Legislature(1995 - 1996)
01/31/1996 05:07 PM 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
January 31, 1996
5:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Chairman
Representative Carl Moses, Vice Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Kim Elton
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members were present.
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 175
"An Act relating to sport fish guides; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
Guide/Charter Task Force Proposals
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 175
SHORT TITLE: SPORT FISH GUIDE LICENSING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) AUSTERMAN, Ivan
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
02/10/95 303 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/10/95 303 (H) FSH, RESOURCES, FINANCE
02/27/95 511 (H) COSPONSOR(S): IVAN
03/13/95 (H) FSH AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/13/95 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/29/95 (H) FSH AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/29/95 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
01/31/96 (H) FSH AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
AMY DAUGHERTY, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Alan Austerman
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol Building, Room 434
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4230
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement on CS HB 175.
JOHN GOODHAND, Member
Sport Fishing Guide/Charter Task Force
P.O. Box 218
Ester, Alaska 99725
Telephone: (907) 479-5562
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175.
ROBERT WARD, Member
Sport Fishing Guide/Charter Task Force
P.O. Box 631
Anchor Point, Alaska 99556
Telephone: (907) 235-7014
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CS HB 175.
BARRY BRACKEN
Kaleidoscope Cruises
P.O. Box 1201
Petersburg, AK 99833
Telephone: (907) 772-3736
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CS HB 175.
DENNIS KETCHUM, Charter Operator
2443 Second Avenue
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-7774
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175.
DONALD WESTLUND, Charter Operator
P.O. Box 7883
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-9319
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175.
TERRY HOEFFERLE
Bristol Bay Native Association
P.O. Box 310
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-5257
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175.
MYRA OLSEN
Rural Alaska Community Action Program
(RurAL CAP)
P.O. Box 74
Egegik, Alaska 99579
Telephone: (907) 233-2424
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CS HB 175 if subsistence deleted.
OTTO FLORSHUTZ
P.O. Box 547
Wrangell, Alaska 99929
Telephone: (907) 874-2522
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CS HB 175.
BEVERLY MINN
500 Lincoln Street, Number 641
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-5089
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CS HB 175.
KEITH GREBA
504 Monastery Street
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-8309
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CS HB 175.
JERRY GUSTAFSON
Fish Tales Charters
10293 Old Valdez Trail
Salcha, Alaska 99714
Telephone: (907) 488-3004
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175 as written.
DARYL OLSON
King for a Day Charters
661 Goldmine Trail
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Telephone: (907) 457-3872
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CS HB 175.
PATRICK BOOKEY
Luck of the Irish Charters
P.O. Box 55194
North Pole, Alaska 99705
Telephone: (907) 488-9890
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175 as written.
JOHN MIZE
Blue Bayou Charters
P.O. Box 80366
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 452-5272
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175 as written.
JOHN CHILDS
2091 Yellow Snow Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 455-6028
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175 as written.
KEN AULT, Owner
Northern Alaska Fisheries
P.O. Box 10104
Fairbanks, Alaska 99710
Telephone: (907) 457-4124
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175.
BOB ELLIOTT
4582 Elliott Lane
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-6323
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CS HB 175.
DENNIS PETRI
5901 Boondox Drive
Salcha, Alaska 99714
Telephone: (907) 488-4589
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CS HB 175.
LARRY GROUT
P.O. Box 82711
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 479-4866
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CS HB 175.
MIKE KRAMER
P.O. Box 73196
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907) 479-0860
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175.
JOE KILIAN
Alaskan Angler Charters
P.O. Box 1947
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-5002
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CS HB 175.
RIK VANSTONE
P.O. Box 744
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-5732
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175 as written.
JAMES HESTON
P.O. Box 331
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-5155
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CS HB 175.
HOWARD SHORT
P.O. Box 3284
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-2205
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175.
BRUCE BLANDFORD
P.O. Box 789
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-2073
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175.
PAT McKAY
P.O. Box 3418
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-2073
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175.
MARK BUCHNER
P.O. Box 1103
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-4435
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175.
ERIC STIRRUP, Owner
Kodiak Western Charters
P.O. Box 4123
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-2200
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175.
KEN LARSON
Sanity Charters
1074 Eliz Street
North Pole, Alaska 99705
Telephone: (907) 488-2960
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Commerce and Economic
Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806
Telephone: (907) 465-2534
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented department's position and answered
questions on HB 175.
KEVIN DELANEY, Director
Division of Sport Fish
Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1579
Telephone: (907) 267-2218
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented department's position and answered
questions on HB 175.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-3, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN ALAN AUSTERMAN called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 5:07 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Austerman, Moses, Davis and
Elton. Representative Ogan arrived at 5:09 p.m.
HB 175 - SPORT FISH GUIDE LICENSING
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted that before the committee were HB 175 and
the recommendations from the Sport Fish Guide/Charter Task Force
("Task Force"). He said the committee substitute which he had
drafted incorporated the Task Force's recommendations into HB 175.
Number 0058
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON moved that CS HB 175, version G, dated
1/29/96, be accepted for the purpose of discussion. There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN advised that he did not plan to move the bill
out of committee that evening.
Number 0150
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS expressed concern over the various fees.
He said there were three licenses or certificates required,
including the business license and two others. He questioned
whether the committee substitute addressed that issue. He asked
the committee to consider combining licenses.
AMY DAUGHERTY, Legislative Assistant to Representative Austerman,
sponsor of HB 175, read a prepared statement into the record that
explained CS HB 175:
"This CS incorporates the final Task Force proposals which we heard
last week from Bud Hodson. It also contains the reporting
requirements and penalties for not reporting data, which was in the
original language of HB 175.
"As you recall, the overall point of this bill is and remains to
provide some funding to the department to develop and maintain a
meaningful and well-needed data base. What the Task Force has
provided is a mechanism to receive that data effectively. As
presently drafted, the two-tier licensing system will add only one
additional piece of documentation, which was one of the biggest
concerns raised at the teleconference this interim. Only one piece
because the Fish and Game registration will be eliminated with this
system. Another huge concern raised was in the area of enforcement
at the teleconference. In order to avoid additional costs, this
draft does not address enforcement, but we are open to comments in
this area."
MS. DAUGHERTY added that another outstanding issue was found in the
definitions section of the legal document received from George
Utermohle. Mr. Utermohle had concerns with definitions in the
current draft, she explained, which needed to be addressed in the
next one.
Number 0370
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted that one of the Task Force members, John
Goodhand, was on teleconference and wished to speak for longer than
three minutes if the committee did not object.
Number 0421
JOHN GOODHAND, Member, Sport Fish Guide/Charter Task Force,
testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. Although he resided
in Fairbanks in the winter, he operated a halibut charter out of
Valdez. He had become involved with the Task Force while working
with the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC) on
limitations on halibut charters in salt water. He said the Task
Force had been presented to him as a tool to fight limitations.
MR. GOODHAND stated he had a different impression of what the Task
Force was going to look into, and a different vision of what was
going to happen. This bill was not it. The Task Force, he said,
had been asked to both increase public awareness and gather public
opinion. However, although technically there had been a unanimous
decision, the Task Force recommendations had been voted on at a
time when they had received extremely little public input. Mr.
Goodhand said no public input of any quantity occurred until
October, November and December. Furthermore, the data base being
discussed was readily available though the Department of Commerce
and Economic Development (DCED), through business licensing.
Number 0636
MR. GOODHAND thought that except for participants who were already
legal, few people would be added to the data base. He emphasized
that CS HB 175 had nothing to do with making anyone legal.
However, he thought there definitely was an enforcement problem.
He said that if existing laws were enforced, a lot of the problems
that people imagined would disappear.
Number 0681
MR. GOODHAND reiterated that the data base was already available.
Eighty percent of the people involved were owner/operators with
state business licenses from DCED. There was a fee there, he
pointed out. The Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) had
raised their fees 150 percent, with fees on 25-foot vessels raised
from $20 to $50 and fees for 50-foot vessels raised to $100 this
year.
Number 0714
MR. GOODHAND referred to a meeting he had with two CFEC
commissioners. When asked what those fees went for, the
commissioners had replied, "we give you a triangle and that's all
we do for you." Mr. Goodhand suggested redirecting some of that
money. He briefly discussed conservation, which this bill would
not accomplish; the problem with enforcement; and the problem with
asking the government to require insurance. He himself carried
insurance, he added, but that was his own business decision.
Number 0780
MR. GOODHAND surmised that if the Task Force members could vote
again, others besides himself would dissent. He acknowledged that
other Task Force members had worked hard, without personal agendas.
However, he felt there had been an assumption that "something was
going to happen that was going to be put into law."
MR. GOODHAND said this was not the correct direction. He already
had six or seven licenses. It was complicated for people to
determine what was required of them. He said that HB 175 would do
no good at all. He suggested it should be labeled as a specialized
tax, which was the only benefit he saw from it. If the idea was to
get money to the Department of Fish and Game, he said, more money
could be raised by increasing sport fishing license fees by a
dollar.
Number 0931
MR. GOODHAND apologized for not being able to participate in key
meetings in October through December. He said he had read 46
letters from the public and talked to 29, out of 39, registered
guides in the Fairbanks area. He asserted that approximately 89
percent of the guides in the business, of which 80 percent were
owner/operators, were against the legislation. It would do the
halibut charter industry no good; it would not identify the players
any more than they already were identified; and according to
Department of Fish and Game personnel, there was more data
available than the department could compile. Mr. Goodhand saw HB
175 as a vehicle that would have "all kinds of things added on" at
a future date. Putting that vehicle in motion scared him, he said.
He added that the state of Alaska had an opportunity to create a
management plan, but it was not happening. If anything, it should
be done by region, preferably by the Board of Fisheries rather than
the legislature, he concluded.
Number 1019
BOB WARD, Member, Sport Fishing Guide/Charter Task Force, testified
via teleconference from Homer. Although he did not want to
contradict Mr. Goodhand, who represented a different part of the
industry and the state, Mr. Ward said that Homer was totally
supportive of CS HB 175.
[NOTE: MR. WARD'S TESTIMONY WAS INTERRUPTED FOR A COUPLE OF
MINUTES DUE TO TELECONFERENCE LINK-UP PROBLEMS]
Number 1078
MR. WARD suggested that people purchasing the sport fish operator's
license would not have to also purchase the guide license in an
owner/operator situation such as that involving 80 percent of the
guides in Alaska. He read the bill as permitting a person holding
a sport fish operator license to also buy a guide license. It did
not say someone was exempt from that, he noted. He thought there
was a problem with the language regarding mother ships, which
operated in Southeast Alaska. As CS HB 175 read, it required a
guide to personally accompany or direct the fisherman. This left
a big loophole, he said, for a registered guide on one ship with a
number of small boats operating around it, where that guide was
supervising or directing the fishermen. Despite these problems,
all in all, Southcentral Alaska favored the bill. He admitted they
saw it from a different perspective than that of the interior
regions. He noted that while attending a meeting of the
International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), he had talked with
staff from the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC),
who thought it good for the state to be getting in alignment on the
issues with the NPFMC and the halibut charter cap.
Number 1207
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN responded that the committee would contact the
IPHC to see about getting a letter from them. He commented that
the IPHC had said the same thing the previous year, when the
legislation was introduced. He requested that testifiers send
their written comments or fax them to 465-4956.
Number 1236
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS noted that concern had been expressed from
Fairbanks about enforcement. He asked Mr. Ward how he felt about
the those concerns.
MR. WARD responded that right now, if he were with Fish and
Wildlife in Cook Inlet, he would not know of any tools for
enforcement. He saw CS HB 175 as a step toward enforcement,
enabling an enforcement agent to at least ask for a license and
identification. That did not provide 100 percent enforcement, he
acknowledged. He added he would like to see vessels marked to
indicate they were charter vessels, beyond the commercial triangle
currently placed on the boat. As far as the individual and the
company, this was a step towards enforcement. Right now, they had
nothing.
Number 1299
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN informed the committee that Kevin Delaney from
the Department of Fish and Game was on teleconference in case there
were questions.
Number 1320
BARRY BRACKEN, Kaleidoscope Cruises, testified via teleconference
from Petersburg, saying he was a relatively new member of the
industry. He commended the Task Force and the committee. He
thought they were generally moving in the right direction.
However, he had a couple of concerns. First, he did not see how CS
HB 175, as written, really satisfied the Task Force mission
statement, which was to better identify the industry. He felt the
statewide registration enacted the previous year, which he assumed
would be abolished under this bill, would satisfy the objective of
identifying the players and their activities. That, he said, was
just a matter of how the registration and accompanying regulations
were written. He also expressed concern that with the service
operator's license going through DCED, there might be delays in
getting information to the managers and enforcers. If DCED had one
license, he clarified, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G) had the other, he did not see how those data bases would be
merged to create a clear picture of who was involved.
Number 1407
MR. BRACKEN referred to AS 08.54.610(d), which appeared contrary to
the testimony heard from Mr. Hodson at the previous week's meeting
regarding the merger of those two licenses. He informed the
committee he wished to hear additional comments on that.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN thanked Mr. Bracken and replied that the
committee would be looking at trying to consolidate those licenses,
as Representative Davis had indicated earlier, to avoid unnecessary
paperwork.
Number 1477
DENNIS KETCHUM, Charter Operator, testified via teleconference from
Ketchikan, saying that five people present there agreed with Mr.
Goodhand's testimony. They felt it was a duplication of data
already generated by a number of agencies in the state. He
suggested a statewide requirement of placing numbers, one foot high
and one inch wide on, all charter vessels, duplicating the numbers
on the triangles sent by ADF&G; something similar was already
required in Southeast Alaska. "Just have a statewide register," he
added.
Number 1550
DONALD WESTLUND, Charter Operator, testified via teleconference
from Ketchikan, agreeing with Mr. Goodhand's testimony regarding
duplication. To correlate between ADF&G and business licenses in
Southeast Alaska, there was a spot on the Fish and Game
registration where the applicant wrote the business license number,
Mr. Westlund noted. He referred to CS HB 175, page 3, and asked
where the fee was for the fishing service operator's license.
Number 1651
TERRY HOEFFERLE, Bristol Bay Native Association, testified via
teleconference from Dillingham that the licensing of fishing guides
and outfitters was an important issue to consider. He was
concerned about the unavailability of information on sport catch of
salmon in Bristol Bay. He had found available information to be
woefully inadequate and thought CS HB 175 went a long way toward
correcting that situation.
Number 1710
MR. HOEFFERLE said it was evident, looking at the bill, that there
had not been a lot of public input in crafting the legislation. If
there had been, he said, there might be provisions addressing local
hire within the guiding/tourism industry. He wanted to see the
licensing fee schedule, and perhaps other elements, be "tweaked" to
encourage the employment of more local people. He suggested a
sliding fee schedule reflecting the amount of locally hired
employees.
Number 1771
MR. HOEFFERLE thought the requirement for insurance could be struck
from the bill without being missed. He discussed the "continued
reference to guiding subsistence fishermen" in the bill and
wondered why it was felt to be necessary. The mention of
subsistence fishing in this particular legislation, he said, might
offer back-door methods of regulating subsistence fishing down the
road. He referred to page 4, item 5(e), which he found confusing,
as it seemed to exempt the specific things the bill was designed to
address.
Number 1854
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN thanked Mr. Hoefferle and said his read on the
subsistence part was that a person running a charter boat who took
people subsistence fishing would have to meet the same requirements
as a person who took people sport fishing. It had no further
direction, he added.
Number 1874
MYRA OLSEN, Rural Alaska Community Action Program (RurAL CAP),
testified via teleconference that the bill, whether by intent or
inadvertently, might provide another means of regulating
subsistence. If any subsistence fishermen hired guides, she said,
there was already a method, within ADF&G, of obtaining data
regarding subsistence catches. Ms. Olsen did see a need for more
fishing data, especially since ADF&G escapement goals were not
reflecting how many sport fish were being caught after the fish
were counted as having escaped commercial fishermen. She expressed
discomfort at placing subsistence fishing into guiding license
requirements. However, she had no problem with the bill if
subsistence was deleted.
Number 1922
OTTO FLORSHUTZ testified via teleconference from Wrangell, saying
he saw a need in the industry to compile information. He expressed
a liking for page 3, Section 08.54.610(e), requiring a person to
fill out a fish ticket or report any species taken; he asked if
that was a correct reading.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked Mr. Florshutz to repeat the question.
MR. FLORSHUTZ clarified that if Section 08.54.610 required
reporting all fish and shellfish species to ADF&G, with the
information then becoming available, he was definitely in favor of
the bill.
Number 1977
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN responded that the original intent of the bill
was to come up with a system to facilitate reporting in all of the
fisheries.
Number 1986
BEVERLY MINN testified via teleconference from Sitka. She referred
to the definition of fish guide services on page 7, lines 15 - 18;
she said it needed to be clarified. She thought the bill would
either make law-abiding Alaskans feel guilty about taking visiting
friends fishing without a guide license or else penalize legal
guides, who were already burdened with five government licenses or
registrations. She said the bill would have no effect on an
important management and law enforcement problem, which was
"preventing out-of-state yachts from doing as they please." If the
intent of the bill was to better manage the fish resource, she did
not feel it would.
Number 2050
KEITH GREBA testified via teleconference from Sitka, saying he had
a few problems with the bill. He referred to Mr. Florshutz's
testimony and said he had the same question in AS 08.54.610, which
said a person who held a fishing service operator license shall
comply with the reporting requirements adopted by regulation by the
Department of Fish and Game. Mr. Greba thought this was double-
dipping. There was already a creek survey established a few years
previously in Southeast Alaska, required by the state, as well as
the requirement of buying king salmon stamps. Now, he said, it was
being done twice and he was paying for it indirectly both ways. He
disagreed with that portion of the bill.
Number 2124
JERRY GUSTAFSON, Fish Tales Charters, testified via teleconference
from Fairbanks, saying he chartered for halibut and salmon. As
written, the bill could create a lot of paperwork and additional
fees. He referred to page 6, line 23, subsection (e), and said he
could see himself spending a great deal of time filling out forms
for different types of fish. Throughout the state, species under
concern were being censused, including the Southeast Alaska creel
survey and ADF&G's halibut sampling at the docks. The bill would
not address the non-charter operators such as private parties, he
added. He noted that identification for enforcement purposes
already existed with the ADF&G licenses. To make charter boats
obvious, he suggested the operators receive a different symbol,
instead of a triangle, to hang on their vessels. Mr. Gustafson
concluded by saying he was against the bill as written.
Number 2214
DARYL OLSON, King for a Day Charters, testified via teleconference
from Fairbanks, saying he had been a guide for ten years. He said
the bill had a lot of good ideas. However, many of them did not
apply to his area. As a result, he wanted to see it tailor-fit to
certain areas and broken down into regions. He added that much of
the bill did not apply to guides in the interior, either. They
might need different information in order to have success in
managing their resources, he said.
Number 2249
PATRICK BOOKEY, Luck of the Irish Charters, testified via
teleconference from Fairbanks, indicating he operated out of
Valdez. He opposed the bill as written. He feared that operators
would later have to pay for all the enforcement that would occur.
The bill excluded lodges and rental agencies that did not actually
provide the guide or the boat, he noted, from all of the paperwork
and regulations for operators. If the state was looking to gather
data, there was a huge amount of data that would not be included.
He referred to pages 6 and 7, subsection (e), and discussed the
type of records required. He wondered what "information the
department considers appropriate" meant; he suggested it could be
a lengthy report. He referred to the three-year exclusion on page
7, subsection (f), which could occur because of a mishap of
paperwork or other things. He thought a fine or eliminating a
person from the field for three years was utterly ridiculous. For
those reasons, he was opposed to CS HB 175 as it was written.
Number 2321
JOHN MIZE, Blue Bayou Charters, testified via teleconference from
Fairbanks, saying he was not sure the insurance was necessary. He
felt that might enable the insurance companies to raise the cost
because it was required. He referred to Mr. Bookey's previous
testimony and said he had the same problems with the bill. As
written, he was against it.
Number 2364
JOHN CHILDS testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, saying he
was against the whole bill as written. He did not see how it could
be written better, however. He added that John Goodhand had pretty
much stated his views.
Number 2384
KEN AULT, Owner, Northern Alaska Fisheries, testified via
teleconference from Fairbanks, saying he opposed CS HB 175. First
of all, it did not say what people were getting. If the intent was
to find out who was fishing, the current registration system was
adequate. Second, if the intent was to gather information on
harvest, ADF&G had that authority and responsibility. Mr. Ault was
also concerned about insurance. As a small operator, he purchased
insurance after determining whether he had enough clients to make
a profit. It would be a hardship to have to buy both insurance and
a license before obtaining clients.
Number 2477
BOB ELLIOTT testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, saying he
had a big game hunting outfitting license. He thought he should
not be required to buy two more licenses to take people fishing.
A game guide for 36 years, he used a float plane to take clients
sport fishing for nonmigratory freshwater species. There were no
charter boats in interior Alaska and the far north, he said, and
things being discussed in CS HB 175 did not exist there. He
suggested the legislation should be done by region. He concluded
by saying for his operation, liability insurance for people on the
ground was virtually impossible to buy in Fairbanks, although he
could and did buy aircraft liability insurance.
TAPE 96-3, SIDE B
Number 0003
DENNIS PETRI testified via teleconference from Fairbanks that he
operated a fishing charter business out of Valdez. He thought CS
HB 175 was highly slanted towards lodge owners. He felt that
either everyone should be licensed and have to fill out reports,
with no exceptions, or they should forget the whole thing. He said
he knew there were problems in the saltwater areas. He suggested
taking care of those regions and leaving interior Alaska alone.
Number 0031
LARRY GROUT testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, saying he
did not think the bill should even be here, as there had only been
one year of registration with ADF&G as fishing guides. There had
been no chance to compile the data from that. He commented on
obtaining $300,000 worth of insurance for a three-month operation
in the interior, saying it was almost impossible to find insurance.
Furthermore, the bill duplicated licensing already done by the U.S.
Coast Guard, as well as services already provided by the state. He
said the original scope of the Task Force had been completely
changed into a thinly veiled limited entry.
Number 0089
MIKE KRAMER testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. Although
he commended the Task Force and the committee for their work, he
thought the bill should be scrapped in its entirety. He said
people had been kept in the dark as to Task Force activities in the
past year. He thought the bill was ill-considered. Because of the
tensions between commercial and sport halibut fishermen, Mr. Kramer
also suspected the halibut council might be a driving factor for
the bill. While some considered it a back-door attempt to regulate
subsistence, he thought the bill was a back-door attempt to
regulate and burden guides under the name of reporting. He noted
that commercial fish interests were in favor; he was not surprised,
as their interests were vastly different from that of sport fish
guides.
Number 0150
MR. KRAMER referred to the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC) and said it had a hold over the inland waters guide industry
with the requirement of a triangle; that requirement had been
attached as a rider to guide registration legislation the previous
year. He still had not heard a satisfactory explanation about
that.
MR. KRAMER said the word of the evening was "duplicativeness." He
did not think the bill would help management of resources by ADF&G,
which already had more data than it could compile. He considered
the guide registration initiated the previous year, with its simple
reporting forms, adequate. The current legislation was burdensome
and was a limit to entry. He also thought the bill should have
nothing to do with local hire considerations. He said increasing
paperwork and costs would drive people out of the industry and
certainly prevent new people from getting into it. In general, he
said, guides were opposed to it.
Number 0246
JOE KILIAN, Alaskan Angler Charters, testified via teleconference
from Valdez, stating he had chartered for one year; prior to that,
he had done bare boat charters, which were basically rentals. He
said his views were the same as John Goodhand's. The bill was
unnecessary, was duplicative, and would do nothing towards having
an accurate count, because people doing illegal charters would
still get by with this system.
Number 0284
RIK VANSTONE testified via teleconference from Valdez, saying John
Goodhand had hit everything squarely. He referred to Bob Ward's
comments about enforcement and said that in Southeast Alaska, boats
without the one-foot high numbers, which could be seen for miles,
were stopped immediately. He thought that would settle the problem
as far as Mr. Ward's concern about recognizing which boats were
charters. The way CS HB 175 was written, there were too many
problems. He opposed just about everything in it.
Number 0322
JAMES HESTON testified via teleconference from Valdez, stating he
was against a lot of things, especially the reporting requirements.
Like previous testifiers, he feared it would be time-consuming and
a "paperwork headache." He felt the current registration provided
numbers of charter boat operators. He was concerned about
violations resulting in a three-year suspension of license. He
asked what that penalty would do for those who operated illegally,
as they would not fill out the reports anyway. He also expressed
concern about enforcement costs, with a resulting increase of fees
and paperwork. He wondered what the intent of the bill was. If
someone wanted to know the number of charter boats, they already
had that information, he said.
Number 0426
HOWARD SHORT testified via teleconference from Valdez, saying, "the
longer you read it, the stronger the smell gets." He felt ADF&G
would not come up with anything. Halibut were being killed "by the
millions of tons" by draggers and nobody raised a squawk, he said,
or put any fee on it. But if some poor guy from Florida came to
Alaska to catch a halibut, we wanted to know immediately what size,
place, shape and color it was.
MR. SHORT referred to page 3 and said if a person violated the
section about reports, that was a Class A misdemeanor. At the top
of the same page, "somebody's in bed with the insurance company,"
he said. He foresaw insurance rates skyrocketing. He asserted
that if he wanted to carry insurance, that was his business and it
was between him and his customers, not between him and the state.
He further referred to page 5 and asked if aircraft flying people
to fishing holes were exempt.
Number 0549
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN replied that currently was correct.
MR. SHORT asked how an airplane that took off over water was not
considered a vessel. He felt if a plane had its floats in the
water, it was a vessel. He said that by law, pilots would be
required to have this license, yet they were exempt.
Number 0598
MR. SHORT concluded that there were more and more licenses.
Furthermore, dragging was going to kill the whole fishery. When
they were done, there would not be a halibut left. Millions of
tons of fish were being killed, he reiterated, and nobody was doing
a thing. "Let's do something worthwhile," he added.
Number 0633
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded that the North Pacific Fisheries
Management Council (NPFMC) dealt with bottom fisheries by-catch and
waste; he said he was concerned with that, too.
Number 0649
BRUCE BLANDFORD testified via teleconference from Valdez, saying he
had been a charter guide there since 1978, running a small, part-
time operation. When he began, he was only required to have a U.S.
Coast Guard license and a business license. Then they added a
vessel license, halibut license and city license. The list just
kept growing, he said. He felt the proposed bill created yet
another unwieldy bureaucracy, with questionable results. He
thought CS HB 175 should be scrapped. Instead, a concentrated
effort should be made using existing resources, such as creel
surveys, to come up with the data they professed to need.
Number 0711
PAT McKAY testified via teleconference from Valdez. He said all
his points had already been made about opposing CS HB 175. He
explained he was a captain who one day might take people
sightseeing and the next, take people fishing, which entailed
additional safety requirements. He did not think it was up to the
state to enforce those safety issues. He thanked John Goodhand for
his direction on CS HB 175 and said the bill could pretty much be
thrown in the trash.
Number 0779
MARK BUCHNER testified via teleconference from Valdez that he was
against the bill as written. Everything he felt had already been
stated, he said. He particularly opposed eliminating people for
three years for not doing the paperwork and giving them a Class A
misdemeanor.
Number 0825
ERIC STIRRUP, Owner, Kodiak Western Charters, testified via
teleconference in opposition to CS HB 175. He saw it as a back-
door approach for an Individual Fishery Quota (IFQ) allocation for
sport fish guides. He said he could see how the state would be so
eager to have reporting and licensing procedures, because they
could then say, "O.K., we've got five years of data and that's what
you're doing and that's what you get." It could happen quickly, he
added.
Number 0870
MR. STIRRUP provided background on the halibut fishery, saying the
NPFMC wrestled for seven years with management programs for the
commercial halibut fisheries. During that time, participants
increased from 1,000 vessels to over 6,000. "They back-doored
themselves into an IFQ program," he said. Nobody wanted it; while
some areas of the state were for it, most were against it. Mr.
Stirrup reiterated this was an attempt, though not necessarily an
overt one, to create an IFQ system. He felt the bill would not
help.
Number 1005
KEN LARSON, Sanity Charters, testified via teleconference from
Kodiak, saying he had fished in Prince William Sound since 1984 as
a sport fisherman and had recently started a small charter
operation out of Valdez. Just going through the license
acquisition process was enough to discourage most people, he said.
Required were boat licenses, a U.S. Coast Guard master's license,
a State of Alaska business license, a City of Valdez business
license, a Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission vessel license,
the IPHC license, the sport fishing guide registration, the U.S.
Coast Guard documentation certification and a personal fishing
license. The draft bill was duplicative, he said, and just another
piece of paper to comply with. He added that John Goodhand had
spoken well on these issues. If he could see some good from the
bill, he said, he might support it. However, he felt the
information was already covered and that the cure was worse than
the problem envisioned.
Number 1011
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Commerce and Economic Development (DCED), explained
that her division was the one that would administer the fishing
services operator license under CS HB 175. She added that ADF&G,
the lead agency on this legislation, was the department that could
address policy questions. She indicated she would talk to
committee staff about drafting language issues, including, in
particular, clarification of the definitions.
Number 1151
MS. REARDON explained that DCED's fiscal note would be greatly
influenced by the amount of enforcement responsibility. She
referred to page 3, line 29, which specified that a person who
violated that section was guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. If, for
example, it was the legislature's intent that her staff investigate
complaints of unlicensed activity and prepare court cases, that
would be a significant consideration for the fiscal note.
Number 1192
MS. REARDON addressed business licensing, which she also
administered, to clarify what information her division already had
about fishing guides. The business licensing law required her to
license businesses for each line of business they were in. To do
that, there was a lengthy list of Standard Industrial
Classifications, known as SIC codes, to choose from. At this time,
there was no specific SIC code for fishing guides, which were
grouped under a larger fish and game business activity category.
It would be possible to create a specific SIC code number for
guides, she added. That would probably mean a business would need
to obtain a specific license for that code. If they also performed
other activities related to game guiding or lodging, they might
have to register under a second SIC number.
Number 1270
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked Ms. Reardon if DCED had looked at
streamlining the permitting system so there was one place where
people could go.
Number 1303
MS. REARDON replied that business licenses and occupational
licenses were in one division, which included all the licenses
issued by DCED. They were in one location. As for other licenses
from ADF&G or local licenses, she had not developed plans to co-
locate them. However, DCED did try to assist new business license
applicants by directing them to other places where they may need to
get certification. She thought her division could probably do a
better job of providing more information at the time of entry into
the business profession.
Number 1348
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN referred to testimony about the duplication of
effort that businesses had to go through in licensing and
reporting. He said he was barraged by outfitters and guides about
the phenomenal number of licenses they had to obtain. He suggested
that the legislature could give DCED direction to conduct a study
relating to that.
Number 1403
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN expressed concern that DCED would end up being
the policeman for guides, as well as for insurance and other
issues. He asked Ms. Reardon about the two types of licenses
proposed, for guides and operators.
MS. REARDON responded that she would compare the fishing operator
to the hunting guide outfitter. Those were the ones with the right
to contract to sell services. The fishing guide, on the other
hand, was comparable to the assistant hunting guide in that they
could not contract but could take clients out into the field.
Number 1544
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied that was a good comparison. His main
question was what kind of regulatory scheme was being proposed. He
referred to language in the bill about providing whatever
information was deemed necessary. He said he would feel better if
they could identify the necessary information and reporting
requirements and lock those into statute. He expressed concern
that the paperwork would discourage businessmen, or motivate them
to become outlaws.
Number 1620
MS. REARDON stated her understanding that ADF&G would determine the
reporting requirements, not DCED. She thought that was good,
because ADF&G would be using the data, and felt she should not have
a major role in deciding what data should be presented.
Number 1650
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked whether DCED would be the policeman for
ADF&G when data was not reported, resulting in denial of a license.
MS. REARDON said as she understood it, if reports were not
submitted to ADF&G by an operator, then ADF&G would tell her they
had not received them. Her division in DCED would then ensure that
person did not receive a license for the next three years. One of
her recommendations, if the bill went forward, was to grant DCED
the authority to revoke the existing license, rather than let the
individual continue for the year. Those issues could be resolved
easily, she added.
Number 1700
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN referred to page 3, line 25, and suggested to
Representative Ogan that area was something the committee could
look at to determine how much direction to give ADF&G and what kind
of report was wanted.
Number 1726
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON commented that this conundrum was being faced
in a lot of different issues. One segment of the guiding industry
was saying, "require insurance, require CPR training, require the
two different licenses." Then another segment of the industry was
saying, "you're burdening us with paperwork." Some of the
requirements were not being imposed by the state bureaucracy or the
legislature; rather, the legislature was being requested to look at
them. He referred to the SIC codes and asked Ms. Reardon if he
understood correctly that one should not be asking DCED for
information about fishing guides.
Number 1804
MS. REARDON replied that was correct. She could not provide that
detail of information about what type of business people were in.
KEVIN DELANEY, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Department of Fish
and Game (ADF&G), spoke via teleconference from Anchorage, stating
Doug Vincent-Lang was also there, on another line.
Number 1841
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS referred to a comment that there was a fee
for a guide but not for the other licenses in the bill. He asked
Ms. Reardon if that was to be established by regulation.
MS. REARDON replied yes. She referred to page 2, the underlined
language adding fish services operators to DCED's fee authority,
and said she believed that would give her the authority to adopt
the regulations.
Number 1882
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS noted there was that question by one of the
testifiers. He explained that regulation was an option many times,
as opposed to legislation. He asked if, specifically, it was at
the discretion of DCED.
MS. REARDON replied that within her division, she was entirely
funded with program receipts which were licensing fees. For all of
her programs, with one exception, they set the fees at the level to
cover the costs of that program.
Number 1925
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN referred to the duplication of reporting forms
and said some areas, such as the National Wildlife Refuge at
Kodiak, required operators to fill out reports and file them on the
number of fish taken. He asked Ms. Reardon if, in her experience,
a form for the National Wildlife Refuge could supplement the ADF&G
form.
Number 1970
MS. REARDON deferred to Kevin Delaney from ADF&G, saying that
question was out of her area of knowledge.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if Ms. Reardon dealt with other reporting
requirements that could supplement.
MS. REARDON replied that the only reports she received involving
fish or game had to do with big game commercial services operations
plans. Under the hunting guide statute, she explained, DCED was
the recipient of a variety of reports concerning game.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked Kevin Delaney if he had heard that
question.
Number 2024
MR. DELANEY replied yes. In a case such as Kodiak, he said, ADF&G
made full use of the reports given to the Fish and Wildlife
Service. In many cases, however, that was somewhat deficient,
because the report only covered activities or harvests that
occurred on National Wildlife Refuge lands and waters. A fairly
significant proportion of people doing business on the refuge also
did business off of it. Mr. Delaney added that ADF&G was
sympathetic to the issues of duplication and burdening people with
paperwork. They had become aware of it, he said, in their efforts
to get a comprehensive list of who was operating and where. Each
individual land management agency asked for a specific list of
information, to serve a specific purpose, which was not necessarily
a good list of information to use in managing the sport fish
component. It was difficult to coalesce, he said.
Number 2109
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if, other than the creel survey, there
were currently any requirements for sport fish operators to report
their catch.
MR. DELANEY responded that ADF&G either required reporting through
the creel survey or through the statewide harvest survey. In
addition, ADF&G had in past years experimented with log book
programs, which they might also do in the future. Other than that,
there were no requirements in place right now. He explained the
kind of information collected on ADF&G's registration form was more
distribution of effort, asking where people intended to operate.
When ADF&G went statewide with the form, a significant proportion
of people who signed up did so for all of the areas of the state,
despite the fact they did not operate in all of those areas. He
surmised people were speculating that some day the door may close
and they wanted it to close behind them, not in front of them. Now
ADF&G was faced with sorting out and surveying those people to find
out where they actually did operate.
Number 2259
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Delaney how many operators were in
Prince William Sound and what the catch level on halibut was.
MR. DELANEY replied that by the time he went off the air, he could
tell him the number of operators who registered for Prince William
Sound.
Number 2300
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON responded the question was more or less
rhetorical. He expressed curiosity as to whether Mr. Delaney and
ADF&G felt comfortable with the data relating to numbers of people
operating in a particular place, as well as the numbers of pounds
being harvested.
Number 2361
MR. DELANEY replied that he could say how many people registered
with an intent to guide in Prince William Sound. In addition, by
the time ADF&G compiled the information collected the previous
summer, he could estimate the total number of halibut taken by
guided anglers. However, there were two things they could not do.
Without going back through a survey process, they could not
estimate how many guides actually operated in Prince William Sound,
as opposed to how many registered. They also could not presently
assign levels of harvest to any particular guide out of the current
data base.
Number 2463
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON clarified that he did not wish for Mr. Delaney
to go through that process for him; he had wanted to know if Mr.
Delaney felt he had the ability to assign those different numbers.
TAPE 96-4, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. DELANEY stated there were "three pieces," including the data
base of "who, what, where," of particular interest to ADF&G; items
pertaining to quality and insurance, about which industry
representatives, at least those on the Task Force, felt strongly;
and catch reporting, of interest to a segment of the population.
He acknowledged there was a registration process, begun in 1995,
that ADF&G was learning to use. What they found on the face, he
said, was that a large proportion of people who signed up did so
for multiple areas. For those areas having a long history, such as
Southeast Alaska and Cook Inlet, it was evident that people with no
immediate intention of guiding in those areas signed up anyway.
The department also found, from the previous year's experience with
the registration process, that it was difficult for them to
distinguish deck hands from lodge owners. The definitions
currently in use to define guides and guiding operations were
inadequate. Regardless of what was done, those activities needed
to be redefined.
Number 0159
MR. DELANEY said the day had passed where ADF&G could proceed
without a better understanding of the guiding industry, which was
an important component of the state's sport fishery. The fishery
provided recreational opportunity and was important economically.
He said ADF&G was obligated to provide decision-making bodies with
assessments of the size, characteristics of, and geographic
distribution of the guiding industry. The department was going to
be committed to a data gathering exercise, whether it was through
a licensing procedure or a more intensified registration and survey
process. Otherwise, they would be without crucial information for
decision-making bodies.
Number 0248
MR. DELANEY said they needed to go back to the Board of Fisheries
to require that the reporting obligations of ADF&G were made
mandatory. If ADF&G sent out information forms, they needed to
receive that information. Currently, the guide who accompanied an
angler in the field was linked to the angler's activities. For
example, if an angler violated a law, the guide was also
accountable. There was no accountability back to the owner,
however, unless it was an owner/operator. A number of people had
commented on this over the course of the process, Mr. Delaney said.
He added that they were not going to be able to put a dent in
illegal guiding that took place under the guise of fishing clubs or
outfitting. He referred to yachts in Southeast Alaska and said
right now, there was no way of "chasing that down." He was not
sure a licensing procedure would help, but at least it would
provide another tool.
Number 357
MR. DELANEY concluded by saying the pieces included in the draft of
CS HB 175 came in part from ADF&G, the industry and interested
individuals. The department needed a better information gathering
system. Licensing was attractive because it provided the most easy
access to people. It could be accomplished through a registration
process, but they were going to have to do it one way or another.
Number 0419
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted that several people had asked to give
second comments. Because of the lateness of the hour, he requested
that testifiers put their comments in writing and fax them to 465-
4956 or else wait for a future hearing, as yet unscheduled.
Number 0466
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to the stipulation about losing a
license for three years for failure to fill out paperwork. He said
he would prefer that people lose their licenses for violations
rather than for paperwork, if such a stipulation was to be
included.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN replied that was a good comment. He suggested
the license could be held up if there was no reporting, instead of
making it a violation.
Number 0518
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct, CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN
adjourned the House Special Committee on Fisheries meeting at 6:48
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|