Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/08/1997 01:12 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
April 8, 1997
1:12 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Joe Green
Representative William K. ("Bill") Williams
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Irene Nicholia
OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 34
Relating to proposed regulations of the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council creating a new discriminatory halibut fishery in
Alaska.
- MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 144
"An Act authorizing the Department of Environmental Conservation to
charge certain fees relating to registration of pesticides and
broadcast chemicals; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 22(RES) am
"An Act relating to qualifications for appointment to the Board of
Game."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 22(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 7(RLS) am
"An Act reducing certain resident sport fishing, hunting, and
trapping license fees, increasing certain nonresident sport fishing
license and tag fees, and relating to nonresident sport fishing and
hunting licenses and tags; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD HCS CSSB7(FSH)
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 34
SHORT TITLE: NPFMC PROPOSED REGS FOR HALIBUT FISHERY
SPONSOR(S): SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/27/97 871 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/27/97 871 (H) RESOURCES
04/08/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 144
SHORT TITLE: DEC FEES:PESTICIDES AND CHEMICALS
SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/18/97 381 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/18/97 381 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
03/11/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/11/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/18/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/18/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/20/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/20/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/25/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/25/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/27/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/27/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/08/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 22
SHORT TITLE: BOARD OF GAME QUALIFICATIONS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SHARP, Taylor
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/03/97 19 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 19 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 20 (S) STA, RES
01/23/97 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
01/23/97 (S) MINUTE(STA)
01/24/97 124 (S) STA RPT CS 4DP 1NR SAME TITLE
01/24/97 124 (S) DP:GREEN, MACKIE, WARD, MILLER;
NR:DUNCAN
01/24/97 124 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTES TO SB (GOV, F&G)
01/28/97 146 (S) ZERO FN TO CS (F&G)
01/31/97 190 (S) ZERO FN TO CS (GOV)
02/12/97 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/12/97 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/19/97 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/19/97 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/20/97 428 (S) RES RPT CS 5DP SAME TITLE
02/20/97 428 (S) DP: GREEN, TORGERSON, LEMAN, SHARP,
TAYLOR
02/20/97 428 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS APPLY TO CS
(GOV,F&G)
02/21/97 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
02/21/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/24/97 469 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR & 1NR 2/24/97
02/24/97 475 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/24/97 475 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
02/24/97 475 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
02/24/97 475 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 22(RES)
02/24/97 476 (S) PASSED Y15 N4 A1
02/24/97 476 (S) LINCOLN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
02/25/97 498 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
02/25/97 499 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1
UNAN CONSENT
02/25/97 499 (S) AM NO 1 OFFERED BY SHARP
02/25/97 499 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED Y16 N4
02/25/97 499 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
02/25/97 500 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y15 N5
02/25/97 503 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/26/97 478 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/26/97 478 (H) RESOURCES
04/05/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/05/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/08/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 7
SHORT TITLE: HUNTING SPORT FISH TRAPPING FEES/LICENSES
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DONLEY, Sharp
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/03/97 15 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 15 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 15 (S) RES, FIN
01/29/97 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
01/29/97 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/03/97 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/03/97 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/06/97 246 (S) RES RPT CS 3DP 2NR NEW TITLE
02/06/97 246 (S) DP: HALFORD, GREEN, SHARP
02/06/97 246 (S) NR: LEMAN, LINCOLN
02/06/97 246 (S) FISCAL NOTES TO SB & CS (F&G-2)
02/11/97 283 (S) CORRECTED ZERO FN TO SB (DPS)
02/11/97 283 (S) ZERO FN TO CS (DPS)
02/18/97 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
02/25/97 491 (S) FIN RPT CS 2DP 5NR NEW TITLE
02/25/97 492 (S) DP: SHARP, DONLEY;
NR: ADAMS, PARNELL
02/25/97 492 (S) NR: PHILLIPS, PEARCE, TORGERSON
02/25/97 492 (S) FNS TO CS (F&G-2)
02/25/97 492 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS APPLY TO CS
(DPS-2)
02/26/97 (S) RLS AT 12:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
02/26/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/05/97 567 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR W/CS NEW TITLE 3/5
03/05/97 567 (S) DP: KELLY; CALENDAR: LEMAN,
TORGERSON;
03/04/97 567 (S) NR: DUNCAN; DNP: TAYLOR
03/04/97 567 (S) FN TO CS (F&G)
03/04/97 567 (S) PREVIOUS FN ( F&G)
03/04/97 567 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES TO CS (DPS)
03/05/97 575 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/05/97 575 (S) RLS CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/05/97 575 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
03/05/97 575 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 8(RLS)
03/05/97 576 (S) PASSED Y17 N3
03/05/97 576 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
03/05/97 576 (S) MACKIE NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
03/06/97 604 (S) RECON TAKEN UP IN THIRD READING
03/06/97 604 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1
UNAN CONSENT
03/06/97 605 (S) AM NO 1 OFFERED BY MACKIE
03/06/97 605 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/06/97 605 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
03/06/97 606 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y17 N3
03/06/97 606 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
03/06/97 606 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/07/97 576 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/07/97 577 (H) FSH, RESOURCES, FINANCE
03/24/97 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/24/97 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/26/97 848 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) 1DP 3NR
03/26/97 848 (H) DP: OGAN
03/26/97 848 (H) NR: AUSTERMAN, IVAN, HODGINS
03/26/97 848 (H) SENATE FISCAL NOTE (F&G) 2/25/97
03/26/97 848 (H) SENATE FISCAL NOTE (F&G) 3/5/97
03/26/97 848 (H) SENATE ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS) 2/11/97
03/26/97 848 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
04/08/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
RON SOMERVILLE, Special Consultant to
the Leadership of the House and Senate
211 Fourth Street, Number 302A
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-3830
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 34.
DICK BISHOP, Executive Director
Alaska Outdoor Council
211 Fourth Street, Number 302A
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-3830
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 34 on behalf of
the Alaska Outdoor Council and the Territorial
Sportsmen; testified on SB 7.
RICHARD ANDREW
P.O. Box 7211
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-2463
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 34.
NORMAN COHEN
204 North Franklin Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-2360
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 34.
DEAN PADDOCK
P.O. Box 20312
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 463-4970
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 34.
BARBARA COTTING, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Jeannette James
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6822
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 144.
JANICE ADAIR, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation
555 Cordova Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 269-7644
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 144.
JOSEPHINE HARDY, Legislative Secretary
to Senator Bert Sharp
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 516
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3004
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for SB 22.
KAREN BRAND, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Dave Donley
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 508
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3892
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for SB 7.
DALE BONDURANT
HC1, Box 1197
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-0818
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 7.
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 508
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3892
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SB 7.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-6143
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding SB 7.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-38, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:12 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Hudson, Ogan, Masek, Dyson and
Green; there was a quorum. Representatives Williams, Joule and
Barnes arrived at 1:17 p.m., 1:18 p.m. and 1:31 p.m., respectively.
Representative Nicholia was absent. On teleconference were Kenai,
Homer, Fairbanks and Anchorage; Mat-Su was scheduled to join later.
HJR 34 - NPFMC PROPOSED REGS FOR HALIBUT FISHERY
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced the first order of business was House
Joint Resolution No. 34, relating to proposed regulations of the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council creating a new
discriminatory halibut fishery in Alaska. He called on Ron
Somerville to present the resolution.
Number 0099
RON SOMERVILLE, Special Consultant to the Leadership of the House
and Senate, explained the rationale behind HJR 34. When the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) passed, the
description of areas withdrawn in the conservation units clearly
said those units were limited to mean high tide. That was to
ensure the federal government did not extend jurisdiction into the
state's territorial waters.
MR. SOMERVILLE said Title VIII of ANILCA indicates some conditions
apply. He referred to Section 815, the limitations and savings
clauses, and said there was a list of statutes not affected by
ANILCA or this particular section. One was the Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of 1976, since amended. The
advance notice regulations contain specific language making it
clear the proposed preemption, or extension of jurisdiction, did
not apply in some waters in Alaska, particularly beyond territorial
waters.
MR. SOMERVILLE read an excerpt that says "the board's regulatory
authority under this provision" would be limited to the territorial
limits of the state and not extend to offshore fisheries beyond
Alaska's territorial waters. All international treaty obligations
of the United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their
habits also must be adhered to. He said these make it clear that
Title VIII does not extend beyond mean high tide or beyond the
"territorial sea."
MR. SOMERVILLE advised that in December 1996, the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) received a request to allow
legal harvest of subsistence-caught halibut. In checking with the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), there appeared to have
been two instances, perhaps more, that led to that. One was the
citing of people from villages in the Bering Sea region who had
taken home undersized halibut, caught while commercial fishing, for
personal use. Under the regulations and laws of the NPFMC and the
International Pacific Halibut Commission, that was illegal. In
addition, someone in Southeast Alaska had used illegal gear, such
as a skate, to harvest for personal/recreational use without having
Individual Fishery Quota (IFQ) shares.
Number 0425
MR. SOMERVILLE explained why the NPFMC is involved. The
International Halibut Treaty created the International Pacific
Halibut Commission. As a result of amendments to the Northern
Pacific Halibut Act in 1982, the commission became responsible for
overviewing and establishing management strategies and quotas for
each halibut area, with the NPFMC responsible for adopting
regulations, implementing that quota through allocation.
MR. SOMERVILLE referred to a newsletter dated February 18, 1997,
that lists options from a February 1997 report by the NPFMC Halibut
Subsistence Committee. He advised that April 15-19, 1997, the
NPFMC will hold a preliminary meeting on this and other subjects,
to hear staff evaluations, prepare preferred options and then
either send out possible options or do nothing. Their documents
indicate a final decision will be made in June, with further
implementing regulations placed by 1998.
Number 0501
MR. SOMERVILLE referred to the newsletter, which lists three
suboptions under Option 2, "Define eligibility for halibut
subsistence":
"Suboption A. Members of Alaska Native Federally-recognized Tribes
with customary and traditional use of halibut. (Subsistence
Committee definition)
"Suboption B. Alaska rural residents as defined in ANILCA and
identified in the table entitled `Alaska Rural Places and Native
Groups with Subsistence Halibut Uses,' and will also include other
communities for which customary and traditional findings are
developed in the future. (ANILCA definition)
"Suboption C. Tribal members and non-Native permanent residents of
Native villages who have legitimate subsistence needs. (Migratory
Bird Treaty Act definition)"
Number 0547
MR. SOMERVILLE referred to Option 3 and said the legal gear is
somewhat the same as would be allowed with commercial gear.
Referring to Option 4, he noted size options were either having no
minimum size or allowing some exceptions for retention of
undersized halibut taken for commercial purposes in Area 4E, which
is the Bering Sea.
MR. SOMERVILLE discussed Options 5 and 6, relating to potential
customary and traditional trade of subsistence-caught halibut, in
addition to potential barter or sale. He said this raised concerns
by legislators.
Number 0612
MR. SOMERVILLE said HJR 34 was not designed to take on the whole
issue of subsistence. Instead, it says the legislature supports
taking halibut for personal consumption, but supports doing so by
modifying existing regulations to accommodate it through
personal/recreational use, rather than creating a whole new
fishery.
MR. SOMERVILLE said the concern is the legal authority of the NPFMC
to do this. Going through all the documents, including the
International Halibut Treaty, the Northern Pacific Halibut Act and
the newly adopted Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, there is no mention of legal authority to establish
racially discriminatory regulations or those based on residency.
That issue is raised in the resolution.
MR. SOMERVILLE explained those proposals would conflict with the
state constitution if adopted. That would create enforcement
problems because the state adopts federal regulations by reference.
He believes the state would be unable to enforce regulations in
conflict with Alaska's constitution.
MR. SOMERVILLE said there is an argument that while legislators,
the delegation and the Governor's office continue to look for ways
to provide a long-term, permanent solution to the subsistence
issue, this sort of action could further polarize people, creating
a new controversy that he believes is unnecessary. He advised that
they would testify April 16 before the NPFMC on this issue.
Number 0869
DICK BISHOP, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council, came
forward to testify in support of HJR 34. He specified he was also
speaking for the Territorial Sportsmen, a member group of the
council. He said HJR 34 addresses many of the most objectionable
parts of the halibut subsistence proposals soon to be considered by
the NPFMC. First is discrimination on racial grounds or the basis
of zip code. Second is adopting unlimited catch of halibut under
subsistence, regardless of the size of fish, season, or so forth,
"very much like ANILCA's undefined customary and traditional use
priority, which has been defined by federal courts as basically `no
closed season, no bag limit.'"
MR. BISHOP said third is opening the door to commercial sale of yet
another so-called subsistence resource. He noted that federal
courts have already established that sales of subsistence-caught
fish for tens of thousands of dollars are acceptable under ANILCA.
Fourth is providing for a new fishery that is bound to compete, to
some degree, with existing fisheries, but on a discriminatory basis
as far as priority for the use. Fifth is that the same strategy
could easily be proposed for other marine resources such as crab.
Number 0984
MR. BISHOP said these proposed regulations are not about obtaining
food by customary and traditional means. Instead, they are yet
another ploy to expand political and institutional approval of
special privileges for a racially defined group of people.
MR. BISHOP read from page 2 of the Halibut Subsistence Committee
report dated January 22, 1997, to illustrate that committee's
perspective:
"The committee discussed a proposal to include `other rural
residents in areas of Alaska with halibut uses.' The committee
discussed the opportunities for non-Tribal Alaskans to harvest and
concluded that the two-fish-per-day sport fish limit would meet
their needs for supplying their families with halibut for food.
The determining factor in this conclusion was the stated need to
recognize existing, traditional practice at current levels of
halibut removals. The management plan for a halibut subsistence
program should legalize the current halibut removals and fishing
practices by Tribal members."
MR. BISHOP said it makes it clear that their view is to narrowly
benefit one segment of Alaskans, leaving to the sport fish
limitations the opportunities of "non-Tribal" Alaskans to meet
their needs to provide food for their families.
Number 1073
MR. BISHOP said Alaska is already being socially shredded by
controversies over subsistence and Indian country. He urged
passage of HJR 34 to discourage the NPFMC from perpetuating this
separatism by establishing yet another set of discriminatory rules
relating to use of fish and game.
Number 1112
RICHARD ANDREW testified via teleconference from Ketchikan in
support of HJR 34. A 34-year resident of Ketchikan, he is a
commercial fisherman but does not hold any halibut IFQs. He
supports HJR 34 because creating a new fishery will further federal
takeover of the state's resources. It will also further divide
rural and urban residents.
Number 1187
NORMAN COHEN came forward to testify, saying he wanted to correct
the record. He said subsistence halibut fishing is not new. It
has occurred for probably hundreds or thousands of years along the
coast. In addition, the International Pacific Halibut Commission
has jurisdiction over halibut. There is no state jurisdiction, nor
are state laws affected by this fishery. Furthermore, it has been
counted in the numbers of halibut taken by commercial fishermen,
sport fishermen and rural Alaskans who have used halibut for
subsistence.
MR. COHEN said when the commission was created 70 years ago, it
neglected to include subsistence-take of halibut as a category.
Elsewhere, there have been special allocations to tribes in Canada
and Washington, but not in Alaska. The only purpose of this new
regulation is to recognize what has taken place, so that people are
not subject to enforcement actions for participating in something
they have already participated in. He said the commission and the
NPFMC recognize they have ignored this problem for 70 years and
that it is time to do something about it.
MR. COHEN stated that he works with a group of villages "on the
west coast" whose residents harvest halibut for subsistence
purposes.
Number 1370
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK asked whether Mr. Cohen opposes HJR
34.
MR. COHEN said he is strongly against it. He reiterated that it
does not apply to state law, as halibut is allocated under an
international treaty. In terms of who should qualify, he leaves
that to the NPFMC.
Number 1385
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK responded that reading materials say the state
assists in enforcement of halibut regulations and that the Board of
Fisheries adopts halibut regulations by reference. She suggested
what is being proposed by the NPFMC will create serious enforcement
problems throughout Alaska's coastal areas. At best, enforcement
abilities will be severely limited.
MR. COHEN disagreed that it will create enforcement problems. He
believes those have already been created because the use occurs but
is not recognized nor regulated. This will legalize something that
has gone on for generations. If state Division of Fish and
Wildlife Protection officers cannot enforce it, because it turns
out to be against Alaska law, then it will simply not be within
their jurisdiction. There are NMFS agents stationed throughout the
state who are charged with enforcing these regulations, should they
pass.
Number 1549
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN inquired what the methods and means of the present
fishery are.
MR. COHEN replied that for the people he works with, the normal and
traditional way of harvesting halibut is using three hooks instead
of two; that is all those people are looking for. However, in
Southeast Alaska, he understands the experience has been different.
Some proposals now before the council relate to distinctions in how
halibut are harvested. He estimates, roughly, that a million
pounds are taken statewide for subsistence, out of a 60-to-80-
million-pound quota for the entire state. He added that it may be
much less than that, and he said the Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G) has those statistics.
Number 1607
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked for clarification about whether the three
hooks were on fishing poles, ground lines or what. He further
asked whether someone had not actually won a case in a lower court
for having a couple of skates of gear out, claiming to be
subsistence halibut fishing.
MR. COHEN specified he was saying there is a distinction in how it
is done in various areas of the state. "The people who I'm
familiar with, and how they use it, it's three hooks on a jig," he
said.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether Mr. Cohen was not aware of the case
he had mentioned.
MR. COHEN replied that the people he was speaking for only use
three hooks. Others, in other parts of the state, do use skates.
"And that was the subject of a citation, and the case was thrown
out, as I understand it," he said. Mr. Cohen said the question is
what the halibut is used for. The intent is to recognize a
traditional method, means and opportunity, not to create an
unauthorized commercial fishery. He said after salmon, this
subsistence fishery is the second largest in the state.
Number 1704
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN commented, "Maybe the people you are working with
want to have three hooks. But under Title VIII of ANILCA, plus
what they're talking about here with this North Pacific Fishery
Management Council, is they're addressing the outright commercial
sale of subsistence-caught halibut. That's one of the issues
that's on the table here. And that's what we're trying to oppose
here." He stated the belief that Alaska will lose its resource if
that happens.
MR. COHEN replied that he and the people he works with adamantly
oppose commercialization of halibut from the subsistence fishery.
He believes that would be an excellent recommendation from the
legislature to the NPFMC, that they prohibit commercialized use of
this resource.
Number 1757
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked whether Mr. Cohen had read the
resolution.
MR. COHEN replied he had awhile ago but had not planned on
testifying that day.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said three things concern him. He referred to
the first, second and fifth "Whereas" sections, addressing the
proposed NPFMC options that would provide a discriminatory
preference based on race and residency, and including the
possibility of commercial sale of subsistence-caught halibut. He
stated concern over having the state sanction that. It borders on
a sensitive issue the state has been trying to resolve for quite
some time. To have a federal agency give preference to certain
classes of Alaskans would undermine all efforts to defend the state
constitution and try to resolve this amicably. He stated, "So
there is a significant difference, I would suggest, between having
had it happen, if in fact it has over 70 years, and for the state
to sanction it. And so, in that regard, it seems to me that we, in
order to defend the constitution, would have to be opposed to that
and support this resolution."
MR. COHEN responded that nothing here affects the state government,
its constitution or its laws. It is regulated under an
international treaty and federal law. And it is not a federal law
that only came into place because the state is out of compliance
with ANILCA, because ANILCA does not apply to the halibut fishery.
Because halibut has a limited-entry system through the IFQ program,
there is more enforcement. They just want to fix a problem that
people have ignored for so many years.
Number 1920
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said his concern is not between two and three
hooks. Rather, it is between types of people who have preference.
While it may not be under ANILCA and it may be beyond state
jurisdiction, for the state to sit idly by and permit that is the
first step in "a run on the state constitution." He said as Mr.
Cohen had testified earlier, this does get into state waters, which
is an issue of the state.
MR. COHEN disagreed. As he understands it, because it is an
international treaty, the state has the same role both inside and
outside the three-mile limit.
Number 1962
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said there is a preferential portion that
violates the state constitution. The state cannot sit idly by on
that issue. The legislature is duty-bound to defend the
constitution.
MR. COHEN replied that if the state's position is that everybody
needs to be treated exactly the same in this fishery, then the
lowest common denominator should not be the two hooks and two fish
a day. Rather, it should be the activity that takes place and has
taken place for thousands of years on the resource, whether it was
in Western or Southeastern Alaska.
MR. COHEN suggested changing the sport fishing rules to be the same
as these traditional practices, if the legislature wants to support
subsistence halibut fishing and those who do it.
Number 2043
REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES asked Mr. Cohen to define the present
rules.
MR. COHEN replied, "The rules are two hooks, two fish a day."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked who set that rule.
MR. COHEN said the International Pacific Halibut Commission.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked for whom it was set.
MR. COHEN said it was for people who sport fish.
Number 2081
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked what the rules are for subsistence
users today.
MR. COHEN replied there are none.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated her understanding that this would be
a new subsistence fishery.
MR. COHEN responded that it would be a new subsistence fishery in
name, but they already count these fish in terms of setting the
overall quota. They just ignore how it is caught.
Number 2094
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said, "Two fish a day, though."
MR. COHEN replied, "No, no. Whatever they catch."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to the new fishery that would be
recognized.
MR. COHEN said it is an existing fishery that would be recognized
as a new category.
Number 2145
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked how many people would qualify.
MR. COHEN said it depends on which system the NPFMC picks for who
qualifies. There are several options before them. He guessed the
number would be 10,000 or less.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked whether presently one million pounds is
being taken for subsistence harvest.
MR. COHEN said he does not know, nor should he have guessed.
Similarly, he does not know about the 10,000 figure.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked, if it turns out to be 10,000 people,
how many pounds that is per person.
Number 2197
MR. COHEN said it is 100 pounds of halibut per person, but he
believes that is probably high.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to 10,000 people at 100 pounds. She
asked whether Mr. Cohen thinks each of those people eats 100 pounds
of halibut per year.
MR. COHEN said he does not know the numbers. He believes there
should be no sale of halibut involved with it, and that it should
be truly a subsistence fishery, used for food. He strongly
supports the legislature stating that to the NPFMC.
Number 2241
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to a section on hook-and-line gear
with a maximum of 60 hooks. She said testimony had been about
three hooks. She asked how many fish could be caught on 60 hooks.
MR. COHEN said he assumed 60. However, at least for the people he
had been working with, three hooks is fine. They are not looking
to use 60-hook skates. He said there are regional differences in
Alaska that the council will have to deal with in deciding what
kind of gear to allow. The NPFMC would take testimony and make a
decision.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to Representative Green's remarks on
the state constitution. She asked whether Mr. Cohen did not
believe that, regardless of whether this falls under state
jurisdiction, it still flies in the face of the state constitution
because it would be a special-use fishery.
MR. COHEN responded that this is authorized and regulated under
federal law and an international treaty, and it has nothing to do
with Alaska's constitution.
Number 2369
DEAN PADDOCK came forward to testify in support of HJR 34. For the
past six years, he had devoted five weeks or more, with no
remuneration, to "sitting around the table with some 20 other
people in an advisory capacity to the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council."
MR. PADDOCK expressed concern about the proposals before the NPFMC.
He said Alaska is at an important crossroads, with great potential
for divisiveness. He regrets that immensely. He also dreads
having to consider this at the NPFMC, because it comes at a bad
time. He plans to ask the advisory panel to table this issue. The
state is faced with issues of subsistence and sovereignty, apart
from halibut. He agrees with Mr. Cohen that because halibut is
managed by the federal government, they have jurisdiction.
However, he believes the state has a great deal at stake here.
TAPE 97-38, SIDE B
Number 0006
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if there were further testifiers, then
closed public testimony.
Number 0022
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion that HJR 34 move from the
committee with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note.
She asked unanimous consent.
Number 0036
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE objected for discussion, saying he
opposes HJR 34 but shares concerns regarding commercial use of that
subsistence resource. He concluded by saying it is not creating a
new fishery but recognizing a fishery that has been there forever.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she believes if this fishery has gone on
forever for personal consumption, personal consumption should be
allowed. However, if it is being commercialized, she opposes that.
She further wants everyone, not just people of one race, to be able
to participate.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE withdrew his objection.
Number 0199
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS objected for discussion. He said this
is a good example of what the subsistence issue will do to the
state until it is taken care of by everyone getting together to
fight the federal takeover. "We have to settle this subsistence
issue before we tear ourselves apart," he stated. He asked the
committee to help him ensure the subsistence issue is a priority of
the House majority.
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON concurred.
Number 0255
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN objected to the motion for voting purposes.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON acknowledged the request for a vote. He said he
understands what Representative Williams is talking about. He
agrees all players must come to the table to eliminate the fear
arising whenever someone proposes a potential new fishery, for
example, based on the basis of race or region. He stated his
readiness and willingness to participate with all members of the
House and Senate to try to find an Alaskan solution.
Number 0324
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON requested a roll call. Voting to move HJR were
Representatives Masek, Barnes, Dyson, Green, Williams, Ogan and
Hudson. Voting against it was Representative Joule.
Representative Nicholia was absent. So HJR 34 moved from the House
Resources Standing Committee.
HB 144 - DEC FEES: PESTICIDES AND CHEMICALS
Number 0380
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced the next order of business was House
Bill No. 144, "An Act authorizing the Department of Environmental
Conservation to charge certain fees relating to registration of
pesticides and broadcast chemicals; and providing for an effective
date."
Number 0416
BARBARA COTTING, Legislative Assistant to Representative Jeannette
James, presented the sponsor statement. Representative James had
submitted HB 144 at the request of the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Environmental
Health. The ADEC oversees pesticide use in Alaska. Services
consist of applicator training and certification, issuing permits
for public use projects and ensuring pesticides are used properly.
This includes requiring manufacturers to register their products
with the state. The program is funded in part by the federal
government, with a state match.
MS. COTTING said every other state pays for its share of the
pesticide program through a registration fee levied against the
chemical manufacturers. The ADEC would like to do the same in
Alaska, but statutory authority is needed. No Alaskan would pay
this fee, since there are no chemical manufacturers in Alaska. The
ADEC proposes to charge a $100 fee per label. At that low rate, it
should not even impact these large manufacturers' bottom lines in
any meaningful way, but it will have a positive impact on Alaska's
general fund, with an expected annual savings of more than $56,000,
to be replaced with program receipts. She invited Janice Adair to
answer technical questions.
Number 0481
JANICE ADAIR, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation, came forward to testify.
Alaska has an active but small pesticide program, doing primarily
training and certification of applicators. Since pesticides are
chemicals intended to kill living things, it is important they be
used properly. "We have great success, actually, and have very few
problems with misuse of pesticides," she commented.
MS. ADAIR said the registration requirement is fairly important,
not only to track which pesticides are being used in Alaska, but
also because if the ADEC knows a certain pesticide has not been
used in Alaska, it is easy to waive the monitoring requirement
relating to drinking water.
MS. ADAIR said every other state pays for its pesticide program
through a combination of a federal grant and fees charged to
manufacturers. This bill would allow the state to charge chemical
manufacturers such as Dow Chemical and Corning for registration of
their products in Alaska.
Number 0559
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked how change would be handled as far as
labels, for example.
MS. ADAIR replied that the registration requirement applies to the
approved use of the chemical. She noted that herbicides are
included in the category of pesticides. She said there is a
certain "block use" the chemical is good for; she would not expect
much change in that after registration. Because a company sends
its labels, the ADEC knows the ingredients.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what happens when a formula changes.
MS. ADAIR said it depends how dramatic the formula change is.
Addition of a different ingredient would probably require a new
registration, because it would require watching for an ancillary
impact not expected under the prior formula.
Number 0647
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether, in addition to herbicides,
fungicides and so forth are included.
MS. ADAIR replied, "All those `cides' are pesticides, because
they're all intended to kill a living organism. And that's
essentially what a pesticide is."
Number 0676
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked who pays for this.
MS. ADAIR said the large chemical manufacturers that make the
pesticides pay.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked for confirmation that farmers would not pay
for it.
MS. ADAIR said theoretically, this $56,000 will impact these multi-
million dollar corporations' bottom lines in some fashion.
However, the farmers also pay for programs in 49 other states,
which fund it in exactly the same way. She doubts that farmers
would see an increase, although certainly it could be passed along
to the consumer, as she assumed already occurs in the other 49
states. "But I will tell you that the farmers in your district do
take advantage of this program and, I would think, want to see it
continue," she said. "Certainly that's the comments we've
received, when we just recently did an update to our regulations."
Number 0736
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Ms. Adair whether the ADEC had informed
the "Dow Chemicals" of the world that this was impending.
MS. ADAIR replied that the companies have been surprised it has not
happened yet. She said the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
had done a couple of reports to Congress on the pesticide programs
operating in the states. In each of those, Alaska stands out as
the only state that does not do this. She said the companies are
aware and have not commented on it specifically.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked whether it is fair to conclude the
companies had an opportunity to testify that day.
MS. ADAIR indicated it would not have been appropriate for her to
set that up.
Number 0787
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON commented, "We didn't call them." He asked Ms.
Adair whether the $100 was a standard fee used by other states. He
suggested Dow Chemical could come up with $1,000.
MS. ADAIR explained that most other states have a much larger
pesticide program, especially in agricultural areas. Their fees
are based not only on numbers of products, but also on the amount
of certain chemicals by weight, for example. She offered to
provide one of the EPA's reports; however, she did not have it with
her. Those reports address different funding mechanisms adopted by
other states. Few have only a flat, per-label fee. Almost all
have something in addition because they have bigger programs to
support.
Number 0941
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON made a motion to move HB 144 from committee
with individual recommendations and zero fiscal note. There being
no objection, HB 144 moved from the House Resources Standing
Committee.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON turned the gavel over to Co-Chairman Ogan for
the next order of business.
CSSB 22(RES) am - BOARD OF GAME QUALIFICATIONS
Number 0989
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the next order of business was CS for
Senate Bill No. 22(RES) am, "An Act relating to qualifications for
appointment to the Board of Game." Before the committee was
version 0-LS0195\F, Utermohle, 4/4/97, adopted as a work draft at
the previous hearing.
Number 1020
JOSEPHINE HARDY, Legislative Secretary to Senator Bert Sharp, came
forward to testify. She advised that Senator Sharp, sponsor,
wished to leave it to the committee to make necessary changes.
Number 1046
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN offered Amendment 1, 0-LS0195\F.2, Utermohle,
4/8/97, which read:
Page 1, line 12:
Delete "must [SHALL] be"
Insert "must have been [SHALL BE]"
Page 1, line 13:
Delete "state, and a"
Insert "state for the four years preceding appointment to
the board. A"
Page 2, line 1, following "of the board":
Insert "[AND]"
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained that Amendment 1 requires Alaska
residency for four years preceding appointment.
Number 1105
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to adopt Amendment 1.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said he believes it is important for board members
to have lived in Alaska long enough to have a feel for, and
experience with, game management. The residency requirement had
been discussed extensively with Legislative Legal and Research
Services personnel, who indicated five years is considered the
maximum not subject to constitutional challenge. Therefore, a
four-year requirement was chosen.
Number 1167
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated that qualifications are required of
members of different boards. There is also a minimum length of
time required to run for office in Alaska. She said when a person
goes into Alaska's wilds, there should be some knowledge of what is
out there. She does not believe that is acquired overnight.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN concurred.
Number 1251
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he did not understand the last part of
the amendment, addressing page 2.
Number 1312
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN called an at-ease at 2:29 p.m. He called the
meeting back to order at 2:32 p.m.
Number 1320
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to the section of Amendment 1
addressing page 2. She made a motion to amend Amendment 1 by
replacing "of the board" with "to the board". Amendment 1 would
then read: "Page 2, line 1, following `to the board':" She
suggested that beginning on page 1, line 15, and continuing to page
2, it should say: "preceding the appointment to the board and the
members of the board shall be appointed without regard to"
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if that was the intent. He suggested to
make the amendment correct, the period must be included after
"board" as a deletion. Furthermore, the "and" should be lower
case, as should the "t" on "the".
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES concurred and said that was her motion.
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was amended. There being no
further objection, Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted.
Number 1450
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion that the bill, as amended, move
from the committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE and REPRESENTATIVE DYSON objected.
Number 1501
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said the bill attempts to guarantee that board
members have relevant experience and commitment, quite narrowly
defining it. It implies lack of trust in the Governor's good sense
in nominating and in the legislature's good sense in confirming
appointees, and it goes contrary to how good government ought to be
run. He suggested using good judgment instead of micro-management.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said qualifications are set in statute for
people serving on boards and commissions. She believes the
legislature has been remiss in not doing that for fish and game
resources. Nor does she believe in automatic approval of the
Governor's appointees. She said appointees could serve on the
board for probably a year before the legislature confirms them. In
that time, they may have done harm.
Number 1747
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE questioned how far qualifications should go.
A hunting license does not confer knowledge of hunting nor about
policy for governing game resources. In that vein, he does not
support the bill. Furthermore, he knows at least three good,
contributing former board members who may not have been able to
serve under this regime.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN concurred that having a hunting license or being
a four-year resident does not necessarily make a good member.
However, he believes it is a step in the right direction.
Number 1927
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said while she supports the residency
requirement, she has a problem with the requirement of having held
a hunting license. There might be intermittent years when a person
does not hold a license, for example.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated his belief that board members should have
an intensive interest in hunting.
Number 2097
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON apologized for not having been present at the
previous hearing. He noted that five of seven members must have
held a hunting or trapping license or an identification for people
age 60 or more; one could presumably apply for the latter without
any qualifications. While philosophically he can see the residency
requirement and the need for advocacy, he is uncertain about
supporting such exclusive criteria.
Number 2267
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN advised that at the previous hearing, he had
suggested changing that to four members out of seven. With 70
percent of the board being either hunter-oriented or having to
obtain a license, he concurs that it is too exclusive.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES recalled that the sponsor had indicated 100
percent of Alaska's game management is paid for by hunting
licenses. She suggested those wishing to participate should
contribute through buying a license.
TAPE 97-39, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that Representative Green's motion at the
previous hearing had been withdrawn; it had not failed.
Number 0099
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said while any governor may have the
opportunity to nominate, the legislature can concur or not. He
asked: If the system is not broken, why fix it?
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked if the objection was maintained.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said yes.
Number 0187
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN requested a roll call on moving SB 22, version 0-
LS0195\F, Utermohle, 4/4/97, as amended, from committee. Voting
for it were Representatives Masek, Barnes, Dyson, Williams, Hudson
and Ogan; voting against it was Representative Joule; and
Representative Green abstained. Representative Nicholia was
absent. So HCS CSSB 22(RES) moved from the House Resources
Standing Committee.
CSSB 7(RLS) am - HUNTING SPORT FISH TRAPPING FEES/LICENSES
Number 0278
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the next order of business was CS for
Senate Bill No. 7(RLS) am, "An Act reducing certain resident sport
fishing, hunting, and trapping license fees, increasing certain
nonresident sport fishing license and tag fees, and relating to
nonresident sport fishing and hunting licenses and tags; and
providing for an effective date." The version before the committee
was HCS CSSB 7(FSH).
Number 0321
KAREN BRAND, Legislative Assistant to Senator Dave Donley,
presented the sponsor statement on his behalf. She said it is not
a new concept; Senator Donley had introduced similar legislation
two years before, which had numerous hearings in the Senate
Resources Committee.
MS. BRAND explained that the bill slightly increases nonresident
sport fish license fees. It also increases the nonresident annual
sport fish license from $50 to $150; for this, it restricts
purchase to nonresidents involved in a commercial fishery,
possessing a commercial deck hand license or having a limited entry
permit. In addition, it slightly decreases resident sport fish
license combination fees, resulting in less funds going back to
vendors and less paperwork for the department.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked why it was introduced.
Number 0537
MS. BRAND responded that Senator Donley had been tracking this
issue for many years. She noted that packets include articles
referring to sting operations by the Division of Fish and Wildlife
Protection on the Kenai Peninsula and around the state, relating to
increased numbers of nonresidents who sport fish and then
commercially process that fish for sale. One article refers to a
couple who smoked salmon and then sold it at a flea market in the
Lower 48 to help pay for their annual trip to Alaska. Although the
problem is not widespread, it is increasing. This bill addresses
some of that misuse of Alaska's sport fish resources.
Number 0613
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON suggested as a result, people wishing to stay
all summer would have to buy a license every other week.
MS. BRAND replied that those not involved in a commercial fishery,
and not deck hands nor holders of limited entry permits, would be
required to purchase a license every 14 days; that was the longest
license they could purchase. It would create somewhat of a paper
trail for enforcement officers.
Number 0681
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON inquired about the net change in revenues.
MS. BRAND referred to the fiscal notes. She advised that there is
uncertainty over how many people will purchase each type of
license. The best guess is an additional $4.5 million in sport
fish revenues, to be deposited into the fish and game fund.
Number 0742
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether the current sport fish license
fee is still $10.
MS. BRAND affirmed it is $10, unchanged by this bill.
Number 0769
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to testimony in committee the
previous week by George Utermohle, Legislative Counsel.
Representative Green said for a 14-day license, there would be a
five-fold difference between resident and nonresident licenses. He
expressed concern about whether this would pass muster, not that he
opposes it.
MS. BRAND replied this has come up before. The "magic number" is
a three-to-one ratio for commercial license fees. However, this is
for sport fish, which is "want-based."
Number 0893
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN recalled that Mr. Utermohle had indicated
commercial activity affects a person's livelihood and therefore
requires some upper limit. He questioned whether an increase from
three-to-one to twenty-to-one might not still be a problem. He
again advised he was not passing judgment on it.
MS. BRAND agreed there is a difference in ratios studied for
constitutionality for commercial activities. She believes in one
state, a ten-to-one ratio for nonresident-versus-resident sport
fish license fees had been held constitutional.
Number 0981
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to the fiscal note and increased
funding. He asked whether that took into account additional
paperwork for repeated licenses.
MS. BRAND did not recall specific comments about that. She advised
that an ADF&G representative was present.
Number 1015
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES expressed concern over the bill. She cited
her own children as an example. Previous residents, if they lived
outside Alaska and visited for the whole summer, they would have to
buy repeated licenses. She believes that is wrong. She suggested
trying to solve one problem may create other, bigger problems.
Number 1065
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked what the response had been from the guided
sport fish industry.
MS. BRAND explained there had been provisions in the previous SB
128 dealing with hunting. There had been a lot of testimony from
both hunting and sport fishing guides on that. This year, all
those hunting issues had been taken out. The ADF&G had worked with
guides to help get the legislation to a point where guides could be
satisfied with it. She said several guides on the Kenai River had
indicated they were happy to have the new seven-day license in
there.
Number 1129
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked whether the guided sport input on this
version has been supportive.
MS. BRAND said there had either been no comment or no stated
opposition.
Number 1184
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN reported that he had heard from two or three
sport fish guides who would prefer the full-season license. He
offered to provide their names, if necessary. He noted that it was
not a consensus opinion.
Number 1219
DALE BONDURANT testified via teleconference from Kenai, saying he
does not think this is fair. He suggested if Representative
Green's figures were "crunched" further, on a per-day basis it
would be a 90-to-one ratio. For combination licenses, a
nonresident would pay 25 or 30 times as much as a resident,
depending on the license.
MR. BONDURANT indicated nonresidents pay 85 percent of the total
cost of management of sport fisheries. Furthermore, this
presupposes dishonesty by nonresident noncommercial fishermen and
honesty by nonresident commercial fishermen. The latter have the
same opportunity to run cottage industries. Mr. Bondurant believes
this is another attempt to bash visitors. He asked whether anyone
had thought about military veterans who visit Alaska. He suggested
nonresidents, who furnish more funds than residents, should perhaps
even get their licenses for less money.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN recognized the arrival of Senator Donley, sponsor.
Number 1388
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to the impact of denying an annual
license. He asked how Senator Donley envisions long-term visitors
handling this. For example, would a visitor to the Kenai River
periodically go to Kenai or Soldotna to buy a new license?
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY, sponsor, said that was one reason they had not
sought to amend the one-day license, which costs $10. He believes
that is the best way out for nonresidents who stay in Alaska for a
long time.
[Co-Chairman Hudson chairing, as Co-Chairman Ogan left the room]
Number 1449
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES restated her earlier comments for Senator
Donley's benefit. She concluded by saying although she understands
the goal, this is overkill, especially for former residents.
SENATOR DONLEY replied that he also has relatives who want to
visit. However, he believes that is a small percentage in the
overall scheme. He further believes nonresident fishing license
fees should not be crafted to address their relatives. He
expressed concern over commercial harvesting under a sport fish
license. He said the good news is that fees go towards developing
the same resource that benefits purchasers.
Number 1560
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked how nonresident military is handled.
SENATOR DONLEY said the existing military scheme remains the same.
Number 1574
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN advised Senator Donley of earlier discussion
on fee ratios and asked whether he believes a twenty-to-one ratio
will stand muster.
SENATOR DONLEY explained there is U.S. Supreme Court case law on
the subject. The standard for commercial operations is between
three and four times as great for nonresidents over residents; that
falls under the commerce clause of the U.S. constitution, and there
are many more restrictions applying to commerce between states.
However, that clause does not apply to sport fish, which falls
under the privileges and immunities clause and does not rise to the
same level of scrutiny for discrimination between residents and
nonresidents as do more crucial elements in people's lives.
Senator Donley advised that the ten-to-one ratio for the
nonresident annual option under this legislation has been held by
the U.S. Supreme Court to be constitutional in other cases.
Therefore, that is the usual standard he himself follows.
[Co-Chairman Ogan returned]
Number 1695
SENATOR DONLEY said in past years, there had been the argument,
"We'll wait until the commercial case was done because somehow
they're linked, they're related." He continued, "And we won the
commercial case this year. And that was a three- or four-to-one
ratio, and we prevailed in that." He said case law from other
states indicates where a three- or four-to-one ratio is allowed
commercially, they have allowed a ten-to-one ratio noncommercially.
Number 1717
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested while this would increase fees for
people staying and canning salmon, for example, it would also
penalize people such as Representative Barnes had mentioned. He
suggested the possibility of changing the amount of processing
allowed for sport-caught fish, rather than changing the license.
SENATOR DONLEY replied that in working on this bill over the years,
he has frequently heard that the Board of Fisheries will deal with
this problem. However, as indicated in a recent newspaper article
in committee packets, the board declined this year to address the
issue. He said the board had looked extensively at punch cards and
bag limits but had been unable to come up with a plan they like.
"I was hoping they would do something," he stated. "Frankly, if
the fish board would have acted, and come up with some alternative
plan, I probably would have been supportive to having just an
annual license available for everybody that's a nonresident in
here. But since they failed to do anything along those lines, I
still believe that limiting it to making people buy a series of 14-
day licenses." He believes the series of 14-day licenses provides
a tool to examine whether people are habitually buying those,
raising a red flag to perhaps inspect what those people are doing.
Number 1878
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked how anyone would know people were doing
that if licenses were purchased in different locations.
SENATOR DONLEY replied that he believes it can be developed as a
tool. He said clearly, at the end of the first year, the pattern
of purchase would be identifiable.
SENATOR DONLEY said the most difficult question has been whether to
have an annual nonresident license. He indicated the section on
page 2, linking sport licenses to commercial ones, is an effort to
coordinate with legislation introduced by Representative Austerman.
If that legislation does not pass, Senator Donley would support
removing the exceptions from his bill, which would make it much
cleaner. Another option would be to say everyone may get a
nonresident license for $150; however, that loses the tracking
advantage and possible development of an enforcement tool.
Number 1933
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that no one from the Division of Fish and
Wildlife Protection was present. He asked whether Senator Donley
knew that division's position on the bill.
SENATOR DONLEY responded that the division had acknowledged over
the years that this is a problem, and they had run a sting
operation on the Kenai River relating to this. However, they do
not believe allowing a maximum of 14 days per license would be
useful to them, nor do they endorse that. "I think we were all
hoping the fish board would address it with some sort of bag limit
or punch card, and they just haven't done it," he added.
Number 1986
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said he was not sure yet whether he supports
the bill. The way the legislature is proposing to cut the budget,
specifically as relates to fish and game enforcement, he wonders
how that will impact continued efforts to enforce these kinds of
operations. He asked whether other possibilities for getting at
people marketing Alaskan fish had been looked into, such as fines
or other incentives.
SENATOR DONLEY replied that he believes this bill more accurately
adjusts nonresident sport fishing fees to where they should be.
That is the bottom line. Denying annual sport fish licenses has
the extra benefit of possibly creating an enforcement or assessment
tool. Although money generated by the bill cannot be used directly
for enforcement, it can be used for enhancement of the fishery for
sport fish projects. He stated that this money goes into a fund to
be used for that. This would generate additional fees to be used
for those kinds of projects.
Number 2093
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), came forward to testify. The
ADF&G had been discussing this bill with Senator Donley since first
introduced a year or two ago. After working to narrow their
differences, one major difference remains: The ADF&G wants an
annual nonresident license available for purchase by any
nonresident. The three categories of concern are family members
coming for an extended stay; seasonal workers; and new residents
moving to the state in the spring or summer, who otherwise would
have to remain an entire year before being able to purchase an
annual license. Therefore, the ADF&G is asking the committee to
amend the bill to provide a general, annual nonresident sport
fishing license for $100 to $125. Mr. Bruce advised that the price
is not as big an issue as availability.
MR. BRUCE agrees the proposed fee schedule is not unfair. The
ADF&G further supports raising fees for long-term licenses rather
than short-term ones.
Number 2235
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated his understanding that there is a 30-day
requirement for new residents.
SENATOR DONLEY responded that statutes contain variable residency
requirements, depending on the benefit gained by residency. For a
sport fish license, there is a one-year requirement.
Number 2282
DICK BISHOP, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council, came
forward to testify about concerns the council has with the bill.
They support a general annual nonresident sport fishing license,
for reasons stated by others and because U.S. citizens would feel
disadvantaged by having to qualify as commercial fishermen, for
example, in order to obtain an annual license in Alaska. In
addition, Alaska competes with other areas of the country for
visitors and sport fishermen, as well as with Canada. He believes
there is a real risk in raising Alaska's fees, unless it is state
policy to discourage visitors. He concluded by recommending
inclusion of an annual sport fishing license generally available
for nonresidents, with a fee of $100, rather than $150.
Number 2368
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked what Canada's fees are.
MR. BISHOP said he does not know. He does know that "they
advertise like crazy" in fishing magazines.
SENATOR DONLEY indicated he had some information about it.
Depending on the exchange rate, Canadian fees would be a little
lower than Alaska's if the legislation were to pass as it is.
Number 2406
MR. BRUCE advised that the ADF&G Division of Sport Fish had looked
at the fee schedule in many western states. Under Senator Donley's
proposed schedule, Alaska would fall on the high side but generally
within the range. The ADF&G believes that given the quality of
experience in Alaska, as well as its resources, being on the high
end of the range is appropriate.
Number 2435
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS referred to issues relating to the Kenai
River and said he would like to hear how this could be used as a
tool.
SENATOR DONLEY responded that at the end of each year, there would
be an assessment of how many of these particular licenses were sold
and how many were repeat sales.
TAPE 97-39, SIDE B
Number 0006
SENATOR DONLEY suggested multiple purchases would indicate how many
nonresidents use the resource for the entire season or for long
periods of time. He believes that would be helpful. Now, it is so
cheap to buy an annual license that people staying two weeks might
buy one in case they might return. Although he had heard of
examples of problems, he had no hard data to determine their
extent. In the future, through computers, the information could be
a possible enforcement or management tool.
Number 0068
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to page 2 of the bill and suggested
that removing all the qualifiers on lines 16 through 28 would
restore the general annual sport fishing license at the rate of
$150. He noted that as the bill stands, an annual license is the
next increment beyond a 14-day license. He suggested possibly
adding a 30-day license as well.
SENATOR DONLEY said he believes in the 14-day license theory.
However, if the committee restores the general annual license
option, deleting lines 16 through 28 on page 2 is appropriate. He
said he hates to lose the management aspect. He therefore
requested that the committee also assist him in drafting intent
language to call on the Board of Fisheries to revisit this issue.
He suggested putting that at the front of the bill. He again
expressed disappointment that the Board of Fisheries had not acted
on it this year.
Number 0164
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN concurred. He announced he would hold the bill
over.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Senator Donley to work on intent language
to bring before the committee at the next hearing.
SENATOR DONLEY agreed to do so.
Number 0188
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS commented that this is a hot issue,
especially on the Kenai River. He said the problem is there are
too many out-of-state fishermen there. He suggested if they are
concerned about sport fishermen in Alaska, they should say so.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said it is an issue statewide, though perhaps
harder to track in Southeast Alaska.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said he believes Representative Williams is
right. He has heard tales of case after case of canned salmon
coming in from Pelican, for example. He does not believe it is an
isolated problem. He suggested the key is getting information. He
said we do not want nonresidents coming up here, staying and
literally going into a commercial business. He believes this is on
the right track.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN recalled an instance where the Division of Fish
and Wildlife Protection became aware of a restaurant in Germany
selling salmon that could only have been caught with a rod and
reel, under a sport license.
[SB 7 was held over]
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 3:43 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|