Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/04/2003 01:10 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 4, 2003
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Hugh Fate, Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Kelly Wolf
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Cheryll Heinze
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Eric Croft
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 210
"An Act relating to the Chitina dip net fishery; and providing
for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 210(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 86
"An Act relating to permits issued by the state; and amending
Rules 65, 79, and 82, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure."
- MOVED SSHB 86 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 163
"An Act relating to an annual wildlife conservation pass and the
fee for that pass; relating to nonresident and nonresident alien
big game tag fees; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 210
SHORT TITLE:CHITINA DIP NET FISHERY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)COGHILL
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/24/03 0618 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/24/03 0618 (H) RES, FIN
03/28/03 0689 (H) COSPONSOR(S): STOLTZE
04/04/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 86
SHORT TITLE:INJUNCTIONS AGAINST PERMITTED PROJECTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)FATE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/10/03 0169 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/10/03 0169 (H) RES, JUD
02/21/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/21/03 (H) Failed To Move Out Of
Committee
02/21/03 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/24/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/24/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
03/07/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/07/03 (H) Heard & Held
03/07/03 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/02/03 0738 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
04/02/03 0738 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/02/03 0738 (H) RES, JUD
04/02/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/02/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/02/03 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/04/03 0798 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FOSTER,
ROKEBERG, HOLM,
04/04/03 0798 (H) KOTT, LYNN, CHENAULT,
DAHLSTROM, WILSON
04/04/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 163
SHORT TITLE:NONRES.GAME TAG FEES/WILDLIFE TOUR PASS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/05/03 0433 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/05/03 0433 (H) RES, FIN
03/05/03 0433 (H) FN1: (DFG)
03/05/03 0433 (H) FN2: (DFG)
03/05/03 0434 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/14/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/14/03 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/03 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/17/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/17/03 (H) Heard & Held
03/17/03 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/04/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 210.
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff
to Representative John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained map on behalf of Representative
Coghill, sponsor of HB 210.
BYRON WHALEY, Trustee Vice-Chair
Board of Directors
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC);
President, Chitina Dipnetters Association
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of AOC, stated strong support for
HB 210; as president of Chitina Dipnetters Association, answered
a question, saying he'd support a mutually beneficial land trade
between the state and Ahtna, Incorporated, that would eliminate
the access problem.
PAUL C. HOLLAND, Member
Alaska Outdoor Council;
Member, Chitina Dipnetters Association;
Member, Fairness for Chitina Dipnetters
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 210 insofar as
the trespass fee should be ended, but requested a long-term
solution of perhaps putting it into the state's hands.
STAN BLOOM, Vice President
Chitina Dipnetters Association;
Member, Alaska Outdoor Council
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 210, testified in
support of repealing the fee for access, but provided other
suggestions for dealing with services; proposed the need for a
an agreed-upon management plan and appropriate user fees.
AUSTIN MAHALKEY
Glennallen, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 210, suggested one-
quarter mile on either side should belong to the state already
and hence any fees paid should be refunded.
SHARON DANIELS, Business Administrator
Copper Basin Sanitation
Glennallen, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 210, discussed the
garbage and human waste created by those using the fishery.
GORDY WILLIAMS, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 210 and answered questions.
KELLY HEPLER, Director
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered question on HB 210.
JIM POUND, Staff
to Representative Hugh Fate
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained changes in SSHB 86 and answered
questions; explained changes in HB 163, Version D.
BRIAN PETERSON, Licensed Master Guide and Outfitter
Girdwood, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 163; proposed
amendment to increase the bison tag fee to correlate with the
musk ox tag fee; spoke in favor of funding, but emphasized the
need for support for the industry and enforcement of Title 8.
BRAD PHILLIPS, Owner and Operator
Phillips' Cruises & Tours
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 163, saying
it would be a nightmare to administer.
ALAN LeMASTER, Owner
Gakona Junction Village
Gakona, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Concurred with testimony of Brad Phillips
in opposition to HB 163.
LEN LAURENCE
Mariner Inc.
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 163, concurred with
comments of Brad Phillips and said he opposes a targeted tax but
wouldn't oppose a broad-based tax to raise money for the state
budget and tourism marketing, in particular.
ROD ARNO
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 163, but said it
needs amendments and deletions; offered suggestions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-23, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR HUGH FATE called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Representatives Fate, Masek,
Gatto, Lynn, Wolf and Guttenberg were present during the call to
order. Representatives Morgan and Kerttula arrived shortly
thereafter. Representative Heinze was excused. Also present
was Representative Croft.
HB 210-CHITINA DIP NET FISHERY
Number 0206
CHAIR FATE announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 210, "An Act relating to the Chitina dip net
fishery; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0257
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that HB 210 would eliminate the Chitina dip net fee
permit, which now costs $25. He credited then-Senator Pete
Kelly with obtaining funding for a recent survey with regard to
the public right-of-way relating to the fishery; this survey
found about 60 percent of the land between the pavilion and
O'Brien Creek has public access and thus requires no trespass
fee. Part of the fee has been used as a trespass fee [paid to
two Native corporations], and part has been used for [waste
management services and to pay for administration of the permit
program and services]. He referred to a color-coded map and
asked his staff to explain it.
Number 0401
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff to Representative John Coghill, Alaska
State Legislature, explained that orange and dark orange show
private lands owned by Native corporations; purple shows a
Native allotment; brown is the right-of-way; and blue shows
bodies of water.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that the latter is the Copper
River. He offered his belief that the board changed that from a
subsistence to a personal-use fishery; he surmised the license
fee would be sufficient [to offset costs]. He asked
consideration of that when looking at the fiscal note, which
shows $2 [of the $25 has been] used for administration of the
permit program, $5 for contractual waste management, and $18 for
contractual agreements with [Chitina Native Corporation and
Ahtna, Incorporated, the two Native corporations].
Number 0568
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL began discussion of Amendment 1, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, Line 3
DELETE:
(a)
Page 2, line 9
DELETE
Lines 9 through 20
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred to [Section 2] on page 2,
subsections (b) and (c). Noting that the matter had just been
called to his attention, he suggested those subsections don't
need to be included and are due to inadvertent drafting error.
Pointing out that subsection (a) says the department [shall
prepare a publication showing public access routes to fishing
sites on public land], Representative Coghill said he didn't
necessarily want to add another burden of posting.
Number 0633
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL characterized the bill as
straightforward, saying no other fishery in Alaska would have
this type of charge and he believes it is a matter of equity.
He acknowledged issues relating to cleanup, but said he believes
that issue is separate from this particular fee setup.
CHAIR FATE noted that available on teleconference to answer
questions were personnel from the Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF) and the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR).
Number 0713
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG informed members that this was a
project he and then-Representative John Davies worked on, on the
House side, with regard to determining boundary lines and so
forth, since both are avid Chitina fishermen.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed appreciation for that.
Number 0842
MS. MOSS, in response to Representative Masek, explained the
genesis of Amendment 1. Through discussions with John Bennett,
DOT&PF right-of-way officer in the Northern Region - who she
said probably has more knowledge than anyone else with regard to
this survey - Ms. Moss said it became apparent that perhaps too
much wording was being included in the bill. The departments
had been under the impression they might be expected to put up
more signs than they'd originally planned. Ms. Moss added:
They conducted a survey. There are survey markers -
monuments - every 0.2 of a mile on the road. And the
brochure would refer to these 0.2 monuments, so there
would be no question as to where the public land is
and where the private land is.
There's about $54,000 remaining in that appropriation.
They feel they can design the brochure, print the
brochure, and have additional money to maybe put up
two larger informational signs, one at the pavilion
and one at O'Brien Creek.
Number 0927
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF noted that the Kenai Peninsula dip net
fishery has a "disaster cleanup issue" associated with it. He
requested advice on how [the Chitina fishery] takes care of this
problem.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised that it will be a question in
almost every area that has public access to fisheries. He
expressed concern that a single fishery not be singled out, and
suggested it should be looked at more broadly.
Number 1015
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether this bill indicates people
have been charged for something they shouldn't have had to pay
for, for a number of years.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL answered:
The land settlement was ... an open discussion. And
... up until last year, when ... Representative Davies
and Senator Kelly began the discussion, they did not
know exactly where those boundaries were. So it's a
work in progress. And the answer is yes, but there
was an agreement that there could be trespass, and
therefore I think it was appropriate [to have the
fee]. At this point, I think, we've settled that
issue.
Number 1075
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG expressed appreciation that
Representative Coghill has brought this forward, saying this
needs to be "cleaned up and taken care of in a lot of ways." He
offered his understanding that the point of doing the marking
was to give people guidance as to where public access exists.
He expressed concern about where that stands now. He also
agreed that there should be no permit fee, but said there should
be some allocation to pay for campground facilities and cleaning
up, and he noted the impact is fairly severe there at times.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded, "Certainly, last year we did
give the parks some receipt authority, and I think that would
fall within this area." He added that the biggest access areas
need to be the most clearly defined. He indicated that it is
his responsibility to put signs up on his own private property,
for example, and offered his expectation of a cooperative effort
on both sides.
CHAIR FATE noted that although Representative Coghill had to
leave the meeting, Ms. Moss would remain to answer questions.
He also informed members that someone from Alaska Department of
Fish & Game (ADF&G) was available to answer questions.
Number 1336
BYRON WHALEY, Trustee Vice-Chair, Board of Directors, Alaska
Outdoor Council (AOC); President, Chitina Dipnetters
Association, testified on behalf of AOC in strong support of
HB 210, noting that executive director Jessee Vander-Zanden was
unable to testify. Mr. Whaley also noted that he is president
of the Chitina Dipnetters Association, but said vice president
Stan Bloom would testify on behalf of that organization.
MR. WHALEY told members that AOC represents the collective
membership of about 12,000 Alaskans, many who participate in the
Chitina dip net fishery. He said HB 210 is one of AOC's top
priorities, and called it timely because a survey of the
affected land, completed in 2001, shows that 60 percent of the
area utilized is public land and also identifies corridors for
access to fishing sites. Suggesting the $25 fee is no longer
necessary, he referred to letters in members' packets, one from
then-Governor Knowles [to] Chitina Native Corporation dated
April 25, 2002, which said ADF&G was considering a proposal to
repeal [or reduce] this access fee.
MR. WHALEY, still speaking on behalf of AOC, noted that the bill
doesn't prohibit private owners from charging for access across
their lands. He called this "win-win legislation" and suggested
that any funds for services such as outhouses, garbage, and so
forth should come from DNR or DOT&PF, as would be expected for
other public lands in Alaska. If there is a fee, it should be
for those services, he said, not for a personal-use fishing
permit fee. He said dipnetters have to buy a sports license;
any funds from the sports fishing budget must be used for the
sports division, research, and management, rather than for
public [services], and that includes the Chitina dip net
fishery.
Number 1602
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked Mr. Whaley, as president of the
Chitina Dipnetters Association, whether he would support a land
trade between the state and Ahtna, Incorporated, to eliminate
any access issues.
MR. WHALEY answered yes, it would be wonderful to have a land
trade in kind, depending upon what sort of trade it was, in
order to get rid of the access problem. He expressed the need
to make sure it would benefit both parties, however.
Number 1676
PAUL C. HOLLAND, Member, Alaska Outdoor Council; Member, Chitina
Dipnetters Association; Member, Fairness for Chitina Dipnetters,
expressed support for the bill insofar as wanting the trespass
fee to end. However, he had a difference of opinion on how to
handle to private-property issues there. He expressed concern
that marking would slow things down, and suggested it should be
a separate issue. He also suggested that it has been somewhat
of a mistake in the past for the state to represent private
[landowners] by collecting the fee and then having to identify
where that private land is for the landowner. He suggested
those should be separated, but said the main thing is to end the
fee.
MR. HOLLAND noted that he'd talked with [now-Representative]
Guttenberg the previous year, and Representative Guttenberg and
Representative Davies had been very sensitive to the private
landowners. He then pointed out that the road is closed about
one-half mile past O'Brien Creek and that most people walking
down to the river cannot get there [that way]: it requires
taking a charter down the river and staying below the high-water
mark; therefore, it is state land. He also estimated that most
dipnetters reach the river through state land, because it is
those nearby areas that people will walk down to; he said there
are big pieces [of private land] between the road and the river,
without paths.
MR. HOLLAND, as far as the state's representing private
landowners with regard to marking the land, said he didn't know
whether that is done in Kenai, where there are private-property
issues as well. He suggested to some extent it is incumbent
upon private landowners to know where their land is, and if they
want no crossing of their land, to put up a fence. He mentioned
having a long-term solution, and estimated that this private
land is largely worthless in that it is on the side of a cliff
and isolated. He therefore agreed that if there would be a fair
deal, it should be put into the state's hands. Mr. Holland also
asked a DOT&PF representative to comment on short- and long-term
ideas about opening up that road.
Number 1973
STAN BLOOM, Vice President, Chitina Dipnetters Association;
Member, Alaska Outdoor Council, saying is a member of other
"sporting clubs" around town as well, informed the committee
that this isn't a simple problem with a simple answer. He said
[Mr. Whaley] and he have been trying to solve this since the
1970s, attending meetings with the state and Native
organizations, for example. He said as long as ADF&G lets
80,000 people fish for free, he can't sympathize, since that
number of fishing licenses would bring in $1.2 million.
However, he suggested ADF&G shouldn't be in the business of
providing outhouses, for example.
MR. BLOOM expressed dismay at actions of ADF&G including those
relating to repealing the fee; refusing to take "sport" out of
the resident license regulation, and instead having a general
fishing license; lowering dipnetters' take; spending high
amounts of money for less access; and not retaining enough money
to monitor its contracts, including those for access and
outhouses. He said a subsistence hunter must have a hunting
license - even the federal government requires that - and asked
why a subsistence user doesn't need a fishing license. He
offered to send photographs of "our great services." He also
accused [ADF&G's Division of Sport Fish] of not realizing
Alaskans don't want to do catch-and-release fishing, but want to
eat the fish they catch.
Number 2153
MR. BLOOM stated support for repealing the trespass fee, but
said there is a better way to resolve the service-fee issue. He
offered specific suggestions as follows:
If you have to have a service fee, it should go to DNR
and let them run the upland area. You should repeal
the requirement for a sport [license] for dipnetters
and replace it with a personal use/subsistence license
for $15. Let [the Division of Sport Fish] do what
they want with a sport license.
You should require [ADF&G], DNR, and [DOT&PF], along
with Native groups and representatives from the ...
dipnetters, to come up with a management plan and a
plan for making the area some kind of a dip net park
[run] by DNR, with appropriate user fees. Dipnetters
are going to hate me for this, but the Natives and
commercial [users] already do, so what's 10,000 more?
You should sunset any change to be in two years, at
which [time] the plan must be ready from DNR, [ADF&G,
and DOT&PF]. In the meantime, you should keep the $25
fee, but not pay it to the Natives [for access]. Use
it to force DNR to build toilets that meet state
standards; keep the $25 fee for two years, and that
would bring in ... $250,000 a year, and they ought to
be able to build toilets and fix the road and do a lot
of things with that much money. Have ... DNR build
and maintain a boat launch and charge for its use like
they do other places.
Have [DOT&PF] finish the survey and mark the survey so
the dumbest dipnetter easily can tell where he is, at
any time. Those little posts at every 0.2 of a mile
ain't going to tell you [anything] if you have to
measure 936 feet past this post and that's where you
can access the river; that's ridiculous. The maps
must be of such scale and clarity that even I can tell
... if I am trespassing, without the use of a GPS
[Global Positioning System].
Have the state pay a share of the dumpster fee that is
caused by the Chitina residents' saving all their
trash till the dumpsters come in the summer and then
loading them up.
Number 2265
MR. BLOOM predicted what might happen if the foregoing
suggestions aren't acted upon:
We will have to pay ... to buy a sport license, and
it'll be about a hundred bucks. We will have to pay a
fee for services, and it will be about a hundred
bucks. [ADF&G] will be furnishing two outhouses, and
they will be the same wooden ones with the doors
hanging off now. The legislature will have forgotten
us. [ADF&G] will spend our money on sports-fish
projects and ignore us. We will war with the Natives
on trespass. Troopers will spend their time solving
trespass problems and writing tickets for the high
crime, if not cutting fish sales off. We will have a
poorly marked trail that long ago was abandoned by
[DOT&PF] and a 20-year-old brochure nobody can read.
When dipnetters reach 25,000, dipnetting will be such
a problem that it will be done away with. The
commercial fishers who are left will celebrate more
than they did when Stan Bloom died. The richest state
in the Union will lament that there was nothing they
could do about it. The commercial fish board will
have made the limit two fish, only one of which can be
a king, and you can only keep the king every one in
... four years.
CHAIR FATE reminded Mr. Bloom of time constraints.
MR. BLOOM concluded by saying DNR has come up with a $27-million
plan to put a bicycle trail there. He suggested some of that
money be spent instead on fixing up the first 10 miles for
dipnetters, to make a place where people are proud to go.
Number 2408
AUSTIN MAHALKEY testified that he has been trying for 10 years
to get information about the original railroad land there, but
has been told by both the state and the federal government that
such information doesn't exist. He offered his understanding
that one-quarter mile on either side of the railroad belonged to
the state prior to the land-settlement Act; he suggested perhaps
legislators could obtain that information. He suggested that
any fees paid for trespassing on this land is for land that
already belongs to the state, and said it all should be
refunded. He expressed hope that somebody will get that
information to him.
Number 2465
CHAIR FATE responded that he would direct staff to look into
that.
Number 2496
SHARON DANIELS, Business Administrator, Copper Basin Sanitation,
told members that her company either was the contractor or
supported the contractors that provided sanitary services in the
Chitina area for several years. She emphasized the volume of
human waste and garbage from the area. For human waste, it
amounted to about 5,000 gallons during the 2002 fishing season,
and just shy of 6,000 gallons in 2001. For garbage, it totaled
about 275 cubic yards [during the 2002 season] that was strictly
from the Copper River road or "south of Chitina" road, with an
additional 470 [cubic] yards from the rest of the public-use
dumpsters in the area, for a total of 744 cubic yards; the total
for 2001 from both areas was 642 cubic yards, of which nearly
300 cubic yards came just from the O'Brien Creek road. She
asked legislators to keep in mind that this is a lot of waste
that must be handled in some way.
MS. DANIELS reported that the toilet contract was for twice-a-
week service and involved about 180 gallons each time; seven
portable toilets were serviced every three or four days.
Number 2627
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether this contract was
adequate or whether a higher frequency was needed.
MS. DANIELS answered that it was adequate, and said the toilets
weren't fully used. The ones "closest to the people" were used
most, whereas those 20 feet away weren't used nearly as much.
At no time were all the toilets at full capacity.
Number 2669
CHAIR FATE asked whether anyone on teleconference was waiting to
testify on this bill; there was no response.
Number 2693
GORDY WILLIAMS, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, reported that there has been a
Chitina dip net fee since 1992; it was raised to $25 in 2000 as
part of a bill that called for several other things. That was
when the fishery went from being personal-use to being a
subsistence fishery. That bill also called for the land status
in the area to be determined. There was a survey undertaken by
[DOT&PF] and direction to the department to try to work out
longer-term agreements with the two corporations [Ahtna,
Incorporated, and Chitina Native Corporation].
MR. WILLIAMS reported working with the corporations annually but
being unable to arrive at more than an annual contract in 2000
and 2001. Last session, he noted, SB 366 was introduced and
called for the permit fee to drop to $10, with the intent that
the $10 would address waste and garbage pickup in the area; that
bill was amended in the Senate Resources Standing Committee so
that the fee would be zero after remaining in place for 2002,
but didn't receive action by the House at the end of the
session. Communications with the corporations during the
[legislative] interim weren't productive with regard to arriving
at long-term solutions, Mr. Williams noted, adding that
discussions are ongoing with folks about those issues. Thus at
this point there is no contract in place.
MR. WILLIAMS told members although the permit fee under HB 210
is zero, [ADF&G] still would issue permits because that provides
discrete information about the fishery. He noted that last year
there'd been discussions with [DOT&PF] about how marking would
occur and brochures would be prepared, for instance. Because of
the timing, the decision was made by the legislature and [ADF&G]
to enter into another one-year contract. Although the Native
corporations have expressed interest in entering into a three-
year contract now, there was an inability to do so until [ADF&G]
got some public policy direction on how to proceed.
Mr. Williams noted that Mr. Hepler was on teleconference and
could address other issues.
Number 2867
MR. WILLIAMS pointed out that the fiscal note shows how the $25
fee was broken out: $18 for the corporations, with $10 to
Chitina Native Corporation and $8 to Ahtna, Incorporated; $5 for
cleanup; and $2 for the department for administration. He added
that the fiscal note doesn't reflect additional revenue that may
come from the necessity of some people to buy sport-fishing
licenses now, and suggested ADF&G will look at those numbers.
Number 2912
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether, prior to the $25 or $10 fee,
there ever was a voluntary fee there.
MR. WILLIAMS recalled a lot of public support for the $25 fee
when it was instituted, included support by the Chitina
Dipnetters Association because of the undetermined land status.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked what the point is of having a
contract now with the two Native corporations.
MR. WILLIAMS answered that last year, as this idea was debated,
mixed comments were heard from the public, the corporations, and
so forth.
TAPE 03-23, SIDE B
Number 2989
MR. WILLIAMS continued, "I think you would probably hear from
them that they feel there's some obligation from the state for
the contracts." He indicated ADF&G is working with the
legislature and the administration currently to try to determine
the public policy issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG noted that there is no contract
currently. If the bill is passed with a zero fee, which he said
he supports, and a contract is signed later, he asked whether
those contractual obligations can be met somehow with general
fund dollars.
MR. WILLIAMS said yes, noting that there are restrictions and
that Mr. Hepler could address what fish-and-game-type funds
could be used. For example, he said, he doesn't believe federal
funds can be used for a personal-use fishery. Straight general
funds could certainly be used for a contract, he noted.
Mr. Williams added:
We do have concerns, and we believe that the state
does have some responsibilities on the cleanup issue;
I think you heard about the volume of waste and
whatnot there. And with the fee going to zero, I
think there's a recognition that ... that would not
provide the current funding source ... for cleanup in
the area. And [we] certainly want the legislature to
be aware that ... even in the absence of contracts
with the corporations, there's going to be costs
incurred in that area. And this was the funding
source for those.
Number 2913
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG posed a situation in which the fee
goes to zero and the contracts have to be paid out of general
fund dollars. He asked what the appropriate fee is for cleanup
and maintenance of the campgrounds, and who would administer it.
MR. WILLIAMS replied:
Well, those are discussions we're having amongst the
administration, is which division. Last year, I
believe, our fiscal note on ... Senate Bill 366 that
reduced the fee to $10 indicated that the numbers we
have here - the $70,000 or $80,000 that would be
collected at a $10 fee, which is what that was last
year that we would have "RSAed" [used a reimbursable
services agreement] to the ... [Department of] Natural
Resources, for them to handle that, either by contract
or through their own procedures ...
Number 2875
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether that would cover the
same thing as a contract with a firm such as Copper River
Sanitation.
MR. WILLIAMS said he guessed that was right. He added that
testimony would be heard that the level of services thus far has
been at the low end of what some consider to be required. He
offered the belief that perhaps additional dollars should be
spent toward that end.
Number 2852
CHAIR FATE asked Mr. Williams where the belief comes from that
cleanup costs will escalate.
MR. WILLIAMS replied that DNR, DOT&PF, and ADF&G talked recently
via teleconference about these issues. He said that he hadn't
personally been there at the fishery [at Chitina], but that
people on teleconference could offer their knowledge of how the
level of service could be improved with respect to garbage and
human waste.
CHAIR FATE asked if anyone on teleconference wanted to weigh in.
[There was no audible response.]
Number 2807
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked whether a board has been put together
for this area.
MR. WILLIAMS noted that the Chitina Dipnetters Association is a
private association of people who fish in the area.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK queried, if the bill passed, whether that
association or users who fish there would put together a task
force to take care of maintenance and operations.
Number 2743
MR. WHALEY responded that although his organization could put
something together and work on it, he believes it is up to the
state - DNR, for example. He expressed concern that if his
organization starts doing something like this, it will set a
precedent for the rest of the state and force others into the
same deal.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK remarked that she'd thought it might be a
way to compromise.
Number 2715
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked whether a person is required to have a
sport-fishing license in order to participate in the Chitina dip
net fishery.
MR. WILLIAMS answered, "You will be this year. The last three
years, the fishery has been a subsistence fishery in which a
sport-fish license wasn't required." He noted that in either
December or January the Board of Fisheries returned it to being
a personal-use fishery. Thus a sport-fish license is required.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF recalled that in 2000 and 2001, to his
belief, the receipts for sport-fish licenses in Alaska totaled
almost $24 million to ADF&G. He asked whether those receipts
can go towards the costs of trash and the thousands of gallons
of human waste.
MR. WILLIAMS deferred to Mr. Hepler.
Number 2646
KELLY HEPLER, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game, responded:
Fish and game dollars ... can be used that way. We
haven't done that in the past. ... There's a number of
places that we've actually provided some services to
some fisheries, like ... along the road system ... out
of Susitna, like at Willow Creek, Caswell, some places
like that; these are fairly small fisheries, but
they're done more with federal-aid dollars, which
means you need to actually have a rod and reel, not a
dip net, in your hand. ... And some of the fish and
game dollars we used initially to help out,
Representative Wolf, in your district down at the
mouth of the Kenai, until the City of Kenai took that
over and started charging people $10 there; ... then
they're on their own at that point.
We typically, when we try to help fisheries out, ...
it's where we have a land interest or are in
partnership with the Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Parks [and Outdoor Recreation]. ... It's
not done on this kind of a large scale where we don't
have a land interest ourselves.
I'm not aware, though, technically, of any reason we
couldn't use our fish and game dollars. It's not
something I like to do, because, obviously, those
dollars go to the management and ... what are core
functions ... in our division - that's for the
research and management of the fisheries. ... We could
do it, though.
Number 2581
CHAIR FATE asked whether anyone else wished to testify; he then
closed public testimony.
Number 2530
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved to adopt Amendment 1 [text provided
previously]; she requested unanimous consent.
Number 2516
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA requested an explanation from Ms. Moss.
CHAIR FATE announced that he would treat that as an objection
[for discussion purposes].
MS. MOSS explained that it derived from a conversation with John
Bennett. She said there'd seemed to be a misunderstanding of
what was expected of [DOT&PF], which conducted the survey and
was designing a brochure to adequately notify people of where
the public access is so that they'd also know where the private
access is and could avoid trespassing. She added:
They just felt we had too much verbiage in there and
preferred [that] the first paragraph would clearly
state that what we expect is for them to continue on
the road that they're going on, without any new
demands. However, they have said, if money is left
over, they will put a couple of larger informational
signs up, one at [the] pavilion and one at O'Brien
Creek.
Number 2468
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK noted that money had been appropriated by
the 2001 legislation. She asked whether the belief is that the
money already appropriated isn't going to be enough for signage.
MS. MOSS replied that the money was appropriated for surveying
and placing brochures. She indicated the survey monuments will
serve to mark where the public land is. She added that
[DOT&PF], on its own, has said that if there is extra money, it
will go to the further effort of putting up informational signs
with maps so that people will have no doubt where the public
access is.
Number 2419
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK renewed her motion to adopt Amendment 1.
Number 2409
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA removed her objection.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG surmised that the whole issue will go
away if a successful land swap is negotiated [between the state
and the two Native corporations].
CHAIR FATE agreed that it would be a whole new scenario.
Number 2387
CHAIR FATE asked whether there was any further objection to
adopting Amendment 1. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
Number 2378
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK emphasized that the bill doesn't preclude
private landowners from charging for access across their lands,
should the public wish to use that method of access to the
river.
Number 2318
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG announced that he would be working on
an amendment to be considered in the House Finance Committee
with regard to a fee to cover maintenance of the facilities and
campgrounds, which isn't addressed currently.
MS. MOSS indicated the sponsor would be working on that as well,
and suggested doing so together.
Number 2286
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved to report HB 210, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes; she requested unanimous consent. There being no
objection, CSHB 210(RES) was reported from the House Resources
Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:15 p.m. to 2:23 p.m.
HB 86-INJUNCTIONS AGAINST PERMITTED PROJECTS
CHAIR FATE announced that the next order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 86, "An Act relating to
permits issued by the state; and amending Rules 65, 79, and 82,
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure."
Number 2185
CHAIR FATE, sponsor, asked that his staff person present the
sponsor substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved to adopt SSHB 86. [No objection was
stated.]
Number 2164
JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Hugh Fate, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that SSHB 86 was a rewrite of the
original bill in order to pass "constitutional muster." It
relates to asking for and receiving injunctions that delay work
on already permitted projects. Under current law, a plaintiff
who files for an injunction against a project and ultimately
loses in court is responsible for part of the costs, including
court costs and attorney fees of the defendant. This language
will give guidance to the judiciary, but will leave
determinations to the discretion of the [courts]. Thus SSHB 86
makes those who improperly seek and cause an injunction
responsible for full court costs and attorney fees. It also
adds statutory language to require that damages or costs
incurred as a result of the delay will be paid for by the
responsible party.
MR. POUND listed included costs: wages and salary for employees
working on the project, material costs, and penalties and
interest on contracts associated with the project. He said when
a project is permitted before a contractor goes to work, hiring
employees and purchasing materials are commitments that a
contractor makes. Improper delay of a project costs more than
just attorney fees and court costs; it disrupts the lives of the
contractor, his or her employees, and those other companies that
have subcontracted to do the work. Mr. Pound offered the belief
that it is unreasonable for someone to have an effect on that
many lives without being responsible for the true costs.
Number 2064
CHAIR FATE turned attention to page 2, line 12, the language
"bad faith litigant". Saying this is the meat of the
legislation, he asked Mr. Pound to define it. He also asked
whether there are problems in the court system and whether
present codes are unclear as to what a bad faith litigant is.
MR. POUND, in response, said "bad faith litigant" precedence has
already been set by the Alaska Court System on several cases and
occasions.
Number 2001
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA posed a situation in which a party seeks
an injunction but won't substantially prevail in a challenge.
She asked if it would have to be proved that it was a bad faith
challenge.
MR. POUND responded that essentially, that's correct. He said
if somebody comes in with misinformation, incorrect information,
or exaggerated information and succeeds in getting an
injunction, and then through the process it is determined those
[allegations are based on] incorrect information and [the
plaintiff] loses as a result [and it is determined to be] a bad-
faith suit, then it becomes a case wherein the judge is to
determine damages.
Number 1938
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA mentioned penalties for bad faith
litigation in everything from punishment during a case to severe
discipline [by the bar association]. She said it is a bit
confusing because it seemingly mixes the bad-faith idea with the
[attorney fees under Rule 82 of the Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure] with regard to the one who doesn't substantially
prevail. She asked if the idea is to put the two together.
MR. POUND conveyed his understanding that this only applies to
the court process, not the administrative process, so it
certainly covers that part of it. He relayed his belief that
[the bill] gives the courts guidance, rather than directing
them. He said the intent is that [the courts] look beyond just
court costs and attorney fees when [considering] damages for bad
faith.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA expressed concern about mixing the two
standards and adding new things as well. She noted that
normally someone has to prove damages as part of a case in order
to receive [a monetary award for those damages] and that this
isn't done as punishment; she said it is an odd way to do it.
Representative Kerttula also expressed concern that there are
some really fine lines on what "substantially prevailing" is.
She explained, "You could prevail on four out of six causes, but
that means you still haven't substantially prevailed, and ... it
just seems to open up for some close calls there, too."
MR. POUND offered his belief that that's why the bill is written
this way, to give guidance, not direction, to the [courts].
Traditionally, he said, in the type of suits being discussed,
for the most part there has only been a determination [that a
losing plaintiff would] pay part of the attorney fees and court
costs; however, this bill provides for full attorney fees, full
court costs, and damages.
Number 1748
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested that the court costs and
attorney fees have been the court's decision, and that it would
not necessarily change because of this [bill]. She asked, "They
could seek it; they might not get it, right?"
MR. POUND turned attention to page 2, line 4, paragraph (4),
which read in part, "actual litigation cost related to the
disruption, including full attorney fees and court costs". He
said he thought the aforementioned would be full costs and fees.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA told Mr. Pound he may be right, but that
it could be a problem. She posed a situation in which someone
win fours out of six causes of action; she questioned having
that person [be responsible] for full court [costs] and attorney
fees, as well as tying the court's hands that way.
Number 1690
CHAIR FATE specified that the intent is to allow discretion of
the court to make that determination. He told Representative
Kerttula [the situation she posed] brings up an interesting
point. Chair Fate remarked:
If the four points ... that the defendant lost out of
the six were of minor consequence, and the other two
are a major consequence to the disruption of a
project, I think the court would be obliged to take
that under consideration; that would be that court's
determination.
And so, as we thought this over, in trying to make it
the kind of legislation ... that allows the system,
without any obstacles to ... recourse to an injunctive
process, which this doesn't stop - to any type of
litigation, [which] this doesn't stop, which was a
complaint [about] the former version of this HB 86 -
we have, in the attempt to make this absolutely fair
[in] the legal procedure as it is today, ... given
some discretion to the courts to determine these
things.
But we've also given notice legally that there is a
liability attached to ... an injunction that was filed
and granted in bad faith. So, that liability is what
people have to take note of; it's still up to the
court to determine what that liability is. So, we're
not stopping any type ... of a civil process at all.
Number 1558
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO posed an example in which he sues someone
who has done such a bad job working on his car that he sues the
mechanic for $10,000 and wins; under Rule 82 currently, he can
recover a portion of his attorney fees. He asked if Rule 82
would go away [under the bill]. He noted that it talks about
changing Rule 82.
MR. POUND offered his belief that it wouldn't eliminate
[Rule 82], but could possibly be interpreted to mean that
someone would have to pay full attorney fees and court costs.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if Mr. Pound was saying it enhances
Rule 82, then, rather than diminishing it.
MR. POUND offered his belief that it would, but said he didn't
think this bill was particularly aimed at that type of civil
case. He added that he wasn't sure how the courts would
interpret that language to cover a case such as Representative
Gatto had mentioned.
Number 1464
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA referred to page 2, paragraph (4),
lines 4-5, and to Rule 82. She surmised that this applies on
the counts on which the person doesn't prevail.
CHAIR FATE said the intent was not to modify it, but to make it
a higher standard and "bump it up."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if it was even less under Rule 82.
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER answered, "Yes."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA offered her understanding that the bill
bumps up Rule 82 because there is a fixed fee. She said right
now awards of fees are limited because attorney fees can get
pretty high. Representative Kerttula suggested this bill might
encourage some high attorney fees.
MR. POUND said he wouldn't know anything about that.
Number 1277
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF posed a situation in which a permitted high-
risk tree-cleaning project is stopped [and a fire results that
destroys a public school]. He asked if SSHB 86 would allow for
a bad faith public litigant to be held accountable for public
property loss.
CHAIR FATE offered his understanding that the determination
would be made by the court, and that other mitigating
circumstances would have to be taken into consideration before a
[determination could be made].
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF remarked:
When they ... look at high-risk management, it's one
of those things that's been ... determined that it's a
high risk to public property or public safety. And
... a project needs to be moved forward; it goes
through the public process; permits are issued. And
because there's a bad faith litigant, they go to court
to try to stop it anyway.
CHAIR FATE offered his assumption that the public would get a
chance to voice an opinion before any high-risk projects were
permitted.
MR. POUND said that this bill is primarily aimed at the private
sector and that the term "person" normally references a private
individual and not a government [entity]. He said in reference
to the school's burning down that he would think that wouldn't
be the case.
CHAIR FATE said regardless of whether it's public or private,
certain procedures have to be [followed] in any high-risk
project.
Number 1084
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested the other standard, or perhaps
the main standard, is that it's a bad faith challenge. She
asked for clarification of the definition or what the court
[would use to make a determination].
MR. POUND said he was unsure what the court's specific language
was for bad faith. He said he knows it has been used in
precedent before. He indicated he would research those cases,
but hadn't done so yet.
Number 1039
CHAIR FATE indicated [the courts] have dealt with bad faith
cases previously and would have a better understanding of what
constitutes bad faith.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK suggested that many of the aforementioned
concerns could be addressed in the next committee of referral,
the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
Number 0973
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved to report SSHB 86 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, SSHB 86 was reported from the
House Resources Standing Committee.
HB 163-NONRES. GAME TAG FEES/WILDLIFE TOUR PASS
CHAIR FATE announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 163, "An Act relating to an annual wildlife
conservation pass and the fee for that pass; relating to
nonresident and nonresident alien big game tag fees; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 0897
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), version 23-GH1098\D, Utermohle, 3/18/03, as a
work draft.
CHAIR FATE, hearing no objection, announced that [Version D] was
adopted.
Number 0832
JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Hugh Fate, Alaska State
Legislature, addressed changes from the previous version,
indicating Version D consolidated several amendments. On
page 1, line 11, new [paragraph] (3) reads:
(3) a large portion of the financial resources
expended by the state to maintain healthy populations
of wildlife directly benefits nonresidents who view
wildlife;
MR. POUND noted that [paragraph] (4) reads:
(4) the $15 fee charged to nonresidents for an
annual wildlife conservation pass is less than or
equal to Alaska residents' pro rata share of state
revenue that is devoted to wildlife-related matters
associated with nonconsumptive uses of fish and
wildlife, including wildlife viewing;
MR. POUND turned attention to [paragraph] (8), language on
page 2, line 12, that had been on line 5 in the original bill.
In that paragraph, "individuals" is changed to "nonresidents",
and on line 13 the words "a portion" have been replaced with
"their fair share". Thus paragraph (8) reads:
(8) nonresidents who do not obtain a hunting or
fishing license and employ a commercial provider for
an opportunity to view wildlife should bear their fair
share of the cost of wildlife management in this
state;
Number 0736
MR. POUND explained that on page 4, line 18 [Section 6], which
relates to bonding requirements for the Alaska Marine Highway
System (AMHS) and the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC), those
entities don't have to post a bond in order to sell the wildlife
viewing passes. And line 26 [Section 7] allows AMHS and ARRC to
collect a fee as any private-sector vendor would. Both entities
will incur costs from having to sell these passes, and should be
able to keep the funds just like any other vendor in order to
offset those costs.
Number 0605
MR. POUND drew attention to [Section 12, paragraphs (c)(5)-(7),
beginning] on page 6, line 15. He noted that several similar
amendments change "person" to "resident" in order to clarify
between residents and nonresidents. The exceptions to the
change to "resident" are a person under the age of 16 years
[paragraph (c)(1)] and a person who is currently employed and
has verifiable proof of employment in the commercial provider or
transportation industry and provides direct services to tourists
in Alaska [paragraph (c)(8)], which he said is individuals
working on cruise ships and so forth; they wouldn't be required
to have this pass.
Number 0525
MR. POUND said the only other change is on page 7, line 26
[paragraph (f)(5)], where the word "ferry" has been added to the
list of transportation modes; he said this "rolls back in" with
the Alaska Marine Highway System.
Number 0481
CHAIR FATE asked whether anyone wanted to testify who hadn't
testified previously.
Number 0369
BRIAN PETERSON, Licensed Master Guide and Outfitter, spoke on
his own behalf. He began by proposing an amendment to the bill
to also increase the bison tag fee, suggesting that fee should
correlate directly with the current musk ox tag fees. He
explained that bison are the wildlife resource in highest demand
in the state, with approximately 10,000-12,000 applicants for
100-130 permits. Presently, he said, that would be a $500
resident tag fee, a $1,100 nonresident tag fee, and a $1,600
nonresident alien tag fee. The system used to harvest bison
would then be incorporated by the Board of Game, he suggested,
using an alternate system that is presently already used by [the
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)] in managing some of the
state's brown bear hunts and the musk ox hunt on Nunivak Island.
MR. PETERSON offered his belief that this would benefit Alaskan
residents because of the need to generate revenue; he surmised
there'd be no shortage of applicants, even with the tag fee. He
acknowledged that the bill's title would have to be changed if
this were added, but said [the bison] isn't a subsistence animal
because it was introduced. Mr. Peterson said musk ox and bison
have similar histories and he feels it would be very beneficial
to make this change now. Offering his understanding that such a
tag-fee change can only occur through statute, he told members
that this [bill] is the first vehicle that has come along in the
several years since nonresident tag fees were updated.
Number 0181
MR. PETERSON turned attention to the bill in general, saying he
supports it. Noting that he is a member of the Alaskan hunting
community and several professional hunting and other
associations in the state as well as national and international
ones, Mr. Peterson said the industry has a 100-year history of
supporting itself. He told members:
Right now, we support 80 to 90 percent of wildlife
management, harvesting approximately 8 to 12 percent
of the game. And we will continue to do that because
we do believe in supporting our industry.
The one thing I do want to stress is that when you
compare our nonresident tag fees for some of the
animals that we're looking at, relative to the
Canadian provinces that we are having competition
with, we are beginning to get significantly above
them. And the thing you have to realize, under the
present system in Title 8, the product we offer has to
be better than what the Canadians are offering in
order for us to compete. The last thing we want to
see is a decrease in nonresident use of these
resources.
MR. PETERSON, speaking for himself and not the industry,
although he said he'd spoken with many members of the industry,
spoke in favor of funding for the industry, but expressed the
need to have support for his industry and to have enforcement.
TAPE 03-24, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. PETERSON expressed concern that Title 8 isn't enforced
anymore, and suggested the need for a new assistant attorney
general to pursue wildlife-related crimes. He said a few years
ago 30 to 40 violations weren't prosecuted by the Department of
Law because of lack of resources. Although these are
misdemeanors, Mr. Peterson indicated each carries a punishment
of a year in jail and $10,000 to $30,000 in fines. Reiterating
support for the bill and surmising that the industry supports it
as well, he concluded by stating the need for "enforcement on
the issues" and saying [Alaska] is getting out of whack with the
international industry on these resources.
Number 0140
BRAD PHILLIPS, Owner and Operator, Phillips' Cruises & Tours,
noted that his company is in Anchorage and Prince William Sound.
He began by questioning whether the bill's drafter knows much
about the tourism industry. Calling the bill "a deadly thing,"
Mr. Phillips said he has been in the industry since 1947,
helping to build it and taking lots of risks. In those early
days, it was considered a good year if there were 2,000 visitors
to Alaska, whereas there are more than 1.5 million visitors a
year now. He said:
That just didn't happen. We've been doing most of the
marketing ourselves in the industry. And the last 10
years the state hasn't helped very much, and we have
slipped from number 3 of all the 50 states to number
37 in marketing ... of what we have to sell here.
We've taken it on the chin several times during ...
this period of time. The 1964 earthquake was
devastating, and we had no recovery on that - also,
the '89 oil spill. Then when [the terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001] came along, that next 10 days
we lost a quarter of a million dollars on
cancellations, and ... most of our operators in Alaska
were off somewhere between 20 and 25 percent last year
because people ... aren't traveling. And this war
that came on didn't help: I've had cancellations from
overseas clients constantly 'cause they're not
traveling.
And this [proposed legislation]: we've already sold
three-quarters or 80 percent of our tickets, and
there's no way that I can go back and ask somebody for
$15 more for their cruise. ... I'd lose all of my
customers, and I'm already losing some tour operators
that, when they hear about this ... -- it's going to
do a lot of damage ....
MR. PHILLIPS questioned whether many committee members had been
involved in the tourism industry, and asked them to understand
the damage from the proposed $15 fee. He concluded, "We're
being targeted for something that we don't have anything to do
with, on that $15 thing. And I am absolutely opposed, and so is
the rest of our industry."
Number 0370
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Mr. Phillips whether his company does
the glacier cruise.
MR. PHILLIPS affirmed that.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether that is usually the only
[excursion] for people visiting Alaska, or whether it may be
their second, third, or fourth one.
MR. PHILLIPS said it depends on the tour operator. He added:
They ... usually have a land program, and we're part
of it. If there are people that just fly up - they're
independents - they may do one or two things. If
there are crewmembers on, say, Alaska Airlines, that
want to have a day there and they want to do
something, they come down. But there isn't [one]
answer to that ....
And I think the administration of this thing would be
a nightmare. ... We don't sell all the tickets; they
go through travel agents all over the world ... and
tour operators, ... and there isn't any way I can know
who qualifies and who doesn't
Number 0468
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether a person who buys a $15 pass
wouldn't just have it, and the person collecting the charge for
the trip would see the pass and would be able to write down the
number of the existing pass.
MR. PHILLIPS replied that first of all, he wouldn't sell any
passes but would let somebody else worry about that. He
disagreed with Representative Gatto's perception, however, and
said somebody who'd booked a tour in San Diego, for example,
wouldn't be seen by Mr. Phillips until they stepped aboard his
boat. Not all people who go on the boat are seen in the sales
office. He reiterated that it looks like a nightmare.
[Chair Fate called upon John Hall, but he wasn't available on
teleconference.]
Number 0605
ALAN LeMASTER, Owner, Gakona Junction Village, noting that he'd
testified the previous week, concurred with the testimony by
Brad Phillips in opposition to HB 163.
Number 0663
LEN LAURENCE, Mariner Inc., testified that he is a marketing
consultant in tourism in Ketchikan, representing a number of
businesses; has been involved with the travel industry for 35
years; and is past president of the Alaska Visitors Association.
He specified that he was opposing not HB 167, but the $15
wildlife conservation pass. Saying he would echo the sentiments
of Brad Phillips 100 percent, Mr. Laurence said the tax poses
"significant legal, administrative, and policing prohibitions."
MR. LAURENCE explained that this particular tax is highly
targeted; will impact a large segment of the industry, creating
adverse publicity for Alaskan tourism nationwide because no
other state has a similar viewing fee; and falls on the tourist
industry without putting additional revenue into tourism
marketing. He concluded by adding that he, along with others in
the travel industry, isn't opposed to a broad-based tax that
will raise money for the state budget and, in particular,
tourism marketing.
[Chair Fate called upon Brien Salazar, but was informed he
wasn't available on teleconference.]
Number 0841
ROD ARNO testified that he has been a licensed wilderness tour
guide since 1974 and today mainly does big-game hunting tours.
He spoke in support of the bill, but said he believes it needs
amendments and deletions. Referring to Section 2, page 2, he
mentioned separate accounts and said he believes it is
inappropriate; instead, it should say that the wildlife
conservation pass fee shall be deposited into the general fund;
under that, then, it would say the legislature may appropriate
matching funds out of the general fund to match the federal CARA
[Conservation and Reinvestment Act] money, "which is similar to
the Pittman-Robertson money, which is hunter money that's come
into the state before statehood to the tune of about $170
million for wildlife management to date."
MR. ARNO explained his reasoning, saying there isn't a need for
millions of additional dollars to go to ADF&G for management.
He said the money that goes to management today from hunters
hasn't achieved much. Asking what can be done to increase
viewing, he mentioned educational programs and suggested CARA
money could certainly take care of that, "but not at that
expense."
MR. ARNO referred to a survey done in the summer of 1993 by the
McDowell [Group]. He indicated it was entitled "Alaska Visitor
Expenditures" and was done with the state's Division of Tourism
in what was then called the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development. Mr. Arno said the greatest impact to Alaska from
this "tourist industry that puts very little back into it" is
infrastructure in rural areas. He reported that the 1993 survey
showed that three-quarters of tourists who came to Alaska - 1.2
million - stayed in urban areas doing day tours and salmon
bakes. By contrast, 1,200 people [surveyed] took adventures for
wildlife viewing. Clearly, Mr. Arno said, there is an expense
to the state: "the infrastructure, the hotels, the railroad,
the airport, all of that that these tourists are using, and that
there's no money back to the state to take care of these." He
said he believes that is more important.
Number 1051
MR. ARNO proposed having a resident fee as well as a higher
nonresident fee of perhaps $100, for instance. As to the idea
that guides who are "operators for watchable wildlife" don't
have to buy the license, he indicated every [hunting] guide in
Alaska has to buy a state license, and also must purchase and
carry a hunting license, regardless of whether that person is
hunting. Calling this bill a step in the right direction, he
reiterated his concern that the tourist industry has put very
little into the general fund in the last 10 years.
Number 1123
CHAIR FATE asked whether anyone else wished to testify; he then
closed public testimony. He announced that HB 163 would be
held over.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:09 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|