Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
04/20/2021 09:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB100 | |
| HB126 | |
| HB79 | |
| HB80 | |
| SB22 | |
| HB151 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 80 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 126 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 100 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 79
"An Act relating to saltwater sport fishing operators
and saltwater sport fishing guides; and providing for
an effective date."
9:07:31 AM
Co-Chair Merrick indicated there were 2 amendments for
HB 79. She noted that the commissioner and the legislative
liaison for the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) were
available for questions.
Representative Carpenter MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy
on file):
Page 4, line 13:
Delete "saltwater"
Page 4, line 15:
Delete "saltwater"
Page 4, lines 16- 17:
Delete "saltwater"
Page 4, line 18:
Delete "saltwater"
Page 4, following line 21:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) The department may limit the information it
collects from a sport fishing guide under this
section to
(1) saltwater sport fishing guide services;
(2) freshwater sport fishing guide services;
or
(3) guided sport fishing for certain
species."
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Page 5, line 12:
Delete "AS 16.40.282(b)"
Insert "AS 16.40.282"
Representative Josephson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Carpenter reviewed the amendment. He
reported that Article 8, Section 4 of the Alaska
Constitution stated that fish, forests, wildlife,
grasslands, and other replenishable resources belonging to
the state should be utilized, developed, and maintained on
the sustained yield principle subject to preferences among
beneficial uses. The bill and the amendment addressed how
the state was managing preferences of beneficial uses. With
the passage of HB 79 saltwater guides would continue to
record and report harvest data through their logbook
program. Drift and setnet commercial fishermen would
continue to record and report harvest data and was not
addressed in the bill.
Representative Carpenter explained that the freshwater
guides would be the only commercial fishing interest that
would not be required to record and report harvest data.
freshwater guides would be licensed under the bill and
would be paying for the saltwater guide program. The
amendment allowed DFG to instate a freshwater guidebook
program but did not require it. He thought it would provide
the department the ability to collect the data that was
necessary to manage to a sustained yield principle in a
fair manner amongst all of the state's commercial fishing
interests.
Representative Rasmussen asked if Commissioner Lang could
speak to the amendment.
9:09:48 AM
DOUGLAS VINCENT-LANG, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME, thought the Representative's intention with the bill
was to allow the department to institute stand-alone
freshwater reporting requirements if the department found
it necessary for management of the fishery. He did not
think the bill required the department to implement it
entirely for the freshwater industry. If the department saw
a need in freshwater on the Kenai Peninsula, the department
could implement just a piece of it. He asked if he was
correct. Representative Carpenter responded, "That's
correct, or any other way that you might see fit."
Commissioner Vincent-Lang provided some historical
information. He explained that the reason the department
had elected to exclude freshwater from the bill originally
was due to the department not using much data to run the
freshwater fisheries in the past. There were instances,
especially on federal lands, in which minor violations in
the number of graylings released resulted in the loss of
the concessions by freshwater guides operating in the area.
The department did not want to impose a statewide approach
to the reporting. Currently, if there was a need for data
on a case-by-case basis, there was nothing prohibiting the
department to collect the data. For instance, if DFG had a
need to collect information in freshwater, it could collect
the data through a creel survey or another type of program.
His understanding was that the amendment applied on a case-
by-case basis and would not require the department to
institute a comprehensive program.
Co-Chair Merrick relayed that the committee had been joined
by Representative Edgmon.
Representative Rasmussen was trying to establish if the
department already had the authority through regulations to
do what the amendment offered. She wondered if it was
necessary to have the provision in statute. She asked the
commissioner to speak to any specific needs of having the
issue in statute.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang suggested Representative
Rasmussen was correct that the department could already do
what the amendment was trying to do. Although the amendment
was not needed for regulatory authority, it provided
clarity and created another option in managing the fishery.
9:12:59 AM
Representative Josephson suggested guides currently on the
Kasilof or Kenai Rivers were not required to have to report
catches to the department each day. He asked if he was
correct. Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded that if the
department was concerned with the number of salmon taken by
the guide industry, the department had the ability to
perform a creel survey which was how it collected such
data.
Representative Josephson was surprised that individuals
were required to report their catch, yet freshwater sport
fishing guides were not.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang explained that the department
walked away from the mandatory system on guide was because
across much of Alaska it was not using the information for
in season management. For example, information such as the
number of graylings and rainbow trout being released was
not being used to manage those fisheries especially in
areas where there were trophy fisheries. The department
withdrew its focus on the freshwater portion focusing more
on the in season need: saltwater. Saltwater fisheries
included halibut, salmon, and rockfish fisheries. If the
department needed the information regarding freshwater on a
case-by-case basis, it could be obtained through creel
surveys.
Representative Josephson asked the commissioner to repeat
himself. Commissioner Vincent-Lang indicated the department
used a creel survey, a dockside sample.
Representative Carpenter also heard that freshwater guides
were having a difficult time filling out log books - a
reason for why it was no longer required. He asserted that
technology had come a long way and that the department
should be able to create an online reporting system which
would allow guides to enter their harvests on their phones.
He thought treating one user group differently from another
was not appropriate. He did not understand why the state
would not want reporting from freshwater guides. He thought
it was a red herring. The issues on the Kenai were numerous
regarding sport fishing. He thought it would be in the best
interest of the people and the resource to see that all of
the commercial entities were recording and reporting their
harvest numbers in order for the state to properly manage
on a sustained yield principle. He thought it was a fair
way to approach the issue when discussing preferences among
beneficial uses. He was not being heavy handed with the
language he was offering. The amendment would create in
statute a means for the state to be able to manage its
resources by collecting data.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang noted that the department
collected the harvest information. Guides provided a sports
fishing service and the information was being provided
through a mailout survey and through dockside creel surveys
by contacting anglers. It was not that the department was
not capturing the harvest information, it was capturing the
data in a way that was delineated to that sector and its
allocation. In the marine fisheries, the department had
sector allocations to the charter boat fishery that the
department needed to track for halibut and salmon. The
department did not have many sector allocations that it
needed to track in season in freshwater. He reemphasized
that the department was capturing the number of fish for
biological and sustainability purposes.
Representative Carpenter responded, "And yet we have a
decline in King Salmon on the Kenai River." He opined that
something in the previous decade was not working. He
suggested that a collection of more data might help to
better understand the problem. He found it strange that a
dockside survey would be okay for one user group but not
another. All the other commercial user groups had to report
each individual fish they caught, not just a dockside
survey. He suggested that one user group was being treated
less harshly by requiring less reporting than another.
9:19:26 AM
Representative Wool had some of the same concerns as
Representative Carpenter. He was especially concerned with
the king salmon fishery. He had taken guided trips on the
Klutina River where the King Salmon fishery had been closed
for periods. He did not always mail the surveys back to
DFG. He thought the department would want more precise data
for a delicate fishery. He asked if the department required
guides to report for a sensitive fishery in a sensitive
area.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang replied that if there was a
desire and a need for in-season management, the department
would likely implement some sort of reporting requirement.
The department had a requirement for marine fisheries
presently. The department did not have many instances where
the Board of Fisheries had given it an allocation in
freshwater that had to be tracked in-season.
Representative Wool asked if the amendment would change
anything in the commissioner's current management approach.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang commented that the amendment
would allow more flexibility in both freshwater and
saltwater on a case-by-case basis. The department would
likely continue with the saltwater piece because of treaty
and obligations under the Halibut Act and the Pacific
Salmon Act. If a need arose in freshwater, the department
would apply a program. However, he would not immediately
institute a statewide freshwater program.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked about collecting data on freshwater
systems. He wondered what kind of coverage took place on
rivers like the Kenai River in terms of creel surveys and
whether it was consistent and thorough from day-to-day. He
inquired whether there was always a presence on the Kenai
River. He was familiar with creel surveys in saltwater.
Most of the time there was a creel survey person present
when he came into the dock. He asked for more information
about creel surveys in freshwater situations.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang answered that when the department
did a creel survey someone was not present 24/7. The
surveys were randomized so that when a person was not
present the information could be extrapolated from when
they were present. There were two purposes of a creel
survey. The first was to estimate the number of fish that
were harvested. The second and more important reason was to
collect biological samples from the fish for genetic
information that indicated where a fish was from. In
Southeast Alaska the department had to collect information
to find out what the state's treaty versus US and Alaska
allocations were between the different stocks. It was a mix
of biologic sampling and sampling to estimate the harvest
from a river system. In the Kenai, the state was still
collecting biological samples from the sport harvest.
9:23:34 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz understood the random survey concept. He
wondered if the amount of data was useful with spotty
coverage. Commissioner Vincent-Lang was convinced that in
Southeast Alaska and on the Kenai River the creel survey
program provided sufficient information for management
purposes.
Representative LeBon spoke in support of the amendment. The
state was managing its resource for sustainability and
abundance. He suggested that having the most complete data
base possible for whatever resource, be it saltwater or
freshwater resources, made sense. He thought back to his
personal fishing activities on the Kenai River in the 80s
and 90s and recalled the guide he was with kept impeccable
records of what was taken into the boat. He also noticed
the same care taken in record keeping when fishing for
halibut out of Homer. He believed the ability to keep
records had significantly improved since the 80s and 90s.
He asked the commissioner if he agreed.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang agreed that guides were keeping
records as part of their business operations. The concern
that arose 6 years or 7 years prior was the enforcement
piece. There were minor violations resulting in businesses
receiving significant violations for things that did not
matter to the department in terms of managing the fishery.
In Southeast Alaska the state had so much at stake in
marine fisheries that it decided to continue that specific
piece because the information was needed. However, the data
was not needed on a statewide basis for many of the
freshwater fisheries for which it had been instituted.
Also, the department incurred significant costs related to
data entry for information that was not being used. The
department moved to obtaining freshwater fishery
information on a case-by-case basis. Saltwater requirements
remained in place around the state.
9:26:56 AM
Representative LeBon thought the strategy was to manage for
abundance and sustainability. He wondered if the
commissioner was able to gather enough information from
guiding services to succeed in the department's goals. He
asked if the amendment would hurt the department in any
way.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang would answer in two ways. A good
example of the utility of the state in saltwater was that
in the previous year the state had a significant drop in
tourism. The number of tourists participating in the
charter boat fisheries was significantly reduced. However,
the state had allocations through the halibut commission
for charter boat fishing for salmon and halibut. The state
was able to use the data half way through the season to
demonstrate that the state was nowhere near reaching its
allocations. The department went back to the halibut and
salmon commissions to let them know the department was
going to relax its regulations allowing more fish to be
caught. The state had never had an exercise with freshwater
fisheries where the state needed that kind of in season
management. The amendment would not interfere with the
department's efforts since the word "may" was used.
Representative LeBon was aware of an application developed
by DFG that guides could use on their smart devises to make
it easier to keep track of what was occurring. Commissioner
Vincent-Lang noted the department was trying the
application in the saltwater fisheries in Southeast Alaska.
Remote areas created a challenge with cell service, but the
department was working on the issue. He anticipated a 95
percent compliance in Southeast Alaska in the following
year.
Vice-Chair Ortiz had a follow-up question regarding the
creel survey. He was aware that the department had
experienced significant funding reductions over the past
7-8 years. He wondered if the cuts resulted in preventing
the department from being able to hire the same amount of
creel surveyors as it hired 6 years prior. He asked if the
department had less of a workforce.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded that the department had
been successful in getting some additional federal money to
help with the implementation of the salmon treaty. It had
not had to reduce the workforce. He added that the
department had a better program at present than 5 years
prior.
9:29:36 AM
Representative Carpenter appreciated the discussion. He was
thinking the amendment was not strong enough considering
over the prior decade the state had lost both size and
quantity of King Salmon out of the river. He was
disheartened to know that the state was collecting data but
not using it. The amendment would solve the problem. If the
state was collecting data currently that it had been
collecting before, the state would better understand what
was going on within the river. However, the state was no
longer collecting the data. The information was obtained
through samples and extrapolation adding human error and
inconsistency. The bill did not force anything to change.
It simply provided the department with the ability to
create a program and manage the state's resource. The
expectation was that the state would manage its resource
effectively. There were plenty of old-timers that had seen
a change in fishery numbers and would argue the freshwater
fisheries were not being managed properly. He reiterated
that collecting data was the most important thing the state
could do to manage the sustained yield principle.
Representative Wool referred back to the comments made
about getting freshwater data and many people being out of
compliance. Violations went out that were unnecessary and
burdensome. He thought the department had the flexibility
of targeting certain areas. Whereas, if there was something
in the King Salmon fishery of concern, the department could
focus in on that instead extracting more data. He wondered
if the data could be targeted while letting other fisheries
conduct their businesses with less constraints.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded that under the former
logbook program the department did not have flexibility. If
the amendment was adopted, the department would have the
flexibility to act on a case-by-case basis. He reiterated
the word "may" being used in place of "shall."
Representative Josephson asked the commissioner about how
there was less logbook focus on sports guides because they
were losing concessions over technical infractions. In
reviewing the bill, a bunch of new sections were being
added in Title 16 regarding general liability and
licensure. There was a number of new regulations for guided
fishing in the bill. He wondered if it was regulatory
before and was being changed to statute.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang answered that it was originally
statutory language then became regulatory language when it
sunsetted. The bill would change it back to statutory
language.
9:34:19 AM
AT EASE
9:38:20 AM
RECONVENED
Representative LeBon asked about an application that could
be used for reporting to DFG. He supposed the department
was receiving real time data every day, whether on
freshwater or saltwater. He asked if he was accurate.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang indicated the department was
moving in the direction of technology. However, he was not
sure if it was a true statement that the technology was
willingly accepted by all. Change was difficult for some,
especially regarding business models in remote areas of
Alaska. The more remote of an area, the more difficult it
was for guides to use the technology. He felt the
department was moving in that direction and, there was a
general willingness by the majority of guides in the
saltwater logbook program to go to the electronic format.
The department's goal was to have immediate reporting in
areas where there was cell phone coverage. He did not think
electronic reporting would reach the level of 100 percent
due to the vast size and remoteness in certain areas of the
state.
Representative LeBon relayed a fishing experience out of
Hoonah. The guide kept a log, and every time a person on
the boat caught a fish, he took a picture.
Representative Thompson spoke in favor of the amendment. He
thought it provided another tool in the tool box. He
clarified that the amendment did not hinder the department.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang indicated the department would
not be hindered with the amendment, as the use of the word
"may" provided flexibility.
Representative Josephson WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Johnson OBJECTED. She thought it was
additional data collection with no benefit.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang replied that if the program was
instituted on a statewide basis, he would agree with
Representative Johnson. He would also have strong objection
if the amendment was predicated on the department having to
collect the data on a statewide basis. The way the
amendment was written the department would only collect the
data if it deemed it necessary.
Representative Johnson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Thompson, Wool, Carpenter, Edgmon, Johnson,
LeBon, Ortiz, Foster, Merrick
OPPOSED: Johnson, Rasmussen
The MOTION PASSED (9/2). Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
9:43:22 AM
Representative Wool MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2 (copy on
file):
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "a new paragraph"
Insert "new paragraphs"
Page 1, line 6:
Delete "Fishing"
Insert "Resident fishing"
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "Sport"
Insert "Resident sport"
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "Sport"
Insert "Resident sport"
Page 1, line 9:
Delete "Sport"
Insert "Resident sport"
Page 1, following line 9:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(29) Nonresident fishing services licenses
(A) Nonresident sport fishing operator
license... 400
(B) Nonresident sport fishing guide
license... 200
(C) Nonresident sport fishing operator
and guide combined license... 400."
Page 3, line 26, following "(C)":
Insert "or 16.05.340(a)(29)(B) or (C)"
Page 4, line 2, following "(C)":
Insert "or 16.05.340(a)(29)(A) or (C)"
Page 4, line 3, following "(C)":
Insert "or 16.05.340(a)(29)(A) or (C)"
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wool explained that the amendment kept
parody with other types of guide licenses for in-state and
out-of-state residents. Fishing, hunting, and hunting guide
licenses for out-of-state residents cost more than for
in-state residents. The amendment aligned the fees for
out-of-state fishing guides and operators to pay more for
their licenses than for in-state guides and operators by a
factor of two.
Representative Josephson asked what the commissioner would
do with the extra revenue provided with the amendment.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang replied that the money would
fully pay for the saltwater logbook program. He would also
institute the use of freshwater logbooks in areas deemed
necessary by the department. Currently, the department had
to pay for the saltwater logbook program. He continued that
based on the prior amendment, the department would be
required to have freshwater guide licensing and operator
requirements in place. The department would have to
reinstitute that portion of the program. The monies could
be used for both.
Representative Rasmussen asked if anyone from Legislative
Legal Services was available online. She wanted to confirm
that there were no conflicts at the federal level regarding
commerce across state lines. Co-Chair Merrick indicated
Alpheus Bullard from Legislative Legal Services was
available for questions.
9:45:27 AM
ALPHEUS BULLARD, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL
SERVICES (via teleconference), responded that perhaps there
might be issues with the privilege and immunities clause.
He expounded that the particular piece of legislation
should not be analogized to hunting or fishing licenses
with a license to access Alaska's resources. He suggested
that when it came to a profession like a sport fishing
guide, care needed to be taken under the federal
constitution to ensure that the state was not making it
difficult for people to cross state lines and practice
their professions in the state. He reported that in a
series of cases the Alaska Supreme Court found that it was
possible for the State of Alaska to charge non-residents
more for commercial fishing licenses and other licenses.
However, the additional expense charged to non-residents
needed to be justified by some added expense or management
concern presented by out-of-state licensees, or that
residents were making some sort of contribution to the
health of the resource while non-residents were not. He
continued that in the current case he could not say there
was a justification for a 2-to-1 differential for
non-residents.
Co-Chair Merrick asked if Mr. Bullard was speaking to the
legality of the bill or the amendment. Mr. Bullard
responded that he was speaking to the amendment.
Representative Rasmussen asked Mr. Bullard if he was aware
of any other states that charged a higher fee to a
non-resident for a license to do business in the state. She
wondered if there had been any court cases brought forward
for such an issue. Mr. Bullard replied that he had not
conducted a comprehensive survey of what other states did
or did not do. The most perinate cases and precedent on the
topic were cases having to do with commercial fishing
residences. The cases in Alaska where the state charged
non-residents more for commercial fishing licenses were the
Carlson Cases.
9:49:04 AM
Representative Rasmussen asked if the commissioner could
cite a situation in which non-residents would pose a need
for higher fees than resident guides or licensees.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded that his area of
expertise was not in law and the constitutionality of
higher fees for residents versus non-residents. He was
aware of the state having higher fees for residents versus
non-residents for sport fishing and hunting. The state
could justify the higher fees because residents were paying
through other mechanisms for access, infrastructure, and a
variety of other things. On the business side the
non-residents were paying higher licensure fees themselves
to participate. He did not have a good answer as to whether
a non-resident guide would have higher costs. His clients
were paying a higher cost, but he was unsure about the
guide paying higher costs.
Representative Rasmussen was in support of the concept. She
favored any opportunity to provide Alaska the lowest fees
possible to access the state's resources. She was concerned
with the possibility of a law suit with a non-resident
trying to do business across state lines.
Representative Carpenter asked if the fees resulting from
the amendment would fully support the saltwater logbook
program. Commissioner Vincent-Lang had not run the numbers.
Representative Carpenter thought it was important for the
committee to know whether the fees would cover the total
cost of the logbook program. He had a question for Mr.
Bullard concerning fairness and what the courts might take
into consideration. In terms of interstate commerce, if the
State of Alaska was already charging non-resident guides a
different fee than resident guides, he wondered if the
court would look at whether the state was fairly singling
out guides from out-of-state. He suggested that at least
one user group did not have to pay higher out-of-state
rates while the ones the committee discussed did. He was
curious how the courts would view the fairness.
Mr. Bullard responded that if someone was challenging the
statute under the federal privilege and immunities clause,
the clause provided a fundamental right for a person to be
able to travel and engage in their profession in another
state. The clause did not permit the state to discriminate
unless there was legally a substantial reason which had to
be closely related to the interest served by the statute.
He was unsure if the courts would look to other licensing
groups because the context for sport fishing guides might
be unique to them. The courts would definitely look at
whether the additional expense was justified by some
substantial state reason.
9:53:51 AM
Representative Wool noted the question had arisen
previously. He had talked with the Department of Law who
had a different opinion than Mr. Bullard. He mentioned that
in statute or regulation an out-of-state hunting guide paid
twice as much as an in-state hunting guide. He asked Mr.
Bullard if he was saying that it was also questionably
legal and that it could be challenged through federal
statute. He was unsure if anyone had struck a challenge.
Mr. Bullard responded that there was no statute that
permitted the Board of Big Game Services to deal with a
challenge. If there was a Board of Big Game Services, he
was unsure if there had ever been a challenge instigated.
It could be challenged under the privileges and immunities
clause. He was aware of license fees for non-residents that
were charged and challenged in Alaska and how those cases
were resolved.
Representative Wool thanked Mr. Bullard for his answer. He
thought he would have researched and found out there was a
statute or regulation for hunting guides. His office had
found out that out-of-state hunting guides were charged
more for their licenses. That was why he felt doing the
same for fishing would not be a stretch. He was part of a
legislature that passed a law increasing fees for
out-of-state hunters for certain kinds of game. In some
cases, the fees were many-fold higher than for an in-state
resident. He was unsure if the justification was because
the in-state resident paid several other fees that went
towards the management of game. Other than the license he
was unsure what was paid. There were no statewide taxes. He
was reassured based on the commissioner's comments about
the increase in the license fees going towards the logbook
program. He thought it would be a good use of the funds. He
indicated that the Department of Law supported the
amendment. He had just received a note that the Department
of Law's opinion was not definitive. He would stand by the
fish and game parody.
Representative Johnson asked how many non-resident sport
fishing guides had licenses in the state. Commissioner
Vincent-Lang answered that he did not have the information
on hand.
9:58:00 AM
Representative Johnson asked whether a new system would
have to be created to track the sport fishing guides if the
legislature were to implement the amendment.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang thought it would be critical for
the state to identify the meaning of residency. He provided
some examples of what residency could mean. The department
would struggle with trying to define the residency of a
business and of a guide. He wondered if a person's
eligibility to receive a PFD could be used to prove
residency or whether there was something else that could be
used.
Representative Johnson thought the state would incur
additional costs to implement the program. Commissioner
Vincent-Lang indicated there would be some additional costs
associated with determining a person's residency. He posed
the question of whether residency of a business had to do
with the location of the business or where the business was
licensed. It was more difficult to determine the residency
of a business versus the residency of an individual. Alaska
statute clearly defined the payment of a non-resident
hunting or license fee and a resident hunting or license
fee.
Representative Johnson asked if the additional fees would
be taken from sport fish users but used for the saltwater
logbook program. Commissioner Vincent-Lang reported that
the original bill would institute a licensing requirement
for saltwater guides and operators to pay for the saltwater
reporting requirement. The bill was amended in the House
Fisheries Committee to include the requirement for
freshwater guides and operators to get licensed and would
provide the department the option of using the fees on a
case-by-case basis to implement reporting requirements in
saltwater or freshwater.
Representative Johnson could not support the amendment
although she liked the concept. She thought it would be
added bureaucracy without significant return.
Representative Rasmussen clarified that there seemed like
there was confusion between an individual sport fishing
license or an individual hunting guide license versus an
operator/business license. She asked the commissioner to
provide clarification regarding fish and game licenses.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded that a person had to be
a resident of the state for 12 months to qualify for a
resident sport fishing license or a resident hunting
license and to apply for tags as a resident. However, when
a person was operating a business, the terms were somewhat
different. A person could get a business license in Alaska
immediately upon arrival which would make them a resident
of Alaska for business purposes. However, it would not make
a person a resident for fish and game purposes. The
amendment addressed a business license for a sport fish
operator or guide. Whether a person was a resident or a
non-resident depended on how much time they spent living in
Alaska. The department would need some further guidance.
10:03:18 AM
Representative Rasmussen thought she heard from Mr. Bullard
that a state could charge a higher fee to a non-resident
guide or operator, but the state needed to have substantial
cause to support a higher fee for that business. She asked
if out-of-state residents or non-residents incurred any
higher fees. She was trying to understand if there was any
reason to substantiate a difference between a resident and
a non-resident guide. She asked about additional risks or
costs to the department.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang suggested that Representative
Rasmussen's question had a complex answer. He explained
that the clients of the non-resident guides were paying
higher fees through the purchase of a non-resident sport
fishing or hunting license. He had not done the math to
figure out whether fees from business licenses for
non-residents had a higher impact to state coffers than
business licenses for residents. He was unaware of how the
big game guide services board came to the conclusion of
having a rate of 2 to 1. He had not been part of any
discussions.
Representative Wool read from a section of the bill
beginning on Page 2, line 31. He suggested that in order to
be a guide a person had to buy a sport fishing license. To
buy a sport fishing license the person had to declare their
residency. He recalled being told in committee that 80
percent of the fees collected from fishing licenses were
from out-of-state people. He did not think it meant that
there were 4 times as many out-of-state people fishing.
Rather, he thought it meant they were paying significantly
more for their licenses. If the same person wanted to get a
guide license in Alaska, it seemed simple that a person
with an out-of-state fishing license would get an out-of-
state guide license.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded that the issue was two-
fold. First was the issue of the guide. He concurred with
the representative's perspective. The operator was not
necessarily doing the guiding but was running the business.
He meant to focus on how to define the residency of an
operator who was not guiding. There were cases where
operators were different from its guides.
Representative Wool was aware of a license fee if a person
was an operator and guide. He wondered if an operator had
to have a separate license.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang did not think a person had to
have a sport fishing license to become an operator.
Representative Wool understood the distinction the
commissioner was trying to make between an operator and a
guide. He still supported the amendment but would look into
the issue in further detail.
10:07:27 AM
AT EASE
10:08:50 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick indicated the committee would come back to
HB 79 at a later date.
HB 79 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 80 Amendment 1 Ortiz 041721.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| SB22 Amendment 1 Josephson 041721.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 22 |
| HB 79 Amendment 1 Carpenter 041921.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 79 |
| HB 80 Amendment 2 Carpenter 041921.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| HB 79 Amendment 2 Wool 041921.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 79 |
| HB 100 Response to Co Chair Merrick 041921.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 100 |
| HB 80 KRSMA Letter 4-19-2021.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| HB 80 Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 Ortiz 042021.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| HB 151 Supporting Document - Employment Effects of Unemployment Insurance Generosity During the Pandemic, 7.14.20.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| HB 151 Supporting Document - NBER Paper, 2021.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |