Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/15/2002 01:26 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 328-BIG GAME HUNTERS ACCOMPANIED BY GUIDE CO-CHAIR MASEK announced the next order of business, SENATE BILL NO. 328, "An Act requiring that a nonresident big game hunter be accompanied by a big game guide who is providing big game hunting services to the nonresident under a contract with the nonresident or who is employed by a big game guide who has a contract to provide big game hunting services to the nonresident." Number 0648 D.W. (BILL) STOLTZE, Staff to Senator Rick Halford, Alaska State Legislature, presented SB 328 on behalf of Senator Halford, sponsor by request. Calling SB 328 a "very narrow-scope fix" to comply with the original intent of the guide bill of 1996, Mr. Stoltze indicated the Department of Law's interpretation created a loophole that the original legislation didn't intend, allowing nonresident assistant guides to act as their own guides. CO-CHAIR MASEK offered her understanding that people who come to Alaska would need a guide who is from Alaska. MR. STOLTZE replied that the person would have to sign a contract with a registered or master guide. He said the qualifications for an assistant guide are fairly minimal: having hunted in Alaska at some point over a two-year period, to his belief, and having a letter of recommendation from a local biologist, which to his understanding is a fairly easy process. He added that the state isn't able to restrict nonresident guides because it involves interstate commerce issues and so forth. This bill therefore closes a fairly narrow loophole that was brought to Senator Halford's attention by other guides; it only affects big-game species [brown bear, grizzly bear, mountain goat, and sheep]. Number 0868 MR. STOLTZE, in response to Representative Chenault, clarified that the loophole is that an assistant guide can guide another guide, according to the interpretation, or can claim to be guiding himself/herself. CO-CHAIR MASEK called attention to the third paragraph of the sponsor statement, which read: Under the proposed changes to AS 16.05.407(a) an assistant guide would be able to accompany the nonresident or nonresident alien only if a registered or master guide employs him, and the hunter has a contract with the registered or master guide. REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT noted that AS 08.54.630 [subsection (a)(4)] says a person is entitled to an assistant guide license if the person obtains ["a written recommendation from a registered guide, state trooper, state fish and wildlife law enforcement officer, or state fish or game biologist who is familiar with the person or who intends to employ the person as an assistant guide"]. He asked why this legislation is needed. Number 1000 MR. STOLTZE reiterated that it is needed because the Department of Law created a loophole through its interpretation; he surmised that happened because an assistant guide had pursued the issue. He offered his belief that this bill complies with the policy of a previous legislature, but acknowledged that it is a policy call. MR. STOLTZE, in reply to questions from Co-Chair Masek and Representative Chenault, explained that an assistant guide who was hunting big-game species would have to follow the same statutes that apply to all other nonresidents hunting in Alaska and would have to sign a contract with a registered guide. He added that the only contact received, outside the public testimony, has been from guides - one from Ohio, one from St. Petersburg, Florida, and one from Big Sky, Montana - wanting to know what was going on and whether it was going to "screw up their brown-bear or Dall-sheep hunt they had planned to take themselves out on." Number 1257 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted that his own community has a large Kodiak bear population and several master guides who employ assistant guides, who often are people with very little experience; he suggested it therefore makes sense that the assistant guide be employed by the master guide. He offered his understanding that the bill is just saying the [assistant guide] must be employed by the master guide. MR. STOLTZE reiterated that for the purpose of hunting, an assistant guide must comply with the same requirements for other nonresidents. For going on a brown-bear hunt, it requires a contract with a master guide or registered guide who has met all the statutory requirements. Number 1325 REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked whether the contract has to be for money or can be nominal. MR. STOLTZE said it isn't spelled out. He added that part of this is trying to work within the constraints of what is doable. He suggested, however, that if a registered or master guide were willing to put his/her reputation and livelihood at stake to have this guide going out by himself/herself, "then I imagine they could sign just a paper contract with a ... master guide." Number 1366 REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked whether the constitutionality has been challenged; she mentioned the interstate commerce clause. MR. STOLTZE said there is case history, although he couldn't cite the court cases. He added that there are no restrictions on nonresident guides who come to Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE noted that an assistant [guide] could be either very inexperienced or could be a master guide from Montana who, coming to Alaska, could only serve as an assistant. MR. STOLTZE acknowledged that possibility. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said her only question in that line of logic is that she believes the law was enacted for safety reasons, preservation of the species, and so forth, and perhaps people who might be equally or more qualified [than an Alaskan] would be denied a privilege simply on the basis of residency in another state. MR. STOLTZE surmised that the difference might be the ability to earn a living as opposed to the recreational aspect of it. He acknowledged that he isn't a lawyer. Number 1476 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether AS 08.54 requires a master guide to be an Alaska resident and pass certain requirements. MR. STOLTZE said no. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned Representative McGuire's example about a master guide from Montana. He offered his understanding that someone from Montana who comes to Alaska to hunt with a master guide from Montana would comply, then, without having a contract with a master guide from Alaska. MR. STOLTZE deferred to the Division of Occupational Licensing. Number 1561 CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, Department of Community & Economic Development (DCED), noting that her division does the guide licensing in the state, explained: We issue guide licenses regardless of residency. So a Montana master guide could come up here and apply for a guide license, and if he or she qualifies, then he or she would get an Alaska license. They can't just come up with their Montana license ... and start practicing; there isn't that kind of reciprocity. But like any other citizens of the United States, they're eligible for a license if they meet the qualifications. The qualifications do include experience as an assistant guide in Alaska. So it wouldn't be an instant process; they'd probably have to spend several years working at earning the qualifications to have a guide license. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether that is under [AS] 08.54. MS. REARDON answered in the affirmative, noting that [AS] 08.54 contains all of the qualifications and regulation of hunting guides. [SB 328] amends the fish and game statute requiring that someone be accompanied by a licensed guide under some circumstances. Number 1652 REPRESENTATIVE FATE offered his understanding that a guide with a license from Montana who has a contract to take other Montana residents on a bear hunt [in Alaska] would have to be accompanied if that guide didn't have an Alaskan guide license. If that Montana guide then contracted with a guide from Alaska, he asked, what happens to those people who contracted with the original Montana guide to go on a bear hunt? Must they individually contract with the Alaska-licensed guide? Or do they come under the qualifications as being contracted by the Montana guide, who then has to conform to Alaska law with a resident licensed guide? MS. REARDON answered that they would have to contract with an Alaskan guide. She explained: The way the guide law works, it says that in order to offer guiding services in Alaska, you must be [an] Alaska-licensed guide. A Montana-licensed guide who doesn't hold a license here is just like any other member of the public from Montana. The fact you have a guide license in Montana is irrelevant: you're like any other non-Alaska resident who wants to come up here ... and hunt or work. Number 1739 REPRESENTATIVE FATE said this is good for the guide, but that there would be several people from Montana who would have a contract with that guide. He asked whether that makes their contract with the original Montana guide null and void, so that they also must contract with the licensed guide from Alaska to hunt. MS. REARDON replied: A Montana guide should not be contracting with Montanans ... to conduct a hunt in Alaska. To conduct a hunt in Alaska, you have to be an Alaska guide. So there shouldn't be anyone out there who is saying, "I can take you on a guided hunt in Alaska," unless that person has an Alaska license. ... When he entered the state and started doing any activity, he would be breaking ... the law. Number 1793 REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT read from the written sponsor statement. After reading from the third paragraph [text provided previously], he offered his interpretation that AS 54.630 states exactly that. MR. STOLTZE said it wasn't a court but the Department of Law whose interpretation was that the assistant guides didn't have to comply with that statute, which is what the bill attempts to fix. Number 1875 MS. REARDON clarified that the problem is that people are getting these licenses to avoid hiring guides. The requirement for an assistant guide license is having these recommendations, but those don't have to come from a guide; they could come from a fish and game biologist or several other categories of people. A person only has to be recommended one time to get the license, not recommended for a particular hunt. However, [nonresidents] have been getting Alaska assistant guide licenses for the specific purpose of coming up and hunting on their own or with their friends; that's the loophole. Rather than actually wanting to work as guides, they are qualifying as assistant guides to avoid paying a guide when they [hunt] in Alaska. They can do so because the current statute says [a hunter] has to be personally accompanied by an assistant guide, and these people have been accompanying themselves, so to speak, and bringing their friends as well. CO-CHAIR MASEK said this clearly indicates why the bill is needed. She offered her belief that part of the reason for requiring a guide in Alaska is because out-of-state guides aren't familiar with Alaska's big game or terrain, and it could be dangerous. She asked whether Representative Chenault had gotten "a clear reading of it." REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT said no, but that he wouldn't pursue it further. CO-CHAIR MASEK asked whether anyone else wished to testify; there was no response. She closed public testimony. Number 2030 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS remarked that the big-game hunters and master guides in Kodiak have what he considers a wonderful program whereby they are trying to get villagers to become guides. It therefore becomes a matter of economic development. He said it is interesting that this bill closes a loophole with regard to nonresidents, which he believes is good. Number 2069 REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to report SB 328 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal notes. There being no objection, SB 328 was moved out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|