Legislature(2007 - 2008)BUTROVICH 205
04/20/2007 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB186 | |
| SB80 | |
| SB111 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 111 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 186 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 80 | ||
CSHB 186(FSH)-SPORT FISHING GUIDE RECORDS
3:37:54 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS announced CSHB 186(FSH) to be up for
consideration.
TOM WRIGHT, staff to Representative Harris, sponsor of HB 186,
said that it makes minor amendments to AS 16.05.815 that allows
the ADF&G to share information about sport fishing guides for
law enforcement purposes with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Marine
Fishery Service (NMFS) and to the International Pacific Halibut
Commission (IPHC).
CHAIR HUGGINS asked the ADF&G why this information needs to be
shared.
DOUGLAS VINCENT-LANG, Special Projects, Alaska Department of
Fish and Game (ADF&G), explained that the allocation of halibut
has been before the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
(NPFMC) recently and one of the preferred alternatives that was
favored by charter boat operators is having an annual limit
rather than a one-fish bag limit or instituting even more
restrictive measures that would affect the daily opportunity of
guided anglers to catch fish. However after an analysis, it was
found that an annual limit could not be established without
having the ability to share log book information with NMFS
enforcement. The only other way to track an annual limit would
be for charter boat operators to have a state log book for state
managed species as well as a duplicate federal log book for
halibut. The Council and many charter boat operators view annual
limits as an opportunity, but don't want to burden the charter
boat operators by requiring a duplicate log book program. So,
they are now asking to allow sharing of log book information for
enforcement purposes only with the NMFS enforcement and with the
IPHC. The shared information would remain confidential with one
minor exception - if a violation actually went to court, that
piece of information associated with the violation would become
public. However this information would still remain confidential
meaning that those confidential records could not be released.
3:40:02 PM
SENATOR STEVENS said he knows a lot of fishermen who are very
concerned about giving out information and probably wouldn't
tell their own mothers where they caught halibut. How can people
be assured that this information that is shared with federal
agencies is going to be protected as much as it was when it was
in state hands.
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied under the statue the information
remains confidential except for enforcement purposes. He
reminded the committee that log book information is already
shared for the purposes of fishery management plan development.
The only reason you would be fearful is if you have a violation.
3:41:29 PM
SENATOR WAGONER asked what the penalty would be if information
gets out accidentally. Charter boat operators are concerned that
this information is their client list which is how they make
their living. Competitors will do bulk mailing to their client
base and offer them a trip at a reduced rate if they have access
to that information.
3:43:44 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied that he didn't know the exact penalty,
but it wouldn't be any different than the penalties associated
with the current sharing of commercial fish ticket information
with NMFS enforcement. Commercial fishermen have that same
worry.
SENATOR WAGONER said that commercial fishermen fish a much
larger geographic area and guides have areas that are much more
specific, so this information would be much more damaging to
them.
MR. VINCENT-LANG said he would get the penalty information for
him.
STEVEN DAUGHERTY, Department of Law, said he was looking for an
answer to that question.
CHAIR HUGGINS remarked that it is very easy to find information
about anybody on the Internet and asked what makes him think
this information won't be able to be found there, too.
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied that the department has an MOU with the
federal government saying it won't release this information if
it is not kept confidential.
CHAIR HUGGINS asked if another course of action could get the
same results.
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied that the other course of action would
be for charter boat operators to have a duplicate federal
recording program.
3:46:33 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS asked why the client base is germane to where the
fish are caught.
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied that the past log book program included
summary harvest information by trip, but the Council needs good
harvest records to develop quotas and allocation guidelines as
well as individual fishery quota systems (IFQs). To assure
accurate reporting, the Council started recording angler-by-
angler harvest and are sub-sampling those entries for accuracy.
CHAIR HUGGINS asked him to explain the moratorium.
MR. VINCENT-LANG responded that some people are confused because
the NPFMC recently adopted a halibut sport charter moratorium
and entries in these log books will be used to establish a
management plan. Operators might be confused about how this bill
would affect their ability to enter into that moratorium.
However, the department can already share information with the
Council for developing that management plan. HB 186 will allow
enforceability once the moratorium is in place. So, it doesn't
necessarily translate into the eligibility for the moratorium.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked if there is any linkage to potential IFQs
for the charter industry.
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied that the information could potentially
be used by the Council in deciding on whether to go to an IFQ
system or not, but this bill doesn't get it any closer to that
decision. He said that the state has a vote on the Council.
3:49:38 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS asked if the commissioner of ADF&G supports this
bill.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered yes.
CHAIR HUGGINS asked what the boat operators have to say about
this issue.
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied that he has talked to a lot of
different boat owners who exhibited uniform support for an
annual limit for charter anglers. However, everyone was quite
shocked when they found out that state log book information
could not be shared with the federal system and that a duplicate
federal reporting program would have to be put in place. That's
why the Halibut Commission adopted the one-fish bag limit, which
is not the preferred alternative for the industry.
SENATOR STEDMAN said the City of Sitka has imposed a surcharge
on export of fish boxes because of its concerns over the large
amount of product being flown out of town and the amount of
product being flow out of town with the same name on the 50-
pound boxes. He asked if that community and possibly others
could set up systems that track the export of fish to the ADF&G
so the different reporting could be cross-referenced.
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied that wouldn't be part of this
legislation. He elaborated that Sitka was worried about a couple
of different issues when it adopted that export tax. Part of it
was concern over local user conflicts, which the department is
concerned about too and it is looking at a variety of different
mechanisms to address - including the development of local area
management plans. Sitka has one of those plans, but it needs to
be updated - because since the original plan was developed, a
subsistence long-line fishery has been instituted in the area
which needs to become a part of it.
3:53:28 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN said Sitka is the first city to institute this
kind of surcharge and has more concerns that a large amount of
product goes unreported. He thought the more cross reporting the
state has, the more accurate the information regulators will
have.
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied that is what the Council liked about
the annual limit which is based on how much fish an individual
needs on an annual basis.
MR. DAUGHERTY found a partial answer to penalties for disclosure
of confidential information in 18USC19.05. It said they "shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one
year or both and shall be removed from office or employment." He
hadn't been able to determine the fine, yet, but he thought the
termination of employment and imprisonment for one year were
fairly substantial penalties and should be sufficient to assure
a pretty high degree of confidentiality.
SENATOR WAGONER said, "It sounds good to me."
3:56:34 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS asked how this information is transmitted.
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied electronically and only upon request to
the requesting person.
CHAIRS HUGGINS said they would set HB 186 aside.
3:58:11 PM at ease 4:01:22 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|