Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/18/2000 01:12 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
February 18, 2000
1:12 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Cowdery, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Reggie Joule
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 54
Relating to urging the exclusion of national forests in Alaska
from President Clinton's proposal for withdrawal of roadless
areas in the national forest system.
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 206
"An Act relating to the migratory game bird conservation tag, to
a nonresident combined sport fishing and hunting license, to the
nonresident military small game and sport fishing license, to
applications for certain licenses, tags, and permits issued by
the Department of Fish and Game, and to duplicate crewmember
licenses."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 164
"An Act relating to electronic application for and issuance of
licenses, permits, and tags issued by the Department of Fish and
Game; to violations regarding a license, permit, or tag applied
for or issued electronically; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 54
SHORT TITLE: EXCLUDE AK NATL FORESTS FROM ROADLESS POL
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/09/00 2145 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
2/09/00 2145 (H) RES
2/09/00 2145 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
2/16/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
2/16/00 (H) Heard & Held
2/16/00 (H) MINUTE(RES)
2/18/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 206
SHORT TITLE: FISH AND GAME LICENSES & TAGS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
4/21/99 899 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/21/99 900 (H) RES, FIN
2/09/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
2/09/00 (H) Bill Postponed
2/16/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
2/16/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
2/18/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 164
SHORT TITLE: FISH & GAME LICENSING BY ELECTRONICS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/29/99 601 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/29/99 601 (H) RES, JUD
3/29/99 601 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (F&G, LAW)
3/29/99 601 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
2/16/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
2/16/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
2/18/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
BOB DOTSON
6015 Dotson Lane South
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 54.
JACK PHELPS, Executive Director
Alaska Forest Association (AFA)
111 Stedman, Suite 200
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 54.
JACK SHAY, Mayor
Ketchikan Gateway Borough
344 Front Street
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 54.
CALEB WARDLAW
Sitka Conservation Society
P.O. Box 1524
Sitka, Alaska 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 54.
CORRIE BOSMAN
P.O. Box 103364
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 54.
PAM LABOLLE, President
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
217 Second Street, Suite 201
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 54.
DICK COOSE, Executive Director
of Concerned Alaskans for Resources and Environment (CARE)
and President of the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce
P.O. Box 9266
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 54.
JOHN MANLY, Legislative Aide
for Representative John Harris
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 110
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 206 on behalf of the sponsor.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
on HB 206.
HERB SIMON
Nelchina, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 206 and HB 164.
KEVIN BROOKS, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99811-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 206; introduced HB
164.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-11, SIDE A
Number 0001
VICE CHAIR COWDERY called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:12 p.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives Cowdery, Morgan, Barnes, Whitaker and
Kapsner.
VICE CHAIR COWDERY informed members that testimony would be taken
on the legislation before the committee.
HJR 54 - EXCLUDE AK NATL FORESTS FROM ROADLESS POL
Number 0170
VICE CHAIR COWDERY announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 54, relating to urging the
exclusion of national forests in Alaska from President Clinton's
proposal for withdrawal of roadless areas in the national forest
system. [The sponsor, Representative Williams, had explained HJR
54 to members on February 16, 2000, but no testimony was taken on
that date.]
Number 0211
BOB DOTSON testified via teleconference from Ketchikan on behalf
of himself, his wife and his family, who are all long-time
residents of Alaska. He indicated that they are very concerned
with the amount of area "locked up" already in wilderness areas.
He explained that the natural resource industry in their area has
one foot in the grave and the other on a slippery edge, and it is
not looking like it is going to get any better. He pointed out
there is a mineral deposit on Prince of Wales Island that they
believe could give some high-tech industry to their area. He
said that they need to pay more attention to the iron-fisted
control of the federal government and that the continuing lockups
need to stop.
[A motion was made to adopt HJR 54, version 1-LS1391\G; however,
that version, the original bill, was already before the
committee.]
Number 0560
JACK PHELPS, Executive Director, Alaska Forest Association (AFA),
testified via teleconference from Ketchikan. He indicated that
the AFA is the timber industry's trade association for Alaska,
representing about 90 small businesses in the forest products
sector. Mr. Phelps informed the committee that the AFA supports
HJR 54 and urges the committee to move it to the floor as soon as
possible.
MR. PHELPS said the timber industry in Southeast Alaska has
already been badly damaged by federal actions, and further
withdrawal of roadless areas and prohibition on entry will have a
detrimental effect on the small remaining sawmill industry. He
pointed out that the effect of the roadless-area withdrawal on
the Tongass National Forest would be particularly dramatic. The
U.S. Forest Service and the environmental groups have been
talking about 14.9 million acres that qualify for [the] roadless
[designation] in Alaska, but fail to point out that most of that
is already protected under some form of federal action. Mr.
Phelps said the real issue is the 403,000 acres that are still in
the Tongass National Forest's available commercial forest land.
MR. PHELPS noted that if the roadless policy is applied to the
Tongass, the land available for scheduled timber sales will
likely be reduced from 576,000 acres to approximately 183,000
acres, which is a very small parcel of land and certainly not
large enough to support the existing industry. He explained that
the resolution has very clear statements about prohibitions that
were set forward in ANILCA [Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act], and the state should demand that no more
clauses of ANILCA be honored by the President. There seems to be
widespread opposition within Alaska with regard to the roadless
policy, and [AFA] urges the legislature to join that chorus with
full voice.
Number 0822
VICE CHAIR COWDERY wondered if the President's proposed amendment
has had much public input or analysis.
MR. PHELPS indicated that the actual analysis that was received
during the scoping period has not yet been released. He
explained that the majority of the comments were received by e-
mail and seem to be related to campaigns. They are awaiting some
analysis from the forest service as to the breakdown of what the
comments were, but they don't have any solid information at the
present time.
JACK SHAY, Mayor, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, testified via
teleconference from Ketchikan. He stated that the roadless
policy would create tremendous local and statewide impacts. He
agreed with Representative Williams' statement [at the previous
hearing] that the roadless policy is an attack on the working
people of Alaska. He indicated that when they met with Under
Secretary Lyons last year at the Southeast Conference in Sitka,
he spoke of many different measures but did not mention the
roadless proposal. Soon after the conference, when they heard of
the proposal, they were astonished and felt betrayed. He
referred to Vice President Gore's inaugural address, in which he
said that they had saved the Tongass National Forest; he wondered
what Vice President Gore thinks he is saving the Tongass from.
He stressed that all he is saving it from is potential jobs,
prosperity and "living wages." He indicated that they are
sending a letter to Vice President Gore urging him to understand
their situation. He stated that he is very disappointed in the
measure and believes it shows a complete lack of understanding
with regard to the issues in Southeast Alaska. He added that he
hopes the committee will favorably consider HJR 54.
Number 1137
CALEB WARDLAW, Sitka Conservation Society, testified via
teleconference from Sitka. He stated:
I would just like to ask that you please do not urge
the exclusion of Alaska national forests from the
proposed forest service roadless policy. Various
industries in Southeast Alaska will experience various
economic results, depending on the inclusion or
exclusion of the Tongass in this policy; however,
Southeast Alaska will undoubtedly experience a net
socioeconomic gain from the Tongass being included in
this policy.
This policy will not damage the timber industry. There
is a worldwide trend toward recycling and increasing
wood product substitutes. The future holds less of a
demand for timber than today. Even if the timber
demand were to remain steady and the Tongass were to be
included in the new policy, there would still be plenty
of Tongass timber available to sustain a healthy
industry.
According to an analysis of forest service data of
tentatively suitable forest lands, there are currently
10 billion board feet of timber accessible from
existing Tongass roads. This would allow for an annual
harvest of 100 million board feet a year, even if the
Tongass were included in the policy.
Furthermore, the Tongass's inclusion in the roadless
policy will ensure that the Tongass remains the crown
jewel of the United States national forest system. In
the Lower 48 there are no forests as vast and pristine
as the Tongass. In fact, every day pristine forests
become scarcer. Pristine forests offer incomparable
recreational experiences and valuable fish and wildlife
habitat. These qualities are coming to be recognized
as golden. In other words, the Tongass, if left
pristine, will become a gold mine. Every day, more
people are willing to pay more dollars to experience
pristine forests. The Tongass would include the
largest "unroaded" expanses of forest in the United
States. That means it would be a commodity unequaled
anywhere in the whole United States.
Furthermore, the Southeast Alaska fishing industry is
close to a $300-million-a-year fishery. The fishing
industry stands nothing to gain from the Tongass being
excluded from this policy; however, it is guaranteed to
lose from the Tongass's exclusion. Improperly
maintained roads are the main threat to [the water
habitat of] anadromous fish .... As of this day, the
forest service is hard pressed to maintain the current
4,500 miles of Tongass road. The cost of fixing
culvert problems alone within the Tongass is going to
cost an estimated $20 million. With existing forest
service financial constraints, roads will ... not [be]
properly maintained.
Furthermore, this policy is not in violation of ANILCA,
because it does not propose new wilderness or
conservation areas; it simply proposes a restriction on
new roads. The state legislature of Alaska should not
unilaterally oppose the forest service in continuing
their analyses of the benefits and costs of Alaska's
forest roads. The draft EIS [Environmental Impact
Statement] will be structured with multiple
alternatives and will give the legislature, as well as
the individual citizens of Alaska, an opportunity to
comment at that point in the process. Thank you for
the chance to comment.
Number 1370
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked whether the Sitka Conservation
Society is apart of the Alaska Conservation Voice.
MR. WARDLAW said that he was not sure.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES indicated that she believes they are. She
referred to the testimony given on SB 7 opposing the transfer of
land to the University of Alaska, noting that one of the issues
the Alaska Conservation Voice had raised was lack of access to
that land. She wondered how Mr. Wardlaw could square his
testimony with the testimony given on SB 7 with regard to access.
MR. WARDLAW stated that he is not familiar with the testimony and
is not representing the parties that Representative Barnes had
mentioned; therefore, he was unable to answer the question.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Wardlaw if he is familiar with RS
2477.
MR. WARDLAW requested clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES explained that RS 2477 has to do with
access across lands from identified trails that were in the state
prior to the time of statehood, and that could be used to access
holdings in the state. She again asked Mr. Wardlaw if he is
familiar with RS 2477.
MR. WARDLAW replied no.
Number 1492
CORRIE BOSMAN testified via teleconference from Anchorage,
stating:
Mr. Chairman and members of the board, thank you very
much for hearing my testimony. I do want to get on
record in opposition to this resolution. First off, I
want to answer some of the questions that have been
raised, both on Wednesday and here today. In regard to
public input on this process, this process is a result
of about 30 years of public input. In particular, on
this policy, more than half of a million comments have
been submitted to the forest service about this policy.
I believe that that's more than adequate to say that
the public has spoken up in this case.
In regard to Representative Barnes' question regarding
RS 2477, in the scoping notice that the forest service
provided to the public on this policy they specifically
state, and I quote, "forest service regulation and
policy, in short, access provided by statute, treaty or
pursuant to reserved or outstanding right," and this
rule would not affect any preexisting right. This rule
would also not affect preexisting access rights for
permit holders or for projects already under contract.
So, I do hope that that addresses your concern, and
that does include the RS 2477 land.
In regard to why this policy is good for Alaska, I
think, as one of the previous folks who testified
mentioned, the Southeast Alaskan economy has been
diversifying very rapidly over the last 20 years, in
particular, over the last five years with the closer of
the Ketchikan pulp mill and also the Sitka pulp mill.
Our largest industries remaining in Southeast Alaska
are the fishing industry and the fastest-growing
industry in the state, which of course is tourism.
Tourists do not come to Alaska to view clearcuts and to
see landscape that has been scarred by road
development. They come here because of the wild
character our land has to offer. They come here to
charter boats to go fishing. They come here to hire
guides to go hunting.
It is conclusively found, scientifically, that roads
degrade both fish and wildlife habitat. If we would
like to keep both our local hunting and fishing
subsistence continual, as well as the outside tourists
to come and bring money to our state, it is imperative
that we protect the roadless areas of both the Tongass
and Chugach National Forest.
I'd also like to mention something that Representative
Bill Williams, [in] his testimony on Wednesday, talked
about, and that is in regard for the fact that he
called this a "political science policy." I would like
to point out, to both the chair and the members of this
committee, that over 330 scientists - including several
very prominent Nobel prize winners and over 100 Alaskan
scientists, many of who worked on the Tongass Land
Management Plan [TLMP] - have written President Clinton
asking that this policy include Alaska's forest for
sound ecological reasons. The only political science
we're talking about here is this resolution.
... I would like to address the concerns that have
been raised about ANILCA, in particular, to this
resolution. First of all, this proposal will not lead
to a RARE [roadless area review and evaluation] 3, as
is proposed in the resolution on page 1, lines 12
through 15. This is not going to be a new RARE 3. If
you would look in the forest service documents, they
specifically state there will not be a RARE 3. This
roadless policy pertains only to RARE 2 inventory to
roadless areas. Secondly, no land will be withdrawn
under this policy, as suggested in the resolution page
2, lines 1 through 3. Third, this renewal of
conservation units as suggested in the resolution is
completely unfounded.
This policy is strictly a management policy to manage
conservation units, in particular, the Tongass and
Chugach National Forests here in Alaska, as well as all
of the other forests outside - to manage those units,
which were created as conservation units almost 100
years ago. This is completely a management policy.
This does not fall within the ANILCA sections that you
have here in this resolution, and I ask that you really
seek outside legal assistance to ensure that what
you're doing is following the law, because I believe
that this is incorrect legally.
... There was some concern raised by Representative
William regarding the Chugach National Forest and the
fact that it's currently in the process of creating the
new forest plan. I would like to point out to the
chair and the members of the committee that there are
35 forests throughout the nation that are currently in
the same situation as the Chugach National Forest. The
forest service has recognized that this is obviously an
ongoing problem. They are working with forest managers
to ensure that the roadless policy meshes with those
forest plans. They do not plan on stopping the
process. They are going ahead full steam, and I would
just suggest that they look at the alternative of how
the roadless policy fits into these alternatives they
are creating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee for listening, and I'm certainly willing
to take some questions.
Number 1843
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Ms. Bosman if she supports hunting on
these lands.
MS. BOSMAN replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES wondered how these people are going to
access these lands if they are roadless and there is no access to
them.
MS. BOSMAN explained that there are 4,650 miles of road in the
Tongass National Forest; therefore, there are 4,650 miles of
opportunity for people to access the Tongass to hunt and fish.
She said she believes it is more than adequate.
Number 1892
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES indicated that the roads would become
overgrown, because they would not be kept up under the proposals
that are being enumerated.
MS. BOSMAN explained that the policy does not say that they will
be decommissioning or shutting down any preexisting roads. The
policy states that they will not be constructing new roads;
therefore, it has nothing to do with the roads that already
exist. She pointed out that the forest service has grossly
inadequate resources to manage the existing road system, which
totals over 380,000 miles of road throughout the national forest
system. They get about 20 percent of the budget they need in
order to maintain these existing roads, so the roads are not
being maintained to begin with. She emphasized that the policy
strictly deals with the construction of new roads only, in
pristine areas.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES restated that the roads would become
overgrown and it would thus become a roadless area; therefore,
people would not have access.
PAM LABOLLE, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce (ASCC),
stated that they are in support of HJR 54. She explained that
they believe the roadless issue for the Tongass was completed in
the 13-year, $10 million TLMP, and if any part of Alaska is
reviewed for the purpose of considering conservation measures, it
is in violation of the "no more" clause of ANILCA.
DICK COOSE, Executive Director, Concerned Alaskans for Resources
and Environment (CARE) and President, Ketchikan Chamber of
Commerce, testified via teleconference from Ketchikan. He said
the "locking up" of Alaska's land and natural resources has to
stop. He indicated that the Clinton Administration and the
national and local environmental organizations that are funded
nationally have basically destroyed a balanced economy in
Ketchikan. He strongly urged the Governor and the state to fight
the roadless policy, and he suggested that the resolution oppose
the "lockup" both in Alaska and the entire United States. He
referred to previous testimony and pointed out that roads do not
degrade fish and wildlife habitat if they are done properly. He
urged the committee to pass HJR 54.
VICE CHAIR COWDERY closed public testimony on HJR 54. [HJR 54
was held over.]
HB 206 - FISH AND GAME LICENSES & TAGS
Number 2075
VICE CHAIR COWDERY announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 206, "An Act relating to the migratory
game bird conservation tag, to a nonresident combined sport
fishing and hunting license, to the nonresident military small
game and sport fishing license, to applications for certain
licenses, tags, and permits issued by the Department of Fish and
Game, and to duplicate crewmember licenses."
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 206, version 1-LS0858\I,
Utermohle, 2/16/00, for discussion. There being no objection, it
was so ordered and Version I was before the committee.
Number 2105
JOHN MANLY, Legislative Aide for Representative John Harris,
Alaska State Legislature, indicated that HB 206 is a simple
cleanup bill for some extraneous fish and game statutes that were
introduced on behalf of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G). He pointed out that in Version I the term "waterfowl"
is replaced with the phrase "migratory game bird" in a number of
places, in order to include snipes and cranes. He indicated
Section 3 deals with the $5 licenses and free licenses for
disabled veterans who hunt for migratory game birds. Section 4
allows the department to create a combination seven-day hunting
and fishing license for nonresidents. Section 5, in essence,
equalizes the fee paid by nonresident military members when they
want to hunt small game or go sport fishing, because of a change
in statute a couple of years ago whereby they ended up having to
pay more than a nonresident person who is not in the military.
Finally, the bill authorizes the ADF&G to issue a replacement
crewmember license for commercial fishing for a $5 fee.
Number 2336
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, thanked Representative Harris
for introducing HB 206. He indicated that HB 206 is not a bill
that raises a lot of policy issues; it is simply a housekeeping
bill to update the statutes of the department to changes that
occurred in federal law. The bill does benefit some people; for
instance, it corrects an inadvertent error in the treatment of
nonresident military who are living in Alaska. In addition, it
improves the ability of the department to track the harvests of
migratory game birds in Alaska. The other changes are minor, and
many of the sections are technical sections that conform certain
parts of the statute to the major change, which is replacing the
term "waterfowl" with the phrase "migratory game bird."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES requested clarification on Section 5 as it
relates to members of the military service and how it affects the
military person residing in Alaska.
MR. BRUCE clarified that currently a nonresident military person
who is serving in Alaska is entitled to a small-game hunting
license at the same rate as a resident. He explained that
several years ago the resident license fee was increased to $25,
and there is a nonresident small-game hunting license that is at
$20. As a result of raising the resident hunting fee, which was
linked to the nonresident military, the nonresident military
person is actually paying more to hunt small game in Alaska than
is a nonresident. Section 5 corrects that.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES requested clarification.
MR. BRUCE clarified that a resident pays less than a nonresident
for the full-range hunting license, big game and small game, but
there is no resident small-game hunting license. There is only
the nonresident small-game hunting license. In response to a
further question, he explained that "small game" means "all
species of grouse, hare other than the Belgian hare, ptarmigan,
waterfowl, crane and snipe." He pointed out that the resident,
for his or her hunting license, gets a broader range of hunting
opportunities than the nonresident gets for the small-game
license.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES indicated that people in the military, when
stationed in Alaska, are considered residents after one year and
qualify for the same hunting and fishing privileges as any
resident. She stated her understanding that it is being changed
in the bill.
MR. BRUCE explained that they are not changing that. What they
are trying to do is to reduce the cost of hunting small game from
$25 to $20 for the first year of residency, before one qualifies
for the same hunting privileges as a resident.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said in that case, she could like it.
Number 2735
HERB SIMON testified via teleconference from Nelchina. He stated
his understanding that there is currently a nonresident military
small-game license for $25 and a nonresident small-game license
for $20. He said that he does not understand.
MR. BRUCE explained that Section 5 will enable the nonresident
military person for the first year - when he or she doesn't
qualify for residency - to get a small-game license for $20
rather than pay the $25.
Number 2861
KEVIN BROOKS, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, clarified that technically a
nonresident military person could purchase the nonresident
license. He pointed out that the confusion is coming in with
regard to the vendors, because there are 1,500 vendors statewide,
and people don't know if they should pay for the $25 license or
the $20 license. Section 5 would eliminate that confusion.
VICE CHAIR COWDERY wondered if the less expensive license is
limited.
MR. BROOKS explained that a resident hunting license does not
distinguish between small game and big game; therefore, for $25 a
person can hunt either.
VICE CHAIR COWDERY wondered how much it would cost if a
nonresident wanted to hunt both small and big game.
MR. BROOKS responded that a nonresident hunting license costs
$85, and there are also big-game tag requirements, depending on
the species one is hunting.
TAPE 00-11, SIDE B
VICE CHAIR COWDERY closed public testimony on HB 206. [HB 206
was held over.]
HB 164 - FISH & GAME LICENSING BY ELECTRONICS
Number 2792
VICE CHAIR COWDERY announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 164, "An Act relating to electronic
application for and issuance of licenses, permits, and tags
issued by the Department of Fish and Game; to violations
regarding a license, permit, or tag applied for or issued
electronically; and providing for an effective date." [HB 164
was sponsored by the House Rules Committee by request of the
Governor.]
[There was a motion to adopt version 1-GH1047.A; however, that
was the original bill, which was already before the committee.]
Number 2783
KEVIN BROOKS, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), explained that HB 206
is intended to streamline and automate the licensing process. He
indicated ADF&G offers the purchase of licenses online over the
Internet. Currently, it requires that the department send out
the license within 48 hours, but ultimately the department would
like to have an individual be able to purchase a license online
and then hunt or fish right away. He explained that the efforts
are geared to enhance customer service and to make it easier for
the public to get their licenses and get out and enjoy the
resources. It really has to do with updating the language in the
statute to comply with what modern technology has to offer.
MR. BROOKS explained that ADF&G has been looking at what the
other 49 states have been doing. Some have been using a so-
called smart number that incorporates certain information about
an individual such as age, hair color or gender; an individual
carrying this type of license would also be required to carry
picture identification. The ADF&G is working closely with the
Department of Public Safety (DPS) and its Division of Fish &
Wildlife Protection to make sure that any efforts in licensing
don't compromise their efforts to enforce the state fish and game
laws.
Number 2656
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES indicated that she has concerns with
Section 1 of the bill where it states, "the commissioner may add
a surcharge to the fees." Furthermore, the fiscal note is a zero
fiscal note and is inadequate.
MR. BROOKS indicated that ADF&G personnel have spent a fair
amount of time discussing those issues and looking at how other
states have accomplished electronic licensing. He explained that
currently there are 1,500 vendors statewide, and compensation for
those vendors occurs through a 5 percent commission on the gross
sales, as well as a dollar per item. He said that the way a lot
of states have done this is to put the service out for a bid and
then add a surcharge for the processing costs, which would be in
the place of the commission that is currently there for the
vendors.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she still feels that it is
inappropriate for the legislature to transfer its authority to
establish fees or appropriate money. In addition, she would like
to see an appropriate fiscal note attached to the bill.
MR. BROOKS explained that ADF&G doesn't anticipate any changes,
because the cost of the license itself is not changing. He also
said that the cost for administering it would not change, because
the fee would be set through a competitive bid process, and there
is no way for [the department] to know what that is going to be.
He added that there could be a "not to exceed" amount.
Number 2402
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES indicated she would like to see some
language that addresses a "not to exceed" amount.
HERB SIMON testified via teleconference from Nelchina. He stated
that he feels that HB 164 is a bad bill. He indicated that
hunting and fishing licenses have been handled almost exclusively
by vendors since before statehood. He pointed out that HB 164
would save the state $2.5 million in vendor commissions, which he
questions. He also questions the fact that when people purchase
an electronic license they don't get the harvest tickets or the
regulation books. He expressed that what HB 164 is basically
doing is making it possible for the state to capture the
commission fees and leave the responsibility of the rest of the
paperwork to the vendors, who now receive no compensation. For
example, for a resident license that costs $25, the commission is
5 percent, which is $1.25.
MR. SIMON stressed that HB 164 is displacing vendors - there are
1,500 of them - that have been doing a job since before
statehood. He reiterated that the electronic licensing does not
provide a regulation book, which is almost as big as a Bible.
There is the hunting regulation, fishing regulation, trapping
regulation and migratory bird regulation. He asserted that HB
164 is really just a move for preservation of the bureaucrats.
He also pointed out, with regard to the "smart number," that in
remote areas a field enforcement officer wouldn't be able to
verify anything; therefore, he believes that the system would be
subject to fraud.
Number 1520
MR. BROOKS explained that electronic licensing is in no way
supposed to replace the vendor network; it is meant to complement
it. He indicated that ADF&G is merely trying to automate some
processes that provide another option for people, and the
department will still fully expect a partnership with vendors.
With regard to vendor compensation, ADF&G doesn't see it becoming
a savings for the state; actually, that money goes into the fish
and game fund, and it stays there subject to a legislative
appropriation. Mr. Brooks noted that Mr. Simon had pointed out
some legitimate enforcement issues; he said that is why the
department has an ongoing dialogue with DPS to make sure that
anything [ADF&G] does with an automated process will not
compromise enforcement. [HB 164 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1383
VICE CHAIR COWDERY adjourned the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting at 2:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|