Legislature(1997 - 1998)

04/05/1997 01:12 PM RES

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
 HB 19 - SPORT FISHING GUIDES                                                
 Number 0058                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR OGAN announced the first order of business was House Bill            
 No. 19, "An Act relating to licensing of sport fishing services               
 operators and fishing guides; and providing for an effective date."           
 REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN, sponsor, said this bill was                    
 relatively the same as the one introduced last year that did not              
 make it through the Senate.  He explained that HB 19 sets up a                
 system for charter boat operators, requiring them to register with            
 the state and to report their catches.                                        
 Number 0152                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON made a motion to adopt the proposed                   
 committee substitute, 0-LS0140\Q, Utermohle, 4/3/97.  There being             
 no objection, CSHB 19(RES) was before the committee.                          
 Number 0216                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN referred to Section 1 of CSHB 19(RES) and            
 said this amends the current statutes.  Everything on page 1 and              
 page 2 are in current statutes.  On page 3, line 14, under section            
 17, regulating the sport fishing services industry need for                   
 conservation, development, and utilization of fishery resources,              
 this language gives the Board of Fisheries the authority to                   
 regulate the sports fish guides.                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN addressed Section 2, which sets the                  
 license fee rates for the sport charter boat operators and the                
 guides.  There are three different classes of licenses:  sport fish           
 operator, guide and a combination of the two other classes.  A                
 concern that has been raised is the disparity between a resident              
 and a nonresident fee.  There is basically a one-to-three ratio               
 between resident and nonresident fees, the same ratio as is found             
 in a number of other fees throughout the state.  He wanted to leave           
 the disparity, at three to one, even though at some time it might             
 be out of synch with other fish and game charges.  There is a                 
 current court case involving those charges.                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said Section 3, beginning on page 3, line            
 29, gets into the different classes.  The first class is the sports           
 fish services operator license.  For instance, a lodge operator               
 might have any number of guides working for him, but he is the                
 operator.  This section provides criteria needed to be an operator,           
 everything from having insurance to holding a current fishing                 
 license.  On page 4, line 23, it provides a definition for a fish             
 guide:  a person who works for an operator.  The reason why they              
 are classified differently is a situation where someone is simply             
 an employee guide.                                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN referred to page 5, which states that a              
 guide must have CPR, First Aid, a fishing license and those kinds             
 of things.  The sport fishing services operator and fishing guide             
 license are mentioned in this section, but the definition goes back           
 to page 3, line 24.  This is a situation where you have an operator           
 who is the sole operator, who has no guides who work for him and              
 wants to be classified as an operator.  This person needs a guide             
 license as well as operating license because he is the actual                 
 person doing the guiding.  Those two classifications have been                
 combined, so that as a sole operator you can have your license and            
 be legal.                                                                     
 Number 0551                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN clarified that it is the same fee schedule           
 for both the sport fishing services operator license only and the             
 combination license.  He asked whether there was a reason why there           
 wasn't a slight cost increase for a combination license.                      
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied that it didn't seem fair, just               
 because operators and guides were classified, that a sole operator            
 should have to pay more.                                                      
 Number 0589                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether or not anyone would only                   
 purchase a sport fishing services operator license.                           
 Number 0605                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN responded that there might be absentee               
 owners who wouldn't go out and guide.                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN referred to Section 3, page 3, and said it           
 is actually a whole new section in statute.  Page 6 has a reporting           
 requirement, set up in statute, on how the guides and operators are           
 supposed to record their catch.  He felt this was a key component             
 of CSHB 19(RES).  The intent is to have the guides register and               
 have their catch reported so that the Department of Fish and Game             
 (ADF&G) and the Board of Fisheries would have some information                
 tools with which to work.                                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN addressed line 27, page 6, which sets out            
 the penalties for a violation by any of the guides or operators.              
 Page 7 sets up definitions for this new section.  He referred to              
 page 8, Section 4, and stated that this addresses a concern of the            
 Division of Sport Fish, ADF&G, and some operators who might be                
 collecting the in-season information.  In the reporting section on            
 page 6, it says, "The department shall collect".  This language               
 does not leave the ADF&G any options.                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said Section 4, page 8, repeals the in-              
 season collection.  It provides a sunset to that clause within CSHB
 19(RES) to appease the Division of Sport Fish and some operators,             
 who did not feel the "shall" language was the correct way to go.              
 This sunset provision gives them the option, in three years, to               
 look at it and repeal it if it is not working the way in which it             
 was envisioned to work.                                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN addressed Section 5, page 8, which                   
 addresses the transition period.  It gives the ADF&G time to set up           
 these statutes, put the paperwork in place and begin the collection           
 of information.  Section 6 is also a transition section regarding             
 the fees being charged; it prorates the fees from when the bill is            
 signed into law.  Section 7, page 9, is the effective date,                   
 relating back to Section 4, which repeals the language on the                 
 "shall", gathers the in-season information, and dates it.                     
 Number 0866                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred to Section 3, page 3, line 31, "holds a             
 current business license under AS 43.70".  However, the license               
 referred to in CSHB 19(RES) is a Title 16 license.                            
 Number 0899                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN responded that to do business in the state           
 of Alaska you need a business license, whether you are a sport fish           
 operator or running a business.  You can be without a business                
 license if you are a guide working for someone else.  This business           
 license is separate from the actual operator's license.                       
 Number 0940                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked if most businesses were under Title 8, under           
 Number 0953                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said Title 16 is under the ADF&G.  The               
 operator license would be distributed by the ADF&G.  A vendor such            
 as a sporting good store will be able to sell guide licenses.                 
 Number 1025                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN commented that this will be similar to commercial            
 fishing crew licenses, which can be bought through a vendor.  He              
 asked if any fees were set for a Title 43 operator license.                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said it would be the fee for a normal                
 business license, $25.                                                        
 Number 1040                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE asked if you would have to meet certain           
 requirements in order to purchase this license, as you do in order            
 to obtain a U.S. Coast Guard license.                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN explained that the Board of Game used to             
 have a series of assistant guide licenses, but CSHB 19(RES) is                
 different from those.                                                         
 Number 1085                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE questioned whether these requirements could be           
 set in regulation.  When the legislature passes a bill with a                 
 certain intent, the regulations can be changed from the original              
 intent.  He wondered if CSHB 19(RES) would leave any room for that            
 kind of change and whether this would be an area of concern.                  
 Number 1114                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN responded that if a group of charter boat            
 operators were to go to the Board of Fisheries requesting                     
 regulations to govern aspects of charter boat trips, the board                
 would then look at this request.  Without specific language in CSHB
 19(RES), the legislature would not know whether the Board of                  
 Fisheries could do that.                                                      
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Daugherty to look at Section 3,                    
 paragraph 17, located on page 3, line 14.                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN suggested that the committee look at                 
 version P, the version before CSHB 19(RES), regarding the same                
 section.  That version gave the Board of Fisheries the permission             
 to do the same things.                                                        
 Number 1188                                                                   
 STEVE DAUGHERTY, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources                
 Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, said the Board of                 
 Fisheries might have the authority to establish some type of                  
 testing, but only for the purposes of conservation and development.           
 With the language regarding safety and integrity of the industry              
 removed, the Board of Fisheries' only concern would be for                    
 conservation and development.  The board could require that the               
 guides know how to identify different species of fish and how to              
 safely release those without a high mortality rate, in a catch-and-           
 release fishery.  The board could conceivably adopt a regulation              
 requiring some basic knowledge, but the scope of regulations would            
 be limited to knowledge and testing.                                          
 Number 1243                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN explained the reason for omitting language           
 from CSHB 19(RES) was because of the question about giving the                
 Board of Fisheries the ability to regulate the industry.                      
 Number 1264                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN argued that this would be a Title 8 function of              
 the Department of Commerce and Economic Development.                          
 Number 1271                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether the current fee schedule, shown            
 in Section 6, page 9, was the listed $40 and $120.                            
 Number 1295                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN explained this is for the prorated                   
 transition year after CSHB 19(RES) is enacted.  The enacted fees              
 are located on page 3.  He said there is no current fee schedule.             
 Number 1321                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked that if Section 4 does not become                  
 effective until 2001, would the fee schedule listed on page 9                 
 remain effective until that time.                                             
 Number 1336                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN responded that the prorated fees would               
 become effective during the 1997 season.  The enacted fee schedule            
 listed on page 3 would then become effective for the 1998 season.             
 He clarified that Section 2 regards fees and is different from                
 Section 4.  Section 4 regards the collection of information and               
 comes into effect in 2001.                                                    
 Number 1378                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES asked if there was a Coast Guard                 
 insurance requirement for hauling passengers.                                 
 Number 1396                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN did not believe there was this                       
 requirement.  He believed their only requirement was the need for             
 a six-pack license.  The insurance companies have set the rates               
 that they would like the industry to have.                                    
 Number 1414                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said the operators need a six-pack license, be             
 annually or periodically inspected and carry the seal of the Coast            
 Guard inspection.                                                             
 Number 1423                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated that both of her sons were sports                
 fishing guides.  She thought they had to have insurance which was             
 a lot more than $300,000.                                                     
 Number 1438                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN believed that on the Kenai River, he                 
 couldn't remember which park, there was a license and insurance               
 requirement which was separate from the Coast Guard requirement.              
 Number 1457                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON clarified that there is an area requirement.               
 Number 1479                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said that it is the operators who get                    
 insurance, not individuals.                                                   
 Number 1489                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES responded that it was a family business.                
 Number 1508                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if CSHB 19(RES) came as a result of an               
 appeal from the sport fishing guide industry.                                 
 Number 1516                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN explained that he initiated this                     
 legislation based on his work with the Convention and Visitors                
 Bureau and the National Fisheries Council.  When Clem Tillion was             
 on that council they looked at a moratorium date of September of              
 1993 for the halibut charter boat industry.  They realized that               
 information wasn't available, in a good enough format, for them to            
 impose this moratorium.  In subsequent letters and information from           
 the council, those organizations asked the legislature to do                  
 something.  After he introduced legislation, he found that there              
 had been similar legislation introduced by Representative Williams.           
 Number 1592                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what the bottom line was of CSHB
 19(RES).  He questioned whether it would provide understanding                
 regarding the number of guides, does it involve a safety issue, or            
 some other issue.                                                             
 Number 1615                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN hoped CSHB 19(RES) would register the                
 vessels and report their catch, so we gain knowledge of how many              
 people are in the industry and how many fish are being caught.                
 This information will assist the conservation issue.  As this                 
 industry grows, the ADF&G and the Board of Fisheries need                     
 information to ensure a sound management of the resources.  There             
 is a need to have good, solid information on what is happening in             
 the resource industry.                                                        
 Number 1651                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that the state gets historical catch              
 information.  He asked if CSHB 19(RES) would provide a more                   
 accurate number.  In the past, fishermen have paid and the count is           
 Number 1661                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said, based on the experience of the                 
 council and convention and visitors bureau, information on the                
 Ayakulik River and Karluk River was controlled by the National                
 Wildlife Refuge.   The refuge requires operators on those rivers to           
 submit a catch report on a daily basis.  When those numbers were              
 compared to the numbers the ADF&G was coming up with on the creel             
 count, they were very different.  The want a better set of numbers            
 through in-season reporting.                                                  
 Number 1705                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the fees were estimated based on the            
 cost of obtaining this information.                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN answered that they hoped fees would offset           
 those costs.                                                                  
 Number 1723                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said the income in the second year creates about           
 $106,000, while the cost remains fairly constant at $282,000.  He             
 thought the ADF&G's fiscal note should reflect an annual loss of              
 $176,000.  He thought the fee schedule should be amended to cover             
 the cost of administering this program.                                       
 Number 1760                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN relied upon the ADF&G's estimates.  Once             
 this is done for a year or two, the figures will resemble the                 
 numbers listed on the fiscal note or else the legislature will have           
 to go back and look at the fee structure.                                     
 Number 1773                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated that the legislature is trying to set up            
 a system to collect information in order to understand what occurs            
 from a biological and management point of view.  Currently a lot of           
 nonresidents are able to come up with a six-pack license, buy a $25           
 license fee, bring their boat into the harbor and open up a                   
 business.  These nonresidents are taking a tremendous amount of the           
 state's resource.  He felt that if the state of Alaska was one of             
 the last major fisheries, then he there should be a fee which                 
 equaled the worth of the industry and the resource.  Alaska should            
 not have to subsidize this type of industry.  The commercial                  
 fishing industry has a license, a crew license, raw fish taxes and            
 things collected to put into the general fund.  He wanted someone             
 from the ADF&G or the sponsor to speak to the issue of having these           
 costs balance out the costs of the program.  He agreed with the               
 collection of the information from the sports fisheries.                      
 Number 1868                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN felt the industry should cover the cost of           
 the program.  Part of the costs could be made up through the                  
 ADF&G's and the Board of Fisheries' conservation measures such as             
 bag limits.  He suspected that a king salmon tag would be                     
 implemented, which would result in the costs being carried through            
 the users of the industry.  This bill deals with the operator, the            
 guide, and does not deal with individual fishermen who are coming             
 to Alaska.  Issues concerning those fishermen have to be covered              
 through the ADF&G and the Board of Fisheries, in sport fish license           
 fees and bag limits.                                                          
 Number 1924                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS asked if the sponsor had considered              
 raising the $75 fee.                                                          
 Number 1934                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said he had not.  The ADF&G would need to            
 address the issue of having the program pay for itself.                       
 Number 1959                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS stated that in talking to some of the                 
 guides, they would accept a higher rate in order to keep                      
 nonresident guides from coming into Alaska.  The nonresidents                 
 frequently come and work in Ketchikan.                                        
 Number 1994                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN agreed on the operator's license, but he             
 felt it was a different thing when it came to the guide license.              
 He expressed concern with raising the cost of this too much.                  
 Number 2040                                                                   
 JOE KLUTCH, guide and member of the local fish and game advisory              
 committee, testified next via teleconference from an offnet site in           
 King Salmon.   He stated that there has been a dramatic increase in           
 the level of commercial industries related to sport fishing,                  
 especially in the last four or five years.  This has resulted in a            
 number of conservation issues and associated impacts on fishing               
 stocks.  As a result, a heightened allocation conflict has arisen             
 among different user groups and within the individual user groups.            
 The quality of experience, around which Alaska has developed a                
 reputation, is slipping away.  He felt Representative Barnes                  
 expressed this when she referred to her sons giving up sports fish            
 guiding because of overcrowding on the Kenai River.                           
 MR. KLUTCH said the rate of growth, in many areas of the state, is            
 not sustainable if our objective to provide a quality experience              
 and to maintain healthy stocks.  To date, the Board of Fisheries              
 hasn't had adequate guidelines and definitions in statute to allow            
 it to regulate and allocate among sport fishing entities.  He                 
 believed CSHB 19(RES) would rectify that situation.  It certainly             
 is a step in the right direction.  The time is long overdue for a             
 state licensing program which will set proper definitions and                 
 provide the Board of Fisheries with the tools it needs to properly            
 regulate the resources among user groups, particularly among sport            
 fishing groups.                                                               
 MR. KLUTCH referred to page 3, line 16, regarding the licensing               
 function, and asked if the licensing authority rested with the                
 ADF&G or the Department of Commerce and Economic Development.                 
 Number 2171                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said Section 2 regards the Title 16, ADF&G                   
 function.  Section 3 of the bill, referring to a person who is a              
 sport fishing services operator, requires a business license under            
 the Department of Revenue (DOR).                                              
 Number 2190                                                                   
 MR. KLUTCH referred to the question of insurance.  He explained               
 that the respective land managers, the National Park Service, the             
 U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, private              
 land holders, Native corporations and state parks, can and do have            
 insurance requirements as part of their permitting schemes.  There            
 are no U.S. Coast Guard requirements.  Many operators are working             
 on navigable waters that do not require a land manager permit.  He            
 thought the insurance requirement in CSHB 19(RES) was a responsible           
 business practice that would ensure a higher quality of service.              
 Number 2257                                                                   
 MR. KLUTCH referred to page 7, line 8, the definitions section,               
 where there is a reference to a fishing club.  There is also a                
 reference to a fishing club on page 8, line 6.  He felt it was                
 important to have this fishing club definition.  In Southwest                 
 Alaska there is a problem when nonresident groups form a business.            
 The money for this business is collected in Europe; all the                   
 bookings are done in Europe.  They come to Alaska, acquire a piece            
 of property and equipment, and then they conduct a commercial                 
 activity, as a club, which exempts them from state taxes and                  
 commercial licensing requirements.  He suggested that a tight                 
 definition relating to fishing clubs be brought under this                    
 regulatory umbrella.                                                          
 Number 2318                                                                   
 MR. KLUTCH commented that one of the problems that the ADF&G will             
 have when they go to allocate amongst commercial entities is that             
 you need to have tight definitions that include everybody.  He                
 referred to page 7, line 26; he summarized that people who rented             
 a vessel, including rafts, boats, et cetera, without an operator              
 would not be included under the outfitter license or the guide                
 Number 2346                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN verified that was correct.                           
 Number 2350                                                                   
 MR. KLUTCH suggested the legislature was leaving one link of the              
 chain out there.  As a commercial entity, this group has the                  
 ability to impact resources and other user groups, and they ought             
 to be included in CSHB 19(RES).  If guiding activities are                    
 included, then boat renting activities should not be exempted.                
 Inclusion of these activities would allow the Board of Fisheries to           
 regulate them.  He felt the time for this type of legislation was             
 long overdue.                                                                 
 Number 2434                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said renting and leasing of vessels,                 
 including air charter services, was included in past versions of              
 CSHB 19(RES).  Having Alaska Airlines weigh the box and report the            
 amount was also suggested.  He felt this bill couldn't be all-                
 inclusive.  As a sports fisherman, he brings in catch that he                 
 doesn't report.  He stated that CSHB 19(RES) is a basic bill.                 
 TAPE 97-36, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 0000                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN explained that to include these provisions           
 would allow the bill to be defeated.                                          
 Number 0011                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred to page 7, line 23, regarding an                    
 outfitting description in Title 15, which would say that guides               
 could not outfit unless they had a guide license.  He expressed               
 concern that this would create a loophole.  Someone, under the                
 guise of outfitting themselves for fishing, could go out and set up           
 camps on rivers and run a hunting operation.  The new language                
 specifically regards fisherman, but he asked whether there was any            
 conflict within the hunting guide industry.                                   
 Number 0060                                                                   
 MR. KLUTCH said he would have to study the language carefully.                
 Based on what the co-chair stated, there could be the potential for           
 a problem.  He asked whether there was language to address this               
 Number 0078                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN responded that language could be added.  He felt             
 this issue should be thoroughly addressed in one of the committees            
 of referral to prevent a loophole where people would operate a                
 hunting operation under the guise of Title 16 fish outfitting.  He            
 suggested changing the description after, "(4)" to put "fishing               
 outfitting" or "fishing outfitter", for example, instead of                   
 "outfitting".  The language would enhance the clarity.                        
 Number 0134                                                                   
 MR. KLUTCH felt "fishing outfitting" was a good suggestion.                   
 Number 0155                                                                   
 DALE BONDURANT testified next via teleconference from Kenai.  He              
 felt the regulations in CSHB 19(RES) were valid.  Within the last             
 year, guides have begun supporting a bill such as this one.  This             
 would give their industry a lot more responsibility.  His interest            
 in this bill regards the operating license fees, the differential.            
 He referred to Mr. Daugherty's testimony on Carlson v. State of            
 Alaska, which raises legal question regarding the fee differential.          
 He thought if there was a legal question it should be settled now.            
 He felt the nonresident bashing is not something of which we should           
 be proud.                                                                     
 Number 0248                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if he had any citations for the committee            
 to refer to in order to see how the constitutional issue might be             
 Number 0277                                                                   
 MR. BONDURANT explained that he understood higher fees could be               
 charged for nonresidents in the way they contribute to the                    
 management of the resource.  He did not think this would be                   
 supportable in Alaska because 85 percent of sports fish management            
 money comes from nonresidents.  He referred to a case involving               
 Carl Anderson (ph), who fought a nonresident commercial fisherman             
 charge in Alaska's territorial days.  The court found that this was           
 not allowable.  The decision was based on the enforcement costs.              
 When the numbers were looked at, the nonresidents were paying four            
 times the amount of enforcement.   He said there were several cases           
 which support this decision.                                                  
 Number 0350                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to the statutes and a collateral                  
 reference in AS 16.05.340 on page 34.  There is a constitutionality           
 in state laws that prevents discrimination against nonresidents or            
 aliens in fishing and hunting rights, 52L edition, second date 24.            
 This is something the Department of Law should address.                       
 Number 0376                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN felt that until there was a resolution in            
 this case, the disparity could continue, but he wanted to let Mr.             
 Daugherty address it.                                                         
 Number 0412                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY stated that he represents the Board of Fisheries.  In           
 Carlson v. State of Alaska, the Alaska Supreme Court issued a test          
 to determine whether or not a differential fee can be applied to              
 nonresidents in a commercial activity.  This test is applicable               
 only to commercial activities; there is nothing that prevents a               
 higher fee for a sport fishing person or for hunting.  It is only             
 in a commercial activity that the privileges and immunities clause            
 of the U.S. Constitution is implicated.  It is implicated when a              
 person's ability to earn a living is affected.  The U.S.                      
 Constitution prohibits states from discriminating against out-of-             
 state residents through their income sources.                                 
 MR. DAUGHERTY explained the test:  an appropriate inquiry accesses            
 whether all fees and taxes paid to the state by a nonresident to              
 enjoy the state-provided benefit are substantially equal to those             
 that must be paid by similarly situated residents, when the                   
 residents' pro rata share of state revenues, to which nonresidents            
 make no contribution, are taken into account.  Basically this says            
 that oil revenues of the state general fund money, spent on an                
 activity, equal a pro rata share paid by residents to say that                
 nonresidents have to make up that difference.  Under the most                 
 recent Carlson case, the court has made it clear that only the              
 share of the people participating in the activity can be used.  The           
 Carlson case addressed commercial fisherman.  The argument used was         
 that oil revenues, which the state spent on managing fisheries,               
 were put up amongst all residents of the state and then divided out           
 to figure out how many commercial fishermen there were, then the              
 number was multiplied by that figure.  He reiterated that you are             
 not able to take all of the contributions of the state, only those            
 that can be credited to the individuals who participate in that               
 MR. DAUGHERTY said the Department of Law (DOL) was not aware of any           
 evidence indicating it is significantly more expensive for the                
 state to license a nonresident than a resident or that residents              
 contribute more to sport fish production than nonresidents.  There            
 is a probable constitutional problem with CSHB 19(RES) regarding              
 the privileges and immunities clause of the U.S. Constitution.  The           
 DOL would prefer to see that provision taken out and some other               
 provision added.                                                              
 MR. DAUGHERTY said another bill referring to commercial fisheries             
 delegates authority to the ADF&G to adopt a fee differential to the           
 maximum extent allowed by law.  This would allow the ADF&G to                 
 adjust to the changing court decisions to adopt fee differentials             
 and to figure out the budgets.  It is difficult to break up those             
 funds.  There are a number of economists working on the Carlson             
 case to break up the department's budget to determine what money              
 goes where and how much of that can be attributed to residents and            
 nonresidents.  It is a complicated thing which is not cost                    
 effective when you deal with such a small number of people who will           
 register to be a guide.                                                       
 Number 0590                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if this was an Alaska Supreme Court                
 decision or was it a federal court decision.                                  
 Number 0599                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY answered that the Carlson case was an Alaska Supreme          
 Court decision.                                                               
 Number 0609                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked if a two-to-one ratio would be better than             
 a three-to-one ratio.                                                         
 MR. DAUGHERTY said the smaller the differential, the easier it                
 would be to defend.  Yet, he was unaware of any information that              
 would support a two-to-one ratio.                                             
 Number 0628                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES believed there had been court cases in the              
 past relating to the residency/nonresidency requirement.  The cases           
 showed a nexus between the differential charged between the                   
 resident and nonresident which could be constitutional.  If you               
 show that nonresidents and sports fishers contribute to the budget            
 which manages those fisheries, then the fees are their contribution           
 to help manage those fisheries.  She asked whether he thought this            
 was the nexus to show it was constitutional.                                  
 Number 0667                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY answered that if the state could make that type of              
 showing, it would properly do the job.  However, the state cannot             
 make that type of showing.  The majority of money used for the                
 management of sport fisheries comes through federal money paid                
 through federal sport fish restoration funding.  The state receives           
 a large percentage of funding through the actual sports fishing               
 licenses where the state charges a higher fee to nonresidents than            
 to residents.                                                                 
 Number 0699                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES clarified that the funds being addressed were           
 Dingill-Johnson funds and Pittman-Robertson funds, used for the               
 management of fish.  She believed that the state contributed large            
 chunks of money to the ADF&G, and certainly some portion of that,             
 certainly the administrative cost applied to the budget, has to be            
 considered when you are taking into account the cost of managing              
 any fishery.                                                                  
 Number 0740                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY said that fees could be adopted to recover the                  
 state's costs if we charged residents and nonresidents equally.               
 Right now there is not a factual account showing that it costs more           
 to license a nonresident than a resident.  The administrative costs           
 are essentially the same for residents and nonresidents.  You can't           
 require nonresidents to pay their full share of the administrative            
 costs and not require residents to pay their full share of the                
 administrative costs.                                                         
 Number 0769                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to all the additional costs needed to             
 support this segment of the industry, such as the infrastructure,             
 including ports, harbors and launching areas.  Residents are paying           
 a property tax and a sales tax on a regular basis, which goes to              
 pay for that infrastructure.                                                  
 Number 0814                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES brought up the issue of her sons being                  
 unwilling to take fish out of the Kenai River because it was                  
 overcrowded.  She used this as an example where nonresidents                  
 displaced Alaska residents who contribute to this state in many               
 Number 0865                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY recognized the difficulty with this issue.  The                 
 problem, at this point, is that the state does not have the                   
 technical ability to break out and show what the resident                     
 contribution is and what the contribution by nonresidents should              
 be.  It would be difficult to make that showing and might cost more           
 money than could be made by having a differential fee scale.                  
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked when the Carlson case would be settled.  He          
 also asked whether, if this case were to be settled, the state                
 would have to refund monies.                                                  
 Number 0906                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY answered that the Carlson case has been in court for          
 approximately 12 or 13 years.  It is on remand from the supreme               
 court for the second time.  The prognosis is uncertain, and it                
 could still result in years of litigation.  The current dispute               
 regards how much the state owes by determining the nonresident                
 share and what the residents' contributions have been.  These                 
 questions could take a couple more years to resolve.  On the basic            
 issue of whether or not the state can charge the additional fee,              
 the courts have ruled against the state in all matters, unless the            
 state can do a break-out and show what the resident contribution              
 Number 0960                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to the issue of game, where we have            
 two fees that the state charges for big game species.  As far as              
 she knew, this fee differential wasn't a problem.  The state does             
 it, and they show a nexus because the residents pay to manage that            
 Number 0990                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY explained sport fishing and hunting does not                    
 implicate the privileges and immunities clause of the U.S.                    
 Constitution.  The state can charge a higher fee for hunting and              
 fishing.  It is only when occupational licenses are involved that             
 the privileges and immunities clause of the U.S. Constitution is              
 implicated.  The state can recover costs through charging a higher            
 fee to a nonresident for the actual act of hunting and fishing, but           
 the state is limited by the privileges and immunities clause when             
 they try to recover those costs from the guides themselves.                   
 Number 1036                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY said the other major point was the importance of the            
 provisions of Section 1, paragraph 17, which gives the Board of               
 Fisheries authority to regulate for conservation, development and             
 utilization of fishery resources.  A number of individuals have               
 tried to imply that the board does not need this authority, that              
 they already have this authority over guided sport fishing and this           
 is all the authority they need.                                               
 MR. DAUGHERTY stated, as a representative of the Board of                     
 Fisheries, that the board does not have the authority that they               
 need at this time.  The provision in CSHB 19(RES) would put sports            
 fishing services industry on a par with other fisheries, such as              
 commercial fisheries, overseen by the board.  The board's current             
 authority is over the guided sport fisherman, not over the guide.             
 The board needs the authority to require more extensive reporting             
 by guides and the ability to penalize, such as not renewing their             
 license the next year, in order to get compliance with the                    
 reporting provision.  The only regulation currently affecting                 
 guides is the requirement to register.  A few things regulate                 
 guides in the areas of methods and means, such as prohibiting                 
 guides from fishing while they have clients on board.  There is not           
 the same authority over a guide as there is over other fisheries.             
 This is an important management tool for the Board of Fisheries for           
 the conservation and management of fisheries.                                 
 MR. DAUGHERTY said the board has a limited source of data when it             
 comes to sports fisheries.  Currently, there is the authority to              
 allocate between guided and unguided sport fisheries, but there is            
 not enough information to make those allegations.  The board is               
 using bag limits, methods and means types of regulations in order             
 to try to give nonguided residents a fair opportunity to fish,                
 rather than making a state allocation.                                        
 Number 1233                                                                   
 GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,                 
 Department of Fish and Game, said the ADF&G supports CSHB 19(RES).            
 Representatives from the ADF&G have worked with the guide charter             
 task force, established by the Board of Fisheries, to look into               
 some of these issues.  That task force was involved with the                  
 development of this legislation.  The bill would provide                      
 information to the ADF&G and to the board.  Nonresident angling is            
 growing at a regular rate of about 5 percent a year.  A lot of that           
 angling is conducted with the aid of guides.  There is a lot of               
 concern and interest in the state, among users and managers, in               
 knowing the impact of this increased angling on the resource,                 
 specifically in knowing what opportunities are there for other                
 users, especially resident users.  Currently when the board asks              
 for this information, there is not much the ADF&G can offer.                  
 MR. BRUCE explained that CSHB 19(RES) would allow the ADF&G to                
 characterize the guiding industry in terms of the different                   
 regional aspects and operators involved.  It would also enable the            
 department to quantify the impact of the guided industry on                   
 particular resources in particular regions of the state, allowing             
 the department to provide this information in a summary form to the           
 board and the public.  This would help policy makers make the best            
 decisions regarding the utilization of resources for the common               
 MR. BRUCE stated that CSHB 19(RES) was thoroughly discussed.  He              
 felt as much input went into this bill as any other piece of                  
 legislation he has seen.  He did not know of any other legislation,           
 especially one which breaks new ground, which would be                        
 wholeheartedly liked.  This is a step that needs to be taken in the           
 long-term interest of the guiding industry, other users in the                
 state and the resource.                                                       
 MR. BRUCE said the effective date would fall toward the end of this           
 calendar year, if the legislation was passed this year.  Any time             
 the ADF&G has any changes in their licensing system, they like to             
 have it coincide with the calendar year because all license systems           
 are administered on a calendar year.  It makes a more orderly                 
 transition for those people affected and in regards to                        
 administration.  The ADF&G would like to have an effective date of            
 January 1, 1998.  There would only be a short period of time                  
 remaining in the 1997 season.                                                 
 Number 1481                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN explained that CSHB 19(RES) was set up to            
 do some good this year.  If the ADF&G does not feel that there is             
 enough time, or if they question whether or not it would work                 
 within the time frame, then he wouldn't object to this amendment.             
 Number 1503                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN felt if this occurred, then line 30, page 8,             
 would have to be amended.                                                     
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN suggested that Section 6 be deleted to eliminate             
 the transition period.                                                        
 Number 1549                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied that if the effective date was               
 changed to the first of the year, then some sections would no                 
 longer be valid.  The normal fees from Section 2 would take place.            
 Number 1576                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON made a motion to adopt a conceptual amendment              
 regarding page 8, line 29, to delete "Section 6 all the way down to           
 page 9, line 8, and underline ten, page 9, amend to read, Section             
 8, to read `takes effect January 1, 1998', and then under the same            
 Number 1620                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "I presume that mean also you'll                   
 remember those sections in your amendment.  If you cancelling                 
 number six, then you renumber the sections accordingly."                      
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said, "I am renumbering all sections                       
 Number 1639                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced, having heard no objections, that the              
 conceptual amendment was adopted to CSHB 19(RES).                             
 Number 1694                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK made a motion to adopt Amendment 2,              
 which read:                                                                   
      Page 3, lines 14 - 15:  Delete existing language in Work Draft           
      0-LS0140\Q and insert new language to read:  (17) regulating           
      the sport fishing services industry for purposes of                    
      establishing information gathering tools related to the                
      conservation, development, and utilization of fishery                  
 Number 1759                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN referred to Mr. Daugherty's testimony on             
 how important this section is.                                                
 Number 1788                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY explained that Amendment 2 would not put the guided             
 sports fisheries and services industry on par with the other                  
 fisheries.  It would prohibit substantive regulation of the sport             
 fishing services industry.  This amendment could be interpreted to            
 weaken, rather than enhance, the board's authority.  While the                
 board needs information gathering tools, when this specific                   
 authority is given, it is likely to be interpreted as limiting the            
 board's authority in that specific area, rather than adding to                
 their authority over guided sport fishing.  It would be interpreted           
 by a court as a restriction on the board's authority.                         
 MR. DAUGHERTY said this change would not allow the board to                   
 regulate knowledge of the fishery such as fish identification,                
 catch-and-release methods, and other areas where the board has                
 expressed a desire to require some knowledge on behalf of the                 
 guided sports fish industry.  The board currently has some                    
 regulations for guides such as the fishing prohibition while a                
 client is on board.  Those regulations might be challenged if this            
 amendment were adopted.  It might limit the Board of Fisheries to             
 an information gathering service only in the area of sports                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY noted that the use of "established" in the amendment            
 does not include implementing or enforcing. This would not give the           
 board any tools.  The board could require reporting and information           
 gathering, but it wouldn't have any tools to make sure people                 
 Number 1982                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK referred to the sponsor statement and said the           
 amendment spells out the intent more clearly.  In the bill it reads           
 "as needed"; she felt it should be changed to "for purposes of                
 establishing information".  Right now the board has the ability to            
 regulate.  She did not feel there should be that much of a conflict           
 with the proposed amendment.                                                  
 Number 2042                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN felt, from the testimony presented, that the             
 Board of Fisheries did not have the authority that they needed for            
 sports fishing.  If CSHB 19(RES) is left, rather than modified by             
 the amendment, then it definitely gives the Board of Fisheries                
 authority.  He felt the amendment would limit the board, and that             
 is not the direction the committee wants to go.                               
 Number 2097                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON felt the purpose of the amendment would alter              
 the bill so the industry would be regulated for information                   
 gathering tools.  He felt that if the board ever established                  
 limitations, seasons or bag limits, this amendment would cause the            
 bill to be contested in court.  He felt CSHB 19(RES) should provide           
 equal footing, good information and the ability to use that                   
 information to regulate for good biology.                                     
 Number 2174                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred to page 2, line 22, paragraph 12, where             
 there is already the authority to regulate commercial sport, guide            
 sport, subsistence, and personal use fishing as needed for the                
 conservation, development, and utilization of fisheries.  He asked            
 if this gave the Board of Fisheries the ability to regulate the               
 sport fishing guides.                                                         
 Number 2207                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY said the current authority is over guided sport                 
 fishing.  If you look at the legislative history of that bill and             
 the way it has been interpreted, then the authority is over the               
 actual fisherman not the person who is taken them out fishing.                
 Number 2252                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said the Board of Game and the Board of                 
 Fisheries only have the power which the legislature gives to them.            
 The constitution says that we manage these fish and game resources            
 on a sustained yield basis.  So the boards have an absolute                   
 authority to manage fish and game based on sustained yield                    
 principles.  She felt Mr. Daugherty said the Board of Fisheries               
 does not have the authority to do this, that they would only be               
 able to gather information under this section.  She did not feel              
 this was correct.  The amendment adds language relating to                    
 regulation of the sports fish guiding services.  She referred to              
 paragraph (12), which regulates commercial, sport, guided sport,              
 subsistence, and personal use fishing.  She referred to Mr.                   
 Daugherty's testimony relating to paragraph (12) and to the                   
 constitution, and she said it did not ring true to her.                       
 Number 2378                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY said the Board of Fisheries would certainly have the            
 authority to manage the total fishery for sustained yield.  The               
 problem comes in when you treat different fisheries differently,              
 you create different regulations for guided sports and sport.  If             
 someone made an argument that this bill could have been done                  
 without impacting the other fisheries differently or if there was             
 a provision which limited the board's authority over the sport                
 fishing services industry to information gathering tools, then any            
 regulation dealing directly with restrictions on the guides would             
 be subject to a potential court challenge, not over the guided                
 sport fishermen, but over the guides themselves.                              
 Number 2458                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated that if at any time it looked like the           
 Board of Fisheries or the Board of Game had the authority to                  
 regulate through exclusive use by allowing .... [testimony ends               
 TAPE 97-37, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 0000                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated that this had been proven in court, the               
 guide industry.                                                               
 Number 0029                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said it is the committee's intent to not limit           
 it.  He reiterated that this issue has been brought before this               
 committee with conflicting testimony from both sides.  This                   
 amendment would tip the scales.  The Board of Fisheries only has              
 the authority given by the legislature.  If the committee is going            
 to limit their authority, that is a restriction.  His did not think           
 the committee wanted to do this.  If the committee doesn't want to            
 do that, then the committee doesn't want this amendment.                      
 Number 0099                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN felt it was a policy call.  He asked if CSHB
 19(RES) puts the sport fishing industry on par with others, then              
 where is the language regarding the commercial fisheries.                     
 Number 0131                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY referred to AS 16.05.251(12) and said it regulates              
 commercial sport, guided sport, subsistence and personal use                  
 fishing as needed for conservation, development and utilization of            
 fisheries.  It is located on page 18 of the statutes.                         
 Number 0193                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN did not see the difference.  If we have a guided             
 sport in there, then why can't it be more broadly interpreted?  He            
 referred back to Representative Green's comment and said it is a              
 policy call on whether the committee wants the board to gather                
 information or to have more authority to regulate the industry.               
 Number 0251                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES agreed that it was a policy call, but                   
 referred to the section with the underlined language, "regulating             
 the sports fish services industry".  She asked what kind of                   
 regulations the Board of Fisheries would be adopting under this               
 Number 0290                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN responded that it could be whatever they felt                
 like; the legislature is giving them the authority.                           
 Number 0304                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY stated that the Board of Fisheries currently has                
 regulations which prohibit guides from fishing while they have                
 clients on board.  He said this is the type of regulations that the           
 board would like to see more of and would like a firmer authority             
 to adopt those regulations.  The board would like to say that if              
 you do not report, as required, then you can't get your license for           
 the next year.  The board would also like to see, in some cases,              
 some basic knowledge of how to release a fish and how to identify             
 fish.  He said people come up from the Lower 48, who do not have              
 that basic knowledge.                                                         
 Number 0367                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES foresaw big problems if the legislature left            
 this language wide open in CSHB 19(RES).  She thought that if the             
 committee did not adopt Amendment 2, then the committee should                
 spend a little time on what it is that they were willing to have              
 the board regulate.  This type of language would allow them to do             
 a lot more regulating then she would want them to do.                         
 Number 0418                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN referred to page 2, line 22, (12), and               
 said (17) was patterned on that language.  Paragraph (12) talks               
 about commercial, sport, guided sport, subsistence, and personal              
 use fishing as needed for the conservation, development, and                  
 utilization of fisheries.  The Board of Fisheries wants to do the             
 same with the commercial end of it, the guides who are taking these           
 sport fishing charters out on trips.  Paragraph (17), on page 3,              
 which Amendment 2 addresses, only deals with the conservation, the            
 development and the utilization of those fisheries.  This paragraph           
 does not deal with the integrity of it, the safety of the fishery,            
 but only the conservation, development and utilization of the                 
 Number 0501                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to the language, "as needed for the            
 conservation of", and said the Board of Fisheries could decide,               
 under this language, to limit the number of guides.  She felt this            
 would be unconstitutional.  Different requirements could be                   
 implemented, but she did not feel a limit could be placed.  She               
 would oppose CSHB 19(RES) if it is left with the current language.            
 Number 0549                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY explained that if the Board of Fisheries attempted to           
 adopt a regulation limiting the number of guides, they would still            
 have to go through the Department of Law regulations review.  The             
 department does not approve a regulation if they believe it is                
 unconstitutional.  Clearly the legislature has already acted in the           
 commercial fisheries to limit entry through the commercial                    
 fisheries entry commission, there is nothing like that for sports             
 fisheries.  At this point, he did not feel there would be anything            
 which would support the Board of Fisheries doing this without some            
 further action by the legislature providing that authority.                   
 Number 0611                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES responded that it was her experience that the           
 board could conjure up almost anything.                                       
 Number 0626                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS felt CSHB 19(RES) provided an important               
 tool for the board or for the ADF&G.  He said he attempted a                  
 similar bill four years ago.  The sports fishing services industry            
 is getting so big that CSHB 19(RES) will help regulate those people           
 going into the industry.                                                      
 Number 0672                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES responded that her sons' decision to leave              
 the industry was their choice, not someone else deciding there                
 would be limited entry into the sports fishery.  She felt this                
 could happen with the current language.                                       
 Number 0694                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said, if the language is left as it currently is,            
 the Board of Fisheries could say fishing could only occur on                  
 certain days.  He thought it would be ill-advised to do a limited             
 entry.  The Owsichek case with the guides was proved.                       
 Number 0731                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN reiterated that it was not his intent to             
 limit the number of guides.  He was more than willing to put this             
 language into CSHB 19(RES).  If this is the major concern being               
 raised, in reference to what the committee is doing with this bill            
 and why this bill is here, then he is more than willing to add a              
 phrase saying that the Board of Fisheries may not limit the guides            
 without legislative approval.  The industry has expressed this                
 concern, they want free, open range.  If that is the concern and              
 that is what the committee wants to see with this bill, he will add           
 this language.                                                                
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that then the sponsor would lose his              
 Number 0808                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON said two of his mentors in commercial               
 fishing have said that limited entry has never been applied well in           
 our state.  It has always been done too late and enfranchises or              
 monopolizes the utilization of the resource.  The only valid reason           
 for limiting entry into a fishery would be if the ADF&G could make            
 a case that there are so many participants in it that it is                   
 practically impossible to manage the conservation of the resource.            
 He thought the government had a responsibility to the conservation            
 of the resource.  He was convinced that the economic and the                  
 aesthetic decisions ought be left to the individuals.                         
 Number 0911                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON thought he would support the sponsor's                   
 Number 0918                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON felt the constitution would bar limited entry              
 without an action on the part of the legislature.  Only through               
 action by the legislature did the state enact limited entry.  The             
 law would be constitutionally upheld that the Board of Fisheries              
 has no powers to enact a limited entry provision.  The board can              
 establish a moratorium; everyone who was in the fishery now could             
 remain in it but others would be excluded until the board                     
 biologically determined that something else was feasible.  He felt            
 the board could do this at the present time.  He did not feel that            
 CSHB 19(RES) created any new power, it merely creates an                      
 information gathering mechanism and a financial means to provide              
 for that information.  The bill puts guided sports fishing, in the            
 regulatory schemes, on an equal footing with the other elements of            
 people taking fish resources.                                                 
 Number 1003                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said the constitution states that there                 
 should be no exclusive right of the fishery.  The only exclusive              
 right is occurs when people pass a constitutional amendment which             
 allows limited entry.  However, if the Board of Fisheries said that           
 we now have too many guides and enacted a moratorium, then you are            
 in fact setting up a regime of a limited entry system by                      
 grandfathering in those who are presently guides.  This moratorium            
 could go on for 20 to 30 years, and she felt this was wrong.  There           
 are better ways to manage the resource; she had no problem with bag           
 limits, days that you can fish and things like that.  She had a               
 problem with allowing one Alaskan to have an opportunity that other           
 Alaskans don't have.                                                          
 Number 1106                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON suggested that a moratorium was a time                     
 limitation and only for a period of time.  We need to modify that,            
 even for commercial fishing, if it doesn't already exist.  The                
 legislature needs someone who knows how a moratorium, limited entry           
 and the constitutional elements work.                                         
 Number 1145                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY explained at this time the Board of Fisheries does              
 not have authority to establish a moratorium on any fishery.  They            
 have frequently complained about their inability to do this.  They            
 would like to stop the growth of fishing on the Kenai River, but              
 they do not have the authority to establish any type of moratorium.           
 The Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) has some authority           
 in commercial fisheries, and there is currently a bill which would            
 expand that authority.  For fisheries other than commercial                   
 fisheries, there is currently no authority for any type of                    
 Number 1165                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON expressed concern that moratoria might lead the            
 state into a limited entry of sorts.  He still believed that a                
 moratorium is essentially a time of cease-and-desist from fishing,            
 which allows propagation of the fish.  He suggested moving the                
 bill, with the amendment and a statement that the committee                   
 recommend that the amendment be considered on the basis of a legal            
 opinion concerning moratoria and the impact on limitations of                 
 Number 1323                                                                   
 MR. BRUCE emphasized that his comments shouldn't be taken into the            
 context of the limited entry discussion.  He did not think it was             
 an issue.  He expressed concern about Amendment 2; the DOL said               
 this amendment would jeopardize the ability of the board to take              
 action.  They could receive the collected information and want to             
 shape the guided activity, in their activities, in a way to lessen            
 impacts on other users and to conserve the resource.  The ADF&G               
 would not like to see that happen.  They are not interested in                
 collecting information for information's sake and putting it on the           
 shelf.  They want the information to be available to the policy               
 makers at the Board of Fisheries level, who are acting under                  
 legislative direction.                                                        
 MR. BRUCE said the ADF&G would encourage the legislature to give              
 them as specific a direction as the committee thinks they need in             
 order for them to stay within parameters.  He did not think the               
 committee wanted to put the board in a situation where they can't             
 act on the information which CSHB 19(RES) authorizes the ADF&G to             
 collect and provide to them.  He urged the committee to not take an           
 action which would make it impossible for the Board of Fisheries to           
 use the information in a regulatory manner.                                   
 Number 1455                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected to Amendment 2.                                 
 Number 1460                                                                   
 A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 2.  Representatives Masek,            
 Barnes and Dyson voted yea.  Representatives Green, Williams,                 
 Joule, Hudson and Ogan voted nay.  Representative Nicholia was                
 absent for the vote.  Amendment 2 failed to be adopted to CSHB
 Number 1479                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved Amendment 3, located on page 3, lines 14           
 to 15, after, "sports fishing service industry and commercial                 
 fishing industry as needed for the conservation, development, and             
 utilization of fishery resource".  This amendment would be placed             
 right after, "sport fishing service industry and commercial fishing           
 Number 1499                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS objected for purposes of discussion.  He              
 felt these were already regulated.                                            
 Number 1516                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK referred to page 2, paragraph 12, "regulating            
 commercial, sport, guided sports, subsistence, personal use                   
 fishing."  She said she understood from the DOL that it regulates             
 fishing but not the fishermen.  "I think it would be important to             
 put commercial fishing industry in that subsection as well," she              
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN understood from the DOL that this is                 
 already in statute, the reference to the commercial fishermen.                
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if Amendment 3 amended Amendment 2.                  
 Number 1553                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said this is a new amendment on page 3, line             
 14, "regulating the sport fishing services industry and commercial            
 fishing industry as needed for the conservation, development and              
 utilization of resource".                                                     
 Number 1595                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY said commercial fishing is already covered under                
 paragraph (12), which says regulating commercial, sport, guided               
 sport, subsistence and personal use fishing for the conservation,             
 development and utilization of fisheries.  The reason why there               
 isn't the same problem there as with guided sport is because                  
 commercial fishermen are actually landing the fish.  Therefore, the           
 board has authority over everything they do.  With guided sport               
 fishing, it is not the guide who actually fishes, it is the client,           
 and this is why the Board of Fisheries needs the additional                   
 authority over the guides.                                                    
 Number 1625                                                                   
 A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 3.  Representatives Masek             
 and Barnes voted yea.  Representatives Dyson, Green, Williams,                
 Joule, Hudson and Ogan voted nay.  Representative Nicholia was                
 absent for the vote.  Amendment 3 failed to be  adopted to CSHB
 Number 1675                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON made a motion to move CSHB 19(RES) as amended              
 with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes, which he           
 noted were not at odds with each other as he had first thought.               
 The cost of the program balanced out with the money being brought             
 into the program.                                                             
 Number 1697                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES objected to the motion.  She said that until            
 CSHB 19(RES) can be amended in the section of this bill, she would            
 oppose it moving forward.                                                     
 Number 1726                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN felt he was reasonably satisfied that the Board of           
 Fisheries did not have the authority to do limited entry moratoria.           
 A roll call vote was taken on CSHB 19(RES).  Representatives Dyson,           
 Green, Williams, Joule, Hudson and Ogan voted yea.  Representatives           
 Masek and Barnes voted nay.  Representative Nicholia was absent for           
 the vote.                                                                     
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced that CSHB 19(RES) was moved from the               
 House Resources Standing Committee.                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN announced that he would be happy to work             
 with Representatives Barnes and Masek to make them feel more                  
 comfortable with the bill.                                                    

Document Name Date/Time Subjects