Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
02/23/2021 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB79 | |
| HB80 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 80 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 23, 2021
10:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Louise Stutes, Chair
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Andi Story
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative Kevin McCabe
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 79
"An Act relating to salt water sport fishing operators and salt
water sport fishing guides; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 80
"An Act establishing the sport fishing hatchery facilities
account; establishing the sport fishing facility surcharge; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 79
SHORT TITLE: SALTWATER SPORTFISHING OPERATORS/GUIDES
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) FSH, FIN
02/23/21 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 80
SHORT TITLE: SPT FSH HATCHERY FACIL ACCT; SURCHARGE
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) FSH, FIN
02/23/21 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVID RUTZ, Director
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the presentations on HB 79
and HB 80.
TOM TAUBE, Deputy Director
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the presentation on HB 79.
and HB 80
RACHEL HANKE, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the presentation on HB 79.
BEN MOHR, Executive Director
Kenai River Sportfishing Association
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 79.
FORREST BRADEN, Executive Director
Southeast Alaska Guides Organization
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 79.
MARQUIS BASS
Alaskan Adventures Unlimited
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 79.
HUNTER KEOGH
Keough's Guide Service
Ninilchik, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 79.
RAY DEBARDELABEN
Kasilof, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 79.
MELVIN GROVES, Owner
Alaskan Adventures Unlimited
Valdez, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 79.
PATRICK BOOKEY, Owner/Operator
Luck of the Irish Charters
Valdez, Alaska.
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 79.
KRIS EICHENLAUB
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 79.
RONI CARMON
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 79.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:03:03 AM
CHAIR LOUISE STUTES called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:03 a.m. Representatives Vance,
McCabe, Kreiss-Tompkins, Ortiz, and Stutes were present at the
call to order. Representatives Tarr and Story arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
CHAIR STUTES welcomed the committee and stated that fisheries
are Alaska's greatest renewable resources and one of the top
revenue generators for the state.
HB 79-SALTWATER SPORTFISHING OPERATORS/GUIDES
10:04:48 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 79 "An Act relating to salt water sport fishing
operators and salt water sport fishing guides; and providing for
an effective date."
10:05:35 AM
DAVID RUTZ, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska Department
of Fish & Game, testified in support of HB 79. He welcomed the
committee members to contact him with any questions at any time.
He explained that HB 79 had been introduced to the committee
during the 31st Alaska State Legislature; however, due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, it was not acted upon. He explained that the
bill would reinstate the saltwater licensing and reporting
requirements without a sunset. He clarified that the bill does
not reinstate the freshwater licensing or reporting
requirements, which Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
does not perceive a need for the freshwater licensing and
reporting. He added that there has been some contention with
that. He gave background stating that during the Twenty-Third
Alaska State Legislature sportfish guide and operator licenses
were enacted, took effect in 2005, and remained in effect until
December 31, 2014, upon its sunset; in the Twenty-Ninth Alaska
State Legislature, only the saltwater licensing and reporting
requirements were reinstated and included a sunset of 2018. He
stated that it was at the discretion of the legislature that the
freshwater [component] had been removed. He explained that the
fees and data collected through the program provide management
of marine charter fisheries, which support 25,000 angler days of
effort and [millions of dollars] to the state economy. He
offered to follow up with the committee with an estimated amount
of economic impact to the economy.
10:08:22 AM
MR. RUTZ stated that data collected via logbooks in saltwater
sportfish businesses and guides since 1998 are critical to
upholding the obligations under the Pacific Salmon Treaty
between the U.S. and Canada; and, through the International
Pacific Halibut Commission, contribute to critical allocation
decisions. He further depicted the data collected as critical
to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council management of
federal fisheries, and it eliminates duplicative and unduly
burdensome data collection requirements for the charter fishing
industry. He listed areas of benefit from logbook data
including state fishery monitoring and management, advisory
announcements and emergency orders, the Alaska Board of Fish
process, advisory committees, external communications, statewide
harvest survey verification, fisheries disaster declarations,
the Federal Subsistence Board process, land use planning and
permitting, and operational planning. Further, it provides an
exemption to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) saltwater registry. He directed the committee to a
summary provided in the committee packet entitled "SPORT FISHING
BUSINESS AND GUIDE LOGBOOK USE SUMMARY." He stated that the
department supports the passage of the bill and claims it
necessary to fund and manage saltwater charter fisheries.
10:10:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked whether, other than the exclusion of
freshwater [component], there were any differences between HB 79
and how it had been presented in the previous legislature.
MR. RUTZ indicated that Mr. Taub would answer Representative
Ortiz' question.
10:12:00 AM
TOM TAUBE, Deputy Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game answered Representative Ortiz'
question by affirming that the only difference between the
proposed legislation and previous proposed or enacted
legislation was the removal of the freshwater [component].
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked with what degree of certainty of
[industry] compliance with the provisions of the bill would
exist should the bill pass.
MR. RUTZ stated that, while there always exists a certain amount
of noncompliance, and as with all program compliance, the
department assumes 90 percent or more compliance among
[industry]. He complimented industry members' level of
voluntary compliance with all regulations.
10:14:27 AM
MR. TAUBE added that there are tips from industry members when
noncompliance is observed and added that the Alaska State
Troopers perform enforcement of regulations on the industry. He
also added that licensure included clearly visible decals
affixed to charter vessels.
10:15:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked how the department monitors the data
collection for compliance to the requirements of [previous
legislation and] HB 79.
10:16:16 AM
MR. RUTZ noted that Southeast charter operators are required to
participate in electronic reporting, and it is anticipated that
over the next several years Southcentral will participate. He
added that there exists kreel surveys at several locations, with
the caveat that a fully electronic system would be required for
accurate reporting.
10:17:31 AM
MR. TAUBE added that both paper and electronic logs must be
submitted within the week following [charter] trips.
10:18:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked what the logbooks physically look
like and remarked that he had observed no position control
numbers (PCNs) listed in relationship to the logs at the
department.
MR. RUTZ offered to provide physical logbooks to the committee,
adding that they are 14" x 12" and contain 40 to 50 pages.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked whether the proposed legislation
pertains only to boat-based, saltwater charters and would
exclude guides such as water taxis. He asked what entity
provides enforcement.
MR. RUTZ answered that the regulation applies to any saltwater
charter operators.
10:20:09 AM
MR. TAUBE confirmed that all saltwater sportfishing guides are
required to maintain licenses and complete the logbooks. He
added that, unlike in the case of hunting guides, there is no
requirement for saltwater charters to maintain an "outfitter"
designation.
10:20:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked what technology or equipment
would be required for operators to participate in the eLogbook
system.
MR. TAUBE explained that there is an "app" that operators can
download onto any mobile device, including a laptop.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the division
intended to deploy the eLogbook system to other areas in
addition to Southeast, and whether there were cost efficiencies
associated with transition to an electronic system and by how
much.
MR. TAUBE answered that, while cost savings for data entry may
be realized, there are cost increases in information technology
(IT) and so no cost savings is anticipated to occur. He added
that there were other benefits to the electronic system,
including more convenience for the operators to complete the
logs [as compared to the paper system].
10:23:35 AM
MR. RUTZ added that operators in Southeast will be issued paper
and electronic options for submitting the required information
to provide redundancy while operators learn the new electronic
system. He added that operators will be required to eventually
use the electronic system and that it could temporarily
duplicate efforts by the operators while the electronic system
is learned.
10:24:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked when the division intended
to scale the eLogbook system statewide.
MR. RUTZ answered that the division intends to migrate to a
fully electronic system statewide, with Southeast serving as a
first year [pilot program]. He added that the ease of use for
operators is anticipated to gain acceptance and would result in
a larger, phased, statewide rollout. He added that the
electronic system is currently available but not required
statewide.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated his disappointment that
cost savings realized by reduction of data entry were offset by
increased costs in IT. He asked the division to provide the
committee with additional analysis beyond the first year of
implementation to determine whether cost savings would occur
after the first or subsequent years.
10:26:57 AM
CHAIR STUTES requested the division provide additional financial
analysis to the committee through her office.
10:27:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether the operators remain in
support of the changes to the system, as they had appeared to be
[when the legislation was introduced to the Thirty-First Alaska
State Legislature]. She acknowledged that there was scheduled
public testimony.
10:27:31 AM
MR. RUTZ opined that most of the operators support the proposed
legislation; however, he added that increased costs for
operators usually results in some lack of support. He
speculated that some operators would oppose the proposed
changes.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR echoed the concerns regarding the lack of
cost savings as raised by Representative Kreiss-Thompkins and
encouraged the division to take that into consideration when
conducting future cost analysis as requested by the committee.
10:28:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated his understanding that there exists
a backlog of data entry for freshwater logbook data and asked
how the anticipated new data would be handled considering the
backlog. He also related that he has learned of frustration
with the eLogbook technology not working when operators are out
of {cellular] data [service] range.
10:29:36 AM
MR. TAUBE answered that freshwater data is current through the
calendar year 2014 and that data ceased to be required early in
2019. He added that staff shortages and turnover have
contributed to the backlog, and that useful data is available to
interested parties, but it is not yet formally published. He
explained that eLogbook data allows for up to a week to meet
reporting requirements; the app functions to collect data
regardless of [cellular] data [service] coverage areas, and that
reports are uploaded when the operator returns to a coverage
area.
10:31:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked as a matter of public interest what
the $200 and $400 fees would be used for.
MR. TAUBE answered that the fee covers the saltwater
registration and logbook program. Since its inception in 2005,
the program has required $100 and $200 fees, which has resulted
in a shortfall to cover program costs, and HB 79 proposes to
remedy that shortfall.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed concern on behalf of constituents
in Southcentral that Alaska state parks fees for operators had
recently increased to $1,100, and she asked for additional
information and whether an exemption might be provided for
operators required to pay the parks registration fees.
MR. TAUBE expressed his understanding that the parks fee should
only apply to freshwater operators and saltwater operators
should not be required to pay fees such as the Kenai
concessionaire's fee.
10:35:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE read from a constituent's concern submitted
to her office as follows:
"I own a sportfishing business which primarily
operates on the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers. When guests
contact us and want to book a halibut charter, we use
several commercial saltwater operators between Deep
Creek, Homer, and Seward. We book and contract these
trips for our guests - they only have to deal with one
business. Does this now negate us from selling this
type of charter if we ourselves are not the operator
for our guests? Do we pay an additional fee in order
to sell this type of trip?"
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked for a definition of "operator" and
"guide."
MR. RUTZ answered that, using the example from the constituent,
the freshwater guide would be a booking agent and would not be
providing sportfishing guide services if the guide is
contracting those trips [on behalf of his/her guests] and would
not be aiding in the actual harvesting and therefore would not
be required to be licensed. He added that the business that
provides the saltwater charter services would be required to be
licensed.
10:36:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE rephrased her question to ask whether a
freshwater operator that conducts freshwater chartered fishing
activities and partners with a saltwater charter operator [to
provide saltwater charter services to a mutual client] would be
required to have a saltwater sportfishing operator license in
order to fulfill this requirement.
MR. RUTZ stated that if a charter operator is operating only in
freshwater, it would not be required to obtain a saltwater
sportfishing operator license.
10:37:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE referred to page 2, line 25 of the bill
which contains the term "shellfish". He asked what species of
shellfish are sport caught and why it was necessary to include
shellfish in the bill.
10:38:28 AM
RACHEL HANKE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, answered that shellfish is
included in HB 79 because shellfish are included in many
statutes throughout Title 16 as one of many types of fish
harvested through commercial and personal use fishing.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE added to his question his understanding
that no shellfish are harvested through sport fisheries, only
through subsistence fishing such as clams or king crab.
10:39:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ expressed his understanding that charter
fishers in Southeast will occasionally harvest shellfish within
catch limits and suggested this rationale for inclusion of
shellfish in the proposed bill.
10:40:15 AM
CHAIR STUTES suggested that shellfish is included as conforming
language and asked Ms. Hanke to confirm.
10:40:23 AM
MS. HANKE expressed her understanding as the same as Chair
Stutes' and that Representative Ortiz's understanding that
sportfish charters do occasionally harvest shellfish was
correct.
CHAIR STUTES asked for Ms. Hanke to proceed with the sectional
analysis.
10:41:00 AM
MS. HANKE referred to the sectional analysis of HB 79 provided
in the committee packet, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Sectional Analysis
HB 79: Salt Water Guide Licensing (version A)
Section 1
Establishes license fees for saltwater guides and
operators.
.notdef Guide license - $200
.notdef Operator license - $400
.notdef Operator and guide combined license - $400
Section 2
Adds new Article to AS 16.40 that
.notdef AS 16.40.262 provides stipulations for the salt
water operator license and defines the
license type;
.notdef AS 16.40.272 provides stipulations for the salt
water guides and combined license and
defines both license types;
.notdef AS 16.40.282 establishes reporting requirements
for salt water guides and operators;
.notdef AS 16.40.292 establishes penalties for violations
the chapter; and
.notdef AS 16.40.301 defines "salt water sport fishing
guide" and "salt water sport fishing guide
services".
Section 3
Adds salt water sportfishing operator and guide
license to AS 25.27.244(s)(2) which defines
"license".
Section 4
Effective date of January 1, 2022.
10:43:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS recalled that legislation
introduced but not passed during the Thirty-First Alaska State
Legislature had contained language that included freshwater
charter operators, and that the current proposed legislation did
not. He asked why the substantive change was made to not
include data collection from freshwater operators between the
previous proposed legislation and HB 79.
MR. RUTZ explained that sport charter operators, in Kenai in
particular, had expressed the requirements as overreach and that
none of the freshwater fishery data is pertinent to
international treaties and federally managed fisheries, nor was
the data that would have been collected to be used for in-season
management decisions. He cited those as reasons that freshwater
charter operators were excluded in the current proposed
legislation.
10:46:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked why the eLogbook system had
been implemented despite the data not being used for in-season
management and why it was determined to not have value.
MR. RUTZ state his belief that the data collected was useful;
however, the angst expressed on the part of operators led to the
decision to exclude it. He postulated that, since the data
collected [for freshwater charter operators] did have value to
the management process, the decision to seek the data from the
operators could happen again in the future.
10:47:50 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked for an explanation of the difference in
reporting requirements between freshwater and saltwater [charter
operators].
MR. TAUBE explained that, when both freshwater and saltwater
reporting was required, the requirements were the same for both:
log data was due within the week following the trip. He
explained that neither data source had been used for in-season
management. He explained that logbook data was used post-season
to achieve escapement as compared with harvest targets. He
added that data submitted to managers is useful but not "clean"
to provide in-season management guidance.
CHAIR STUTES expressed her confusion regarding the usefulness of
data collected, since it was the same for freshwater and
saltwater fisheries, and she rhetorically asked why one was more
valuable than the other.
10:50:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that eLogbooks will provide real-
time [within one week] data; however, there exists a five-year
backlog. She asked how the data collected would be used by the
department in-season. She clarified her line of questioning by
adding that freshwater data would not be collected, and no cost
savings would be realized with the transition to electronic data
gathering; therefore, she asked what the value of the data would
be to the department.
10:52:06 AM
MR. TAUBE stated that the data obtained electronically was
"cleaner" than that obtained by paper logs and not subject to
inconsistencies in handwriting or formatting errors. He allowed
that errors may still occur in electronically submitted data and
review for such errors is a contributing factor for the data not
to be used for in-season management decisions. He stated that
the reason that the freshwater data collection is not included
in the proposed legislation is due to lack of industry support.
He stated that freshwater data would be useful, and may be
pursued in the future, and the requirement of saltwater data
obtained through the eLogbooks would be used to also establish a
sound set of program practices that could then be used should
freshwater data become required.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked for the current cost for freshwater
guide and operator licenses.
MR. TAUBE answered that there exists no license or operator fees
for freshwater charter operators.
10:55:20 AM
CHAIR STUTES observed Mr. Taube's statement of that fact had
rendered the committee members silent.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked what justification existed for no
requirement for fees for freshwater operators.
MR. TAUBE explained that currently no fees exist for either and
that the proposed fees were mainly associated with the eLogbook
program.
10:56:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ suggested that there exist similar
challenges among saltwater charter operators to those expressed
by freshwater operators and asked whether similar complaints by
saltwater operators would result in removal of requirements for
those operators.
10:57:09 AM
MR. RUTZ explained that data collected through the logs is vital
to upholding the terms of the Pacific Salmon Treaty which
determine international [harvest] allocation decisions. He
explained that data collected from the halibut fishery provides
the same [vital data] under the International Pacific Halibut
Commission for critical allocation decisions. He added that the
data is also vital to the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council for management of federal fisheries. He explained that
without data collection programs such as the kreel surveys and
logbooks, Alaska would eventually lose its exemption from NOAA's
saltwater registry [requirement]. He said that it would be
likely that, should that exemption be lost, there could be a
federal licensure cost imposed in the immediate year following
for saltwater charter operators.
MR. RUTZ spoke to concerns raised by Representative Vance
regarding five-year backlog of data, adding to the discussion
that, while the data is not specifically published in formal
reports, it is made available to any interested party including
the legislature on a yearly basis.
10:59:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE referred to page 4, lines 15 -16 of HB 79
which stated that he department "may collect information from
sportfishing guides". He asked whether the word "saltwater" is
missing.
MS. HANKE acknowledged that adding the word "saltwater" would be
appropriate.
11:00:21 AM
MR. TAUBE suggested that keeping the word "saltwater" excluded
from the cited portion of the legislation would permit future
data collection from freshwater operators and recommended that
it not be included.
11:00:50 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked the department to affirm that data is being
collected from freshwater operators and that there was no fee
for those operators.
MR. TUABE affirmed that there are no fees, and that information
is collected on [voluntary] participation from registered
guides. He added that no data collection is sought for where
they are operating, the number of clients they take [on trips],
and the number of fish harvested.
11:01:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR commented that the discussion had
highlighted a systemic funding problem that coexists with data
collections based on minimum requirements and covering immediate
costs. She suggested a comprehensive approach would be
warranted to take into consideration meeting all the needs that
data collection would fulfil. She added that a potential cause
of the piecemeal approach was due to the program ending
[sunset].
11:03:09 AM
CHAIR STUTES added that her perception was that the revenue
generating mechanism appeared to be inequitable [among saltwater
and freshwater operators].
11:03:20 AM
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony on HB 79.
11:03:46 AM
BEN MOHR, Executive Director, Kenai River Sportfishing
Association, testified in support of HB 79. He echoed the fact
that the data reporting requirements meet the requirements of
the aforementioned treaties and provide information needed for
sustainable and science-based management and are not optional.
He added that hunters and sport fishers have long supported the
user-based fee models for fish and game conservation as the
beneficiaries of the management decisions based on the data
collected.
11:05:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Mohr to share his
perspective on freshwater data collection requirements.
MR. MOHR stated KRSA's endorsement of excluding freshwater
operators from the fee requirement. He suggested that, when the
freshwater component had been in place, there was no benefit to
the operators and no harm from not complying, and the result was
simply a punitive law enforcement tool.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether, should data
collection ever become closer to immediate, the KRSA's
endorsement would evolve to support the including of freshwater
data.
MR. MOHR stated that a closer look at that future time might be
warranted, and he expressed his shared concern with that of
Representative Kreiss-Thompkins that efficiencies realized by a
transition to electronic data management and reporting should
accordingly result in a cost savings.
11:08:17 AM
FORREST BRADEN, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Guides
Organization, testified in support of HB 79. He gave a brief
overview of the Southeast Alaska Guides Association and said
that accurate and timely data [reporting] is important to the
management of the fishery and meeting the obligations of
treaties. He added that the proposed doubling of fees had not
resonated well with all operators, and he had been made aware of
a suggestion made that anglers should pay directly for the fees.
He added that there exists a trust with the department that
costs are assessed accurately to program costs in the best
interest of the industry.
11:10:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Braden to expand on the
concept of anglers paying directly for the program costs.
MR. BRADEN qualified his answer by saying he was not familiar
with the department's accounts; however, he stated his
assumption that some of the program costs had been covered
through license sales and that a similar model could be adopted
for the cost of data collection to be covered by the anglers,
who are the consumers.
11:12:08 AM
MARQUIS BASS, Alaskan Adventures Unlimited, testified in
opposition to HB 79 and expressed his dissatisfaction with
operators being required to cover departmental budget shortfalls
or to generate revenue, and with the added enforcement burden on
the Alaska State Troopers with no perceived benefit to resource
management. He questioned whether the logbooks increased
compliance with the International Pacific Halibut [Commission].
He urged that the bill not be approved.
11:14:00 AM
HUNTER KEOGH, Keough's Guide Service, testified in opposition to
HB 79. He expressed his disagreement with the state charging
more to do business in the absence of a breakdown of where the
funds are going. He suggested that the department offer cost-
savings alternatives and expressed his dismay that the
implementation of an electronic system would not result in cost
savings. He stated that [boat] launches in Anchor Point and
Deep Creek are [subject to] the parks registration fee. He
referenced page 2, line 9 of the proposed legislation and argued
that lodges would be required to pay the fee.
11:16:09 AM
RAY DEBARDELABEN testified in opposition of HB 79. He stated
that he is a charter operator on the Kenai River, Kasilof River,
and in Anchor Point, Deep Creek, and Homer. He stated that the
2020 fishing season was "a total bust" and he chartered only 44
trips when, ordinarily, he would charter 80-90 trips per year.
He explained that he spends 30-40 minutes each day entering data
into the logs including license numbers, full names, and
signatures and that each instance of missing or incorrect data
would result in a separate violation of law. He referenced page
5, lines 13-20 that depict the violation section of the proposed
legislation. He conceded that the information contained in the
logbooks was of value; however, no in-season management
decisions make use of the data.
11:19:14 AM
MELVIN GROVES, Owner, Alaskan Adventures Unlimited, testified in
opposition to HB 79. He stated his understanding that if the
state did not have an agreement with NOAA, then operators would
be required to obtain a permit costing $30 and collect data to
submit to NOAA, and charter customers would not be required to
obtain a state fishing license. He stated that the state is
making millions of dollars on license fees, which operators
ensure customers have obtained [prior to participating in the
fishery]. He suggested that department budget shortfalls should
be covered by an increase in the angler license fee and not by
increased fees to operators. He added that data collection
occurs through kreel surveys and sportfish harvest surveys,
although he questioned the integrity of the data collected.
11:22:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked Mr. Groves to elaborate on his
previous statement that fishers would no longer be required to
purchase licenses.
11:23:05 AM
MR. GROVES offered to clarify that the state has an agreement
with NOAA to collect data in exchange for an exemption to
[anglers] participating in a national registry. He stated that,
if the state did not have a fishing license requirement, then
only private [resident] fishers would be required to obtain a
license to fish. He suggested that charter operators could
register at the federal level and that operators collect the
data instead of the state.
11:26:18 AM
PATRICK BOOKEY, Owner/Operator, Luck of the Irish Charters,
testified in opposition of HB 79. He stated that his business
had been reduced by 55 percent during the COVID-19 pandemic and
suggested that it was unthinkable to charge charter operators
higher fees. He stated that the charter fishing industry brings
millions of dollars in annual revenue to the state and that the
proposed legislation was unfair, and he urged that it no be
passed.
11:28:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS requested that the department
provide details on the treaties previously discussed and how the
data from the logbooks is used to satisfy the requirements.
11:28:56 AM
KRIS EICHENLAUB testified in opposition to HB 79 and stated that
he is in opposition to any proposed legislation that would
increase costs paid by any Alaska citizen. He advised the
committee and all legislators to focus on the Alaska Permanent
Fund Dividend.
11:30:44 AM
RONI CARMON testified during the hearing on HB 79. He suggested
that the state is not collecting adequate fees when compared to
the value of the fisheries resources and suggested that there
exist unenforceable regulations and the permits should be
significantly more expensive to the benefit of the state.
11:32:33 AM
CHAIR STUTES, after ascertaining there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 79.
11:32:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked, should this legislation not
pass, what the consequences would be for failure of the data
collection regarding compliance with international treaties.
11:33:33 AM
MR. RUTZ expressed reluctance to broach the topic of budget but
expressed that the loss of revenue of nonresident license fees
due to COVID-19 had resulted in a loss of $9 million, or one-
fifth of the budget including cuts to 128 programs, including
cuts to the kreel and weir programs.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS redirected back to his question on
data and treaty obligations.
MR. RUTZ stated that the treaty obligations must be satisfied
and that additional program cuts would be required unless
revenue increases.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for another perspective from
the department regarding treaty obligations.
11:36:11 AM
MR. TAUBE answered that the treaty obligations are of such high
priority that the department would be compelled to continue to
collect the data.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS requested that the department
staff set aside budget concerns and explain what the treaty
obligations are, and why the data is necessary to fulfill the
treaty obligations.
MR. TAUBE stated that the treaty obligations require the state
to monitor the harvest to stay within the all-gear harvest
limits. He added that the treaty allocation to sport harvest is
20 percent of the salmon harvest limit, and the commercial troll
fishery is allocated 80 percent. He added that, should the
harvest limit be in excess of the allocations, the overage is
deducted from the following year's harvest limit. He concluded
by noting that the data collected from the logbooks and kreel
surveys are used to estimate total harvest to remain within the
treaties' allocations [of harvest limits].
11:38:44 AM
CHAIR STUTES stated her belief that the bill is one of revenue
generating legislation and, due to the extreme budget
shortfalls, she questioned why one sector of fisheries appears
to be targeted rather than a more equitable share of the cost
among all harvest groups. She asked the department to provide
to the committee a copy of the treaty obligations to which the
state is held.
11:39:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked that, since this is a federally
mandated program, then does the state receive federal funding to
complete the data collection and reporting process, to which he
expressed his assumption that the answer is no. He asked that,
should the state not comply with the treaty obligations and in
addition to reductions in future harvest allocations, would the
state be subject to any fine for failure to meet those
obligations.
11:40:46 AM
MR. TAUBE answered that the state has the privilege of a federal
reporting waiver because of the data collected with the logbooks
and, should the state not collect the data, the federal
government would; and, in the example of the halibut fishery,
operators would be required to furnish the equivalent of two
logbooks: one for salmon - to the state - and one for halibut-
to the federal government. He added that only kreel survey data
would then be used for management of the fisheries.
11:41:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ stated his familiarity with the kreel
surveys by his living in Southeast Alaska and asked if kreel
surveys were sufficient to collect the data needed for fisheries
management.
MR. TAUBE acknowledged that kreel surveys provide catch sampling
data but kreel surveys alone do not provide complete harvest
data.
11:43:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS suggested that, should this
legislation not pass, operators would be required by the federal
government to provide the information contained in the logbooks.
MR. TAUBE affirmed Representative Kreiss-Thompson's suggestion
that the federal government would collect the data should the
state not.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated that the context of
international treaty obligations during the discussion is
important [for legislators] to consider for the passage of HB
79, and that the legislation has merit beyond the state's
fisheries management.
11:44:33 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked that, should HB 79 not pass, is it the
opinion of Mr. Taube that it would result in the federal
government managing Alaska's fisheries.
MR. TAUBE stated that the federal government manages halibut
fisheries in Alaska. He noted that anglers also complete a
survey to submit to the federal government, and that the absence
of the state logbook program would result in additional federal
management of fisheries in Alaska.
11:45:47 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced HB 79 was held over.
HB 80-SPT FSH HATCHERY FACIL ACCT; SURCHARGE
11:46:03 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 80 "An Act establishing the sport fishing
hatchery facilities account; establishing the sport fishing
facility surcharge; and providing for an effective date."
11:46:17 AM
CHAIR STUTES made introductory remarks on HB 80 on behalf of the
prime sponsor [House Rules by request of the governor], noting
that the bill is the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G's)
top legislative priority and had been introduced during the
previous legislative session and was not passed due to COVID-19.
She stated that, because the bill did not pass the previous
session, the sport fishing hatchery surcharge had been allowed
to sunset and millions of dollars of revenue was not collected
by the department. She urged quick action by the committee.
11:47:07 AM
DAVID RUTZ, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska Department
of Fish & Game, stated that HB 80 is a governor's bill that the
Department supports, and it is one of the department's
legislative priorities this session. He reviewed that in 2005
the legislature approved a bond measure to construct two sport
fish hatcheries: the William Jack Hernandez Sport Fish Hatchery
in Anchorage and the Ruth Burnett Sport Fish Hatchery in
Fairbanks. In order to receive the bond, ADF&G crafted a
repayment plan that was unprecedented. A surcharge was added to
sport fishing licenses, nearly all of which went directly to
repayment of the bond, less $500 thousand, which went to
Southeast Alaska annually for hatchery production, since this
area was not serviced by the two bonded hatcheries. He noted
that fishermen paid the surcharge without much complaint. No
general fund dollars were used to pay back the bonds; sport
angler dollars matched by federal [Dingle-Johnson funds] paid
the bill. The combined enhancement program that the surcharge
funded contributes approximately $50 million to the economy of
the state. This unique plan worked so well that the department
paid this bond back five years early, in calendar year 2020. As
a result, the surcharge and all associated statutes sunsetted on
December 31, 2020.
MR. RUTZ relayed that upon the repayment of bond debt, there was
an immediate $500 thousand funding impact to Southeast Alaska
from loss of the surcharge income, which funds the raising and
releasing of over 1.4 million Chinook salmon and hundreds of
thousands of coho salmon smolt at release sites targeted to
benefit sport anglers in Southeast inside waters. He explained
that losing this level of funding to support existing
enhancement activities is detrimental to Southeast Alaska sport
anglers and charter operators already highly impacted by the
lack of out-of-state travelers due to COVID-19 travel
restrictions.
MR. RUTZ directed attention to a fact sheet included in the
committee packet, which shows that the overall sport fish
enhancement program releases nearly 7.2 million fish into nearly
270 locations statewide annually, which is in addition to the
1.4 million in Southeast and provides thousands of anglers with
additional fishing opportunities, as well as provides a large
economic boost to Southeast businesses.
MR. RUTZ said that when the Ruth Burnett and William Jack
Hernandez Sport Fish Hatcheries came online, nearly $5 million
of Dingell-Johnson funds had to be redirected in order to pay
for their operations and maintenance. Any needed repairs and
maintenance to date have come from existing operating budget
funds and usually have been done at the expense of other
division needs. He said there have been several larger, more
expensive needs that were deferred during construction and have
yet to be addressed. He cautioned that as the facilities age,
the maintenance needs will grow, which will likely put further
undue burden onto existing programs. He advised that having the
ability to tap into a source of funds to cover these needs would
allow the division to sustain existing enhanced production
without [negative] impacts elsewhere.
11:51:31 AM
MR. RUTZ said that with these ongoing maintenance obligations
and the loss of a substantial amount of revenue to support sport
fish enhancement in Southeast Alaska, the department worked with
groups across Alaska to propose a new plan to reinstate a
reduced surcharge. The reduction to the previously collected $9
surcharge was $5 across the board. He explained that this left
residents with a $4 surcharge and nonresidents contributing the
lion's share, over 6 times what residents contribute. The
proposed surcharge is a 60 percent reduction for residents and
overall a 34 percent decrease from the original surcharge fee.
He added that "this surcharge has been in place for about a
decade and a half." He noted that a license fee breakdown was
available in the committee packet.
MR. RUTZ stated, "The department proposes again to collect that
surcharge and deposit it into a separate subaccount within the
fish and game fund to be accounted for and used only for the
maintenance and operations of the state's sport fish hatcheries
sport fish enhancement in Southeast Alaska." He said there was,
on average, $6.4 million generated in revenue from surcharge
collections on sport fish licenses. The reduction in surcharge
would net the division approximately $4 million per calendar
year. The division currently allocates $7 million to
enhancement-related activity projects, with most tied to the
operation and maintenance of the 2 large facilities in Fairbanks
and Anchorage.
MR. RUTZ concluded his remarks by stating that the establishment
of this new reduced enhancement surcharge would cover most of
the existing costs allocated toward the enhancement programs.
Further, it would address deferred equipment and maintenance
needs and ensure contingency funds are available for unforeseen
events at these facilities without having to request
supplemental funds from the legislature or, worst case, shut
down the facilities. He noted that this legislation, through a
previous bill, had been introduced in 2019, to be heard during
the Thirty-First Alaska State Legislature, but with the pandemic
in full swing unfortunately was not meant to be.
11:55:50 AM
CHAIR STUTES stated that the surcharge had been in existence for
some time prior to the sunset, and the department is currently
requesting only a portion of the surcharge be reinstated. She
postulated that if the entire surcharge were to be reinstated,
then the department would collect an estimated $2 million in
additional revenue than the current proposed legislation would
provide. She added that the department has well-known budget
shortages, and that 82 percent of the revenue is collected from
nonresident anglers. She asked the department to explain why
only a portion of the surcharge is requested to be reinstated.
MR. RUTZ explained that in 2005, the department had conveyed its
intention that the surcharge would be eliminated once the bonds
had been fully repaid. He stated his intention on behalf of the
department that it should not appear [to the industry] to be
greedy.
11:57:51 AM
CHAIR STUTES stated that things have changed since 2005 and,
during the previous legislative session, the proposed
legislation had been amended to include additional surcharge to
be collected. She expressed her concern that HB 80 does not
request sufficient revenue to cover the program.
11:58:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated his support for the hatchery
program and requested that the department provide a cost
breakdown by facility for deferred maintenance that had been
referred to in testimony.
11:59:50 AM
MR. RUTZ directed attention to a cost breakdown included in the
committee packet. He estimated that $5 million of sportfish
funds had been spent on the program, with $3.4 million for the
William Jack Hatchery and $2 million for the Ruth Barnett
Hatchery. He stated that cost overruns during the construction
of the hatcheries had resulted in incomplete construction and
deferred costs. He gave examples of maintenance items that
included wells, disinfection units for production modules, new
trucks, and completion of visitor center facilities.
12:01:56 PM
CHAIR STUTES pointed out that the committee packet contained
itemized costs for projects and requested the department provide
a cost estimate breakdown by facility.
MR. RUTZ agreed to provide the requested information to the
committee.
12:02:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked for the department to provide a
formula or revenue analysis depicting how the surcharge revenue
proposed would be allocated according to the facility cost
breakdown that the department had agreed to provide. She asked
for the department to also provide a breakdown of economic
development and impact to the state from the hatchery program.
12:03:16 PM
CHAIR STUTES stated her intention to offer a future committee
substitute to HB 80.
CHAIR STUTES announced HB 80 was held over.
12:04:26 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 12:04
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 79 Transmittal Letter 1.28.21.pdf |
HFSH 2/23/2021 10:00:00 AM SFIN 4/27/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 79 |
| HB 79 v. A 2.18.21.pdf |
HFSH 2/23/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 79 |
| HB 80 Fiscal Note #1 ADF&G 2.18.21.pdf |
HFSH 2/23/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/4/2021 11:00:00 AM HFSH 3/9/2021 11:00:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| HB 80 Hearing Request Memo 2.18.21.pdf |
HFSH 2/23/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| HB 80 Sectional Analysis - ver. A 2.18.21.pdf |
HFSH 2/23/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/4/2021 11:00:00 AM HFSH 3/9/2021 11:00:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| HB 80 Support Doc - Surcharge Revenue Breakdown 1.27.21.pdf |
HFSH 2/23/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/4/2021 11:00:00 AM HFSH 3/9/2021 11:00:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| HB 80 Support Document ADF&G Stocking FAQ 2.22.21.pdf |
HFSH 2/23/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| HB 80 Support Letter-Alaska Salmon Hatchery Operators 2.21.21.pdf |
HFSH 2/23/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/4/2021 11:00:00 AM HFSH 3/9/2021 11:00:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| HB 80 Transmittal Letter 1.28.21.pdf |
HFSH 2/23/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/4/2021 11:00:00 AM HFSH 3/9/2021 11:00:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| HB 80 v A 2.18.21.PDF |
HFSH 2/23/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/4/2021 11:00:00 AM HFSH 3/9/2021 11:00:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| HB 79 Fiscal Note #1 ADF&G 2.18.21.pdf |
HFSH 2/23/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 79 |
| HB 79 Hearing Request Memo 2.18.21.pdf |
HFSH 2/23/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 79 |
| HB 79 Sectional Analysis 2.18.21.pdf |
HFSH 2/23/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 79 |
| HB 79 Support Doc - Logbook Use Summary 2.18.21.pdf |
HFSH 2/23/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 79 |
| HB 80 Support Letter-SEAFA 2.22.21.pdf |
HFSH 2/23/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/4/2021 11:00:00 AM HFSH 3/9/2021 11:00:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| HB 80 Support Letter-UFA 2.22.21.pdf |
HFSH 2/23/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/4/2021 11:00:00 AM HFSH 3/9/2021 11:00:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| HB 80 Support Letter ATA 2.23.21.pdf |
HFSH 2/23/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/4/2021 11:00:00 AM HFSH 3/9/2021 11:00:00 AM |
HB 80 |