03/12/2001 05:06 PM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 12, 2001
5:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gary Stevens, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Co-Chair
Representative Drew Scalzi
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative John Coghill
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All Members Present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING
Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Bruce Twomley - Juneau
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 154
"An Act relating to security for the payment of fishery business
taxes and to payment of estimated fisheries resource landing
taxes and penalties."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 93
"An Act establishing the permit fee for the personal use dip net
fisheries for the Kenai River and the Kasilof River; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 93(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE.
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 154
SHORT TITLE:COLLECTION OF FISHERY BUSINESS TAXES BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)SCALZI
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/28/01 0462 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/28/01 0462 (H) FSH, RES, FIN
03/12/01 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 93
SHORT TITLE:KENAI DIP NET FISHERY PERMIT FEE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)LANCASTER
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/26/01 0171 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/26/01 0171 (H) FSH, RES, FIN
03/12/01 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
BRUCE TWOMLEY, Appointee
to the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
PO Box 020972
Juneau, Alaska 99802-0972
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as an appointee to the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission.
JIM COLIER
Post Office Box 966
Wrangell, Alaska 99929
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against Mr. Twomley's appointment
to the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission.
NEIL SLOTNICK, Deputy Commissioner
Treasury Division
Department of Revenue
PO Box 110405
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0405
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the department on HB
154 and answered questions.
CHUCK HARLAMERT, Juneau Section Chief
Tax Division
Department of Revenue
PO Box 110420
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0420
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the department on HB
154 and answered questions.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LANCASTER
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 93.
IRVIN BROCK, Deputy Director
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 93 regarding the fiscal
note.
CARL ROSIER, President
Alaska Outdoor Council
Juneau, Alaska
[Address not provided]
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 93.
BRETT HUBER
PO Box 822
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 93
BOB KINTZELE
PO Box 3313
Kenai, Alaska 99610
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 93.
PAUL SHADURA
PO Box 1632
Kenai, Alaska 99610
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 93.
CAPTAIN HOWARD STARBARD
Commander, B Detachment
Division of Fish & Wildlife Protection
Department of Public Safety
453 South Valley Way
Palmer, Alaska 99645-6494
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position on HB 93.
GARY HOLLIER
(Address not provided)
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 93.
DAN BOONE
PO Box 1783
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 93.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-10, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR GARY STEVENS called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 5:06 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Wilson, Scalzi, Coghill,
Dyson, and Stevens. Representatives Kapsner and Kerttula
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
CONFIRMATION HEARING
Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
CO-CHAIR STEVENS announced that the first order of business
would be a confirmation hearing for the Alaska Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission [CFEC].
BRUCE TWOMLEY, Appointee to Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC), stated that Governor Jay S. Hammond appointed
him to the CFEC on October 31, 1982. He has been serving since
that time. However, he said that he has not always been a
bureaucrat. Before [being on] the commission, he spent ten
years as a lawyer with Alaska Legal Services Corporation "suing
the state and federal government and also representing fishermen
before the limited entry commission, which gave me a sense of
how the limited entry commission affects people's lives".
MR. TWOMLEY noted that the supreme court has made "our job a
little bit difficult" under supreme court decisions, if the
commission is reversed. The supreme court has held that
reversal can be applied retroactively to reopen closed
applications and to undo work the commission has done over
several decades. So, [limited entry applications] require a
great deal of legal care and fairness. Special treatment cannot
be given to any particular individual. [The CFEC] has to
ensure, at least within a fishery, that the same rules are
applied to all of the applicants before it. He said that he
thinks there has been some success in this process.
MR. TWOMLEY stated that currently there are 63 fisheries under
limitation. He said the number of court appeals pending against
the commission from limited entry decisions has gone from 150
(when he first arrived) to 7. He believes that this means there
is "some measure of public acceptance for limited entry."
However, this does not mean that limited entry is popular,
because the nature of the decisions made is always
controversial. He went on to say that decisions affect people:
"in the way [that] individuals care very deeply about their
fishing rights." He stated:
I guess we're really in a realm of decision making
that would be fine by Governor [Jay S.] Hammond, one
in which if you're going to effectively balance the
competing interests around one of our decisions.
Probably you can achieve a correct balance if you've
made everybody at least a little bit unhappy. And
that's an objective that I think we have achieved with
some regularity.
MR. TWOMLEY commented that over the years, a former client as
well as fishermen have told him that even if they do not get
their individual entry permits, they want the limited entry
system to survive. These people regard the limited entry system
as "sufficiently important because it protects the place of
Alaska fishermen in their fisheries." He stated that this is
the primary function [of the commission] and the reason for
doing this task. He went on to say, "It's that kind of
encouragement that brings me back here before you folks today."
Number 0370
CO-CHAIR STEVENS asked for clarification that Mr. Twomley is
chairman of CFEC, which has three members.
MR. TWOMLEY confirmed this statement.
CO-CHAIR STEVENS referred to Mr. Twomley's statement that the
number of court appeals has gone from 150 to 7. He asked if the
appeals have to be handled in a certain amount of time or
(indisc).
MR. TWOMLEY explained that the first cases done are the oldest
and ones where someone's immediate right to fish is at stake.
This mainly occurs in transfer cases such as the recent
Wassillie [Class Action] Settlement, which was settled in 1988.
Under this case, individuals who submitted applications for the
original salmon fisheries did not receive interim-use permits
while their applications were pending. So, they would not learn
whether or not they would be able to participate in a fishery
until they received a "final up or down decision from the
commission". Consequently, CEFC dealt with these cases first.
MR. TWOMLEY explained that fishers who have applications pending
can fish until their applications are denied, and as long as an
individual can keep an application "alive." This is often an
incentive to appeal to court. He thinks that this makes this
low rate of appeal more remarkable because there is a built-in
incentive to appeal cases and keep applications going as long as
possible.
Number 0509
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON remarked that he no longer had a conflict
of interest in voting for [the confirmation of] Mr. Twomley,
because he got rid of his permit last year. However, he said he
appreciates the job that he did, especially in Bristol Bay. He
commented that on Bristol Bay, where he went fishing:
The "buzz" has been how many are out there fishing who
have applied and are fishing under some type of
provisional [permit], while you guys are making a
decision on whether they will get a permanent permit.
It's always seemed like it was a disportionately large
number. Is that true?
MR. TWOMLEY commented that CFEC has concentrated on the
Wassillie cases first, except when there was an older case. But
the Wassillie cases were completed last year, since the "bottom
fell out of Bristol Bay". The Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission has gone through many Bristol Bay cases and is in the
process of "whittling down that number." In a recent period,
100 decisions affecting Bristol Bay participants had been
issued. Therefore, he thinks, "We are making good progress."
MR. TWOMLEY mentioned that CFEC faced a lawsuit regarding
Bristol Bay, before "things went bad" there. This lawsuit
involved an individual who sued [CFEC] claiming that "Bristol
Bay was so healthy and the returns were so good that limited
entry ought to be undone in Bristol Bay, claiming that it got
too exclusive." He said the CFEC was able to defend against
this lawsuit, but "not in the way that puts the issue to rest."
He added, "of course, reality for now has put that issue to
rest."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if the statute allows the commission
to inform the legislature if there are parts of the limited
entry law that should be revisited or altered.
MR. TWOMLEY replied that [CFEC] is required to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if there are things that should be
changed to "make it work better for the fisherman."
MR. TWOMLEY remarked in a very general way, CFEC has a limited
entry system designed for the original salmon fisheries. This
system works fairly well in those fisheries because they are
primarily owner-operated fisheries. He mentioned that the
[limited entry system] is basically a "license limitation
system." Therefore, if the number of licenses were limited, the
number of units of gear under those circumstances would be
limited as well. This [limited entry system] would not be a
valuable contribution unless there were other controls in place
on fishing effort.
Number 0755
MR. TWOMLEY stated that there have always been limits in Bristol
Bay, including a limit of "32 feet in the drift in that fishery"
for the size of vessels, and limits on the amount of gear one
can put into the water. So, when a limited entry [system] is
put together with regulations that the "board" has in place,
fishing power can be affected, and the amount of fishing power
can be estimated, which is "some advantage to the managers."
But in [other] fisheries, it [limited entry system] began to
look different from that salmon fishery model. He said that
CFEC just got "this license limitation system, and it may not do
much good." He said:
For example, in larger-boat fisheries, where you may
have larger vessels and a whole series of relief
skippers - we faced this in the scallop fishery - if
you were to limit according to our system, and limit
the number of skippers, you could actually succeed in
multiplying the number of units of gear in the
fishery. The state would benefit ... from having some
more sophisticated tool of vessel license limitation
system - perhaps an IFQ tool - available. There would
be means, I think, to make the state more flexible.
Number 0850
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked in regard to setnet fisheries, if the
permit needs to be tied to a location. He mentioned that he has
watched "some very interesting fistfights and a few exchanges of
shotgun blasts deciding who had the right to what site."
MR. TWOMLEY concurred that this would help settle some conflict.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if [CFEC] would be coming forward to
the House Special Committee on Fisheries with recommendations or
if [the legislature] needed to do anything in statute in order
for this to happen.
MR. TWOMLEY replied that it would require a statutory change.
This is an area in which the Department of Natural Resources has
independent regulatory authority. The Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission would have to get together with them in order
to possibly develop a constructive proposal.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON described a family he knows closely that
consists of a woman who has fished the beach since she was
young. This woman, who has children, now has a brain tumor. He
said that she would like to pass her permit on to her children,
but from year to year, her health is fragile and her children
are too young to receive the permit. She would appreciate
having some way to transfer the permit. Currently, it can be
transferred on a medical transfer for two years in a row. But
if unfortunate circumstances occur, the family loses something
that has been a very important part of their heritage. He asked
if there was a "simple way we can fix it, for those kind of
folks." He mentioned that he is aware of the "subterfuges that
go on with phony medical transfers every year."
Number 1018
MR. TWOMLEY answered, "I think we have a fix for that." He
described the situation Representative Dyson discussed as being
one in which the individual is clearly entitled to a medical
transfer and wants to do a permanent transfer to a family
member, but for whatever reason, the family member doesn't have
the capacity to receive a transfer at that time. He said that
this judgment is up to the permit holder. The commission can
provide temporary transfers until the situation changes. He
stated that the transfers are "not for all time; it's not
infinite, but we can see the beginning and the end of that
process." It serves a couple of goals under the [Limited Entry]
Act, in particular, the goal of encouraging permits to transfer
from one family member to another. Therefore, he thinks that
there is good statutory authority. He said that this
[transferring permits to family members] has been done, and he
thinks it is possible, with few questions.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON encouraged Mr. Twomley [and the limited
entry commission] to let the legislature know if there are fixes
that need to be made, especially because "we probably have more
fish-oriented legislators in the legislature now than [we have
had] for quite a while."
Number 1200
JIM COLIER testified via teleconference:
I reside in Wrangell. I have been in the shrimp
industry for about 20 years now. ... I've seen that
(indisc.) did not use the constitution here when they
went limited entry on the point system for the shrimp
industry. They didn't want to use what is called
equal protection where they treat one ... the same as
another. They did not (indisc.) or use illegal
(indisc.) not included and determined and revised the
maximum number in developing the point system. This
is not fair.
I mean, if they do it one fishery, they should do it
in all fisheries. Right is right and wrong is wrong.
I don't know why they'd [reward] somebody for fishing
illegally. I brought this to Bruce Twomley's
attention. He didn't want to discuss it. I have a
letter showing that, and [Representative] Peggy Wilson
has a copy, ... if anyone wants to see it. She can
make a copy and send it to them, or you can send me
your address and I'll send you one.
The other constitution [section] that I see Mr.
Twomley is violating is in ... Natural Resources,
Article VIII, Section 17, Uniform Applications [of
the Constitution of the State of Alaska which says]
... all laws and regulations shall be treated equal
[governing the use or disposal of natural resources].
I don't see this being done either.
If Bruce [Twomley] can't do that, then he shouldn't
have another term here, if he can't correct his
mistake. If he gets another term, I guess, then, the
only thing I can do, then, is start a recall.
Number 1422
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON wondered if Mr. Colier was talking about a
statute or regulation problem. He then said that he [Mr.
Colier] "at least represents" that the same standards are not
being applied to all the different fisheries. He asked Mr.
Twomley his view of this situation.
Number 1455
MR. TWOMLEY answered that when a fishery is limited, [CFEC]
tries to develop the qualification criteria relevant to that
particular fishery. Therefore, there are some variations from
fishery to fishery. Nonetheless, there are basic elements
required by statute that are consistently applied from fishery
to fishery.
MR. TWOMLEY said he has spent a lot of time talking with Mr.
Colier on the phone about these issues. He believes that the
issue Mr. Colier is raising is the absence of a provision in
which an applicant "can make an excuse for not having fished and
nonetheless get credit for the years the individual didn't fish
premised on the claim that the individual was prevented from
fishing." This is not a statutory requirement; it is something
that the commission came up with in the earliest limitation
schemes, which has been applied to a couple of fisheries.
However, the last time it was applied was in 1988.
MR. TWOMLEY stated that [CFEC] was finding that a provision like
that makes it very difficult to evaluate and adjudicate. It
also lends itself to fraud, because it's difficult to sort out
valid claims from invalid claims. It also slows down the whole
adjudication process, which causes everyone "to wait longer to
get those cases resolved before they can ultimately determine
where they stand." So, instead of using this provision, he
indicated that what has been done in the shrimp fishery
involving the point system, is to enable fishermen to obtain
points even if they miss several seasons of fishing. He said
that [CFEC] has tried to make this allowance for the
contingencies that would keep somebody from fishing, rather than
"getting into these factually complex and ... misleading claims
based on unavoidable circumstances".
MR. TWOMLEY stated that [Mr. Colier] is correct that there is a
difference. But this difference is authorized under statute,
given the fact that that provision is not required, "which has
really helped us." He referred to the "time taken in
adjudications," and said that that [CFEC] has more than 300
applications; there is a maximum of 332 permits, and 309 permits
have already been issued. He said:
We're getting to a fishery like this much quicker than
... earlier point systems that had this kind of
unavoidable circumstances provision, and that's really
a service to everybody. They can all learn where they
stand that much sooner, and people can make plans.
Number 1681
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Mr. Twomley to describe the
logistical issues that the CFEC deals with as a board.
MR. TWOMLEY explained that the main issue is that CFEC regulates
an industry, so they need to know as much as possible about the
industry. He said in "our" collective experience [CFEC] has
learned quite a bit about commercial fishing, and what they
really want to do is intrude on the industry as little as
possible. They don't want to be making demands on fishermen
during seasons or around the "eve" of a season. If someone had
an IUP [non-limited interim use permit] in hand, CFEC wouldn't
want to be in the position of taking away that IUP during the
year.
MR. TWOMLEY went on to say that CFEC's main motivation and
logistical consideration is "Trying to make ourselves
understandable and predictable so that we can try to lend some
stability to the process so people will know what to expect from
us, know what they're getting, and have their lives disrupted as
little as possible." He went on to say:
It leads to a number of things, ... trying to draft
notices [that] people understand, trying to have
seasons well in mind so we don't trip over an ongoing
fishery, trying to communicate as often as possible
with members of the industry and just trying to
maintain a flow of information.
Number 1781
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Mr. Twomley how well he thinks the
commission is doing.
MR. TWOMLEY remarked that he thinks "we have done pretty well."
He said the CFEC spends a lot of time meeting with fishermen
whenever a question comes up. For example, in Bristol Bay, he
was appointed to the Bristol Bay Native Association Blue Ribbon
Commission on Limited Entry, on which he has been serving with
former Governor Hammond and a number of elders in the area. He
said that this way, "We actually have been able to work through
some issues and reaffirm their commitment to get permits into
the hands of local people out there to make a difference." He
said that he thinks [CFEC] and [fishermen] have a pretty good
understanding of each other.
MR. TWOMLEY stated that CFEC is an accessible agency. It is the
"size of a small classroom," people come in and out of the
agency all the time, and since CFEC is located near the airport,
there are always people "turning up at the counter," which is
good and which CFEC can accommodate.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked about access to hearings and how
well this works.
MR. TWOMLEY replied that CFEC is set up to do hearings. They
usually go to where the people are, and have conducted hearings
in almost every community throughout the state.
Number 1866
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that if someone were
appointed [to CFEC] who did not have the experiences Mr. Twomley
had, the process would be slowed down. He stated that Mr.
Twomley sees himself as an "advantager," which he appreciates.
He mentioned due process in relation to Mr. Colier's situation,
and asked how many other instances have come forward [to the
CFEC] in which equal protection was the main issue.
Number 1908
MR. TWOMLEY answered that this is often an issue that goes
beyond due process because the statute directs [CFEC] not to
"discriminate unjustly among fishermen." The [CFEC] is required
to make some distinctions in the work that it does, but can't do
unjust discrimination. He said that this may even "up the ante"
a little bit above equal protection. He went on to say that a
unique thing about the agency [CFEC] is that "as commissioners,
we have rule-making authority [and] we're also the final level
of appeal within the agency."
MR. TWOMLEY mentioned that he used to litigate equal protection
claims against the state and federal governments. He went on to
say that if someone has an equal protection constitutional
claim, it's common, for example, for hearing officers to say "Oh
heck, we can't hear that; we got to leave that for that court."
The Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission will then hear the
claim, and if persuaded that one of its regulations is operating
unfairly with respect to an individual, the regulation will be
changed. This has been done; it's one of the advantages of the
structure of CFEC. The CFEC can hear those claims. Mr. Twomley
added, "We're not a court, so we don't make decisions that bind
the world, but nonetheless we can respond to those individuals
and those individual claims, and we can fix it in our own
regulations if we're persuaded to do that".
Number 2000
CO-CHAIR WILSON noted that she has worked with Mr. Colier "quite
extensively" to attempt to deal with some of the questions and
concerns he had. She said that she also worked with Mr. Twomley
and all of the commissioners in regard to this situation, and
they have not been able to come to a satisfactory end. She
mentioned that she has shared this information with the members
of the House Special Committee on Fisheries so that everyone is
aware of the situation. Due to the statutes and regulations, it
has been frustrating to Mr. Colier because "we've come to a dead
end."
Number 2076
MR. COLIER referred to Mr. Twomley's remarks that in 1988 the
hardship clause was revised, which is discussed on page 7 of a
paper he received from Mr. Twomley, entitled "Southeast Shrimp
Pot Fishery Point System Rationale". He said:
It states in all limited fisheries, persons have
claimed they could not fish in some years because of
illness or mechanical breakdown. [Mr. Twomley] claims
that in 1988 they quit using that. Well that's not
true because in the dire fishery they just did a point
system for help ... there. So you can't say that they
haven't used it since '88. They are still doing it,
and if they're going to do it in one fishery, they
should do it in all the fisheries, for the equal
protection. In other words, it's not ... equal
protection, and he's bending the law there [in regard
to] regulations and [the] constitution.
MR. TWOMLEY remarked that he would take issue with Mr. Colier on
that point. He also noted "even before '88 that wasn't a
consistent provision." There were a number of fisheries,
including many of the herring fisheries that didn't have the kind
of provision Mr. Colier discussed. It's really a question of
"whether it works in a particular fishery and whether it works at
all."
CO-CHAIR STEVENS asked for confirmation that there are three
members of the CFEC, of which Mr. Twomley is the only attorney.
MR. TWOMLEY concurred with these comments.
CO-CHAIR STEVENS remarked that the [CFEC] really acts as a
judicial body. He said that he was not sure if this term is
used legally, but it appears that the [CFEC] is almost like a
court, in that case.
MR. TWOMLEY said, "That's the case."
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI commented that he had spoken to Mr. Colier
prior to "coming on board down here". He also researched [Mr.
Colier's] case and spoke to the department. He said he thinks
the decision that was rendered by the department has been
consistent, and is a fair outcome, so he is comfortable with the
decision that was made.
CO-CHAIR STEVENS asked if there was any objection to moving the
confirmation of Mr. Twomley forward for consideration by the
full House and Senate. There being no objection, the
confirmation of Mr. Twomley was advanced.
HB 154-COLLECTION OF FISHERY BUSINESS TAXES
CO-CHAIR STEVENS announced the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 154, "An Act relating to security for the payment of
fishery business taxes and to payment of estimated fisheries
resource landing taxes and penalties."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 154, version 22-LS0638\F,
Utermohle, 3/9/01, as a work draft. There being no objection,
Version F was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI, sponsor of HB 154, stated that this is a
fairly simple bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI offered some background. He explained
that at statehood, when the raw-fish tax was implemented,
canneries ran the country. The raw-fish tax benefited the state
greatly. At the same time, the canneries said, "We need to hold
on [to] that money until our pack is sold." So, inadvertently,
the state gave [the canneries] latitude to hold the money until
April 1. This is in current statute.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said that this worked "fine" for the
canneries. But for this to happen, he said, the state required
that [the canneries] put up collateral, either a bond of the
estimated amount of fish tax that they collected the previous
year or "lienable property, three times the amount of what was
collected in raw-fish taxes in the previous year." So, they
have an option.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI stated that until the recent passage of
IFQ's [individual fishing quota], "we" dealt exclusively with
resources that were processed by freezing or canning. There was
very little fresh product leaving the state. Consequently, when
the IFQs came in, there was a big demand for fresh fish.
Number 2353
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said "at least 90 percent of the fish
leaving the state are going out fresh." There is good reason
for this. Currently, there is a [halibut fishery] that lasts
for nine months a year from March 15 to November 15. In doing
this, some of these "fresh fish movers" are under the same
guidelines as the canneries. They either have to come up with a
bond of the amount of the money they paid the previous year in
raw fish [tax] or have lienable property of three times the
amount. Yet, when moving fresh fish, "you don't need a cannery,
you don't need a lot of property; what you need is a telephone,
fax line, a computer, ... some totes, and whatever it takes to
move an operation."
Number 2446
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI went on to say that someone [dealing with
raw fish] who has $350,000 to $400,000 [in taxes] does not have
that amount in lienable property. So, he said that he
approached the Department of Revenue and asked how this problem
could be remedied, if at all. The Department of Revenue drafted
this bill that says the state's needs and securities will be
satisfied if the raw-fish tax is collected on a monthly basis,
but they ["raw-fish-movers"] won't be allowed to hold this
money until April 1 of the following year. So, if ["raw fish
movers"] don't want to bond for the amount of raw-fish tax paid
the previous year or if they do not have the lienable property
to do so, the state will be satisfied if they pay on a monthly
basis. He said, "This is an advantage to the state because raw-
fish tax is being paid immediately; it's not being held in
interest collected by another entity."
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI stated that this bill applies only to
those dealing with raw [fish] product who are not processing.
The Department of Revenue had several reasons for not including
processing in this bill. He said that he has spoken to the
Department of Revenue about a comprehensive bill that would help
the industry and state. However, the Department [of Revenue]
would like another year to work on that bill in order to review
the current raw fish tax and collection method. He reiterated
that this bill only applies to the fresh fish market.
Number 2523
NEIL SLOTNICK, Deputy Commissioner, Treasury Division,
Department of Revenue, stated that Representative Scalzi had
contacted the department for assistance in drafting the bill,
and that assistance was provided. He said Representative
Scalzi's directive to them was to develop a scheme that could
protect the State of Alaska and its tax revenues, which has been
done.
CO-CHAIR STEVENS asked for clarification that this bill does not
apply to processors who change the raw [fish] product into some
form, but only applies to those dealing with raw fish product.
MR. SLOTNICK confirmed this statement.
Number 2557
CO-CHAIR WILSON asked: If ["raw-fish-movers"] can do this in 30
days and not have to be bonded, then why can't processors do
this as well?
Number 2589
CHUCK HARLAMERT, Juneau Section Chief, Central Office, Tax
Division, Department of Revenue, said he suspected that a "good
number of processors" would prefer to take this option. The
department estimated that 45 out of 507 ["raw-fish-movers"]
would take this option. He said that although this number seems
small, it makes up a "big chunk" of the tax that is not secured
by real property. He went on to say that he is not comfortable
[with applying this option to processors] because once "you"
move in that direction, the accounting burden and security
issues become difficult. He said:
If you look at the way we do business now, we get our
security, our certainty that we're going [to] collect
up front and we do that on behalf of the state and we
do that on behalf of the municipalities. If we were
to switch to a more broad-based "pay as you go"
system, our ability to control collection would be
diminished, and we would have to come up with
different mechanisms to deal with it. ... We're not
prepared to do that right now.
CO-CHAIR WILSON indicated that she was still not clear on why 30
days was acceptable for "raw-fish-movers" and not others.
MR. HARLAMERT replied that the answer is not simple. He said
that he envisions the bill to have a fairly limited scope of no
more than 5 participants. This is a level of participation that
"we" know [the department] can keep track of. He said that it
seemed like a reasonable risk, "if you look at a $50,000 bond in
place in the amount that the state could be left hanging out in
a ... 45-day period." If this was a broader base where monthly
returns were being filed, it's not guaranteed that "we" would
identify someone who failed to file or report all of their fish
or failed to pay in a timely manner within the season. If there
was a very short season, the season could be practically over
before the problem was identified and liens could be secured and
or "otherwise get our hands on the money".
CO-CHAIR WILSON asked how the [taxes] are collected now if [the
department] is waiting until the end of the season.
MR. HARLAMERT said, "We have our security before we even give
them their license." This bill gives them an option of issuing
one $50,000 bond and paying monthly, rather than using the
"normal traditional security arrangements." So [the Department
of Revenue] would be forgoing either "our 3 times-lienable-value
in real estate or bonding for twice the tax or prepayment, as
often occurs."
Number 2784
MR. SLOTNICK remarked that the [Department of Revenue] is not
prepared at this time to accept a large volume of monthly
returns. It would require a "surprisingly hefty" fiscal note.
He added that he was not going to pursue this type of process,
given that a very limited number of brokers would be able to
make the election under the bill as written. "We" believe that
this [Version F] can be processed and the monthly returns
handled without an increased fiscal note. But if it goes beyond
that, there will be a large one.
Number 2816
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if interest is charged on an unpaid
balance.
MR. HARLAMERT replied yes, it is treated as an "underpayment of
estimate tax," and one will be subjected to penalties and
interest.
Number 2840
CO-CHAIR STEVENS asked if they expect the number of participants
to increase, meaning that "a bigger portion of the product is
moving out fresh."
Number 2857
MR. SLOTNICK remarked that he was not sure if the Department of
Revenue was in a position to respond to that question. He said
five participants is only an estimate; records show that only
one taxpayer would take advantage of this. But the department
does expect it to grow, so they allowed up to five for its
estimate.
Number 2888
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI referred to Mr. Slotnick's remarks
regarding the change in the fiscal note if this program was
expanded. He said throughout the year, he would be willing to
work on changes the department would like to see, and that [the
committee] could address at another time. He remarked that
committee members might hear arguments from some processors that
this program is "An unfair competitive advantage and that we are
encouraging fresh fish to be promoted versus processed in-
state." He continued:
I can tell you, the industry is not going to go
backwards. We're not going back to a one-day derby of
freezing all the fish in the state of Alaska and
peeling it out. The fishermen will not stand for that.
We've done very well by the IFQs. The general public
is serviced very well and getting fresh fish on a
nine-month season. So, I don't think that that's a
very valid argument. But nonetheless, you may hear
that, and I encourage any comments you get to [be
directed] to my office, and I would be glad to address
them. ... Again ... I would like to hold this bill
and let the public comment on it over the next week.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Representative Scalzi if the
committee was going to hear from anybody from the industry.
TAPE 01-10 SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI mentioned that he has spoken to some of
the smaller processors. He explained that the original language
of the bill had July 1 as the date, in Section 2. He was a bit
confused by this, he said, because he thought, "Here's a break
for the processors; we're going to allow them to hold their
money until July 1. They loved it. They were in support of the
bill." However, that portion [of the bill] only applied to
"catcher-processors". So, he had asked the Department [of
Revenue] for their reason for this and they said they have a
hard time collecting from "catcher-processors". His response to
the department was: "What's fair for catcher-processors should
be fair for our shoreside processors." Therefore, this section
was taken out of the bill. He said he is "sure we will be
hearing from processors, but I think the argument is to promote
the fresh fish."
Number 2920
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON remarked that he sees a lot more of the
processing industry being interested [in this program]. He
encouraged them to be creative about solving the problems. He
wondered if all of the reporting could be done electronically in
order to "offload these folks" from administrative duties.
Furthermore, if people wanted to pay by increment, perhaps they
could possibly pay a slight premium to offset costs to the
department. This would ultimately save [the processing
industry] a lot of money, "depending on what it cost them to
rent," and it would answer objections that have come up. He
said, "Our job is to make it easier for business people to do
business here and remove impediments ...." He noted that if the
Department [of Revenue] foresees this as being "really messy and
a lot more work," there might be other ways around this.
[HB 154 was held over.]
HB 93-KENAI DIP NET FISHERY PERMIT FEE
Number 2848
CO-CHAIR STEVENS announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 93, "An Act establishing the permit fee for
the personal use dip net fisheries for the Kenai River and the
Kasilof River; and providing for an effective date."
Number 2840
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 93, version 22-LS0431\F,
Utermohle, 3/12/01, as a work draft. There being no objection,
Version F was before the committee.
Number 2823
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LANCASTER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor
of the bill, explained that Version F was necessary because a
"glaring" mistake was made in the original bill. The original
version established separate $10 fees for the Kenai River and
Kasilof River, instead of having one $10 fee for both rivers, as
shown in Version F.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER stated that this fee will hopefully put
in some "enforcement habitat protection access," such as
bathrooms, along the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers, due to the heavy
dip net fisheries in those areas. The dip net fisheries occur
over a 21-day period for which 12,000-plus permits are issued.
He said that the head of a household is allowed to catch 25
fish, while each family member can catch 10 fish. This volume
of people on two rivers for this short period of time has caused
concern. It has been detrimental to the mouths of the rivers
and to private property that has been "trashed" on the south
sides of both rivers, in particular.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER mentioned that he has received numerous
phone calls in Juneau and in his "other capacity" in regard to
this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER pointed out the Kenai Resolution (in
committee packets), in which the City of Kenai requested
$900,000 from the state to deal with capital projects to address
some of this "property access" on the south side of the Kenai
River. He said that the City of Kenai has already spent in
excess of $200,000 to accommodate parking on the north side of
the river, [in order to] put up barricades to keep people from
driving on the beaches and getting stuck and tearing up the
riverbanks.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER mentioned that he was notified by Jeff
Jesse (ph) of the Trust Land Office, Alaska Mental Health Trust,
that on the south side of the Kasilof River, areas had to be
barricaded that are part of the Mental Health Trust Land, which
is state property, for "the very same reason, degradation of our
private property." He referred to a recent editorial that said,
"When you mention the word 'fish,' ... obviously ... it's a
fight from the word 'go'". He said that if this bill does not
get passed, he hopes it will still raise awareness and help
bring some protection to (indisc.). But his wish is that the
bill will move forward from committee.
Number 2684
IRVIN BROCK, Deputy Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game [ADF&G], remarked that he has just now
seen the updated bill. He stated that currently the division
spends approximately $10,000 annually for maintenance, garbage
pickup, and port-a-potties on the Kenai [River]. The division
gives this money to the borough of Kenai to help defray some of
those costs. He said that the Board of Fisheries has addressed
some primary habitat issues that were identified. He then
mentioned that this is an important fishery for the residents of
that area and Anchorage because it is a "meat fishery." Many
Alaska residents freeze quite a few fish for their families out
of this fishery. Therefore, [ADF&G] wants to ensure that this
continues without interruption. He said:
We don't believe that the fishery is overly abused.
There is abuse. I'm sure that happens, but ... with
literally every fishery you have, there's going to be
some abuse by the participants. ... We believe that
the fishery as it exists is sustainable.
MR. BROCK commented that one of the potential problems that [the
Division of Sport Fish] sees with this bill is that if the
funding were to come through the [ADF&G] fund, there is a
potential for statutory problems regarding diversion of funds.
He said that there is a statute concerning federal aid funding,
which says all permit and license fees have to be under the
direct control of the commissioner of ADF&G. So, "we" would
have to look into that a little bit more to ensure that "our
federal aid coordinators and people" would not have a problem
with the funding coming through and going directly to
enforcement with [the Department of] Public Safety. He said
this could be explored.
MR. BROCK pointed out that the fiscal note would change due to
changes in Version F. The original bill was interpreted as
establishing a $10 fee for each river, while Version F
establishes one fee for both rivers. He said that the new
fiscal note would decrease by approximately $20,000.
Number 2509
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked how the department regulates the
amount of fish allowed to be harvested in the Kenai and Kasilof
Rivers.
MR. BROCK said the Board of Fisheries has established a
management plan for sockeye salmon on the Kenai River, but he
cannot quote it directly.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked if there was a fiscal note attached
to this management plan, and wondered what amount of enforcement
is needed by the department to carry out this plan.
MR. BROCK stated that he was not aware of a fiscal note attached
to this plan. He mentioned that Captain Starbard from the
Department of Public Safety might be able to address this.
Number 2429
CARL ROSIER, President, Alaska Outdoor Council, gave the
following testimony:
The Alaska Outdoor Council [AOC] is an association of
45 outdoor recreation groups statewide. Our
membership is a little over 2,000 members, and the
clubs we represent total about 10,000 Alaskan members.
AOC is opposed to the provisions of House Bill 93 that
seek to establish a $10 fee for dip net fishing on
both the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers. I understand ...
the latest version is a $10 fee for both rivers. ....
Our opposition is based on our belief that the highest
and best use of fish and game resources is on Alaskan
dinner tables. This fishery is conducted by almost
... 100 percent Alaskan residents on a common property
resource and is a food fishery. Why should we be
implementing a double tax, single tax on such a
fishery that currently requires a $15 resident's sport
fish license in order to participate?
Discussion with ADF&G revealed that the agency has no
real habitat concerns, and there are no elevated
concerns over the sustainability of the fisheries in
the limited, lower reaches of the river in which the
fisheries take place. I'm told also that in recent
years local government has received about $100,000 of
... money for crowd control and vehicle control in
these areas. ... And as [Mr. Brock] just mentioned,
they have been receiving about $10,000 a year in local
government from ADF&G for such things as port-a-
potties and the likes.
This fishery is important to Alaskans. The fish are
for personal consumption. There are apparently no
habitat or resource issues. ... Local government has
received some [funding] to alleviate public problems.
While it may not cover all expenses, it seems to me
that with the numbers of people involved, the local
government should be supporting the fisheries as
economic opportunity. I want to thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
Number 2291
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked Mr. Rosier, being a former
commissioner, if he feels that enforcement of any fishery for
conservation purposes is a valid concern.
MR. ROSIER said "very definitely so." One of the goals of the
AOC is to provide support for some additional funding for the
Division of Fish & Wildlife Protection [Department of Public
Safety] for this current year. The Alaska Outdoor Council feels
that these "guys are really spread thin" on a statewide basis.
However, he indicated that there are more serious issues
regarding fish and wildlife management throughout the state that
require higher priority from [the Department of] Public Safety
than this particular fishery.
Number 2231
BRETT HUBER testified via teleconference that he serves as
Executive Director, Kenai River Sport Fishing Association; Vice-
President, Kenai River Special Management Area Board; and Vice-
President, Alaska Outdoor Council. He informed the committee:
I'm not here today to speak on behalf on any of those
groups. I want to make it clear that I'm here on my
own time, and I'm here as an Alaskan, an area
resident, the head of my household, a pu [personal
use] fisher, and a common property owner of the
fishery resources of Alaska. I would also first like
to say I have a great deal of respect for the sponsor
of this bill. In fact, I consider Representative
Lancaster to be a friend of mine. But with all due
respect, I think my friend has a bad idea. I oppose
this bill.
I participate in the Kenai River dip net fishery with
my family. I'm not sure as to what the sponsor's
statement for this bill alleges. I do not abuse this
fishery. I do not have a complete disregard for
habitat, environment, and riverbanks. I and my family
have a great respect for the resource. I do not
trespass on private property. I do not fish without a
fishing license. And I do not exceed my bag limit. I
don't abuse this fishery, and in my experience, the
vast majority of Alaskans who participate in this
fishery don't either.
I quite frankly view this bill as nothing more than a
food tax directed entirely at Alaskan residents. This
new $10 fee is in addition to the dollars I've spent
for my required sport fish license, a license I need
to have to participate in this fishery now. By my
account, I see that as double dipping. We heard about
the bag limits that are in place for this fishery.
But I think that the Department of Fish & Game's
statistics will bear out. The average catch is more
like around a dozen to 15 fish for [an] individual
permit holder. Last year my family harvested a dozen
fish; the year before that we were lucky and got two
dozen. I assure you that ... we use those fish, we
enjoyed those fish, we ate those fish, and we didn't
waste those fish. I want to continue to have that
opportunity.
I don't mind paying my way. I'm not someone who
opposes all user fees. I buy my fishing license, I
pay my park fees, and I contribute to the federal aid
dollars with my tax on the sporting goods I purchase.
And I do so happily. I am, however, opposed to paying
twice for something I already own, especially when
this new fee is predicated on what I believe are very
inaccurate perceptions. We're all in favor of more
enforcement, and if it's an infrastructure issue and
the City of Kenai is spending money on parking areas
and on road extensions, charge for the parking, charge
for use of access of roads. I don't have any problem
with paying for infrastructure. But I think this is
an undue burden on common property owners. I think
it's based on things that aren't in actuality taking
place, and I strongly oppose of it. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify.
Number 2064
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked Mr. Huber if he supports the king
salmon stamp and the dollars it generates.
MR. HUBER said "absolutely," and that he was an advocate for
that measure when it was passed [by the legislature]. He stated
that he buys a king salmon license every year and has no problem
doing so.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked if he could differentiate between
the two fees [king salmon stamp and the proposed dip net fishing
fee].
MR. HUBER explained that the King Salmon stamp is a sport
fishing stamp; it's not a personal use license. The fishery
targeted in this bill is a meat-and-pu [personal use] fishery,
"a fishery to feed Alaskans." He said that king salmon are a
big-game fish. He thinks there's also a difference because the
king salmon stamp is required in order to harvest king salmon.
This $10 fee would be in addition to a license whose proceeds go
to offset the cost of this fishery.
Number 1990
BOB KINTZELE testified via teleconference:
I'm a 30-year (indisc.) resident here in Alaska. I
live on Kalifornsky Road and I access the mouth of the
Kenai River regularly in the summertime. I see the
abuses. I see the waste. I see the deprivation of
the habitat along the south side of the Kenai. The
City of Kenai is taking pretty good control of the
north side of the river, but the south side has been
impacted severely. I think there's some health
issues. I think some enforcement is needed. I don't
believe a $10 fee for a family for a 21-day period is
(indisc.) ... I think it says we care about the
habitat, we care about the resource, and I think it
will benefit, in some fashion, just to make people pay
attention to it. If there is anything (indisc.) have
a discussion about the habitat of the resource, the
$10 is worth it, to make people think about it. It's
been a problem. I've seen it year after year, and it
hasn't gone away. I'm very much in favor of it.
Thank you.
Number 1894
PAUL SHADURA testified via teleconference:
I reside in Kenai, Alaska, and I'm a resident of the
(indisc.) family. I come before you today to ask you
for your support for the $10 management fee for the
Kenai and Kasilof dip net fishery. Serious social and
environmental problems have occurred from the
disorderly (indisc.) of this personal use fishery.
[The Division of] Fish and Wildlife Protection has
stated, at [a] recent Kenai/Soldotna Fish and Game
advisory meeting, that at any time they arrive on the
scene at either personal use [fishery], ... it is very
easy to write violations. The City of Kenai must hire
an officer, just for the summer months, to manage the
social problems at the Kenai dock boat launch. The
city has requested substantial amounts to cover costs
of managing this logistical nightmare.
Environmental damage to the south shore (indisc.)
habitat on both the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers. The
University of Alaska Mental Health Trust Land has
attempted to block off this area at the Kasilof River.
Yet destruction to the primary grasslands and sand
dunes still continues due to the lack of enforcement.
I would support an amendment to HB 93 for a $10 flat
fee for [a] dip net license established in a receipt-
supported services fund, which would allow different
managing entities a mechanism to request funds.
This is a good bill. It attempts to deal with a real
problem. We support our protection officers and our
precious (indisc.) habitat estuary for the Kenai and
Kasilof Rivers.
Number 1774
CAPTAIN HOWARD STARBARD, Commander, B Detachment, Division of
Fish & Wildlife Protection, Department of Public Safety,
testified via teleconference:
I, ... like previous speakers, want to thank the
sponsor of House Bill 93. I think Representative
Lancaster is attempting to increase enforcement
habitat, and the essence of the bill itself is worthy.
I don't want to be accused of opposing or trying to
turn down any funds that might help to increase our
efforts in enforcement on part of these rivers.
However, I think I need to point out that even if the
funds generated from this bill were to go to our
enforcement efforts exclusively, the amount of money
would not be enough to increase one position or one
trooper on the Kenai. ...
So what we're essentially talking about is overtime
funds, no matter what percentage would eventually get
back to our division, if that was the case. During
the period that we're talking about, in the months of
.... May, June, July, August, in that area, our
troopers on the Kenai are working as many hours as
almost humanly possible. We have funds that we hold
right now that we're not doing overtime [with]. [And]
because of the slow period, [we are] waiting to do
increased enforcements and emphasis patrol. ...
During that period that we're talking about, the funds
generated would really not enhance our presence on the
Kenai in work-related man months ... [since they are
already] working as many hours [as] they ... can at
this point anyway. That's not to say that we're not
in favor of coming up with ways to increase
enforcement or habitat or restoration or compliance.
Last year, for instance, our attachment did an
emphasis area and was able to concentrate on dedicated
patrols in the personal-use subsistence fisheries, not
only on the Kenai, but in our attachment overall. And
we increased in both our hours [and] our contacts
overall, in all those areas. But that was primarily
because the commercial fisheries were limited and so
we had man hours available to dedicate to other areas.
In intense commercial fisheries, it's hard to
concentrate on a personal-use fishery when you have
other ... commercial fisheries primarily dictating
that.
Number 1553
GARY HOLLIER testified via teleconference:
I'm a lifelong resident of Kenai. I'm working in
Anchorage right now, and I'd like to speak in favor of
House Bill 93. I appreciate Representative
Lancaster's efforts in this. This dip net fishery on
the Kenai River [was] first started in 1987 by Ken
Flore (ph) with the [Alaska] Department of Fish & Game
to harvest a portion of the biggest run that ever came
back to the Kenai River. Over ten million reds came
back. It has grown into one of the biggest sport
sockeye fisheries in the state and the world. It's a
good fishery, and as Mr. Huber said, it's put salmon
on the dinner tables of Alaskans.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of abuse in this fishery.
I've participated in there since its inception. I
have friends that come off the Slope who live in Texas
that annually take out 90-100 reds a year. To me,
that's a travesty. [And] they're not the only ones
doing it. I have Alaskan friends who annually take
way, way over their limit. If I was an enforcement
person, and I was looking out into the Kenai River and
looking at a boat, and there was a family out there
and they're going down with four people in there and
every one of those people in that family got a net,
they're illegal. You get one net per permit. You
don't get four. Every family member doesn't get a dip
net.
This last summer I'm down there dip netting and I'm
dip netting around people that aren't even speaking
English. I'm not a prejudiced person, but something's
wrong when nine out of the ten people around me aren't
speaking English. I paid $10 for this king salmon tag
that Representative Scalzi brought up, and my family,
four of us, we pay $40 for that. Ten dollars is
nothing for me to pay to go out and get 55 salmon ...
if I know that I'm surrounded by Alaskans. This fee
is minimal compared to [whom] it can benefit. I
believe the Copper River dip net fishery, those users
pay $25. The City of Kenai would benefit, as dip
netters could get in there sooner, and get out.
There'd be less trash, less sewer, less garbage, less
habitat damage.
Number 1401
The City of Soldotna would benefit, and the sportsmen
upstream would benefit because fewer fish would be
caught illegally and they would make it upriver too.
For these sportsmen and the City of Soldotna, the
minimum [escapement] goals for sockeye would be
achieved quicker. Commercial fishermen would benefit.
The habitat damage would decrease. ...
I ran these number[s] for these 21 days, [and] if you
put 18 hours a day [for] 2 positions on the Kenai and
1 on Kasilof, that works out to 1,134 man hours. If
you paid the overtime rate, that's $56,700 to run this
program. There's an average of 10,000 to 15,000
people that use this fishery. At say, 12,500 take an
average there - that's $125,000 generated. I don't
understand this Irving Brock [who] said that ... [the]
fiscal note would go down by $20,000. If you pay
$10,... I could go dip netting in the Kasilof or the
Kenai River. The fiscal note isn't going to go down.
It's going to stay the same.
Of course, the fishery's going to be sustainable.
There is no burden put on the dip net fishery. The
dip net fishery goes on unless 500,000 fish cannot be
achieved into the Kenai River. This is something
positive for the resource, the habitat, and the people
of Alaska. The only people that don't want it are
people who are dishonest Alaskan dip netters,
nonresidents, and aliens who aren't supposed to
participate anyway. This is something good. ....
The sport fish division says they give $10,000. I
haven't seen one port-a-potty on the south side of the
Kenai River since I've been down there. There's 5,000
people sometimes down there camping out over the
weekend. Where do all those people go to the
bathroom? They go right into the dunes, right on top
up there. It looks like there's 76,000 piles of feces
and toilet paper. When that fishery is over with, it
looks like a darn buffalo herd went through it. It's
criminal.
This is a chance to do something positive. I
understand and I appreciate the enforcement efforts.
I know that they're spread thin. I understand through
different departments, through the sport fish
[division], through the [commercial] fish [division],
that people can get deputized for ... summer seasonal
support. This program would pay for itself. If you
just had a person sitting down there in one of [those]
trucks with a little bear on it that says integrity,
courage and whatever they say on there, ... it would
go a long ways to cutting down the abuse in this
fishery. Go on and check these people. Check every
person with a permit with a net that's supposed to
have a permit. I can guarantee it's not happening.
These people aren't clipping [the fish] tails. ...
I'm pretty frustrated with the whole situation, and I
see this as something positive. Anyway, I think I got
a little vocal.
CO-CHAIR STEVENS said he appreciated Mr. Hollier's vivid
testimony.
Number 1189
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER remarked that 11 percent of the people
who live in her district don't speak English, and they are all
Alaskans.
MR. HOLLIER suggested that if this bill passed, this could be a
"bailable" offense. For example, it could be similar to a
ticket, where if someone went over his or her limit, that person
would pay a $100 fine and mail it in. He said there are
provisions on the books for this fishery that say people have to
return their permits every year. If someone did not return his
or her permit, that person would not receive one the next year.
"Let's put some meat into some of this enforcement down there
... and maybe we can help everybody," he said. He then remarked
that he wasn't trying to "slight anybody about this English
thing."
Number 1094
DAN BOONE testified via teleconference, and asked for
clarification on whether this bill involves a fee in addition to
the required fishing license.
CO-CHAIR STEVENS confirmed this statement.
MR. BOONE testified:
I would be opposed to this. ... I'm not one of those
people that's fortunate enough to qualify under the
federal subsistence guidelines, and this is a
personal-use fishery that I depend on to put meat on
the table.
And I don't think that it's right for an additional
fee to be piled on, on top of the sports fishing
license. It's not the amount. The $10 is relatively
insignificant. But it's the principle of the thing
that they shouldn't be hit twice for the same
resource. The fish belong to all the people of the
state of Alaska. And that happens to be one way that
we can harvest those fish for our personal use. And
we're not. I don't have an opportunity to subsistence
fish, and so I would be opposed ... to House Bill 93.
In addition, they have imposed parking fees on the
north side. I think there's a $5 fee for every 12
hours there. So they're collecting [a] fair amount
of money. Besides that, people spend a lot of money
when they're in Kenai and Soldotna dip net fishing. I
probably spend a couple hundred dollars up there on
the days that I go up, [from] eating, and buying
gasoline, and [buying] extra gear and what have you.
So, the city is benefiting from the presence of those
people. Thank you very much.
Number 0938
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked Mr. Boone if he supports the king
salmon stamp as a user fee.
MR. BOONE replied that, as explained earlier, "that's a sport
fishery." He said that he buys a king salmon stamp every year,
even though he's not fortunate enough to catch any fish.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said, "We both have to buy the resident
sport license, and we can make the same argument that you're
paying twice for the same thing."
MR. BOONE restated that the king salmon fishery is really a
sport fishery.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI remarked that both fisheries require
management. He asked Mr. Boone if he could explain the
difference.
MR. BOONE specified that king salmon fishing is a "trophy or
sport fishery," while the dip net fishery on the Kenai and
Kasilof Rivers is a personal use fishery for meat.
Number 0858
CO-CHAIR STEVENS referred to Mr. Hollier's question concerning
the fiscal note. He stated that at one point, the fiscal note
was almost $80,000, when it was assumed that a separate permit
was to be purchased for the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers. The new
fiscal note is estimated to be about $60,000, for having one
fishing permit be purchased for both rivers. He asked Mr. Brock
if this was correct.
Number 0800
MR. BROCK replied that it was, to his understanding.
Number 0778
MR. HOLLIER commented that one has to "go down to get a permit
that covers both the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers." He stated that
the department has said it has issued 10,000 to 15,000 permits a
year for the last six years. Therefore, charging $10 per permit
would bring in $100,000 or $150,000. Consequently, he said he
does not understand how the fiscal note drops proportionally.
MR. BROCK stated that he is responsible for the fiscal note and
is the "messenger." He revealed that approximately 16,000
permits have been issued annually for the last two years. Less
permits were issued prior to this time. However, of these "free
of charge" permits, only 6,700 issued for the Kenai River and
1,385 issued for the Kasilof River were reported as "actively
used." He stated that many people would obtain one of these
free permits when picking up their licenses, and would not
actively use them. In writing the fiscal note [for the original
bill], he took into consideration only actively fished permits
and rounded the number to 7,000 for the Kenai River and 1,500
for the Kasilof River. Now that the new bill has one permit for
both rivers, he would use "7,000 permits as actively fished" as
a basis for the fiscal note. This would only bring in $70,000
in total, from which vendor fees would have to be paid out.
Number 0580
MR. HOLLIER argued that when someone obtains a permit, it could
mean the person will fish on just the Kenai River, fish on just
the Kasilof River , fish on both rivers, or not fish at all.
But no matter what, it costs the person $10. He said "ten times
sixteen, that's $160,000 generated in the last two years, no
matter where they fish."
MR. BROCK stated that he disagreed with these remarks. His
assumptions in writing the fiscal note were that only 7,000
permits would be sold. In the past, people did not have to pay
for the permits, so they got them whether they used them or not.
If one has to pay for this permit, someone is not going to
automatically pick one up when getting a license. So, he
assumed that 16,000 permits will no longer be issued, and that
7,000 is a more realistic number.
Number 0470
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked for the number of dip net permits
and what is generated out of the Copper River dip net fishery.
MR. BROCK said he did not have that information with him. But a
rough estimate would be 10,000.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked if it was 10,000 at $25 a permit.
MR. BROCK confirmed this, and said it was actually between 9,000
and 10,000 [permits].
Number 0382
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI remarked that he wanted to speak in favor
of the bill. He referred to his questions about the
differentiation between a sport fee and personal fee. He said
that he does not see a difference in the two. This bill is
asking the department to increase management, which is going to
increase costs. He said he has seen and heard that on the
peninsula, "the amount of fish that ends up freezer-burned and
in the dumpsters in the spring. And I don't think there's a
worst travesty than the wanton waste of some of these
fisheries." He stated that the fee would make people conscious
that they are helping to contribute to the enforcement and
management of this resource. Also, one's fishing license needs
to be validated by writing [the amount of fish taken] down; that
was true even before the king salmon stamp was involved. This
was a mechanism for the department to make accurate counts of
what the fishery left in the rivers.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI stated that under this current dip net
fishery [in the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers], there is no valid
enforcement of how to monitor the amount of fish that are taken.
For example, someone can leave the river with 10 or 25 fish, and
come back the next day and take another 25 fish. He said that
there is too much room for abuse right now. This permit is one
mechanism that will draw attention to better management. He
went on to say that although the sponsor has addressed the need
for "habitat protection, the cleanup, [and] the "buffalo toilet
paper," enforcement and monitoring of the fishery is something
that is, to him, a more valid concern. So, he thinks that this
is a first step, and he supports this bill.
Number 0169
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER remarked that he appreciated everyone's
testimony. He said that his main motive for the bill was to
address the south side of both the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers,
where there are primarily private properties and no enforcement.
There is no access across those private properties to the waters
to fish without crossing private property. Hopefully, some of
this money [from the permits], if handled in statutorily
designated program receipts, could somehow be requested by the
department (indisc.). He said that it would be a "long way
around throughout [the] budget process," but hopefully some
money would go to enforcement and to purchase access [across
private properties], in order to have a responsible fishery. He
said that "someone just having a presence on both rivers" could
create a responsible fishery.
Number 0077
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI made a motion to move the CS for HB 93,
version 22-LS0431\F, Utermohle, 3/12/01, from committee with
individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note.
There being no objection, CSHB 93(FSH) was moved from the House
Special Committee on Fisheries.
Number 0066
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI brought attention to a letter that he
wanted to move out of the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
This letter, addressed to Colonel Glenn C. Godfrey,
Commissioner, Department of Public Safety, Juneau, Alaska,
refers to enforcement problems related to the commercial [salmon
seine season].
TAPE 01-11, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI stated that in addition to Southeast
Alaska's concerns, the Prince William Sound area had enforcement
problems they wanted addressed as well. Therefore, a new
paragraph was added to page 1 of the letter. He paraphrased
from paragraph 4 which read:
A variation of this problem exists in the Prince
William Sound area as well. Although in the past
excess wild stock was available in some areas,
openings never took place because of the
unavailability of a sufficient number of enforcement
officers. The fear was that if an opening took place
without adequate protection, overly zealous fishermen
would over harvest the necessary equipment. The Sound
also lacks proper enforcement during the peak Copper
River runs from May 15-June 15.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked the committee to consider this
additional language concerning Prince William Sound and to sign
off on the letter to the commissioner of the Department of
Public Safety.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if this motion could be held over
until the next committee meeting, in order to "double check"
that paragraph, since she had (indisc.) fishers in her district.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said he had no problem with holding this
over, since it is not an immediate threat.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at
approximately 6:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|