Legislature(1997 - 1998)

02/03/1997 05:05 PM FSH

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
 HB 19 -  SPORT FISHING GUIDES                                                
 Number 998                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated HB 19, "An Act relating to licensing of             
 sport fishing services operators and fishing guides; and providing            
 for an effective date."  He stated HB 19 is similar to HB 175, a              
 bill he introduced two years ago and tried to get passed.  Chairman           
 Austerman asked Bud Hodson, Chair, Guide Charter Task Force, to               
 give the committee a background on the Guide Charter Task Force.              
 Number 1018                                                                   
 BUD HODSON, Chair, Guide Charter Task Force, testified via                    
 teleconference from Anchorage.  He stated the Guide Charter Task              
 Force was formed, as a result of the Alaska Board of Fisheries                
 receiving many different proposals pertaining to sport fish guiding           
 industry.  The Guide Charter Task Force's purpose is to take up the           
 various guiding issues and look at what should go into statute and            
 state regulation.  The Guide Charter Task Force, made up of ten               
 members across the state, held a series of conferences, hearings              
 and teleconferences, that resulted in a recommendation to license             
 the sport fishing guides and charter vessel operators.  This                  
 recommendation was introduced as HB 175 and now HB 19.  He stated             
 the Guide Charter Task Force supports HB 19.                                  
 Number 1154                                                                   
 MR. HODSON stated that the Guide Charter Task Force has a few                 
 recommendations for HB 19.  The Guide Charter Task Force agrees               
 that the reporting requirements are acceptable, however, they have            
 concerns that HB 19 would require a log book form of keeping track            
 of the fish retained.  The log book system would take a lot of time           
 and effort, on the part of the Department of Fish and Game, to                
 administer.  Mr. Hobson stated the concern is if it went into state           
 statute it would be a long term requirement and would take a state            
 statute to reverse it.  The Guide Charter Task Force recommended a            
 three year sunset clause for that component of HB 19.  Mr. Hodson             
 stated this way the task force can either have the reporting                  
 requirements expanded, amended or eliminated.  Mr. Hodson stated              
 the Board of Fisheries goes through the state every three years and           
 would have the opportunity to look at the data after three years              
 and decide how to improve the data or whether it was even being               
 utilized.  He stated if the decision was non-utility, by the Board            
 of Fisheries, then there would be no reason for the Department to             
 continue with a costly and time consuming program.                            
 Number 1241                                                                   
 MR. HODSON stated that Guide Charter Task Force believes the                  
 experience requirement, of holding a sport fish license of three              
 out of the last five years, should apply to the operators and not             
 the guides.  He felt this would reflect that the fishing guides are           
 the employees of the operators.  Mr. Hodson stated that the Guide             
 Charter Task Force's recommendation is to shift the requirement off           
 of the guides and on to the operators.                                        
 Number 1311                                                                   
 MR. HODSON stated that currently the charter guides have to have a            
 Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) vessel license that is           
 purchased from the CFEC.  The Guide Charter Task Force felt this              
 could be better administered under the Department of Fish and                 
 Game's, Sport Fish Division.  He stated that the Guide Charter Task           
 force felt the Department of Fish and Game would be able to extract           
 information on what kinds of vessels are being used, because the              
 department's vessel registration, that is part of the guide                   
 registration, is much more in-depth than what the CFEC asks for.              
 Mr. Hodson also stated that the Guide Charter Task Force believes             
 the fees generated from the licenses should be used by the Sport              
 Fish Division to collate the cell link data on the vessels.   Mr.             
 Hodson stated that the Guide Charter Task Force would like this to            
 either added HB 19 or be incorporated in another bill.                        
 Number 1413                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated he was glad that the Guide Charter Task             
 Force felt it was time to get some laws and legislation on the                
 books about registering the sport fish industry.  He stated that              
 the recommendations from the Guide Charter Task Force have not been           
 amended into HB 19, the committee's purpose today was hear                    
 testimony and recommendations on HB 19.  Chairman Austerman stated            
 that he has a few amendments that can be discussed in a future                
 meeting after everyone has a chance to read and testify on them.              
 He further stated the two amendments and the recommendations from             
 the Guide Charter Task Force will be incorporated into a committee            
 substitute for the next meeting.                                              
 Number 1507                                                                   
 STEVEN DAUGHERTY, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources               
 Section, Department of Law, testified that the department wanted to           
 notify the committee of a couple of legal issues in HB 19.  He                
 referred to page 2 regarding the fishing guide license, sport                 
 fishing operator and sport fishing guide license,  which issues a             
 3 to 1 fee differential to the nonresident fee over the resident              
 fee.  He stated the Department of Law is engaged in litigation with           
 the commercial fisheries due to a 3 to 1 fee differential.  Mr.               
 Daugherty stated there is $25 million at stake in fees that may               
 have to be refunded to commercial fisherman.  He testified that the           
 same legal test that has been applied in the commercial fish fee              
 case would be applicable to sport fish guides because sport fish              
 guiding is an occupation that would fall under the privileges and             
 immunity clause.  Mr. Daugherty stated, "There has to be a                    
 substantial reason advancing the legitimate state policy and the              
 means employed by the statutory scheme must be closely tailored and           
 have a substantial relationship to a legitimate interest served by            
 the statute.  The test is whether all fees and taxes, which must be           
 paid to the state, by a nonresident to enjoy the state provided               
 benefit or substantially equal to those which must be paid by                 
 similarly situated residents, when the residents prorata shares of            
 the state revenues to which the nonresidents make no contribution,            
 are taken are taken into account."  He stated the supreme court had           
 ruled, the prorata share is calculated by the actual participants             
 in the fishery.  In other words, one can not look at the total                
 contribution by all residents of the state of Alaska.  One looks at           
 the per capita contribution made by each participant in the                   
 fishery.  Mr. Daugherty stated this substantially reduces the                 
 contribution amount that would be made by the state of Alaska and             
 reduces the fee differential that one could charge, if any,                   
 depending on how the fishery is funded and what the expenses are of           
 operating that fishery.  The courts require there be more than an             
 assertion, one has to lay out what the facts are and where the fee            
 is.  Mr. Daugherty stated that for the above mentioned court case             
 they have to go through the very costly process of breaking down              
 the budgets of the Department of Fish and Game to figure where the            
 money went and who paid it.  Therefore, the fee differential is               
 problematic as to whether or not it would be constitutional and it            
 would be difficult to break down the figures in order to justify              
 it.  Mr. Daugherty stated that substantial fees are being collected           
 from the nonresident fisherman, which do not implicate the                    
 privileges and immunities clause because it is not a occupation, it           
 is a sport.  Therefore, the differential can be charged to fishing            
 licenses themselves.  Mr. Daugherty stated, "When you go into                 
 somebody's occupational license and charge a higher fee then you              
 charge for a resident's it is a questionable issue as to whether or           
 not the court will uphold it."                                                
 Number 1691                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if Mr. Daugherty had a recommendation.               
 Number 1693                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY responded that the Department of Law would recommend            
 that the same fee be charged for both licenses unless there is                
 evidence that can be presented as to why there is a higher expense            
 for licensing the nonresidents than residents.  He further stated             
 the other option would be to give regulatory authority to the                 
 Department of Fish and Game, to adopt a surcharge on nonresidents             
 to the maximum extend permissible by law.  He stated the Department           
 of Fish and Game would have to develop the information in order to            
 justify a fee and then impose it.  However, Mr. Daugherty did not             
 feel this information has been developed.                                     
 Number 1752                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY stated that page 4, paragraph 4, authorizes only a              
 person who has held an Alaskan sport fishing license to be a guide.           
 He stated that there are people who are involved in commercial or             
 subsistence fishing, who may not have sport fishing licenses but              
 may have similar experience.  Mr. Daugherty believes if these types           
 of fisherman are not going to be included in the division then                
 there needs to be a development of legislative history as to why              
 they are different from the sport fisherman and therefore are not             
 Number 1792                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that there is a difference between the             
 activities of a sport fisherman and a commercial fisherman.  He               
 stated that a sport fisherman has a certain level of skill involved           
 in guiding a customer to the fishing holes and in handling the                
 light tackle, versus commercial fisherman who fish with nets.                 
 Representative Ogan believed that is why a precedent for people to            
 be sport fisherman before they guide sport fisherman, be set.                 
 Number 1823                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA asked if his understanding was correct             
 that there are subsistence permits that are obtained in a similar             
 manner as the sport fishing permits.                                          
 MR. DAUGHERTY stated that to be correct.                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA stated that he would agree that there is a              
 distinction between commercial and sport fisherman.  Although, he             
 stated, that most commercial fisherman would have a sport license             
 but it may not be so for subsistence.  He further stated that he              
 thought the court decision was in favor of the state, in charging             
 a higher fee for the nonresident license.                                     
 Number 1873                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY stated that there were two recent decisions in the              
 case, one by the Alaska supreme court and one by the U.S. Supreme             
 Court.  The U.S. Supreme Court denied "cert." (certification) on              
 the commerce clause issue.  The Alaska Supreme Court found that the           
 commerce clause was not applicable and the question should be                 
 addressed under the privileges and immunities clause.  The case has           
 been remanded to the Alaska superior court, regarding the                     
 privileges and immunities clause question and is still active.                
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked Mr. Daugherty whether we won or lost in           
 the decision, if they denied "cert." does that mean that the U.S.             
 Supreme Court did not believe the nonresident fee was too high.               
 Number 1920                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY responded that it was not resolved.  He stated we did           
 win the motion to deny "cert.".  However, that does not mean that             
 the case was won, it was one small issue in the entire appeal.  The           
 U.S. Supreme Court found the fee differential to be                           
 unconstitutional under the commerce clause of the United States               
 Constitution.  He stated there is a separate allegation that it is            
 unconstitutional under the privileges and immunities clause which             
 was not ripe for consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court because it           
 has not been decided by the state court.  He stated the litigation            
 has been continuing for over 12 years and will probably go a couple           
 of more years before a final resolution is made.                              
 Number 1969                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA stated that it would interesting to know how            
 much money was spent fighting the court case versus how much is               
 gained by the extra licensing fees.                                           
 Number 1978                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN  asked if the fees involved in the lawsuit were           
 all hunting and fishing license fees.                                         
 Number 1994                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY responded the case just involves commercial fishing             
 fee issues, commercial crew member and permit holder issues, not              
 any sport issues.  He stated the Department of Law can defend sport           
 fee differentials, for the actual participants in the fishery,                
 because participating is not an occupation.  Mr. Daugherty stated             
 it is when you impair a person's ability to participate in an                 
 occupation, such as commercial fishing or guiding, that the                   
 privileges and immunities clause is pertinent and that is when the            
 department would recommend not imposing a fee differential.                   
 Number 2030                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Daugherty if there was any ratio that           
 the Department of Law would be comfortable with, other than the               
 same fee for both resident and nonresident licenses.                          
 Number 2045                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY replied that the Department of Law is not comfortable           
 with any differential without an explanation of where the budgetary           
 differences are derived from and why the fee differential is being            
 imposed.  He further stated that it is extremely costly to do the             
 budgetary break downs to figure out where the money is going and              
 who the contributors are.  The Department of Law would rather not             
 have to expend the money involved in a budgetary break down                   
 regarding this issue.                                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that he believed the issue is not where            
 the budgetary problems come from but where the people come from,              
 whether they are in state or out of state.  He believed the                   
 residents of Alaska should receive a better opportunity.  He                  
 inquired if the reimbursement of the fees is the worse case                   
 scenario if a case was lost.                                                  
 Number 2100                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY replied the worst case scenario would be having to              
 pay the money back as well as the cost of the actual court case.              
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if this would be included with the                  
 existing case or would it be a separate case.                                 
 Number 2116                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY stated it would be a separate case and the lower the            
 fee differential, the more likely justification could be found in             
 the budget.  The Department of Law would be looking for proof of              
 higher costs as a result of nonresidence status.                              
 Number 2154                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN stated that he would like to sit in                  
 appointment with Mr. Daugherty to review the commercial fishery               
 litigation and how it affects HB 19.                                          
 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated he would like Mr. Daugherty to get                  
 together with the staff to outline what he would recommend in                 
 amendment form to HB 19.                                                      
 Number 2222                                                                   
 KEVIN DELANEY, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Department of Fish           
 and Game, stated that the Department of Fish and Game supports                
 adoption of a guide licensing statute and has worked with Chairman            
 Austerman, the Guide Charter Task Force, and the sport fishing                
 community on the concept of HB 19.  He felt that visitors and                 
 Alaskan residents gain access to the recreational fishing                     
 opportunities only through the services of a sport fishing guide.             
 He stated that sport fish guiding activities have increased across            
 all regions of the state, creating concern of specific fisheries              
 resources, existing historical uses of these resources, and the               
 quality of the recreational fishing opportunities that are                    
 available.  Mr. Delaney stated that the debate on what choices                
 should be made regarding regulation is taking place in the                    
 Legislature, the Alaska Board of Fisheries, the Executive Branch,             
 the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, the State Federal             
 Advisory Committees and in the State and Federal Land Management              
 Planning.   He stated that all of these forums are missing good               
 information on what is a guide and what are guiding activities in             
 order to make valid assessments to base well reasoned decisions.              
 Mr. Delaney stated that HB 19 achieves this by providing                      
 definitions that would become statute, if adopted.   He believed HB
 19, acknowledges the sport fishing industry as a profession which             
 utilizes Alaska's fishery resources as well as provides a database            
 that well reasoned decisions can be made from in the future.                  
 Number 2377                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if sport fish guiding could be classified           
 as a commercial use or a commercial fishery because a person is               
 making a living taking people fishing.                                        
 Number 2398                                                                   
 MR. DELANEY responded that sport fish guiding is not commercial               
 fishing but it is certainly a commercial service, provided to sport           
 fish license holders.  The industry does rely on the state's                  
 fisheries resources for its ability to be profitable and to conduct           
 a business.  Mr. Delaney stated that HB 19 recognizes this through            
 the two tier licensing requirement of a services operator license             
 and a guide license.   He stated that the result of commercial                
 fishing is a product that being fish, the result of sport fishing             
 is opportunity.  He stated that business' either organize                     
 themselves around the raw material or around the output.  Mr.                 
 Delaney felt it was best to organize around the output.                       
 Tape 97-1, SIDE B                                                             
 Number 009                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that in the committee files there is a              
 December 16th letter, that Larry Engel, chairman of the Alaska                
 Board of Fisheries sent to Senator Miller and Representative                  
 Phillips outlining issues that the Board of Fisheries deals with.             
 He stated that the Board of Fisheries is also frustrated with                 
 dealing with a new industry without any regulations.                          
 Number 039                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA stated that he attended the Board of                    
 Fisheries meeting in Cordova and that the Board of Fisheries would            
 like the power to deal with this issue.                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if there was anything in HB 19 that could           
 be streamlined to make the bill as unobtrusive as possible but                
 still get the data needed.                                                    
 Number 133                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that has been the objective in working              
 with the Charter Guide Task Force.  He indicated that he has heard            
 of operators being required to have anywhere from 5 to 12 different           
 licenses or permits to conduct sport fish guiding services.  It is            
 the committee objective to either consolidate the licenses or at              
 least provide one stop shopping.                                              
 Number 160                                                                    
 MR. DELANEY stated that the Department of Fish and Game together              
 with the Department of Commerce and Economic Development are in the           
 process of reviewing if streamlining is possible.  The goal is to             
 not have to create anymore paperwork than necessary.  He stated               
 that the Charter Guide Task Force believes moving the licensing to            
 the Department of Fish and Game, from the CFEC would facilitate the           
 process, because it is easier to go to a sport fishing store than             
 to have to send into the state to get a license.                              
 Number 259                                                                    
 DAN TUCKER, testified via teleconference from Matsu, that he was a            
 previous member of the Guide Charter Task Force.  He stated that HB
 19 is a reasonable representation of what the Guide Charter Task              
 Force was trying to achieve.  He stated that on page 6, lines 12              
 through 16, the way the word field is defined may restrict or                 
 prohibit road side accessible streams from being guided.  Mr.                 
 Tucker suggested that field be defined as "in the vicinity of any             
 water where the act of sport fishing may occur and during which               
 time sport fishing occurs."  This would outline that the act of               
 sport fishing and field would be tied together.  He stated without            
 proper enforcement HB 19 will not serve its purpose.  Mr. Tucker              
 stated that the Kenai River is an example of a lack of enforcement.           
 He stated that seasonal limits for residents, personal use and                
 nonresidents, would address the problem with nonresidents                     
 harvesting unlimited numbers of fish under the daily limit.  He               
 stated that he had a problem being referred to as a commercial                
 fisherman.  He felt that he does not sell fish, which is the                  
 product of commercial fishing, rather he sells an opportunity to              
 catch fish.  He stated that people who buy a sport fishing license            
 have the right to attempt to catch their limit of fish regardless             
 of being guided.                                                              
 Number 454                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that the proposed amendments would give             
 authority to the Board of Fisheries to give season limits for                 
 Number 473                                                                    
 BRUCE KNOWLES, member, Guide Charter Task Force, testified via                
 teleconference from Matsu.  He stated he is the President of the              
 Guides Association and suggested a reciprocatory fee basis be                 
 applied to nonresidents.  Mr. Knowles stated that some states have            
 a reciprocatory fee that nonresident charter operators would pay              
 above what a resident pays.  He stated that there needs to be                 
 enforcement personnel out on the fishing grounds enforcing the                
 Number 528                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that the committee will look into other             
 state laws regarding the reciprocatory fees.  He also stated the              
 lack of enforcement issue is somewhat due to budget cuts and would            
 be addressed in the subcommittee on finance and in Department of              
 Public Safety.                                                                
 Number 580                                                                    
 JOHN WITTEVEEN, testified via teleconference from Kodiak, in                  
 support of HB 19.  He stated that the cover letter states that                
 there is not a uniform licensing procedure for sport fish guides in           
 Alaska, but for the past two years he has received license                    
 requirements for commercial sport fish guiding.  He inquired what             
 is happening to this data that has been gathered for two years.  He           
 stated he would not support HB 19 if it imposed the same fee for              
 residents versus non residents.  He inquired how the log book data            
 would be collected.  He further stated that the coast guard license           
 requirement for sport fishing guides as stated in HB 19 would not             
 be requirement.  He stated that he has a helper that he sends on              
 the river with clients who has a sport fish guide's license but is            
 not required to have a coast guard license.  He inquired as to what           
 is happening to the information the Department of Fish and Game has           
 been gathering for the last two years.                                        
 Number 698                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that HB 19, in regards to log books, has            
 required in season collection of data and reporting but leaves it             
 up to the Department of Fish and Game to decide how it is done.               
 Number 708                                                                    
 MR. DELANEY stated that the Department of Fish and Game would like            
 to work with the guiding industry to design a log book that the               
 guides would keep in possession to record the catches and                     
 activities throughout the season.  The Department of Fish and Game            
 will work out with each individual fishery a schedule for                     
 collecting the information.   Mr. Delaney stated the problem with             
 the existing registration procedure is it does not give an accurate           
 number of sport fishing guides because some people sign up in fear            
 limited entry but are not actually in operation, log books would              
 result in a more accurate number.                                             
 Number 849                                                                    
 MR. WITTEVEEN asked if Mr. Delaney would envision a transporter's             
 license, where individuals would have to supply documentation on a            
 daily basis.                                                                  
 Number 893                                                                    
 MR. DELANEY replied that HB 19 seeks to look at the harvest and               
 effort in the guided sport fisheries across the state.  Mr. Delaney           
 stated he did not foresee it to be an onerous accounting process.             
 Number 893                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that the Guide Charter Task Force has               
 suggested a three-year moratorium on HB 19 so that if something is            
 proven not to work it can be remedied.  Chairman Austerman                    
 indicated he would be willing to put the sunset clause in HB 19.              
 Number 927                                                                    
 MEL ERICKSON, Vice-President, Kenai River Guides Association,                 
 testified via teleconference from Kenai.  He stated the association           
 had about 300 members and has unanimous support for HB 19.  He                
 stated the members strongly support the experience requirement,               
 that guides are required to have a sport fish license for three out           
 of the last five years and support the fee differential between the           
 resident and nonresident sport fishing guides.  He further stated             
 that passage of HB 19 would give the industry accountability.  He             
 stated the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) license            
 would be eliminated if HB 19 was to pass because they would be able           
 to use the Department of Fish and Game registration list as a                 
 reference for the number of sport guides.                                     
 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that was the driving force behind HB 19             
 because of the possible future IPHC ramifications that could result           
 as far as federal government constraints.                                     
 Number 1029                                                                   
 THERESA WEISER, member, Guide Charter Task Force, testified via               
 teleconference from Sitka.  She stated that the experience                    
 requirement should not only be required for the charter operators             
 but for the sport guides as well.  She asked if the three-year                
 moratorium would be required for HB 19 in its entirety or just for            
 the log book requirement.                                                     
 Number 1097                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN, stated that the three-year sunset clause would            
 just be applicable to the log book requirement.  He asked if that             
 was Mr. Hodson's recollection.                                                
 Number 1113                                                                   
 MR. HODSON agreed that the sunset clause was just on the log book             
 Number 1130                                                                   
 MS. WEISER stated she is in favor of HB 19 although there are                 
 concerns about duplication of data collection.                                
 Number 1150                                                                   
 BOB SCHELL, representative, Seafood Producers Cooperative,                    
 testified via teleconference from Sitka.  He stated that the                  
 cooperative is a commercial fishing group that has about 375                  
 members, mostly involved with the salmon and halibut fisheries.               
 The cooperative has been concerned with the lack of sport fishing             
 reporting requirements.  He further stated that enforcement is                
 Number 1268                                                                   
 ALLEN LEMASTER, guide, testified via teleconference from Gakona,              
 He stated he guides on the Gakona and Chena river.  He stated that            
 there are nonresident guides that come to Alaska for the purpose of           
 making money and have no respect for the resources, for that reason           
 the local guides would like HB 19 to be more lenient towards                  
 residents.  He suggested that because guides are required to have             
 a number of different permits on the vessel, it would be easier if            
 these permits would just have to be shown in order to receive the             
 license, so that once the license is issued, that would be all that           
 is required to be carried on the vessel.  Mr. Lemaster felt the               
 issue of transporters should be addressed by the law.  He stated              
 that transporters pick people up and drop them off at the fishing             
 holes.  In the five hours it takes a guide to complete a charter,             
 a transporter can drop off as many as 18 people.  A transporter can           
 have the same impact as a guide but is not under the law.  He                 
 inquired if the issue of the six-pack license would only apply to             
 operators of motorized boats and not to operators of rafts or drift           
 Number 1564                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated he believed the coast guard requirements            
 limited the six-pack license to motorized vessels and that he would           
 take Mr. Lemaster's comments into consideration.                              
 Number 1650                                                                   
 LYNN WHITMORE, member, Guide Charter Task Force, testified via                
 teleconference from Homer.  He stated he is the only member who is            
 not a guide and he is also the Chairman of the Homer Fish and Game            
 Advisory Committee.  He stated the difference in the license cost             
 would not stop nonresidents from coming to Alaska to guide,                   
 therefore it would not be worth the legal hassle.  He further                 
 stated that enforcement is a big issue and it needs to be                     
 Number 1829                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated the fisheries are Alaska's biggest                  
 renewable resource dollar-wise and he agreed enforcement is needed.           
 Number 1915                                                                   
 DONALD WESTLUND, testified via teleconference from Ketchikan.  He             
 suggested that the HB 19 should be a guide orientated bill and not            
 a service orientated bill, and that the two should be kept                    
 separate.  He also felt the difference between salt and fresh water           
 should be distinguished in the bill.  He stated that there is a               
 Southeast reporting requirement in existence.                                 
 Number 2084                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that the objective is to get the                    
 reporting requirements to be statewide, to get an accurate picture            
 of the sport fish guide industry throughout Alaska.                           
 Number 2163                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the fees in Title 16 are going to be             
 paid to the Department of Fish and Game and if the department was             
 going to administer the licenses.                                             
 Number 2185                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN replied, "That is the intention at this time."             
 Number 2189                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that all other professional licensing is           
 through Title 8.                                                              
 Number 2206                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that it was the intent that the                     
 Department of Fish and Game receive the funds because they are                
 going to be doing most of the work in the licensing process.                  
 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated the bill will be rescheduled for hearing            
 in about two weeks.                                                           

Document Name Date/Time Subjects