02/12/2001 06:03 PM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 12, 2001
6:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Co-Chair
Representative Drew Scalzi
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative John Coghill
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Gary Stevens, Co-Chair
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Beth Kerttula
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 10
Relating to the management of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands
and Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries and the protection and
restoration of the Steller sea lion.
- MOVED CSHJR 10(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 63
"An Act relating to electronic application for and issuance of
licenses, permits, and tags issued by the Department of Fish and
Game; relating to violations regarding a license, permit, or tag
applied for or issued electronically; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HB 63 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 10
SHORT TITLE:GROUNDFISH FISHERIES AND STELLER SEA LION
SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/31/01 0210 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/31/01 0210 (H) FSH, RES
02/12/01 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 63
SHORT TITLE:ELECTRONIC FISH & GAME LICENSURE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/16/01 0096 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/16/01 0096 (H) FSH, RES, FIN
01/16/01 0096 (H) FN 1: ZERO(DFG)
01/16/01 0096 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/12/01 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
STEPHANIE MADSEN
Pacific Seafood Processors
213 Third Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Pacific Seafood
Processors in support of HJR 10.
KEVIN BROOKS, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska
99811-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 63 and
answered questions from committee members.
CAPTAIN HOWARD STARBARD, Commander
B Detachment
Division of Fish & Wildlife Protection
Department of Public Safety
453 South Valley Way
Palmer, Alaska 99645-6494
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the Department of
Public Safety in support of HB 63.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-8, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR PEGGY WILSON reconvened the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting at 6:03 p.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives Wilson, Scalzi, Dyson and Coghill.
[The minutes for the Update on the recent Board of Fisheries
meeting are found in the 5:07 p.m. cover sheet for the same
date.]
HJR 10-GROUNDFISH FISHERIES AND STELLER SEA LION
CO-CHAIR WILSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 10, "Relating to the management of
the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska groundfish
fisheries and the protection and restoration of the Steller sea
lion."
Number 0084
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI, sponsor of HJR 10, made a motion to adopt
the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HJR 10, version 22-
LS0339\O, Utermohle, 2/12/01, as a work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI reviewed the "very minimal" changes
encompassed [in Version O]. On page 2, line 2, of Version O,
"National Marine Fisheries Service" language has been replaced
by the following language: "United States District Court order".
On page 2, line 12,the language "Restrictions in the salmon and
herring fisheries" was added to this section, which read:
WHEREAS the November 30, 2000, biological opinion
for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska
groundfish fisheries that was prepared by the National
Marine Fisheries Service had the effect of closing the
majority of the groundfish fishery and suggested
similar restrictions in the salmon and herring
fisheries; and
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI explained that this language was added due
to concerns from "industry folks" that salmon and herring were
mentioned in the biological opinion, which raises a "red flag."
He expressed the need to be conscious that the National Marine
Fisheries Service and the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council may find that evidence is needed to restrict those two
fisheries. Certainly, "we" want to make everyone aware of the
seriousness of this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI directed the committee's attention to page
3, lines 8-15, of Version O, which was rewritten to strengthen
the language to direct agencies to develop sound management
programs, and to develop measures for minimal impacts on
industry. This is the intent of this resolution. House Joint
Resolution 10 is not an "attack resolution"; it is not out to
"slam" the National Marine Fisheries Service, the biological
opinion, or the departments involved with coming up with the
reasoning for why the measures were taking place.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI explained that HJR 10 addresses two items:
Essentially, we want to say that we are in favor of
the restoration of the sea lions but at the same time
we want to use scientific management, good biological
evidence, and any of these measures that the National
Marine Fisheries Service and North Pacific Fisheries
Management Council deem necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI mentioned that some of the evidence is
present in the sponsor statement. He then said Dr. Trites's
presentation to the House Special Committee on Fisheries a few
weeks ago "overwhelmingly showed that evidence that is now
curtailing the fishery certainly is lacking a good scientific
data."
Number 0379
STEPHANIE MADSEN, Pacific Seafood Processors, stated that
Pacific Seafood Processors supports HJR 10 and thanks the
sponsor and committee members for supporting the resolution.
She showed the committee a cartoon from a recent issue of the
Alaska Journal of Commerce. The cartoon talks about Steller sea
lion management applied to endangered bears. On the cartoon,
there is a sign that says, "Due to declining bear populations,
no berry picking." From a fishing perspective, that is how "we"
[Pacific Seafood Processors] feel, that "we" are "being broad-
brushed." Although there are not many theories that have been
reviewed and analyzed, there is one theory "out there" that
points the finger at "us." To conclude, "we appreciate the
support and looking at the additional information and really the
desire to base it on valid scientific information."
Number 0496
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON made a motion to move CSHJR 10, version 22-
LS0339\O, Utermohle, 2/12/01, from committee with individual
recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note. There being
no objection, CSHJR 10(FSH) moved from the House Special
Committee on Fisheries.
HB 63-ELECTRONIC FISH & GAME LICENSURE
CO-CHAIR WILSON announced the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 63, "An Act relating to electronic application for and
issuance of licenses, permits, and tags issued by the Department
of Fish and Game; relating to violations regarding a license,
permit, or tag applied for or issued electronically; and
providing for an effective date."
CO-CHAIR WILSON stated that Governor Tony Knowles requested
House Bill 63.
Number 0551
KEVIN BROOKS, Director, Division of Administration Services,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), said that HB 63 deals
with electronic licensing for fish and game. This same bill
passed the House last year as HB 164. However, it ran out of
time on the Senate side.
MR. BROOKS said he wanted to inform the committee of what ADF&G
is doing about licensing and what the department would hope to
accomplish with HB 63.
MR. BROOKS remarked that there has been an ongoing effort by
ADF&G to try to enhance customer service in the licensing
program. The Internet application process began at the end of
1999. This was an attempt to reach out to customers, to make it
easier and more convenient for them to obtain a license for
fishing and hunting in this state. "We" found success with the
program on the Internet. There has been positive public support
and response in the first year of the Internet program [end of
1999 to end of calendar year of 2000]. Through the "Internet
store," 8,000 licenses were sold and $700,000 was generated in
revenue [in the first year].
MR. BROOKS explained that whenever something is done with the
licensing program, the department focuses on three things:
being cognizant of the public, enforcement efforts around the
state, and the revenue stream.
Number 0725
MR. BROOKS stated that fish and game licensing generates about
$22-23 million dollars a year. This revenue goes into a
dedicated fish and game fund for management of resources so
nothing is done to "upset that revenue stream."
MR. BROOKS reiterated that whatever "we" [ADF&G] do is
consistent with customer service, enforcement, and revenue.
MR. BROOKS remarked that even though ADF&G has added this
Internet license process, there are also 1500 vendors around the
state that sell licenses. He declared that selling licenses to
the public would never exclusively be through the Internet.
"We" [ADF&G] will always work cooperatively with the vendors.
Statistics show that ADF&G generates $23 million in sales each
year. The department also pays out about $2 million a year in
vendor compensation. This is typically 5 percent of the
purchase price plus one dollar per item. This is in statute as
additional vendor compensation. "We" forgo commission on
anything that is sold as a state. For this reason, it [revenue]
remains in the fish and game fund for future appropriation by
the legislature for fish and game resource management.
Number 0817
MR. BROOKS said that currently the Internet application process
provides the opportunity for someone to go online and apply for
a license. However, with the evolution of technology, "we think
in the not-too-distant future we could get to a paperless type
of a system."
MR. BROOKS named the biggest concern [in the Internet
application process] as enforcement and how this would be dealt
with in a paperless system. Consequently, "we" have been
working closely with the Department of Public Safety and the
Division of Fish & Wildlife Protection. He mentioned that
Captain Howard Starbard, Division of Fish & Wildlife Protection,
Department of Public Safety, is probably online and can testify
on this bill.
MR. BROOKS stated that one of the items contemplated by the bill
is "we have to have a best interests finding" for the state.
"We" also have to concur with [the Department of] Public Safety
to ensure that anything that is done does not compromise efforts
in the field to enforce fish and game laws. This is foremost in
"our" thoughts as "we" proceed with the process.
MR. BROOKS remarked that Alaska is one of a half-dozen states
that has "jumped out in front," entering into the Internet world
with a licensing program. Alaska Department of Fish & Game is
always checking on other states, primarily western ones, to see
what the best industry practices are. A few states have
implemented a "smart number" system, a concept that has been
looked into [for Alaska]. This system might consist of a number
that would include a randomly generated portion and a part that
would be coded which would identify a person's gender, age,
weight, or some other identifying feature.
MR. BROOKS explained that another thing that was contemplated
with HB 63 was if someone chose to buy a license over the
Internet, he or she would have to agree to carry a picture ID.
This was an enforcement consideration. However, "we" admittedly
don't have a system that could be implemented tomorrow. It
would take about two years to put [an ID program] into place.
The statutes need to be amended to accommodate these changes.
MR. BROOKS said that consequently "we've built into this bill
the safeguards that we think are necessary to make sure we are
not going to compromise anything from [the] enforcement side of
things."
MR. BROOKS remarked that the other issue he wants to point out
is that this [online license purchasing] is only one way someone
could buy a license. Someone could choose to go to the
Internet, Fred Meyer's, or any other store that currently sells
licenses. House Bill 63 is offering a "suite of opportunities"
for someone to come in and choose how he or she buys a license.
Number 1042
MR. BROOKS said that "we" found great success with the Internet
application process. Looking at the statistics, "we" found that
many nonresidents are purchasing licenses. If someone is coming
up [to Alaska] for a hunting trip, he or she has to do lot of
pre-planning. The person is thinking about, "where am I going
to hunt, what am I going to hunt, and what licenses do I need."
Therefore, he or she is on the Internet, calling ADF&G, and
making inquiries to ADF&G. Thus, "we" have gotten a lot of
sales this way.
MR. BROOKS stated that ADF&G has yet to meet the demand from the
resident fishing and hunting public, for example, "where someone
gets up on a Saturday morning and says I want to go fishing or
hunting right now and there's not a store open or something like
that." This might be "an opportunity for us to provide a
temporary number and the paper would catch up with them in a
week or two." Currently, if there is a sale over the Internet,
the license is mailed within 24 hours, and the person receives
it anywhere from a few days to ten days.
CO-CHAIR WILSON asked how one pays for a license online.
Number 1131
MR. BROOKS replied that the only way one can purchase a license
over the Internet is by credit card.
MR. BROOKS said that "we" have looked at the demographics and
have been able to reach the person that is planning ahead [for a
hunting or fishing trip]. He encouraged the committee, when
they think about purchasing a license in February, to plan ahead
and buy one over the Internet. However, he asked, "How can we
reach that person in June who wants to go out and go fishing
right now?" One possibility is a kiosk that will "spit out" a
receipt. There are a variety of things that "we" need to look
at. But he said, "I think this bill will help us move along in
that direction."
Number 1166
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented that this is one of the things
that is going to be necessary. However, he said, "When I go to
a vendor and I sit down to fill out a license application,
through the course of normal discussion we begin to discuss
catch limits, catch release areas, and that sort of thing, which
is going to come up missing in this." He asked if Mr. Brooks
was "keying" the application process to any of the regulations.
There is probably going to be a menu that someone could pick
from, but it seems that it "would be wise to walk them through
some of the more basic issues."
Number 1218
MR. BROOKS answered that currently on the licensing site, there
are links to the wildlife site (to look at hunting seasons) and
the sport fishing site. But it requires one to take the
initiative and go looking for it. In the future, it might be
possible to "code" the process; if one is purchasing a license,
he or she would have to look at certain information. It would
be easier to do this on the game site than the fishing site,
because different parts of the state have different fishing
requirements. However, he said, "If you are a nonresident
buying a moose or a bear tag, there are prompts that say you
need to be thinking about a guide or you need to be doing
(indisc.) or we can make those links."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said in his area there are "so many areas
that are catch and release that are probably the most easily
accessible areas for fishing, and the more difficult areas are
where you can go catch them [fish]." He asked if people are
sent an information booklet regarding that, along with their
finalized application.
MR. BROOKS answered that he would have to check with his staff
to see exactly what goes into the packet that goes out to those
who purchase a license.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL remarked that one of his fears as a
legislator is to be fishing somewhere where it is illegal.
Number 1353
MR. BROOKS commented that one of things the department has done,
especially on the sport fish side, is attempt to go to a more
regional approach through the regulations. This is because
these regulations can become unwieldy, "at different days,
different hours or different catch limits." By going
regionally, if someone is going to only be in one part of the
state, he or she only has to look at that region. People have
responded well to the "wealth of information" on the web site.
The first question on an inquiry is usually "can you tell me if
the season is open or how is the fishing?" He said that he asks
these people if they checked the web site for information on a
particular river. There are weekly updates on the web site [on
fishing areas] with information such as whether the fish are in
and how they are.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if ADF&G has seen increases in
license buying when checking with other states regarding
Internet licensing, and if "we" [Alaska] is similar in
demographics compared to other states.
MR. BROOKS replied that some of this is so new that they do not
have the demographic data yet to compare. There is some belief
that someone who is purchasing on the Internet will buy more.
For example, someone might buy a combination license instead of
just a fishing license. But "we" don't have the "hard" data to
make those kind of comparisons. The department does look at the
total sales, number of licenses sold, and total revenue that is
generated. There has been a "full growth in that." Over time,
"we" will be able to see how many licenses are being sold over
the Internet and what the relevance is to that.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if there was a social security
number block on the web site.
MR. BROOKS replied, "You don't need me to answer that."
Number 1479
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if anybody is against this bill.
MR. BROOKS said he does not know of anyone that is against HB
63. However, they have heard that there are a few vendors who
object to the state selling licenses over the Internet. But
this number is very small, considering there are 1500 vendors in
the state. There is a dynamic here, 20 percent of vendors sell
80 percent of the licenses. Large stores are "carrying a lot."
MR. BROOKS revealed that the department has "heard" that the
licenses are like a leader. People spend a lot more money
outfitting their fishing or hunting trip then purchasing the
license. The commission that is given to vendors [for selling
licenses] is not that high. The total commission is $2 million
a year which is divided amongst the vendors. "No single vendor
is getting rich off that commission," he said. Also, [the
Department of] Public Safety and Enforcement [Division of Fish
and Wildlife Protection], is concerned that the department does
not compromise anything that is going to be done in the field.
Captain Starbard might want to discuss this point. "We" have
built into this bill that anything "we" do is going to have
their [vendors] concurrence, or it will not happen. "We" have a
very open dialogue with them [vendors] and are working well with
them.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if is there was "any danger that
someone will get a hunting or fishing license in another name so
they could go out and do 'quasi illegal things' and if they get
busted, then 'John' will get blamed for it."
Number 1571
MR. BROOKS replied that "we" have had those discussions
internally. By making the system easier, "would it make an
honest person, who's otherwise honest, a criminal?" "We" [the
department] arrived at the conclusion that this would not occur.
He said, "If you walked into the store today, you could fill out
a bogus name on there [the application] and call yourself John
Coghill," because as it stands today, a person is not required
to carry picture ID. Therefore, if "you were out in the field
somewhere you might get away as John Coghill." However, under
this system one would have to carry a picture ID and you
probably could not get away with a false name, so "maybe there's
an enforcement enhancement."
Number 1590
CAPTAIN HOWARD STARBARD, Commander, B Detachment, Division of
Fish & Wildlife Protection, Department of Public Safety,
testified:
[I have] no comments in reference to the bill other to
say our issues have been addressed and we're working
with [the Department of] Fish and Game and believe
that the concurrence factor in the enforceability of
whatever system comes up is (indisc.) job.
Number 1680
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON made a motion to move HB 63 from the
committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero
fiscal note. There being no objection, HB 63 moved from the
House Special Committee on Fisheries.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 6:25
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|