Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/07/1995 06:02 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
May 7, 1995
6:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative John Davies
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Irene Nicholia
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Eileen MacLean
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HB 335: "An Act relating to the Big Game Commercial Services
Board, guide-outfitters, transporters, and commercial
use permit holders; extending the termination date of
the Big Game Commercial Services Board; and providing
for an effective date."
CSHB 335(RES) PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
GARY KING, Vice President
Alaska Professional Hunters Association
202 E. Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone: 276-5425
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 335
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, AK 99811
Phone: 465-2538
POSITION STATEMENT: Voiced concerns regarding changes to HB 335
EDDIE GRASSER, President
Alaska Outdoor Council
P.O. Box 73902
Fairbanks, AK 99707
Phone: 466-4262
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 335
GERON BRUCE, Representative
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99811-5526
Phone: 465-4100
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 335
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 335
SHORT TITLE: BIG GAME COMMERCIAL SERVICES BOARD
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) OGAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
05/05/95 1887 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
05/05/95 1887 (H) RESOURCES
05/07/95 (H) RES AT 05:30 PM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-67, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by Co-Chairman
Green at 6:02 p.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Green, Ogan, Austerman, Davies, and Kott. Members
absent were Representatives Williams, Barnes, MacLean, and
Nicholia.
HB 335 - BIG GAME COMMERCIAL SERVICES BOARD
CO-CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN stated the committee has a revised sponsor
statement and HB 335 before them. He noted the committee had
passed a similar bill, HB 102, earlier in the session which only
included the extension of the Big Game Commercial Services Board
(BGCSB). He said there are several amendments and a committee
substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN asked what the status is of the
original bill.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN responded the original bill is in Senate Finance.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN said HB 102 is being held in Senate
Finance because a certain member of that committee is not going to
let it out without changes. He stated the problem is the title is
too tight. He told committee members in an attempt to keep the
BGCSB from terminating, HB 335 was introduced and added that the
proposed changes are what will move the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated in committee members folders is a law
opinion from Gross & Burke. He said the Attorney General's office,
in another occupational licensing situation with the electrical
board, gave an opinion on the effects of the termination of that
board. He noted the law office of Gross & Burke was hired by the
Alaska Professional Hunters Association to review the potential
impact if the legislature fails to take action in extending the
termination date of the BGCSB. He pointed out that Legislative
Legal also concurred with the vast majority of what is contained in
the opinion.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said if the BGCSB sunsets, anyone can be a
guide without any licensing, can advertise, and can open a guide
business with no restraints. He noted a number of years ago the
Owsichek decision ruled that exclusive guide use areas were
illegal. The law opinion stated, "in the absence of legislation
amending AS 08.54 to expressly transfer BGCSB functions to the
Division, there will be no authority for any state agency to issue
guide licenses or to discipline licensed guides. Most, if not all,
regulations currently on the books that were adopted by the BGCSB
to implement its licensing and disciplinary authority will cease to
have the force and effect of law and will be effectively repealed."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated the law opinion continued, "There will
be no restrictions on any person in the state conducting guided
hunts. Anyone may do so. Guides with licenses that do not expire
until December 31, 1995, will technically still have them, but they
will be meaningless pieces of paper." He noted Legislative Legal
had a problem with the last conclusion in the opinion which states,
"The guide use area system, created by regulations under statutory
authority given exclusively to the BGCSB, will cease to exist. Any
person, licensed or not, will be able to conduct guided hunts in
any area of the state, without regard to existing limitations on
the number of areas in which a guide may operate." He said
Legislative Legal felt that might be ambiguous and end up in court.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said the revised version of HB 335 extends the
BGCSB's expiration date from June 30, 1994, to June 30, 1999, and
eliminates the Commercial Use Permit.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES asked if Representative Ogan is
referring to the bill or proposed amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said currently HB 335 only extends the BGCSB
and has a broad title. He stated what he is discussing are
proposed amendments.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled Representative Ogan had mentioned the
existing bill (HB 102), which is in the Senate Finance Committee,
has too tight of a title. He clarified the three options to get
the extension needed is get a certain member of that committee to
concur with the extension, get him to agree to a two-thirds vote to
open the title and amend it or HB 335.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded that is correct. He said his
approach is to throw all three of the options on the wall and see
which one sticks. He noted there does not seem to be any movement
on the other side.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that Representative Austerman
understood the total program.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stated he could understand if the
committee was just going to pass a bill which simply extends the
sunset. He felt the five amendments before the committee are
rewriting the entire bill and suggested a new bill should be
written. He thought a committee substitute should have been
written.
Number 197
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said there was an attempt to get a committee
substitute completed but there was not enough time. He stated
negotiations have been ongoing for a number of days.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked if anyone had a copy of the original
bill, HB 102.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said his understanding is that HB 102 and HB
335 are the same except HB 335 has a broader title.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked why HB 102 is being held in Senate
Finance.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied it is acceptable to have a broader
title than what is in the language but it is not acceptable to have
broader words than the title. He said the title in HB 102 only
says, "An Act extending the termination date of the BGCSB."
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stated that is what was sent over and that
is what the House intended to do.
Number 245
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated a Senator in the Senate Finance
Committee will not allow HB 102 to go out of the committee without
a broader title to make the changes he wants made.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN clarified what is happening is the House
Resources committee is making the changes that Senator wants.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT felt the House had done its job. He said
it is totally unusual for someone to request a new version of a
bill, with a new title, just to provide the opportunity to make an
amendment. He stated the original intent of the bill was clear and
now the issue is being slammed back on the committee. He thought
it was inappropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN agreed that the best and most rational solution
would be to simply extend the BGCSB for one more year. He said HB
335 is before the committee. The committee could deal with the
issue next year and have adequate public testimony. He stated he
is not happy with the process either but the urgency of what will
happen to the guiding industry if some solution is not worked out
is what is most important.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted HB 102 extends the BGCSB from 1994 to 1998.
He wondered if there was a misprint with the 1994.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated there is a one year sunset period. He
felt there was another option available and that is to get a
sufficient number of the Senate Finance Committee members to vote
HB 102 out of committee.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded all the options have been explored.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES clarified that option will not work.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he suspects it will not but he could not
forecast that.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated if there is going to be such a drastic
affect on the guiding community, those folks should have been
putting a lot of pressure on the said Senator to get the bill out.
He wondered if those people have talked to him.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied there has been a tremendous amount of
pressure put on that Senator. He said that Senator has strong
opinions. He thought the Senator's intent in extending the BGCSB
last year was to get these changes made. He stated a committee
chairman can hold a bill for whatever reason and at this point, he
does not know what the Senator's motivations are.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES agreed with Representative Kott's comments.
Number 332
GARY KING, VICE PRESIDENT, ALASKA PROFESSIONAL HUNTERS ASSOCIATION,
stated he has been working diligently in trying to keep the BGCSB
and the regulations in the industry alive. He said there will be
total chaos if the BGCSB is sunsetted and a total deregulation
happens. He noted the BGCSB also governs transporters which are
air taxis that transport people into the field for the purpose of
hunting big game. There are approximately 5,000 to 6,000
nonresident hunters who come to Alaska, along with approximately
3,000 guides in the state. The industry brings in approximately
$100 million a year to the state.
MR. KING said he wears a hat as a hunting consultant and travel
agent, in which he talks to hunters from all over the world about
Alaska as a tourism, hunting and fishing destination. Since the
Owsichek decision happened and the stability of the Alaska guiding
business took a big tailspin, guides have been working very hard in
the industry and with the BGCSB to reconstruct the international
confidence of Alaska as a destination for sport hunting. He felt
there has been success in reestablishing that confidence, not only
with the international hunting community but also with the National
Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, etc. He pointed
out that the issue of total deregulation is on state land. Many of
those in the industry have both federal and state areas in which to
conduct business and both areas are critical.
Number 382
MR. KING told committee members he would give them a brief history
on why the BGCSB is in the position it is in. He said one year
ago, when the BGCSB was extended for one year (it will terminate
June 30, 1995), Senator Halford had some problems with the statutes
and would not come forward to inform the industry what the problems
were so they could be addressed. He stated Senator Halford thought
he had an agreement to make some changes with Paul Johnson,
Chairman of the BGCSB and the President of the Alaska Professional
Hunters Association. Those agreements were never conveyed and
unfortunately there was never a determination of what the problems
were.
MR. KING noted HB 102 was merely an extension bill. He stated
Senator Halford took offense to that bill thinking that a quick one
was being pulled by not allowing him to make any changes to the
bill, when in fact that had not crossed the minds of those in the
guiding industry. When it appeared there was a problem about two
weeks ago, the industry responded with numerous letters to Senator
Halford and when it appeared that would not work, there was an
attempt to talk to all of the other Senate members through
correspondence and faxes trying to tell them how critical the issue
was. He said all the responses to the correspondence indicated the
need to talk to Senator Halford.
MR. KING stated he came down a week ago and tried to talk to
Senator Halford. A five minute conversation occurred in Senator
Halford's office and the Senator generated a letter in which he
alluded to some of the things he wanted. He said over the past
week, he extracted bits and pieces of what Senator Halford was
looking for and analyzed many of the things from his and the
industry's standpoint. He pointed out one of the reasons Senator
Halford did not introduce legislation himself is because he is a
guide-outfitter and holds a license, and felt there might be a
conflict of interest. Therefore, nothing was put in the original
bill except to extend the BGCSB.
Number 437
MR. KING reviewed the revised sponsor statement and commented on
the points which are beneficial. He said some of the changes are
good ideas and others, people will have heartburn with. None of
the changes are detrimental. He stated if there is an attempt to
push HB 102 through the Senate and Senator Halford changes the
title, a two-thirds vote will be required. He felt if Senator
Halford is allowed to do that, he could eliminate regulations that
would be catastrophic to the industry.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked if any of the changes would put the
state back in a situation similar to the Owsichek case.
MR. KING replied no. The changes have nothing to do with an area
allocation system.
MR. KING stated the first proposal is to extend the BGCSB. The
second change is to eliminate the commercial use permit. He said
the commercial use permit was a device put in during the Randall
Burns administration to extract more dollars from the industry, to
be funneled to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and
the Department of Public Safety for enforcement and fish and game
purposes. The commercial use permit not only mandates that guide-
outfitters and transporters pay their $100 a year, but also has
provisions for gear rental services.
MR. KING pointed out gear rental services might involve a business
that rents a white water river raft to anybody who wants to rent
one. If that person uses the raft to float down a river and shoots
a caribou, all of a sudden that person, if he does not have his
license, is in violation. He explained that same requirement also
falls on photographic or videographic services wanting to take a
picture of a moose or caribou. He stressed the regulations are
unenforceable. He said it is impossible to extract $100 from every
person who sends someone to Alaska to hunt.
MR. KING felt the commercial use permit was only good because there
was a provision that every transporter had to have a commercial use
permit. In order to get a commercial use permit, regulations said
a person could not have had a violation of state or federal guiding
or hunting regulations within the previous five years. He noted
the same provision is in the guide-outfitter permit statute but not
under transporters. He explained a scenario is an outlaw guide who
gets busted. All he would have to do is say he is going to be an
air taxi now and continue to haul hunters into the field. He said
that is the only real purpose of the commercial use permit other
than collecting about $50,000 annually from the industry.
Number 504
MR. KING stated the next change is adding language to the
transporter license requirements requiring the applicant to not
have been convicted of violating a state or federal hunting or
guide-outfitting regulation or statute within the last five years
for which the person was fined more than $500 or imprisoned for
more than five days. He noted this is the same requirement the
guide-outfitters have.
MR. KING said the next change eliminates the requirement for a
written test for assistant guide-outfitters. He stated during the
Randall Burns administration, a written test was developed for
assistant guides. Prior to that time, assistant guides only needed
a recommendation from a guide-outfitter who was going to be
responsible for that assistant guide when he or she was going to be
working for him in the field, they needed to be 18-years-old, have
a first-aid/CPR card, and be in sound health. He explained the
state has contracted a business in Utah to write a written test for
assistant guides and also grades the test. He stressed the test is
very arbitrary and includes questions not even on the subject. He
pointed out there are several questions on the test which some very
qualified people to be assistant guides could not pass. Therefore,
the labor pool has been diminishing and the industry has been
forced, because of the statute, to hire some licensed assistant
guides who are quite elderly, or nonqualified people with no field
experience who could pass the test.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated a guide-outfitter is fully responsible
for everything the assistant guide does in the field, as well as
his clients. Therefore, the guide-outfitter has complete
liability. He said by eliminating the requirement for the test,
many of the people in the villages will be able to be hired. They
are quite qualified since they grew up in the village, they know
how to hunt and fish, but they cannot pass the test.
MR. KING said there are many qualified people out there. He stated
many of the guide-outfitters who have larger operations are Alaskan
people and they want to hire Alaskan people. He noted previously
there was a rule that a person had to be an Alaskan to be an
assistant guide but that was proven unconstitutional. Therefore,
there are many people from outside who can take the test and pass,
resulting in an influx of outside people who have never been in any
of the remote areas of the state.
MR. KING explained the next change eliminates requirements that a
guide-outfitter provide the BGCSB with permission from the state or
federal land managers in order to obtain a guide use area. The
BGCSB will still need proof of permission from private landowners.
He said the next change eliminates the requirement to register base
camps. He stated this has been in statute but has been
incorporated in the guide-outfitter's operations plan when
registering for a guide use area.
MR. KING said the next change eliminates the requirement for a
guide-outfitter to carry public liability insurance. He stated
many industries governed under boards similar to the BGCSB do not
require public liability insurance. Those in the industry who are
full-time and serious carry public liability insurance far
exceeding the requirements of the state. All of the federal land
managers and private land managers require public liability
insurance. He pointed out 99 percent of the guide-outfitters and
transporters have public liability insurance. The only people who
do not carry the insurance are the people who are not serious about
being in the industry and are guide-outfitting as a hobby or a
weekend job.
MR. KING stated another change is eliminating the requirement for
a guide-outfitter, utilizing aircraft, to carry passenger liability
insurance. He said he does totally agree with these two insurance
changes and noted these insurances are not required of many other
industries at the state level.
Number 603
MR. KING said the final change is to eliminate the authority of the
BGCSB to require additional qualifications of assistant guides to
qualify for licensing. He stated the desire is to encourage as
many new people into the industry as possible.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN noted that many of the requirements
eliminated are going to be required on federal lands.
MR. KING said that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated private and federal landowners require
insurance.
MR. KING felt Senator Halford will get HB 335 through the Senate.
He urged the committee to pass HB 335 immediately.
Number 629
CATHERINE REARDON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (DCED), stated it
is very important the BGCSB be continued and not go out of
existence on July 1, as it would have serious repercussions for the
guide industry, as well as customers. She said the department has
concerns about the policy implications of the proposed changes and
does not support several of them.
MS. REARDON stated in regard to the issue of liability and aircraft
insurance, the liability insurance was deleted from the statute
last year. Therefore, all that remains is the requirement that
marine mammal guide-outfitters have general liability insurance.
She felt the aircraft insurance is an important feature. Most of
the people using guide-outfitters come from out of the state or out
of the country, pay a lot of money and probably assume that whoever
flies them around will have some type of insurance. She pointed
out the opportunity for the buyer beware does not exist because by
the time people get to Alaska and get on the plane, it is too late
to discover that the guide-outfitter does not have insurance.
MS. REARDON stressed it is important for guide-outfitters and
assistant guides who fly clients to have this type of insurance.
She felt there is also a need to determine whether or not the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has any requirements for
insurance. She stated guide-outfitters have been exempted from the
requirement that they meet all the commercial license requirements
but it is worth asking the FAA, if the state eliminates the
insurance requirement, whether or not they will then require guide-
outfitters to be commercial pilots. She said the Administration
has concerns about the implications of no aircraft insurance on the
public.
MS. REARDON said the other major issue is the provision for
evidence of permission from landowners before the Division of
Occupational Licensing issues a permit for a certain guide area.
Currently, the division requires people who want to be guides in a
certain area to submit some evidence of permission from the
landowner. These landowners can be in one guide area and can
involve five different landowners. She noted the landowners could
include two different federal agencies, a Native corporation, a
private citizen, and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
The division has been collecting those permissions and issuing the
permit.
MS. REARDON pointed out with the change, the division would not be
asking for the evidence of permission any longer. She thought it
would be a disservice to the guides and the general public. If no
evidence of permission is asked for, the division will be issuing
permits to individuals and giving them permission to guide in an
area. At the same time, DNR or the federal government may say they
do not have permission. She felt it would be a very confusing
situation. She stated if one guide wants to check on one of his
competitors to determine if he has permission to do what he is
doing, the division will no longer be able to determine the answer.
When a customer wants to be guided, the division will not be able
to say whether or not a guide has permission to be in a certain
area.
TAPE 95-67, SIDE B
Number 000
MS. REARDON stated she is not hearing from guides saying they
should not be required to have aircraft insurance or that it is
onerous to be required to provide evidence of landowner permission.
She questioned where the major problems are with the situation and
what is so unreasonable. She reiterated the Administration
supports the continuation of the BGCSB.
MS. REARDON added that the elimination of the commercial use permit
does not affect the division. The division does issue the
commercial use permits but the money is passed along to ADF&G and
the Department of Public Safety. She felt it was important for the
committee to check with those two departments on the implications
of losing that funding source.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted the committee has a dilemma. The
committee can continue to review HB 335 but cannot take any action,
due to the lack of a quorum, or recess until the next day. He felt
if the committee cannot hear HB 335 and get it to the House floor
the next day, it does not have a chance to get approved by the
Senate.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stated he can appreciate the dilemma the
BGCSB finds itself in. He said it goes against his grain to act on
HB 335 because if Senator Halford had been serious about the issue,
any Senator could have drafted a similar bill and introduced it.
He felt a game was being played. He noted he does not agree with
all of the proposed changes. He wondered why the committee was
doing Senator Halford's work.
Number 088
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said the best way for the House to remain in
control of any changes to the BGCSB statutes was to pass HB 335
with a tight title describing what the changes are.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN reiterated he does not agree with some of
the changes.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated he does not have anything against the
BGCSB. He felt the BGCSB is being used as a political pawn. He
said not one other extension bill has any language other than the
extended date and the effective date. He recalled Mr. King had
mentioned that Senator Halford did not want to make the changes on
the Senate side because it might be a conflict of interest. He
thought there was an indication of a conflict of interest
currently. He asked Mr. King to tell committee members which
changes he was opposed to.
MR. KING said the eliminations of insurance are a bad idea. He
stated those two changes do not lend professionalism to the
industry. He did not think the Senate would allow Senator Halford
to get away with pulling out those insurance requirements.
However, if HB 335 does not get over to the Senate, the industry
and the BGCSB does not have a chance.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stated he also has a concern with the
change eliminating the evidence of permission from the landowner.
MR. KING said guide areas will span across several landownerships.
He stated just because a guide registration area spans those
different landownerships, a guide may not have permission from one
of those land managers. He pointed out the DCED will still issue
the license, knowing that a particular section of the area cannot
be used. A guide is not required to have permission for all of the
area but is only required to have permission for part of it and
that is the only part the state issues the license for to hunt. He
did not feel the elimination of this requirement is a major
problem.
Number 173
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said guides will still have to get permission
to use the land. Any commercial use, whether it be a logger, a
fish camp, a trapper, a recreational cabin, etc., has to get
permission from the landowner. Otherwise, violations of laws
occur. He stated the only thing being eliminated is the BGCSB
enforcing some other agency's regulation.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recessed the meeting until 9:00 a.m. Monday, May
8.
TAPE 95-68, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN called the meeting back to order at 9:20 a.m. on
Monday, May 8. Members present were Representatives Green, Ogan,
Austerman, Davies, and Kott. Members absent were Representatives
Williams, Barnes, MacLean, and Nicholia.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN told committee members a committee substitute
was drafted which incorporates the changes discussed previously.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 335(RES),
version C.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES OBJECTED for discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said the sponsor would go through the changes
contained in the committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any other objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated Section 1 changes the date of when the
BGCSB will cease to exist from June 30, 1994, to June 30, 1999. He
said Section 2, line 14, eliminates the requirement to hold a
commercial use permit.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked what the fiscal impact is going to be
with the elimination of the commercial use permit.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he did not know the answer but thought
there were people in the audience who might be able to answer the
question.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN recalled previously the committee was told
that eliminating this permit means a loss of $50,000.
MS. REARDON stated the loss would be between $50,000 and $60,000.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that figure would be in addition to the
HB 102 fiscal note the committee passed earlier.
MS. REARDON said that was correct.
Number 097
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if that is the entire hit with respect
to the change throughout the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded to the best of his knowledge, it is.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated with the loss of one commercial use
permit member on the BGCSB, it was determined that the board member
slot needed to be filled by another person. Therefore, it is
proposed that a change be made from two to three public members on
the board. He stressed public members contribute a lot of good
things to the board. He noted there have been complaints in the
distant past that the board was slanted and run by guides. He felt
having more public involvement is a positive step.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said Section 3, lines 21-23, eliminates the
written test for assistant guide-outfitters. He stated the guide-
outfitter is responsible for the assistant guide's actions and the
people the assistant guide guides in the field. He felt there is
a tremendous amount of accountability. He noted that many of the
questions on the current test for assistant guides are ambiguous.
There are people who are very qualified to be assistant guides who
may not be able to pass the test. He thought the elimination of
this requirement will give guide-outfitters the opportunity to hire
more people familiar with the areas in which they are going to
guide.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said the changes on page 2, lines 30 and 31 are
cleanup from the elimination of the commercial use permit. The
changes on page 3, lines 1, 2, 5, 8, and 11 are language cleanup
regarding the commercial use permit. He stated page 3, lines 11-
13, eliminates the requirement for guide-outfitters to register
base camps in order to get their license. He pointed out this
elimination does not change the requirement for a land use permit
from the various landowners. He told committee members the
requirement to get a land use authorization from private landowners
remains. He pointed out the DNR and the federal government have
their own systems of enforcing their permit uses in-house.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN clarified page 3, beginning at line 11, is
the elimination of the requirement for guides to register base
camps.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said that is correct. He stated currently
there is still a reporting process in which a guide fills out his
hunt plan, which is then filed with the BGCSB staff. He said the
Department of Public Safety still has the ability to know where the
base camps are. This change simply eliminates the requirement as
a condition of getting a guide license. He felt this change is
simply a paper reduction act.
Number 220
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated the changes on page 4, line 20 and page
5, lines 13, 14, and 20-22 are language cleanup. He said Section
7 is a major change regarding the issue of an assistant guide being
able to get hired with a written recommendation from a master
guide-outfitter.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN clarified that section refers back to page
3.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said no. It refers back to page 2, lines 22
and 23.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated the change on page 6, lines 3 and 4,
refers to assistant guides and eliminates the additional
qualifications the board may establish, as the additional
qualifications are ambiguous. He said that goes along with the
same line of reasoning of allowing guides to hire whomever they
like because they are responsible for them.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN thought assistant guides had a requirement
of previously working for a guide for a short period of time before
getting their assistant guide license.
MR. KING replied there is not a requirement to that effect. He
said there is a requirement for an assistant guide license for the
person to have hunted in the state for two of the previous five
years. He stated with this statute change, that person must also
receive a recommendation from a guide-outfitter or master guide and
meet the other qualifications. He reiterated that the guide-
outfitter takes sole responsibility for the assistant guide.
Therefore, a guide will not hire a person who is incompetent. He
noted that currently, guides are being forced to hire incompetent
people because they have passed the test.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated the next change is on page 6, line 9,
with the added language, "has not been convicted of a state or
federal hunting or guide-outfitting statute or regulation within
the last five years for which the person was fined more than $500
or imprisoned for more than five days;". He said in light of the
commercial use permit fee being eliminated, this addition relates
to a transporter. A transporter is someone who only provides
transportation for hunters in the field. He pointed out
transporters see what is going on in the field. He felt it was
important to have transporters who do not have major hunting
violations and convictions.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if this requirement is for a person serving
only as a transporter or under any circumstance, such as a road
guide now doing transporting only.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated it is only a transporter. He said the
requirement also prevents guides who get convicted for a major
violation from going into the transporting business.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said on page 6, lines 25-27, the language, "A
transporter may also provide, under authority of a commercial use
permit, other big game commercial services as defined under AS
08.54.460." He stated changes on page 6, lines 30 and 31, on page
7, lines 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19, 24, and 26-29, page 8, lines
7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24-26, and 28-30, and page 9,
lines 5, 6, 11, 12, and 22-26 are all commercial use permit
language cleanup.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated the next change is on page 10, line 2.
He said this change eliminates the requirement for guides to report
to the BGCSB that they have their land use permits from the DNR and
the federal government. This change is also contained on page 10,
lines 30 and 31. He said page 10, line 18 is a commercial use
permit language cleanup.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated the repealers in Section 19 include AS
08.54.400(c)(3), which is commercial use permit language cleanup;
AS 08.54.460 and AS 08.54.470 is the commercial use permit
provision; and AS 08.54.590(1) and AS 08.54.590(12) refers to the
base camps and spike camps.
Number 471
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked what the current constitution of the BGCSB
is.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said that information is contained on page
1 of the BGCSB statutes and regulations book.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered where the regulation is listed providing
that guide-outfitters be responsible for assistant guides and their
actions.
MR. KING replied that information is contained on page 16, "Sec.
08.54.540. Responsibility of guide-outfitter for violations." He
read the regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented in serving on the BGCSB, he can
attest that the official attitude of the board is to give the
maximum discipline for every case. He noted sometimes the
discipline on the part of the board exceeds what the criminal
courts give.
MR. KING said the BGCSB was very good about notifying the industry,
in writing, their intention to be very strict on this issue.
Number 518
EDDIE GRASSER, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL (AOC), stated
AOC is concerned about the possible elimination of the BGCSB. He
said AOC is very supportive of HB 335 and hopes the bill can move
quickly. He noted there is some contention among members on the
Senate side about the issue. He thought perhaps the Administration
has concerns about the changes being made but it is hoped the
legislature and the Administration can work these issues out.
MR. GRASSER said his family started in the guide outfitting
business in the 1930s. He stated the guiding industry is good and
one of the few industries in Alaska which is self-supporting. He
urged the committee to pass HB 335.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled there had been a discussion about the
fiscal note.
GERON BRUCE, REPRESENTATIVE, ADF&G, stated the fiscal note
associated with the elimination of the commercial use permit will
reduce interagency revenues received by the department by $45,000.
He said he has asked staff to prepare the fiscal note and there
will be an attempt to get it completed as quickly as possible. He
explained initially ADF&G used that money to work with the BGCSB to
develop the guiding areas. The past couple of years, the
department has provided all the money to the Department of Public
Safety and they have been using it for enforcement activities.
MR. BRUCE stated the department's plans were, beginning in the
fiscal year 1997, to split the money with the Department of Public
Safety and use a portion of the funds to establish and pay part of
the costs for a position in the department to function as the
liaison with the BGCSB. He said he did not know if that position
will be established without the funding.
MR. BRUCE told committee members ADF&G supports efforts to keep the
BGCSB in existence as it is very important to the state's hunting
industry. He noted approximately 10 percent of the hunters who
hunt annually in the state are nonresident and contribute
approximately 75 percent of the license fees going to the
department. He said most of the nonresident hunters are required
to have guides. Therefore, the guiding industry is very important
to the department.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if Mr. Bruce knew the total dollar amount
nonresident fees generate.
MR. BRUCE stated he did not know an exact figure but he would
estimate the nonresident fees are about 75 percent of the licensing
fees the Division of Wildlife Conservation generates and is
approximately $5 million or $6 million.
Number 582
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN pointed out that nonresident fees are quite
expensive and can range from $250 to $750. Therefore, a
significant amount of ADF&G's budget is paid by nonresident hunters
and the vast majority of those hunters retain the services of
guides. He suggested it would be a big drain on ADF&G's budget if
the BGCSB is eliminated.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recessed the meeting at 9:58 a.m. to the call of
the Chair.
TAPE 95-68, SIDE B
Number 000
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN called the meeting back to order at 10:47 a.m.
Members present were Representatives Green, Williams, Ogan, Davies
and Austerman. Members absent were Representatives Barnes, Kott,
MacLean, and Nicholia.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced there is a quorum present.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked, since he had to leave earlier, if
there is a Department of Public Safety fiscal impact related to HB
335.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated the fiscal impact is approximately
$45,000.
(Representative KOTT joined the committee.)
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES questioned whether or not there is a fiscal
note attached to the bill reflecting that effect.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said a fiscal note is being prepared. He
explained the money is given to ADF&G and is then transferred to
the Department of Public Safety who uses it to lease helicopter
time in western Southcentral Alaska for enforcement purposes. He
noted if the BGCSB does not get extended, there will be a bigger
hit on the fiscal note due to the potential drop in nonresident
licensing fees, which amount to approximately $5 million a year.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted he is concerned about that larger
impact. He stated he is also concerned that if there is a fiscal
impact, that impact should be reflected in a fiscal note, and the
bill referred to the House Finance Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said that is a question for Speaker Phillips or
Co-Chairman Green.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN mentioned there is a fiscal note being
drafted, which most likely will be attached to the bill before it
leaves the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated he would like to leave the concern on
the record that it is his understanding there are several fiscal
impacts and they should be reflected in a fiscal note, and
therefore should be referred to the Finance Committee.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN commented the fiscal impact is revenue neutral.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN agreed the impact is revenue neutral. He
thought the only impact would be to the Department of Public
Safety.
Number 100
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled that ADF&G indicated earlier their
fiscal note would be reduced to approximately $45,000. He thought
the fiscal note would be attached to the bill redraft.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a MOTION to AMEND the title of CSHB
335(RES) to read, "An Act extending the termination date of the Big
Game Commercial Services Board to June 30, 1999; eliminating the
requirement for a commercial use permit and for payment of
commercial use permit fees; amending the membership of the Big Game
Commercial Services Board; relating to the qualifications for an
assistant guide-outfitter license; eliminating the requirement for
testing of assistant guide-outfitters; providing for additional
licensing requirements for transporters; eliminating the
requirement for prior approval to enter or remain on state and
federal land; eliminating the requirement to register base camps;
amending the definition of `big game commercial services'; and
providing for an effective date."
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated Speaker Phillips had sent a note to the
committee indicating that the BGCSB and Senator Halford have worked
out the difficulties. Therefore, if HB 335 is acceptable to the
committee and the House, it will be acceptable on the Senate side.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN WITHDREW his MOTION.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated a new committee substitute is now
available.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 335(RES), version
F. He indicated the only change is the title.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT OBJECTED since he did not have a copy to look
at.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said the proposed committee substitute tightens
up the title.
Number 161
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if the new title in version F is supposed
to reflect the Utermohle amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT thought it was different. He stated perhaps it
tightens up the title even further.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections to the motion.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND CSHB 335(RES) on page
6, lines 10 and 11, the deletion be made and substitute the
language, "(6) has not been convicted of a state or federal hunting
or guide-outfitting statute or regulation within the last five
years for which the person was fined more than $500 or imprisoned
for more than five days."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion. He
thought that was already a requirement.
MR. KING stated in regard to the language on page 6, lines 10 and
11, which is being deleted, the industry feels that provision is
not needed, provided the other proper language is in the
requirements. He said lines 16-19, on page 6, is a provision for
the guide-outfitter and that requirement is added to the
transporter requirements. He reiterated the assistant guide is
solely the responsibility of his employer who must be a registered
or master guide.
Number 206
MR. KING noted Sec. 08.54.540 of the statute outlines the
responsibility of the guide-outfitter for violations, which makes
the guide-outfitter responsible for any violation of statute,
regulation or hunting law by the class-A assistant or assistant
guide while in the course of the class-A assistant guide-
outfitter's or assistant guide-outfitter's employment. He said the
section also refers to AS 08.54.500 which is the discipline general
provisions. He felt the provisions are very tight and protection
is provided for.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked what the additional requirements
established by the BGCSB for assistant guides were.
MR. KING said the test was in the provisions and there were no
additional qualifications. He stated it was just an ambiguous line
in the statute which said the BGCSB could establish additional
requirements. He noted the Senate Finance Committee requested the
reduction of arbitrary powers of the BGCSB to make it easier for
new participants to join the industry at the base level, which is
the assistant guide level.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked what happens if an assistant guide
violates a state statute and is fined $600. He wondered if the
guide pays the fine.
MR. KING replied the guide is responsible for the actions of the
assistant guide. He said the guide probably would not pay the fine
although he could. However, the guide's license would be in
jeopardy for the acts of his employees.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated the fine of $600 does not remove the
guide's license. He asked how the guide is responsible.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded the BGCSB has the authority to revoke
licenses and impose fines up to $5,000, in addition to the criminal
penalties the guide would be liable for, due to his assistant
breaking the rules. He stated the guide is just as responsible as
if he committed the violation himself.
Number 291
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked why anyone would object to a
requirement that an assistant guide could not operate if he had
been convicted of a violation.
MR. KING said the guiding industry would not have objection to that
requirement. He noted that has never been a requirement in the
past. He expressed concern with timing. He wondered if this
additional amendment would slow down the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES replied he did not know. He said his concern
is public policy. He expressed appreciation for the desire to
reduce the arbitrariness of the BGCSB. He stated this amendment
would do that. He thought it was a reasonable compromise and a
reasonable requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN noted on page 14 of the BGCSB statutes and
regulations booklet, Sec. 08.54.510 outlines the discipline
provisions. He said in that section it speaks to anyone being in
violation of either AS 08.54.500 or AS 08.54.505. If they are
convicted, they cannot be hired.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN suggested that Representative Davies offer the
amendment on the House floor.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted that pages 10 and 11, Sections 16 and
17, remove the requirement to show evidence of permission to
operate in a particular area. He stated his general concern is the
issue of allowing the Division of Occupational Licensing to issue
a permit to operate in an area where no evidence of permission has
been shown. He felt potential lawsuits were being set up. He said
he did not know what the big deal was--if a person has permission
to operate in an area, what is so difficult about copying the
permit and giving it to the division at the time of application for
the license.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated if that elimination is taken out, he can
assure the committee the bill will be dead. He said the reason the
language was eliminated was because people still have to get
permits but no other industry has to report to a board to get a
permit to operate.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 335(RES) with fiscal
notes to be attached, out of committee with individual
recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated before the bill can be transmitted to
the Chief Clerk, it must be accompanied by a fiscal note.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said the bill can move from committee as long as
the committee understands the fiscal note and the fiscal note
itself can follow. He noted testimony has indicated there will be
a fiscal impact but it will still be revenue neutral.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked what that means.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN replied instead of actually having the fiscal
note attached to the document, as long as the fiscal effect is
discussed in committee and the representatives voting on the bill
know what the fiscal responsibility is, the bill can be
transmitted.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said that was not his question. He asked how
there can be a fiscal impact and the bill be revenue neutral.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN responded because it is fees paid rather than
funds paid out of the general fund. He stated it is general fund
neutral.
Number 397
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS stated there are a lot of questions
being asked about the bill.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recessed the meeting at 11:12 a.m.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN called the meeting back to order at 2:45 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN WITHDREW his MOTION.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 335(RES), version F,
out of committee with individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN WITHDREW his MOTION.
Number 435
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND CSHB 335(RES) on page
6, line 10, the deletion be made and insert the language, "(6) has
not been convicted of a state or federal hunting or guide-
outfitting statute or regulation within the last five years for
which the person was fined more than $500 or imprisoned for more
than five days."
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 335(RES), as
amended, with attached fiscal note, out of committee with
individual recommendations.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House Resources
Committee, Co-Chairman Green adjourned the meeting at 2:53 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|