Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/12/2001 05:06 PM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 93-KENAI DIP NET FISHERY PERMIT FEE Number 2848 CO-CHAIR STEVENS announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 93, "An Act establishing the permit fee for the personal use dip net fisheries for the Kenai River and the Kasilof River; and providing for an effective date." Number 2840 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON made a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 93, version 22-LS0431\F, Utermohle, 3/12/01, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version F was before the committee. Number 2823 REPRESENTATIVE KEN LANCASTER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of the bill, explained that Version F was necessary because a "glaring" mistake was made in the original bill. The original version established separate $10 fees for the Kenai River and Kasilof River, instead of having one $10 fee for both rivers, as shown in Version F. REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER stated that this fee will hopefully put in some "enforcement habitat protection access," such as bathrooms, along the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers, due to the heavy dip net fisheries in those areas. The dip net fisheries occur over a 21-day period for which 12,000-plus permits are issued. He said that the head of a household is allowed to catch 25 fish, while each family member can catch 10 fish. This volume of people on two rivers for this short period of time has caused concern. It has been detrimental to the mouths of the rivers and to private property that has been "trashed" on the south sides of both rivers, in particular. REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER mentioned that he has received numerous phone calls in Juneau and in his "other capacity" in regard to this bill. REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER pointed out the Kenai Resolution (in committee packets), in which the City of Kenai requested $900,000 from the state to deal with capital projects to address some of this "property access" on the south side of the Kenai River. He said that the City of Kenai has already spent in excess of $200,000 to accommodate parking on the north side of the river, [in order to] put up barricades to keep people from driving on the beaches and getting stuck and tearing up the riverbanks. REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER mentioned that he was notified by Jeff Jesse (ph) of the Trust Land Office, Alaska Mental Health Trust, that on the south side of the Kasilof River, areas had to be barricaded that are part of the Mental Health Trust Land, which is state property, for "the very same reason, degradation of our private property." He referred to a recent editorial that said, "When you mention the word 'fish,' ... obviously ... it's a fight from the word 'go'". He said that if this bill does not get passed, he hopes it will still raise awareness and help bring some protection to (indisc.). But his wish is that the bill will move forward from committee. Number 2684 IRVIN BROCK, Deputy Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska Department of Fish & Game [ADF&G], remarked that he has just now seen the updated bill. He stated that currently the division spends approximately $10,000 annually for maintenance, garbage pickup, and port-a-potties on the Kenai [River]. The division gives this money to the borough of Kenai to help defray some of those costs. He said that the Board of Fisheries has addressed some primary habitat issues that were identified. He then mentioned that this is an important fishery for the residents of that area and Anchorage because it is a "meat fishery." Many Alaska residents freeze quite a few fish for their families out of this fishery. Therefore, [ADF&G] wants to ensure that this continues without interruption. He said: We don't believe that the fishery is overly abused. There is abuse. I'm sure that happens, but ... with literally every fishery you have, there's going to be some abuse by the participants. ... We believe that the fishery as it exists is sustainable. MR. BROCK commented that one of the potential problems that [the Division of Sport Fish] sees with this bill is that if the funding were to come through the [ADF&G] fund, there is a potential for statutory problems regarding diversion of funds. He said that there is a statute concerning federal aid funding, which says all permit and license fees have to be under the direct control of the commissioner of ADF&G. So, "we" would have to look into that a little bit more to ensure that "our federal aid coordinators and people" would not have a problem with the funding coming through and going directly to enforcement with [the Department of] Public Safety. He said this could be explored. MR. BROCK pointed out that the fiscal note would change due to changes in Version F. The original bill was interpreted as establishing a $10 fee for each river, while Version F establishes one fee for both rivers. He said that the new fiscal note would decrease by approximately $20,000. Number 2509 REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked how the department regulates the amount of fish allowed to be harvested in the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers. MR. BROCK said the Board of Fisheries has established a management plan for sockeye salmon on the Kenai River, but he cannot quote it directly. REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked if there was a fiscal note attached to this management plan, and wondered what amount of enforcement is needed by the department to carry out this plan. MR. BROCK stated that he was not aware of a fiscal note attached to this plan. He mentioned that Captain Starbard from the Department of Public Safety might be able to address this. Number 2429 CARL ROSIER, President, Alaska Outdoor Council, gave the following testimony: The Alaska Outdoor Council [AOC] is an association of 45 outdoor recreation groups statewide. Our membership is a little over 2,000 members, and the clubs we represent total about 10,000 Alaskan members. AOC is opposed to the provisions of House Bill 93 that seek to establish a $10 fee for dip net fishing on both the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers. I understand ... the latest version is a $10 fee for both rivers. .... Our opposition is based on our belief that the highest and best use of fish and game resources is on Alaskan dinner tables. This fishery is conducted by almost ... 100 percent Alaskan residents on a common property resource and is a food fishery. Why should we be implementing a double tax, single tax on such a fishery that currently requires a $15 resident's sport fish license in order to participate? Discussion with ADF&G revealed that the agency has no real habitat concerns, and there are no elevated concerns over the sustainability of the fisheries in the limited, lower reaches of the river in which the fisheries take place. I'm told also that in recent years local government has received about $100,000 of ... money for crowd control and vehicle control in these areas. ... And as [Mr. Brock] just mentioned, they have been receiving about $10,000 a year in local government from ADF&G for such things as port-a- potties and the likes. This fishery is important to Alaskans. The fish are for personal consumption. There are apparently no habitat or resource issues. ... Local government has received some [funding] to alleviate public problems. While it may not cover all expenses, it seems to me that with the numbers of people involved, the local government should be supporting the fisheries as economic opportunity. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Number 2291 REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked Mr. Rosier, being a former commissioner, if he feels that enforcement of any fishery for conservation purposes is a valid concern. MR. ROSIER said "very definitely so." One of the goals of the AOC is to provide support for some additional funding for the Division of Fish & Wildlife Protection [Department of Public Safety] for this current year. The Alaska Outdoor Council feels that these "guys are really spread thin" on a statewide basis. However, he indicated that there are more serious issues regarding fish and wildlife management throughout the state that require higher priority from [the Department of] Public Safety than this particular fishery. Number 2231 BRETT HUBER testified via teleconference that he serves as Executive Director, Kenai River Sport Fishing Association; Vice- President, Kenai River Special Management Area Board; and Vice- President, Alaska Outdoor Council. He informed the committee: I'm not here today to speak on behalf on any of those groups. I want to make it clear that I'm here on my own time, and I'm here as an Alaskan, an area resident, the head of my household, a pu [personal use] fisher, and a common property owner of the fishery resources of Alaska. I would also first like to say I have a great deal of respect for the sponsor of this bill. In fact, I consider Representative Lancaster to be a friend of mine. But with all due respect, I think my friend has a bad idea. I oppose this bill. I participate in the Kenai River dip net fishery with my family. I'm not sure as to what the sponsor's statement for this bill alleges. I do not abuse this fishery. I do not have a complete disregard for habitat, environment, and riverbanks. I and my family have a great respect for the resource. I do not trespass on private property. I do not fish without a fishing license. And I do not exceed my bag limit. I don't abuse this fishery, and in my experience, the vast majority of Alaskans who participate in this fishery don't either. I quite frankly view this bill as nothing more than a food tax directed entirely at Alaskan residents. This new $10 fee is in addition to the dollars I've spent for my required sport fish license, a license I need to have to participate in this fishery now. By my account, I see that as double dipping. We heard about the bag limits that are in place for this fishery. But I think that the Department of Fish & Game's statistics will bear out. The average catch is more like around a dozen to 15 fish for [an] individual permit holder. Last year my family harvested a dozen fish; the year before that we were lucky and got two dozen. I assure you that ... we use those fish, we enjoyed those fish, we ate those fish, and we didn't waste those fish. I want to continue to have that opportunity. I don't mind paying my way. I'm not someone who opposes all user fees. I buy my fishing license, I pay my park fees, and I contribute to the federal aid dollars with my tax on the sporting goods I purchase. And I do so happily. I am, however, opposed to paying twice for something I already own, especially when this new fee is predicated on what I believe are very inaccurate perceptions. We're all in favor of more enforcement, and if it's an infrastructure issue and the City of Kenai is spending money on parking areas and on road extensions, charge for the parking, charge for use of access of roads. I don't have any problem with paying for infrastructure. But I think this is an undue burden on common property owners. I think it's based on things that aren't in actuality taking place, and I strongly oppose of it. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Number 2064 REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked Mr. Huber if he supports the king salmon stamp and the dollars it generates. MR. HUBER said "absolutely," and that he was an advocate for that measure when it was passed [by the legislature]. He stated that he buys a king salmon license every year and has no problem doing so. REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked if he could differentiate between the two fees [king salmon stamp and the proposed dip net fishing fee]. MR. HUBER explained that the King Salmon stamp is a sport fishing stamp; it's not a personal use license. The fishery targeted in this bill is a meat-and-pu [personal use] fishery, "a fishery to feed Alaskans." He said that king salmon are a big-game fish. He thinks there's also a difference because the king salmon stamp is required in order to harvest king salmon. This $10 fee would be in addition to a license whose proceeds go to offset the cost of this fishery. Number 1990 BOB KINTZELE testified via teleconference: I'm a 30-year (indisc.) resident here in Alaska. I live on Kalifornsky Road and I access the mouth of the Kenai River regularly in the summertime. I see the abuses. I see the waste. I see the deprivation of the habitat along the south side of the Kenai. The City of Kenai is taking pretty good control of the north side of the river, but the south side has been impacted severely. I think there's some health issues. I think some enforcement is needed. I don't believe a $10 fee for a family for a 21-day period is (indisc.) ... I think it says we care about the habitat, we care about the resource, and I think it will benefit, in some fashion, just to make people pay attention to it. If there is anything (indisc.) have a discussion about the habitat of the resource, the $10 is worth it, to make people think about it. It's been a problem. I've seen it year after year, and it hasn't gone away. I'm very much in favor of it. Thank you. Number 1894 PAUL SHADURA testified via teleconference: I reside in Kenai, Alaska, and I'm a resident of the (indisc.) family. I come before you today to ask you for your support for the $10 management fee for the Kenai and Kasilof dip net fishery. Serious social and environmental problems have occurred from the disorderly (indisc.) of this personal use fishery. [The Division of] Fish and Wildlife Protection has stated, at [a] recent Kenai/Soldotna Fish and Game advisory meeting, that at any time they arrive on the scene at either personal use [fishery], ... it is very easy to write violations. The City of Kenai must hire an officer, just for the summer months, to manage the social problems at the Kenai dock boat launch. The city has requested substantial amounts to cover costs of managing this logistical nightmare. Environmental damage to the south shore (indisc.) habitat on both the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers. The University of Alaska Mental Health Trust Land has attempted to block off this area at the Kasilof River. Yet destruction to the primary grasslands and sand dunes still continues due to the lack of enforcement. I would support an amendment to HB 93 for a $10 flat fee for [a] dip net license established in a receipt- supported services fund, which would allow different managing entities a mechanism to request funds. This is a good bill. It attempts to deal with a real problem. We support our protection officers and our precious (indisc.) habitat estuary for the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers. Number 1774 CAPTAIN HOWARD STARBARD, Commander, B Detachment, Division of Fish & Wildlife Protection, Department of Public Safety, testified via teleconference: I, ... like previous speakers, want to thank the sponsor of House Bill 93. I think Representative Lancaster is attempting to increase enforcement habitat, and the essence of the bill itself is worthy. I don't want to be accused of opposing or trying to turn down any funds that might help to increase our efforts in enforcement on part of these rivers. However, I think I need to point out that even if the funds generated from this bill were to go to our enforcement efforts exclusively, the amount of money would not be enough to increase one position or one trooper on the Kenai. ... So what we're essentially talking about is overtime funds, no matter what percentage would eventually get back to our division, if that was the case. During the period that we're talking about, in the months of .... May, June, July, August, in that area, our troopers on the Kenai are working as many hours as almost humanly possible. We have funds that we hold right now that we're not doing overtime [with]. [And] because of the slow period, [we are] waiting to do increased enforcements and emphasis patrol. ... During that period that we're talking about, the funds generated would really not enhance our presence on the Kenai in work-related man months ... [since they are already] working as many hours [as] they ... can at this point anyway. That's not to say that we're not in favor of coming up with ways to increase enforcement or habitat or restoration or compliance. Last year, for instance, our attachment did an emphasis area and was able to concentrate on dedicated patrols in the personal-use subsistence fisheries, not only on the Kenai, but in our attachment overall. And we increased in both our hours [and] our contacts overall, in all those areas. But that was primarily because the commercial fisheries were limited and so we had man hours available to dedicate to other areas. In intense commercial fisheries, it's hard to concentrate on a personal-use fishery when you have other ... commercial fisheries primarily dictating that. Number 1553 GARY HOLLIER testified via teleconference: I'm a lifelong resident of Kenai. I'm working in Anchorage right now, and I'd like to speak in favor of House Bill 93. I appreciate Representative Lancaster's efforts in this. This dip net fishery on the Kenai River [was] first started in 1987 by Ken Flore (ph) with the [Alaska] Department of Fish & Game to harvest a portion of the biggest run that ever came back to the Kenai River. Over ten million reds came back. It has grown into one of the biggest sport sockeye fisheries in the state and the world. It's a good fishery, and as Mr. Huber said, it's put salmon on the dinner tables of Alaskans. Unfortunately, there's a lot of abuse in this fishery. I've participated in there since its inception. I have friends that come off the Slope who live in Texas that annually take out 90-100 reds a year. To me, that's a travesty. [And] they're not the only ones doing it. I have Alaskan friends who annually take way, way over their limit. If I was an enforcement person, and I was looking out into the Kenai River and looking at a boat, and there was a family out there and they're going down with four people in there and every one of those people in that family got a net, they're illegal. You get one net per permit. You don't get four. Every family member doesn't get a dip net. This last summer I'm down there dip netting and I'm dip netting around people that aren't even speaking English. I'm not a prejudiced person, but something's wrong when nine out of the ten people around me aren't speaking English. I paid $10 for this king salmon tag that Representative Scalzi brought up, and my family, four of us, we pay $40 for that. Ten dollars is nothing for me to pay to go out and get 55 salmon ... if I know that I'm surrounded by Alaskans. This fee is minimal compared to [whom] it can benefit. I believe the Copper River dip net fishery, those users pay $25. The City of Kenai would benefit, as dip netters could get in there sooner, and get out. There'd be less trash, less sewer, less garbage, less habitat damage. Number 1401 The City of Soldotna would benefit, and the sportsmen upstream would benefit because fewer fish would be caught illegally and they would make it upriver too. For these sportsmen and the City of Soldotna, the minimum [escapement] goals for sockeye would be achieved quicker. Commercial fishermen would benefit. The habitat damage would decrease. ... I ran these number[s] for these 21 days, [and] if you put 18 hours a day [for] 2 positions on the Kenai and 1 on Kasilof, that works out to 1,134 man hours. If you paid the overtime rate, that's $56,700 to run this program. There's an average of 10,000 to 15,000 people that use this fishery. At say, 12,500 take an average there - that's $125,000 generated. I don't understand this Irving Brock [who] said that ... [the] fiscal note would go down by $20,000. If you pay $10,... I could go dip netting in the Kasilof or the Kenai River. The fiscal note isn't going to go down. It's going to stay the same. Of course, the fishery's going to be sustainable. There is no burden put on the dip net fishery. The dip net fishery goes on unless 500,000 fish cannot be achieved into the Kenai River. This is something positive for the resource, the habitat, and the people of Alaska. The only people that don't want it are people who are dishonest Alaskan dip netters, nonresidents, and aliens who aren't supposed to participate anyway. This is something good. .... The sport fish division says they give $10,000. I haven't seen one port-a-potty on the south side of the Kenai River since I've been down there. There's 5,000 people sometimes down there camping out over the weekend. Where do all those people go to the bathroom? They go right into the dunes, right on top up there. It looks like there's 76,000 piles of feces and toilet paper. When that fishery is over with, it looks like a darn buffalo herd went through it. It's criminal. This is a chance to do something positive. I understand and I appreciate the enforcement efforts. I know that they're spread thin. I understand through different departments, through the sport fish [division], through the [commercial] fish [division], that people can get deputized for ... summer seasonal support. This program would pay for itself. If you just had a person sitting down there in one of [those] trucks with a little bear on it that says integrity, courage and whatever they say on there, ... it would go a long ways to cutting down the abuse in this fishery. Go on and check these people. Check every person with a permit with a net that's supposed to have a permit. I can guarantee it's not happening. These people aren't clipping [the fish] tails. ... I'm pretty frustrated with the whole situation, and I see this as something positive. Anyway, I think I got a little vocal. CO-CHAIR STEVENS said he appreciated Mr. Hollier's vivid testimony. Number 1189 REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER remarked that 11 percent of the people who live in her district don't speak English, and they are all Alaskans. MR. HOLLIER suggested that if this bill passed, this could be a "bailable" offense. For example, it could be similar to a ticket, where if someone went over his or her limit, that person would pay a $100 fine and mail it in. He said there are provisions on the books for this fishery that say people have to return their permits every year. If someone did not return his or her permit, that person would not receive one the next year. "Let's put some meat into some of this enforcement down there ... and maybe we can help everybody," he said. He then remarked that he wasn't trying to "slight anybody about this English thing." Number 1094 DAN BOONE testified via teleconference, and asked for clarification on whether this bill involves a fee in addition to the required fishing license. CO-CHAIR STEVENS confirmed this statement. MR. BOONE testified: I would be opposed to this. ... I'm not one of those people that's fortunate enough to qualify under the federal subsistence guidelines, and this is a personal-use fishery that I depend on to put meat on the table. And I don't think that it's right for an additional fee to be piled on, on top of the sports fishing license. It's not the amount. The $10 is relatively insignificant. But it's the principle of the thing that they shouldn't be hit twice for the same resource. The fish belong to all the people of the state of Alaska. And that happens to be one way that we can harvest those fish for our personal use. And we're not. I don't have an opportunity to subsistence fish, and so I would be opposed ... to House Bill 93. In addition, they have imposed parking fees on the north side. I think there's a $5 fee for every 12 hours there. So they're collecting [a] fair amount of money. Besides that, people spend a lot of money when they're in Kenai and Soldotna dip net fishing. I probably spend a couple hundred dollars up there on the days that I go up, [from] eating, and buying gasoline, and [buying] extra gear and what have you. So, the city is benefiting from the presence of those people. Thank you very much. Number 0938 REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked Mr. Boone if he supports the king salmon stamp as a user fee. MR. BOONE replied that, as explained earlier, "that's a sport fishery." He said that he buys a king salmon stamp every year, even though he's not fortunate enough to catch any fish. REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said, "We both have to buy the resident sport license, and we can make the same argument that you're paying twice for the same thing." MR. BOONE restated that the king salmon fishery is really a sport fishery. REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI remarked that both fisheries require management. He asked Mr. Boone if he could explain the difference. MR. BOONE specified that king salmon fishing is a "trophy or sport fishery," while the dip net fishery on the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers is a personal use fishery for meat. Number 0858 CO-CHAIR STEVENS referred to Mr. Hollier's question concerning the fiscal note. He stated that at one point, the fiscal note was almost $80,000, when it was assumed that a separate permit was to be purchased for the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers. The new fiscal note is estimated to be about $60,000, for having one fishing permit be purchased for both rivers. He asked Mr. Brock if this was correct. Number 0800 MR. BROCK replied that it was, to his understanding. Number 0778 MR. HOLLIER commented that one has to "go down to get a permit that covers both the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers." He stated that the department has said it has issued 10,000 to 15,000 permits a year for the last six years. Therefore, charging $10 per permit would bring in $100,000 or $150,000. Consequently, he said he does not understand how the fiscal note drops proportionally. MR. BROCK stated that he is responsible for the fiscal note and is the "messenger." He revealed that approximately 16,000 permits have been issued annually for the last two years. Less permits were issued prior to this time. However, of these "free of charge" permits, only 6,700 issued for the Kenai River and 1,385 issued for the Kasilof River were reported as "actively used." He stated that many people would obtain one of these free permits when picking up their licenses, and would not actively use them. In writing the fiscal note [for the original bill], he took into consideration only actively fished permits and rounded the number to 7,000 for the Kenai River and 1,500 for the Kasilof River. Now that the new bill has one permit for both rivers, he would use "7,000 permits as actively fished" as a basis for the fiscal note. This would only bring in $70,000 in total, from which vendor fees would have to be paid out. Number 0580 MR. HOLLIER argued that when someone obtains a permit, it could mean the person will fish on just the Kenai River, fish on just the Kasilof River , fish on both rivers, or not fish at all. But no matter what, it costs the person $10. He said "ten times sixteen, that's $160,000 generated in the last two years, no matter where they fish." MR. BROCK stated that he disagreed with these remarks. His assumptions in writing the fiscal note were that only 7,000 permits would be sold. In the past, people did not have to pay for the permits, so they got them whether they used them or not. If one has to pay for this permit, someone is not going to automatically pick one up when getting a license. So, he assumed that 16,000 permits will no longer be issued, and that 7,000 is a more realistic number. Number 0470 REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked for the number of dip net permits and what is generated out of the Copper River dip net fishery. MR. BROCK said he did not have that information with him. But a rough estimate would be 10,000. REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked if it was 10,000 at $25 a permit. MR. BROCK confirmed this, and said it was actually between 9,000 and 10,000 [permits]. Number 0382 REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI remarked that he wanted to speak in favor of the bill. He referred to his questions about the differentiation between a sport fee and personal fee. He said that he does not see a difference in the two. This bill is asking the department to increase management, which is going to increase costs. He said he has seen and heard that on the peninsula, "the amount of fish that ends up freezer-burned and in the dumpsters in the spring. And I don't think there's a worst travesty than the wanton waste of some of these fisheries." He stated that the fee would make people conscious that they are helping to contribute to the enforcement and management of this resource. Also, one's fishing license needs to be validated by writing [the amount of fish taken] down; that was true even before the king salmon stamp was involved. This was a mechanism for the department to make accurate counts of what the fishery left in the rivers. REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI stated that under this current dip net fishery [in the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers], there is no valid enforcement of how to monitor the amount of fish that are taken. For example, someone can leave the river with 10 or 25 fish, and come back the next day and take another 25 fish. He said that there is too much room for abuse right now. This permit is one mechanism that will draw attention to better management. He went on to say that although the sponsor has addressed the need for "habitat protection, the cleanup, [and] the "buffalo toilet paper," enforcement and monitoring of the fishery is something that is, to him, a more valid concern. So, he thinks that this is a first step, and he supports this bill. Number 0169 REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER remarked that he appreciated everyone's testimony. He said that his main motive for the bill was to address the south side of both the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers, where there are primarily private properties and no enforcement. There is no access across those private properties to the waters to fish without crossing private property. Hopefully, some of this money [from the permits], if handled in statutorily designated program receipts, could somehow be requested by the department (indisc.). He said that it would be a "long way around throughout [the] budget process," but hopefully some money would go to enforcement and to purchase access [across private properties], in order to have a responsible fishery. He said that "someone just having a presence on both rivers" could create a responsible fishery. Number 0077 REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI made a motion to move the CS for HB 93, version 22-LS0431\F, Utermohle, 3/12/01, from committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 93(FSH) was moved from the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|