Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/03/1997 05:05 PM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 3, 1997
5:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Chairman
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Gene Kubina
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mark Hodgins
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HOUSE BILL NO. 25
"An Act relating to the issuance of hunting, trapping, and
noncommercial fishing licenses, tags, and permits and to residency
for fish and game purposes; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 25 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PRESENTATION: GUIDE CHARTER TASK FORCE PROPOSALS
*HOUSE BILL NO. 19
"An Act relating to licensing of sport fishing services operators
and fishing guides; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 25
SHORT TITLE: FISH & GAME: LICENSES & RESIDENCY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) OGAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/97 34 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 34 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 34 (H) FSH, RESOURCES, FINANCE
02/03/97 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 19
SHORT TITLE: SPORT FISHING GUIDES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) AUSTERMAN,Ivan
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/97 32 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 32 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 32 (H) FSH, RESOURCES, FINANCE
02/03/97 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JOEL HARD, Lieutenant Commander
Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection
Department of Public Safety
5700 East Tudor Road, Anchorage 99507
Telephone: (907) 269-5671
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 25
STEVE HOFFMAN
P.O. Box 7064
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-2859
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 25
DONALD WESTLUND
P.O. Box 7883
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-9319
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 25 and
testified on HB 19
BUD HODSON, Chair
Guide Charter Task Force
P.O. Box 220248
Anchorage, Alaska 99522
Telephone: (907) 243-8450
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 19
STEVEN DAUGHERTY, Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 19
KEVIN DELANEY, Director
Division of Sport Fish
Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
Telephone: (907) 267-2218
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 19
DAN TUCKER
4330 Wickersham Way
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
Telephone: (907) 376-2630
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 19
BRUCE KNOWLES, member
Guide Charter Task Force
P.O. Box 873206
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 745-4965
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 19
JOHN WITTEVEEN
P.O. Box 2239
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-3953
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 19
MEL ERICKSON, Vice-President
Kenai River Guides Association
P.O. Box 1127
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-2980
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 19
BOB SCHELL, representative
Seafood Producers Cooperative
P.O. Box 1367
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-8541
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 19
THERESA WEISER, member
Guide Charter Task Force
P.O. Box 2300
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-8883
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor HB 19
ALLEN LEMASTER, guide
P.O. Box 222
Gakona, Alaska 99586
Telephone: (907) 822-3664
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 19
LYNN WHITMORE, member
Guide Charter Task Force
P.O. Box 355
Anchor Point, Alaska 99556
Telephone: (907) 235-7220
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 19
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-1, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN ALAN AUSTERMAN called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Austerman, Ivan and Ogan.
Representative Kubina arrived at 5:10 p.m. Representative Hodgins
was absent.
HB 25 - FISH & GAME: LICENSES & RESIDENCY
Number 075
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that first on the committee's agenda is
HB 25, "An Act relating to the issuance of hunting, trapping, and
noncommercial fishing licenses, tags, and permits and to residency
for fish and game purposes; and providing for an effective date."
Chairman Austerman asked Representative Ogan to provide the
committee with his sponsor testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN stated that HB 25, is a duplicate of a
bill that passed the legislature last year but died when returning
to the House for concurrence. Representative Ogan stated that the
purpose of HB 25 is to streamline and clean up the loopholes
present in Title 16's residency description, specifically
pertaining to hunting and fishing licenses. Representative Ogan
stated that in HB 25, in order to make it easier to define and
prosecute Title 16 residency cases, the definition of residency, as
a permanent place of abode has been changed to domicile, as defined
in Blacks Law Dictionary.
Number 235
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that Section 1 of HB 25, clearly defines
the existing Title 16 language to read "a hunting, trapping or non-
commercial fishing license tag or permit may used only to a natural
person."
Number 279
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that Section 2, of HB 25, expresses how
residency is determined for hunting, fishing or non-commercial
fishing licenses. Section 2, does not change the existing military
language rather it clarifies that the coast guard is a part of the
military.
Number 368
JOEL HARD, Lieutenant Commander, Division of Fish and Wildlife
Protection, Department of Public Safety, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage, that he was available to answer any
questions the committee might have on HB 25.
Number 408
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if Lieutenant Hard has any experiences in
prosecuting residency cases and to explain what difficulties he has
encountered in the existing statute.
Number 496
LIEUTENANT HARD replied that his experiences have shown that
changing the wording from abode to domicile will alleviate the past
problems. He stated domicile will bring uniformity, as it is the
used in defining residency in other statutes as well as it will
provide less ambiguity.
Number 476
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN further asked Lieutenant Hard if his trouble in
prosecuting residency cases was due to the ambiguous language in
the existing statutes.
LIEUTENANT HARD answered, "Correct."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if Lieutenant Hard felt the language in
HB 25 will adequately clarify the existing language.
Number 496
LIEUTENANT HARD stated he believed the new language would clarify
the existing language. However, he suggested he would tightened up
the language on page 2, line 15 and line 20, from "preceding 12
consecutive months" to "the 12 consecutive months immediately
preceding the application for residency." He stated that would
make their applications to the Department of Law easier.
Number 624
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if he would fax a copy to the House
Resources Standing Committee.
Number 653
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN confirmed that the committee is planning to move
HB 25 out of committee tonight and that the House Resources
Standing Committee will take HB 25 up next.
STEVE HOFFMAN, testified via teleconference from Ketchikan, that
"the majority of us here support HB 25."
Number 843
DONALD WESTLUND, testified via teleconference from Ketchikan, in
support of HB 25.
Number 871
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that HB 25 was the result of extensive
work between the Department of Fish and Game, the Department of
Law, the Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection, Legislative
Legal and himself. He stated that he hopes the committee will pass
HB 25 out of committee.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked for a motion to move HB 25 out of
committee.
Number 915
REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA made a motion to move HB 25.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated there being no objection, HB 25 moved out
of the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
HB 19 - SPORT FISHING GUIDES
Number 998
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated HB 19, "An Act relating to licensing of
sport fishing services operators and fishing guides; and providing
for an effective date." He stated HB 19 is similar to HB 175, a
bill he introduced two years ago and tried to get passed. Chairman
Austerman asked Bud Hodson, Chair, Guide Charter Task Force, to
give the committee a background on the Guide Charter Task Force.
Number 1018
BUD HODSON, Chair, Guide Charter Task Force, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. He stated the Guide Charter Task
Force was formed, as a result of the Alaska Board of Fisheries
receiving many different proposals pertaining to sport fish guiding
industry. The Guide Charter Task Force's purpose is to take up the
various guiding issues and look at what should go into statute and
state regulation. The Guide Charter Task Force, made up of ten
members across the state, held a series of conferences, hearings
and teleconferences, that resulted in a recommendation to license
the sport fishing guides and charter vessel operators. This
recommendation was introduced as HB 175 and now HB 19. He stated
the Guide Charter Task Force supports HB 19.
Number 1154
MR. HODSON stated that the Guide Charter Task Force has a few
recommendations for HB 19. The Guide Charter Task Force agrees
that the reporting requirements are acceptable, however, they have
concerns that HB 19 would require a log book form of keeping track
of the fish retained. The log book system would take a lot of time
and effort, on the part of the Department of Fish and Game, to
administer. Mr. Hobson stated the concern is if it went into state
statute it would be a long term requirement and would take a state
statute to reverse it. The Guide Charter Task Force recommended a
three year sunset clause for that component of HB 19. Mr. Hodson
stated this way the task force can either have the reporting
requirements expanded, amended or eliminated. Mr. Hodson stated
the Board of Fisheries goes through the state every three years and
would have the opportunity to look at the data after three years
and decide how to improve the data or whether it was even being
utilized. He stated if the decision was non-utility, by the Board
of Fisheries, then there would be no reason for the Department to
continue with a costly and time consuming program.
Number 1241
MR. HODSON stated that Guide Charter Task Force believes the
experience requirement, of holding a sport fish license of three
out of the last five years, should apply to the operators and not
the guides. He felt this would reflect that the fishing guides are
the employees of the operators. Mr. Hodson stated that the Guide
Charter Task Force's recommendation is to shift the requirement off
of the guides and on to the operators.
Number 1311
MR. HODSON stated that currently the charter guides have to have a
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) vessel license that is
purchased from the CFEC. The Guide Charter Task Force felt this
could be better administered under the Department of Fish and
Game's, Sport Fish Division. He stated that the Guide Charter Task
force felt the Department of Fish and Game would be able to extract
information on what kinds of vessels are being used, because the
department's vessel registration, that is part of the guide
registration, is much more in-depth than what the CFEC asks for.
Mr. Hodson also stated that the Guide Charter Task Force believes
the fees generated from the licenses should be used by the Sport
Fish Division to collate the cell link data on the vessels. Mr.
Hodson stated that the Guide Charter Task Force would like this to
either added HB 19 or be incorporated in another bill.
Number 1413
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated he was glad that the Guide Charter Task
Force felt it was time to get some laws and legislation on the
books about registering the sport fish industry. He stated that
the recommendations from the Guide Charter Task Force have not been
amended into HB 19, the committee's purpose today was hear
testimony and recommendations on HB 19. Chairman Austerman stated
that he has a few amendments that can be discussed in a future
meeting after everyone has a chance to read and testify on them.
He further stated the two amendments and the recommendations from
the Guide Charter Task Force will be incorporated into a committee
substitute for the next meeting.
Number 1507
STEVEN DAUGHERTY, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Department of Law, testified that the department wanted to
notify the committee of a couple of legal issues in HB 19. He
referred to page 2 regarding the fishing guide license, sport
fishing operator and sport fishing guide license, which issues a
3 to 1 fee differential to the nonresident fee over the resident
fee. He stated the Department of Law is engaged in litigation with
the commercial fisheries due to a 3 to 1 fee differential. Mr.
Daugherty stated there is $25 million at stake in fees that may
have to be refunded to commercial fisherman. He testified that the
same legal test that has been applied in the commercial fish fee
case would be applicable to sport fish guides because sport fish
guiding is an occupation that would fall under the privileges and
immunity clause. Mr. Daugherty stated, "There has to be a
substantial reason advancing the legitimate state policy and the
means employed by the statutory scheme must be closely tailored and
have a substantial relationship to a legitimate interest served by
the statute. The test is whether all fees and taxes, which must be
paid to the state, by a nonresident to enjoy the state provided
benefit or substantially equal to those which must be paid by
similarly situated residents, when the residents prorata shares of
the state revenues to which the nonresidents make no contribution,
are taken are taken into account." He stated the supreme court had
ruled, the prorata share is calculated by the actual participants
in the fishery. In other words, one can not look at the total
contribution by all residents of the state of Alaska. One looks at
the per capita contribution made by each participant in the
fishery. Mr. Daugherty stated this substantially reduces the
contribution amount that would be made by the state of Alaska and
reduces the fee differential that one could charge, if any,
depending on how the fishery is funded and what the expenses are of
operating that fishery. The courts require there be more than an
assertion, one has to lay out what the facts are and where the fee
is. Mr. Daugherty stated that for the above mentioned court case
they have to go through the very costly process of breaking down
the budgets of the Department of Fish and Game to figure where the
money went and who paid it. Therefore, the fee differential is
problematic as to whether or not it would be constitutional and it
would be difficult to break down the figures in order to justify
it. Mr. Daugherty stated that substantial fees are being collected
from the nonresident fisherman, which do not implicate the
privileges and immunities clause because it is not a occupation, it
is a sport. Therefore, the differential can be charged to fishing
licenses themselves. Mr. Daugherty stated, "When you go into
somebody's occupational license and charge a higher fee then you
charge for a resident's it is a questionable issue as to whether or
not the court will uphold it."
Number 1691
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if Mr. Daugherty had a recommendation.
Number 1693
MR. DAUGHERTY responded that the Department of Law would recommend
that the same fee be charged for both licenses unless there is
evidence that can be presented as to why there is a higher expense
for licensing the nonresidents than residents. He further stated
the other option would be to give regulatory authority to the
Department of Fish and Game, to adopt a surcharge on nonresidents
to the maximum extend permissible by law. He stated the Department
of Fish and Game would have to develop the information in order to
justify a fee and then impose it. However, Mr. Daugherty did not
feel this information has been developed.
Number 1752
MR. DAUGHERTY stated that page 4, paragraph 4, authorizes only a
person who has held an Alaskan sport fishing license to be a guide.
He stated that there are people who are involved in commercial or
subsistence fishing, who may not have sport fishing licenses but
may have similar experience. Mr. Daugherty believes if these types
of fisherman are not going to be included in the division then
there needs to be a development of legislative history as to why
they are different from the sport fisherman and therefore are not
included.
Number 1792
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that there is a difference between the
activities of a sport fisherman and a commercial fisherman. He
stated that a sport fisherman has a certain level of skill involved
in guiding a customer to the fishing holes and in handling the
light tackle, versus commercial fisherman who fish with nets.
Representative Ogan believed that is why a precedent for people to
be sport fisherman before they guide sport fisherman, be set.
Number 1823
REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA asked if his understanding was correct
that there are subsistence permits that are obtained in a similar
manner as the sport fishing permits.
MR. DAUGHERTY stated that to be correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA stated that he would agree that there is a
distinction between commercial and sport fisherman. Although, he
stated, that most commercial fisherman would have a sport license
but it may not be so for subsistence. He further stated that he
thought the court decision was in favor of the state, in charging
a higher fee for the nonresident license.
Number 1873
MR. DAUGHERTY stated that there were two recent decisions in the
case, one by the Alaska supreme court and one by the U.S. Supreme
Court. The U.S. Supreme Court denied "cert." (certification) on
the commerce clause issue. The Alaska Supreme Court found that the
commerce clause was not applicable and the question should be
addressed under the privileges and immunities clause. The case has
been remanded to the Alaska superior court, regarding the
privileges and immunities clause question and is still active.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked Mr. Daugherty whether we won or lost in
the decision, if they denied "cert." does that mean that the U.S.
Supreme Court did not believe the nonresident fee was too high.
Number 1920
MR. DAUGHERTY responded that it was not resolved. He stated we did
win the motion to deny "cert.". However, that does not mean that
the case was won, it was one small issue in the entire appeal. The
U.S. Supreme Court found the fee differential to be
unconstitutional under the commerce clause of the United States
Constitution. He stated there is a separate allegation that it is
unconstitutional under the privileges and immunities clause which
was not ripe for consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court because it
has not been decided by the state court. He stated the litigation
has been continuing for over 12 years and will probably go a couple
of more years before a final resolution is made.
Number 1969
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA stated that it would interesting to know how
much money was spent fighting the court case versus how much is
gained by the extra licensing fees.
Number 1978
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the fees involved in the lawsuit were
all hunting and fishing license fees.
Number 1994
MR. DAUGHERTY responded the case just involves commercial fishing
fee issues, commercial crew member and permit holder issues, not
any sport issues. He stated the Department of Law can defend sport
fee differentials, for the actual participants in the fishery,
because participating is not an occupation. Mr. Daugherty stated
it is when you impair a person's ability to participate in an
occupation, such as commercial fishing or guiding, that the
privileges and immunities clause is pertinent and that is when the
department would recommend not imposing a fee differential.
Number 2030
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Daugherty if there was any ratio that
the Department of Law would be comfortable with, other than the
same fee for both resident and nonresident licenses.
Number 2045
MR. DAUGHERTY replied that the Department of Law is not comfortable
with any differential without an explanation of where the budgetary
differences are derived from and why the fee differential is being
imposed. He further stated that it is extremely costly to do the
budgetary break downs to figure out where the money is going and
who the contributors are. The Department of Law would rather not
have to expend the money involved in a budgetary break down
regarding this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that he believed the issue is not where
the budgetary problems come from but where the people come from,
whether they are in state or out of state. He believed the
residents of Alaska should receive a better opportunity. He
inquired if the reimbursement of the fees is the worse case
scenario if a case was lost.
Number 2100
MR. DAUGHERTY replied the worst case scenario would be having to
pay the money back as well as the cost of the actual court case.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if this would be included with the
existing case or would it be a separate case.
Number 2116
MR. DAUGHERTY stated it would be a separate case and the lower the
fee differential, the more likely justification could be found in
the budget. The Department of Law would be looking for proof of
higher costs as a result of nonresidence status.
Number 2154
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN stated that he would like to sit in
appointment with Mr. Daugherty to review the commercial fishery
litigation and how it affects HB 19.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated he would like Mr. Daugherty to get
together with the staff to outline what he would recommend in
amendment form to HB 19.
Number 2222
KEVIN DELANEY, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Department of Fish
and Game, stated that the Department of Fish and Game supports
adoption of a guide licensing statute and has worked with Chairman
Austerman, the Guide Charter Task Force, and the sport fishing
community on the concept of HB 19. He felt that visitors and
Alaskan residents gain access to the recreational fishing
opportunities only through the services of a sport fishing guide.
He stated that sport fish guiding activities have increased across
all regions of the state, creating concern of specific fisheries
resources, existing historical uses of these resources, and the
quality of the recreational fishing opportunities that are
available. Mr. Delaney stated that the debate on what choices
should be made regarding regulation is taking place in the
Legislature, the Alaska Board of Fisheries, the Executive Branch,
the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, the State Federal
Advisory Committees and in the State and Federal Land Management
Planning. He stated that all of these forums are missing good
information on what is a guide and what are guiding activities in
order to make valid assessments to base well reasoned decisions.
Mr. Delaney stated that HB 19 achieves this by providing
definitions that would become statute, if adopted. He believed HB
19, acknowledges the sport fishing industry as a profession which
utilizes Alaska's fishery resources as well as provides a database
that well reasoned decisions can be made from in the future.
Number 2377
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if sport fish guiding could be classified
as a commercial use or a commercial fishery because a person is
making a living taking people fishing.
Number 2398
MR. DELANEY responded that sport fish guiding is not commercial
fishing but it is certainly a commercial service, provided to sport
fish license holders. The industry does rely on the state's
fisheries resources for its ability to be profitable and to conduct
a business. Mr. Delaney stated that HB 19 recognizes this through
the two tier licensing requirement of a services operator license
and a guide license. He stated that the result of commercial
fishing is a product that being fish, the result of sport fishing
is opportunity. He stated that business' either organize
themselves around the raw material or around the output. Mr.
Delaney felt it was best to organize around the output.
Tape 97-1, SIDE B
Number 009
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that in the committee files there is a
December 16th letter, that Larry Engel, chairman of the Alaska
Board of Fisheries sent to Senator Miller and Representative
Phillips outlining issues that the Board of Fisheries deals with.
He stated that the Board of Fisheries is also frustrated with
dealing with a new industry without any regulations.
Number 039
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA stated that he attended the Board of
Fisheries meeting in Cordova and that the Board of Fisheries would
like the power to deal with this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if there was anything in HB 19 that could
be streamlined to make the bill as unobtrusive as possible but
still get the data needed.
Number 133
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that has been the objective in working
with the Charter Guide Task Force. He indicated that he has heard
of operators being required to have anywhere from 5 to 12 different
licenses or permits to conduct sport fish guiding services. It is
the committee objective to either consolidate the licenses or at
least provide one stop shopping.
Number 160
MR. DELANEY stated that the Department of Fish and Game together
with the Department of Commerce and Economic Development are in the
process of reviewing if streamlining is possible. The goal is to
not have to create anymore paperwork than necessary. He stated
that the Charter Guide Task Force believes moving the licensing to
the Department of Fish and Game, from the CFEC would facilitate the
process, because it is easier to go to a sport fishing store than
to have to send into the state to get a license.
Number 259
DAN TUCKER, testified via teleconference from Matsu, that he was a
previous member of the Guide Charter Task Force. He stated that HB
19 is a reasonable representation of what the Guide Charter Task
Force was trying to achieve. He stated that on page 6, lines 12
through 16, the way the word field is defined may restrict or
prohibit road side accessible streams from being guided. Mr.
Tucker suggested that field be defined as "in the vicinity of any
water where the act of sport fishing may occur and during which
time sport fishing occurs." This would outline that the act of
sport fishing and field would be tied together. He stated without
proper enforcement HB 19 will not serve its purpose. Mr. Tucker
stated that the Kenai River is an example of a lack of enforcement.
He stated that seasonal limits for residents, personal use and
nonresidents, would address the problem with nonresidents
harvesting unlimited numbers of fish under the daily limit. He
stated that he had a problem being referred to as a commercial
fisherman. He felt that he does not sell fish, which is the
product of commercial fishing, rather he sells an opportunity to
catch fish. He stated that people who buy a sport fishing license
have the right to attempt to catch their limit of fish regardless
of being guided.
Number 454
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that the proposed amendments would give
authority to the Board of Fisheries to give season limits for
nonresidents.
Number 473
BRUCE KNOWLES, member, Guide Charter Task Force, testified via
teleconference from Matsu. He stated he is the President of the
Guides Association and suggested a reciprocatory fee basis be
applied to nonresidents. Mr. Knowles stated that some states have
a reciprocatory fee that nonresident charter operators would pay
above what a resident pays. He stated that there needs to be
enforcement personnel out on the fishing grounds enforcing the
laws.
Number 528
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that the committee will look into other
state laws regarding the reciprocatory fees. He also stated the
lack of enforcement issue is somewhat due to budget cuts and would
be addressed in the subcommittee on finance and in Department of
Public Safety.
Number 580
JOHN WITTEVEEN, testified via teleconference from Kodiak, in
support of HB 19. He stated that the cover letter states that
there is not a uniform licensing procedure for sport fish guides in
Alaska, but for the past two years he has received license
requirements for commercial sport fish guiding. He inquired what
is happening to this data that has been gathered for two years. He
stated he would not support HB 19 if it imposed the same fee for
residents versus non residents. He inquired how the log book data
would be collected. He further stated that the coast guard license
requirement for sport fishing guides as stated in HB 19 would not
be requirement. He stated that he has a helper that he sends on
the river with clients who has a sport fish guide's license but is
not required to have a coast guard license. He inquired as to what
is happening to the information the Department of Fish and Game has
been gathering for the last two years.
Number 698
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that HB 19, in regards to log books, has
required in season collection of data and reporting but leaves it
up to the Department of Fish and Game to decide how it is done.
Number 708
MR. DELANEY stated that the Department of Fish and Game would like
to work with the guiding industry to design a log book that the
guides would keep in possession to record the catches and
activities throughout the season. The Department of Fish and Game
will work out with each individual fishery a schedule for
collecting the information. Mr. Delaney stated the problem with
the existing registration procedure is it does not give an accurate
number of sport fishing guides because some people sign up in fear
limited entry but are not actually in operation, log books would
result in a more accurate number.
Number 849
MR. WITTEVEEN asked if Mr. Delaney would envision a transporter's
license, where individuals would have to supply documentation on a
daily basis.
Number 893
MR. DELANEY replied that HB 19 seeks to look at the harvest and
effort in the guided sport fisheries across the state. Mr. Delaney
stated he did not foresee it to be an onerous accounting process.
Number 893
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that the Guide Charter Task Force has
suggested a three-year moratorium on HB 19 so that if something is
proven not to work it can be remedied. Chairman Austerman
indicated he would be willing to put the sunset clause in HB 19.
Number 927
MEL ERICKSON, Vice-President, Kenai River Guides Association,
testified via teleconference from Kenai. He stated the association
had about 300 members and has unanimous support for HB 19. He
stated the members strongly support the experience requirement,
that guides are required to have a sport fish license for three out
of the last five years and support the fee differential between the
resident and nonresident sport fishing guides. He further stated
that passage of HB 19 would give the industry accountability. He
stated the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) license
would be eliminated if HB 19 was to pass because they would be able
to use the Department of Fish and Game registration list as a
reference for the number of sport guides.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that was the driving force behind HB 19
because of the possible future IPHC ramifications that could result
as far as federal government constraints.
Number 1029
THERESA WEISER, member, Guide Charter Task Force, testified via
teleconference from Sitka. She stated that the experience
requirement should not only be required for the charter operators
but for the sport guides as well. She asked if the three-year
moratorium would be required for HB 19 in its entirety or just for
the log book requirement.
Number 1097
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN, stated that the three-year sunset clause would
just be applicable to the log book requirement. He asked if that
was Mr. Hodson's recollection.
Number 1113
MR. HODSON agreed that the sunset clause was just on the log book
requirement.
Number 1130
MS. WEISER stated she is in favor of HB 19 although there are
concerns about duplication of data collection.
Number 1150
BOB SCHELL, representative, Seafood Producers Cooperative,
testified via teleconference from Sitka. He stated that the
cooperative is a commercial fishing group that has about 375
members, mostly involved with the salmon and halibut fisheries.
The cooperative has been concerned with the lack of sport fishing
reporting requirements. He further stated that enforcement is
needed.
Number 1268
ALLEN LEMASTER, guide, testified via teleconference from Gakona,
He stated he guides on the Gakona and Chena river. He stated that
there are nonresident guides that come to Alaska for the purpose of
making money and have no respect for the resources, for that reason
the local guides would like HB 19 to be more lenient towards
residents. He suggested that because guides are required to have
a number of different permits on the vessel, it would be easier if
these permits would just have to be shown in order to receive the
license, so that once the license is issued, that would be all that
is required to be carried on the vessel. Mr. Lemaster felt the
issue of transporters should be addressed by the law. He stated
that transporters pick people up and drop them off at the fishing
holes. In the five hours it takes a guide to complete a charter,
a transporter can drop off as many as 18 people. A transporter can
have the same impact as a guide but is not under the law. He
inquired if the issue of the six-pack license would only apply to
operators of motorized boats and not to operators of rafts or drift
boats.
Number 1564
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated he believed the coast guard requirements
limited the six-pack license to motorized vessels and that he would
take Mr. Lemaster's comments into consideration.
Number 1650
LYNN WHITMORE, member, Guide Charter Task Force, testified via
teleconference from Homer. He stated he is the only member who is
not a guide and he is also the Chairman of the Homer Fish and Game
Advisory Committee. He stated the difference in the license cost
would not stop nonresidents from coming to Alaska to guide,
therefore it would not be worth the legal hassle. He further
stated that enforcement is a big issue and it needs to be
addressed.
Number 1829
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated the fisheries are Alaska's biggest
renewable resource dollar-wise and he agreed enforcement is needed.
Number 1915
DONALD WESTLUND, testified via teleconference from Ketchikan. He
suggested that the HB 19 should be a guide orientated bill and not
a service orientated bill, and that the two should be kept
separate. He also felt the difference between salt and fresh water
should be distinguished in the bill. He stated that there is a
Southeast reporting requirement in existence.
Number 2084
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that the objective is to get the
reporting requirements to be statewide, to get an accurate picture
of the sport fish guide industry throughout Alaska.
Number 2163
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the fees in Title 16 are going to be
paid to the Department of Fish and Game and if the department was
going to administer the licenses.
Number 2185
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN replied, "That is the intention at this time."
Number 2189
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that all other professional licensing is
through Title 8.
Number 2206
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated that it was the intent that the
Department of Fish and Game receive the funds because they are
going to be doing most of the work in the licensing process.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated the bill will be rescheduled for hearing
in about two weeks.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2251
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|