Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/24/1997 05:06 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
March 24, 1997
5:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Chairman
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Mark Hodgins
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Gene Kubina
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Loren Leman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 7(RLS) AM
"An Act reducing certain resident sport fishing, hunting, and
trapping license fees, increasing certain nonresident sport fishing
license and tag fees, and relating to nonresident sport fishing and
hunting licenses and tags; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HCSCSSB 7(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HOUSE BILL NO. 204
"An Act revising the procedures and authority of the Alaska
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, the Board of Fisheries, and
the Department of Fish and Game to establish a moratorium on
participants or vessels, or both, participating in certain
fisheries; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 204 OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 7
SHORT TITLE: HUNTING SPORT FISH TRAPPING FEES/LICENSES
BILL VERSION: CSSB 7(RLS) AM
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DONLEY, Sharp
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/03/97 15 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 15 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 15 (S) RES, FIN
01/29/97 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
01/29/97 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/03/97 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/03/97 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/06/97 246 (S) RES RPT CS 3DP 2NR NEW TITLE
02/06/97 246 (S) DP: HALFORD, GREEN, SHARP
02/06/97 246 (S) NR: LEMAN, LINCOLN
02/06/97 246 (S) FISCAL NOTES TO SB & CS (F&G-2)
02/11/97 283 (S) CORRECTED ZERO FN TO SB (DPS)
02/11/97 283 (S) ZERO FN TO CS (DPS)
02/18/97 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
02/25/97 491 (S) FIN RPT CS 2DP 5NR NEW TITLE
02/25/97 492 (S) DP: SHARP, DONLEY; NR: ADAMS, PARNELL
02/25/97 492 (S) NR: PHILLIPS, PEARCE, TORGERSON
02/25/97 492 (S) FNS TO CS (F&G-2)
02/25/97 492 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS APPLY TO CS (DPS-2)
02/26/97 (S) RLS AT 12:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
02/26/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/05/97 567 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR W/CS NEW TITLE 3/5
03/04/97 567 (S) DP: KELLY; CALENDAR: LEMAN, TORGERSON;
03/04/97 567 (S) NR: DUNCAN; DNP: TAYLOR
03/04/97 567 (S) FN TO CS (F&G)
03/04/97 567 (S) PREVIOUS FN ( F&G)
03/05/97 567 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES TO CS (DPS)
03/05/97 575 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/05/97 575 (S) RLS CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/05/97 575 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT
03/05/97 575 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 8(RLS)
03/05/97 576 (S) PASSED Y17 N3
03/05/97 576 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
03/05/97 576 (S) MACKIE NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
03/06/97 604 (S) RECON TAKEN UP IN THIRD READING
03/06/97 604 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1 UNAN CONSENT
03/06/97 605 (S) AM NO 1 OFFERED BY MACKIE
03/06/97 605 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/06/97 605 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
03/06/97 606 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y17 N3
03/06/97 606 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
03/06/97 606 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/07/97 576 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/07/97 577 (H) FSH, RESOURCES, FINANCE
03/24/97 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 204
SHORT TITLE: MORATORIA ON COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY
SPONSOR(S): SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/19/97 756 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/19/97 756 (H) FSH, RESOURCES
03/24/97 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 508
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3892
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor testimony on CSSB 7(RLS) AM.
KATHY HANSEN, Executive Director
United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters Association
P.O. Box 22427
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 586-5860
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 7(RLS) AM.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6143
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 7(RLS) AM.
ERIC STIRRUP
P.O. Box 4123
Kodiak, Juneau 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-2200
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 7(RLS) AM.
AMY DAUGHERTY, Legislative Administrative Assistant to
Representative Alan Austerman
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 434
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4230
POSITION STATEMENT: Read the sponsor statement for HB 204.
DALE ANDERSON, Chairman
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
8800 Glacier Highway, Suite 109
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-6160
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 204.
DEAN PADDOCK, Representative
Alaska Bristol Bay Drift Netters Association
P.O Box 21951
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 463-4970
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 204.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-14, SIDE A,
Number 001
CHAIRMAN ALAN AUSTERMAN called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 5:06 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Austerman, Ivan, Ogan and
Hodgins. Representative Kubina was absent.
CSSB 7(RLS) AM - HUNTING SPORT FISH TRAPPING FEES/LICENSES
Number 031
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN announced the first order of business to be CSSB
7(RLS) AM, "An Act reducing certain resident sport fishing,
hunting, and trapping license fees, increasing certain nonresident
sport fishing license and tag fees, and relating to nonresident
sport fishing and hunting licenses and tags; and providing for an
effective date." He asked Senator Donley to present the bill.
Number 060
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY stated that the bill does several things. The
first section lowers the current combination fee for residents, for
hunting, trapping, and various combinations of sport fishing
licenses, by one dollar for each of the multiple licenses. If
there are two licenses, it lowers it by one dollar if there are
three licenses, it lowers it by two dollars. This is the savings
to the state because the state pays a commission to vendors to sell
the licenses, therefore they only pay the commission once if a
combination license is sold. He stated that it gives an incentive
to people, within our cost savings, to buy a combination license.
Number 177
SENATOR DONLEY stated that Section 4, deals with nonresident sport
fishing licenses. He stated that currently there are four types of
nonresident sport fish licenses: a 1-day license for $10, which
this legislation does not change; a 3-day license for $15, which
this legislation proposes to change to $20; this legislation
proposes to create a 7-day license for $30; a 14-day license for
$30, which this legislation would raise to $50; and currently there
is an annual nonresident license for $50, which would no longer be
available under this legislation, except under the provisions of
Section 5.
Number 255
SENATOR DONLEY stated that Section 5 specifies that to be eligible
for an annual nonresident sport fish license, one needs to possess
a sport fish guide license or be employed by somebody who does.
The reason for this exemption is that typically these people are
already licensed commercially to the state, already paying a fees
for the licenses and because the House was proposing that
commercial sport fish guide license holders would be required to
have an annual sport fish license, so the Senate, in an effort to
eliminate a conflict in bills, wanted to make sure there was a
provision for it in this bill. He stated that the guidelines are
that if one holds a current sport fish guide license or air taxi
commercial operators certificate where you are licensed to carry
passengers for hire by the coast guard, you could buy an annual
license for $150. This would also apply to those people who are
employed by these license holders.
Number 359
SENATOR DONLEY stated that Section 6 is a technical change because
by repealing the annual sport fish license section, a technical
change was needed because it was wrapped up with game tag language,
it does not change anything but just restates existing language.
Number 401
SENATOR DONLEY stated that Section 7 makes a parallel provision for
King Salmon tags following the same scheme as the increased fees
for nonresidents for ordinary fishing licenses. A 1-day tag is
still $10, a 3-day tag would be $20, a 7-day tag $30, a 14-day tag
$50 and there is no provision for an annual tag.
Number 454
SENATOR DONLEY stated that the legislation makes no proposed
changes to the military, so there is a status quo for any current
military in Alaska. He stated that there as been a request to add
to Section 5, provisions for people who hold current limited entry
permits issued by the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC) and that there be a provision for a crew members license.
He stated that this would be acceptable if it is couched in the
frame that a person could sport fish while they are actively
engaged in the commercial fishing ventures. He stated that it does
make sense if this is done in the down time when commercial
fishing, but he did not want to see having a crew member license
justify people who are nonresidents staying all year and fishing
all the time.
Number 584
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS stated that needed to make a conflict
of interest statement in that he has money in a guiding outfit.
Number 604
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked if on page 2, line 28, the
definition of prepared for storage, is taken out of a regulation
and codified in statute.
Number 655
SENATOR DONLEY stated that it is a section that is word for word as
it appears in existing law but needed to be restated here because
they deleted a section of statute that overlapped with this
regarding sport fish, so none of the language in Section 6 is a
change from existing law. This language had appeared in a
different section of existing law that is repealed on page 4, line
1. He stated that it repealed the present annual nonresident sport
fish license and eliminated this language as well, therefore, it
needed to restated in another section.
Number 721
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated that he has mixed emotions on the
increase in fees. He stated that he realizes there is a problem
that needs to be solved with people canning red salmon to pay for
their vacation but he is not sure that this would be a deterrent
for someone coming up here and doing that.
Number 786
SENATOR DONLEY stated that there have been quite a few hearings on
this legislation in the Senate and this cite has been around for
four years. He stated that there are no changes in this proposal
to the 1-day license and it still keeps the 3-day license cheap at
$20 and everyone agrees that the 7-day license is a good option for
people visiting Alaska. This bill is really designed to discourage
long term usage by nonresidents of our sport fish, while not
penalizing people that are visiting for a short period of time. He
stated that someone who wanted to abuse it could be continuing to
buy the 14-day licenses but that person will send up a red flag for
enforcement officials to see what they are doing with those
licenses. For the people that are visiting for a summer it would
be a lot easier to buy a 1-day license when they want to fish
rather than being in a continual harvest mode.
Number 913
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked that unless the enforcement
capabilities are increased, would this solve the problem.
Number 925
SENATOR DONLEY stated that there was a major enforcement effort on
the Kenai Peninsular last season where fish and wildlife tried to
target some of the worst abusers to fine and prosecute them. He
stated that we could also use more enforcement but the public
safety budget is an area where we are maintaining our current level
of commitment, not increasing it.
Number 982
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that on page 2, Section 5, it has allowed
for the possibility of a nonresident license for $150 and on page
3, Section 7, there is no allowance for a King Salmon tag for a
nonresident.
Number 996
SENATOR DONLEY replied that because it is so competitive, King
Salmon tags are a special issue. There would still be the option
for people to buy the 1-day King Salmon tag to go with their annual
nonresident license or even up to a 14-day King Salmon tag. The
focus of this legislation was to create a mechanism to facilitate
other legislation that mandates an annual sport fish license for
people that own types of commercial licenses so that we were not
cutting them off, if we were going to mandate that they have annual
licenses. The King Salmon tag did not seem necessary to fulfill
that purpose.
Number 1057
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that he had a couple of amendments and
would entertain a motion to accept the CSSB 7(RLS) AM as a working
draft.
Number 1069
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN made a motion to adopt CSSB 7(RLS) AM
before the committee.
Number 1074
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there were any objections.
Number 1080
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN objected for discussion purposes and asked why
the committee was doing that.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN replied so we would have a working draft before
the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if there are changes from another bill.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked what he was referring to.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that it was passed over from the Senate.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that he stands corrected and he announced
he would take public testimony on the amendments.
Number 1131
KATHY HANSEN, Executive Director, United Southeast Alaska
Gillnetters Association, stated that the association supports the
purpose of the bill and requested that the amendment be inserted
for the CFEC permit holders and crew member licenses. She stated
that the seasons last for a long time and if a crew member only has
a day off they often won't use it to go into town but will throw
out a dungeness pot or ring and try to catch something to eat,
something different besides what they are fishing for. To do this
they will have to buy a 14-day license which would be fiscally
difficult for them to do. The association would like to provide a
way for the fisherman to catch fish to eat while out commercial
fishing. She stated that this is a common practice in the herring
and longer salmon fisheries.
Number 1238
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked which of the two amendments she was
addressing.
Number 1246
MS. HANSEN stated that if the association had to go with one of the
amendments it would be the commercial limited entry permit holders.
A crew member license for a nonresident is only $90, so someone
could abuse the system quite easily. She stated that the cheapest
entry permit is a hand troll permit which would cost $10,000,
someone would not go through that method to abuse the system. She
stated that they would prefer the limited entry permit amendment.
Number 1270
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, stated that they have some
concerns with the bill. He stated that the lack of an annual
nonresident license is a concern. The fee differential between a
resident and a nonresident license is a concern because that is an
article that may be required in order to engage in a business in
Alaska. There is some concern within the Department of Law that it
could be challenged by a nonresident guide who is required to have
that license, as an infringement of their rights under the U.S.
Constitution's, Privileges and Immunities Clause. This clause
allows a citizen of one state to have the same privileges of
citizens in other states. He stated that they would like to see an
annual nonresident license for several reasons. If someone moves
to the state with the intention to become a permanent resident,
that person would have to buy a series of licenses to fish through
the summer. The department is not certain that this should be the
state policy towards new residents.
Number 1432
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that he is a little confused, he thought
this bill had a provision for a nonresident annual sport fishing
license.
Number 1443
SENATOR DONLEY replied that it is only for people who have other
sorts of different licenses.
Number 1462
MR. BRUCE stated that the department's recommendation would be to
provide an annual nonresident license for people who weren't
involved in the commercial industry. The reasons being to
accommodate recent residents of the state so that there isn't the
burden on them to buy a series of 14-day licenses, to accommodate
guests for are visiting for a long time and for the seasonal
resident and workers. The option should be available although not
at the same cost as a resident. He stated that for a recreational
license it is not so difficult to charge a higher differential fee
and would suggest that it cost between $100 and $125 a year.
Number 1558
MR. BRUCE stated that the public may be concerned how the seasonal
bag limits will be enforced. The Board of Fisheries has begun the
process to place seasonal bag limits as a solution to the excessive
take of King Salmon by nonresidents. He stated that there is the
perception that under the 14-day license if they decide to buy
another one they get a second or third bag limit. He stated that
is not the case, however the license is the mechanism for recording
the take, by getting a new license it would be difficult for
enforcement personnel to tag that person who already has taken
their bag limit.
Number 1612
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if there was a way to identify or
attached the licenses together, when additional 14-day licenses are
issued, for reporting purposes.
Number 1652
MR. BRUCE stated that it would be administratively complicated to
accomplish that.
Number 1659
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if a class 7 is a nonresident license
and how long is it good for.
Number 1684
MR. BRUCE stated that it would cover a calendar year ending at
December 31st of that year.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated that then there is a mechanism for an
nonresident annual fishing license now.
Number 1699
MR. BRUCE replied that currently there is, under this bill there
would not be, except for people involved in the sport fish guiding
industry.
Number 1710
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that the 3-to-1 differential is
currently being litigated because it is occupational license but if
the differential was for a non-occupational license we could get
around it.
Number 1778
MR. BRUCE stated that the courts do not apply as strict a test as
the courts apply to non-occupational licenses. He stated that in
the Carlson case, courts have found that you have to look at the
amount of state money that is put into the management of the
industry and the resources, above and beyond what is contributed by
the license holders, to determine whether or not it is reasonable.
He stated that you can require the difference from what the state
puts in above and beyond what the licenses holders pay to be
applied to nonresident licenses. The courts are going through the
process of finding out whether the current differential is
justified, given the different sources of funds that the state is
putting into its management system.
Number 1849
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked if it was against the law to have sport
caught fish on a commercial boat during a commercial fishery.
Number 1868
MR. BRUCE replied that there is such a regulation but thinks that
it only applies to the troll fishery in Southeast Alaska and would
check further into it.
Number 1885
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that he assumes Representative Ivan was
referring to the two amendments. He stated that the commercial
fishermen exemption that they are talking about in the amendments
is that the industry has quite a few closures when the workers will
sport fish at that time.
Number 1906
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN stated that he is not talking against the
amendment or the bill.
Number 1916
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated that on the back of his license there
are provisions for a 1-day, 3-day and 14-day license for a
nonresident and asked why there isn't that option for residents.
MR. BRUCE replied that there is one flat annual fee for residents
which is $15.
ERIC STIRRUP, testified via teleconference from Kodiak, that the
bill makes no provision for a nonresident, angler annual license.
He stated that there are many nonresident contractors who are
building projects on state, federal, borough or city money, who are
working on the project for at least two years and are denied the
opportunity to purchase a nonresident annual license. He stated
that if those people buy more than one 14-day license they are red
flagged by the Department of Fish and Game as potentially breaking
the law. He stated that they are given no opportunity but break
the law from the standpoint that they will have to buy multiple
licenses. He stated that this could be solved by having a $150
nonresident angler annual license. He stated that the legislature
should stand behind the Board of Fisheries politically, to
implement an annual seasonal bag limit for all recreational anglers
in the state of Alaska. He stated that some of the biggest
offenders of bag limits that he has seen are not from out of state
but are living in Kodiak.
Number 2083
SENATOR DONLEY wanted to clarify that when Mr. Bruce spoke to the
Privileges and Immunities Clause he was really speaking to the
Commerce Clause. The Privileges and Immunities Clause does provide
for a much greater discrepancy, it is the Commerce Clause that ties
us up when we do the 1-to-3 ratio in any commercial operation. He
said, "The Commerce Clause does not apply except through this new
linkage to the commercial licenses and no one knows, since it has
never been done before, how a court would see that particular
part." He stated that if there was a bag limit problem it would be
under the existing law also because of the options for the shorter
licenses.
Number 2126
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked what the discussions were on the Senate
side of everyone having to pay a $150 dollars.
Number 2136
SENATOR DONLEY stated that it is an option for the committee to
consider, long time visitors can still fish a day at a time for $10
or a week for $30 and those visitors, because they are here all the
time, are going to fish when the fish are in. He stated that it
wouldn't be necessary to continually buy 14-day licenses unless
they are trying to catch fish as a full time operation. He stated
that they have tried to provide options by keeping the 1-day cost
low and keeping the short term cost low so that people can continue
to utilize the resource without over using it.
Number 2189
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked what about the person who moves here and
wants to fish all the time. He stated that the differential
discriminates against the person who is establishing a residency,
buying 14-day licenses adds up to a lot a money, to fish for the
summer.
Number 2223
SENATOR DONLEY replied that is true. We would be discriminating
there, the question is are we unfairly discriminating. He stated
that on the House side there is a proposal to determine a permanent
resident through the permanent dividend criteria, which is a great
idea to reduce some of the abuses we have had with nonresidents
claiming and buying resident licenses. He stated that it is not
unreasonable to ask new residents to show that they are committed
to being here in Alaska, before they are given the benefits of the
lower fees for the sport fish license because so much of the cost
in Alaska is from state government providing the infrastructure for
the roads and the camp grounds that visitors use and are resources
that are owned by the people. New residents do not have a good
claim on that ownership until they have shown a commitment to be
here for a period of time.
Number 2286
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked what the other committee referrals are on
the House side.
Number 2289
SENATOR DONLEY replied the other committees are resources and
finance.
Number 2298
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated that he would have a difficult time
moving this bill out unless it could be assured that there was
going to be quite a bit of discussion on an annual fee. He stated
that he can understand trying to get a handle on some of the
abuses, but would suggest that if someone brought an annual license
with an out of state address, that would be a red flag but not
diminish the ability for someone that is living here for one year
before they have obtained residency to sport fish. He stated that
he would like to have some assurances that people who intend to
move here to establish a residency are not discriminated against.
Number 2349
SENATOR DONLEY replied that the safeguard here is that they can
always fish for $10, if they want to fish. He stated that the only
person who would have a hardship under this is someone who just
moves here, and typically there is just one season to fish, but it
is reasonable to expect them to establish residency in a more
permanent matter before they reap the benefits in Alaska. He
stated that this is asked to be done for the permanent fund
dividend and the longevity bonus.
Number 2396
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if there has been any discussion whether
it would be discrimination for a person trying to establish
residency being able to obtain a 14-day license by the Department
of Law.
Number 2403
SENATOR DONLEY replied that the issue is not whether or not there
is discrimination but is the discrimination improper. He stated
that we clearly discriminate all through our laws based on
residency, the question becomes at what point is it improper
discrimination, which is basically determined under the Privileges
and Immunities Clause. Since it is a sport fish question it is
under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, if it was a commercial
question it would be under the Commerce Clause. The Privileges and
Immunities Clause is a sliding scale of scrutiny based on the
importance of the right or privilege involved. He stated that
there are different standards for different rights such as welfare,
emergency services and employment. He stated that courts are not
going to find that this issue is a vital concern to someone being
able to survive because it is not a commercial activity, it is a
recreational activity. The odds of someone saying they have to
have a benefit with less then a year of establishing residency
would be very slight.
TAPE 97-14, SIDE B
Number 006
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that there are a lot of people who get
there resident hunting license by lying, and he is trying to deal
with that through legislation. He stated that he is concerned that
the bill may give people more reasons to lie. He stated that he
knows there are a lot of people who move here and lie to buy a
resident fishing license and wondered if we were not creating more
of that problem by not giving them the opportunity to pay $150 for
a year round resident license.
Number 059
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN made a motion to move Amendment 1,
O-LSO131\PA.2, 3/24/97, for adoption.
Number 071
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if these are presented as two
amendments or as one amendment.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated two different amendments.
Number 083
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN objected that he would favor the other
amendment rather than then Amendment 1, for the reasons stated by
Kathy Hansen.
Number 105
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if everybody understood what the two
amendments do. The Amendment 1 on page 2, line 22, following
"Guard" inserts ";or (B) a current commercial fishing crew member
license issued by the department". The other amendment would
insert ";or (B) a current entry permit or interim-use permit issued
by the department". He stated that if Amendment 1 passed all
commercial fishermen would be covered because they have to have a
crew member license whether they have a limited entry permit or
not.
Number 144
MS. HANSEN stated that one could use their limited entry permit for
a crew member license in another commercial fishery and does not
know if it that would not hold true in this case.
Number 155
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if the limited entry amendment could
eliminate some commercial fisherman from getting a sport fish
license because they do not hold a permit.
Number 163
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if we are debating on both amendments
even though there is only Amendment 1 on the table.
Number 171
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that we may vote one down in favor of the
other so we need to understand what we are voting on.
Number 178
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that he is concerned that Amendment 1
would give people the loop hole, for an annual nonresident sport
fish license by purchasing a commercial crew license, which is his
objection. He asked if the limited entry amendment was being
offered as well.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN stated he was offering Amendment 1 but if there
are not enough votes he would withdraw it.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if Amendment 1 was accepted would it
include limited entry permit holders.
Number 229
MR. BRUCE asked if the question is if you had a commercial entry
permit would that cover everyone.
Number 248
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that the question is if someone held a
commercial fishing crew member license would that also cover people
that held a limited entry permit license.
Number 258
MR. BRUCE stated that it would not in every case. He stated that
there are people who fish just as crew members and they only have
a crew member license and they do not hold a limited entry permit.
He stated that he did not know how many people would fall into that
category.
Number 278
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if Representative Ogan's objection was
maintained.
Number 282
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied yes because it seems like Amendment 1
is giving people a loophole and if someone has a limited entry
permit they would be able to fish for the crew members on the boat
and if the crew wants to sport fish they would have to buy a sport
fish license.
Number 306
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that he would speak in favor of the
motion because of the issue of being a commercial crew member out
on the grounds for 30-days to 60-days at a time, during which there
are a number of openings and closures. It would not be right for
just the skipper to be able to sport fish and a crew member not be
able to do the same thing. He stated that if it is to be equitable
Amendment 1 would be the one to choose rather the limited entry
amendment.
Number 317
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that it would be fine unless people
figured out the loophole and asked how the sponsor felt about
Amendment 1.
Number 354
SENATOR DONLEY stated that this is definitely a loophole but they
would still have to pay $150 for the annual license which will
generate more revenue to helping out the resource. He stated that
he is concerned about it but does not have a big objection to it
because this is not the group of people who are abusing the annual
licenses. He stated that it could have some fine tuning such as
stating one has to hold a commercial crew license and be currently
employed, which would go a long way to prevent someone from just
buying a crew license to be able to sport fish annually. We have
done this when trying to figure people who were currently employed
in the sport fish industry. He stated that it wouldn't cut all the
abuses down but it might tighten them up a bit.
Number 449
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked for an at ease.
Number 455
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN called for a brief at ease at 6:10.
Number 455
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN called the committee back to order at 6:13.
Number 464
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there was any further discussion on
Amendment 1.
Number 467
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that he would like to withdraw his
objection because if someone wanted to exploit the resources that
badly they would have to buy a commercial fishing crew member
license. He stated it could be an out for new residents and it
would be a another $150 to fish all year.
Number 491
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there were any further objections,
hearing none Amendment 1 passed.
Number 512
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the limited entry amendment was going
to be addressed by the committee. He stated that it needs to be
discussed whether or not Amendment 1 includes someone who has a
permit issued by the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. He
asked if Amendment 1 includes holders of the limited entry permit.
Number 552
MR. BRUCE stated that he did not believe it required that they
would have to go out and buy a crew member license as well. The
entry permit serves in lieu of a crew member license but is not a
crew members license. He stated that there is nothing that
prohibits them from buying a crew member license and is not sure
that they would automatically have that benefit simply by having
that entry permit.
Number 586
SENATOR DONLEY stated that they asked the Department of Law that
question and they think that they are two different groups of
people. If the committee wants to extend the privilege for an
annual license to permit holders, the limited entry amendment could
be adopted as well.
Number 605
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if a nonresident wanted an annual
sport fish license, and bought a crew members license would that be
legal.
Number 647
MR. BRUCE replied that he did not believe that would be doing
anything illegal. There is no requirement to have to crew in a
fishery in order to buy a crew member license.
Number 654
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated that this way the nonresident annual
license would then be $240.
Number 687
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to move Amendment 2, O-
LSO131\PA.3, Utermohle, and stated that it needs a technical
amendment in the relettering.
Number 716
MR. BRUCE stated that he wanted to point out that a difference by
doing it this way through a crew members license verses a
nonresident annual sport fishing license is that one goes into the
general fund and one goes into the fish and game fund.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked which would be which.
Number 748
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN replied $90 dollars goes into the general fund
and $150 goes into the fish and game fund.
Number 762
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that Amendment PA.3 is before the
committee with a technical amendment to change line 5 "(B)" to
"(C)" so that it follows the first amendment that was passed.
Number 764
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there were any objections to the
amendment, hearing none it was so ordered.
Number 789
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to move HCSCSSB 7(FSH), with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note.
Number 797
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there was an objection, hearing none
HCSCSSB 7(FSH) was moved out of the House Special Committee on
Fisheries.
HB 204 - MORATORIA ON COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY
Number 810
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN announced the next order of business to be HB
204, "An Act revising the procedures and authority of the Alaska
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, the Board of Fisheries, and
the Department of Fish and Game to establish a moratorium on
participants or vessels, or both, participating in certain
fisheries; and providing for an effective date", and stated that
his staff will present the bill.
AMY DAUGHERTY, Legislative Administrative Assistant to
Representative Alan Austerman, read the following sponsor statement
into the record:
"House Bill 204 amends the existing moratorium law as part of
Alaska's existing fisheries management process. The current
moratorium statute is burdensome unworkable and confusing. The
current process involves multiple steps where fishers seeking a
moratorium must first go to the Commissioner of Fish and Game, who,
in turn must seek authorization from the Board of Fisheries. Once
authorization is granted from the Board of Fisheries, the
commissioner then petitions the Limited Entry Commission to provide
a moratorium.
"The Limited Entry Commission is them authorized to go forward if
it can make findings required by the current statute, which are
difficult to understand and mutually inconsistent.
"This process prevents a quick response in fisheries that are
growing too rapidly to ensure effective management. As a result,
the resource and the economic livelihood of fishers could be
jeopardized. In some situations, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game's only recourse is to close the fishery or refuse to open a
new fishery if effort cannot be controlled.
"House Bill 204 would allow fishers seeking a moratorium to
petition the commission directly. This legislation would also give
the commission the authority to place a moratorium on vessels and
gear as well as individuals. This is important in a fishery like
the Bering Sea Korean Hair Crab Fishery, which is a bill we did
last year.
"Under the current statute, eligibility to participate during the
moratorium is based on past participation. This requirement
precludes the use of a moratorium in new fisheries or in fisheries
that have remained closed for years. In these two situations,
participation level in an open access fishery may be initially too
great to promote resource conservation and sustainable fisheries.
House Bill 204 would allow the commission to implement a moratorium
in such fisheries and base eligibility on other reasonable
standards such as participation in similar fisheries.
"Additionally, HB 204 would allow the state to extend its
moratorium authority to offshore fisheries adjacent to state waters
when consistent with federal law.
"Improving the moratorium law is consistent with our concern for
developing and protecting jobs, as well as streamlining government
an resource protection."
Number 989
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that, sponsor of the Senate version of
the bill, Senator Loran Leman was present.
Number 997
DALE ANDERSON, Chairman, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, stated that the bill makes a
lot of sense, it is an opportunity to streamline the process and
gives fisherman direct access to the commission as was originally
intended. It relives the legislature of dealing with moratorium
issues, issues that the commission is paid to deal with. The bill
has a zero fiscal note, it will be a financial savings to the state
as well. He stated that the commission does have an existing
moratorium authority, it is not something that is being looked at
as a new authority, but it is a very confusing convoluted process
that the public has to go through to obtain a moratorium in their
fishery and the bill will provide direct access to the commission
by the individual fishers.
Number 1114
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the language on Section 3, page 2,
since this is not a permanent limited entry but a moratorium, get
the authority from the legislature to invoke a permanent limited
entry.
Number 1123
MR. ANDERSON responded that the difference between a moratorium and
a limited entry is, a limited entry is a permanent piece of
legislation, and a moratorium is a sunsetted opportunity to place
a participation cap on a fishery that has been brought to the
commission as one that has a resource with an economic viability
concern. It gives the commission four years to decide whether or
not a permanent limited entry program is proper for the fishery.
He stated that in the Southeast Dungeness Crab Fishery this is what
we had, which worked well, resulting in a management plan in that
fishery.
Number 1242
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked what has been repealed in Section 10.
Number 1255
MR. ANDERSON replied that he would have to get back to
Representative Ogan on that.
Number 1274
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that everyone has to understand that this
is not a limited entry issue, it is a moratorium issue and how it
is applied to the fisheries that are in crisis.
Number 1286
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that he would have to debate that point
and would have to call the moratorium a temporary limited entry.
You limited that amount of people that can fish so we are giving
the commission the ability to declare a temporary limited entry.
Number 1308
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN replied if there is a fishery that is in crisis
how would you do it. The objective of a moratorium is to be able
to still have a fishery and not let it go rampant and destroy
itself. He asked if the moratorium has to go the full four years.
Number 1332
MR. ANDERSON responded that it does not have to go the full four
years, but in the past in the Dungeness Crab Fishery, the Korean
Hair Crab Fishery and now with the HB 141 the scallop moratorium
bill, four years has been the acceptable standard.
Number 1362
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that for the record Section 16.05.050.19
explains the powers and duties of the commissioner but not by way
of limitation the following duties. It states, "to petition the
Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, unless the Board of
Fisheries disapproves the petition". He stated that it apparently
repeals the Board of Fisheries ability to disapprove the petition.
Number 1420
MR. ANDERSON replied that right now it is required that the
individual go to the commissioner of the Department of Fish and
Game, who has to go to the Board of Fisheries, who has to go back
to the commissioner to give the okay, who then petitions to the
commission. He stated that the commissioner is repealing those
steps. We want the public to come directly to the commission and
we are still required to ask the Department of Fish and Game their
opinions. He stated that the commission is not attempting to wipe
out the association that we have with the Department of Fish and
Game, rather have it in a more direct line.
Number 1481
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked, "So you are asking for not only the
legislature to give you the authority to close this whenever you
want but you are also asking to have the fish board not have a say
in it."
Number 1500
MR. ANDERSON replied that the Board of Fisheries always had a say
in any fish management program that is produced in the state of
Alaska. He stated that we live within the Board of Fisheries
qualifications that they put on a fishery as they are responsible
for the methods and means of capture of fish.
Number 1525
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that AS 16.05.251(g) states "The board
shall consider whether the commissioner, in support of the request
for approval of the petition, has adequately shown that the fishery
meets the requirement for a moratorium on new entrants under AS
16.05.050. The board by a majority vote of its members at the
meeting when the petition must be considered shall approve or
disapprove the petition." Basically we are eliminating the Board
of Fisheries from this process and that would take another system
of checks and balances out.
Number 1572
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there was any part of the bill that
bring in the Board of Fisheries and the Department of Fish and Game
back in.
Number 1581
MR. ANDERSON replied that in any study that the commission does,
they have to answer to the courts. The commission has to go
through the process to make their findings before they can declare
a moratorium on a fishery. He stated that the very reason the
commission is asking that the statutes be changed is because the
Board of Fisheries should not have that authority to vote on what
the commission does. He stated that this step is unnecessary.
Number 1648
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that he disagrees with that statement.
The Board of Fisheries should be in the loop.
Number 1661
MR. ANDERSON replied that they are in the loop at this time even
within this bill.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if he could explain that.
MR. ANDERSON responded that on page 1, line 13, it states "To allow
time for the commission, in consultation with the Department of
Fish and Game and the Board of Fisheries, to investigate and
evaluate management alternatives, including establishment of a
maximum number of entry permits under AS 16.43.240."
Number 1702
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that if the Board of Fisheries is
consulted and they think that it is a bad idea, the commission can
still go through with it anyway.
Number 1716
MR. ANDERSON replied that it would be the same response if
everything the Board of Fisheries were to do and we had the
authority to re-look at what they did. He stated that the
commission has an effective team now with the Board of Fisheries
and the Department of Fish and Game, who all shares one common goal
which is protection of the resource for sustained yield management.
He stated that the places that we differ are that we look at
economic viability. The Board of Fisheries cannot look at economic
viability. The Board of Fisheries can look at methods and means of
capture, the commission cannot look at methods and means of
capture. The Department of Fish and Game cannot look at those two
things but they have to manage what the Board of Fisheries puts
down as the rules. He stated that there are checks and balances
and we have developed effective management plans.
Number 1824
DEAN PADDOCK, Representative, Alaska Bristol Bay Drift Netters
Association, stated that many of the members are opposed to limited
entry in principle but support it as a matter of reality and is
something that is desperately needed and in most cases has arrived
on the scene too little and too late. Part of the reason for that
is wrapped up in the bill. He stated that the association's
biggest criticism is the arcane and obtuse process that the
commission had to go through to deal with situations crying for
attention. He stated that the fisheries are so overcrowded is
witness to the fact that we are usually a year late and many
dollars short. The necessary window of opportunity which the
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission has had to have in order to
take a desired action has frequently been too small for them to
assist, in a timely fashion, in making what was necessary to
happen, actually happen. He stated that this bill will allow the
process to work with a smaller window of opportunity. Declaring a
moratorium is something that has proven to be time consuming and
difficult. He referred to Mr. Anderson's statement that the
process can work very well, the fisherman see nothing circuitous
outlined in the present statute. He pointed out to Representative
Ogan Section 2 (b)(1), lines 13 through 14, subsection 2, page 2,
line 3 and Section 4 (d)(2) which offers more than adequate
opportunity for input by the Department of Fish and Game due to the
nature of the way these consultations do in fact work. He stated
that the association recommends the favorable consideration of this
measure.
Number 2235
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked what the wishes of the committee are. He
asked of Representative Ogan needed further information on the
sections being repealed in the bill.
Number 2263
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied that he still has some misgivings about
it but not enough to hold the bill up.
Number 2277
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to move HB 204, 0-LS0802\A,
with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note.
Number 2280
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there were any objections, hearing none
HB 204 was moved out of the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2299
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN adjourned the House Special Committee on
Fisheries at 6:43 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|