Legislature(2011 - 2012)
04/08/2011 03:37 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR20 | |
| HB186 | |
| HB229 | |
| HB113 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 229-BIG GAME COMMERCIAL SERVICES BOARD
4:40:31 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 229, "An Act relating to activities, including
violations and penalties, under the supervision of the Big Game
Commercial Services Board."
4:41:03 PM
MICHAEL PASCHALL, Staff, Representative Eric Feige, Alaska State
Legislature, read from a prepared statement, as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
HB 229 was introduced at the request of members of the
Big Game Commercial Services Board addressing changes
to rules regarding the administration and licensing of
guides.
Big game guides are regulated under statute and
regulation and oversight is provided by the Big Game
Commercial Service Board. The proposed changes provide
more flexibility in where guides can work when
contracting with another guide, allows a registered
guide-outfitter more flexibility in the use of class-A
guides, and changes penalties for minor procedural
violations by guides.
Section 1 of the bill allows registered guide-
outfitters to be employed by another registered guide-
outfitter versus contracting with a client to provide
services either as a registered guide-outfitter in a
certified area or as an a class-A assistant guide
anywhere in the state.
Section 2 allows the registered guide-outfitter to
work with those they employ to supervise hunts.
Currently the contracting registered guide-outfitter
must "stop-in," if only to shake the hand of a client,
at a camp to comply with statute.
Section 3 adds a provision to allow the board to
suspend or revoke a license for conduct involving
unprofessionalism, moral turpitude, or gross
immorality.
4:42:30 PM
MR. PASCHALL continued reading from his prepared statement
[original punctuation provided]:
Section 4 standardizes penalties for violations of
wanton waste, hunting on same day airborne, or
providing services while license suspended or revoked.
Section 5 lessons (sic) the penalty for unspecified
violations to allow the board the option to suspend a
license instead of a mandatory suspension. The concern
expressed by the board is a minor violation, such as a
paperwork violation, would result in a mandatory
suspension of a license.
Section 6 conforms AS 12.55.125(e) (Sentencing and
Probation) with the changes in Section 4.
Section 7 completes the changes in Section 4 by
removing language no longer needed.
4:43:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER requested a copy of the section by
section analysis of the bill.
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked for clarification on the changes in the
role of the master guide versus an assistant guide-outfitter.
He asked for the expanded role of the assistant guide-outfitters
and to address the assistant guide-outfitters' ability to
operate independently.
MR. PASCHALL was uncertain whether he was referring to Section 2
of the bill or changes in employment.
CO-CHAIR SEATON answered that he was interested in the changes
to supervision in the field. He wondered whether the changes
would make assistant guide-outfitters more like a full or master
guides.
MR. PASCHALL answered that the current statute only requires the
licensed guide to be present at some point in the field. He
related that meeting at the airport would not qualify but if
weather prevented the guide from meeting the client in the field
that the guide would be in violation of the statute. This bill
would not give any additional authority to class-A assistant
guide-outfitters.
4:46:03 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked for clarification on whether the licensed
master guide would have the same level of accountability for any
violations that happen if he/she never observes the client in
the field.
MR. PASCHALL answered yes. He pointed out that the supervision
requirement does not change under HB 229, but offered to obtain
an opinion on the scenario described. The bill would address
guide-outfitters placing themselves in the field with the client
once during the hunt.
4:46:53 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON expressed interest in knowing whether the
licensed/master guide is responsible for the client's actions
absent any field contact.
4:47:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as to whether the reason for
HB 229 is that the master guide was not contacting anyone in the
field.
MR. PASCHALL answered that under current statute the registered
guide-outfitter must travel to the field and meet with the
client in the field. The current statutes do not require the
guide-outfitter to supervise the hunt or the camp. The guide-
outfitter merely needs to be present at some point in the field.
This, it would be sufficient to fly in, shake a client's hand or
eat dinner with him/her since the bill does not pertain to
supervision. He said the requirement in statute creates a huge
economic issue for the guides. He also suggested that the
guides may be able to better answer this.
4:48:39 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE interjected that the supervision can be provided
by the assistant guide-outfitter's use of a satellite phone in
communication with the master guide. This bill would delete the
requirement for the master guide to be present in the field. He
clarified that the master guide can provide communication to
guides working under him/her, but he would not need to be
physically present.
MR. PASCHALL, in response to Representative P. Wilson, agreed
that the presence or lack of presence is a business issue
between the master guide and his employees and the service the
guide-outfitter provides to the client. However, to meet the
actual statute the master guide needs only to make contact.
Thus, the master guide could potentially see 10 people in a day
and still meet the statutory requirement.
4:50:01 PM
DON QUARBERG related he is a 35-year Alaska resident who has
never been a guide and does not intend on conducting any guided
hunts. He acknowledged the importance of the economic benefits
of guiding to Alaska and contributions of nonresident hunters to
big game management in Alaska. He related he has served as
chair of the local fish and game advisory committee in Delta
Junction. He attended a work session with five local guides as
they reviewed DNR's concession. Additionally, he has attended
the Alaska Professional Hunters conference in Anchorage, and the
Big Game Commercial Services Board meeting with respect to the
DNR's concession. He found one common concern that prevails
among all of the user groups is to revisit the statutes that
regulate this industry. He offered his belief that HB 229
represents a good start in this process. He encouraged members
to support HB 229. In response to Representative P. Wilson, he
said he attended the meetings due to his involvement in the
Delta Junction Fish and Game Advisory Committee. He explained
he did not represent the committee, but attended the meetings to
become more informed about the big game guide-outfitter
industry.
4:52:59 PM
VIRGIL UMPHENOUR, Master Guide, related that he has lived in the
area since 1971 except for a period of time he spent in Nome.
He stated that he is a master guide and the vice-chair of the
Fairbanks Fish and Game Advisory Committee. He has previously
served on the Board of Fisheries. He agreed with Mr. Quarberg
that HB 229 is a good first start to clarify the statutes. He
referred to Section 5 of the bill. Under current statutes, the
court must suspend a guide's license for a year a guide if
he/she makes an administrative error.
4:54:51 PM
MR. UMPHENOUR referred to Section 1 of the bill. He explained
that currently a camp must be run by a class-A assistant guide-
outfitter or a registered guide-outfitter, or master guide who
is licensed for the game management unit. Currently, guide-
outfitters are restricted to only three guide areas in the
state. He explained the proposed change would allow a master
guide or registered guide-outfitter who contracts with clients
to hire another registered or master guide-outfitter to run a
camp, including assistant guide-outfitters without being
registered in the specific game management unit (GMU). He
reiterated that under current law a guide-outfitter is
restricted to three GMUs. He characterized this as badly-needed
statute changes to allow guide-outfitters to be treated fairly
and equally under the law. He offered his belief that guide-
outfitters are not treated fairly under the U.S. constitution.
4:56:27 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON inquired as to whether the effect of HB 229 is
to eliminate the three unit GMUs so a master guide can employ
someone to operate a camp.
MR. UMPHENOUR answered no. He explained he operates in GMU 21,
22, and 24, in the Seward Peninsula, the Koyukuk National
Wildlife Refuge, and the Nulato Hills. Under the proposed bill,
if he wanted to work with a friend who is a guide-outfitter who
operates in the Alaska Peninsula, even though Mr. Umphenour has
not been certified for GMU 9, he could work as a class-A
assistant guide-outfitter for that contracting guide and
supervise a camp. He clarified that this bill would allow him
to be an employee but not be the contracting guide-outfitter.
Instead, he would act as a class-A assistant guide-outfitter for
the contracting guide-outfitter. He would be working under the
supervision of the contracting guide-outfitter, he said.
4:58:06 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON inquired as to what happens with respect to
supervision if the contracting guide is not required to meet
with clients in the field and provide direct supervision or
field supervision. He wondered if under the scenario just
described, that essentially it would allow him to operate as the
contracting guide-outfitter.
MR. UMPHENOUR answered no. He explained that the contracting
guide-outfitter would be responsible for any violations that
would occur and for any other guide statutes. The licensed
guide-outfitter would be responsible for any violation that
occurred, but the assistant guide would not be responsible. He
maintained that this bill does not address supervision. It
would allow a guide-outfitter to work for another guide-
outfitter in his/her GMU unit as an employee.
5:00:01 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON surmised then that the contracting guide-
outfitter could contact his employee and clients by satellite
phone and would never have to appear in the field. He said this
seems confusing and asked for further explanation.
MR. UMPHENOUR further explained that the regulation under 12 AAC
75.250 refer to participation in the hunt, and reads: "A
registered guide-outfitter who contracts a guided hunt, in which
participating in a hunt is required in statute should be in
communication either personally or through an agent with an
assistant guide who is in the field with the client at least
once during the hunt." Thus, the guide-outfitter must either
show up in person or talk to the client on the satellite phone.
5:01:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked for examples of the administrative
error that currently requires the suspension of license.
MR. UMPHENOUR answered that a guide-outfitter must fill out a
hunt record for each client. He further explained that the
guide-outfitter fills out the top portion out and signs it prior
to the hunt. In 2008, when the ADF&G made changes and printed
the form, it did not include any instructions along with the
form. The department also removed the signature block for the
contracting guide to sign and date to certify the information
pertaining to the client's name, license name, big game tag
number, and harvest ticket number, and guide-outfitter
accompanying the client in the field. The bottom portion of the
form lists the field dates, the species of game hunted, the date
each animal was taken, the GMU, and specific details on the game
taken. He expressed concern that only one signature block was
available on the form which by regulation must be signed prior
to the hunt. The signature implied the guide-outfitter approves
of all the information on the form, yet the guide-outfitter
could not ascertain the details of the kill since he/she was
signing the form prior to the hunt. The form also specified the
guide-outfitter will be prosecuted for unsworn falsification if
any information on the form is incorrect.
5:05:45 PM
MR. UMPHENOUR reiterated the frustrations of having a form that
makes it impossible for the guide-outfitter to accurately
complete. He recalled a master guide-outfitter currently being
prosecuted for this very thing. He referred to the hunt record
and other issues that have arisen when clients carry the client
copy instead of the field copy.
5:06:55 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE indicated that his office would work on this
during the legislative interim.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she would like more information on
the process to become a master guide-outfitter and assistant
guide-outfitter.
[HB 229 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|