Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/06/1996 08:08 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 6, 1996
8:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative William K. "Bill" Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative John Davies
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Irene Nicholia
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Don Long
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL 175
"An Act relating to sport fish guides; and providing for an
effective date."
- PASSED CS HB 175 (RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL 296
"An Act relating to the authority of the State of Alaska over fish
and game."
- HEARD AND HELD
*HOUSE BILL 329
"An Act providing for restitution to the state for the unlawful
taking of game."
- PASSED HB 329 OUT OF COMMITTEE
(*First Hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 175
SHORT TITLE: SPORT FISH GUIDE LICENSING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) AUSTERMAN,Ivan
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/10/95 303 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/10/95 303 (H) FSH, RESOURCES, FINANCE
02/27/95 511 (H) COSPONSOR(S): IVAN
03/13/95 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/13/95 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/29/95 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/29/95 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
01/31/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
01/31/96 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/07/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/07/96 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/21/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/21/96 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/23/96 2870 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) NT 2DP 1NR 1AM
02/23/96 2870 (H) DP: ELTON, AUSTERMAN
02/23/96 2870 (H) NR: G.DAVIS
02/23/96 2870 (H) AM: OGAN
02/23/96 2870 (H) FISCAL NOTE (F&G)
02/23/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM KENAI
02/28/96 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/06/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 296
SHORT TITLE: STATE AUTHORITY OVER FISH AND GAME
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/05/95 1027 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/05/95 1027 (H) FSH, RESOURCES
04/12/95 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/12/95 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/12/95 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/18/95 1349 (H) FSH RPT 1DP 3NR
04/18/95 1350 (H) DP: ELTON
04/18/95 1350 (H) NR: G.DAVIS, OGAN, AUSTERMAN
04/18/95 1350 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G)
04/18/95 1350 (H) ADDITIONAL REFERRAL TO JUD
04/18/95 1350 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
04/28/95 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/28/95 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/06/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 329
SHORT TITLE: RESTITUTION FOR CERTAIN GAME VIOLATIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE,Grussendorf,Ogan
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
05/03/95 1814 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
05/03/95 1814 (H) RESOURCES AND FINANCE
03/06/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
BARRY BRACKEN
Kaleidoscope Charters
P. O. Box 1201
Petersburg, AK 99833
Telephone: (907) 772-3736
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports CS HB 175.
KEVIN DELANEY, Director
Division of Sport Fish
Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK 99518-1579
Telephone: (907) 267-2218
POSITION STATEMENT: The department supports CS HB 175.
KENT F. HALL
500 Lincoln Street, Suite 641
Sitka, AK 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-5089
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports CS HB 175.
DONALD WESTLUND
P. O. Box 7883
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Telephone: (907)225-9319
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to CS HB 175.
ALAN LeMASTER
P. O. Box 222
Gakona, AK 99586
Telephone: (907) 822-3664
POSITION STATEMENT: Recommended changes to CS HB 175.
JOE HANES
P. O. Box 3132
Soldotna, AK 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-6388
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports CS HB 175.
ANDY SZCZESNY
198 Hillcrest Avenue
Soldotna, AK 99669
Telephone: 262-9439
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports CS HB 175.
RUBEN HANKE
P. O. Box 624
Kenai, AK 99611
Telephone: (907) 262-5097
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports CS HB 175.
BUD HODSON
4852 Hunter Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 243-8450
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports CS HB 175.
JOHN WITTEVEEN
P. O. Box 2239
Kodiak, AK 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-3953
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concern with CS HB 175.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Commissioner's Office
Department of Fish and Game
P. O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99811-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-6141
POSITION STATEMENT: The department has concerns with HB 296.
JOE RYAN, Legislative Staff
to Representative Joe Vezey
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol, Room 13
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 3258
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of sponsor HB 296.
DALE BONDURANT
HC1 Box 1197
Soldotna, AK 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-0818
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 296.
MICHAEL WALLERI, General Counsel
Tanana Chiefs Conference
122 1st Avenue
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-8257
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to HB 296.
DICK BISHOP
Alaska Outdoor Council
P. O. Box 73902
Fairbanks, AK 99707
Telephone: 455-4262
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 296.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol, Room 108
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3871
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 329.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-26, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Resources Committee meeting
to order at 8:08 a.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Green, Williams, Ogan, Austerman, and Kott.
Representatives Davies and Nicholia arrived late. Representatives
Barnes and Long were absent.
HB 175 SPORT FISH GUIDE LICENSING
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the committee calendar and stated his
intent to wrap up testimony on CS HB 175 and move the bill from
committee. HB 296 and HB 329 would also be heard.
Number 095
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN felt that the version of CS HB 175
before the committee is good compromise legislation. He said his
main objective in sponsoring HB 175 is, (1) it registers sport fish
operators, and (2) it requires them to report their catch.
Number 240
C0-CHAIRMAN WILLIAM K. "BILL" WILLIAMS asked clarification of the
registration requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied that a business license does not
register sport fish operators as a guide, it registers them in the
state as a business. He said there is no set, Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC), code for sport fish operators.
Number 336
BARRY BRACKEN, Owner, Kaleidoscope Cruises, testified in support of
CS HB 175 recommending that the committee consider a decal, similar
to what the game transporters use and the International Halibut
Commission posts on all operating vessels. The decal would
identify the year, and be issued with the license, making it easier
for the Department of Public Safety to identify a legitimate
charter operator. He said his only concern is how the funding will
be generated for the department's reporting requirements.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Bracken if the decal, he envisions,
would be similar to the Coast Guard decal.
MR. BRACKEN responded yes, or similar to the International Halibut
Commission decal or the game transporter decal.
Number 508
KEVIN DELANEY, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Department of Fish
and Game (ADF&G) responded to Mr. Bracken's concern regarding how
the ADF&G would finance the reporting requirements. The department
foresees that the owner/operator guides would be required to
purchase their licenses from ADF&G. At that time, they would
provide the department with an affidavit saying that they meet the
qualifications for the guide license. When they submit their fees,
the department would provide their license and issue them a
logbook. They would be required to keep a record of their harvest
and distribution effort throughout the season. The logbook would
be returned to the ADF&G at the end of the season.
MR. DELANEY advised the panel that one person would be required to
manage the system, assisted by a data entry person to enter that
information into the data bank. The ADF&G area managers would then
prepare the assessments from that information. The fee structure
would cover those expenses and a few other expenses.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted the arrival of Representative John Davies.
Number 649
KENT F. HALL, charter operator, stated that he generally supports
this legislation. He said he had a concern about enforcement and
wondered how the department would ensure that everyone is licensed.
MR. DELANEY replied that the fiscal note for CS HB 175 provides for
a Reimbursable Services Agreement (RSA) with the Department of
Public Safety. The ADF&G and the DPS envision that one person from
the Department of Public Safety, the first year, would become an
expert in the implementation of the sports fish guide licensing
procedures. The RSA would provide for salary and travel to follow
this through. He mentioned Sitka, Homer, Valdez, Kenai and the
lower Nushagak.
Number 804
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES asked if the fee structure in the bill
has enough funds in it to offset enforcement requirements.
MR. DELANEY replied that it comes close to being a wash. He said
the cost of employing one law enforcement staff, some travel and
the ability to follow appropriate cases through the court system,
for an entire year, would cost $100,000. That would be covered by
the license fees.
Number 874
DONALD WESTLUND, sport guide/charter operator, stated resentment of
the proposed passage of CSHB 175 from the House Resources Committee
as the committee had just received it. He said HB 175 will help
report the catch, "I do not catch the fish, my client catches the
fish." He said the ADF&G creel census takes that into account, and
the legislature has not given enough time to the provision that
registers guides that was passed last year. He further expressed
concern with the issue of enforcement and the method of registering
the guides. His closing remarks, "I am not favor of this bill!"
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN informed Mr. Westlund that there have been at
least six prior hearings on HB 175.
Number 1200
ALAN LeMASTER, testified from Glennallen, stating that the
"transporter" can have an enormous affect on the river and felt the
committee should give that point more attention. He elaborated on
a hypothetical situation where the transporter impacted the river
many times greater than the sports fish guide, and suggested that
the transporters also be licensed and permitted, just like the
guides, and under the same fee structure restrictions. He stated
that because the transporters can have such an enormous impact on
the river, if we get into a limited entry situation, which is
probably not your focus, that should also be a question as to how
many transporters would be allowed on the river compared to the
number of guides.
Number 1359
MR. DELANEY replied that the subject of transporters came up,
continually, during the development of HB 175, and said it is very
important that it is considered. The original bill had a provision
for a transporter license but it is not there at the present time.
When the definitions for the services of the operator and the guide
were developed for HB 175, they were developed, in part, with an
eye toward the transporter.
MR. DELANEY said if the transporter of your hypothetical case were
to drop everybody off and leave, never stay with them on the gravel
bar long enough for them to get their equipment out and begin
fishing, and never provide them with advice about the campground
and, in the meantime, somebody is out getting their gear together
and beginning to cast then, in fact, that transporter would be able
to drop folks off and leave and probably escape from the definition
and the licensing system in this bill. He said that is rarely the
case over the course of a summer. He explained that there may come
a day when a transporter provision is necessary, but, presently, it
is the committee's intent to capture this in the definitions
established by this bill and to keep this licensing system as
simple as possible.
Number 1449
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN informed the witness that there is a separate
resolution that addresses limited entry.
Number 1513
MR. LeMASTER contended that if the transporters were not controlled
then why should the guides/operators pay all the fees when they can
buy a boat, drop off 10 or 15 groups and make the same kind of
money and be done by 10:00 or 11:00 a.m.
Number 1548
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN apprised the committee of considerable
discussion on the transporters. A transporter can be air charter
services; how can you require them to report how many fish they
brought back in coolers. Is Alaska Airlines a transporter when
they carry fish south? The House Special Committee on Fisheries
looked at how the ADF&G was managing big game transporters and the
board is phasing out that license because of the problems. We do
recognize the amount of fish taken because of transporters, but how
you regulate them and, actually, gather the information is a step
further beyond the original intent of HB 175 in reference to sport
fish guiding. He said that transporters can be revisited if it
becomes a problem.
Number 1626
JOE HANES, President, Kenai River Guide Association, testified for
himself and agreed with the testimony of Mr. LeMaster concerning
the transporters. He talked about a possible requirement for a
guide/operator of holding an Alaska fishing license for three-five
years and related that the Coast Guard has a requirement of 365
days of sea time but no manpower to check on that. He described
the flow of people, coming and going, who have never seen the Kenai
River before being a major safety concern on the river and the
enforcement issue of verifying whether or not they held a license
and had knowledge of the weather and tides. He debated the
reporting requirements and said certain areas are already heavily
scrutinized by the ADF&G and rather than duplicate that
information, those areas should be excluded.
Number 1723
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stated that this issue had been discussed,
at length, with the department. We are encouraging them to use
other reporting systems, already in place, that provide the same
information, separate from the creel count, than enforcing more
work upon the operators.
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked if the Department of Fish and
Game had provided a letter of support for HB 175.
MR. DELANEY said the department did not have a letter but the
Department of Fish and Game supports HB 175. He said there is a
real convergence of interest between the department, the industry
and Alaskans that have struck a good balance, and the department
will support the legislation as long as it remains substantially
similar. He said it is a good bill.
Number 1800
ANDREW SZCZESNY testified from Kenai stating his support of HB 175,
but he felt that stricter guidelines for the guides were needed,
especially, for the people coming up here who have no experience.
Number 1829
RUBEN HANKE testified from Kenai agreeing with Mr. LeMaster on the
transporter issue. He said, "As a registered big game guide, I
know what kind of problems transporters have caused over the years,
and there has to be a way to get a handle on those guides." He
felt that controlling the number of people that a guide takes is
one possibility.
MR. HANKE concurred with Mr. Hanes testimony regarding the guide
requirement and the recommended stipulation that a guide should
hold a season fishing license for at least five years. He asked if
the definition of guide service operators meant that a person had
to be a guide or have experience as guide, in order to qualify.
MR. DELANEY responded, no.
MR. HANKE stated that if that person can contract for services and
not be a guide himself, then he was concerned about leaving a
loophole for out of state, and out of country, booking agents.
Number 1911
MR. DELANEY did not believe that the state can prohibit
nonresidents from conducting business in the state of Alaska. The
services license is basically a business license for a particular
type of business which is sport fish guiding. He said the issue of
a three-five year requirement of holding a sport fishing license in
the state of Alaska would need to come in the guide licensing where
you could make the argument that people who accompany folks in the
field need to have that experience, but I do not believe it is
legal for us to control who owns and operates a business in the
state of Alaska.
MR. HANKE said any booking agency, resident or nonresident, would
be able to hold a services license and they may not even be present
in the area while fishing is being conducted. Who is responsible
when something happens?
Number 1911
MR. DELANEY stated that there is not a mechanism for that in HB
175. Under this bill, the services operator would be liable for
violations that are committed by clients in the field under that
persons employ. There is a direct linkage back to the services
operator. What we need to do is to get a licensing system in place
and, if there are problems with the transporter segment, and, if
there is a problem with the services operators not being present in
the field while activities conducted by their business are ongoing,
I think there will be ample opportunity to revisit that issue.
Number 2098
MR. HANKE acknowledged that it would be difficult to create one
bill that is all encompassing. He asked if there was time to add
a provision for the three-five year fishing license prerequisite
before the committee takes any action.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said he was not in favor of adding any new
language at this particular point in time. This is the starting
point on sport fish guide/operators licensing. Let us work with it
for a year and then come back and attend to it, if necessary.
MR. HANKE reaffirmed his support of HB 175.
Number 2218
BUD HODSON supports the bill as written and said that it is long
overdue. He referred to the transporter question and said if
somebody is running people up and down the river, accompanying them
in the field and providing services for sport fishing, they are
outfitting. They are required to have a license.
MR. HODSON felt that outside booking agencies wanting to become
licensed operators probably would not want to pay $300,000 for an
insurance policy.
Number 2333
JOHN WITTEVEEN, lodge owner/charter boat operator, testified from
Kodiak acknowledging that certain areas of the state are
significantly impacted by sport fishing operations. He said
contrary to other people's opinions today, we have far too many
licensing requirements. He stressed that if this bill becomes law,
his business would require somewhere near 11 or 12 licenses just to
operate. He suggested that business license coding could be
modified to identify the number of people that are in operation.
MR. WITTEVEEN felt that HB 175 does not do anything in terms of the
quality of the guides or the quality of operations. He said, "I do
not think that you should lead yourself to believe that it will."
"It does not lay out any minimum requirements."
MR. WITTEVEEN further said, in terms of the reporting of the fish
caught, one concern that charter boat operators have is some sort
of future quota system or a system of limited entry.
MR. WITTEVEEN further stated concerns with the reporting system in
the bill and professed that he is an advocate of catch and release.
He supported the deletion of the transporter license from the bill
and asked whether a person can buy a sport fish operator/fishing
guide license combination for single operators who are operators as
well as guides.
Number 2467
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN responded that the sport fish operator and
the fishing guide license had been combined to accommodate small
operators......(CHANGE TAPE)
TAPE 96-26, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. WITTEVEEN asked consideration that the licenses be modified to
indicate the number of people that are in operation.
Number 017
MR. DELANEY appreciated Mr. Witteveen's points about catch and
release and record keeping. He responded that utilization of the
licensing system data base will enhance the department's ability to
characterize the sport fish industry, in an area, that goes beyond
just the number of fish that they catch and kill. It will enable
us to have a better idea of the harvest potential and to identify
what is important and valuable to the sport fishing industry in
that area. Those are exactly the types of things that our area
managers want to consider when they select between an option that
would close a season early, reduce a bag limit, restrict the use of
bait or, in some cases, mandate catch and release.
Number 075
MR. WITTEVEEN questioned the report logbook and whether the report
would indicate what the catch and release totals were.
MR. DELANEY replied in the affirmative.
MR. WITTEVEEN asked if the bill pertains to only salmon and halibut
and does it affect rock fish, ling cod, cod, pollock, or grayling.
MR. DELANEY stated that the language in the bill states that we
shall report on salmon and halibut. It does not prohibit us from
looking at the other species. In most cases, I think we would be
looking at the mix of species that go beyond salmon and halibut,
but we want to keep it relatively simple from the onset.
Number 148
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN commented that Mr. Witteveen is correct,
HB 175 is not meant to be a qualifier for guides or operators; it
sets up the system that identifies them. This bill is not designed
for limited entry, or envisioned as limited entry, although limited
entry is always a possibility.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said his office is looking at the issue of
multiple licenses and has asked legislative research to conduct a
study listing all the different licenses that people have to have.
Number 207
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to testimony offered during the February
23rd meeting in Kenai that the state of Oregon was able to limit
guiding to instate guides. He asked the sponsor if he had looked
at that issue, "It has always been my impression that we were not
constitutionally able to limit guides to just Alaskan residents."
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN indicated that he had not followed up on
that investigation.
Number 269
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN moved Amendment Number 1: Page 3, delete
lines 6, 7, 8, and 9.
C0-CHAIRMAN GREEN objected for the purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that the amendment would delete the
requirement of a general liability insurance policy for operators.
He explained that the state of Alaska does not require businesses
to have insurance to be on file in order to get a business license.
Number 337
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN felt that without this requirement there would no
recompense for a negligent operation that ended up hurting or
killing someone.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN agreed with the Chairman but remarked that he
has general problems with ordering it as a condition for licensing.
Number 418
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN clarified that this provision was left in
the bill to protect visitors to the state.
Number 482
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS explained that he had worked on similar
legislation where companies in Ketchikan wanted assurance that
passengers off the cruise ships were well taken care and wanted
confirmation that the charter boat operators had insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN concurred with Representative Williams
stating that the cruise lines now require a million dollars worth
of insurance before they let their passengers fly with an air
charter service.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN explained that for operators in Mat-Su Valley,
who do not own boats, to have to have $1500 worth of insurance is
onerous when all they do is guide (drive) someone to a fishing hole
and show them how to bait a hook and how to catch a king salmon.
Number 525
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said the discussion of limited entry keeps
coming up. If somebody buys $300,000 worth of insurance, then they
are obviously not a speculator.
Number 576
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that he would maintain his objection to
the amendment and called for a roll call vote.
Representatives Ogan and Williams voted in favor of the Amendment
Number 1. Representatives Austerman, Davies, Kott, Nicholia and
Green voted against Amendment Number 1. So Amendment Number 1
failed.
Number 615
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved for adoption of Amendment Number 2: Page
3, delete lines 31 and 32. Page 4, delete lines 1 and 2.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN specified that he had philosophical problems
with the Department of Fish and Game being the policeman for the
United States Coast Guard. Currently, it is illegal for someone to
operate a boat for hire without a Coast Guard license; why should
the state act as a policeman for the Coast Guard. I think it is
inappropriate for the state to enforce federal laws by requiring
people to show proof that they have a Coast Guard license to get a
state guide license.
Number 651
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stated that the language in the bill was
requested by a number of the operators. He said Representative
Ogan was correct, it is a duplication of enforcing Coast Guard
licensing but if we know that operator has a Coast Guard license
then we know that he has gone through the testing requirements and
has the appropriate number of hours at sea.
Number 750
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded to a question from Chairman Green
that a person did not need to be a boat operator in order to be a
fish guide. He said he knew of several people who will be out of
business if this is passed, operating a boat has nothing to do with
being a fish guide.
Number 786
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN referred to the language on line 32, "if
a person uses a vessel in the provision of fishing guide services
and the license is required by the Coast Guard." He clarified that
rafts and canoes are primarily used upper reaches of some rivers in
the Interior of Alaska and that provision was put in there to allow
the people who are not using motor vessels to get a license.
Number 810
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he stands corrected, but if that language
on page 3, line 32, is going to remain; it should be amended to
read, "if a person `operates' a vessel."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said his original objection was that the state
could become involved in enforcing federal law.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES referred to page 4, line 32, "for the area in
which the fishing guide provides fishing guide services." He said
he infers from the language that Coast Guard licenses are specific
to an area and require some knowledge of operating vessels in that
particular area, and if that inference is correct, then it would
seem that this requirement would be useful from the point of view
of trying to winnow down the number of people actually providing
services in that area to those people who have experience in the
area. At least, there is some requirement that a person have some
area specific knowledge before operating there and to that extent,
I think it is a good requirement.
Number 946
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN called for a roll call vote on Amendment Number
2.
Representatives Kott and Ogan voted in favor of the amendment.
Representatives Austerman, Davies, Nicholia, Williams and Green
voted against the amendment. So Amendment Number 2 failed.
Number 988
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved for the adoption of Amendment Number 3:
Page 4, delete lines 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said his concern is that the fish guide is
required to carry around copious amounts of paperwork in the field
such as proof of employment, proof of first aid and CPR.
Number 1059
MR. DELANEY said the language was an enforcement tool since people
licensed as guides are not the people contracting with the clients,
those are the services operators. These are people contacted in
the field by our people and this will be a quick way to identify
the services operator that the guide is associated with. This
would be the only tool in the field to make a direct link between
the guide and the services operator. He said, in most cases, the
enforcement officer will become fairly knowledgeable with the
regular services operators and guides.
MR. DELANEY related that the affidavit would be used to license the
services operators or the service operator/guide combination.
These licenses would be issued in the licensing section here in
Juneau. He said this section covers the sport fish guides, these
are the people that are services operators that accompany people in
the field. The reason this was approached differently is because
many services operators said that if they needed another guide
immediately, then they wanted to get those people licensed through
some other mechanism rather than sending a letter to Juneau. We
can accommodate that through all, or part, of our vendor system.
Number 1236
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he was looking at the practical aspect of
packing around all this paperwork and wondered if there was a more
efficient way of accomplishing this.
Number 1300
MR. DELANEY replied that the paperwork is not a lot of bulk. ADF&G
will assess, this first year, the most efficient way to issue guide
licenses, not the services operator licenses, but the actual guide
license. At the onset, the ADF&G is looking at vendors having the
ability to sell that particular license. In future, if somebody is
licensed for a number of years, perhaps this could be a multi-year
license, similar to the Board of Game.
Number 1424
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN discussed a conceptual amendment where the
"fishing guide's employer shall keep on file at all times," items
2, 4, 5, and 6. The employer has the guide's license and his
identification which is what the field officer needs to see. He
said, "We are talking about a $500 fine, and after a second
offense, your guiding days are over."
Number 1491
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said that would be a major responsibility
to the vendors.
Number 1565
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said a water proof pouch should not be a burden.
Number 1599
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT felt that having to carry the specified amount
of paperwork did not seem that onerous. He said that a CPR card is
nothing more than a small card in the wallet. He further said that
the penalties are for knowingly or intentional violations which
would be very difficult to prove. The department's position is a
good one. Give it a couple of years to see whether or not we need
additional changes, and if the Department of Fish and Game can
become a one-stop shop.
Number 1706
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN withdrew Amendment Number 3.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN imagined a case where someone lost this packet of
identification/information and asked the procedure for reproducing
the packet.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN assured the committee that the guide could
easily provide positive identification.
Number 1737
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES offered an amendment on page 3, line 32, to
delete the word "uses" and insert "operates" and continue the same
amendment on page 4, line 30. Hearing no objection, it was so
ordered.
Number 1868
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved that CS HB 175 as amended move from the
House Resources Committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note. Hearing no objection, CS HB 175 (RES) passed
out of the House Resources Committee.
HB 296 - STATE AUTHORITY OVER FISH AND GAME
Number 1907
JOE RYAN, Legislative Staff to Representative Al Vezey, testified
on HB 296 reading the sponsor statement into the record:
"House Bill 296, an Act relating to the authority of the state of
Alaska over fish and game, would codify the primacy of the state of
Alaska over the federal government on matters concerning the
management of fish and game resources. It is a state's right
enjoyed by 49 other states.
MR. RYAN proceeded, "The power to manage fish and game was given to
the state of Alaska as a condition of our becoming a state and as
a condition of entry into the union. This power cannot be abridged
or altered, except by mutual agreement of the people of the state
of Alaska and the federal government.
MR. RYAN continued, "This bill will give the state of Alaska a tool
with which it can enforce the right of the state to manage it's
fish and game resources. This bill also provides that state funds
cannot be used to implement or enforce federal fish and game
regulations.
MR. RYAN concluded, "This bill will send a message to the Congress
and people of the United States that the state of Alaska or an
agency created by the state, will be the only one permitted to
manage fish and game within the borders of the state of Alaska."
Number 2046
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Department of Fish and Game,
testified that the ADF&G, and the Department of Law, had expressed
concern with HB 296, in the House Special Committee on Fisheries,
last year. He referred to a work draft of the original bill and
asked if that committee substitute had ever been adopted.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that the committee version was "K."
MR. BRUCE said there is a difference between the two versions. He
related that the Department of Law testified that the bill is a bit
of a "catch 22," because if a state law says you do not have to
follow federal law, what weight does it really have? The United
States Constitution clearly states that federal law is supreme when
there is a conflict between state and federal law.
MR. BRUCE said that puts the staff from the Department of Fish and
Game in a difficult position. If this law were to pass, the people
in the field could be placed in a situation where they are being
given conflicting messages. How does a wildlife biologist III, in
the field, sort out whether he is supposed to follow a state law
that says he cannot assist or cooperate with the federal wildlife
agencies that he works with in some matter where the federal agency
has jurisdiction or has regulations in place?
MR. BRUCE informed that the bill seems to speak exclusively to the
situation that exists with subsistence. He said it was the only
situation where the federal government could and does exercise
management authority over fish and wildlife separate from the state
system.
MR. BRUCE said another concern with this legislation pertains to
the message -- we do cooperate, to a large extent, in a lot of
areas to the state's advantage with the federal government in the
management of fish and wildlife. The ADF&G receives approximately
$30,000,000 a year from the federal government to assist in the
management of fish and wildlife in the state. There are a number
of areas where we work with the North Pacific Fisheries Management
Council to secure the state's ability to manage groundfish
resources in state waters within the three mile limit so that we
can establish some near shore small boat fisheries that will extend
the operation of our shore based plants and allow Alaska-based
small boat fisherman opportunity.
MR. BRUCE further stated that these issues require cooperation
between the state and the federal entities to bring about and there
is a balance between firmly asserting the state's right to manage
its own fish and wildlife and being willing to cooperate with the
federal agency where you have crossing jurisdictions and other
reasons to cooperate.
MR. BRUCE related that the department certainly has occasions where
it differs from federal polices and federal managers and take those
issues up on a case-by-case basis, but there are situations in
which cooperation is mutually beneficial.
MR. BRUCE emphasized the concern with HB 296 of the position it
would place field staff. They are trying to do their job and a
state law says they cannot work with the federal government on a
subsistence issue and a federal regulation says something else.
Number 2451
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT recalled that last year the House Resources
Committee had referred this bill to a subcommittee. He asked if
the subcommittee had reported it out.
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA remembered that the subcommittee was
composed of Representatives Austerman, Davies and Ogan...(end
tape).
TAPE 96-27, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that there are a number of unanswered
questions.
MR. RYAN asked that committee substitute version "K" be introduced
for the purposes of discussion. He said paragraph (d) on page 2
addresses last year's concerns about international agreements and
the Magnuson Treaty, and now pertains to enforcing federal law that
is the same as applied in all other states. He explained, "If the
law does not apply equally among the states, and we feel it is
being applied only, specifically, in Alaska then, perhaps, we
should not cooperate if it is to our detriment." The bill gives the
Department of Fish and Game employees the opportunity to cooperate
with the federal government on all things that are applied equally
among the states. It does not preclude enactment, adoption or
enforcement of state laws which are substantially similar to
federal law, or a law that preempts state management of fish and
game.
Number 187
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that the sponsor felt that subparagraph
(d), in the proposed committee substitute, alleviates some of the
ADF&G concerns.
Number 237
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES recommended that the chair place the proposed
committee substitute version "K" before the subcommittee.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN apprised the panel of three witnesses on the
teleconference network waiting to testify on HB 296. He wondered
about having the proposed committee substitute on the table as the
working document.
Number 267
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved for the adoption of committee substitute
for HB 296 version "K."
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA objected.
C0-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS clarified that HB 296 is in subcommittee.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said, yes it is.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES reiterated that the appropriate course of
action would be for the committee substitute to be presented to the
subcommittee and the subcommittee would report out its
recommendation.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed that would be the appropriate course of
action. He indicated to Representative Ogan the point of order
regarding his motion to adopt the committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT interjected that a motion was not needed and
that the subcommittee should work with the prime sponsor and the
subcommittee should report back to the full committee.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN withdrew his motion.
Number 400
DALE BONDURANT testified in support of HB 296 expressing his view
that the state should maintain its authority to manage common
property fish and game resources.
Number 623
MICHAEL WALLERI, General Counsel, Tanana Chiefs Conference,
testified in opposition to HB 296 and the committee substitute
version "K." He said the bill boldly denies the obvious fact that
the federal government has control over substantial aspects of fish
and game management in Alaska. Of particular importance, the bill
would suggest that no person, government agency or municipality may
exercise authority over the management of fish and game unless
authorized by state law, and it would direct state agencies to not
cooperate or enforce federal law which preempts or supersedes state
management of fish and game.
MR. WALLERI emphasized concern that the bill would draw the state
from participation in co-management agreements under Section 809 of
ANILCA. Under that section, federal agencies managing fish and
wildlife in Alaska may enter into cooperative management agreements
with Native groups and other entities. There are currently three
such agreements in the state involving Tanana Chiefs Conference and
the Association of Village Council Presidents and the Copper River
Native Association.
MR. WALLERI stated that the purpose of these agreements is to
coordinate research and management with user groups. Co-management
agreements have also been used to facilitate management of moose
populations in the Yukon Kuskokwim Delta with tremendous success.
He related that a recent Tanana Chiefs Conference study on Chum
salmon in the Koyukuk River demonstrated and revealed important
information about salmon runs in the area. It also challenged
basic assumptions about state salmon counting methodology to
estimate the run size for the Koyukuk River. These efforts led to
a reassessment of the very serious problem in fish and game
management in the Interior relating to Chum management.
Number 800
MR. WALLERI cited Article 12, Section 2 of the state constitution
authorizing state government to cooperate with the federal
government in various endeavors including fish and wildlife
management. He indicated that HB 296 may overstep the role of the
legislature in such agreements. This section of the constitution
limits this body to the involvement in considering appropriations
in support of state and federal cooperative agreements. A blanket
legislative veto of such agreements suggested by this bill may in
fact violate the Alaska State Constitutional separation of powers
between the executive and legislative branches.
Number 844
MR. WALLERI concluded stating that the Council encourages that
there be state and federal cooperation involving user groups and
co-management and, by this, we hope to improve fish and game
management in the state as a whole.
Number 880
DICK BISHOP, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council, testified
in support of HB 296 and the proposed committee substitute stating
that he sees nothing in the bill that prohibits cooperation between
the state and federal government either with respect to the
Department of Fish and Game or with other entities. What it does
do is make it very clear that the premise that fish and game
management should be undertaken in the state should be consistent
with the responsibilities and authorities of the state. He felt
the one liner, "good fences make good neighbors" applies here.
MR. BISHOP further stated that unless it is clear what the laws
are, it is very difficult for people to work effectively within
them. It is extremely important for the legislature to have taken
this initiative in asserting state management authority for a
number of reasons. The federal government will assume authority
unless challenged. He said, "I think they need to be challenged
and this is an important strategy in doing that. If they do not
like it, let them take it to court."
Number 1060
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN assigned HB 296 and the committee substitute to
the subcommittee. He requested that Representative Con Bunde come
forward and introduce HB 329.
HB 329 - RESTITUTION FOR CERTAIN GAME VIOLATIONS
Number 1096
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE said HB 329 is an Act providing for
restitution to the state for the unlawful taking of game.
"Penalties for violating wildlife protection laws vary with the
crime and the state. The most common crime classification for
wildlife violations in all states is the criminal misdemeanor. For
misdemeanor, states generally give judges discretion in choosing
the amount of the fine, length of jail term, or both. In Alaska,
persons convicted of wildlife violations are guilty of a
misdemeanor. The penalty is jail for up to a year and a fine of up
to $5,000 (AS 16.05.925 (a)).
"In addition to criminal penalties, some states have civil
liability provisions of some kind. About half the state
legislatures have assessed the value of wildlife for civil
liability purposes and list damages which may be sought as part of
a civil penalty. Some states require the violator to pay, as a
condition of sentencing, restitution to the state for each animal
take. Alaska is one of only 12 states which does not have
restitution provisions for wildlife violations in statute. HB 329
provides a schedule of restitution for wildlife violators to repay
as a condition of sentencing.
"Alaskans are losing valuable wildlife to poachers. Each piece of
game that is illegally taken from our state is an economic loss
that affects both our hunting and tourism industries. HB 329 will
hold those illegal takers of game accountable for the value of
their lake. Poachers will now have to pay restitution, as well as,
the penalties already in statute."
Number 1246
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN related a first hand experience and requested
to be included as a co-sponsor. He encouraged the committee to
expedite the process and move the bill out of committee.
Number 1298
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if the purpose of the legislation was
to make a mandatory fine.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE explained that it is a civil penalty for the
loss of that state property.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated that the prevailing penalty exceeds
any of these, except if there were multiple cases, so the judge
could fine up to that amount already. So, the argument from
Representative Ogan's point of view is that while judges could do
that, they don't do that, and so the purpose of this bill would be
to set a floor on the penalties?
Number 1330
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE responded in the affirmative stating that many
first time offenders have pretty small fines and are liable for up
to $5,000.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES presumed that the fines and the restitutions
would be deposited in the general fund.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that it would be a nondedicated fund.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that is correct. It is a loss to the
state.
Number 1387
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN discussed with Representative Bunde whether the
money going into the general fund would be lost rather than going
to a dedicated area that would actually ensure the restoration of
those diminished resources.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied that these are resources that are
valued to the state, in general, and not just to the Department of
Fish and Game. He said that representatives were here from the
Department of Fish and Game.
Number 1457
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said she wanted to hear the full testimony
from the Department of Fish and Game.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved that HB 329 move from the House Resources
Committee with individual recommendations. There was an objection,
so a roll call vote was taken. Representatives Ogan, Kott, Green
and Williams voted in favor of moving the bill. Representatives
Davies and Nicholia voted against moving the bill. So HB 329 moved
from The House Resources Committee.
Number 1532
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked for the fiscal note on the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said the fiscal note was zero and that he
would make a copy available to the committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House Resources
Committee, Chairman Green adjourned the meeting at 10:07 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|