Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/29/2003 01:46 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 210
"An Act relating to the Chitina dip net fishery; and
providing for an effective date."
RYNNIEVA MOSS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL provided
information about the bill. She noted that a bill in the
last legislative session would have extended the $25 permit
for Chitina dipnetting and then phased it out. She read
from minutes of the Senate Resources Committee in that year,
when Senator Wilkins stated that his intent was to have an
accessible, productive and safe fishery, and that he could
support a continuation of the fee knowing that it would end
in the following year, passing administration along to the
State and [Native] Corporations. She noted that since then,
there had been a survey of lands in the Chitina River area.
Ms. Moss referred to a map outlining the area referred to in
the bill, indicating both public and private lands. She
stated that approximately 60 percent of the lands were
public access. She noted that the survey indicated a
monument every 2/10 mile and explained that $50 thousand
remained of the survey monies to produce a brochure for
anyone applying a permit, indicating public and private
land. The bill does not eliminate the permit process, but
only the $25 fee.
Ms. Moss addressed the fiscal note, which indicated a loss
of $170 thousand in revenues. She explained how the
Department used this funding, and noted that the original
note indicated a $181 thousand loss. The trespass fees paid
to native corporations totaled $130,536; the site
maintenance totaled another $36 thousand. She concluded
that the Department was actually losing only $2 per permit,
less the cost of printing the permits, which totaled $3,600.
She pointed out that the bill presented no major loss to the
general fund.
Ms. Moss explained that in the Spring the Fish Board changed
the classification of fishing in Chitina from subsistence to
"personal use", which would require a $15 sport fishing
license, above the fish netting permit. Estimates indicate
that ten percent of fishers were now required to purchase
sports fishing licenses and that under the bill, providing
$11 thousand additional revenue to the State. She also noted
estimates that a potential of 3,000 additional licenses
would be purchased, totaling $45 thousand in new revenue.
She indicated that this revenue could support the
maintenance issue surrounding the bill. She stated that
Representative Coghill believes that the funding should be
found through other efficiencies and treated as an existing
maintenance expense. She pointed out that the Chitina
dipnetters were the only fisheries in the state of Alaska
that was paying for permits.
Representative Chenault asked if Chitina dipnetting was the
only fishery to subsidize waste disposal through a fee. Ms.
Moss confirmed that this was true, but added that the Kenai
dipnetting area had a municipal charge for waste disposal.
In response to a question by Representative Chenault, Ms.
Moss replied that the benefit did not go to the fishers
themselves.
Co-Chair Harris asked if Atna [Native Corporation] land was
used to access the river. Ms. Moss stated that the brochure
would clearly detail public and private access, so that
there would be no reason to use private property to access
the river. In response to a question by Co-Chair Harris, Ms.
Moss confirmed that the only action was to eliminate the
fee.
Representative Croft referred to the fiscal note, and
observed an average of 7,000 people to whom a fee of $25 was
charged generated approximately $180 thousand in revenue
that the State would no longer be received. Ms. Moss noted
that all of the $2 per permit was being directed to services
other than the Department of Fish and Game.
Representative Croft observed that the fee went to pay for
the agreement with Atna. To use their private lands for
access and asked if the sponsor proposed that the access
would no longer be paid for or available. Ms. Moss
confirmed that this was correct and added that the State
would no longer pay for waste management in the area.
Co-Chair Harris asked if outdoor plumbing would still be
maintained, since this was a popular fishing area in the
State. Ms. Moss responded that this issue was still under
consideration and that separate legislation was being worked
on to address the issue. She added Representative Coghill's
belief that the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities and the Department of Fish and Game should
collaborate to equitably address this issue. She noted that
their office was communicating with various agencies and
organizations to resolve the problem.
Representative Croft concurred with Co-Chair Harris in the
concern for locating general funds to provide restroom
facilities and other services. He agreed that the fee might
be reduced, but maintained that even given a clear brochure,
without legal access through private lands, border disputes
might arise, in addition to problems with waste disposal if
facilities were not available. He suggested that Fish and
Game might at least find funding to provide these services.
Co-Chair Williams recalled that the reason the statute was
initiated was to prevent crossing of private Native lands.
He asked how the Committee might address this.
Representative Stoltze observed that there had been a great
deal of resources spent in delineating the property lines
and access points.
Co-Chair Williams recalled that originally there were
private property signs on the roadways. Ms. Moss stated that
the reason to keep the permit, while eliminating the fee,
was to provide information to every person fishing outlining
the property lines between state and private land. She
noted that trespassers stood the chance of being prosecuted.
Representative Stoltze expressed his support of repealing
the fee, in that it was inappropriate to provide these
services through the use of fees. He maintained that the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities had
plenty of opportunity to provide services apart from the
permit process. He noted regulatory power to set up charges
for use of facilities, and stated that it was not
appropriate to charge fees in correlation with the permit
process.
Ms. Moss noted that at the last hearing the Department of
Fish and Game stated that they could use proceeds from sport
fishing licenses to provide maintenance of this kind.
Representative Joule asked to hear public testimony.
Co-Chair Harris asked if they had received any comment from
the Native Corporation. Ms. Moss said they had not.
The Glennallen Legislative Information Office stated that
written testimony from Joseph Hart, General Manager of the
Chitina Native Corporation had been faxed (copy on file).
Representative Foster pointed out that many areas provide
their own maintenance without state assistance just out of
pride for their area. He gave the example that in Nome,
citizens provided cleanup on a volunteer basis.
BYRON HALEY, PRESIDENT OF THE CHITINA DIPNETTER ASSOCIATION,
FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference in support of the
bill. He stated that Chitina was the corridor to fishing in
the area, and maintained that a $25 fee was no longer
necessary. He referred to a letter from the Departments of
Natural Resources and Fish and Game in August of 2002,
stating that the current yearly compensation process has
been difficult and that given the recent survey and other
developments, they do not believe that the fee is any longer
necessary. He stressed that the private landowner could
still choose to charge for access to their property. He
strongly encouraged passage of the legislation.
DICK BISHOP, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference in
support of the bill. He expressed thanks to legislators for
their work on the bill over the years. He explained that
the Chitina Dipnet industry was for personal use and
required a sports fishing license as a result of a recent
Board of Fisheries decision. He maintained that there
should be no need for an additional fee to allow Alaskans to
fish for food in that fishery and pointed out that no
additional fee was charged for any other personal use
fishery in the state.
TAPE HFC 03 - 69, Side B
Mr. Bishop pointed out that the Native Corporation was free
to charge fees for trespass on their lands as they saw fit.
Co-Chair Harris referred to a letter faxed from the Chitina
Native Corporation concerning trespass and cutting down
trees. He asked if there was a way to relieve the concerns
of the Native Corporation regarding activity on their lands.
He suggested that if the state had clearly delineated access
to state lands, there was a way to allay fears about
trespassing.
Mr. Bishop related a story about an individual who purchased
land near a well-used trail, and had not posted private
property signs indicating that he did not wish people to
trespass. He indicated that the private landowners had the
responsibility to convey their wishes through signs and
notices, in the hope that most people would respect those
wishes.
MARK HELM, VICE PRESIDENT, CHITINA DIPNETTERS ASSOCIATION,
testified via teleconference in support of the bill. He
referred to the map of the surveyed area, sheet 2 of 5, and
highlighted Mile Post One. He indicated that there was
public access from that point to Milepost 60.62 (GPSO 2).
He noted that from Milepost .40 to Milepost 2.21 was the
origination of the trespass fee eleven years ago. He
pointed out that at that time, public access was not
available in this area; the state has now repaired the road,
and provided public access. He noted that he has operated a
fishing charter for the past twenty years, and maintained
that there was little access by the public in this area, and
therefore not much trespassing. He stated that most
dipnetters fished in the area from Milepost 2.39 down to
Haley Creek. He maintained that percentage figures were
misleading. He also referred to the last page of the map,
and stated that the potential trespass area was actually a
dangerous cliff, where no one fished. He proposed that in
the current circumstances, the trespass fee was no longer
valid. He pointed out that the Native Corporation did not
pay to survey the land.
PAUL HOLLAND, BOARD MEMBERS OF THE CHITINA DIPNETTERS
ASSOCIATION, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference in
support of the bill. He stated that the majority of dipnet
fisherman fished within the right of way. He also noted
that the road was closed at the present time, making the
issue of trespass moot at this point.
JESSE VANDERZANDEN, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL, testified via
teleconference in support of the bill. He stated that,
according to the recent survey, at least 60 percent of the
area used by dipnetters was public land. He also noted
identified public access to the area. He maintained that
the trespass fee was no longer valid. He referred to two
letters provided as testimony to the House Resources
Committee. He quoted from a letter from Governor Tony
Knowles to the Chitina Native Corporation, stating "last
summer DOT/PF staff completed this legislatively funded
survey which showed that at least 60 percent of the right of
way between O'Brien and Haley Creek affords legal public
access to the Copper River." The letter went on to state
that " the results of this survey places the state in the
awkward position of collecting fees from a portion of users
in the Chitina subsistence fisheries to pay for access that
is not needed in order to participate in the fishery".
Finally, he read, "ADF&G is considering a proposal that
would repeal the access fee". He then quoted from the
letter by quoted earlier by Mr. Haley. He maintained that
the current bill was a win/win situation for both public
access fishers and private landowners. He noted that
private landowners benefited from information provided to
the public by state agencies on the delineation of their
lands. He emphasized that private landowners could choose
to charge fees for trespass. He also stressed that the
Department of Fish and Game should not be responsible for
trash and waste removal contracts. He submitted that
discussion about cleanup should not be a legislative issue
but rather a regulatory one.
HB 210 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|