Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/22/1993 08:30 AM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 140: FEES FOR NONRESIDENT KING SALMON TAG CHAIRMAN CARL MOSES called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. He noted Representatives Moses, Phillips, Davidson, and Olberg in attendance and said that discussion would begin with HB 140, sponsored by Representative Bill Hudson, which would change the nonresident fees for the king salmon tag. REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 140, told the committee he introduced the bill to address concerns raised by individuals in the tourism and sport fish industries. It was believed that the current flat fee of $20 imposed on all nonresidents for the king salmon tag discouraged sport fishing participation among short-time tourists, and could have a detrimental impact on sport fish charters and local economies. He said the abundance of Juneau summertime charters were four to eight hours long, but certainly not more than a day. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said the state should gain the extra money from the tag while encouraging visitors to stay longer and contribute more to the local economy. Instituting a graduated fee schedule was a simple solution and HB 140 changed the $20 flat fee for non-residents to a graduated $5, $15 and $30 fee schedule, he noted. Further, he said the $30 annual fee was greater than the current $20, but was carefully designed with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to be revenue neutral. In fact, the fiscal note showed it should add more income to the Fish and Game Fund to offset any increased expenses, he pointed out. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON then stated Section 1 of HB 140 declared that the money derived from the fee would go toward king salmon enhancement, research, and management, which was the intent of the sport fish industry; and, Section 3 was a technical amendment. He also noted ADF&G supported HB 140 and he had not received any calls to his office in opposition to the bill. REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS asked about the intent language in HB 140 and whether there were other guarantees that the income from the tag would go toward king salmon research and management. She also asked if those funds would go toward hatcheries for sport fisheries. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON responded that according to the ADF&G, the funds would be separately accounted for and would help fund king salmon research and management. He said the funds could also fund sport fisheries. REPRESENTATIVE CLIFF DAVIDSON asked how many tourists were in Juneau on a good summer day. He then asked how many people might be fishing for king salmon, and what the value of those fish might be. He also asked how the sport fishery might impact the commercial fishery. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied that there could be as many as 5,000 tourists in Juneau in one day. He then described the other kinds of costs a non-resident charter fisherman would have to pay, including the non-resident license and charter boat expenses. In order to encourage people to charter a fishing boat, he felt reducing the cost for the one day fee was reasonable, and would result in more people taking out charters. He also pointed out the ADF&G controlled the harvest, and although the limit in 1992 was one king salmon per day, a good number of silvers were caught. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said that in 1992, Senator Dick Eliason, from Sitka, sponsored legislation to include the charter boat operators under the Board of Fisheries. For allocation purposes, such a bill would solve the problem of unregulated charter boat fishing. On the other hand, HB 140 got the charter boat operators to drop more money into the local economy, he said. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS, speaking in support of HB 140, noted that her district included five major rivers on the Kenai Peninsula, which were heavily used by recreational travelers and recreation/commercial charter operators. She then noted that she had heard from most of the operators regarding HB 140. In Homer alone, 30-40 operators took out mixed halibut and king salmon charters, she said. CHAIRMAN MOSES asked how many people would charter for the one-day rate and how the revenue stream would be affected. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he had asked the ADF&G to work with him on the fee schedule. Together, he and the ADF&G decided that the best balance was to increase the annual fee to $30. In addition, the three day fee would be $15, the resident fee would be $10 and the one day fee would be $5. The total amount of money raised would be slightly increased over the $20 flat fee. VICE CHAIR HARLEY OLBERG asked why the state would want to be revenue neutral. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied that it was his goal to be revenue neutral and noted that if the rates increased too much, tourism would be discouraged. In Southeast, where rates were higher, a charter boat operators' success was measured by Canadians, he alleged, and noted that HB 140 had no bearing on the military fees, which would still remain at $20. CHAIRMAN MOSES asked if some of the problems would be solved if the one day tag was $10. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted for the record that a one day non-resident license was only $10. ROCKY HOLMES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SPORT FISH, ADF&G, testified on behalf of the ADF&G in support of HB 140 because it was a legitimate request to change the fee structure, and because it was revenue neutral, bringing in about the same amount of money as the current structure. MR. HOLMES suggested a couple of slight changes: First, the ADF&G would like HB 140 to have an effective date of January 1, 1994. The licenses and tags for 1993 were already for sale, and the ADF&G could think of no way to retrieve the licenses and tags in the middle of the season. Secondly if HB 140 passed and new tags were printed, the tags could not be distributed to the public before the majority of the king salmon season was over. MR. HOLMES also noted a second slight change was overlooked when the original bill was passed. The current statute required anyone fishing for king salmon to have a tag. He suggested the requirement should only be for people fishing for anadromous king salmon. He noted there were several lakes in urban areas that were stocked with pan-sized king salmon, mostly to benefit young people and low income people. He also added that it was very difficult to tell the difference between a king salmon and a coho salmon when they were very small, and a lot of the lakes had both. Further, he said the ADF&G thought it would be better to limit the tag to anadromous king salmon. MR. HOLMES noted a third minor change. He understood the sponsor wanted the military non-resident fee to stay at $20. The way HB 140 was currently written, the fee was $30. VICE CHAIR OLBERG asked about the need for printing three or four different kinds of tags and suggested the ADF&G look at a hole punching process as a way to save printing costs. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS commented that the January 1, 1994 effective date was a good idea. A lot of the charter boat owners have already informed customers about their costs for this year, and a change in the middle of the season would be confusing. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he would support the 1994 effective date. He also asked if the ADF&G recommended these amendments, since he had just seen them. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said the anadromous fish requirement was getting too technical and thought the committee should not bother to differentiate for the purposes of the king salmon tag. MR. HOLMES responded that there were people fishing at Twin Lakes in Juneau, which had been stocked with both small size king salmon and silvers. Since the fish looked alike, there would be a real enforcement problem to require the tag. He noted most of the anglers at Twin Lakes probably did not have a tag, and that the enforcement officers would probably just have to overlook it. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS noted HB 140 only dealt with non- residents, and few non-residents fished at the small lakes. She said, "Instead, visitors come up here to fish for the big ones; residents are not the problem." MR. HOLMES responded that not everyone lived on the coast. Small size king salmon were also stocked in the Anchorage area and the Interior. He said the ADF&G's proposed amendment would be for both residents and non-residents. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON could see the ADF&G's concern, especially for fisheries geared toward children. MR. HOLMES clarified not every adult would have the king salmon tag - such as in Fairbanks and Anchorage. The reason the king salmon tag was instituted was to assist with large, anadromous fish production, he noted, and the problems with ocean fisheries were over-harvesting the resource. The lake stocking program was not dependent on king salmon. One of the outcomes if HB 140 was not changed might be that the ADF&G would stop stocking them in the lakes, he said. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said regulations could handle that issue. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS reiterated her belief that everyone should buy a tag. MR. HOLMES said there was minimal sport fishing on the Yukon River - some on the Tanana, Chena and Salcha tributaries and those were anadromous runs, with 500-1,000 fish harvested. CHAIRMAN MOSES was inclined to raise the $5 one day fee to $10. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated that he had reached the $5 as an agreement with the charter boat operators and the Territorial Sportsmen in Juneau. Five dollars seemed to be reasonable, he thought. CHAIRMAN MOSES noted that visitors who could afford to get to Alaska and charter a boat or a plane, could probably afford $10. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON answered that such a change would be up to the committee. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS spoke against changing the $5 to $10 because a lot of the charter boats in her district supported the $5 as fair. CHAIRMAN MOSES suggested the committee let Representative Hudson and the ADF&G work on the amendments and come back with suggested changes. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN MOSES asked members if there were further comments. Hearing none, he adjourned the meeting at 9:15 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|