CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 335(RES)(title am) An Act extending the termination date of the Big Game Commercial Services Board; eliminating the requirement for a commercial use permit and for payment of commercial use permit fees; amending the membership of the Big Game Commercial Services Board; relating to the qualifications for an assistant guide-outfitter license; eliminating the requirement for testing of assistant guide-outfitters; providing for additional licensing requirements for transporters; eliminating the requirement for prior approval to enter or remain on state and federal land; eliminating the requirement to register base camps; amending the definition of 'big game commercial services'; and providing for an effective date. Co-chairman Halford directed that CSHB 335 (Res)(title am) be brought on for discussion and referenced a draft SCS CSHB 335 (Fin) (9-LS1156\W, Utermohle, 3/7/96). REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN, sponsor of the legislation, came before committee and explained that under the proposed draft: 1. Authority to license guides is given to the Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development. 2. Basic statutory definitions for guides remain. New language says that a person who has been convicted of a felony in the last ten years cannot qualify for a guide license. 3. Assistant guides may be hired without a test, upon recommendation of a guide. That is a significant, positive change. 4. Provisions for class-A guides will encourage rural employment. A class-A guide is someone who has lived or hunted in the area for ten years and lives in the local area. 5. Game biologists are precluded from becoming a guide for twelve months after employment by the Dept. of Fish and Game in areas in which they worked and studied. An individual employed by the state to study animals in an area has an unfair advantage to subsequently exploit the wildlife. Existing law prohibiting a fish and wildlife enforcement officer from becoming a guide prior to three months after concluding employment is retained. 6. The level of accountability for transporters, in terms of violations, is raised to the same level as guides. 7. Language within insurance provisions is changed to require proof of financial responsibility. 8. The time that an individual may operate an airplane incidental to guide activities is increased from 250 to 500 hours. 9. Authority is given to the Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development to discipline guides convicted of violations. 10. Guide-use areas are retained. However, guides will not have to report to the department or get a permit from the department for a guide-use area. Guides will have to be in three use areas. They will simply have to notify protection when they wish to change, and they may change once every calendar year. 11. Statutory language regarding what a guide may do and what a transporter may not do is expanded so that there is no cross-over between the two. 12. Retroactive authority is provided to those who were licensed since the old board was sunset. 13. Wage and hour provisions exempt assistant guides from overtime--similar to provisions for fishermen, agriculture, and various other occupations. 14. The commercial-use permit is eliminated. The industry has complained for many years that it is difficult to get assistant guides because of testing requirements. A guide is legally responsible for action in the field as if he were committing each act himself. He is thus responsible for not only the actions of his assistant guides but those of his clients. With that level of responsibility, guides should be able to hire whomever they wish. Representative Ogan directed attention to a needed change at page 8, line 11, and recommended removal of "at all times." He explained that it is impractical for a registered or class-A assistant guide to be physically present with the assistant guide "at all times." Supervision by a registered guide or class-A assistant is acceptable. Co-chairman Halford noted that after the recommended deletion language would remain as it is in current law. Senator Sharp voiced his understanding that mandated insurance requirements had expired. He then asked if current provisions for insurance or proof of financial responsibility were the only insurance provisions. Representative Ogan responded affirmatively. Senator Sharp attested to several guides who conducted two or three hunts a year who had to go out of business because they could not afford the mandated insurance. Senator Randy Phillips MOVED for adoption of SCS CSHB 335(Fin) (Version W, dated 3/7/96) with the technical change recommended by Representative Ogan at page 8, line 11. No objection having been raised, SCS CSHB 335 (Fin) was ADOPTED. In response to a question from Senator Zharoff, asking why deleted language was included in the draft, Co-chairman Halford explained that the intent is that the level of supervision for assistant guides be higher than supervision required for class-A assistant guides. Original language adopting class-A assistant guide provisions was intended to encourage the hire of long-time residents in game management units. The attempt was to keep local people in local hunting areas involved. The Co-chairman reiterated that the level of supervision for a class-A assistant guide should be less than supervision required for an assistant guide. That provides an advantage to hiring and keeping class-A assistant guides. Senator Zharoff asked if the forgoing would allow a guide to supervise from "a penthouse in San Francisco." Co-chairman Halford acknowledged that the board discussed the issue of supervision for many years. The rule in the old system was that a class-A assistant guide could be running a camp as long as the contracting, registered, or master guide had contracted the hunt and was actively involved in the hunt at some point. An assistant guide had to have contact on a regular basis with the contracting guide or a class-A assistant guide. Representative Ogan noted that during his term as a public member on the guide board, the standard was that the registered guide had to be in the camp at least once during each hunt. Under the proposed bill, a class-A assistant guide may supervise an assistant guide in the field. Senator Rieger asked if others associated with the camp (the cook and packers) would have to be licensed. Representative Ogan responded negatively. Only those who help pursue, stalk, take or actively engage in hunting must be licensed. Referencing language at page 17, subsections (A) through (G), Representative Ogan explained that he lifted language from existing regulations and placed it in statute. Established practices needed statutory classification. KEN TAYLOR, Deputy Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Dept. of Fish and Game, came before committee. He said that while he had only recently received a copy of the draft committee substitute, initial review indicates that it is "a lot cleaner than existing law." Requirements removed from existing law (the operations plan was cited) will not significantly impact management. The Dept. of Public Safety and division of fish and wildlife enforcement would have to address impact as well. Senator Zharoff referenced the license fee structure on page 16 and asked if it differentiates between residents and non- residents. Co-chairman Halford answered negatively. He acknowledged discussion of a differential. For many years, a registered guide or master guide had to be an Alaska resident. That was lost in a constitutional question because guiding is a commercial activity. He then suggested that there could be a ratio of fees between resident and non-resident guides and transporters. END: SFC-96, #33, Side 2 BEGIN: SFC-96, #34, Side 1 The Co-chairman advised that language could specify that non-resident fees in each category are four times the fee for a resident. Senator Zharoff suggested that the committee review that possibility and make provisions consistent with other areas where non-resident fees are different from those paid by residents. CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development, next came before committee. She said the department had not yet had an opportunity to examine the details of the draft bill, take an official position, or prepare fiscal notes. She acknowledged that the legislation would have fiscal impact on the Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development as well as the Dept. of Public Safety (due to elimination of commercial use permits that previously generated enforcement funds). Ms. Reardon next noted areas within the draft giving rise to questions and cited provisions requiring "fine tuning:" Page 3, Line 4, language relating to "written or oral" examinations would be more manageable if it simply said "an examination." Oral exams are difficult to administer to larger groups or in rural areas. Co-chairman Halford asked that the department prepare an amendment reflecting the change. He acknowledged that cited language was designed for administration by a peer review board and was more cumbersome than it needed to be. Page 8, Line 10, language relating to supervision of assistant guides is of concern. There is need for clarification. The department would prepare regulations defining what supervision means. At the present time, class-A and assistant guides both have the same supervision requirements. The guide has to show up once during the hunt. Ms. Reardon advised of her understanding of foregoing discussion to be that class-A guides should require less supervision than assistant guides. Language at Page 7, Line 22, says that class-A guides may take charge of a camp and conduct guide activities without the registered guide being present in the area, as long as the registered guide is supervising. If it is the intention that assistant guides not be able to do so, it would be helpful if bill language at page 8 says that an assistant guide cannot take charge of a camp. Otherwise, supervision could be construed as supervision from a distance. If the goal is to make class-A guides more appealing to the employer, it would be helpful if lack of independent authority for an assistant guide was clarified. Page 7 licensing requirements for class-A guides. Ms. Reardon noted two methods of attaining a class-A license under current law: 1. Employment one season as an assistant guide plus ten years of hunting experience in the game management unit, or 2. Physical residency in the game management unit and fifteen years of hunting experience in the unit. If the legislature wishes to place a premium on those who reside in the game management unit, option number two should be the only method of attaining that license. Page 8 language relating to game biologists needs a definition of "game biologist." Co-chairman Halford asked that Ms. Reardon provide appropriate language. He explained that the provision is simply intended to prohibit an individual employed by the state to gather information from immediately using that information in a private business venture. Page 10, Line 25-26, insurance requirements speak to proof of financial responsibility of $100.0. Ms. Reardon questioned what type of proof the individual would have to submit to the department (a list of assets, something from an accountant, etc.). Should the department check to determine if the assets are available every two years? There are some administrative logistics that need to be worked out. Page 12, Line 10, subsection (e) relating to inability of the department to discipline a transporter for violations committed by his or her employee. Co-chairman Halford subsequently voiced intent that both registered guides and transporters be treated equally in terms of responsibility for their employees. In response to a question from Senator Zharoff, the Co-chairman advised that transporters are responsible for reporting violations of which they are aware. They are, however, not actively involved in the field. A transporter would be in violation if he or she knowingly transports an illegal animal and does not report the violation. Language pinpointed by Ms. Reardon appears to be a drafting error. It was intended that the responsibility levels be comparable and commensurate with ability to both report violations and "know what was going on." Page 14, Line 30, language says that "guides" are responsible for assistant guides. Page 19 reference to wage and hour law should be discussed with staff from the Dept. of Labor. Co-chairman Halford noted that the industry has had problems with the issue in the past. The proposed bill includes a limitation of 60 days a year. The existing exemption for fishery processing workers and other exemptions are "wide open." The language applies only to licensed personnel, in the employ of licensed personnel, and "only for a maximum of 60 days . . . ." It thus relates to limited, seasonal employees in a very specific area. Cooks and other unlicensed personnel would not be covered by the exemption. Ms. Reardon referenced earlier discussion of resident and non-resident fees and advised that it would be helpful if the differential was placed in statute, or the department will establish one, across-the-board, consistent fee. Ms. Reardon referenced a program with language saying that out- of-state collection agency fees are twice as high as in state. Co-chairman Halford again asked that the department prepare amending language and a position paper concerning whether the department would support the differential between residents and non-residents. Senator Sharp suggested that definition of a non-resident track with one-year residency requirements for purchasing a hunting license. Co-chairman Halford responded that the effort could be tried. He acknowledged a possible constitutional question because a hunting license is a privilege, not a right. A commercial activity is usually more suspect when residents are preferred over non- residents. Senator Rieger referenced old law relating to guides and guide-outfitters and asked what changes are proposed in the instant bill. Co-chairman Halford explained that in the late 1980s, the law was changed to include the term "outfitter" with the term "guide" because the term "outfitter" is used outside of Alaska to denote one who provides both outfitting and guiding services. The proposed bill reverts to original definitions and original language. He suggested, however, that the members might wish to include a prohibition on use of the term "outfitter" by someone who is not a registered or master guide, as it applies to big game hunting. Senator Rieger cited an example of an individual who does not actually guide the hunt (stalk the animal) but flies a hunter to a location and provides a camp and asked if the provider would be regulated as a guide under the proposed bill. Co-chairman Halford voiced intent that the provider be treated the same. If the transporter is operating in air commerce, the transporter would have to have an air taxi license. If one provides services in the field in actual pursuit of game, a guide license is required. Senator Rieger asked if that includes setting up the camp. Co- chairman Halford responded negatively, advising that a section within the proposed legislation deals specifically with that activity. Senator Rieger directed attention to Page 17, Line 18, and referenced the definition of "outfit." He also referenced language at Page 5, Line 27, which says a registered guide may contract to guide or outfit hunts. He then noted that language appears to indicate that outfitting is guiding and asked if that is a change from the status quo. Co-chairman Halford advised that it is the intent to maintain the status quo in those three areas. He said he would further review the draft to ensure that is the case. Catherine Reardon remarked that brief review of the draft indicates that the current situation is unchanged. She clarified that under current law, one who flies hunters in and drops them off must have a transporter license. One who flies hunters into a camp set up and established by the transporter must also have a guide license. That would continue to be required under the proposed draft. Co-chairman Halford acknowledged the participation of JOE D'AMICO, Commander, Commercial Crimes Bureau, Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection, Dept. of Public Safety, via teleconference from Kodiak. The Co-chairman then advised that the bill would be held for further review. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately