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