Legislature(1995 - 1996)
01/24/1996 03:35 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SRES 1/24/96
SB 128 NONRESIDENT HUNT, SPORT FISH, TRAP FEES
SENATOR LEMAN announced SB 128 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR DONLEY, sponsor, said one of the first things he thought of
when he was elected were the out-of-state fishing interests coming
to Alaska and using our fish resources, but taking that money out-
of-state. Because of the commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution,
we are limited as to how much we can charge out-of-state commercial
fishing interests for licensing of not more than three to one. In
the private area the fees are much more liberal in allowing states
to discriminate between residents and non-residents.
Several people have complained about abuse by non-residents who buy
a sport-fish license and fish all summer on the beaches of Alaska,
and as they caught their fish day-by-day, they were processing,
canning, and shipping it home. This amounts to almost a commercial
license amount of fish.
SB 128 addresses the issue of what we charge residents vs. non-
residents for sport fishing licenses and also, what we charge for
sport hunting licenses. It also addresses the issue of what we
charge our residents for multiple use licenses.
As the law is now, there is no incentive for an individual Alaskan
to buy a combination license, but it costs the State more when they
buy three separate licenses, because we pay vendors $1 per
individual license issued. He thought some people would go ahead
and buy a combination, if there was any incentive at all to do so.
This bill would save them some money, $5, and save the State a lot
of paper work. The $5 negative impact would be offset by the
savings realized by not having to pay a vendor $1 for every
individual license they issue.
The way to fix the other problem of people fishing for a year on
one license and exporting their fish is to not let them buy a
license for a year. Have them buy a license for a shorter period
of time and have them repeatedly go back and buy them, if they want
to. This isn't a solution, but it limits the duration of the
license and the added fees adds a little to revenue.
SENATOR DONLEY said the hunting section is more complex. He looked
at what other states were charging and said that his fees were not
terribly out of line with what we would encounter going to another
state for hunting. He said he has heard from some people in the
guiding business that this would be cost-prohibitive for some folks
coming up here. The majority of the revenue generated for the
Department from fees comes from non-residents and this would reduce
the Department's income significantly.
One basis for this was a survey done by the ADF&G. He found that
the survey didn't really ask these questions in a manner that would
lead to the conclusions that they draw.
Number 364
SENATOR DONLEY said he found that Alaska is rather unique in that
most states don't have a separate alien non-resident classification
which he wanted to preserve.
SENATOR TAYLOR said in Canada, you only buy a trophy tag after
you've harvested an animal. He noted that Debra Lyons was not kept
on the Board of Fish, because she tried to correct the same problem
Senator Donley is trying to correct with this legislation.
Number 281
SENATOR TAYLOR applauded Senator Donley for introducing this
legislation and added that he would like to see the issue targeted
even more.
SENATOR HALFORD agreed that there was definitely a problem. He
said that Sections 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, and 12 all deal with the
duration of license in one way or another. He suggested that the
change in resident licenses in sections 1,2, and 3 is
insignificant. The changes in the tag fees are probably so
progressive that they would result in a reduction of over-all
income, so he suggested dropping that portion. He would make all
resident and non-resident hunting and fishing consistently 30-day
licenses, with the exception of the king salmon tag which he has at
14-days. He thought that would work logically and
administratively.
SENATOR HALFORD also thought that the possession limit shouldn't be
defined the way it is with regards to fish, because that means
there is no limit to what you can catch, if you have a freezer on-
board. He thought there should be an ultimate limit for sports
fishing.
SENATOR TAYLOR added that he didn't want "fish in possession" to
include the captain of charter boat and the captain's helper.
Number 281
WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife, said the increases
in the fees could significantly reduce their income. About half of
their income is from license fees and tags. Doubling those would
make us non-competitive with British Columbia and the Yukon which
are our primary competitors for non-resident hunters. About 10% of
hunters in Alaska take about 10% of game each year, but they pay
for 75% of the bill. Most of them don't compete with resident
hunters. They have to be careful to maintain a reasonable ratio
between the cost for a resident and non-resident to hunt. Courts
have never said what that ratio needs to be. A recent appeals
court ruled that 1:7 was reasonable, but they didn't go on to say
where that became unreasonable. Right now, current fees are $25
for a resident moose license, and $485 for a non-resident (a ratio
of 1:19). The proposed change would make it 1:34. He thought that
might get us in trouble.
The final concern was with helping out people who move to Alaska,
who can't buy a resident hunting or fishing license until they've
been here a full year. They have to buy a series of licenses until
they become official residents.
Number 236
SENATOR TAYLOR said it's probably appropriate that a wealthy
European pays for the privilege of hunting over here, but he had a
problem with relatives of residents coming to visit for just three
weeks and being charged $80 a piece just so they can fish. He also
said that it was prohibitive for his son to come home for a week
and hunt deer on Wrangell Island.
NEIL WEBSTER, Alaska Professional Hunters Association, applauded
Senator Donley's bill. The only problem he has is with the fee
structure for non-residents and non-resident aliens. He thought we
have to be competitive with B.C. where they have tag fees after the
animal has been harvested. In Alaska, we sell hunts, not the
killing of animals, but increased fees will have a negative impact
on our tourism industry, he said.
Number 157
DON WESTLUND said he was concerned with having to be in the State
for 365 days consecutively to get a resident license. He was
concerned that this looked like a revenue-generating bill. If you
compare what commercial people take out of Alaska to what sport
people take out, the commercial take far more resource for far less
money. He wanted a higher fee for commercial fishing, because they
take more resource. He also commented that enough people would
still come to the State with the higher fees.
WAYNE KUBAT said he was a registered hunting guide for the past 11-
years. He said he grossed $130,000 last year and netted $30,000.
He thought it would be a lot tougher to book hunts, if fees are
raised. He said we have world-wide competition, like in Russia
where there aren't many regulations.
Number 61
ROD ARNO said he had been a wilderness hunting and fishing guide in
Alaska for the last 20 years. He supported Senator Donley's idea
of increasing revenues to the State through the non-resident sport
fishermen. They make up 50% of sport fishermen. They are marketed
by the Alaska Tourism Marketing Council. He opposed an increase in
the non-resident hunting tags and fees. Non-resident hunters
harvest less than 10% of the annual harvest of wild game. Yet the
non-resident fees pay for over 75% of the $150 million spent by the
Division of Wildlife since 1980. The Alaska State game hunting
industry continues to have no representation on the Alaska Tourism
Marketing Council.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked what percentage of these fees are dedicated as
program receipts by the Department. MR. REGELIN replied, 100%; it
first goes into a dedicated fish and game fund and then
it goes back to either the Division of Sport Fish or Division of
Wildlife Conservation.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|