Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/04/2002 03:38 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 462-CONFIDENTIALITY OF FISHING RECORDS Number 0960 CO-CHAIR STEVENS announced that the next matter before the committee was HOUSE BILL NO. 462, "An Act relating to the release of certain confidential records and reports concerning fishing, fish buying, or fish processing; and providing for an effective date." CO-CHAIR STEVENS, sponsor of HB 462, said the bill clarifies that when there is a request, reports of certain information submitted by a fisherman, buyer, or processor can be provided back to the person that submitted that information or someone the submitter has designated. It also provides for the release of certain information to the Department of Public Safety, certain law enforcement personnel, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to help them in their enforcement of fisheries laws. Number 1064 GORDY WILLIAMS, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), testified before the committee. He referred to page 2, line 19, [paragraph] (6); saying it adds provisions that would enable [submitters] to have information sent to another entity. He gave an example of the Small Business Administration's requiring a fishing history in order to give out a loan under the "disaster loan programs." Currently, this requires the granting of power of attorney, but the bill would give "clearer statutory direction." MR. WILLIAMS then referred to the addition of a new [paragraph] (7). It references annual statistical reports of a buyer or processor. He said that is concerned with the COAR (Commercial Operator's Annual Report) report. Currently, processors submit the COAR reports to the department, where the report becomes confidential information that cannot be submitted back to the submitter, nor a designee. Mr. Williams gave an example that took place concerning processors in Glacier Bay. MR. WILLIAMS then referred to [paragraph] (8). There would be an addition requiring saltwater charters to keep daily logbooks and submit them weekly to the department. Once received by ADF&G, the information would be made available to the Department of Public Safety for enforcement actions it may be looking into. Also, COAR reports would be given to the Department of Public Safety. Number 1360 MR. WILLIAMS said paragraph (9) is changed to add a reference to the requirement that COAR reports submitted by offshore catcher- processors to the state be accessible to federal law enforcement entities. CO-CHAIR STEVENS asked if the bill was a "cleanup" of problems that happened in the past. MR. WILLIAMS answered affirmatively and said that the bill would give clarity to the issue of people not being able to retrieve information they had submitted to the state themselves. Number 1455 REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked if there were any threats to the confidentiality of fishing subdistricts. He asked if there would be possibility of privileged information being made "open to everybody else." MR. WILLIAMS said the changes in HB 462 would not alter the way fish tickets are processed. He added that no additional privileged information would be made public by the bill. Number 1600 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked about the designee in [paragraph] (6), and said he did not know "what that designee might look like." MR. WILLIAMS again referenced the Small Business Administration's requiring a history for a loan or something similar. He told the committee that an individual would request that the department submit the information to a designee by means of a notarized application. Number 1686 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Williams why the Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection was taken out of the bill [on page 2, lines 27-28] as one of the entities that the department can give the information to. MR. WILLIAMS said that it was at [the Department of Public Safety's] request. The department would prefer to get away from delineating between fish and wildlife protection, and public safety in statute. Number 1742 ALAN CAIN, Captain, Division of Fish & Wildlife Protection, Department of Public Safety, testified via teleconference. He said his department's main concern was the adding of the requirements for saltwater charter logbooks and processor information in [paragraph] (8). He said his department currently needs to obtain a search warrant to view the logbooks when there is suspicion of misconduct. He said the bill gives the department access to the information much in the same fashion as for fish tickets. He stated that his department supported the bill. Number 1821 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Captain Cain if the penalty for "not having the information correct" would be different. He clarified by asking if this changes the level of penalty if the information is wrong. CAPTAIN CAIN said the bill does not change the level of penalty. Fines change based upon the gravity of the violation. He said all HB 462 does is make obtaining the information easier. He explained that it would result in more widespread investigations of violations, as well as better compliance. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed his concerns about due process. Number 1939 REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked Captain Cain what species was being specifically considered in the saltwater charter logbook provision of the bill. He asked if concerned mainly salmon, or halibut charters. CAPTAIN CAIN said most of the concern was with the salmon fishery in general, such as in Cook Inlet and Southeast Alaska. He said it is fully utilized, and there are some concerns about underreporting and overtaking of the salmon stocks. He mentioned that there were no biological concerns about the halibut fisheries. REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked if the problem was mainly in Southeast Alaska. CAPTAIN CAIN said he was not very familiar with the field aspect of the issue, but Cook Inlet and Southeast Alaska are the main areas where his department has had complaints. REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said that if there are suspicions about the validity of the logbooks, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council may have some concerns as they review the idea of a halibut charter IFQ [Individual Fish Quota] Number 2060 CO-CHAIR STEVENS asked if the bill would obviate the department's need for search warrants to obtain access to logbooks. CAPTAIN CAIN said that was correct. It would be much the same as the access permitted to the department for fish tickets. Number 2076 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if currently there must be some sort of probable cause for the department to obtain a search warrant and look at the records. CAPTAIN CAIN said Representative Kerttula was correct. The current requirements for obtaining access to the logbooks are very time-consuming. But he added that the type of information contained therein is very much on a par with the fish ticket information - the records of the taking of a fishery resource in a commercial manner for profit by the operator. Captain Cain said the information is very similar; it is treated the same and held to the same level of confidentiality. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked how this information would be gathered. CAPTAIN CAIN said there are several methods used to gather the information. The simplest method is a telephone call [to the Alaska Department of Fish & Game] to ask for substantiation of a complaint. If there is evidence that the records would be of benefit, the Department of Public Safety requests a certified copy and then conducts an investigation - almost identical to the process used for fish ticket information. Number 2235 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if she was correct in assuming that the Department of Public Safety would not be "wholesale going in and getting all the records and creating a database or anything like that," and that it would be specific, on a - case- by-case basis. CAPTAIN CAIN said Representative Kerttula was correct. He said his department was not going to do anything that it was not doing presently with fish tickets. He said he felt it necessary to have some sort of probable cause to begin looking at something. He stated that his department does not have the resources to deal with all of the information that is contained in all of the logbooks, "even if we wanted to." The bill would give his department a "response type situation" that would streamline its ability to look at reported violations and move forward with the investigation, or call it off, as the evidence dictates. Number 2319 REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI moved to report HB 462 out of committee with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HB 462 was moved out of the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|