointed out that HB 173 doesn't have a House
Finance Committee referral. Furthermore, the fiscal note is
basically zero because [the appropriation] is incorporated into
the governor's 2012 budget. However, if [there's an extension]
to 2013, would that result in the need for there to be a fiscal
note that requires a House Finance Committee referral, he asked.
He further asked if the 2013 $400,000 would be necessary if the
program sunsets December 31, 2012. Co-Chair Seaton related his
assumption that the House Special Committee on Fisheries, since
it's the sponsor of HB 173, fully vetted and determined that it
wanted a one-year extension of the program. Therefore, he
questioned why there's a two-year fiscal note.
MR. SWANTON responded that he can't answer that question other
than to offer that in many cases, the cost of the program is
merely being projected forward versus the $240,000, an average
of the receipts over the past years, that's carried forward. He
related his belief that a better job of splitting out the costs
between one calendar year and the fiscal year could be achieved,
if that is what is requested.
CO-CHAIR SEATON remarked that perhaps the sponsor could comment
on that matter at some point.
1:46:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled that this issue was before the
House Special Committee on Fisheries last year and some of the
opposition came from the perception that the fees were going to
increase due to a more sophisticated data entry system.
However, it appears the costs won't increase and thus may
alleviate the aforementioned opposition.
MR. SWANTON clarified that the aforementioned opposition
occurred two years ago when conceptually the fees were being
reviewed in terms of making the program solvent. As one would
imagine, there was a fair amount of opposition to that. In
further response to Representative Munoz, Mr. Swanton confirmed
that under HB 173 the fees will remain the same. Therefore, the
fee will remain $100 for a [business owner] or business
owner/guide combo and $50 for a guide.
1:48:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ stated that she would like the committee to
consider an extension of the program because it has been
successful.
1:48:36 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked if would be possible for the fees to
decrease.
MR. SWANTON expressed hope that over the course of time with
scannable logbooks and other foundational changes to how the
data is collected that [there would be some savings realized].
However, to suggest what those savings would be at this point is
probably problematic and premature.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE encouraged Mr. Swanton to review decreasing the
fees. He suggested that decreasing the fees may offer a
reasonable trade for extending the program to provide Mr.
Swanton and his staff certainty in terms of the length of the
program.
1:50:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON commented that the fees don't come
close to covering the costs of the program now, and she doubted
that even if the costs were to decrease that they would decrease
even by half. She said she wouldn't believe the fees would be
lowered unless the revenues received are more than the cost of
the program. Representative P. Wilson then related that she is
in favor of renewing the program for three years.
1:51:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK said that although he understands the need
for good data to make good decisions, he pointed out that at the
same time there are folks who don't want to give out
information. He then inquired as to where this logbook
information can be found.
MR. SWANTON answered that he believes it's on the ADF&G website,
but since its redesign he isn't sure exactly where it can be
found. He offered to provide the specific site and the
requested information to the committee later.
1:52:11 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON pointed out that the committee's backup material
includes 2006 and 2007 saltwater charter logbook registration
forms. He asked if those are the same pages currently being
used.
MR. SWANTON recalled that the department's comprehensive review
and modifications to the logbook pages occurred between 2008 and
2009. The aforementioned timeframe was when fairly substantial
modifications were being made to the saltwater logbook pages.
He explained the changes came about after the department
travelled to 10 different locations in the state in which the
local guides were invited to provide comments regarding how best
to accommodate their needs for filling out the logbook sheets in
a timely and efficient manner. The suggestions from the guides
resulted in the modified logbook sheets in 2010.
CO-CHAIR SEATON clarified that the backup material the committee
has doesn't include the modified logbook sheets from 2010,
rather it has logbook sheets from 2006, 2007, 2008 for salt and
fresh water.
1:54:22 PM
MELVIN GROVE, President, Prince William Sound Charter Board
Association (PWSCBA), began by stating that he has been dealing
with this issue for the last three years. Mr. Grove explained
that originally, the administration wanted to terminate the
sunset of this program altogether. The PWSCBA was opposed to
the aforementioned primarily because the guides and sport
fishermen have seen no benefit from the data provided. In fact,
fewer fish and lower allocation has resulted, and thus the
information provides has hurt guides rather than help them. He
highlighted the halibut issues in Southeast Alaska as an
example. Additionally, there is the cost. The $100 fee
provides a guide with a logbook, a sticker for the boat, and a
wallet card. Mr. Grove related that the guides aren't opposed
to the requirements and filling out the logbooks. However, the
guides don't feel they should have to pay for this data,
especially if they don't receive any benefit from it. Mr. Grove
suggested that if the total cost of the program is divided by
the amount of fishermen [PWSCBA] supports, it amounts to about a
$.30 increase in the fishermen's licensing fees. He opined that
the cost of the program should be derived from the licensing
fees rather than allowing the state to make revenue from the
fishermen [and guides]. He then encouraged the committee to
consider what is spent on the statewide harvest survey, which he
estimated to be over $4 per survey sent out when that
information has already been gathered from PWSCBA's clients. He
suggested that perhaps some of the funds spent on the statewide
harvest survey could be shifted to this logbook program. He
further suggested reviewing the percentage of funds spent on the
program in comparison to the benefits received. Mr. Grove said
that he didn't have a problem extending the program, and opined
that the one-year extension was offered in order to review the
sport fish guide service legislation mentioned earlier.
However, he said he didn't believe Senate Bill 24 could be fixed
within a year without some serious changes.
1:59:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON recalled her time as a nurse and
working at the hospital the day a sport fishing boat that didn't
have enough life jackets sunk. In the aforementioned situation,
some lived and some did not. The fact that fishermen are
required to know CPR and other things is very important, as the
aforementioned situation brought to bear that day. She then
expressed hope that Mr. Grove could view [the legislation] as a
way of helping the whole industry. The counts, she emphasized,
are important in order maintain a sustainable fishing industry
that includes guides.
2:01:20 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE requested that Mr. Swanton reiterate the value of
the information the guides are submitting.
MR. SWANTON said that one benefit of the data is that the area
management staff responsible for maintaining the health of the
stocks has timely and geographically proximate information with
regard to catch effort and harvest. Within the guiding
industry, the aforementioned information wasn't available prior
to this program. He recalled that Mr. Grove referenced other
programs, such as the Statewide Harvest Survey that has been a
standard program since 1977. He noted that the Statewide
Harvest Survey has a fair amount of opponents and critics. In
fact, recently the department received information that other
places in the country are struggling to collect harvest
information from recreational anglers and are considering
instituting a mail-out survey very similar to the one [ADF&G] is
instituting. He attributed this consideration of Alaska's
program to the quality of the data collected from the program.
Furthermore, some of the creel clerks, which collect size and
harvest information, have been noticed. Mr. Swanton emphasized
that because of the size of the state and the diversity of the
recreational anglers throughout the state, a one-size fits all
program can't be used, and therefore there are multiple
programs. He then informed the committee that the Board of
Fisheries received and addressed over 200 proposals for the
Upper Cook Inlet and for over one-third of those proposals data
provided from the logbook program was provided and utilized by
the board.
2:04:13 PM
KEN LARSON, Owner/Operator, Sanity Charters, began by noting
that he is a past president and current secretary of PWSCBA. He
said he wanted to offer observations about not doing something
like SB 24, but rather extending the sunset through January 2013
with HB 173. He stated that halibut charter operators already
have to meet almost all of the requirements included in SB 24,
except for onerous exams and adhering to exclusive sport fish
guide use areas. The latter of which is the largest problem for
Mr. Larson. In fact, he opined that the exclusive sport fish
guide use areas will be extremely difficult if not impossible
for saltwater guides to adhere to. Furthermore, [sport fish
guides] are already guided by their own association of
professionalism and conservation rules of the resource.
Moreover, sport fish guides have a minimal impact in terms of
bycatch and waste issues, such as continually occurs with the
commercial fisheries. Mr. Larson opined that the logbooks have
shown that the sport fish industry, particularly in terms of
halibut, has had a minimal impact on the fishery when one
considers sport fisheries, both guided and non guided, account
for 10-15 percent of the annual catch of halibut. The big impact
players are the commercial fisheries, such as the long liners
and the draggers. He informed the committee that the commercial
fisheries has a bycatch and waste issue of 13 million pounds
annually while the entire sport fisheries is catching 8-9
million pounds annually. Regardless, halibut charter guides
have already been reduced by 35-40 percent by implementation of
the halibut charter limited entry program this year. The
aforementioned has reduced the amount of halibut charters to
about 600 boats and it's steadily declining. Furthermore, the
one fish, 37-inch rule in Southeast Alaska is going to eliminate
more guides and businesses. Therefore, he questioned who is
really going to be regulated. He characterized [the halibut
sport fish industry] as a dying industry that's overregulated.
As was mentioned earlier, the guide license legislation has been
worked on since 2004. Historically, 85 percent of the guides
have opposed the guide license legislation, and therefore he
questioned why such an expensive oversight regulation would be
continued. Furthermore, the existing logbook program seems to
work well and provides the desired and needed data.
2:07:39 PM
MR. LARSON, as an aside, informed the committee that ADF&G's
nonresident license revenues and overall revenues have been
declining since 2005. Therefore, he opined that costs to guides
will drastically increase to fund and implement a guide
licensing board. "Extend the sunset, if you must, but use the
time to just permanentize a guide services board with a nine-
person staff will just cost a whole lot more money. I've never
seen a growing government program go down in cost," he remarked.
2:08:25 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON noted that the commercial fishery has an
electronic logbook that it has been perfecting over the years.
He asked whether such an electronic logbook would generally be
available so that the [charter guide] forms could be submitted
electronically or is it beyond the current capacity of the
charter guides.
MR. LARSON acknowledged that the charter guides are aware that
electronic submission of forms is probably in the future.
However, there are areas that don't have Internet service. For
instance, Mr. Larson told the committee that his lodge is 25
miles out of Valdez and just recently received intermittent
Internet service. Furthermore, there are many "dead areas" in
Prince William Sound where he can't obtain an electronic signal
to send in the data, which he assumed is also the case in areas
of Southeast Alaska. Mr. Larson surmised that technology will
eventually catch up and he doesn't object to [submitting forms
electronically]. In further response to Co-Chair Seaton, Mr.
Larson related that he often flies his clients from Valdez to
his lodge and then hauls them back, and thus sometimes he runs
afoul of the seven-day rule of the logbook to get it in the
mail. He said the same could happen if he doesn't have adequate
electronic service at his lodge. He assumed that the
aforementioned would be more critical in Southeast Alaska where
there are more dead spots and mainly have fly-out clients.
Therefore, there is a concern, he stated.
2:11:28 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, inviting Mr. Stewart back, announced that some
issues have been discovered with the fiscal note and the
committee should review it again.
MR. STEWART said that he noticed [the issues] with the fiscal
note as well, and then pointed out that the legislation has been
referred to the House Finance Committee.
2:11:59 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON recalled that when the House Special Committee
on Fisheries introduced HB 173 it had a one-year sunset. He
inquired as to whether there was much discussion regarding a
one-year extension versus a three-year extension.
MR. STEWART informed the committee that HB 173 mirrors SB 91,
which is a one-year extension. There was no discussion
regarding an extension longer than one year as folks seemed
satisfied with it pending other possible activities.
[HB 173 was held over.]