Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/10/1997 01:15 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 10, 1997
1:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Joe Green
Representative William K. ("Bill") Williams
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Irene Nicholia
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 198
"An Act relating to regional dive fishery development associations
and to dive fishery management assessments; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 198(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."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 7(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 19 am
"An Act relating to enforcement of federal laws relating to fish
and game; and repealing the power and duty of the commissioner of
Fish and Game to assist in the enforcement of federal laws relating
to fish and game."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 198
SHORT TITLE: DIVE FISHERY MANAGEMENT ASSN. & ASSESSMNT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) WILLIAMS, Hudson, Kookesh,
Grussendorf, Elton
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/14/97 668 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/14/97 668 (H) FSH, RESOURCES
04/09/97 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/09/97 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/10/97 (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
04/08/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 19
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL FED ENFORCEMENT DUTIES/F&G COMSNR
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SHARP, Taylor, Donley
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 19 (S) RES, JUD
02/05/97 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/05/97 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/06/97 247 (S) RES RPT 6DP 1NR
02/06/97 247 (S) DP: HALFORD, TAYLOR, TORGERSON,
LEMAN,
02/06/97 247 (S) GREEN, SHARP; NR: LINCOLN
02/06/97 247 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS)
02/19/97 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/19/97 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/20/97 428 (S) JUD RPT 3DP
02/20/97 428 (S) DP: TAYLOR, PARNELL, PEARCE
02/20/97 428 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DPS)
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
02/24/97 473 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/24/97 473 (S) AM NO 1 OFFERED BY SHARP
02/24/97 473 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED Y14 N5 A1
02/24/97 474 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
02/24/97 474 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 19 AM
02/24/97 474 (S) COSPONSOR(S): DONLEY
02/24/97 475 (S) PASSED Y15 N4 A1
02/24/97 475 (S) ADAMS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
02/25/97 502 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
02/25/97 502 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/26/97 478 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/26/97 478 (H) RESOURCES, JUDICIARY
04/10/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KYLE JOHANSEN, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Representative Bill Williams
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 424
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3424
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 198.
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 HB 198.
EDWARD T. GRAY
147 Price, Number C
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-7888
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 198.
LARRY TRANI, President
Alaska Harvest Divers Association
2008 Halibut Point Road
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-8114
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 198.
GEORGE ELIASON
102 Kuhnle
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-6817
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 198.
JAMES R. DENNIS
P.O. Box 591
Craig, Alaska 99921
Telephone: (907) 826-3010
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 198.
RICHARD POLLEN, Plant Manager
Norquest Seafoods, Incorporated
P.O. Box 138
Craig, Alaska 99921
Telephone: (907) 826-3556
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 198 on behalf of
Norquest and as a city council member.
LINDA SLITER
428 Bawden
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-7188
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 198.
MELINDA WEST
P.O. Box 9493
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 723-5022
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 198; suggested
amendments in the event it passes.
STERLING SLITER, President
Alaska Harvest Divers Association
428 Bawden
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 198.
RODNEY LINTON
852 Harding
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-3025
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 198.
JACK SHAY, Mayor
Ketchikan Gateway Borough
344 Front Street
Ketchikan, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 225-7429
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 198.
PATRICK LAWS
P.O. Box 9270
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-4293
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 198 as written.
RAY CAMPBELL
P.O. Box 23216
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 247-3626
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 198.
ACTION NARRATIVE
HARLEY ETHELBAH
P.O. Box 972
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: (907) 772-2390
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 198, with
suggestions.
STEPHEN LaCROIX, Dive Program
Norquest Seafoods, Incorporated
P.O. Box 6092
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 247-5686/225-6664
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 198.
GIG DECKER, President
Wrangell Harvest Divers Association
P.O. Box 2138
Wrangell, Alaska 99929
Telephone: (907) 874-3110
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 198.
AARON J. CUMMINS
P.O. Box 949
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: (907) 772-3409
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 198.
CLAY BEZENEK, President
Southeast Alaska Harvest Divers Association
P.O. Box 6464
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-3738
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 198.
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's position on SB 7.
JOHN GLASS, Colonel, Director
Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection
Department of Public Safety
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507-1225
Telephone: (907) 269-5509
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding SB 7 and SB 19.
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 on SB 19.
GEORGE UTERMOHLE, Attorney
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward Street, Suite 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2450
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding SB 19.
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 SB 19.
PAULA TERRELL, Researcher
for Representative Irene Nicholia
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6858
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Tanana Chiefs
Conference in opposition to SB 19.
DALE BONDURANT
HC1, Box 1197
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-0818
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 19.
RICHARD ANDREW
P.O. Box 7211
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-2463
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 19.
TAPE 97-40, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:15 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Hudson, Ogan, Dyson, Green and
Williams; there was a quorum. Representative Joule arrived at 1:18
p.m. Representatives Masek, Barnes and Nicholia were absent.
[The first minute of tape is blank due to teleconference
malfunction. Co-Chairman Hudson called an at-ease at 1:16 p.m. He
called the meeting back to order at 1:17 p.m.]
HB 198 - DIVE FISHERY MANAGEMENT ASSN. & ASSESSMNT
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced the first order of business was House
Bill No. 198, "An Act relating to regional dive fishery development
associations and to dive fishery management assessments; and
providing for an effective date." Before the committee was the
original version of the bill. Although a committee substitute had
been voted out of the House Special Committee on Fisheries, that
version had not been read across the House floor.
Number 0115
KYLE JOHANSEN, Legislative Administrative Assistant to
Representative Bill Williams, read the sponsor statement into the
record:
"Southeast Alaska dive fishermen have been attempting for the past
decade to establish orderly, consistent and stable fisheries
capable of providing dependable economic opportunity for
themselves, their families and the communities of Southeast. The
urgency to create an economically viable fishery is highlighted by
the recent closure of the region's largest employer and the other
related negative economic impacts on the economy of Southeast
Alaska.
"Substantial untapped dive fishery resources have been identified
through diver and Fish and Game underwater activities for over a
decade. Many of the Southeast communities have placed the
development of the dive fishery as a priority item in economic
development documents and locally developed legislative budget
priorities. The dive fishery resources appear to be abundant and
diverse throughout the region. The small sea cucumber and geoduck
fisheries in Southeast have a combined annual ex-vessel value of $2
million to $2.5 million.
"In California, the urchin fishery has ranged in ex-vessel value
from $16 million to $39 million annually from 1990 to 1996.
Geoducks range in price from $6/pound live to $3.50/pound
processed. Alaskan waters contain abundant amounts of these
fishery resources plus many others not currently harvested. This
legislation will encourage the identification and development of
these resources. The potential for future jobs for harvesters,
processors and the support industries is considerable.
"The commitment to work together with Fish and Game is evidenced in
the red sea urchin fishery. In 1996, the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, after a test fishery, was unable to open the red sea
urchin fishery because of a lack of funding. Based on positive
results in this test fishery and a vision to diversify and develop
their local economy, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough provided funding
to Fish and Game to conduct bio-assessment surveys needed to open
a fishery.
"The Borough continued its involvement by facilitating and
participating in a local task force comprised of Borough personnel,
divers, processors and the department. The resulting plan was for
processors to `forward fund' the management costs of the fishery,
with agreements to recoup their funding through a 5 cents/pound
assessment on the divers. Thus, in January 1997, a red sea urchin
fishery opened in districts 1 through 4 in the Ketchikan and Craig
areas.
"This temporary fishery opening is based on a one-time source of
funding that will expire at the end of this fiscal year, June 30,
1997. In order to continue this fishery and to develop the other
dive fishery resources, a stable source of funding is necessary.
"The August 1996 red urchin management plan states: `Developing a
long-term program to fund the costs of stock assessment, research
and management remains an outstanding issue. If sufficient funds
are not provided to the department each year, the fishery will not
open.' This is the dilemma divers face, and House Bill 198
provides a creative and progressive vehicle to move towards that
solution.
"House Bill 198 does not mandate but allows the creation of
regional dive fishery development associations for the purpose of
developing dive fisheries and creates a working relationship
between the divers and the Department of Fish and Game to develop
annual operating plans. This legislation is permissive, and once
a regional association is formed, divers can hold a ballot election
of all [interim-use] permit holders to answer two questions:
First, shall we assess ourselves? And second, at what rate shall
we assess ourselves?
"If approved by election, divers would be assessed, the state would
collect, and the legislature may appropriate the assessment back to
ADF&G. The appropriation will be based on the mutually developed
annual operating budget and plan. Fish and Game would then fund
the specific purposes outlined in the legislation for the regional
dive fishery development association and the Fish and Game.
"All the appropriate checks and balances are in place, and all the
parties are held accountable. In addition, all other fisheries
business taxes are collected and deposited into the general fund.
"House Bill 198 is a positive step forward by the private sector to
support economic development and diversification without seeking a
general fund appropriation. Time is of the essence.
Representative Williams would appreciate your support of this
legislation for passage this session, and keep the economic
development for Southeast moving forward."
Number 0505
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS advised that committee packets include
letters of support from the City of Craig, City of Wrangell and
City and Borough of Sitka, as well as from the Sitka Chamber of
Commerce, Wrangell Fisheries Incorporated, Sitka Sound Seafoods,
Norquest Seafoods, Incorporated, the Seafood Producers Cooperative
and others.
Number 0556
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), came forward to testify,
noting he had also testified the previous day before the House
Special Committee on Fisheries. He indicated the committee
substitute, voted out of that committee but not read across the
House floor, had contained changes requested by the ADF&G.
Number 0601
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON advised that the committee needed to adopt as a
work draft version 0-LS0415\T, Utermohle, 4/9/97.
Number 0671
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON made a motion to adopt that as a work
draft. There being no objection, 0-LS0415\T, Utermohle, 4/9/97 was
before the committee.
Number 0695
MR. BRUCE discussed changes made at the ADF&G's request. The
sponsor had agree to two changes, incorporated in this version, and
a third was still under discussion.
MR. BRUCE referred to page 2, lines 4 through 7. He said the first
change relates to composition of the board of directors of the dive
association. The ADF&G believes its representation should reflect
all stakeholders involved in development of the resource, not just
harvesters. The sponsor agrees with this change.
MR. BRUCE referred to page 8, line 7. He said the second change
relates to the annual operating plan. The earlier version had the
dive association responsible for writing the fishery's annual
operating plan, with the ADF&G assisting. The ADF&G believes
actual management and development of the management plan should be
by public officials with no vested interest in the fishery; for
good reason, it is done that way in all fisheries. Under the new
version, the ADF&G will develop the plan with cooperation,
assistance and input from the industry. The sponsor agrees to
this.
Number 0871
MR. BRUCE provided general comments on the bill. The ADF&G is very
interested in developing these under-utilized resources. These
resources offer an opportunity not only for economic development
but also for Alaska to build a new fisheries model that does not
suffer from problems associated with more historic fisheries. The
latter were developed largely by outside interests, not necessarily
with a maximum concern for benefits to Alaskans. This offers an
opportunity for Alaska to start over again, at least on these
fisheries, and do it right.
MR. BRUCE said questions about the big picture relate to sustained
yield, preventing overharvest, preventing boom-and-bust cycles and
ensuring maximum benefits to Alaskans and communities. There is
certainly less benefit if the state goes to great efforts to
develop these resources and then most benefits leave the state.
MR. BRUCE said unfortunately, the timing of opportunities to
develop these resources coincides with reduced general fund
appropriations to the ADF&G. To develop a new fishery, the ADF&G
must remove money from an existing one. Hence, the introduction of
HB 198. The sponsor is looking for some way to provide a source of
funding for development of new fisheries that does not subtract
resources from management of existing fisheries.
Number 1011
MR. BRUCE does not believe, however, that this bill alone will
accomplish that. Program receipts, such as these, are generally
considered by the legislature as part of the general fund
appropriation for the department. If additional program receipt
funds flow into the ADF&G's general fund appropriation, funds from
elsewhere would be eliminated. Divers could justifiably claim they
expect their fishery to go forward with these funds because they
are coming forward to tax themselves.
MR. BRUCE suggested one way to deal with this issue. The
designated program receipt bill, introduced by the Governor in both
the House and the Senate, establishes designated program receipts
as an "other fund" category, rather than a general fund category.
If that passes, Mr. Bruce believes the objectives of HB 198 would
be achieved.
Number 1122
MR. BRUCE discussed the second concern, which relates to the big
picture and the chance to develop Alaska's new fisheries the right
way. The bill is a funding mechanism. The ADF&G believes
additional issues should be addressed now. Five years down the
road, they do not want to end up with the same structure as they
have in some older fisheries from which Alaskans are not receiving
maximum benefits. A number of species with development potential
are not currently being developed. Some are dive resources, some
are not. Mr. Bruce cited octopus as an example. The ADF&G is
looking for a mechanism to address broader public policy issues
underlying and guiding development of these new fisheries, which
would apply to a variety of species statewide.
MR. BRUCE acknowledged that is not the sponsor's intention. He
said the ADF&G applauds what Representative Williams is trying to
do. Unfortunately, even in early development of the urchin fishery
the ADF&G is seeing all-too-familiar characteristics of the older
fisheries' development model. Increasing product is already
leaving the state, which concerns them.
Number 1247
MR. BRUCE discussed the third change the ADF&G seeks. They suggest
launching a public/private task force or working group to examine
policy issues and possible or existing models. They expect that to
take one or two years. At the end of that time, they want to
revisit this whole issue, including how the funding mechanism is
working and how it ties in with the bigger policy issues. For that
reason, they request a sunset on the bill.
MR. BRUCE said this new approach deserves an opportunity. However,
the ADF&G has concerns about an individual fishery believing they
are funding a particular management program, rather than having
funds go into the broad base of government and then being part of
the legislature's general appropriation to the department.
Although the sense of ownership fishermen may feel over the
management and managers may work all right, it may cause problems.
The ADF&G, through the sunset provision, would come back and make
sure this serves the public interest and is not causing
inadvertent, undesired consequences.
MR. BRUCE stated that the ADF&G sees this as an interim funding
approach that may become permanent. Another reason for revisiting
the issue is that it may serve as a precedent for other fisheries
Alaskans may want to develop. Furthermore, if it works for new
fisheries, people in existing fisheries may also want it.
Number 1462
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS agreed this is a new approach and that
other fisheries may be interested in such a concept. However, he
does not support a sunset clause. If it does not work, the
legislature can change it later. He asked for input from the
committee.
Number 1589
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked whether there is a sunset on the Northern
Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (NSRAA), for example.
MR. BRUCE said no. He noted, however, that during the hatchery
forums, people had felt maybe there should have been.
Number 1608
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON advised there is a sunset on the Alaska Seafood
Marketing Institute (ASMI) 1 percent salmon marketing tax. He
stated the belief that a small, emerging fishery such as this would
receive "enough daylight and hard looks" because it is new and
exotic. He applauded participants in the fishing industry in
general for putting their money up. He does not take a firm
position that a sunset is necessary.
Number 1648
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN concurred. He also agreed that if
something is not working or needs modified, that can be done either
through regulation or the legislative process.
Number 1725
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether Mr. Bruce envisions that some
control through bag limits or seasonal limits may be required.
MR. BRUCE replied that the fishery is managed on a quota basis,
based on inventory and assessment of the resource and what it can
maintain as a sustained yield.
Number 1743
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether some sea urchins would be
brought to the surface to extract roe and whether that falls under
the category of "roe stripping."
MR. BRUCE said the roe is the edible, marketable part of the
product. To his knowledge, it is the only part currently sold.
Prices quoted earlier were for roe.
Number 1781
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether somehow the ADF&G would be able
to determine that by extracting roe, the fishery would not be
damaged.
MR. BRUCE said yes.
Number 1788
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether there are possible alternate
methods, such as robot arms or urchin pots, or whether this would
always remain a dive fishery.
MR. BRUCE said someone testified the previous day about experiments
with alternative harvest methods for sea urchins. The dive method,
successful in other parts of the country, has been what the
industry has focused on; Mr. Bruce assumes that is the best way.
Number 1824
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether the ADF&G or the sponsor has
checked to see how this would affect other fisheries such as
crabbing.
MR. BRUCE said as part of the ADF&G's assessment and inventory, to
some extent it looks at relationships between different species.
They do not believe there are detrimental affects on other
resources such as crab as a result of harvesting urchins.
Number 1862
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON suggested divers could provide the department
more information, from a management perspective, than currently
available.
Number 1880
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether the ADF&G would encourage, if
not require, that kind of feedback from divers.
MR. BRUCE replied that he believes that is the principal idea in
this cooperative relationship.
Number 1960
EDWARD T. GRAY testified via teleconference from Sitka. A diver
and member of the Alaska Harvest Divers Association, he deferred to
the sponsor statement for the many reasons why he supports the
bill. He had ten years of experience meeting with a string of
ADF&G officials in unsuccessful bids to secure funds. He said the
first allocations in Sitka happened around 1989. Since then, there
have been closures and reduced quotas while large quantities of
unharvested products have gone unutilized year after year because
of inability to secure funds.
MR. GRAY said they are committed to the association concept. It
contains the "appropriate checks" to provide security to the
divers. He has no philosophical preference about who should pay or
why. He is happy with the 3 percent salmon tax, both in what it
has done for him and the salmon fleet. Mr. Gray concluded by
thanking the sponsor and saying he has renewed hope of going
forward because of this bill.
Number 2043
LARRY TRANI, President, Alaska Harvest Divers Association,
testified via teleconference from Sitka. His association,
representing about 50 divers in the area, unanimously supports HB
198. He pointed out that for years, divers have requested that
ADF&G expand various dive fisheries or open new ones. The answer
has always been that there is not enough money in the ADF&G budget
to meet those requests. Now, the ADF&G is facing budget cuts.
Requests will only be met if the industry comes forward with the
money. Although naturally members would prefer that the state pick
up the tab to develop fisheries, because that is unlikely to happen
in the near future, they urge passage of the committee substitute
for HB 198.
Number 2105
GEORGE ELIASON testified via teleconference from Sitka. A lifelong
fisherman, he has been diving 20 to 30 years. He supports HB 198
on behalf of himself, his two sons and the two divers he works
with. It will provide a long-term, economically viable dive
fishery for his region. He believes these renewable resources will
remain unharvested without such a bill, which would be unfortunate
for divers, processors, deck hands, consumers and support services.
This sounds like a win-win situation, and Southeast Alaska needs
the jobs.
Number 2178
JAMES R. DENNIS testified via teleconference from Craig in support
of the bill. Although there is no dive organization there, he
believes he can speak for a major portion of the area's divers.
While nobody wants to think they are paying more than their share,
this is realistic in light of budget cuts.
Number 2247
RICHARD POLLEN, Plant Manager, Norquest Seafoods, Incorporated,
testified via teleconference from Craig, specifying he is also a
member of the city council. He said as a processor in Craig, he
fully supports the bill. Norquest is currently involved in the sea
urchin fishery. Employing 35 people, they contribute $2,500 per
day in payroll to the community, providing jobs that would
otherwise not be there. At any given time, they have five to
twelve divers working for them, each with a deck hand on board.
MR. POLLEN, speaking as a city council member, advised that the
City of Craig had voted unanimously to contribute start-up money in
one way or another. He said this fishery offers the city revenue
in the form of a fish tax, which is sorely needed.
Number 2316
LINDA SLITER testified via teleconference from Ketchikan in
opposition to the bill. The wife of a diver, she is an equal
partner in the Linda Lou (ph), a dive vessel. She asked where
start-up costs for the association would come from. The
association will need an office; equipment; travel money; an
executive director, secretary and other employees; and a paid
lobbyist to watch-dog the budget yearly to ensure money collected
goes to the dive fisheries. She asked: If the proposed
association goes to the state loan fund for an operation's loan,
who would pay it back? She further asked whether divers would
start out "in the red" with a loan to repay before any money can be
appropriated for management.
MS. SLITER said the association sounds like an expensive layer of
bureaucracy between divers and the ADF&G. If the bill passes, an
association forms, and an election is held to determine the amount
of assessment, she said it would take at least two years before tax
proceeds find their way into the ADF&G budget. She asked who will
foot the bill until that tax is a reality.
MS. SLITER had heard rumors that the proposed association would
seek disaster fund money given to Southeast communities by the
federal government. Convincing communities to fund an association
whose goals are extremely unclear will be a battle all its own.
Once salmon, herring, crab and shrimp fisheries find out about
this, participants will demand their fair share of the disaster
fund money from their communities. She asked whether it is the job
of communities to fund fisheries programs managed by the ADF&G.
MS. SLITER finds it hard to believe a state with no need for a
state income tax, and which distributes millions of dollars to
residents yearly through permanent fund dividends, cannot come up
with $300,000 to fund a multimillion-dollar fishery. A self-
imposed tax for management of a fishery is precedent-setting. She
asked when participants in other fisheries would be requested to
fund management of their fisheries as well.
MS. SLITER noted that she has worked for the Southern Southeast
Regional Aquaculture Association for 18 years. They are partially
funded by a 3 percent tax self-imposed by the fishermen of
Southeast Alaska.
TAPE 97-40, SIDE B
Number 0006
MS. SLITER concluded by saying the sea urchin fishery is able to
become one of the highest revenue-generating industries in Alaska.
It would be economically unsound for the state not to fund the
fishery once it is established and paying the 3 percent raw fish
tax. She urged delay of HB 198 until all avenues of state funding
have been exhausted and all fisheries are being managed equitably.
Number 0064
MELINDA WEST testified via teleconference from Ketchikan in
opposition to HB 198. A harvest diver, she spoke on behalf of
herself, her husband and 40 other divers who had signed a petition
against the bill. They believe it is unconstitutional and
discriminatory against one user group. A tax amounting to 14
percent would be required to manage and enforce the fishery and
support the dive association attached to the bill. Ms. West said
dive fisheries will pay a 3 percent raw fish tax next year. They
will therefore pay for management of the fishery twice. If dive
fisheries expand and stabilize, the 3 percent tax would generate
more than enough revenue to make the fishery self-sustaining.
Number 0116
MS. WEST suggested modifications in the event the bill passes.
First, the "user pay" tax should be across-the-board for all
fisheries. Second, the cooperative management statement, which
"fooled all the divers on this bill to start with," should be put
back in. Third, the ability to use the tax for dive association
management should be eliminated; she believes those should be
separate issues.
MS. WEST also wants to delete the requirement that divers must have
bought and paid for their permits 90 days before being allowed to
vote. Many divers cannot afford permits until the day before they
fish, and many are fronted money to do so. The present scheme
would not provide good representation for the vote on the tax.
MS. WEST said furthermore, the tax should be dedicated. She
stated, "We would support this tax on those grounds, because we are
not opposed to supporting our fishery. We are opposed to this bill
as it is written." She specified they do not want to pay a
lobbyist $50,000 per year to get their money back through the
general fund. "I think this is the biggest flaw of this bill, is
that general fund," she added.
Number 0161
MS. WEST suggested if they pay for management, they have the right
to call the shots. This must be cooperative management, and they
would be looking at competitive bids for management, as perhaps
someone else could do it for better and cheaper than the ADF&G.
MS. WEST concluded by saying no consideration should be given to
any unproven method of self-taxation that singles out a certain
user group to fund management by the ADF&G. She referred to the
previous day's hearing, where someone had "pointed out the $60
million that comes in on the raw fish tax, and only $20 million of
it comes back." She feels this is a bit of mismanagement.
Number 0222
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to dedicated funds and said in his
experience with the legislature, that is impossible without a
constitutional amendment. He asked that Ms. West fax her proposed
amendments to the committee.
Number 0264
STERLING SLITER, President, Alaska Harvest Divers Association,
testified via teleconference from Ketchikan. A member of the sea
urchin task force, he has worked with the ADF&G since the inception
of this concept. He said Geron Bruce echoes their concerns
regarding collected taxes going into the general fund. For this
reason, as written, they cannot support the bill. Not opposed to
taxing themselves if necessary, they believe there must be a
mechanism that would allow taxes generated by divers to go back
into their industry.
Number 0295
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON commented that over the years, the legislature
has made diligent efforts to ensure that assessments collected from
the NSRAA and others go back to appropriate areas; this applies as
well to ASMI and to the raw fish tax that generally supports the
industry. He said there is a moral commitment on his part, and he
believes also on the part of his colleagues, that if they collect
the tax for this particular purpose, they would do their level best
to guarantee it goes back to the ADF&G for the management, growth
and development of that industry.
Number 0333
RODNEY LINTON testified via teleconference from Ketchikan. A
harvest diver, he supports HB 198 but is concerned about changes in
the committee substitute, including deletion of cooperative
management terms. Although supportive of having a way to
supplement state funding for the fishery, he does not believe they
should have to fund the whole thing. He also likes the idea of
this mechanism to develop new dive fisheries such as for clams,
scallops or octopus. Mr. Linton wants the tax funds to be
designated for the dive fishery, as in the designated program
receipts bill he has been hearing about. He asked the number of
that bill.
Number 0391
MR. BRUCE said HB 78 and SB 55.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON agreed program receipts ought to be designated
to the extent possible. He said he wishes to see changes to
differentiate between monies collected generally and those
collected for specific purposes.
Number 0426
JACK SHAY, Mayor, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, testified via
teleconference. The previous Monday, the assembly had voted
unanimously to authorize him to send a letter in support of HB 198.
In talking with dive harvesters and processors, they had been
impressed with the excellent economic opportunity, which would help
in part to rescue the area's economy. Until the timber industry is
healthy again, they look forward to having a healthy dive fishery.
MAYOR SHAY advised that the only resistance they had heard was from
a few divers who believe they should not be assessed because the
ADF&G should do this. In addition, the Kake Tribal Corporation
gave a presentation in Juneau the previous week, citing the fact
that processing occurs outside Alaska. He said, similar to the
timber industry, until an enterprise can be guaranteed or be more
certain, people would not make a capital investment towards local
processing. He noted that local processors have been processing
urchin roe. However, a certain amount of expertise needs to be
built in to enhance the product and make it more cost-effective for
foreign markets.
MAYOR SHAY said that "the proposals that have been made for
amending the measure seem to be perfectly reasonable; as a matter
of fact, I like very much the inclusion of a local government
involvement in the board of directors, and also the other proposal
seems to be perfectly acceptable here." He urged passage of the
bill, saying the borough is fully committed to assisting in this
new enterprise.
Number 0550
PATRICK LAWS testified via teleconference from Ketchikan,
specifying he dives off the vessel Mach-I. He opposes the bill as
currently written. He cannot believe the state cannot come up with
a little money to help fund this fishery.
Number 0592
RAY CAMPBELL testified via teleconference from Ketchikan, saying he
is a harvest diver statewide. He opposes HB 198. The previous
year at this time, a moratorium had been placed on dive fisheries.
He was cut out under the moratorium but qualified as a dungeness
diver, in a fishery with three people in it. Now, there is a bill
to tax him to help develop fisheries that do not even include him.
He believes that is wrong. He further believes it is wrong to lump
all dive fisheries and try to manage four or five fisheries as one.
He suggested if there are problems with the urchin fishery, they
should come up with a bill taxing that fishery for itself.
MR. CAMPBELL said he had called the sponsor's office twice in the
past month to ask why the dungeness dive fishery was included in
this bill. He noted it was not included in the moratorium bill.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS asked for Mr. Campbell's phone number and
said he would contact him.
Number 0704
HARLEY ETHELBAH testified via teleconference from Petersburg. A
diver and statewide fisherman, he said this should be looked at as
a whole, for other fisheries as well. He has participated in the
geoduck fishery for five years and has been working with the ADF&G
to try to expand that. After five years, it is obvious to him that
the ADF&G does not have the money to do the surveys and expand it.
He sees HB 198 as a great opportunity for these fisheries.
MR. ETHELBAH believes cooperative management should be included in
the bill, as it once was. Divers could work with the ADF&G in the
surveys, as they are trained in looking for geoducks, urchins and
so forth. Referring to the requirement that permit fees be paid
before voting, he said, "I think that's great that that's in the
bill, because it means that serious divers will be voting, and
those not willing to pay their permit fees won't be voting."
Number 0811
STEPHEN LaCROIX, Dive Program, Norquest Seafoods, Incorporated,
came forward to testify. He runs the dive program for Norquest,
which has processing plants in Craig, Petersburg and Ketchikan. In
the recent dive fishery, they took one-half million pounds of
urchins, almost 20 percent of the quota. They have employed 70
people full time. It is a good fit for his company, and it
transforms part-time seasonal workers into full-time employees. He
noted that it requires five people on shore to service one diver in
the water.
MR. LaCROIX stated that Norquest supports HB 198 because it puts a
secure funding structure in place for them to make investments
necessary to compete with established players in the business. He
said so far, they had collected over $23,000 in voluntary
assessments from the divers in this business. "And we only have
about $480 that remains to be collected, in other words, money that
was not voluntarily donated," he stated. "So that shows the kind
of support that we've got from the divers that are working for us."
Number 0885
GIG DECKER, President, Wrangell Harvest Divers Association, came
forward to testify, noting that his association is part of
Southeast Alaska Harvest Divers Association. Wrangell has had a
mill closure, and people are interested in going to work, not only
as divers but through attracting processing and all the jobs
associated with it. He expressed excitement about the bill and
said he totally supports it.
Number 0943
AARON J. CUMMINS came forward to testify. A lifelong commercial
fisherman from Petersburg, he completely supports the bill. He
believes it is ironic that for the last few years, he has left
town, crossing vast resources of undeveloped fisheries to work in
the Bering Sea and California. He would much rather be at home.
He believes these fisheries can be expanded. Right now in
Petersburg there are 25 divers, who often take an additional diver
along. If this fishery could be enhanced to where they earn more
per diver, many would gladly buy their own boats. They could quit
working as deck hands for others, opening up new jobs for younger
people in the communities. In addition, more boats would generate
additional shipyard work, and so on. He restated his support.
Number 1020
CLAY BEZENEK, President, Southeast Alaska Harvest Divers
Association, came forward to testify. A Ketchikan resident, he has
fished in Alaska 15 years, and 100 percent of his income derives
from harvest of "creatures from the sea." With the exception of
one dissenting vote, his association fully supports HB 198. It
provides a reliable funding source for all developing dive
fisheries, as well as a direct link for a cooperative working
relationship with the ADF&G. He noted that dive fisheries are
unique in that the gear used is a human being, not gillnets or
hooks. He believes special consideration should be given to any
fishery that is "so human-interactive," and that HB 198 addresses
this important issue.
MR. BEZENEK advised that they now voluntarily assess themselves for
management costs set forth by the ADF&G for the urchin fisheries.
This is not new to them. This bill provides a tried-and-true
assessment vehicle that guarantees a funding source for years to
come. As a commercial salmon fisherman as well, he is completely
satisfied with the job the aquaculture association does with
assessment dollars. He expects to be similarly satisfied when this
becomes law. It will allows businesses, both small and large, to
formulate business plans for processing these products. It will
also allow development of new dive fisheries currently identified
but not bio-assessed. He believes HB 198 is important to all
Southeast Alaska towns.
Number 1131
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if anyone else wished to testify, then
closed public testimony.
Number 1156
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS advised that he had worked with the ADF&G
on the cooperative management language removed from the bill. In
talking with them, he understands the department will come up with
a plan but divers will still have a say. He feels comfortable with
it.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Geron Bruce whether that is his
understanding.
Number 1212
MR. BRUCE replied yes, they are interested in working with people
in the dive industry on shaping and developing the fishery. He
added that the ADF&G does this kind of thing routinely. In pretty
much all fisheries, there are working groups and an advisory
committee system. "We want to work with people affected by fishery
management and have the benefit of their knowledge and expertise in
shaping management," he concluded.
Number 1245
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE commented that he supports this. He
cautioned, however, that in efforts to try to curtail spending, the
legislature should not limit development of areas that need a jump-
start for economic development.
Number 1316
CO-CHAIRMAN SCOTT OGAN said this is a statement of the
legislature's support of people in Southeast Alaska in recognition
of mill closures.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON acknowledged suggested amendments by testifiers
and said obviously the committee could not deal with amendments
that were not before them. He did not intend to hold the bill.
However, he asked that proposals be advanced to Representative
Williams; if amendments would enhance the bill and maintain its
intentions, he suggested the sponsor would not hesitate to offer
those on the House floor.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said either on the floor or the other side.
Number 1396
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to move the committee
substitute, 0-LS0415\T, Utermohle, 4/9/97, from the committee with
accompanying fiscal notes and individual recommendations. There
being no objection, CSHB 198(RES) moved from the House Resources
Standing Committee.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON turned the gavel over to Co-Chairman Ogan for
the next item of business.
CSSB 7(RLS) am - HUNTING SPORT FISH TRAPPING FEES/LICENSES
Number 1436
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." Before the committee was HCS
CSSB7(FSH).
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred to concern expressed at the previous
hearing over lack of a general one-year nonresident license. He
advised that Representative Masek, not currently present, had
provided a proposed amendment at that hearing.
Number 1537
KAREN BRAND, Legislative Assistant to Senator Dave Donley, came
forward to testify. She said if it was the committee's will to
remove restrictions in Section 8, Senator Donley would request that
the committee entertain intent language for Section 1; Ms. Brand
had a copy of that proposed language.
Number 1655
JOHN GLASS, Colonel, Director, Division of Fish and Wildlife
Protection, Department of Public Safety, came forward to testify.
He referred to the suggestion made previously that the 14-day
licenses would assist the department in determining who harvests
fish through sports fishing and in keeping some sort of record that
those were being sold. "And I don't believe that is the case at
all," he stated. "It would not help us in that manner or in that
direction at all."
Number 1693
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said it had been asserted by the sponsor that it
would at least create a paper trail for people who continually buy
these licenses, allowing those people to be "flagged" as those
willing to continue to stay all summer and potentially keep canning
and preserving fish to take outside for commercial sale.
COLONEL GLASS said he thinks that would be on a case-by-case basis.
Number 1743
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Colonel Glass to explain how they
investigate those cases, what methodology they use, and what kind
of success they have had.
COLONEL GLASS responded that they were receiving quite a few
complaints from the Kenai River in particular. They put people
under cover there last year and were able to make four cases.
Three people had since pled out and one case is set to go to trial
April 28. In that case, an undercover agent had purchased fish
from people harvesting on the Kenai, home-canning the fish and
selling them there. That case had generated from a retired trooper
from Colonel Glass's division who purchased home-canned Alaska
salmon at a garage sale in Tucson or Phoenix, Arizona.
Number 1813
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked how they become aware of these and whether
they note license numbers of people who have been there all year,
for example.
COLONEL GLASS said those largely came from complaints from Kenai
citizens who observed these people camped in campgrounds along
there. Division personnel would drive by and take photographs.
For example, one photograph shows 14 cases of salmon already
processed.
Number 1867
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN pointed out that it is not illegal to process 14
cases of salmon. He suggested people would have to be caught
selling it.
COLONEL GLASS affirmed that. They had put an undercover person
into the campground, who was able to purchase the salmon.
Number 1887
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether the cases they had made so far had
been where people were selling fish in campgrounds in Alaska. He
explained that concern was over people financing their trips to
Alaska by selling salmon outside Alaska.
COLONEL GLASS said home processing develops two real concerns.
First, the Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has a
concern because it could possibly be tainted. He suggested such
fish sold outside Alaska could also taint the image of Alaska's
salmon. He believes it is the intent of both the Administration
and the legislature to have a fine product. Only one or two
instances could cripple the salmon industry.
COLONEL GLASS said the other concern is that it is really not
illegal for somebody to sell Alaska's home-canned salmon in
Phoenix, for example, because Alaska law does not apply in Arizona.
He believes part of this legislation's intent is to address that.
Number 1976
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked whether Colonel Glass believes it would be
a disincentive if people had to check in for license renewal. He
suggested a periodic review may cause them to feel that someone has
an eye on them. He further asked whether Colonel Glass believes
purchasers of licenses are adequately informed about restrictions
on sale and the reasons why.
COLONEL GLASS said he did not know what Co-Chairman Hudson means by
"checking in" those people. As far as information given at the
time of sale, depending on which vendor it is, there will be a
different answer whenever a license is sold. "And it causes us
considerable problems when we're doing these types of
investigations," he said.
COLONEL GLASS advised that most investigations regarding
nonresident licenses occur after the fishing and hunting seasons,
usually in November or December. Most nonresidents have long since
gone south by that time.
Number 2107
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked whether there are other alternatives
that Colonel Glass had thought of that might get the legislature
where they intend to go.
COLONEL GLASS replied that the one that he knows has been discussed
is setting a quota for number of fish harvested by a nonresident.
However, that may bring up constitutional issues and he does not
know where that stands.
Number 2197
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said from Colonel Glass's testimony, he is hearing
that this would not necessarily be an enforcement tool but could
possibly be a deterrent.
COLONEL GLASS agreed it may dissuade somebody if they must
continually buy licenses. However, as a way of keeping track, he
does not believe it would help the department in that regard.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN suggested basically it is a judgment call on
whether or not this will provide a disincentive for people to stay
here and fish all summer, which may have other consequences.
Number 2267
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS asked whether Colonel Glass supports the
14-day maximum currently in the bill.
COLONEL GLASS replied that he does not believe the 14-day license
would be any additional assistance to the department.
Number 2319
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked if anyone else wished to testify or if
anyone had questions for the Department of Law representative in
the audience. He then closed public testimony.
Number 2406
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
provided previously by Representative Masek, which read:
Page 2, lines 16 - 28: Delete
TAPE 97-41, SIDE A
Number 0006
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked whether the amendment would restore the
general, annual nonresident fishing license at $150.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN affirmed that.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said it takes away the limited criteria
presently in the bill.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said that criteria was in there for commercial
fishermen, related to another bill that may or may not make it
through the process.
Number 0066
MS. BRAND advised that Senator Donley had expressed at the last
hearing that if it was the will of the committee to adopt such an
amendment, he would not oppose it. However, if adopted, he
requested consideration of his proposed intent language.
Number 0133
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether there was any objection to Amendment
1. There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN called a brief at-ease at 2:52. He called the
meeting back to order at 2:55 p.m.
Number 0155
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, offered
by the sponsor, which read:
Page 1
Line 6
Insert:
"*Section 1. It is the Intent of the Legislature that
the fee increases for non-resident sport fishing licenses in
this legislation help discourage current abuses by non-
residents harvesting sport-caught fish for the purpose of
selling them. The legislature requests the Board of Fish
[sic] also address this problem and adopt a quota system to
limit non-residents [sic] catch of sport fish."
Number 0167
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked if there was any objection. There being
none, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 0155
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON made a motion to move HCS CSSB7(FSH), as
amended, from committee with attached fiscal notes and individual
recommendations. He asked unanimous consent. There being no
objection, HCS CSSB7(RES) moved from the House Resources Standing
Committee.
SB 19 am - REPEAL FED ENFORCEMENT DUTIES/F&G COMSNR
Number 0269
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the next item of business was Senate
Bill No. 19 am, "An Act relating to enforcement of federal laws
relating to fish and game; and repealing the power and duty of the
commissioner of Fish and Game to assist in the enforcement of
federal laws relating to fish and game."
Number 0288
JOSEPHINE HARDY, Legislative Secretary to Senator Bert Sharp, read
the sponsor statement into the record:
"Senate Bill 19 repeals the present statutory mandate (AS
16.05.050(1)) that the State of Alaska will assist the federal
government agencies in the enforcement of federal laws and
regulations as they apply to fish and game resources in Alaska.
"In light of aggressive federal actions to assume management of
fish and game over large areas of our state in violation of our
statehood compact, Senator Sharp believes that repealing this
statute is prudent and in the best interests of the citizens of
Alaska."
MS. HARDY added that this bill was a section of the previous year's
SB 77, which passed both bodies but was vetoed by the Governor.
Number 0420
GEORGE UTERMOHLE, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, came forward to answer
questions.
Number 0437
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to a letter dated April 8, 1997, from
the Department of Law. He asked whether Mr. Utermohle believes the
current version of SB 19 presents any major conflict with Alaska
enforcement officers in the conduct of their business.
Number 0490
MR. UTERMOHLE said he had read that letter and that the points
contained in that letter are valid. To the extent that a state law
enforcement officer is put in an awkward position by virtue of any
cross-deputization received from a federal agency, this will cause
problems for that officer. The burden put on the officer is
determining which laws are in conflict and therefore which laws the
officer will be unable to assist the federal government in
enforcing. He concluded, "He's going to end up requiring to have
a lawyer at his side in the field."
Number 0551
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said having been an enforcement officer himself
for over 20 years with the U.S. Coast Guard, where there was
multiple-agency enforcement responsibility, it does put somebody in
a delicate situation. He asked whether officers are sworn to
uphold the federal and state constitutions, as well as the laws of
the state.
MR. UTERMOHLE said he could not say what the text of the oath is.
Number 0622
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked whether the intent of SB 19 is to cover
all land in the state of Alaska.
MR. UTERMOHLE replied yes, this is to be a law of general
applicability, applicable throughout the state.
Number 0651
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred to the federal government taking over
management of Alaska's fisheries in October. He asked whether SB
19 would preclude Alaska's Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection
from enforcing fisheries laws in navigable waters.
MR. UTERMOHLE replied, "At this point, I don't think anyone knows
what the extent of the federal takeover might be come this fall.
What this bill would preclude is preclude a state protection
officer from assisting a federal officer in enforcing federal law
that is contrary, or conflicts with, a state law, that is ...
equally applicable to that situation."
Number 0714
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN suggested the federal government managing Alaska's
fisheries is a conflict with state law. He asked, assuming that
can reasonably be considered a conflict, whether state officers
would be precluded from doing fisheries enforcement work in
navigable waters.
MR. UTERMOHLE replied, "No, they would not be precluded from
enforcing state law." He further explained, "They will not be able
to assist a federal officer in enforcing a federal law that is
contrary to a state law that addresses that exact situation."
Number 0804
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said for example, if the federal government
precluded fishing but state law did not, and state officers caught
someone fishing in violation of the federal law, they could not,
under SB 19, do anything about it. But as long as it agreed with
state law, they could.
MR. UTERMOHLE agreed. As long as the law is not in conflict with
a state statute, it would be enforceable by a state officer.
Number 0864
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE mentioned there are different priorities in
allocations.
MR. UTERMOHLE said at some point, different prioritizations or
allocations of resources would be reflected in regulations
applicable on the grounds. That is where enforcement problems
would arise.
Number 0948
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS referred to Mr. Utermohle's earlier comment
about needing an attorney present.
MR. UTERMOHLE said an officer will have to determine what is a
conflict between state and federal law in deciding whether to
assist a federal officer.
Number 1009
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether that is not usually the district
attorney's job, with the cop writing a ticket and the district
attorney looking at it. They throw a few out and they get
precedents, he said.
MR. UTERMOHLE replied that this requires the officer in the field
to not assist, before any court determination. The officer must
make that determination.
Number 1041
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE suggested when that is the case, what really
suffers is the resources.
Number 1073
JOHN GLASS, Colonel, Director, Division of Fish and Wildlife
Protection, Department of Public Safety, came forward again to
testify on SB 19. He said they had followed this bill since its
inception and had testified before the Senate about concerns. He
submitted a letter from Commissioner Otte addressing the Department
of Public Safety's concerns; attached was a discussion with
Assistant Attorney General Stephen M. White regarding some of the
Department of Law's concerns with this bill relating to definition
of "in conflict with".
Number 1116
COLONEL GLASS said his agency is extremely concerned with the
ability to work with federal agents in protecting resources in
Alaska. He has 81 commissioned personnel to work 586,000 square
miles. Taking away their ability to work with federal counterparts
would be counterproductive to their efforts.
COLONEL GLASS indicated various attorneys have given different
responses as to what conflict will be under the bill. That also
concerns them a great deal. He referred to Co-Chairman Hudson's
questions about a constitutional oath. As a state trooper, he has
a copy of it. He said 24 years ago, he took this oath to defend
and support both the federal and state constitutions. He said that
oath is administered to every Alaska state trooper, both for fish
and wildlife and other protection. He believes SB 19 may in fact
jeopardize that oath of office.
COLONEL GLASS is extremely concerned about the additional burden
placed on officers in the field of trying to determine what "in
conflict" means between state and federal laws at any given time.
This frequently requires federal and state judges, as well as
supreme courts and courts of appeals, months to determine. "They
want us to determine it on the spot, in the field, when we're
working with a federal agency," he said. "I think that puts an
unfair burden on my people."
COLONEL GLASS concluded by stating he does not believe SB 19 is in
the best interest of the resources of Alaska, which he is here to
protect.
Number 1233
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said the issue of a federal law that essentially
violates the state constitution places it squarely in front of the
courts, but it has not been fully resolved. He stated that the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) is in
conflict with Alaska's constitution. He asked what kind of
guidance Colonel Glass gives field officers in dealing with
conflicts involving gray areas.
COLONEL GLASS responded, "I don't have an answer for you, because
I don't know what to tell them. It is a major problem for this
division, absolutely, sir."
Number 1325
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred to the Babbitt court suit, which he said
was dropped with prejudice by this Administration. He asked
whether there were other areas this would affect. Specifically, he
asked whether it would affect the Lacey Act.
COLONEL GLASS at first said that presently, it probably will not.
In fact, they were having a difficult time finding state laws in
direct conflict with federal laws, rules and regulations relating
to fish and game resources. Down the road, however, some could be
passed.
COLONEL GLASS then acknowledged it may, in fact, affect the Lacey
Act. He stated, "My fear and concern is if we quit cooperating
with the federal agencies, they may in turn quit cooperating with
us, as a retaliation, if you will." He explained that they
consistently use the Lacey Act to assist in prosecution of big game
guides for same-day-airborne activities, for example; those guides
have a far greater capability of "reaching out to the Lower 48,"
where most guided hunts originate. It could possibly affect Lacey
Act use by the federal government, he said.
Number 1423
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that the Lacey Act relates to transporting
game illegally taken under Alaska law across state lines.
COLONEL GLASS clarified it is for game or trophies. "And that's
where the Lacey Act really goes into effect, is when they do take
a trophy in Alaska and transport it out of the state line," he
said. "That's where we use it. All of those are misdemeanors, and
at the current Department of Law, they do not, or will not, even,
transport witnesses back up from the Lower 48 to prosecute the
misdemeanors. Therefore, that's why we use the Lacey Act in that
regard, in order to get our prosecution on those cases."
Number 1459
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said this bill, as written, would not directly
affect that unless it affects the relationship between the federal
and state authorities.
COLONEL GLASS said that is correct, unless somewhere down the road
the Board of Game or legislature passes a law in conflict with the
Lacey Act. It is an unknown. "And I believe that's really what
our concern is because most of this bill is unknown, to what effect
it will have on us," he concluded.
Number 1498
DICK BISHOP, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council, came
forward to testify in favor of SB 19. He said he found the
discussion absolutely fascinating in that it is totally lopsided.
There had been no discussion of the compromise of the integrity of
state law or state law enforcement agencies as a result of putting
them in a position of having to enforce a law that is inconsistent
with state law and the state constitution. All testimony thus far
had simply said, "Gee, this puts them in a tough spot to make a
decision." Acknowledging that Colonel Glass's crew is overworked
and has too many rules to enforce, he said they must make decisions
at least that difficult many times a day, in order to decide
whether to write tickets or not.
MR. BISHOP indicated he had experience as a former deputized
officer with the ADF&G. He cited a personal example where he
fishes for both personal and commercial use near the Tanana River,
fishing under state law that protects the resource. He envisions
a possible situation where federal rules prohibit him to fish there
because it may compromise opportunities for subsistence uses in
that drainage, for example. The state law may say that the
resource has the capability of sustaining a use that federal
government prohibits. He suggested asking a state enforcement
officer to enforce a law inconsistent with the state statute and
the constitution would place a conscientious officer in an
untenable position. Therefore, he believes there is every reason
to support this amendment to Title 16.
Number 1669
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS asked whether Mr. Bishop knows why
subsistence was put in ANILCA.
MR. BISHOP said yes. First, many people felt the subject had not
been adequately addressed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (ANCSA). And second, in order for the environmental movement
to successfully legislate, or have legislated, immense parks and
refuges in the state, they had to make a deal to accommodate
subsistence uses in order to get those large parks.
Number 1711
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS asked which of those examples Mr. Bishop
believes.
MR. BISHOP replied, "I was there. They both operated on the
negotiations at that time."
Number 1719
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said, "What you're saying then is
subsistence is into ANILCA because it wasn't clear enough or the
state and federal government wasn't living up to their word in
making subsistence available to the Native community."
MR. BISHOP replied that he had not said that. "What I did say was
that some people believed that it needed to be addressed in ANILCA
because it had not been adequately addressed in ANCSA," he
clarified. "I personally did not say that either the state or the
federal government was remiss in providing for it."
Number 1745
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said subsistence was mentioned during
negotiations over ANCSA. He suggested that was part of a deal made
then. He said, "And apparently it was believed by this state to
agree to even have that portion, Title VIII, in ANILCA. Otherwise
it probably wouldn't be in ANILCA." He asked whether Mr. Bishop
agrees with that.
MR. BISHOP replied, "Yes, that's right. There was an agreement ...
by the state of Alaska at that time to go along with that
compromise, even though at that time, the state representatives
were advised that there was every probability that the rural
priority in ANILCA was going to be unconstitutional under the state
constitution. The state nevertheless agreed to it."
Number 1816
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said as far as ANILCA and the state's
agreement to get Title VIII in ANILCA, subsistence was not lived up
to. He said in an ANCSA conference report it says the Secretary of
Interior and the state of Alaska will take care of subsistence for
Natives. In 1980, the state said that "the only way you're going
to get subsistence into ANILCA is if you make it for rural
communities and leave Natives out -- leave the word `Natives' out."
He asked whether that is correct.
MR. BISHOP replied, "Yes, the state at that time did say that if
the state was going to be expected to participate in management,
that they would be unable to do so under the state's constitution
if the priority was limited to Alaska Natives. And so the
suggestion was made that - actually, I don't think by the state -
but it was made, in fact, it was insisted upon, that the term
`rural' be included. It was very interesting because the state, as
you probably know, had passed a subsistence priority law in 1978,
which did not include the term `rural.' And the rationale of
passing that law was that if the state had a subsistence law that
related to subsistence uses, it would be unnecessary to include
such a provision in ANILCA."
MR. BISHOP continued, "However, when the negotiations continued on
ANILCA, the argument was made, `Well, the state has a subsistence
law; therefore, there should be no objection to putting it in
federal law,' and it was included. Then, just to make it a little
more complicated, the representative of the Alaska Federation of
Natives said the law that is in state statutes is not adequate
because it does not specify rural; therefore, if AFN is going to
agree to this compromise - the compromise at large of ANILCA in
total - there is going to have to be `rural' put into the
subsistence priority. And that was the ultimatum. That was made
by Don Mitchell (ph). I was sitting at the table when he made it."
MR. BISHOP indicated the state's response was negative. He said
they were advised it may well be unconstitutional. But everybody
wanted to get past ANILCA, and so they agreed to it. He noted that
although they were advised it was probably unconstitutional, it had
not yet been determined. The state tried to comply with that law
and passed a statute in 1986 that conformed to the rural priority
of federal law. However, in 1989, it was found unconstitutional
under Alaska's constitution. He suggested that while they had been
hoping for the best, it turned out it was the wrong thing to have
done.
Number 1985
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said he understands that subsistence was
part of ANCSA. He suggested there was an agreement with the Native
community relating to ANCSA that should be lived up to.
MR. BISHOP commented that in ANCSA, there are at least a couple of
places where reference to subsistence is made. One is in the
conference report mentioned by Representative Williams, which said
it was anticipated both the state and federal governments would
ensure that subsistence needs of Alaska Natives are addressed. In
addition, an earlier report by then-Secretary Morton (ph) pointed
out that "it was anticipated, in the Department of Interior's
recommendation on lands for selection by Native corporations, that
those lands would be used not only for economic development but to
support subsistence needs and activities of Alaska Natives." He
concluded by suggesting that reading ANCSA or ANILCA is a little
like reading the Bible, in that people can often reach their own
conclusions.
Number 2065
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that the bill would be held over.
Number 2080
PAULA TERRELL, Researcher for Representative Irene Nicholia,
reported that Representative Nicholia was ill. She said Gabe Sam,
"fish and wildlife staff person" for Tanana Chiefs Conference,
Incorporated, had asked her to testify on his behalf, as he had
been unable to get a teleconference line from Fairbanks. She
advised that the Tanana Chiefs Conference, which represents
approximately 70 villages in Representative Nicholia's district, is
strongly opposed to SB 19.
Number 2131
DALE BONDURANT testified via teleconference from Kenai in support
of SB 19, saying he opposes any "quasi-support for federal mandated
subsistence priority for restricted classes of resource users." He
adamantly opposes federal takeover of management of Alaska's fish,
wildlife and waters. Even more adamantly, he opposes amending the
state constitution "just to assume a lackey type of responsibility
with no true authority."
MR. BONDURANT, referring to the Alaska Supreme Court McDowell
decision, said it addressed the state's defense of "it's third
purpose" or unconstitutional compliance with ANILCA. He quoted, "A
third purpose to comply with ANILCA in order to retain state fish
and game control on federal lands. It is difficult to view this as
a sufficiently important purpose. ANILCA does not require state
compliance. State control merely for the sake of control is a
questionable goal when the terms infringe upon the open access
values of Article II."
MR. BONDURANT said in the past, he had questioned ADF&G employees
as to why they even participate as advisors in the federal
subsistence regulation hearings; he said they feel obligated to
furnish expert advice to help with resource protection. "But I've
told them that they are in fact helping the enemy, the feds, in an
infringement of Alaska statehood authority to manage these public
trust resource properties," he stated. "Those who claim that
Alaska must amend the state constitution `common use' and `no
exclusive right or special privileges' clauses, to gain subjugated
management, ignore that this makes Alaska responsible but the state
will be given no actual authority under federal oversight. And
even worse, it will require the abrogation of an equal protection
under the law in Article I, Section 1."
MR. BONDURANT asked: If the federal government was enforcing the
right to barter for cash, would Alaskan enforcement agents be
expected to enforce that? He referred to earlier discussion of the
oath to uphold state and federal constitutions. "Maybe this is the
lever we need to get into the Supreme Court with the problems with
ANILCA," he said, suggesting the state try to obtain a ruling on
giving priority to a segment of the population for use of this
public trust resource.
Number 2281
RICHARD ANDREW testified via teleconference from Ketchikan in
support of SB 19. An Alaska resident for 43 years, he believes
this will provide a wake-up message to the federal government that
if they are going to take over Alaska's fish and game, the state is
unwilling to help. He thanked the sponsors.
Number 2305
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked if anyone else wished to testify, then
concluded the meeting. (SB 19 am was held over.)
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 3:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|