Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/13/1996 08:05 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 51 - SPORT FISHING GUIDE LIMITED ENTRY The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs Committee was HJR 51. CHAIR JAMES called on Jeff Logan, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green. Number 0072 JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green, thanked Chair James for bringing HJR 51 before the House State Affairs Committee. He said Representative Green was detained due to his flight so he would present the sponsor statement. He further said he would limit his testimony to the statewide policy implications of the authority granted in this resolution. He said the subsequent hearings in the House Special Committee on Fisheries and the House Judiciary Committee would explore the technicalities of law and fish management. Mr. Logan read the following sponsor statement into the record. "HJR 51 proposes a constitutional amendment to grant the state the authority to limit entry into the sport fish guide profession. HJR 51 is needed because the state's authority to impose such limits is not clear at this time. We believe that without a constitutional amendment, litigation is sure to follow any attempt to limit sport fish guides under current law. "While it is anticipated that such limits will be the conclusion of a public process, based on scientific data, HJR 51 does not address the specifics of implementing such restrictions. HJR 51 simply grants a clear and concise line of authority from the voters to the state." MR. LOGAN said it was not known if the state needed to limit sport fish guides, but there were strong indications that limits were needed in some fisheries. He referred the committee members to the bill packet and mentioned the information that indicated the increase in the number of guides in southeast and southcentral Alaska. The numbers indicated a problem, he asserted. He further stated the limitations would be a result of the public process and based on scientific data. He stated the mechanics for collecting the scientific data were spelled-out in HB 175. MR. LOGAN further said in 1991 resource managers proposed limiting guides on a popular river in southcentral Alaska. It was reviewed by the Department of Law and found unconstitutional. He referred the committee members to a memorandum dated December 4, 1995 from Legal Services which indicated attempts to impose such limits might not be patently unconstitutional, but there was a good chance it would be viewed as constitutionally unfounded by the court. In conclusion, he stated, HJR 51 was good statewide policy because it granted the resource managers a tool needed, and allowed the state to get ahead of the resource management, and litigation curve. He urged the passage of HJR 51 to the next committee of referral - The House Special Committee on Fisheries. Number 0320 CHAIR JAMES stated she was concerned about a binding policy compared to a local policy. The Alaska State Constitution guaranteed equal access to the resources and that the resources should be managed on a sustainable basis. Therefore, it was wise to limit the sport fish guide entry if that fell under the constitutional mandate to sustain the resources. Moreover, a constitutional amendment might not be necessary to accomplish this, and she questioned the appropriateness of an amendment addressing a specific resource. She said she did not approve or disapprove, but was concerned about the policy. Number 0440 MR. LOGAN replied resource managers felt they needed to limit in some fisheries the number of sport fish guides. The Department of Law found those proposals were unconstitutional so in order to proceed further, a constitutional amendment was needed according to Legislative Legal Services. Number 0485 CHAIR JAMES responded the Alaska State Constitution should be the guidepost for all subsequent statute changes as it was broad based and fair towards sharing and maintaining the resources. Therefore, if previous proposals were found unconstitutional, there was a reason. She stated she did not want to "mini manage" the state through constitutional amendments. Number 0536 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated he was concerned about the constitutional specificity of sport fish guide. He wondered if there would be a constitutional amendment for brown bear guides next year, for example. He further wondered if there was a need to limit any of these functions and suggested crafting an amendment that would allow the flexibility needed. Number 0620 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered, if HB 175, which established the licensing system, should be in place before HJR 51 was moved forward. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Valdez, Mark Buchner. Number 0672 MARK BUCHNER said it was a little too early to try to limit sport guides. He said there might be some problems in specific areas, such as the Kenai River, but there were so many places in the state that were so wide open that any form of legislation would cut a lot of people off. He said he would be present at all the future teleconferences and follow the progress of HJR 51. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Valdez, Joe Kilian. Number 0723 JOE KILIAN said there might be areas of the state that needed limitations, but there were areas that would be hurt by a limit. He cited in Valdez at times there were not enough charters to service the tourists. He stated once a limit was imposed, it affected the community as well. He stated HJR 51 was premature. He also said he would follow the progress of the resolution and would be present at future teleconferences. CHAIR JAMES reminded the witnesses that the focus of the issue today was on the philosophy of the issue as an amendment to the Alaska State Constitution, and not the specifics. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Kenai, Mel Erickson. Number 0840 MEL ERICKSON, Vice President, Kenai River Guide Association, and a member of the Deep Creek Charter Association, suggested area specific limitations. He cited there were open areas in commercial fishing. He further stated guides would probably increase in 1996 due to the Coast Guard easing-up on the six passenger license. CHAIR JAMES reminded Mr. Erickson the issue today was the appropriateness of a constitutional amendment and not the specifics of the fishing area. MR. ERICKSON replied he did not know that much about the Alaska State Constitution. He said he was all for it if it took a constitutional amendment. He stated he did not care how it happened as long as there were some regulations. It was getting way out of control and there was a resource problem. He cited commercial fishing was limited, the upper Kenai River was limited, and he wondered why the sport fish guides were by passed. He said, just figure out a way to do it even if it took a constitutional amendment. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Kenai, Joe Hanes. Number 0973 JOE HANES, President, Kenai River Guide Association, said a limit was needed one way or the other. He stated everybody wanted it to happen and cited the commercial fishermen, guides, and the board of fish wanted a limit. He said the precedence had been set in the commercial and big game industry, and there was limited entry in federal waters. He asserted HJR 51 gave the local resource managers the latitude to manage the fishery. Number 1040 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied, to clarify the record, there was no precedence for limited entry in any big game guide. He said there was a use area and it was unrestricted. The only constitutional precedent was for commercial fisheries and limited entry. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Ketchikan, Donald Westlund. Number 1066 DONALD WESTLUND asked the committee members how HJR 51 would be justified. He stated the state would loose money by limiting the sales of sport fish licenses. He said some people wanted this and some did not. He cited he worked with Senator Robin Taylor for a couple of years on this issue and said it would not pass the state attorney. He reiterated and wondered again how HJR 51 would be justified. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Fairbanks, Dennis Petre. Number 1147 DENNIS PETRE said he agreed with a constitutional amendment, but only for areas that were needed. He said the constitution as written was behind the times and needed to be updated. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Sitka, Kent F. Hall. Number 1183 KENT F. HALL said a constitutional amendment was too drastic of a means. He suggested a moratorium process. He reiterated a constitutional amendment was too drastic. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Paul Johnson. Number 1221 PAUL JOHNSON said the common use clause came into effect to get rid of fish traps. It was the push behind statehood, he said, to take the fish and give to the common property. He said flexibility was needed for good public policy for the residents. He said the residents, the people that owned the resources in the state would be the losers. He said it was a commercial activity and as public policy the sacred clause would need to be dealt with. He said the pie was not big enough to fit everybody, and the dollar value needed to be protected. A moratorium would not fly because it was not constitutional. He said an amendment was a clear cut avenue and gave the opportunity to protect the areas needed. The resolution stated "may" and was not a blanket clause. He further said it needed to be dealt with at some time and every year waited somebody would get hurt, big time. Number 1308 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Johnson if he was satisfied the way limited entry worked for commercial fisheries. MR. JOHNSON replied, "no." CHAIR JAMES said it was perpetuated by a constitutional amendment. MR. JOHNSON replied it was perpetuated by a constitutional amendment, and as a result of the legislative process the permit became sellable instead of an entry through a point system, for example, and that was the down fall of limited entry. Number 1364 CHAIR JAMES wondered if leaving a constitutional amendment open would create the same problems as the others. Number 1385 MR. JOHNSON said by the time the resolution went through the public process, it would have many bumps and curves. He said he was not concerned, this time, but did not have any problem including it in the constitution as a guideline. Number 1444 CHAIR JAMES said she saw no benefit to catch and release because it violated every reason for the need to go fishing. Number 1471 MR. JOHNSON said during the constitutional convention, the sole concern was fish traps and registered trap lines. Today, the issue was sport fish guides. He stated the law needed to be clear or it would be fought in the courts forever costing big bucks. Number 1516 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said something needed to be put in place while the resources were available. His constituents wanted to see some restrictions. Number 1537 CHAIR JAMES said all the resources in the state were vulnerable at this point. She stated she was not comfortable including a specific resource limit in the constitution. She said she would prefer a broader approach to allow statutory changes or policy changes for the Department of Fish and Game. Number 1562 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said there was frustration in rural Alaska to protect the resources and the resolution was seen as a vehicle to consider now. Number 1582 CHAIR JAMES compared the resolution to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution in that a resource could be managed if there was a compelling state interest. She said there must be a way to work within the existing constitution. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Fairbanks, Mike Kramer. Number 1605 MIKE KRAMER said the constitution should not be amended unless there was a compelling reason and limited entry for sport fish guide was not the proper subject for a constitutional amendment. He stated HB 175 and HJR 51 went hand-in-hand. He said there were problems in certain areas, such as the Kenai River, and should be dealt with by granting the Department of Fish and Game more emergency power. He further said resource conservation was not the problem, but rather the allocation of the fish into the rivers. Number 1740 MR. LOGAN said he was confident that he had the answers to most, if not all, of the questions raised by the committee members today. He asked when the resolution would be brought up again. CHAIR JAMES replied, Saturday, February 17, 1996.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|