03/26/2001 01:17 PM House RES

Audio	Topic

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled

Schedule
Detailed Minutes
Documents
Doc

pdf txt

ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE March 26, 2001 1:17 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Drew Scalzi, Co-Chair Representative Hugh Fate, Vice Chair Representative Joe Green Representative Mike Chenault Representative Lesil McGuire Representative Gary Stevens Representative Beth Kerttula MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair Representative Mary Kapsner COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 165 "An Act relating to the Kenai River Special Management Area; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD HOUSE BILL NO. 93 "An Act establishing the permit fee for the personal use dip net fisheries for the Kenai River and the Kasilof River; and providing for an effective date." - FAILED TO MOVE CSHB 93(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 20 Opposing Arctic marine shipment of nuclear waste between Russia and Japan. - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 165 SHORT TITLE:KENAI RIVER SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)LANCASTER Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 03/09/01 0516 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 03/09/01 0516 (H) RES 03/26/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 BILL: HB 93 SHORT TITLE:KENAI DIP NET FISHERY PERMIT FEE SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)LANCASTER Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 01/26/01 0171 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS

01/26/01 0171 (H) Committee MINUTE(FSH) 1NR KERTTULA, WILSON, DYSON WITNESS REGISTER REPRESENTATIVE KEN LANCASTER Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 421 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as sponsor of HB fees included in the bill was to restrict public access. CHARLES QUARRE Sterling, Alaska 99672 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB BOB MERCHANT, President United Cook Inlet Drift Association PO Box 398 Kenai, Alaska 99611 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 93. CERENE PAUL, Member Chitina Dipnetters Association (CDA) Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to DICK BISHOP Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to DICK BURLEY (No address provided) POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to CARL ROSIER Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC) Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke on behalf of AOC in opposition 93. HELEN DONAHUE, Staff to Representative Lancaster Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 421 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke regarding HB CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 165, "An Act relating to the Kenai River Special Management Area; and providing for an effective date." Number 0093 REPRESENTATIVE KEN LANCASTER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 165, Area (KRSMA) addition is "the winding up of a process that started back in 1996." Public hearings took place in Anchorage, Soldotna, Moose Pass, and Cooper Landing over about an 18-month period, with hundreds of people present to testify. Representative Lancaster stated that the properties under discussion totaled approximately 6,000 acres, located primarily in the Moose Pass and Cooper Landing areas, with some properties in the upper and lower Kenai areas. He mentioned that the properties in the lower Kenai area had been purchased with "Exxon Valdez criminal spill money." REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER outlined that HB page 3, line 30, was to delete "Lot 2-A of ASLS 80-87". REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER clarified that that was a ten-acre parcel right in the center of Soldotna, which has been turned over to the city. MS. CARROLL directed the committee's attention to page 4, line 5: "Tract 3, Anglers Acres Subdivision Lowe Addition, Plat No. 97-19;". She explained that that tract was purchased Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustees Council, but was returned to its previous owner to resolve a dispute; therefore, it should be deleted from the bill. [At this point, there was a motion to adopt HB management area was first created. Ms. Degernes continued: There were lands in the upper drainage, in the Kenai Lake, Upper Kenai River, Upper Trail Lake, and Lower Trail Lake, [which] had not been selected by the state at that time, or [been] in the process of being selected, under national forest community grant programs. It was intended, since those early days, that once these lands were selected and were in state ... ownership ... they would be available to add to the Kenai River stress management area. So, we're basically fulfilling the intent of nearly two decades ago of adding these lands for the purpose of protecting and preserving important fish and wildlife habitat and resources, and also providing recreation access and opportunities for all the people who use these areas. MS. DEGERNES recalled that since 1984, when the original KRSMA was established, there have been a couple of more recent extensive public support processes that were mentioned by Representative Lancaster: the revision of the Kenai River comprehensive management plan, which was adopted in 1997, "following about a year and a half of fairly intensive public involvement"; and more recently, the Kenai area plan, which was a way of classifying state land within the Kenai Peninsula Borough and "reiterated that certain lands and waters of the upper Kenai River drainage should be added to the Kenai River Special Management Area." MS. DEGERNES said that both those public processes involved extensive meetings, where representatives from Moose Pass, Cooper Landing, Seward, Kenai, and Soldotna were heard. She stated, "There is resounding support for adding these lands," and urged the House Resources Standing Committee to adopt 165, as amended. Number 1099 ANN WHITMORE-PAINTER, Member, Kenai River Special Advisory Board; and Chairman, Moose Pass Advisory Planning Commission (for the past 11 years), testified via teleconference. A resident of Moose Pass, she stated that the majority of the people in the Moose Pass area have made it clear, through numerous meetings and a community vote, that one of their priorities for the future was to protect the shores of Upper and Lower Trail Lakes. She added that the community thought that the best way to protect the habitat, as well as the recreational and scenic value [of the area], was to have the lands added to KRSMA. Number 1200 CO-CHAIR SCALZI mentioned that Ms. Whitmore-Painter was a former long-time member of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Commission. Number 1225 DALE BONDURANT testified via teleconference in support of 165. resources are some of the most important, not only in Alaska, but in our nation. He mentioned that he'd been in Alaska for 54 years. [An at-ease was taken from 1:32 p.m. to 1:38 p.m.] MR. BONDURANT continued by saying that many people participate in [Alaska's] fisheries. He said he has seen the harm that uncontrolled development has on fish and wildlife resources. Mr. Bondurant told the committee that he had served for many years on the KRSMA citizen advisory board, and believed that its input has resulted in good management decisions. He encouraged the committee to pass HB 165. Number 1541 PAUL SHADURA, Vice President, Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association (KPFA); and Board Member, Kenai River Special Management Area, testified via teleconference in support 165. Fishermen's Association, the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association, and any efforts to protect the Kenai River watershed. Mr. Shadura stated that [165. time, his letter dated March 26, 2001, stated: "We own property on the Kenai River in Cooper Landing in the vicinity of some of the parcels included in the proposed legislation. I am also a public member of the KRSMA Board."] MR. RICHARDSON reported that the addition of these lands to KRSMA received extensive public review in the 1996-97 revision of the original 1986 Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan. He noted that he was involved in some of those meetings, during which the testimony was favorable. Mr. Richard stated that the purpose [of HB habitat and to fish and wildlife resources. Furthermore, it will provide the general public an opportunity for recreational activity in a larger area of the Kenai River watershed. Number 1885 [Dick Mylius of the DNR's Division of Mining, Land, and Water informed members via teleconference that he was available to answer questions, especially those relating to changes proposed by Ms. Carroll.] Number 1925 TED WELLMAN, President, Kenai River Special Management Area Advisory Board, testified via teleconference in support 165, resolution on March 15, 2001, in support of the bill. He said the bill would simply implement recommendations formulated in the 1997 comprehensive plan after perhaps two years of public hearings; he had participated in all of those public hearings, where, "almost uniformly, the addition of land was favored." He added that he could not recall hearing any testimony in those hearings that expressed sentiment "against the inclusion of those lands." MR. WELLMAN said the Kenai River already suffers from too much "bank development," which has had visual impacts and has been destructive to the habitat. Over the past several years, property owners and public entities have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in maintaining and improving the habitat, and [HB land that is currently undeveloped along the Kenai River, which has "significant habitat value." MR. WELLMAN turned attention to the issue of these lands being managed by [the Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation]. He said he was first appointed to the KRSMA more than five years ago because he was the chairman of the Kenai River Property Owners Association; he indicated he still holds that chairmanship. He said one of his objectives on the KRSMA board is to protect private property rights and access to the river. He reported that in his tenure on the board, he has seen the [Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation] put forth "incredible effort" to coordinate with the public and to protect people's property rights and the resource. MR. WELLMAN said one of the primary purposes of the KRSMA board is to provide an opportunity for the public to have input on issues relating to the Kenai River. He indicated the board has monthly meetings from September through May or June, with two opportunities at each meeting for the public to voice concerns about the use of the lands in the park. When people have testified about it, he said, "we've dealt with it on a fair and equitable basis." MR. WELLMAN said there have been very few complaints, and he himself is satisfied with the management of the park "from the perspective of the private property owners." He assured the committee that the advisory board would continue to be actively involved in the management. Should these lands be added to the park, [the board] would be highly involved in how the lands would be developed or used. Mr. Wellman encouraged passage of HB 165, to protect the habitat, the property values, and the commercial and sport fisheries. Number 2125 BOB BALDWIN, Quartz Creek Homeowners' Association and Friends of Cooper Landing, testified via teleconference. He thanked Representative Lancaster and Co-Chair Scalzi for "their vision in sponsoring HB important to "us" are in the upper Kenai River drainages, including, as specified in the bill, Cooper Landing, Kenai Lake, Quartz Creek lowlands, Cooper Lake, Cooper Creek, Bean Creek, Shackelford Creek, Quartz Creek, Daves Creek, Crescent Creek, Dry Creek, Indian Creek, and the additional Kenai Lake lands. MR. BALDWIN questioned why Indian Creek had been deleted, because it is an anadromous stream. He then noted that [his organizations'] members have participated in the development of the Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan and the Kenai Area Plan; they believe both should be fully implemented. He stated: The importance of the entire Kenai River watershed to the health of the river is well recognized by, I believe, most of the public - certainly all involved in these planning processes. We believe it is extremely important to add these parcels to the Kenai River Special Management Area, and we believe that [Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation] management is the way to go with this. The Quartz Creek Homeowners' Association properties lie adjacent to both Kenai Lake and Quartz Creek parcels, and our owners strongly support HB CO-CHAIR SCALZI informed Mr. Baldwin that his question regarding Indian Creek would be addressed to either Ms. Carroll or Mr. Mylius of the DNR after public testimony was taken. BILL STOCKWELL testified via teleconference, informing members that he strongly supports HB prepare a proposed committee substitute (CS) that addresses forthcoming amendments. He suggested that meanwhile Mr. Mylius could seek clarification as to whether Indian Creek is included. CO-CHAIR SCALZI invited testifiers to fax testimony to his office. He then asked whether anyone else wished to testify; there was no response. Number 2593 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what the makeup of the KRSMA board is currently, as far as what groups are represented. Number 2671 REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER answered that there are 17 members, representing the private sector; landowners; all of the agencies that have control or law-abiding authority in the area; the borough; both cities, Kenai and Soldotna; and both Cooper Landing and Moose Pass. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern that the bill would exclude mineral exploration, except for oil and gas development, on the last page. He asked whether it would exclude any beetle- killed tree removal, for example, which would have been possible, under current operations, more than 50 feet back. REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER said no, it doesn't. He added: In fact, your [co-chair] introduced a bill, before he got off the Kenai Peninsula Borough, that delegates authority if they go and mark from ... what's called the "Kenai one-stop shop" in Soldotna, ... to go out and mark trees in that 100-foot setback zone that can be taken if they are beetle-killed or otherwise rot or are dead. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked how that could be done before 165] Number 2725 CO-CHAIR SCALZI answered that anything in "the KRSMA area" is still subject to [oversight] by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game and the DNR. The KRSMA board is actually a "guiding body" for lands that end up in this collection of properties. He said: So we still have to go through all the agencies. The Kenai River Center that Representative Lancaster just spoke to is the "one-stop shop" where all the agencies are involved, ... and if somebody has a water issue, a mining-rights issue, a timber issue that they need - if they want to put a dock on the river, if they want to have a haul-out facility - they go to the Kenai River Center. So, it's made it easier for the public, that they don't have to go to three or four different agencies to get a permit; they do it at one place. The Kenai River Center also has ... excellent GIS [Geographic Information Systems] mapping and photos of every parcel ... on the river. ... Once these plans are put into the Kenai River Special Management [Area], all they do is fall into an overview by the (indisc.) body. Number 2780 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to AS 41.21.508(b) and said the commissioner may adjust the boundaries of the Kenai River Special Management Area "by adding state-owned land and water on his own, right now." He asked why additional legislation is needed in order to do that. Number 2815 MS. DEGERNES responded that a statute, which she believed to be in Title 38, limits the DNR from administratively adding more than 640 acres to the Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation. Since this volume of land [under HB and a future proposed CS. [HB CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 93, "An Act establishing the permit fee for the personal use dip net fisheries for the Kenai River and the Kasilof River; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB REPRESENTATIVE FATE made a motion to adopt [a proposed committee substitute (CS), version 22-LS0431\C, Utermohle, 2/27/01, as a work draft]. There being no objection, Version C was before the committee. Number 2785 REPRESENTATIVE KEN LANCASTER, Alaska State Legislature, testifying as sponsor of the bill, told the House Resources Standing Committee that he introduced HB 93. enforce the protection of the habitat, resources, private lands, and bag limits. Mr. Bondurant pointed out that personal users "are supporting the management of these resources to at least $13.6 million in federal excise taxes, $3 million in resident fees, and over $7 million in nonresident license incomes." He stated his belief that the fact that personal use dip net fisheries were closed to residents was a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Bondurant stated that nonresidents have the right to the same privileges and immunities as residents of other states. He mentioned that the Carlson decision cost the state approximately $30 million, and that national organizations are preparing to sue the state on this issue, which he said could cost the state $20 million a year. He encouraged the legislators to examine the issue of denying nonresidents, because he said it is unconstitutional. Number 1261 CO-CHAIR SCALZI acknowledged that Mr. Bondurant made a very good point upon a subject that had not been addressed. He stated that the committee was familiar with the Carlson case and that Representative Stevens was working on a bill that would, hopefully, "remedy that in the future." Number 1245 HERMAN FANDEL, testifying via teleconference, prefaced his testimony by stating that Soldotna is not in the dip net area. He asked the committee if the amendment before them resulted as a response to the opposition to HB force Alaskan residents to pay additional money to dip net salmon from the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers for their personal use; sport fishermen will be forced to pay more than commercial fishermen, with no comparison of the amount of fish taken; the bill will lose money for the State of Alaska in the long run and will not raise enough money for the policing of it; and Alaskans who cannot afford the permit will be limited. MR. FANDEL said the banks under consideration are a wet area with very little habitat that get wet periodically from the tides coming in and out; the muddy footprints from foot traffic will just disappear with the next tide. He told the committee members, if there is a "bank" or trespass problem, they should consider allowing dip netting only from boats. Mr. Fandel stated that HB 93 supporters who penalize only the sport fishermen and Alaskans who want to catch "their" fish without having to buy them with a permit. He concluded by agreeing with Mr. Bondurant's statement regarding the unconstitutional act of prohibiting nonresidents [from dip netting] and the cost to the state for taking such an action. Number 0873 IRENE FANDEL, testifying via teleconference, asked if the $10 fee would cover the whole family. CO-CHAIR SCALZI answered yes. MS. FANDEL stated that dip netting has been a way of life for her family for over 30 years and is a good way for many Alaskans to put food on the table. She expressed concern that was just the first step toward more regulations and more fees "down the road." Ms. Fandel told the committee should not be passed. Number 0795 PAUL SHADURA, Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association (KPFA), testifying via teleconference, stated that he comes from "a hundred-year resident of the Kenai Peninsula" and catches and uses salmon in every possible way. He said, "You might say that I'm a full, hundred-percent subsistence user." Mr. Shadura asked the committee for its support of the $10 management fee for the Kenai and Kasilof dip net fisheries. He stated that serious social and environmental problems have occurred from "the disorderly prosecution of this personal use fishery." MR. SHADURA continued to read his testimony as follows: Fish and Wildlife Protection stated at a recent Kenai/Soldotna Fish and Game advisory meeting, that at any time they arrive on scene, at either personal use fishery, it is very easy to write violations. The City of Kenai must hire an officer just for the summer months to manage the social problem at the Kenai dock boat launch. The city has requested substantial amounts to cover the cost of managing the logistical nightmare. MR. SHADURA mentioned the damage to the south shore riparian habitat, on both the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers. He said destruction to the primary grasslands and sand dunes still continue due to the lack of enforcement. The $10 sport dipnet license, established in a receipt-supported services fund, would allow different managing entities a mechanism to request funds. Monitoring of the fishery could be accomplished by the ADF&G temporary technicians, at an estimated cost of $5,000-6,000 a person. These monitors could enumerate the catch, verify permits and identification, and issue compliance forms to those who may not understand the rules. He stated his belief that a physical presence will alleviate many of the enforcement problems that are apparent at present. MR. SHADURA voiced his concern that the fifteen percent vendor fee in the fiscal note is a little high. He suggested a "5 percent fee on a $10 fee" would be more realistic to the vendors. He pointed out that some [personal use] fishers in his community don't sport fish and don't feel that they should be forced to pay for other users' activities. He closed with the following: In conclusion, this is a good bill that attempts to deal with a real problem. Please support our protection officers, our department of fish and game, and our precious critical habitat estuaries for the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers. Thank you for the time. Number 0559 BOB MERCHANT, United Cook Inlet Drift Association (UCIDA), testified via teleconference on behalf of UCIDA in support 93. rest the "numerous rumors and evidence of abuses" within this fishery. He stated that UCIDA has been told that the nominal fee will support the monitoring of this fishery, as well as deal with human issues caused by so many people congregating in such a small area - things such as access, trespassing, and disposal of human waste and trash. MR. MERCHANT said UCIDA also believes that, should a resident choose only to dip net, then that person should not have to possess a sport fishing license; therefore, UCIDA supports the amendment to accomplish that. Number 0480 ROD ARNO testified via teleconference in opposition to He mentioned his present and past participation in ADF&G's capital budget process; he indicated "under that" there are two agencies through which to address the issues of access and facilities: [Division of Sport Fish] and [Division of Habitat]. Mr. Arno stated that HB to correct a problem in one district when there are "numerous stream crossings" that need facilities in other districts. He mentioned previous testimony of Mr. Bondurant regarding a "pool" of $26 million that's available for these projects. He said, "But if we have to go through legislation, as this bill does, as well as go through the capital budget process, that will make the legislative period go that much longer." Number 0310 BYRON HALEY, President, Chitina Dipnetters Association (CDA), testified via teleconference on behalf of CDA in opposition to HB 93. use fishermen are required to have a sport fishing license, "which is all that is needed to harvest this resource." Mr. Haley continued, as follows: [Regarding] the fee that the Chitina dipnetters pay for access across Native lands to get to the Copper River in ... some places, the Chitina Dipnetters Association requested the legislature to put a $10 fee on dipnetting at Chitina, to be used for [an] access fee, or Native corporation land to the Copper River, at Chitina, between the bridge and Haley Creek, and some places. The last year we supported it to be raised to $25 after a negotiation with the Native corporation [that] wanted more money to trespass on [its] land. Before there was a fee for dipnetting at Chitina, we had to go to the legislature and the governor for trespass money, and it was harder every year to get what we needed. I do not recall for sure when we asked for the $10 fee, but I think it was after we had gotten money from the state for three years. There is no access problem at Kenai or Kasilof River, and no fee is needed for the fisheries, as they are regulated by [ADF&G Division of Sport Fish] and sports fishing license. [That's all the] fee that is needed to dip for the salmon at these rivers, or any other river, without a trespass problem for dipnetting (indisc.) for salmon. If there was no access problem at Chitina, there would be no permit for fee charged (indisc.). The Chitina Dipnetters Association would not have asked ... for a fee for [the] salmon [dip net] fishery. We supported a fee at Chitina because the dipnetters who use the resources wanted to pay their own way and not have the rest of the people of the state, [who are] not using the fishery, to have to pay for access of this dip net fishery for salmon. We do not support the amendment to delete sport fishing licenses. Thank you. Number 0069 CERENE PAUL, Member, Chitina Dipnetters Association (CDA), testified via teleconference in opposition to HB questioned the purpose of the bill when it was submitted, and said the amendment offered today increases his uncertainty of its purpose since eliminating the requirement for the sport fishing license would reduce the revenue from this fishery. He pointed out that this contradicts the sponsor's original intention of generating more funds to address various concerns. Subsequently, that contradiction suggests that HB people who dipnet will not have to buy a fishing license; therefore, it will not be a burden for them, because the fee is $10, as opposed to a $15 resident fishing license. Mr. Burley pointed out that, in fact, most people who dipnet will also sport fish; therefore, he said he did not know how "you can cover up the fact that they won't have to buy a sport fishing license." He agreed with previous testimony regarding the habitat problem existing "down at the mouth on the dunes" and the comment that the incoming tides flush that area twice a day. He suggested that if [the $10] is a fee that is being raised for [restoration of] habitat, [the legislature] should put a fee on the commercially caught salmon and use that fee for habitat enhancement. Mr. Burley said, "You can't overlook the fact that habitat is important, if you're going to maintain a viable, commercial fishery; but, for a personal use fishery such as this, I don't think Alaskans should be required to pay an additional fee, over and above their sport fishing license." Number 0400 CARL ROSIER, testifying on behalf of the Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), told the committee the AOC completed its annual membership meeting yesterday, and the 21 "clubs" present, including the Kenai Peninsula chapter of Safari Club International, voted unanimously to oppose Carlson case and the dip net fishery discussed in the bill is that the former deals with commerce, while the latter, he surmised, is a state properties issue; therefore, the legislature can impose a higher fee for nonresidents. Number 1085 REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 [text provided previously] for purposes of discussion. Number 1093 CO-CHAIR SCALZI restated that the issue heard during testimony that people who paid for a sport fishing license did not want to pay an additional fee for a dip net permit. He pointed out that people gladly pay an additional fee for a salmon stamp because the money pays for "habitat or services regarding king salmon." He said the dip net fishery was relatively new and there were both habitat and monitoring concerns to address. He recapped that Mr. Hepler had said he thinks the fishery is being adequately reinforced, while others think increased accountability is necessary. CO-CHAIR SCALZI stated that his rationale in creating Amendment 1 was to change the bill so that those who are dipnetting to put food on the table - but not sport fishing - will only pay for a dipnetting permit and not be charged for a sport fishing license. In response to a question by Representative Fate, Co- Chair Scalzi said that the revenue to the state would decrease by not requiring people to purchase a sport fishing license when all they wanted was a dip net permit. CO-CHAIR SCALZI mentioned that Representative McGuire's own proposed amendment would mean an even greater decrease in revenue to the state, and said it is up to the legislature to draw the line when deciding how much revenue will be affected because of legislation passed. That amendment, later labeled Amendment 2, after it was amended, read: ADD: Line 5, (25)A sport fish license is not required to purchase the dip net permit, but if applicant shows proof of a resident sport fish license, the fee is waived. Number 1249 REPRESENTATIVE FATE said he is still worried about [how fees will be applied] to the fish and game fund. He stated that there is statutory language regarding "where license fees go in that fund" and how that fund is to be used. Representative Fate pointed out that by dropping the [requirement for] the license, thereby decreasing money that would have gone into the state fund, and by collecting a fee for dip net permits, which may not go into the fund, a "double hit" is taken on the fund. He said he has received no assurance from ADF&G that the money from the dip net permits will, in fact, go into the fish and game fund and how, if it does, it will be spent. REPRESENTATIVE FATE explained that parts of the funds are federal funds: the Pitman-Robertson funds and the "Rolfe (ph) and Dingle" funds. He said this is a complex matter. He stated that he understands that Kenai needs money to do some cleanup, among other things; however, he wants to be sure of the statutory law before he would pass the bill. In response to a comment by Co-Chair Scalzi, Representative Fate said [Amendment 1] is directly associated with what [money] does or does not go in the fund. Number 1403 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Co-Chair Scalzi how he planned to address both amendments, which he said were very similar in content. CO-CHAIR SCALZI responded that he would take up his own amendment first, then Representative McGuire's, although he admitted that would be "a little conflicting"; the committee would have to modify Representative McGuire's amendment and rescind his amendment. He told the committee he did not know of a mechanism to take both amendments up at the same time for discussion. Number 1467 REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE suggested the committee "take up the concept" in Co-Scalzi's amendment, then delete any redundant language in her amendment; hence it would read as follows: ADD: Line 5, (25), but if applicant shows proof of a resident sport fishing license, the fee is waived. Number 1500 CO-CHAIR SCALZI expressed his appreciation for Representative McGuire's suggestion, but stated that he did not know what the fiscal [impact] would be for both amendments. He said he knew his amendment "is already detracting quite a bit" from the funds, and adopting [Representative McGuire's] amendment would further lower the amount of money that the state would be able to collect. He reiterated that it would be up to the committee to decide which amendment would be best, even though their decision could be changed when it reached the floor; the decision would be an important one because the committee will probably have heard more testimony than anyone else [on the House floor]. Number 1557 REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE stated that Alaska is a unique state; Alaskans have the luxury of acquiring fishing licenses and dip net permits and fishing to feed their families. She said she liked Co-Chair Scalzi's amendment, because it offers an option for those families who want to dip net only; however, it does not address the issue of those who have bought a fishing license [and don't want to pay an additional fee for a dip net permit]. She asked where the limit would be on placing user fees, listing several different areas for which a fee could be charged. Representative McGuire stated for the record that she also has a concern for the habitat and has great respect for [Co-Chair Scalzi] and Representative Lancaster; she is concerned about "the principle and the precedent we might be setting." Number 1671 CO-CHAIR SCALZI responded that he appreciated that and said, "Philosophically, I think that's what we need to He noted that the members of the fishery caucus had had a good discussion regarding the receipts collected for test fishing in the commercial industry. He mentioned evidence that had been produced, indicating that a high amount of the resource being used to run ADF&G, could, arguably, come out of general funds. Co-Chair Scalzi stated that the commercial fishermen are saying, "You're taking quite a chunk of this resource that we should be catching." He pointed out that the counter-argument to that is that the resource belongs to all [Alaskans]. He continued: When we're taking it out of the resource in large chunks, the commercial fishing is the one that feels it directly out of their pocket. And the sport fisherman/personal use-subsistence person is not doling out that cash to help monitor the fish. CO-CHAIR SCALZI concluded that although he agreed philosophically with the idea that Alaskans can access so much of their game, he supports user fees and "small increments of support" as a way to pay for the management of the resources in a state with a growing population. Number 1762 REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT stated his belief that the state mandated the location of the fishery. He said, "Where the state actually comes into play, I'm not really positive [about that], other than we need to be responsible." He turned to previous testimony regarding the effects on the habitat, including those caused by commercial fishing in the inlet and upriver. He indicated the majority of the problem exists in the grasslands and sand dunes up above high tide, which aren't affected by commercial fishing. Subsequently, he stated the need for further clarification. Number 1850 CO-CHAIR SCALZI, in response to a question by Representative Stevens, replied that Representative Lancaster was comfortable with [Amendment 1]. He explained that both amendments could not be passed; if his amendment passed, then it would have to be rescinded in order to bring up Representative McGuire's amendment. Number 1932 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS stated that he thought the two amendments were not contradictory, but could work together. Number 1935 CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked if there were any objections to Amendment 1. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 1948 REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE repeated her suggested adaptation of Amendment 2, [text provided previously] in order to avoid a need to rescind [Amendment 1]. She clarified that the adopted Amendment 1 and the proposed Amendment 2, together, would read as follows: A sport fishing license is not required to purchase a dip net permit, but if applicant shows proof of a resident sport fishing license, the fee is waived. Proof of Alaska residency is required. Number 2013 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS suggested that the amendment could be worded to say, "Proof of Alaska residency or a sport fishing license is required." Number 2027 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out it would be waiving the fee for nonresidents. Number 2038 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS changed the wording to read "... a resident sport fishing license." Number 2085 REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE responded, "No, because then the fee would be waived for those folks." She explained that adopted Amendment 1 allows a resident of Alaska to buy a dip net permit without having to buy a sport fishing license, while proposed Amendment 2 would waive the dip net permit fee for those residents already in possession of a sport fishing license. Number 2112 HELEN DONAHUE, Staff to Representative Lancaster, Alaska State Legislature stated that currently a fisher who has an Alaska resident [sport fishing] license can fish [the dip net fishery] at no charge, so [the committee] would not be accomplishing anything [by adopting Amendment 2]. She added that there would be no reason to pass the bill out at this point if [Amendment 2] were adopted. She specified that Alaskan residents currently have to have an Alaska [sport fishing] license in order to [participate in the dip net] fishery; with adopted Amendment 1, the only income resource in [the dip net fishery] derived from people without a [sport fishing] license would be the $10 fee. She mentioned there will already be a loss of revenue from this bill, the amount of which could soon be provided by the department in a fiscal note. Number 2194 CO-CHAIR SCALZI, in response to a comment by Representative McGuire, stated that the original intent of the bill was to raise revenue for the dip net fishery by charging $10 to everyone who dipnets. He began to explain that Amendment 1 was a response to public testimony. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE interjected that she understood. She reiterated her philosophy regarding creating user fees in "all the areas where we fish." She asked, if that were done, "what good is buying a sport license anymore?" CO-CHAIR SCALZI explained that Ms. Donahue was stating the fact that Representative Lancaster had agreed to [Amendment 1], but would not be in favor of [Amendment 2], because the intent of the bill was [to raise] revenue. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the only people who would pay [for a dip net license] would be those without a sport fishing license. CO-CHAIR SCALZI answered that people who don't have a sport license would pay the $10 if they wanted to dipnet. Number 2400 A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Fate, Green, and McGuire voted for Amendment 2. Representatives Chenault, Stevens, and Scalzi voted against it. [Representative Kerttula was not present for the vote. Representatives Kapsner and Masek were absent.] Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 3-3. Number 2445 REPRESENTATIVE FATE said he had the utmost respect for Representative Lancaster and [Co-Chair Scalzi], and commented that [CSHB the need for clarification regarding the use of funds; consequently, he recommended that the committee hold the bill. Number 2479 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS moved to report CSHB of 4-2. Number 2649 REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said she respected [Co-Chair Scalzi] and Representative Lancaster. She mentioned having to stand up for a group of her constituents who are sport fishers. Number 2660 REPRESENTATIVE FATE restated that his intent was not to hold the bill up because he did not like it; he explained he wanted to see the bill get "more consideration and some answers." Number 2671 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed and asked if it were possible to get the response for the issues of concern by the next meeting. Number 2682 CO-CHAIR SCALZI responded that he had asked his aide to put together a synopsis of the concerns voiced at the meeting. He said there had been a lot of testimony here and at the House Special Committee on Fisheries - both pro and con. Co-Chair Scalzi mentioned answering the questions posed by Representative Fate, addressing the issues brought up by those who testified against the bill, and bringing the bill back to committee in the future. Number 2712 MS. DONAHUE told the committee that Representative Lancaster would be delighted to work with [ADF&G] and any of the House Resources Standing Committee members, to answer any questions. She added that she would welcome requests for information from the committee members. Number 2759 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated his assumption that the committee could get a [swift] response from ADF&G regarding the use of funds, at which point he said he "would certainly vote to move it out of committee then." [CSHB ADJOURNMENT Number 2769 There being no further business before the committee, the House Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:39 p.m.

Document Name Date/Time Subjects

03/26/2001 01:17 PM House RES

WHO REPRESENTS ME??

Quick Links

Legislative Links

senate

house