Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
04/16/2024 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
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 | |
| Presentation(s): Fishing for Kelp | |
| HB297 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 297 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 297-SPORT FISHING ANGLER ACCESS ACCT/SURCHARG
11:18:25 AM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 297 "An Act establishing the sport fishing angler
access account; establishing the sport fishing angler access
surcharge; and providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 297,
labeled 33-GH2500\A.1, Bullard, 4/11/24, which read:
Page 1, line 1, following "Act":
Insert "relating to the duties of the
commissioner of fish and game;"
Page 1, following line 3:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Section 1. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
LEGISLATIVE INTENT. It is the intent of the
legislature that the commissioner model the biennial
report required under AS 16.05.050(c), added by sec. 2
of this Act, on the Department of Fish and Game's
Professional Publication No. 08-01, titled "Economic
Impacts and Contributions of Sportfishing in Alaska,
2007."
* Sec. 2. AS 16.05.050 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(c) The commissioner shall produce and
disseminate to the public a biennial report on the
economic impacts of sport fishing in the state."
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 3"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 1, line 8, following "to":
Insert "production and dissemination of the
biennial report on the economic impacts of sport
fishing in the state required under AS 16.05.050(c)
and"
Page 1, line 11, following "use.":
Insert "In allocating money from the account, the
department shall apportion one dollar from the
surcharge imposed on each license by AS 16.05.340(l)
to the production and dissemination of the biennial
report required under AS 16.05.050(c)."
Page 2, lines 22 - 31:
Delete all material and insert:
"(1) resident sport fishing license ...... $5
(2) resident hunting and sport fishing
license .............................................. 5
(3) resident hunting, trapping, and sport
fishing license ...................................... 5
(4) nonresident 14-day sport fishing
license ............................................. 26
(5) nonresident seven-day sport fishing
license ............................................. 21
(6) nonresident three-day sport fishing
license .............................................. 11
(7) nonresident one-day sport fishing
license .............................................. 6
(8) nonresident annual sport fishing
license ............................................. 41
(9) special nonresident military small game
and sport fishing license ............................. 5
(10) special nonresident military sport
fishing license ...................................... 5"
Page 3, line 7:
Delete "Section 4"
Insert "Section 6"
Page 3, line 8:
Delete "sec. 5"
Insert "sec. 7"
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE explained that the amendment would add $1
to the proposed surcharge amount. He stated that the intent for
this added amount would be for an [impact report on sport
fishing in the state].
11:20:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT questioned whether the report would
have any time requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE responded that the proposed amendment
would make no requirements. He expressed the understanding that
the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G) has said that the report is needed. He offered the
understanding that if sport fishers know this is part of the
legislation, they would be insistent on having the report done
periodically. He noted that the report would be about $380,000;
however, because the report has been done before, it may not be
this expensive. He suggested that because of this the funds may
be available sooner to do the report. Per what the document
would consist of, he deferred the question to ADF&G.
11:23:10 AM
JOSEPH FELKL, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, on behalf of House Rules by request of the governor,
answered questions on HB 297. He responded that from
discussions with the commissioner and with the Division of Sport
Fish, it was decided that it would be a biannual report. He
stated that the initial report would be statewide, and after
this, regional reports would be done, while refreshing the
statewide report periodically. He noted that the statewide
report would be like the large report the committee was given as
an example.
11:23:53 AM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, on behalf of House Rules by request of the governor,
answered questions on HB 297. He concurred with Mr. Felkl,
stating that the statewide survey would be done every four or
five years, and the regional surveys would be done with any
additional money. He noted that this information would be
critical to the management of the fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT expressed support for Amendment 1;
however, she questioned whether the language on the funding
would be descriptive enough for future commissioners to
understand the intent.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that ADF&G takes the
legislative intent for funding seriously. He expressed the
understanding that if ADF&G does not follow this, the funding
will no longer be provided. He expressed the opinion that the
intent is clear and future commissioners would understand.
11:25:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER pointed out that the proposed
legislation is a licensing bill, and it concerns the sport
fishing license fees. He noted that this would not pertain to
commercial guides, for example. He questioned whether the
proposed report would cover any commercial sport fishing
activities.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that the report would
capture the value of both guided and unguided sport fishing, and
this is because everyone who is guided would also need a
license. In response to a follow-up question, he stated that
there are numerous reports put out on the value of commercial
fishing in the state done by a variety of different bodies. He
added that much of this work is done outside of the department,
and the department would build on this.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER expressed the understanding that ADF&G
does not directly report on commercial activities.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that the department would
not directly report on commercial fishing activities using these
specific dollars. He stated that personal use fisheries would
most likely be evaluated using this money, because currently
there is not economic assessment of this, and these participants
would also be using a sport fishing license. In response to a
follow-up question, he stated that a report on the economic
value of commercial fishing would not be done based on the
license fee structure for sport fishing.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER questioned whether ADF&G could use the
proposed fee increment to evaluate the value of commercial
fishing in the state.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG suggested that an overall value of the
fishing resource in the state would be better understood, as
currently the piece on personal use and sport fishing is
missing.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER referenced anglers on the Kenai River
who have not been able to fish for a few years, adding that this
has been an economic hardship for the community. He expressed
the opinion that it would be unfair for the legislature to
address the value of one fishing group and not another.
11:31:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated that the proposed amendment is
focused on personal use fishing because it has no advocacy
group, while the commercial fishermen have many groups producing
many of these reports.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER explained that he is not opposed to a
report; rather he is looking for policies that would treat all
fishermen equally. He noted that sport fishermen or personal
use fishermen have not been barred from participating in the
fishery as some commercial fishermen have.
11:32:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES expressed appreciation for these comments,
but she pointed out that the Board of Fisheries and ADF&G are
both advocates for commercial fishermen. She advised that if
the discussion is on the ability to fish, this is a different
topic than what the proposed legislation is targeting.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER responded in disagreement with the
comments. He expressed the understanding that the report would
communicate to the public the value of sport fishing. He
suggested that if this were the only report the public sees,
there would be the understanding that this is the only value of
the fishing industry in the state. If the value of commercial
fishing is not communicated, he suggested that there would be a
decline in the interest of commercial fishing.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES expressed the understanding that this has
been done, because commercial fishing is the largest private
employer in the state. She continued that several entities
could point out how much commercial fishing contributes to the
state and the economy of the state. This information is
available in relation to commercial fisheries; however, this is
not available for the sport fisheries.
11:34:48 AM
CHAIR VANCE pointed out that in Cook Inlet the situation is
different. She expressed disagreement with the sponsor of the
amendment, arguing that there is an organization advocating for
sport fishing and could fund this project, but this organization
is not the department. She expressed the opinion that the
bigger question would concern the addition of $1 to every sport
fish license, as this would pay for something that could be
funded by a prominent, well-funded sport fish advocate. She
stated that her district has all types of fishermen; therefore,
she is not opposed to the amendment. She opined whether each
fishing group would be treated equally, so there would be a full
representation when determining the value of the state's
fisheries. She suggested that the report would be a valuable
tool; however, she expressed concern that Cook Inlet sport
fishing would be given a higher value than commercial fishing
there. She continued that any misuse of the tool would make
many commercial fishermen in Cook Inlet dissatisfied, as this
conflict between these two groups is longstanding. She pointed
out that the bigger question is whether a $1 surcharge should be
added to the fee.
11:37:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT pointed out that the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission tracks the permit value for
commercial fishing permits, and she questioned whether there is
a similar agency for the sport fisheries. She expressed the
understanding that sport fish data is less solidified. She
expressed support for having maximum information, but she also
expressed understanding for the concerns in Cook Inlet.
11:39:02 AM
MR. FELKL stated that ADF&G does not produce such a report for
the commercial fisheries; however, the McKinley Research Group
issues a report every two years, and the department has cited
data from this report in the past. In response to a follow-up
question, he expressed uncertainty on who funds the study and
suggested it could be the industry.
11:39:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE, in response to a question from
Representative Stutes, acknowledged that the McKinley Research
Group has reported on the commercial fishermen's issues in Cook
Inlet; however, he argued that the closure of the entire
Southcentral Alaska's sport fishing industry is no different
than [the commercial closures in Cook Inlet], but these sport
fishermen do not have an advocacy group. He discussed the Kenai
River Sportfishing Association's focus, stating that it is only
concerned with the Kenai River and not the rest of the state.
He expressed disagreement that this group advocates for the
entire state's sport fishing industry. He further discussed how
the report would show the economic impacts of closing the sport
fisheries in Southcentral, as the economic effects of this is
unknown. He argued that the data needs to be gathered on this
for the resource and its management.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES expressed disagreement that the Kenai
River Sportfishing Association is localized to the Kenai River.
She stated that it is a "very well-heeled organization." She
suggested that it could be asked to participate. She expressed
support for Amendment 1, but also, she acknowledged
Representative Carpenter's position as being valid.
11:44:17 AM
CHAIR VANCE expressed the opinion that Representative McCabe's
arguments are valid concerning the economic value on management
decisions, adding that this is the same argument Representative
Carpenter is making. She questioned how the department would
use the report for management decisions in relation to the
economic value of the fisheries. She questioned the
department's constitutional mandate and questioned whether
sustaining the resource or sustaining the economy should come
first.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that his job is to manage
the resource and sustain the yield so that not one generation
would take more than future generations are allowed. He added
that the department should do this in the best interest of the
economy and the wellbeing of the residents. He stated that
allocation decisions are made while factoring in economic
information and the return on investment. He stated that the
legislature should expect a return on the investment in natural
resources. He advised that the bill was not introduced [as a
way to fund the sport fish report], but the department does
support this. He stated that compared with commercial fishing,
the sport fish industry information is missing. He suggested
that this would be an opportunity to collect this information to
inform regulatory bodies and the department on the value of
these fisheries and the relative return on the investment in
these resources.
MR. FELKL, speaking to an earlier question, stated that the
McKinley Research Group's 2020 report was prepared for ASMI. He
expressed uncertainty on the cost of the report, but he
confirmed that it was prepared for a state entity.
11:46:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER expressed support for gathering data on
the sport fishery and the $1 increase to the surcharge; however,
he pointed out the lack of data on other fisheries, such as
commercial fishing in his district. He added that subsistence
issues have not been discussed. He opined that if the
commissioner were only reporting on the economic impact of sport
fishing in the state, this reporting would reflect just a
portion of the economic impact of the resource. He argued that
when this informs policy, commercial fishing and subsistence
would be left out; therefore, the report would not represent the
total value of the economic health of the resource. He
suggested that the reports by other entities could be footnoted
in the sport fisheries report to give a complete value of the
fisheries.
CHAIR VANCE pointed out that until the amendment was passed,
there was no statutory direction. She questioned whether the
department needs statutory direction before it issues an
economic impact report in any fishery, such as subsistence.
MR. FELKL responded that the department's subsistence team does
issue a report on the value of subsistence food. He stated that
the last one was a 2017/2018 report.
11:51:15 AM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that the department does
piece together the information provided by the different
entities, such as ASMI and the McKinley Research Group. He
reiterated that there is not a group who reports on the sport
fisheries; however, there is an economic report on subsistence
that is used to help develop the [expenditure] plans; however,
there is not a report on the economic effects of the Cook Inlet
sport fishery. He stated that a comprehensive report is not
annually done, but all these pieces would be put together to
develop an [expenditure] plan.
11:52:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER described a conceptional amendment that
would change Amendment 1 to include "subsistence and commercial"
along with sport fishing in line 14. He pointed out that data
for a comprehensive report is already being collected, but with
this conceptual amendment, any lacking data would then be
supported by Amendment 1.
11:53:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 1. He explained that this would add "subsistence,
commercial," before the word "sport" on line 14, page 1.
11:54:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE objected.
11:55:29 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Stutes, Carpenter,
Himschoot, McCormick, and Vance voted in favor of adopting
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1. Representatives C.
Johnson and McCabe voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 5-2.
11:56:41 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
11:57:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON moved to table Amendment 1, as
amended.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER objected. He noted that some members
are interested in passing the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT questioned whether there would be
resources to do three reports.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON stated that 2017 was the last time a
report was done for sport fish only, with the cost of around
$300,000. He suggested that the amendment could easily triple
this cost. He expressed the opinion that the proposed
legislation would not cover this. He argued that this is not
the place or time to address the other user groups.
11:58:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES expressed support for tabling the
amendment, as it would give time to the amendment's sponsor.
She argued that the cost would not be tripled because the
reports have been done, and they just need to be compiled into
one. She stated that this understanding has come from comments
made by the commissioner.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE interjected that 2007 was the last time a
[sport fish] report was done, as the report done a decade later
was only a subsistence report. He pointed out that ASMI
recently received $5 million, and this organization develops
commercial fishing reports. He quoted the statute that directs
that all fisheries be treated equally concerning the economy of
the state. He argued that a sport fish [impact] report has not
been done since 2007, and he argued that the $1 added to the
surcharge should not be for fixing all problems. This would
only be for collecting and providing data to the Board of
Fisheries and ADF&G, so statutory allocation decisions can be
made. He expressed support for tabling the amendment.
12:01:20 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to table Amendment 1,
as amended. Representatives Himschoot, C. Johnson, McCabe,
McCormick, Stutes, and Vance voted in favor of tabling the
amendment. Representative Carpenter voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1, as amended, was tabled by a vote of 6-1.
12:01:52 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that HB 297 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 297 - Amendment #1 (A.1) by Rep. McCabe.pdf |
HFSH 4/16/2024 10:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
| HB 297 - Amendment #2 (A.2) by Rep. Carpenter.pdf |
HFSH 4/16/2024 10:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
| Fishing for Kelp PowerPoint Presentation by Nick Mangini.pdf |
HFSH 4/16/2024 10:00:00 AM |
Fishing for Kelp Presentation |
| HB 297 - Supporting Document - Sport Fish License Fee & Surcharge (04-15-24).pdf |
HFSH 4/16/2024 10:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
| HB 297 - Supporting Document - Surcharge Revenue Breakdown (04-15-24).pdf |
HFSH 4/16/2024 10:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |