Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
01/30/2014 09:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB143 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 143 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 30, 2014
9:03 a.m.
9:03:23 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton; Mike Monagle, Director,
Division of Workers Compensation, Department of Labor and
Workforce Development; Benjamin Brown, Commissioner,
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission(CFEC); Michelle
Kaelke, Licensing Supervisor, Department of Fish and
Game(ADFG);
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Clay Bezenek, Self, Ketchikan; Mark Saldi, Fishermen's
Fund, Skagway.
SUMMARY
HB 143 COMMERCIAL FISHING CREWMEMBER LICENSES
HB 143 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
9:03:37 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed the meeting's agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 143
"An Act relating to crewmember fishing licenses."
9:04:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, presented HB 143 and indicated
that it looked at the short-term 7-day crew member license.
He related that the short-term crew license was instituted
in 2005 and that the intent was to allow for non-Alaskans
and Alaskans alike to experience commercial fishing for a
short-term time period and not have to pay the full annual
fee, as well as provide more economic opportunity for
commercial fishermen to take people out on what were
essentially charters to experience commercial fishing. The
short-term crew license had a reduced single fee and had
not been used very frequently; however, currently there was
a very large growth in the number of short-term commercial
fishing licenses that were being acquired by non-residents
because they could be purchased sequentially. He explained
that someone could buy a series of 7-day fishing licenses
and that non-residents had become aware that if they had a
3-week fishery in Bristol Bay, they could buy three 7-day
licenses and escape the higher non-resident annual license.
Representative Seaton related that part of the problem with
the current 7-day crew license was related to a program
called the Fishermen's Fund that helped with the medical
costs for an injured fisherman. He explained that 39
percent of the fee from the commercial fishing licenses
went towards the Fishermen's Fund and that in the case of
the short-term, 7-day licenses, the contribution was only
39 percent of $30 instead of 39 percent of $200; however,
people who bought the short-term licenses received the same
medical coverage as those that paid the full fee of the
long-term license. He reported that in 2012, there were
2317 non-resident 7-day licenses that paid in $27,000 to
the Fishermen's Fund; the fund paid out $23,767 in that
year. He stated that currently, the Fishermen's Fund was
secure, but there was an increase in the 7-day licenses
that were paying in less, which could pose a problem.
Representative Seaton stated that the bill would leave the
$30 resident fee for 7-day commercial fishing licenses the
same, but would follow the Alaska Supreme Court's decision
regarding the Carlson Differential. He explained that the
Carlson Differential allowed the state to charge more for
non-residents because they did not pay all of the support
that residents did in their license fees; the bill would
charge an additional one-third of that decision. He added
that 39 percent of the fee would also go towards the
fishermen's fund and would cover it more successfully. He
related that for years, there was an arbitrary fee and that
the non-resident fee was 3 times the amount of the resident
fee. He recalled a court case that addressed concerns
regarding non-residents being over charged and the amount
being arbitrary that had eventually reached the Alaska
Supreme Court. The court had decided that you could charge
more for non-residents because residents supported ADFG
through the State of Alaska with more than just the fee;
the Carlson Decision was calculated by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) every year to determine how
much more could be charged under the decision. He related
that the bill added in one-third of the Carlson
Differential to the fee of the short-term, non-resident
commercial fishing licenses. He added that OMB could give a
better explanation of how the Carlson Decision was
calculated every year. He stated that the bill did not
change resident fees and that all it did was address the
problem of the short-term 7-day license.
9:11:40 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze related that some of his best friends were
commercial fishermen and that they had brought up disparate
contributions from the different gear groups to the
Fishermen's Fund. He inquired if the bill was a chance to
look at disproportionate rates in the Fishermen's Fund and
further inquired if it was an issue. Representative Seaton
responded that the issue was not one that had been
addressed.
Co-Chair Stoltze inquired if it had been an issue within
the industry. Representative Seaton replied that it may be
an issue in the industry, but that the current bill only
addressed the problem of a low contribution by a 7-day
license into the fund.
Co-Chair Stoltze understood, but observed that it raised
other questions regarding the health of Fishermen's Fund
and the contributions into it. He noted that sometimes
people suggested things that could not be fixed and
admitted that he was not a fisheries expert.
Representative Gara thought that the idea for the original
bill was great, but noted that the sponsor of HB 143 had
found a loophole in the current system. He observed that
tourists or locals going out commercial fishing was
intended as a recreational activity and wondered why the
process that allowed someone to buy multiple licenses in
sequence was not stopped. He offered that the abuse was in
letting people renew the 7-day license. He thought that
residents should not be costing the Fishermen's Fund money.
Representative Gara inquired why the 7-day crew license was
not limited to one issuance per person and if locals that
took tourists out recreational should pay enough money to
compensate the Fishermen's Fund. Representative Seaton
replied that the sponsors had looked at that, but that
there had been objections to it.
Co-Chair Stoltze inquired who had raised the objections and
noted that the committee wanted things on the record.
Representative Seaton responded that he could not recall
who exactly had voiced objections, but that Representative
Gara's suggestion had also been his original idea.
9:15:26 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze thought that if someone did not think
something was a good idea, they should come forward and say
so. Representative Seaton reiterated that he could not
recall exactly who had voiced objections, but that
Representative Gara's suggestion had been his original
position on the bill. He recalled that there had been
concerns raised at the time that weather delays would
affect some trips and that people would be unable get a
license reissued if the time window had gone by. He stated
that the bill had originally used a $60 fee, but that it
was an arbitrary number instead of fitting with the Carlson
Decision. He stated that the bill's solution applied the
Alaska Supreme Court's adjudicated and set-out framework in
a way that used the differential and did not increase
resident fees. He related that although there was not a lot
of use of the 7-day permit by residents, there was some use
and that the sponsor did not want to cut out the
possibility of expanding tourism for resident commercial
fishermen. He discussed how several years prior, the
television show "Deadliest Catch" had been taking tourists
out to have them experience commercial fishing in both
Southeast Alaska and in Cook Inlet.
Representative Gara thought that he would support the bill
no matter how it was written, but that he liked the
sponsor's original idea that did not allow for renewals. He
added that there could be an extension in the case of
weather delays and that the fee for the short-term license
should be enough money to compensate the Fishermen's Fund.
He thought that if the bill passed the committee, it would
pass the House Floor as well.
Representative Holmes stated that Representative Gara had
asked her question and that it had been answered.
Representative Edgmon stated that it was Representative
Moses that had brought the original bill forward, but that
it had originated in Bristol Bay. He thought that the idea
for the bill was that during start or the end of the
season, which tended to be the scratch times, a person
could come out and learn the fishery and perhaps tie it in
with tourism along the way. He added that the bill had
received the moniker "dude fishing," which was not the
intent of the bill.
Vice-Chair Neuman queried how the fees were set.
Representative Seaton relayed that the original intent of
the bill was a $60 flat fee. He relayed that if the fee was
high enough to make it not economic to buy multiple
licenses, people would just buy the one-time annual non-
resident fee; the fee was self-limiting regarding people
using it as a workaround to pay less money. He stated that
the bill provided an economic opportunity for tourist
activity and took the economic incentive for true
commercial fishermen to use the short-term commercial
fishing license as a way not to buy their annual license.
He noted that when the bill was first proposed, the fee was
going to be doubled, but that there were concerns raised
that the Alaska Supreme Court had already heard the issue.
He related that the sponsors did not want to get into a
situation where they were arbitrarily setting the number
and that they had used the Carlson Decision; the bill
applied one-third of the Carlson Differential to the fee.
The sponsors thought that the fee change would pass muster,
kept the state out of potential litigation, provided
adequate resources for the Fishermen's Fund, and kept all
of the economic opportunity.
9:21:43 AM
Vice-Chair Neuman inquired if the fee covered all the
administrative costs to the state. He wanted to make sure
that funding would not be taken out of ADFG or the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development in order to
cover the costs. Representative Seaton replied in the
affirmative.
Co-Chair Stoltze appreciated the discussion of tourism
being part of fishing and noted that in some regions of the
state, sport fish related tourism far exceeded the economic
value of commercial fishing. He thought that there was
common ground recognizing the tourism impact and that the
discussion needed to be broadened to all aspects of user
groups.
9:23:16 AM
CLAY BEZENEK, SELF, KETCHIKAN (via teleconference),
testified in support of HB 143 and expressed appreciation
that the bill was being was heard. He believed that Cook
Inlet might be the only area in the state where the
economics of tourism in sport fishing superseded commercial
fishing. He reported that the Alaska Seafood Marketing
Institute (ASMI) had released a good economic value of the
seafood industry that was done by the McDowell Group. He
thought that the bill was well written.
Co-Chair Stoltze related that the sponsor was planning on
making some changes to how the bill was written. Mr.
Bezenek stated that he supported Representative Seaton and
his efforts, and pointed out that the sponsor was
responding to concerns of resident commercial fishermen.
9:25:25 AM
MARK SALDI, FISHERMEN'S FUND, SKAGWAY (via teleconference),
supported HB 143. He stated that the original concept of
the bill was "dude fishing" for tourism, but that the 7 day
commercial fishing license was being more and more used in
the Bristol Bay area; the increased use in the bay was
resulting in more claims to the Fishermen's Fund. He
related that the Fishermen's Fund had discussed other
options for closing the loophole, but that he liked the
option that was in the bill. He pointed out that the bill
would raise more revenue for the state and increase the
contribution to the Fishermen's Fund.
Co-Chair Stoltze inquired if there had been any dissent
among the Fishermen's Fund regarding the disparate payments
between the different user groups or regions. He further
inquired if the user groups were happy with the amount they
were paying into the fund and if it was viewed as
equitable. Mr. Saldi replied that he was unsure what the
question was exactly.
Co-Chair Stoltze clarified that there were participants
that paid into the Fishermen's Fund across the different
areas, regions, and user groups across the state. He
inquired if there was a complete consensus among all the
users in the regions that everyone was paying a fair and
equal amount.
Representative Munoz noted that it looked like there were
1466 7-day non-resident crew member licenses in 2010. She
inquired if Mr. Saldi knew how many claims were being made
against the Fishermen's Fund by the non-resident crew
members in a given year. Mr. Saldi replied that he did not
have the numbers in front of him and that he had called in
to support the bill. He stated that the Fishermen's Fund
did keep really good statistics on injury claims by area
for each fishing district. He offered that the fund could
supply the statistics for the committee.
9:29:20 AM
MIKE MONAGLE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, related that
the division administered the Fishermen's Fund and offered
that he had the answer to Representative Munoz's question.
He thought that in the last 5 years, 5 was the highest
number of claims in a given year from a non-resident 7-day
crew licensee.
Mr. Monagle responded to an earlier question from Co-Chair
Stoltze regarding possible disparate contributions by the
different user groups and stated that while the Fishermen's
Fund was funded by crew-member licenses, it was also funded
by limited entry permits; he thought that the question
pertained to the fees that the CFEC charged for the permit
holders, depending on the type of fishery. He offered that
the question was not about a direct contribution to the
Fishermen's Fund, but regarded the permitting fee
structure, which depended on the type of commercial
fishery.
Co-Chair Stoltze inquired if there were fisheries that paid
a higher amount by region. Mr. Monagle replied that the
amount that came to the Fishermen's Fund was pretty
constant and flat at 39 percent; however, the CFEC did
determine that each fishery paid a different permit fee
price. He thought that someone from ADFG or the CFEC might
be able to answer the question better.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that his question was one that
constituents and friends had asked him to raise when the
issue came up and that he did not feel adequate answering
the question. He recalled that the same type of issue was
raised during the ASMI assessments and relayed that Bristol
Bay had paid the bulk of the assessment for that fishery;
he thought that there was even legislation at the time
intended to give Bristol Bay a larger portion of the ASMI
board. He concluded that this was not the first time an
issue "like this" had arisen within fisheries discussions
and felt that he could not provide his constituents with a
clear answer.
BENJAMIN BROWN, COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY
COMMISSION(CFEC), stated that the CFEC did a transfer every
year to the Fishermen's Fund from part of the revenues it
collected for limited entry permits, which were different
that crew-member permits. He explained that CFEC issued
permits to skippers on boats that were based on the value
of the permit. The value of permit was assessed by
analyzing the sales of the permits if there were enough
sales; if there were not enough sales, the permit renewal
fee was based on the value of that fishery from earnings.
He explained that he did not bring the current year's memo
with him, but that on January 15, 2013, CFEC had
transferred $132,740 to the Fishermen's Fund; this
reflected $77,000 from resident fishermen and $55,000 from
non-resident fishermen. He added that he could provide the
most recent Fishermen's Fund transfer information in follow
up for the committee, but pointed out that it was a fairly
constant number that did not fluctuate greatly from year to
year.
Mr. Brown continued to address Co-Chair Stoltze's question
and related that there was no methodology in the way the
fees were currently collected and transferred to try and
equalize them across different fisheries, permit types, or
areas of the state; additionally, doing so would be a big
project to undertake.
9:34:12 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze inquired if the Fishermen's Fund was run
with criteria similar to workers' compensation such as risk
assessment or whether it was more on a progressive tax
scale. Mr. Brown replied that there were 3 governmental
agencies issuing permits and licenses, as well as
administering the fund and offered that this might be part
of the reason that there had not been an assessment of
whether or not the Fishermen's Fund was being run like
workers' compensation; furthermore, CFEC did not run the
fund, but only provided money to it. He relayed that he was
hesitant to offer analysis regarding how the Fishermen's
Fund was run.
Representative Wilson inquired why there were so many
agencies involved in the fund and inquired if the state was
paying extra money each time another agency collected funds
for the Fishermen's Fund. She further inquired if it would
be easier if one division or agency dealt with the fund.
Mr. Brown replied that he was not sure if there was any
enhanced cost or significant additional staff time used to
collect the money and turn it over. He did not think 3
agencies being involved augmented the state's cost in
collecting the money and making sure that there was money
in the fund. He related that the question that the Co-Chair
Stoltze had asked was how the Fishermen's Fund was managed
in comparison with workers compensation; however, the
question pertained to after money had flowed into the fund.
He did not know that having different agencies collecting
the money made it harder for decisions to be made regarding
how money was paid out to fishermen who had claims.
Representative Wilson inquired if Mr. Brown would be
opposed to having only one agency collecting for the
Fishermen's Fund. Mr. Brown responded that that it would be
difficult to break out the collection of the portion a
permit renewal fee that would go to the Fishermen's Fund
because fishermen would have to pay their renewal to 2
different places; he offered that this would transfer the
burden to the commercial fishermen who were renewing the
permit. He observed the CFEC did not have objection to the
suggestion as a matter of policy, but that someone might
have to write two checks; additionally, he was unsure if
this would increase administrative efficiency.
Representative Wilson observed that she could get further
financial clarification from the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development during the subcommittee process.
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered if the renewal issue would raise
any problems for CFEC. Mr. Brown stated that the issue had
arisen when it had been erroneously stated that the data
regarding the 7-day crew licenses was CFEC data; however,
the data was not from CFEC. He furthered that because of
the misconception that CFEC was issuing the 7-day licenses,
the agency had been drawn into the conversation; however,
CFEC did not issue the licenses and did not have an opinion
regarding placing limitations on the number of renewals. He
thought that Representative Gara's and Representative
Holmes' question was a very good one, but reiterated that
CFEC did not have an opinion on the issue.
9:38:39 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered if there were any issues that Mr.
Brown wanted to comment on regarding the Carlson Case. Mr.
Brown replied that the Carlson Case had resulted in a
mandate from the Alaska Supreme Court that the state was
not allowed to overcharge non-residents for limited entry
permits. He pointed out that charging 3 times more to non-
residents was considered arbitrary and that the Alaska
Supreme Court had unanimously stated that under the Federal
Privileges and Immunities Clause, non-residents had a right
to come and work in Alaska and could not be punished for
not being Alaskans. He reported with the Carlson Decision,
every 3 years OMB completed a painstaking analysis
regarding all of the state revenues that non-residents
should not have the benefit of. He pointed out that non-
residents were not Alaskans, did not get a dividend, and
should not get the benefit of those oil dollars that were
paying for services to manage commercial fisheries.
Mr. Brown continued to speak to the Carlson Decision and
related that the most recent 3-year calculation by OMB was
on October 1, 2012; this calculation had yielded the
current $190 per year single charge. He added that if you
had 4 permits as a non-resident, then the charge was only
paid once; this was what was permissible. He stated that
the $190 charge was in turn referred to in AS 16.05.480(i)
to help determine the allowable non-resident differential
for an annual crew license. He reported that the current
version of HB 143 would take one-third of the non-resident
differential and add it on to the 7-day commercial crew
license fee as a means to fairly charge a non-resident for
what ought to be contributed to the public coffers to make
sure that they were not receiving benefits that they were
not entitled to.
Mr. Brown expressed potential legal concerns regarding the
current version of the bill and related that one-third of
the annual fee was 4 months; he opined that if a person
bought a 7-day crew license with the one-third differential
added on and was not getting the value for it, they could
raise an argument that it was an overcharge. He related
that the sponsor wanted a bill that was not going to lead
to a lawsuit. He stated that earlier in the week, the State
of California had lost on summary judgment for overcharging
on non-resident licenses and that it was contacting the
State of Alaska regarding advice on the matter; the non-
resident licenses in California had been between 2 to 3
times as much for non-residents. He added that the State of
California's case was heard in a federal court and warned
that the Alaska State Legislature should be careful to
adopt a number for the surcharge that was the least likely
to lead to litigation.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell had
been "inspecting the fishing colonies" on a couple of trips
earlier in the year.
Mr. Brown surmised that the House Finance Committee was
correctly scrutinizing that the proposed differential was
not too little, but was also not so high as to give a non-
resident an argument that they were being overcharged.
Co-Chair Austerman inquired how the one-third language in
the bill related to the re-evaluation every 3 years. He
further queried if the one-third would change over time
because of the re-evaluation. Mr. Brown replied in the
affirmative and stated it would be a fluid number that was
benchmarked to that determination being made in statute
under AS 16.05.480(h). He pointed out that the number would
change over time and that if it was right amount, it would
probably remain the same.
Co-Chair Austerman was still unclear regarding whether the
one-third was a constant or if the ratio might change over
or time. Mr. Brown replied that the one-third differential
was in the language of the bill, but that the figure that
it was a one-third of is what would change with the re-
calculation of the differential.
9:43:38 AM
Representative Holmes acknowledged that CFEC did not have a
position on the underlying issue, but thought that given
the discussion on the Carlson Case, it might be better to
limit the renewals. She thought that trying to determine
the fee by the value or the cost of the short-term license
might bring up Carlson Case issues and opined that the
license might be limited to 1 issuance with a weather
exemption or a determination of days actually spent on the
water. She thought that the committee might have to play
around with Representative Seaton's original idea.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that he was leaning towards
Representative Seaton's original idea for the bill, but
that it would be the will of the committee that would
decide the issue. Representative Holmes agreed.
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that he wanted to talk to Mr.
Monagle again regarding the bill and also wanted some
advice from Representative Edgmon due to the amount of
fishing in his district.
Representative Holmes stated that there was a fiscal note
in front of the committee and that she would like to
discuss it with the ADFG. She observed that the note's
analysis explained the change in revenue line well, but
requested an explanation of the services line. She
mentioned that the services costs that increased in the out
years and inquired how the costs were arrived at.
MICHELLE KAELKE, LICENSING SUPERVISOR, DEPARTMENT OF FISH
AND GAME, replied that the costs were based on the 15
percent commission that the department provided to its
vendors. She pointed out that the overall gain in revenue
would be $139,000 and that 15 percent of that on an annual
basis was $20,900. She stated that on the first fiscal
year, which was FY15, the department had calculated the
behavior of when licenses were purchased from January
through June of the fiscal year and had calculated "about a
15 percent sale; so that's 3.1 percent of 29.9 percent."
9:47:49 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze inquired who the vendors of commercial
crew licenses were. Ms. Kaelke replied that ADFG had 1,000
vendors throughout the state that sold fishing gear; the
vendors included gas stations and mom and pop stores.
Co-Chair Stoltze inquired if Ms. Kaelke was referencing
crew licenses. Ms. Kaelke responded that she was
referencing crew and sports fishing licenses.
Representative Munoz inquired how the vendors were
compensated and further inquired if the compensation was
proportioned by the amount of sales that a vendor had. Ms.
Kaelke replied that the vendors had to report back to ADFG
on a monthly basis when they sold licenses; the vendors
kept the commission, but the department still reported it
as an expense. She explained that it was an expense to ADFG
because it was commission that it paid out; however, the
vendors keep it before it was sent.
Representative Holmes noted that in the current year, she
had purchased her resident hunting and fishing license in
Auke Bay and that the business that sold it to her received
15 percent of the fee; however, the prior year, she had
purchased her resident hunting and fishing license directly
from ADFG. She inquired if there was no commission for
licenses that were purchased online from ADFG. Ms. Kaelke
responded in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Stoltze inquired if the commission was 50 percent
of the assessment. Ms. Kaelke replied that the commission
was 15 percent.
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that he had misheard and thought
that the commission was 50 percent of the license fee. He
was unsure if 15 percent was the right amount, but noted
that it was probably cheaper than having state employees
conducting the work.
Vice-Chair Neuman pointed to the fiscal note and assumed
that the 15 percent revenue increase meant that more people
were participating in the program. He thought that the
program sounded great and inquired if the 15 percent was an
assumption that there was a growth in the number of people
using the 7-day licenses. He observed that the fiscal note
went all the way out to 2020 with no increase and stated
that the term inflation proofing was used a lot to cover
administrative costs. He inquired if it was expected that
with the growth in the business and the fees that were
currently collected, which were statutorily stated in the
bill's proposal, would continue to cover the department's
administrative costs out to 2020. Ms. Kaelke replied in the
affirmative and added that the department's administrative
fees would be covered.
9:51:25 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze recalled a prior bill that he had not
supported that had a $9 assessment for building hatcheries.
He opined that the committee would be screaming about
paying an extra 15 percent or even a point or 2 on the
state's bonds, but noted that the bill was scraping off 15
percent over a pretty large amount; he expressed concern
about taking this amount off the top of a bonded and
indebtedness issue. He offered that the committee would not
tolerate a 15 percent rake on a bond package because it was
fighting over 1 or 2 points of better interest rate.
Representative Edgmon inquired if a non-resident or
resident commercial fisherman could use their smart phone
to renew or buy the license with ADFG. He was unsure how
someone would get ashore every 7 days in Bristol Bay. Ms.
Kaelke replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Austerman thought that Co-Chair Stoltze's question
was a good one for the finance subcommittee to delve into.
9:54:09 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that there were many issues to look
at regarding the bill.
Representative Seaton explained that the licenses could be
bought sequentially in advance and from different vendors.
He stated that when the sponsors had looked at limiting the
number of licenses that could be purchased, the problem was
that licenses that were purchased from vendors left a paper
trail that made it impossible to track and limit the number
licenses. He stated that if the committee wanted to make it
so that the licenses could only be purchased
electronically, then there would be a way of limiting the
number of licenses. He related that the intent of the
legislation was to fix a problem where people have utilized
the 7-day crew license to avoid paying the non-resident
annual commercial fishing license; furthermore, the sponsor
wanted to achieve this in a way that was economic and
allowed the licenses to be used for other economic
development. He concluded that the fees were the way the
sponsor had found to make it uneconomic to abuse the
system.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the committee supported the
goal of stopping the abuse in the current system.
9:57:12 AM
Representative Holmes recalled purchasing her resident
hunting and fishing license online the prior year and noted
that the process was not cumbersome, but was quick and
easy.
HB 143 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
9:57:45 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Changes between HB 143 and CS HB 143 (FSH).pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2014 9:00:00 AM |
HB 143 |
| Copy of 7 day crew licenses sold-Res and NonRes.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2014 9:00:00 AM |
HB 143 |
| Copy of 7-DayCrew_2005-2012_By-LicYr-Name.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2014 9:00:00 AM |
HB 143 |
| Fish Fund license permit revenue (2).pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2014 9:00:00 AM |
HB 143 |
| HB 143 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2014 9:00:00 AM |
HB 143 |
| Memorandum on House Fisheries Committee intent in adopting CS HB 143 (FSH).pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2014 9:00:00 AM |
HB 143 |
| HB 143 2014 January FF Transfer.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2014 9:00:00 AM |
HB 143 |
| HB 143 Comm. Crew Lisense Sample.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2014 9:00:00 AM |
HB 143 |