Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/22/2002 01:10 PM House RES
| 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 CO-CHAIR MASEK announced the final order of business, 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." Number 0961 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to adopt CSHB 462, version 22- LS1401\F, Utermohle, 3/21/01, as the working document. There being no objection, Version F was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS, sponsor of HB 462, informed the committee that the only change is to insert "fishermen," [on page 1, line 7], in order to ensure that fishermen who are catchers and exporters are covered by this. Number 1043 GORDY WILLIAMS, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), began by thanking the committee for holding the bill over so that the department could work on some definitions. He pointed out that the word "fishermen" had been included in the new language regarding the annual statistical report, the Commercial Operators Annual Report (COAR) discussed on page 1, line 7, and on page 2, paragraphs (7), (8), and (9). Before the first hearing on HB 462, he recalled, there was an issue with regard to whether catcher-exporter fishermen who also submit a COAR would be covered under the confidentiality. The report [under Version F] would be able to be returned to this group, and would be available to the [Department of] Public Safety and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). This is merely a technical change, he added. Number 1191 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked why fishermen need to be brought in under this confidentiality. MR. WILLIAMS answered that [Version F] doesn't bring fishermen in under the confidentiality aspect any more than they technically already are. Of those who submit a COAR, the catcher-exporter group doesn't really fit well as a buyer or processor. However, this group is submitting a COAR; thus the desire is to provide clarity that the catcher-exporter's COAR will also be held confidential. No new reports from fishermen are being required, he pointed out. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked why it's important to fishermen that their COARs remain confidential. MR. WILLIAMS explained that the COARs have fairly proprietary information with regard to what was bought, and in some cases lists the wholesale price. This is information submitted to ADF&G and the Department of Revenue for the purposes of statistical analysis and good fisheries management. The department wants to hold these reports confidential because they contain information that isn't available to the general public. Mr. Williams pointed out that on the fish ticket there is some discreet information with regard to the location of the catch; that information is desired [by the fishermen] to be kept confidential. Number 1415 REPRESENTATIVE FATE announced that he gets fish tickets, and yet everyone on his stretch of the river knows what he caught, where he caught it, and how much he was paid for it. Therefore, he said he didn't understand the confidentiality issue. He questioned the good of enforcing confidentiality that [to his belief] doesn't even exist. REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS pointed out that it is different in the rivers versus the ocean. He explained that the real point of the bill is to allow fishermen to get the reports returned to them for various reasons. MR. WILLIAMS agreed. He said that once the information is received by the state, the [department] feels that those reports should be held confidential because they do include proprietary and discreet information. What fishermen or processors choose to do with their own information is their business. REPRESENTATIVE FATE proposed that there are two different fisheries in the state: a "blue water" fishery and a smaller "brown water" fishery. It seems often things are done with regard to fishing that don't consider the latter, he said, although he acknowledged that this particular bill wouldn't hurt it. He expressed hope that future bills will consider that there is more than one fishery in the state. MR. WILLIAMS affirmed that this legislation is generic to all fisheries. CO-CHAIR MASEK, noting that no one wanted to testify, announced that public testimony was closed. Number 1726 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to report CSHB 462, version 22- LS1401\F, Utermohle, 3/21/02, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 462(RES) was moved out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|