Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/22/1993 08:30 AM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 22, 1993
8:30 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl E. Moses, Chairman
Representative Harley Olberg, Vice Chairman
Representative Cliff Davidson
Representative Gail Phillips
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Irene Nicholia
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HB 140 "An Act relating to the king salmon tag fee."
HELD IN COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
(* first public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
Representative Bill Hudson
State Capitol, Room 108
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-3744
Position Statement: Prime Sponsor of HB 140
Rocky Holmes, Deputy Director
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
465-4180
Position Statement: Supported HB 140
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 140
SHORT TITLE: FEES FOR NONRESIDENT KING SALMON TAG
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HUDSON,Phillips
TITLE: "An Act relating to the king salmon tag fee."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/08/93 254 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/08/93 254 (H) FISHERIES, RESOURCES, FINANCE
02/22/93 (H) FSH AT 08:30 AM CAPITOL 17
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-8, SIDE A
Number 000
HB 140: FEES FOR NONRESIDENT KING SALMON TAG
CHAIRMAN CARL MOSES called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
He noted Representatives Moses, Phillips, Davidson, and
Olberg in attendance and said that discussion would begin
with HB 140, sponsored by Representative Bill Hudson, which
would change the nonresident fees for the king salmon tag.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 140, told
the committee he introduced the bill to address concerns
raised by individuals in the tourism and sport fish
industries. It was believed that the current flat fee of
$20 imposed on all nonresidents for the king salmon tag
discouraged sport fishing participation among short-time
tourists, and could have a detrimental impact on sport fish
charters and local economies. He said the abundance of
Juneau summertime charters were four to eight hours long,
but certainly not more than a day.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said the state should gain the extra
money from the tag while encouraging visitors to stay longer
and contribute more to the local economy. Instituting a
graduated fee schedule was a simple solution and HB 140
changed the $20 flat fee for non-residents to a graduated
$5, $15 and $30 fee schedule, he noted. Further, he said
the $30 annual fee was greater than the current $20, but was
carefully designed with the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G) to be revenue neutral. In fact, the fiscal
note showed it should add more income to the Fish and Game
Fund to offset any increased expenses, he pointed out.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON then stated Section 1 of HB 140
declared that the money derived from the fee would go toward
king salmon enhancement, research, and management, which was
the intent of the sport fish industry; and, Section 3 was a
technical amendment. He also noted ADF&G supported HB 140
and he had not received any calls to his office in
opposition to the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS asked about the intent language
in HB 140 and whether there were other guarantees that the
income from the tag would go toward king salmon research and
management. She also asked if those funds would go toward
hatcheries for sport fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON responded that according to the ADF&G,
the funds would be separately accounted for and would help
fund king salmon research and management. He said the funds
could also fund sport fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE CLIFF DAVIDSON asked how many tourists were
in Juneau on a good summer day. He then asked how many
people might be fishing for king salmon, and what the value
of those fish might be. He also asked how the sport fishery
might impact the commercial fishery.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied that there could be as many as
5,000 tourists in Juneau in one day. He then described the
other kinds of costs a non-resident charter fisherman would
have to pay, including the non-resident license and charter
boat expenses. In order to encourage people to charter a
fishing boat, he felt reducing the cost for the one day fee
was reasonable, and would result in more people taking out
charters. He also pointed out the ADF&G controlled the
harvest, and although the limit in 1992 was one king salmon
per day, a good number of silvers were caught.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said that in 1992, Senator Dick
Eliason, from Sitka, sponsored legislation to include the
charter boat operators under the Board of Fisheries. For
allocation purposes, such a bill would solve the problem of
unregulated charter boat fishing. On the other hand, HB 140
got the charter boat operators to drop more money into the
local economy, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS, speaking in support of HB 140,
noted that her district included five major rivers on the
Kenai Peninsula, which were heavily used by recreational
travelers and recreation/commercial charter operators. She
then noted that she had heard from most of the operators
regarding HB 140. In Homer alone, 30-40 operators took out
mixed halibut and king salmon charters, she said.
CHAIRMAN MOSES asked how many people would charter for the
one-day rate and how the revenue stream would be affected.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he had asked the ADF&G to work
with him on the fee schedule. Together, he and the ADF&G
decided that the best balance was to increase the annual fee
to $30. In addition, the three day fee would be $15, the
resident fee would be $10 and the one day fee would be $5.
The total amount of money raised would be slightly increased
over the $20 flat fee.
VICE CHAIR HARLEY OLBERG asked why the state would want to
be revenue neutral.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied that it was his goal to be
revenue neutral and noted that if the rates increased too
much, tourism would be discouraged. In Southeast, where
rates were higher, a charter boat operators' success was
measured by Canadians, he alleged, and noted that HB 140 had
no bearing on the military fees, which would still remain at
$20.
CHAIRMAN MOSES asked if some of the problems would be solved
if the one day tag was $10.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted for the record that a one day
non-resident license was only $10.
ROCKY HOLMES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SPORT FISH,
ADF&G, testified on behalf of the ADF&G in support of HB 140
because it was a legitimate request to change the fee
structure, and because it was revenue neutral, bringing in
about the same amount of money as the current structure.
MR. HOLMES suggested a couple of slight changes: First, the
ADF&G would like HB 140 to have an effective date of January
1, 1994. The licenses and tags for 1993 were already for
sale, and the ADF&G could think of no way to retrieve the
licenses and tags in the middle of the season. Secondly if
HB 140 passed and new tags were printed, the tags could not
be distributed to the public before the majority of the king
salmon season was over.
MR. HOLMES also noted a second slight change was overlooked
when the original bill was passed. The current statute
required anyone fishing for king salmon to have a tag. He
suggested the requirement should only be for people fishing
for anadromous king salmon. He noted there were several
lakes in urban areas that were stocked with pan-sized king
salmon, mostly to benefit young people and low income
people. He also added that it was very difficult to tell
the difference between a king salmon and a coho salmon when
they were very small, and a lot of the lakes had both.
Further, he said the ADF&G thought it would be better to
limit the tag to anadromous king salmon.
MR. HOLMES noted a third minor change. He understood the
sponsor wanted the military non-resident fee to stay at $20.
The way HB 140 was currently written, the fee was $30.
VICE CHAIR OLBERG asked about the need for printing three or
four different kinds of tags and suggested the ADF&G look at
a hole punching process as a way to save printing costs.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS commented that the January 1, 1994
effective date was a good idea. A lot of the charter boat
owners have already informed customers about their costs for
this year, and a change in the middle of the season would be
confusing.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he would support the 1994
effective date. He also asked if the ADF&G recommended
these amendments, since he had just seen them.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said the anadromous fish requirement
was getting too technical and thought the committee should
not bother to differentiate for the purposes of the king
salmon tag.
MR. HOLMES responded that there were people fishing at Twin
Lakes in Juneau, which had been stocked with both small size
king salmon and silvers. Since the fish looked alike, there
would be a real enforcement problem to require the tag. He
noted most of the anglers at Twin Lakes probably did not
have a tag, and that the enforcement officers would probably
just have to overlook it.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS noted HB 140 only dealt with non-
residents, and few non-residents fished at the small lakes.
She said, "Instead, visitors come up here to fish for the
big ones; residents are not the problem."
MR. HOLMES responded that not everyone lived on the coast.
Small size king salmon were also stocked in the Anchorage
area and the Interior. He said the ADF&G's proposed
amendment would be for both residents and non-residents.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON could see the ADF&G's concern,
especially for fisheries geared toward children.
MR. HOLMES clarified not every adult would have the king
salmon tag - such as in Fairbanks and Anchorage. The reason
the king salmon tag was instituted was to assist with large,
anadromous fish production, he noted, and the problems with
ocean fisheries were over-harvesting the resource. The lake
stocking program was not dependent on king salmon. One of
the outcomes if HB 140 was not changed might be that the
ADF&G would stop stocking them in the lakes, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said regulations could handle that
issue.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS reiterated her belief that everyone
should buy a tag.
MR. HOLMES said there was minimal sport fishing on the Yukon
River - some on the Tanana, Chena and Salcha tributaries and
those were anadromous runs, with 500-1,000 fish harvested.
CHAIRMAN MOSES was inclined to raise the $5 one day fee to
$10.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated that he had reached the $5 as
an agreement with the charter boat operators and the
Territorial Sportsmen in Juneau. Five dollars seemed to be
reasonable, he thought.
CHAIRMAN MOSES noted that visitors who could afford to get
to Alaska and charter a boat or a plane, could probably
afford $10.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON answered that such a change would be
up to the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS spoke against changing the $5 to $10
because a lot of the charter boats in her district supported
the $5 as fair.
CHAIRMAN MOSES suggested the committee let Representative
Hudson and the ADF&G work on the amendments and come back
with suggested changes.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN MOSES asked members if there were further comments.
Hearing none, he adjourned the meeting at 9:15 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|