Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/26/1996 03:45 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
February 26, 1996
3:45 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Loren Leman, Chairman
Senator Drue Pearce, Vice Chairman
Senator Steve Frank
Senator Rick Halford
Senator Robin Taylor
Senator Lyman Hoffman
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 5
Relating to the federal government's failure to abide by the intent
of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 6
Endorsing passage of S. 506 and H.R. 1580, measures making
responsible changes in the Mining Law of 1872.
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 128
"An Act reducing certain resident sport fishing, hunting, and
trapping license fees, increasing certain nonresident sport
fishing, hunting, and trapping license fees, and relating to
nonresident sport fishing, hunting, and trapping licenses; and
providing for an effective date."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SR 5 - No previous action to record.
SR 6 - No previous action to record.
SB 128 - See Resources minutes dated 1/17/96 and 1/24/96.
WITNESS REGISTER
Al Clough
Alaska Minerals Commission
P.O. Box 241003
Douglas, AK 99824
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SR 5.
Sara Hannan, Executive Director
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SR 5 and SR 6.
Senator Dave Donley
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 128.
Geron Bruce, Legislative Liaison
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99811-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 128.
Captain Richard Graham
Fish and Wildlife Protection
Department of Public Safety
5700 E. Tudor Rd.
Anchorage, AK 99507-1225
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 128.
Wayne Regelin, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 128.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-19, SIDE A
Number 001
SRES 2/26/96
SR 5 REQUEST FEDS LIVE UP TO ANILCA
CHAIRMAN LEMAN called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:45 p.m. and announced SR 5 to be up for consideration.
AL CLOUGH, Alaska Minerals Commission, said that SR 5 implements
Title XI of ANILCA which guarantees access across conservation
system units. The first case is the Red Dog Road which is a text
book example of what Title XI was all about. The land exchange
brokered by U.S. Congress was deemed easier than implementing Title
XI which was supposed to be a simple process to provide access.
More recently at Greens Creek on Admiralty Island a land exchange
is being implemented with the federal government to gain access to
resources rather than try to get access through Title XI.
The DOT is seeking title to the Chisana Airstrip, first put in in
the 1930's, using Title XI and having great difficulties although
they are continuing to try.
Title XI has demonstrated that it has in no way worked to improve
the underdeveloped surface transportation needs of the State of
Alaska. That is the first point of SR 5.
The second point regards the prohibition of new conservation system
units which has been ignored in ANILCA.
ANILCA gives provisions under several sections to exchange
mineralized lands out of the Federal Reserve for nonmineralized
lands elsewhere. He used the Dunkel Township in Denali Park, a
highly mineralized area, as a case in point. It remains within the
Federal Reserve and is closed to mineral entry. This has been a
long standing issue of the Minerals Commission and Title XI is
supposedly a process to allow access across federal conservation
system units and it has not worked.
Title XI has been successfully implemented for a variety of land
needs by issuing permits for driveways, water and sewer lines, and
an existing dock extension, etc.
Number 112
SENATOR PEARCE moved to pass SR 5 from Committee with individual
recommendations and a $0 fiscal note. There were no objections and
it was so ordered.
SRES 2/26/96
SR 6 FEDERAL MINING LAW CHANGES
SENATOR LEMAN announced SR 6 to be up for consideration. He said
this is also a Minerals Commission recommendation.
MR. CLOUGH explained that the Commission has been involved in
federal mining law rewrite for some time and supports the basic
tenants in the two bills before Congress. These bills institute
responsible changes to the mining law of 1872 which include a net
royalty fair market value for purchase of surface estate and a
variety of other things.
These kinds of change will make the mining what it initially was -
a mining law, not a no mining law.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if line 5, "where as much of this federal land
is currently open to mineral entry" was correct. MR. CLOUGH
replied that more than 50 percent of available federal land is
closed to mineral entry. SENATOR LEMAN noted that language should
be corrected.
Number 150
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked what was the current status of these two
pieces of legislation. MR. CLOUGH said they were moving through
Congress prior to the budget issue going on now. He hadn't checked
for a couple of weeks.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to amend line 5 by deleting "much" and
inserting "most" and inserting "not" between "currently" and
"open." There were no objections and it was so ordered.
Number 171
SARA HANNAN, Alaska Environmental Lobby, opposed SR 5 and SR 6.
She stated that they both seem to be fast tracked as they did not
have enough lead time to get answers to questions about how the two
resolutions are currently affecting Alaska.
Specifically regarding SR 6, MS. HANNA said that reforms for the
Mining Act 1872 have been before Congress for a number of years and
it is an issue that does not follow traditional political lines.
It is more of a western issue. In many congressional districts in
the west the reforms are complex, burdensome, and of significant
interest to local communities. This resolution does a disservice
to Alaska's credibility in Congress on other development issues
when we chose to ignore some of these very divisive reform issues
instead of encouraging reform debate.
The congressional bills this resolution refers to are only two that
were introduced by our delegation. There are a number of others
introduced by other western states who have a much more historic
perspective on the problems in the Mining Act of 1872.
She said the bill encourages irresponsible development and doesn't
meet any concerns of the states in the West. The Mining Act of
1872 doesn't require any reclamation, for instance. The State of
Alaska requires reclamation and that is probably good public policy
for all states. Encouraging the status quo when there are a lot of
burdens states have to live up to in federal actions is a
disservice.
Number 212
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Mr. Clough if the Minerals Commission took up
this issue in their meetings. MR. CLOUGH answered that they had
discussed this issue in a host of meetings over the last several
years. They were all public meetings.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if anyone from the Alaska Environmental Lobby
showed up at any of the meetings. MR. CLOUGH said he didn't
recollect seeing any.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the Minerals Commission was before this
Committee discussing this issue. MR. CLOUGH replied that they were
before this Committee in January and discussed their report as well
as this issue.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted that this meeting was a public hearing that
was noticed pursuant the legislative rules. It was an overview and
recommendations to the legislature. MR. CLOUGH said that was
correct.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that the Minerals Commission comes before this
Committee on an annual basis and have had the same discussions each
year.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass SR 6 from Committee with individual
recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
SRES 2/26/96
SB 128 NONRESIDENT HUNT, SPORT FISH, TRAP FEES
SENATOR LEMAN announced SB 128 to be up for consideration. He
noted there was a proposed CS.
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY, sponsor of SB 128, explained that the CS
deletes all reference to the big game tags because it seemed to
cause people the most concern. He worked with ADF&G to see if
there were alternative methods to addressing the problem of non-
residents using sportfish licenses to fish for the entire season
and ship the fish out. They had no suggestions other than what is
in the bill which is to shorten the length of the license periods.
The concept of a seven-day license was added to the bill.
SENATOR HALFORD moved to adopt the CS to SSB 128. SENATOR TAYLOR
objected for a question. He stated on page 2 there was a 14-day
non-resident sportfishing license for $60 and on page 3 there was
a king salmon license during that same period for $60 and asked if
that was in addition to the sportfishing license. SENATOR DONLEY
answered that wasn't a significant modification from the original
bill. One of the concerns raised in the last committee meeting was
that folks who had been in Alaska for six months and intended to
stay would have to buy the 14-day licenses. Under the CS six
months of residency lets you buy a license for six months for $100
until you're up to full residency status. They extended that
through to the king salmon tag.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked how this compares to British Columbia.
SENATOR DONLEY answered he didn't know about the fishing. With
British Columbia he looked at the game tags issue.
SENATOR TAYLOR commented that the fees were pretty stiff for a
family coming up to visit for a couple of days. SENATOR DONLEY
agreed, but said he didn't really know how to get at that problem.
SENATOR TAYLOR said of all the tourist activities in his district
the one that puts more money into the community individually are
those people who come up and stay at a bed and breakfast for four
or five days and go fishing with one of the local charter fellows.
This issue is important because we are in direct competition with
Canada which allows four king salmon to be caught per day.
SENATOR DONLEY said he didn't know how to provide for four king
salmon, although he would like to. In the context of this bill,
there is a shortening of the license period to try to address the
problem of people coming up and buying a year license and fishing
all year with it and catching a lot of fish. Second, if someone is
coming to Alaska, they are going to want to catch fish. How many
fish are available is more important to them than the cost of the
license.
Number 370
SENATOR HALFORD said that this addresses fees, but he really cares
about how many fish are being taken out. He suggested amending the
statutes relating to possession so the possession limit is twice
the daily bag limit and the fish did not go out of possession by
processing and freezing. They do go out of possession when
returning to the angler's home of record. That would have more
impact than the difference in dollars which is actually pretty
small.
SENATOR DONLEY agreed with that and wanted the Department to
respond. He said he would be willing to incorporate that into the
bill.
Number 385
SENATOR FRANK said his concern was with our competitiveness with
other jurisdictions. SENATOR DONLEY said he was trying to address
that concern by deleting the increases in the tags. He would be
happy, he said, if it simply limited the period of time for the
non-resident hunting licenses. Now, the only option is to buy them
for a year. He is open to any suggestions on how to deal with this
problem.
SENATOR TAYLOR supported Senator Halford's idea of having a
possession limit as an effective way of dealing with the Winnebagos
that come up here every year and ship out tons of fish.
Number 443
GERON BRUCE, ADF&G, said regarding competitiveness with British
Columbia, he has a report prepared by the Western Conservation
Administration Officers Association which compares various costs of
sport fishing in western states. In British Columbia the cost for
an annual license is $42 (non-resident) and currently the cost in
Alaska is $50. So we are slightly above B.C., but within the
ballpark.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if that included a tag limit. MR. BRUCE said
he didn't think they have a tag included. There is also a one-day
license in B.C.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted that because of the currency exchange rate the
$120 U.S. for two weeks compared to $42 Canadian annually is more
like $35 U.S. He thought the difference was very significant.
MR. BRUCE replied that although there was a significant difference
in terms of the total cost to come to Alaska, it's probably not a
big ticket item. He said that probably king salmon is the species
of most concern. In 1994 there were approximately 100,000 king
salmon harvested in the State by non-resident anglers and about 20
percent of that were taken by anglers who took six or more king
salmon per angler, representing about 5 percent of the total non-
resident anglers.
SENATOR HALFORD asked where the fishermen were taking more than six
king salmon. MR. BRUCE said his table didn't show those
concentrations by region. He said he would get that information.
SENATOR HALFORD stated that if we actually have non-residents
taking more than six king salmon in any area of the State that he
knows of, they should be stopped because there are so many
residents who can't take king salmon.
MR. BRUCE said the Department has some reluctance with stepping
into the middle of allocation issues, and prefers to leave that to
the Board of Fisheries or to the legislature. From a conservation
standpoint an export limit or a field limit doesn't add much to
their tool box. He supported Senator Taylor's comments recognizing
the importance of the visitor industry to the State's economic
needs.
SENATOR HALFORD asked him to see if there was a proposal before the
Board of Fish allowing them in the current cycle to redefine
possession limit. He said he would be much more comfortable with
the Board of Fish looking at the solution and he thought it was
within their power; but, because their system is so overloaded with
issues, it may not be something they would get to for the next two
years. In which case the legislature could deal with it now. MR.
BRUCE said he would check, but he knew the Board over the past few
years had addressed the question of export limits on more than one
occasion and they could not get the votes.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the Department intended to implement
regulations concerning king salmon fishing, especially in southeast
Alaska, like the 40-inch limit and one per day. MR. BRUCE replied
that in Southeast Alaska the king salmon fishery is regulated
according to a quota that is established by the Board of Fisheries
under the total quota provided under the Pacific Salmon Treaty.
The recreational fishery takes about 20 percent of that. The
allocation for Southeast Alaska will determine what the State will
have to do to maintain their recreational fishery within its share
of that quota. The particular year he was referring to was an
exceptional year. There was a very high catch rate and very early
in the season the recreational fishery was about to bust its quota.
Measures were taken to slow down that catch so it could stay within
the quota. On most years the 40,000 or so that the recreational
fishery has available to it seems to be adequate. If we were to
get half of the total allowable catch the recreational fishery
would be down to 20,000 fish which they could certainly exceed
without some kinds of limitations.
Unfortunately, Alaska does not know until the season begins what
number we have to work with, he said.
Number 530
SENATOR TAYLOR said it seemed strange to him that we could be
contemplating charging someone $60 to go fishing for a couple of
weeks in Southeast, and another $60 for a tag so they can go out
and try to catch a fish with a 40-inch limit. MR. BRUCE clarified
that the 40-inch limit is actually a Board of Fisheries regulation.
It is the very last option of a number of options under their
Southeast Alaska King Salmon Management Plan.
CAPTAIN RICHARD GRAHAM, Fish and Wildlife Protection, said he
hadn't had a chance to look at the CS closely. He said the
Enforcement Division receives no funding through any type of
license fee structure, so they really don't have an opinion on
that. One concern he had was in creating a special six-month
classification for non-resident licensing. He thought it could
result in increased residency violations and investigations.
He commented that the new definition of residency that
Representative Ogan introduced in HB 357 might have an affect on
this bill.
CAPTAIN GRAHAM said they have had numerous conversations within his
Department about the Winnebago/canning problem and they haven't
been able to come up with any helpful suggestions, but whatever
they come up with will need some kind of recording or tagging
requirement.
TAPE 96-19, SIDE B
Number 580
SENATOR TAYLOR asked him to elaborate on the tagging
recommendations. CAPTAIN GRAHAM said that an angler is required to
record on the back of his license the number of king salmon they
have taken. They have talked about recording on a piece of paper
the date and the amount of fish taken and the location. They have
talked about a walking tag to be placed on a fish regardless of its
state of preservation. He said they have been very successful in
enforcing the seasonal bag limits on king salmon by having the
recording requirement.
SENATOR FRANK asked for the Department's position on game fees
going from $300 to $500.
WAYNE REGELIN, ADF&G, said they were satisfied with the bill from
the wildlife standpoint. They are concerned with the increased
game fee because non-resident aliens already pay a significantly
higher amount than almost anywhere else and they are adding $200 to
that.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked about having $300 for the 30 days. MR.
REGELIN replied on the hunting side he didn't think the 30-day
license would have any impact at all. Almost any hunter comes up
to trophy hunt for two weeks at the most and will rarely come back.
SENATOR TAYLOR reiterated that he thought a possession limitation
was a good idea. He suggested using metal tags on fish the way
they are used on deer.
SENATOR DONLEY said he was interested in the tag idea and would
like to work with it.
SENATOR HOFFMAN said it would be very expensive for a family of
four or five to come up here and fish.
Number 498
SENATOR HALFORD said they should find out if the Board of Fish
would welcome their help because they are so far behind before they
go ahead and try to do something. He suggested keeping the bill to
work on it.
SENATOR LEMAN thanked everyone for their participation and
adjourned the meeting at 4:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|