Legislature(2011 - 2012)BUTROVICH 205
01/23/2012 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB13 | |
| SB24 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 24-SPORT FISHING GUIDING SERVICES
3:38:10 PM
Due to technical difficulties the meeting was not recorded from
3:38 to 3:49 PM. The following is a summary of what took place
in that time:
CO-CHAIR WAGONER called the meeting back to order at
3:38:10 p.m. and announced SB 24 to be up for
consideration. He said it was held over from last year
and was put into a subcommittee over the Interim.
SENATOR MCGUIRE, sponsor of SB 24, said Mr. Pawlowski
would walk through the proposed committee substitute
(CS). She stated there were many passionate concerns
and they are addressed in the CS; the most
controversial pieces were removed.
SENATOR MCGUIRE said that some of the owners of the
lodges testified that their population was aging. They
were worried about recruiting new people into the
industry and found that it was too hard to train
residents and thought they should be allowed to bring
people in from the outside. But, she stated the
training requirements weren't removed because Alaska
manages its fisheries as Alaskans and it's up to us to
come up with a way to do it using Alaskan residents.
SENATOR MCGUIRE moved to adopt the CS for SB 24( ),
[labeled 27-LS0278\I], for discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER objected for discussion purposes, and
he invited Mr. Pawlowski to review the changes in the
CS.
MICHAEL PAWLOWSKI, aide to Senator McGuire, said the
CS is a result of many concerns he heard stated as
well as some policy changes. The following excerpt is
a summary of the changes taken from Senator McGuire's
memo:
Changes to SB 24 (27-LS0278\A) in CS SB 24 (27-
LS0278\I)
Please note that this analysis is not an authoritative
interpretation of changes to the bill. The bill itself
is the best statement of its contents.
The following references are to the A version of SB 24
Title The following changes were made to the Title of
the bill:
1. No changes.
Section 1 The following changes were made to section
1:
1. Inserted new subsection (b) which expresses
legislative intent that the funding for the electronic
systems required under section 6 are to come from
general funds.
Section 2 The following changes were made to section
2:
1. No changes.
Section 3 Inserted new subsection 3 inserting the
Sport Fish Guide Services Board established in section
4 to the list of Boards and Commissions in AS
08.03.01(c) that provides for termination dates (2018)
and transition provisions upon termination.
3:49:37 PM
MR. PAWLOWSKI next went to Section 4 (old Section 3) that is the
substantive change and said the reference to units throughout
this section have been removed. New language was inserted in the
composition of the board section on page 2, lines 19-28. There
was a lot of testimony about the interest in regional
representation on the board and that one member of the board has
to be from each of the Interior Southeast and Southcentral
regions. Testimony concerning the commercial and sport fisheries
on page 3, lines 5-6, spurred an added requirement to the at-
large public member that he couldn't have ever held a commercial
fishing license.
3:50:46 PM
A very substantive change was made in the duties and powers of
the board section that begins on page 3, line 16, and goes
through page 4, line 26. This was added on lines 7-13; while
occupational boards interact with the governor and make
recommendations, industry felt that the Guide Commercial
Services Board should offer some more level of benefit (a
substantial policy point). So, language from the Minerals
Commission, which is not a licensing board, was inserted into
the bill to the effect that this board would commission and
prepare a report to the legislature and the governor on the
impact of sport fishing on the state's economy. (Typically,
occupational reports go to the governor and don't go directly to
the legislature.) Subsection 10, lines 11-13, are the second
portion of that setting up a timeline for when the report has to
be made.
3:52:02 PM
Another substantial point was in response to concerns over the
limited entry provisions of the original bill related to guide
use unit areas. There was a concern that the sport fishing
industry wanted to see that the table in the event that limited
entry regulations are drafted. That was the attempt on page 4,
lines 20-22, requiring a regulation that has the effect of
limiting entry to sport fish guides to come through this board
in order to be approved. He said that those are major policy
calls that came through public input and the committee should
consider those carefully.
MR. PAWLOWSKI said that new language was added on page 4, lines
23-26. Concern was brought up with the requirement for an
examination; under the direction to the board (the goal being
that this test is available electronically and that a person
that fails the test may retake it) the point being that the
purpose of the test should not be to exclude participants in the
fishery, but to guarantee a certain level of knowledge relating
to the fish and game regulations of the state that the guide is
naturally assisting their clients in a program.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if a guided client now runs afoul of the
fish and game laws - if, for instance, the guide takes the
client into a closed area and the client has the line in the
water - is he on the hook.
MR. PAWLOWSKI said he preferred to have the Department of Fish
and Game answer that.
SENATOR STEVENS asked the reasoning behind immediately retaking
the exam.
MR. PAWLOWSKI answered that the guiding community wanted
assurances that an immediate retake was not required but that it
was permissible.
SENATOR STEDMAN went to page 3, line 5, and asked if that
language means someone cannot ever have held a commercial
fishing license.
MR. PAWLOWSKI answered yes.
SENATOR STEDMAN said that that might need looking into, because
a five-year old could have a commercial fishing license in a
parent's boat and then be excluded for the rest of his life.
3:56:10 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN asked why "or in Canada or in Mexico" were
included and not Brazil and Venezuela.
MR. PAWLOWSKI replied that is part of the language from the
original task force. It had to do with provisions under treaties
between the US and Canada that they were required to accept as
part of commerce under services. That issue has not been raised
as the bill has moved through and therefore has not been
addressed from the original version.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked him to point out the connection between
the sport fishing outfitter license and the guide license. Would
the outfitter be the lodge?
MR. PAWLOWSKI replied that often it would be the lodge, but the
intent is to go deeper than that and to include people who are
renting equipment specifically for sport fishing services like a
rod. Someone might be renting without being the lodge.
SENATOR STEDMAN said he wanted the ability to tie any illegal
guiding activity that is sanctioned by a lodge from the guide to
the lodge. They have trouble doing that currently. Sometimes the
guide works for the lodge virtually year-round.
MR. PAWLOWSKI said it is an incredibly important piece of this
bill that is different from existing law and is on page 13, line
30, through page 14, line 11. In subsection (1) [of the CS] on
page 14, line 2, the outfitter transporter or guide is equally
responsible for violations of regulations under this chapter.
The CS deletes "assistant guides" from the original bill. Since
assistant guides have to be under the employ or supervision of a
licensed guide, assistant guides were removed from that section,
since the onus and responsibility in the way the bill is
designed falls to the licensee that is employing or supervising.
He noted that this language may need to be tightened more.
4:00:11 PM
Page 5, line 4, had a "nitpicky" change. In the original version
the license was called a sport fishing guide outfitter license,
but in the interest of simplicity it was changed to sport
fishing guide. The sheer number of licenses was quite confusing
to the public; the guide retains the ability to be an outfitter,
but it's still called a sport fishing guide license.
On page 5, line 5, in the original bill all the different
licenses were bi-annual. The departments felt that annual
licenses were cleaner and easier to administer.
MR. PAWLOWSKI said one of the deleted provisions from
requirements to become a guide was requiring that a person be
licensed as an assistant guide for three years and have a
certain amount of time within the fishery. This was a major
departure from the existing system to become a guide in the
State of Alaska. The public said that was onerous and didn't fit
with business models. The difference is the requirement to pass
an examination (on page 5, lines 17-18, the design of which is
on page 3, lines 17-20).
Several requirements were taken out; an additional one was a
general requirement that allowed the board to adopt regulations
that the guide licensee had to meet. The public was very
concerned about a guide board coming up with regulations that
the legislature hadn't envisioned, so it has been tightened down
to only these specific items.
4:02:41 PM
On page 6, lines 9-23, the master guide license provision has
been retained. Considerable public testimony indicated that this
was unnecessary since it is an elective license. Part of the
thinking behind it was that in hunting a master guide is a very
specific thing that comes with very specific credentials.
Fishing doesn't have the same type of statutory construction as
what would be a master guide. There were concerns about what
could be considered almost duplicitous advertising to the
public. So, some form of master guide clarification was retained
in the bill.
The provision taken out of the sport fishing outfitter license
section was the requirement to pass a test, the reason being
that the outfitter lodge owner might not actually be a guide.
The point of the license is to identify people engaged in the
sport fishing business so that ultimately a logbook program
might be able to be put into their hands. Since they are not
providing guiding licenses the public didn't feel that they
needed to be guides.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked if the outfitter has the responsibility of
the guide and if the guide has the responsibilities of the
assistant guide.
MR. PAWLOWSKI replied that the outfitter and the guide may be
considered co-equal. Because the prohibition on page 7, line 7-
9, says a person holding a sport fishing outfitter license may
not provide sport fishing guide or transportation services, you
might have a situation where there is an outfitter who does not
ever operate as a guide, although it might be rare.
SENATOR STEDMAN said his point was that it might be beneficial
to have the outfitter know what acceptable behavior is, so when
he is dealing with other guides or assistant guides within the
industry, he would be more apt to know when someone's behavior
is out of bounds.
MR. PAWLOWSKI added that page 3, lines 17-20, contain a
description of the test that the board is required to prepare in
case they decide to reintroduce the testing requirement to the
other licenses.
4:06:51 PM
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN commented that he thought Senator Stedman was
focusing on what happens if the outfitter employs the guide but
the outfitter doesn't need to pass a test. Then you have
theoretically broken the connection between the guide and the
outfitter.
MR. PAWLOWSKI said that is a fair question, but in order to be a
guide and to provide the guide services you have to have a guide
license. So, an outfitter might employ a guide, but they might
also not. And if they're not, they would have to get the
outfitter license.
SENATOR STEDMAN said he was trying to make sure that the
outfitter under all circumstances knows the difference between
right and wrong within the industry, because a small number of
lodge owners don't know how to treat the state's resources.
4:08:37 PM
MR. PAWLOWSKI said the next substantial change is in the sport
fishing assistant guide license which goes from page 7, line 22
through page 8, line 26. Here a change was made to the reduction
of 16 years of age. You had to be 18 in the original bill to be
a sport fishing assistant guide. The reason that change was made
is a person 16 to 18 years old could not qualify for Coast Guard
licensing, which is required on page 7, line 30, through page 8,
line 2. You are required to have a Coast Guard license if you
are in an area that a Coast Guard license is required, but they
have received significant testimony from people that there are
areas of the state where 16 and 17 year olds work as walk-in
guides in the summers, and there was an attempt to give them an
opportunity to still remain in that type of employment.
He reminded them that an assistant guide (page 8, lines 25-26)
has to carry proof of employment or supervision, which takes one
back to the responsibility section that says they have to work
under a licensed guide.
The generic requirement in the original bill (of all additional
requirements being adopted in regulation) has been removed from
the requirements in order to get a license. The reasoning behind
that was to not give the board the ability to go too far beyond
what the legislature expressed was required to become a guide,
assistant guide, outfitter or transporter.
The next section, Article 3, on page 10, line 15, through page
11, line 31, is the enforcement section. It gives powers to the
board to enforce certain specific violations. A couple things
have been removed from this section as a result of public
testimony. Originally there were provisions that allowed board
discipline in the event of a breach in an agreement or contract
with a client. There were some discretion-able actions by the
board. The language was tightened up to specifically only be
related to people convicted of a violation of a state or federal
statute or regulations related to sport fishing. The public did
not want the board to have too much discretion right out of the
gate. He said current statutes potentially have a gap in that it
is almost impossible for the Department of Fish and Game to not
give someone a license who is committing violations.
SENATOR STEDMAN said he wanted more thought about licensing a
person convicted of a felony or a crime of moral turpitude. He
said there are a lot of licenses a person with certain types of
offenses can't have.
4:14:10 PM
MR. PAWLOWSKI responded that he might ask the department to
define that a little bit better. The language was made broad
specifically to encompass laws relating to and that may be too
narrow for Senator Stedman's concerns because theft or fraud
wouldn't be included in that.
SENATOR STEDMAN said a conviction of drug trafficking is not
desirable as a lodge operator.
MR. PAWLOWSKI said specific acts were listed on page 12, line 1,
through page 13, line 29, related to guiding and do not cover
the universe of issues Senator Stedman was referencing.
He said that the enforcement section on page 11, lines 8-10, was
added at the input of ADF&G and says if the board imposes a
disciplinary sanction under this title they may notify the
appropriate state and federal agencies; this just refers to the
ability to communicate in case communications are required to
say this person is sanctioned and may be trying to go to
different states. The board needs the authority to share that
information in statute.
4:16:07 PM
He said as far as the rest of the bill goes, another major
change was repeal under the transporter section, on the old page
11, that allowed a sport fishing guide to personally pilot a
plane. That ran afoul of FAA rules.
4:16:38 PM
MR. PAWLOWSKI said the other major substantive change is in
section 6 on page 17 through page 18, line 8 that changes "may"
to "shall" for electronic reporting storage. The final major
changes are in sections 9, 10 and 12-15 where the effective
dates were moved to delay implementation for two years. Because
this was a major change for the industry, there was concern
about it being implemented too rapidly and the public process
being gone through inadequately. He listed the effective date
sections.
4:19:27 PM
CO-CHAIR WAGONER opened public testimony.
TOM OHAUS, representing himself, Sitka, Alaska, said he is a
charter business and lodge owner, and thanked Senator Wagner for
his efforts with the new CS for SB 24 and said he supported it.
Electronic monitoring coming from the general fund rather than
license fees is a big plus for the industry, he said, because it
decreases the fiscal note and the overall licensing fee.
Industry supports the general purpose of SB 24 because it
provides for an industry governed by a board of its peers to
provide a platform for increased participation in fisheries
management. They have often had concern that those managing them
do not understand their business model or understand the
regulatory requirements they need in order to keep their
industry whole and contribute to local economies. It's also
important to get their hands around what would be non-guided
lodges so they know what is really going on in boats that don't
have a guide that people are paying to be in.
4:22:17 PM
GREG SUTTER, Alaska Charter Association (ACA), Homer, Alaska,
mirrored Mr. Ohaus' comments. He said the CS to SB 24 will
really help the industry. He said ACA couldn't support the
original version and that half of the members liked the last
version. He would put this new version out to the membership and
hopefully more support and meaningful feedback could be gained
that would make it more marketable and user friendly for people
who want to come up fishing.
4:24:22 PM
JOEL HANSON, The Boat Company, Sitka, Alaska, said he operates a
couple of 150 ft. cruise vessels that are mother ships to a
small fleet of skiffs and that each of the skiffs is
independently licensed as charter boat and carries its own
logbook. He said there is a huge difference between some of the
business models that operate in the charter universe and his is
one. He thanks all who worked on this version because it is at
least workable and much different than the original in that
respect.
MR. HANSON said the immediate retake of the test is important to
his business, because he has to rely on having a licensed guide
on each of the mother vessels as well as a number of assistant
guides operating the skiffs. He might need an assistant guide to
jump in and cover for someone who can't work that day on fairly
short notice.
4:27:42 PM
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked if he had a definition of "independently
operated boats." He thought it meant they were under independent
contractor financial arrangements.
MR. HANSON replied that all of their skiffs, which are carried
on board the mother vessels, are operated by crew members who
are direct employees; his company doesn't contract with anyone.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked what "independently-operated" means if
they are operated by employees.
MR. HANSON replied that they often go off in different
directions; so multiple skiffs are out at any given point in
time.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN said then that they are all employees under the
law, not independent entities under independent contract
arrangements.
MR. HANSON responded that was correct.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER asked how his business works.
MR. HANSON replied that they do week-long trips between Sitka
and Juneau. While one of the vessels does a turnaround on a
weekend in Juneau the other vessel is doing a turnaround in
Sitka at the opposite end of the trajectory. When they start a
trip they meet half-way somewhere around the south end of
Admiralty Island. They have been doing this for 35 years.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER asked where his guides and assistant guides are
hired from.
MR. HANSON replied that while they hire some from Alaska, a
majority of them are from out-of-state. Their crew members do
double service; they are guides as well as licensed officers for
the big vessel. Because of the level of license that is required
for operating the larger vessels, they specifically hire people
with a higher level license to run them. Their operation
generally is of interest to employees because it provides an
opportunity to get good qualifying sea time on larger vessels
for going up the ladder of command.
4:31:01 PM
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked when it comes to the licensing of the
business, how many types of licenses he needs to get.
MR. HANSON answered that The Boat Company needs a "pretty
substantial" number. He added that they need to get a sport
fishing business license and all the various licenses that are
required by the Coast Guard. He added that both mother vessels
are inspected passenger vessels covered by Coast Guard
regulations.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked if his business has to get an outfitter
license.
MR. HANSON answered no.
4:32:39 PM
STAN MALCOM, President, Petersburg Charter Boat Association,
Petersburg, Alaska, said he is also the owner of a sport fishing
charter business. He supported SB 24. He was a member of the
original stakeholder task force formed by the state to discuss
issues concern the sport fishing industry a few years back. One
of the things he was concerned about was the no licensing or
reporting requirements for the unguided segment of the sport
fish industry as well as the absence of a single body to bring
concerns or ideas to. Task force discussions led to the concept
of a sport fish guide service board similar to the Big Game
Guide Services Board and to what is now SB 24. He thanked
Senator McGuire for bring this idea forward and for all her and
her staff's time in refining that concept into what he thinks is
a good vehicle for representing the industry to the state, the
legislature and other management and regulatory agencies that
they deal with while also providing for needed requirements for
the industry.
RICKY GEASE, Executive Director, Kenai River Sport Fishing
Association, Soldotna, Alaska said they believe SB 24 is a very
good step in the right direction of bringing minimum
professional standards to the guided industry across Alaska.
He also said they believe the comprehensive nature of having
professional standards for guide outfitters and transporters and
requiring each to have a logbook is important to get a
comprehensive view of the harvest that is being taken throughout
Alaska. It's important information for area managers to look at
and see trends. They support the electronic logbook requirement
for the Department of Fish and Game.
4:36:22 PM
REUBEN HANKE, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska, said he
and his wife operate a fish camp on the Kenai River. He, too,
was on the original sport fishing task force that came up with
this type of suggestion. He said the committee had listened to
what other people in the industry have to say and he thinks the
CS to SB 24 is a great product.
4:37:45 PM
DICK ROHRER, representing himself, Kodiak, Alaska, said he is a
master big game guide and has been in the sport fish guiding
business since 1982 and he had just completed two terms on the
commercial services board. He encouraged them to reinsert the
authority for the board at some time to identify guide use areas
and maximum numbers of operators per area; not that it had to be
done right now, but if that authority isn't given now it would
never happen. He also urged them to develop terms for contracts
between guides and clients for services (like the Big Game
Commercial Services Board has) to specify what the client is
paying for.
He had some question about the value of easy retesting and said
the Big Game Guiding industry thinks that for those who are
registered, have master licenses and can demonstrate years of
involvement in the sport fish guide industry, that a grandfather
license should be part of this legislation, and the same goes
for sport fishing guides who have been in the industry a long
time.
Also, on page 6, line 5, he thought having documents "readily
available" needed a definition. And page 9, line 9, section (b)
could be deleted, because that language came from the big game
side where it had a purpose, but he couldn't see any reason for
a transporter to have clients on a boat with living quarters and
not have a guide license because the clients would be fishing.
Also, related to "sport fishing outfitter services" on page 16,
section 8, he explained that on the big game side a new business
has come into play in the last few years that is essentially
unregulated, called trip planning services, and that wording
should be included under this definition as well as someone who
provides camping equipment. So, that section would identify not
just renting fishing rods and vessels, but also camping
equipment.
4:42:10 PM
DON "SMOKEY" DUNCAN, Alaska Private Guide Service, Fairbanks,
Alaska, said he opposed SB 24. He said he holds a big game
commercial services board license and SB 24 shouldn't apply
north of the Alaska Range, because it's isn't needed. It's a
state-wide solution to a localized problem along the ocean and
along the Kenai. He advised them to get the list of licensed
sport fishing guides in their communities and and ask them if
they support this.
He said SB 24 is not good particularly for interior guides or
small town guides. Specifically, he objects to the requirements
under getting a Coast Guard license. To get a Coast Guard
license you have to get a TWIC card [Transportation Worker
Identification Credential]. To get a TWIC the closest place for
him would be Anchorage; all of the TWIC locations are along the
coast. One of his guys just renewed his license and it cost him
two trips (you have to go in person twice) and cost him $3,000.
He said the Coast Guard has no presence in the Interior or on
the rivers north of the Alaska Range, and they shouldn't have
jurisdiction on waters controlled by the state or where they
have no aids to navigation or patrols.
MR. DUNCAN said he believes SB 24 needs a specific exemption for
big game guides who may allow a contracted hunter to fish
incidentally during the hunt. He also suggested removing an
insurance requirement because Alaska law currently says
recreation service providers are exempt from liability except
for gross negligence - and gross negligence is denied on most
policies. So, they get to pay for no coverage. "Most land
owners, if they allow you to be on their property, are going to
require something; let them require it. This bill doesn't need
it," he said.
He pointed out a loophole in the Big Game Commercial Services
Board. They have a transporter license; those are one person
holding one license but they may employ any number of "assistant
transporters" that haven't been vetted and haven't passed
anything and pay no license fees. He thought this bill would
require everyone to have a license.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER asked him to send his comments to his office.
4:46:33 PM
REED MORISKY, Wilderness Fishing, Fairbanks, Alaska, supported
SB 24. He said he was one of the original task force members
that helped formulate this concept and he wants to be part of
managing his own industry.
VIRGIL UMPHENOUR, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska, said
when he was on the Board of Fisheries they tried to do this 15
years ago and Senator Halford killed it then. He is in support
of SB 24. He explained that NAFTA stands for North American Free
Trade Agreement and that is why it has to be in the bill. The
board wanted to do this 15 years ago because of the number of
European-owned lodges that are a pure extraction economy with
zero conservation ethic. But like Mr. Duncan and Mr. Rohrer, he
is a master big game guide and when he took his test to become a
registered guide a long time ago, about 10 percent of the test
was on sport fishing. "To leave us out and then have the
troopers harassing us and have us have to go through two
different systems is absurd," he said and they should be
grandfathered in.
He related that when the board had its meetings, they were
state-wide, and the large lodge owners were 100 percent against
this. So, he asked them why they didn't hire local people. They
said local people won't work. So, he went to the University of
Alaska, Fairbanks and Anchorage, job placement offices for
students and found that no lodge had ever asked any of them for
any Alaskan resident college students to work for them. It's
because they're too cheap he stated, and they don't want to pay
anything - unlike all the registered and master guides that pay
their employees at least $250/day to work guiding.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER said he was also seriously thinking about
putting in a bill that restricts shipping personal use fish
outside the State of Alaska, since it's supposed to be for
family use.
MR. UMPHENOUR said he would support that.
SCOTT EGGEMEYER, representing himself, Soldotna, Alaska, said he
supported SB 24. He thanked Senator McGuire's office for
continuing to work on this issue and to make it palatable to
everyone involved.
4:50:36 PM
JIMMY JACK DRATH, Kenai River Professional Guide Association,
Kenai, Alaska, said he had been guiding for 16 years and
supported SB 24. He said the Kenai River has had an exam in
place for quite a while and an association that is fairly
strong. They have seen a lot more professionalism on the river
over the past few years. He specifically supported the
electronic logbooks and said his hope is that this industry
would become more professional in the future. He commented that
he is an outfitter and hires five to six guys in a season and he
requires them to take an exam that he also gives them
personally, believing that he has to know what his guides are
doing out there.
4:52:23 PM
GARY AULT, Homer Charter Association, Homer, Alaska, supported
SB 24 with some reservations. One was how the state could
require halibut charters to get licenses when they are fishing
in federal waters and the Coast Guard requires a certain number
of deck hands depending on the number of people. Are the deck
hands assistant guides? He said keeping a crew through the
summer is difficult at best and there will be an issue with
keeping boats manned properly. But, he said, electronic logbooks
are long overdue since they have to record every fish they
touch. He urged them to do everything they can to make the
provisions more user friendly.
4:55:04 PM
DON WESTLAND, representing himself, Ketchikan, Alaska, said he
did not support SB 24, because it doesn't go far enough. It
doesn't do what the board asked them to do. It doesn't restrict
any growth in the industry, for one thing. Robin Taylor tried to
come up with a limited entry program back in the '80s, and the
state did a study in '92 to outline how to get them into limited
entry.
He said there is a suggestion that people who organize sport
fishing trips should hold a license, but that would mean cruise
ships vendors and travel agents from down south, too. He also
felt this was "kind of a money grab" as he already pays a lot.
As a commercial fisherman, he would be excluded from
participating on the board - even if he sold his permits.
He didn't support exempting the Kenai River guides from taking
the test (page 20) and said "everybody needs to be into this."
If big game operators are going to be grandfathered in, he, as a
sport fishing guide needs to be grandfathered in as a master
hunting guide. He summarized that he had been in this business
since 1986 and considers himself a person who has a business
that is not worth anything unless there is something that will
limit the growth of the guided sport industry. That means some
type of limited entry or restrictions on guide licenses.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER said SB 24 doesn't address salmon chartering,
but the federal government has pretty well already limited
halibut charters.
MR. WESTLAND added that the state is creating two types of guide
services.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER said he didn't disagree and that they still
need to pursue something like that, because the Kenai and the
Kasilof Rivers are getting to be pretty crowded.
5:00:14 PM
LARRY MCQUARRIE, Sportsman's Cove Lodge, Ketchikan, Alaska, said
he employees about 32 people in-season and contributes about $2
million to the Ketchikan economy each year. He said he has been
very active in fisheries politics, mostly on halibut issues. He
said he earns all of his living fishing both commercially and
sport fishing. He said has serious issues with SB 24 although in
general he supports the original concept. Originally he thought
it was leading to the process of limited entry and this bill
doesn't do that. It doesn't limit vessels or guides, which is
what has to happen. Basically you pay a fee and take the exam
enough times to pass it.
The composition of the board concerned him also. One of the
other stated intents of the bill was to provide a unified sport
fishing voice that could speak for the industry, but the nine
members of the board are very diverse and it even includes two
people who are not members of the industry. They have tried in
the past to build a state-wide organization to encompass all the
various sport fish entities throughout the state - like the
Alaska Sport Fish Council that collapsed because they couldn't
coalesce over a unified position.
5:04:04 PM
KEN LARSON, North Pole, Alaska, said he still opposed the
present form of SB 24 even though it had come a long way through
the process. He disagreed with it because it creates another
different bureaucracy that has to be funded and fed - and they
have a bad habit of growing. It's a duplication of requirements
in most cases. He objects to "one size fits all." He noted that
he had been a small lodge and charter operator out of Valdez
since 1984.
5:05:16 PM
MELVIN GROVE, President, Prince William Sound Charter Boat
Association, Big Lake, Alaska, said he opposed SB 24. He said he
is a board member of the Alaska Outdoor Council, president of
the Alaska Outdoor Access Alliance and vice chair of the MatSu
Valley Fish and Game Advisory Committee. When the original guide
license fee was scheduled to sunset, his complaint was why
individual operators should pay the tax to cover the logbook
program when the state accepted this responsibility from the
federal government. It's ironic that the state legislative legal
staff is recommending the state use general funds to pay for the
electronic logbook program now.
He said SB 24 doesn't solve any problems and that "it's being
pushed by friends who fish with friends on the Kenai River."
And while he sympathizes with the overcrowding issue, adding a
bureaucracy doesn't solve that problem. He suggested requesting
the governor to designate one more sport and one more
subsistence user to the North Pacific Fisheries Council as put
forth in HCR 13.
5:08:42 PM
HEATH HILYARD, Kulik Lodge, thanked Senator McGuire and her
staff in crafting the CS and said he supported SB 24. A number
of changes made it more palatable to even some opponents. He
added on behalf of the Southeast Alaska Guides Organization,
that they are committed to continuing the discussion with other
people throughout the industry and facilitating those talks with
Senator McGuire's office. He said the development of the
electronic logbook through general funds was a very positive
move forward.
5:10:13 PM
PETE RAYNOR, Manager, Kulik Lodge, Anchorage, Alaska, thanked
Senator McGuire, her staff and the committee for making the many
changes in SB 24, but he said he still didn't like it. It
doesn't accomplish anything good for the industry. Local issues
can be dealt with in their area; one size fits all "doesn't
fit." He said Bristol Bay is a highly competitive place, but he
doesn't fear his competition; he fears the government.
SONNY PETERSEN, President, Katmai Service Providers, an
organization of both operators that do bear viewing, sport
fishing and others that operate in Katmai National Park, said he
operates Katmai Land Inc., Katmai Air, Kulik Lodge, Brooks Lodge
and Grosvenor Lodge in Katmai National Park. He said he
appreciates that their testimony was listened to, because as
written the bill would have put them out of business. But he
still can't support it. It places an undue burden on lodge
owners and besides there is no problem with the resources that
this bill solves. No one is suggesting reducing bag limits or
continuing the logbook program. It's about limiting commerce.
5:15:11 PM
JIM ALBERT, Manager, Brooks Lodge, said he opposed SB 24 even
though there has been substantial changes to it. He said it is
still overly burdensome and he didn't see the need to create
another government agency to regulate their industry that is
already heavily regulated.
BUD HODSON, owner, Tikchik Narrows Lodge (Bristol Bay),
Anchorage, Alaska, said he had been in the sport fishing
business over 30 years and served four years on the Board of
Fisheries. He chaired the guide charter task force that
developed the language that is law now. He said it's unfortunate
how they got to this point, because when the task force came up
with a guide board, they wanted it to limit entry, halve areas,
have tests for different areas and to limit how many areas a
guide could be in, pretty much like the Big Game Commercial
Services Board. This bill doesn't limit entry, halve areas, test
assistant guides or test people for different areas of the state
- there is one generic test - so he questioned whether a nine-
member guide board was even needed.
5:17:37 PM
CHACO PEARMAN, representing himself, Kodiak, Alaska, said he was
a member of the original task force that helped come up with
this board and he thanked Senator McGuire for all her work. Last
time that he testified he questioned what the fees would be and
he still had concerns about funding for the purpose of this
board. He thought the outfitter test needed to be put back in as
well as the ability for the board to limit use in specific areas
and have specific tests for specific areas. Otherwise he is not
sure what the purpose of the testing is. To be able to retest
immediately doesn't seem to validate someone's qualifications;
it's a little too easy. He said he did support SB 24, however,
but he wanted the board to be able to limit participation in
specific areas and without that he didn't know if his community
could continue supporting it.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER closed public comment and held SB 24.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB013 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SRES 3/21/2011 3:30:00 PM SRES 1/23/2012 3:30:00 PM |
SB 13 |
| SB013 Support Documents-State Parks ADA Facilities.pdf |
SRES 3/21/2011 3:30:00 PM SRES 1/23/2012 3:30:00 PM |
SB 13 |
| SB013 Support Documents-Related Statutes.pdf |
SRES 3/21/2011 3:30:00 PM SRES 1/23/2012 3:30:00 PM |
SB 13 |
| SB013 Support Documents-State Park Fees.pdf |
SRES 3/21/2011 3:30:00 PM SRES 1/23/2012 3:30:00 PM |
SB 13 |
| SB013 ver A.pdf |
SRES 3/21/2011 3:30:00 PM SRES 1/23/2012 3:30:00 PM |
SB 13 |
| SB013 Hearing Request.pdf |
SRES 3/21/2011 3:30:00 PM SRES 1/23/2012 3:30:00 PM |
SB 13 |
| SB013 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SRES 3/21/2011 3:30:00 PM SRES 1/23/2012 3:30:00 PM |
SB 13 |
| SB13_Fiscal Note_DNR-PM-3-18-11.pdf |
SRES 3/21/2011 3:30:00 PM SRES 1/23/2012 3:30:00 PM |
SB 13 |
| SB 13 Amendment A1 1-19-12.pdf |
SRES 1/23/2012 3:30:00 PM |
SB 13 |
| SB 13 Minutes March 21, 2011.pdf |
SRES 1/23/2012 3:30:00 PM |
SB 13 |
| SB 24 Overview 1-20-12.pdf |
SRES 1/23/2012 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| DRAFT CS SB 24 version I.pdf |
SRES 1/23/2012 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| Changes to SB 24 in DRAFT CS SB 24 Version I.pdf |
SRES 1/23/2012 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |