Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/03/1993 08:30 AM 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
March 3, 1993
8:30 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl E. Moses, Chairman
Representative Harley Olberg, Vice Chairman
Representative Irene Nicholia
Representative Cliff Davidson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Gail Phillips
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Fran Ulmer
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 140 "An Act relating to the king salmon tag fee."
HELD IN COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
HB 123 "An Act relating to loans for the purchase of
individual fishery quota shares."
MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE AS A CS, WITH FISCAL NOTE
WITNESS REGISTER
Royce Weller, Legislative Aide
to Representative Bill Hudson
State Capitol, Room 108
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1182
Phone: 465-3744
Position Statement: Gave an overview of amendments to HB 140
Mike Millar
Charter Boat Operator
4510 Prospect Way
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 789-9345
Position Statement: Opposed $20 king salmon stamp
Mike Dobson
Charter Boat Operator
P.O. Box 32563
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Phone: 780-4468
Position Statement: Commented on restrictive fishing
regulations
William Foster, President
Sitka Charter Boat Operators Association
2810 Sawmill Creek Rd
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Phone: 747-6711
Position Statement: Concerned with the non-
resident king salmon fees
Ann Chadwick, Executive Director
Sitka Convention & Visitors Bureau
Box 6112
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Phone: 747-5940
Position Statement: Proposed $20 tag fee too high for non-
residents
Merle Wolford, Representative
Homer Charter Association
South Peninsula Sportman's Association
P.O. Box 813
Homer, Alaska 99603
Phone: 235-7427
Position Statement: Favored a king salmon stamp but not for
anglers under 16
Tom Ramiskey, President
Ketchikan Marine Charters Association
No address available
Ketchikan, Alaska
Position Statement: Supported the concept of a graduated fee
schedule
Dan McQueen
Ketchikan Charter Boat Operator
3222 Tide Ave.
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Phone: 225-2731
Position Statement: Supported HB 140, if amended
William Pattison
Charter Boat Operator
Rt. 1, Box 878
Ward Cove, Alaska 99928
Phone: 247-8489
Position Statement: Supported HB 140
Donald Westlund
Charter Boat Operator
P.O. Box 7883
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Phone: 225-9319
Position Statement: Favored salmon stamp concept
Dennis Ketchum
Ketchikan Resident
2343 2nd Avenue
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Phone: 225-7774
Position Statement: Supported HB 130
Lee Putman, Representative
Ketchikan Sports and Wildlife Club
6005 Roosevelt Drive
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Phone: 225-7694
Position Statement: Commented that no increased fees were
needed on King Salmon tags
Drew Scalzi, Representative
North Pacific Fisheries Association
P.O. Box 1115
Homer, AK 99603-1115
Phone: 235-6359
Position Statement: Supported HB 123
Paul Seaton
Palmer Fisherman
58360 Bruce Drive
Homer, Alaska 99603
Phone: 235-6342
Position Statement: Opposed HB 123
Mako Haggerty
Homer Fisherman
P.O. Box 737
Homer, Alaska 99603
Phone: 235-6410
Position Statement: Opposed HB 123
Chris Moss, Representative
North Pacific Fisheries Association
P.O. Box 1115
Homer, AK 99603-1115
Phone: 235-8053
Position Statement: Supported HB 123
Anna Borland Ivy, Deckhand
Homer Charter Boats
P.O. Box 2219
Homer, Alaska 99603
Phone: 235-5955
Position Statement: Opposed HB 123
Bill Sullivan, Crewman
Homer Fishing Boats
No address available
Homer, Alaska
Position Statement: Opposed HB 123
Dan Falvey, Member
Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association
P.O. Box 8083
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Phone: 747-3400
Position Statement: Supported HB 123
Eric Jordan
Commercial Salmon Troller
103 Gibson Plaza
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Phone: 747-6743
Position Statement: Found problems with HB 123
Matt Donohoe
P.O. Box 2993
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Phone: 747-6467
Position Statement: Stated there was not enough money
allotted in HB 123 for the IFQ program
Linda Kozak, Member
Kodiak Longliners Association
P.O. Box 135
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Phone: 486-3781
Position Statement: Supported HB 123
Kris Norose, Director
Petersburg Vessel Owners Association
P.O. Box 232
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Phone: 772-9323
Position Statement: Supported HB 123
Bill Hall
Commercial Fishing and Agriculture Bank
P.O. Box 92070
Anchorage, Alaska 99509
Phone: 276-2007
Position Statement: Suggested IFQ financing be more
thoroughly looked into
Chris Berns
P.O. Box 26
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Phone: 486-5091
Position Statement: Opposed the IFQ loan program
Eric Forrer
Retired Setnetter
P.O. Box 32563
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Phone: 789-2024
Position Statement: Supported the IFQ program
Mary McBurney, Executive Director
Cordova District Fishermen's United
P.O. Box 939
Cordova, Alaska 99574-0939
Phone: 424-3447
Position Statement: Supported HB 123
Representative Fran Ulmer
State Capitol
Court Building, Room 601
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1182
Phone: 465-4947
Position Statement: Prime Sponsor, HB 123
Greg Winegar, Manager
Juneau Lending Branch
Division of Investments
Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 34159
Juneau, AK 99803-4159
Phone: 465-2510
Position Statement: Supported HB 123
Richard B. Lauber, Lobbyist
Pacific Seafood Processors Association
321 Highland
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 586-6366
Position Statement: Supported HB 123
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 140
SHORT TITLE: FEES FOR NONRESIDENT KING SALMON TAG
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HUDSON,Phillips
TITLE: "An Act relating to the king salmon tag fee."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/08/93 254 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/08/93 254 (H) FISHERIES, RESOURCES, FINANCE
02/22/93 (H) FSH AT 08:30 AM CAPITOL 17
02/22/93 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/03/93 (H) FSH AT 08:30 AM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 123
SHORT TITLE: LOANS FOR IFQ'S
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ULMER,Grussendorf,Navarre,
Sitton,Mackie,Davies,Davidson,Brown
TITLE: "An Act relating to loans for the purchase of
individual fishery quota shares."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/03/93 215 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/03/93 215 (H) FISHERIES, RESOURCES, L&C,
FINANCE
02/05/93 241 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BROWN
02/19/93 (H) FSH AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 17
02/19/93 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/03/93 (H) FSH AT 08:30 AM CAPITOL 17
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-9, SIDE A
Number 000
HB 140: FEES FOR NONRESIDENT KING SALMON TAG
CHAIRMAN CARL MOSES called the meeting to order at 8:40 a.m.
He noted members in attendance, advised them that HB 140 and
HB 123 were on the agenda and noted the meeting was being
teleconferenced. He asked Royce Weller of Representative
Bill Hudson's office to give an overview of HB 140, related
to the king salmon tag fee.
Number 037
ROYCE WELLER, LEGISLATIVE AIDE TO REPRESENTATIVE BILL
HUDSON, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 140, noted four amendments
proposed by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) had
been inserted into members' packets. He claimed the
sponsor, Representative Hudson, had no objections to the
amendments, the first of which changed the effective date to
January 1, 1994. The second and third amendments
distinguished between river and land-locked king salmon.
The fourth amendment clarified the non-resident military
king salmon tag would remain at $20.
MR. WELLER stated the committee had discussed adopting a $5
or $10 fee for a one day tag, and the fiscal notes detailed
the impact of those fees. The sponsor, Representative
Hudson, had no objection to those fees, he added.
MIKE MILLAR, CHARTER BOAT OPERATOR IN JUNEAU, testified in
opposition to the $20 king salmon stamp. He exclaimed that
he must have nine different licenses on board to operate his
boat, including a radio station license, charter boat
license, business license, life-skills license, transporter
license and a Coast Guard license. He said there were one
and three day licenses to attract tourists to go fishing
which cost $10 and $15, respectively. He believed to
increase these fees decreased the opportunity for non-
residents to fish, and drove more and more people into
British Columbia where the bag limit was four king salmon,
whereas the limit in Alaska has been one, and might be two
this year (1993).
MR. MILLAR claimed 80% of his license sales were the one and
three day licenses. Further, he claimed the state was
planning to place $700,000 projected revenue into hiring
more creel census-takers. He claimed there were enough
creel census-takers in past years to count the 41,000 fish
that got sport fishermen and commercial fishermen into
disputes years ago. He did not have a problem with the
enhancement of hatchery stocks because fishermen got more
fish through the quota from the hatchery stocks; on the
other hand, enhancement of wild stocks did no good, he
believed.
REPRESENTATIVE CLIFF DAVIDSON asked if more people were
vying for more fish or if there was a market situation
forcing Alaskan fishermen to become more competitive because
there were fewer fish. He also asked if the lower prices of
fish in Canada was an advantage to people who fished there.
Further, he asked how many king salmon Mr. Millar's
operation took and what amount of money was paid to the
state for the privilege of getting those salmon for his
customers.
MR. MILLAR advised that fishermen were going to British
Columbia (BC) because the limit there was four sport king
salmon. Through the International Treaty, Alaska got
260,000 king salmon while BC got 880,000 king salmon. In
parts of BC, like the west side of Vancouver Island, sport-
caught king salmon were not charged against their quota.
The ADF&G has calculated that a sport-caught king salmon is
worth well over $900.
MR. MILLAR said he paid nothing to the state except for the
licenses; the revenue he generated helped hotels, gift
shops, bed & breakfasts and other tourist attractions, he
added.
Number 240
MIKE DOBSON, CHARTER BOAT OPERATOR IN JUNEAU, stated that
78% of his clientele were nonresidents and the price was
really becoming prohibitive. A maximum catch of one to two
king salmon per day was not as attractive as the limit in
BC. The $20 fee was also to count the king salmon, of which
one million to 1.2 million were projected per year. One-
half million of that was to hire 14 census takers. The
state boasted the ADF&G had an extremely accurate count of
how many king salmon were caught. When the Board of
Fisheries mandated 17%, or 41,000 kings had been caught, the
ADF&G then admitted they did not know how to count the fish.
MR. DOBSON alleged the ADF&G then claimed 14 additional
census takers; the other half million was to go into salmon
enhancement. If the money went into a hatchery, fishermen
could not catch the salmon because it was not counted
against the treaty. If the money went into re-stocking
streams, then it went against the International Treaty,
which does fishermen no good. The other argument was that
re-stocking gave fishermen another issue to negotiate with
the Canadians to increase the treaty.
MR. DOBSON continued by commenting that the Canadians were
not going to let Alaskans catch more fish. In his view, the
money going into hatcheries was doing Alaskan fishermen no
good anymore. Therefore, to help the Alaskan fishermen, the
tag price for the one and three day fishermen should be
reduced, he concluded.
Number 296
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON claimed the committee should come up
with some ideas and more information that would be fair to
all user groups.
WILLIAM FOSTER, PRESIDENT OF A 40 MEMBER GROUP OF SITKA
CHARTER BOAT OPERATORS, testified via teleconference. He
expressed his concern with the non-resident salmon tag fee
since last fall. The $20 non-resident fee was excessive for
a short-term angler and he felt there was no public input to
the legislature prior to passage of the bill that set the
fees.
MR. FOSTER preferred the fee structure in HB 140, and felt
the committee should address non-resident anglers, under 16
years of age, who currently required no license, but needed
a tag at the cost of $20. He noted over 50% of the clients
were not rich and were charged by the cruise ships for
fishing trips. These fees charged by the cruise ships were
out of the control of fishermen, he added.
ANN CHADWICK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE SITKA CONVENTION &
VISITORS BUREAU, testified via teleconference that the
originally proposed $20 tag fee was too high for short-term,
nonresident anglers. A study by the McDowell Group showed a
southeast Alaska visitor profile which documented that one
in five visitors fished while in Alaska. These visitors
have moderate household incomes and cannot afford higher
fees, she declared, and added that the Sitka Visitors Bureau
supported HB 130, with the $5, $10, and $20 graduated fee
schedule.
MERLE WOLFORD, REPRESENTATIVE OF HOMER CHARTER ASSOCIATION
AND THE SOUTH PENINSULA SPORTSMAN'S ASSOCIATION, testified
from Homer that his groups favored a king salmon stamp, but
not for anglers under 16 years old. Further, he said the
state should not try to gouge those visitors who come to
Alaska and spend their money here.
TOM RAMISKEY, PRESIDENT, KETCHIKAN MARINE CHARTERS
ASSOCIATION, testified via teleconference from Ketchikan, in
support of the concept of a graduated fee schedule for a
nonresident king salmon tag, and in opposition to specific
fees as provided for in HB 140. He recommended a 14 day tag
at a cost of no more than $20 and a $50 annual tag.
DAN MCQUEEN a KETCHIKAN CHARTER BOAT OPERATOR, speaking from
Ketchikan, stated he would support HB 140, if amended to
make the 14 day tag $20 and the one year tag $50.
Nonresident children, 16 years and under should not be
included, he believed, and added that these amendments
should be adopted immediately rather than in 1994.
WILLIAM PATTISON, a KETCHIKAN RESIDENT AND CHARTER BOAT
OPERATOR, testified via teleconference. He supported HB 140
but suggested the three day, $15 dollar tag be increased to
four days. Additionally, the 14 day, $30 fee should only
cost $20 and an annual fee should be $50, he said.
DONALD WESTLUND, a KETCHIKAN RESIDENT AND CHARTER BOAT
OPERATOR testified from Ketchikan. He favored the salmon
stamp concept, but liked HB 130 better than HB 140. The
nonresident child should not have to buy a stamp, he
believed.
DENNIS KETCHUM, a KETCHIKAN RESIDENT speaking from
Ketchikan, advised of his support for HB 130 and the
graduated fee schedule.
LEE PUTMAN, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE KETCHIKAN SPORTS &
WILDLIFE CLUB spoke to the committee from Ketchikan. He
felt any salmon stamp was unnecessary, however if a fee was
passed, they should be lower.
CHAIRMAN MOSES asked if anyone else wanted to testify, in
person or via teleconference on HB 140. He then clarified
resident anglers under age 16 were exempt.
HB 140 WAS HELD IN COMMITTEE AWAITING FURTHER AMENDMENTS
FROM REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON.
HB 123: LOANS FOR IFQ'S
Number 450
REPRESENTATIVE FRAN ULMER, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 123,
requested teleconference witnesses be allowed to testify
first.
DREW SCALZI, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NORTH PACIFIC FISHERIES
ASSOCIATION testified from Palmer that his group endorsed HB
123 and was very encouraged by the bill. He admitted the
IFQ (individual fishing quota) plan had been very
controversial and felt it would behoove the state to
research the issue before making the loan applications
available when the IFQ's came up for sale.
PAUL SEATON, a PALMER FISHERMAN, stated HB 123 was premature
as the IFQ plan was not finalized. Additionally, the loan
program might have problems because it might be
unconstitutional to harvest any of the IFQ fish within
natural waters of the state. He exclaimed that the program
was creating a situation where salmon harvesting would be
unconstitutional within Alaskan waters. The 1972 amendment,
known as the limited entry amendment allowed for a permit
restriction, limiting access to a public resource, not
privatization of a public resource. The amount of
capitalization required should also be addressed, he
believed.
MAKO HAGGERTY, A HOMER FISHERMAN, testified from Homer in
opposition to HB 123 for several reasons. He felt the bill
was poorly researched as he had been a crewman and a
skipper, and under the IFQ program, he stood to get no quota
shares. He stated that if he wanted to start a business
with no quota shares and go to the state to borrow money to
buy quota shares, paying $10 per share, he would never be
able to pay it off. It would take at least 20 years to pay
off a $100,000 loan on 10,000 shares with interest.
Although the intentions were good, he believed HB 123 made
little practical sense and the numbers did not add up. The
people who will benefit are those large operations that
already have initial IFQs, and those who were economically
dependent on commercial fishing for their livelihood would
not benefit, he added.
CHAIRMAN MOSES assured Mr. Haggerty there were proposed
amendments which would perhaps address some of his concerns.
Number 541
CHRIS MOSS, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NORTH PACIFIC FISHERIES
ASSOCIATION, testified from Homer. He supported HB 123 and
its companion bill, SB 96 as those bills gave assets and
loans to those in the industry who were least able to afford
them. He believed this would allow people with residency
and experience, but with few assets, to acquire an initial
allocation.
Number 550
ANNA BORLAND-IVY, A DECKHAND ON A HOMER CHARTER BOAT,
testified from Homer. She opposed HB 123 as initial IFQ
owners would benefit and the smaller operations who needed
the loans would not.
Number 550
BILL SULLIVAN, A CREWMAN ON A HOMER FISHING BOAT, testified
from Homer in opposition to HB 123. As a crewman, he would
receive no initial allocation to a quota share, and he felt
Alaskans should not have to take out loans to capture fish
that already belonged to Alaskans.
DAN FALVEY, A MEMBER OF THE ALASKA LONGLINE FISHERMEN'S
ASSOCIATION, testified from Sitka. He expressed his support
for HB 123 as state involvement might help keep prices under
control. He felt the start-up limit of $5 million was not
enough money. With a new program like IfQs, he thought the
turnover rate would be sufficiently high at first.
Additionally, he hoped to see the IFQ program funded as well
as the state's salmon limited entry permit program. He also
would like to see a second parallel loan program to provide
Native groups, municipalities and the like with low interest
loans.
ERIC JORDAN, A SITKA FISHERMAN, speaking from Sitka, thanked
Representative Ulmer for her work on HB 123, but noted a few
problems. He said the $5 million total was not enough to
start the program - perhaps $100 million would suffice. He
then said there might be problems with constitutionality and
the state might need new laws to complement the federal IFQ
regulations. He also felt the state needed to invest in an
Alaska IFQ acquisition program.
MATT DONOHOE, A SITKA RESIDENT, testified from Sitka. He
said the IFQ program was a major economic disaster for
coastal communities in Alaska, and agreed the $5 million was
not sufficient funding for the program.
TAPE 93-9, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. DONOHOE added that before such a loan program could
begin, goals for the program should be organized. He also
said there must be some way to protect the small fishermen
within the program.
Number 040
LINDA KOZAK, A MEMBER OF THE KODIAK LONGLINERS ASSOCIATION
spoke to the committee from Kodiak. She endorsed HB 123 as
IFQs were good for the future of Alaskan fishermen, if the
program was designed to benefit Alaskans, specifically. She
felt vessel owners should be able to go to a lending
institution and acquire quota shares to develop markets for
their product. She opposed the section of HB 123 which
provided that individuals would not be eligible for
alternative sources of financing to purchase quota shares.
Lastly, she noted her concern for the low amount of initial
financing of the program.
Number 090
KRIS NOROSE, DIRECTOR OF THE PETERSBURG VESSEL OWNERS
ASSOCIATION testified from Petersburg and said she endorsed
HB 123. Now that the IFQ program has been adopted, the
state should allow for the public purchase of these quotas.
The current limited entry permit loan program has been a
great success in allowing Alaskans to participate in the
fisheries along the coast. This was also an opportunity for
non-initial IFQ receivers to enter into the program, she
believed.
BILL HALL, representing the COMMERCIAL FISHING AND
AGRICULTURE BANK, spoke to the committee from Anchorage. He
had been asked by Representative Ulmer to comment on a
proposed letter of intent regarding SeaFad's letter of
intent regarding its role in financing IFQs. He suggested
the committee look into IFQs more thoroughly, but advised
that he had no objection to the letter of intent.
CHRIS BERNS, A KODIAK RESIDENT, testified from Kodiak in
opposition to the loan program because of the lack of
research in the price per quota share.
Number 209
ERIC FORRER, A RETIRED SETNETTER FROM THE YUKON RIVER,
commented on the difficulty for young fishermen to get into
the business in Alaska based on hard work. The IFQ program
was important and must be put in place and supported, and
halibut quotas must stay in the state, he stressed.
Number 265
MARY MCBURNEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CORDOVA DISTRICT
FISHERMEN UNITED, testified from Cordova. She endorsed HB
123 and felt the IFQ was a logical program to allow people
to buy into IFQ fisheries and promote local ownership.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER responded to some of the points raised
from the testimonials. She said the timing of the
applicability of the federal regulations and the allocations
were rather unclear. If the legislature waited to see when
the regulations would be in place, then Alaskan fishermen
would be out of luck, she believed.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER commented on the community allocations
and that a program to mirror the Commercial Development
Quota (CDQ) program was a good idea. She noted some new
language for CSHB 123, on page 2, line 29, that would read
"are not eligible for financing to purchase quota shares
from other recognized, commercial lending institutions."
She believed this change should address the concerns about
loan sharks from the folks in Sitka. She also noted
additional language in the proposed CSHB 123 that clarified
the program was aimed at helping small fishermen the most.
Lastly, she asked that the committee adopt the CS with the
proposed changes on page 2, as well as the proposed letter
of intent.
Number 342
GREG WINEGAR, LOAN MANAGER, JUNEAU LENDING BRANCH, ALASKA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (DCED),
noted the DCED's support for HB 123. The overall purpose of
the bill was consistent with the goals in the commercial
fishing program; that being to promote a resident fishery,
he noted.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked Mr. Winegar if he saw any
problems with HB 123 or if the bill could work against
Alaskan interests. He also asked about the collection
process for loans if a borrower suffered from deflated
halibut prices years after taking out a loan.
MR. WINEGAR addressed one of the concerns from the
teleconference regarding debt service and if fishermen could
afford to get loans through this program. He also said the
DCED looked closely at the debt service of the borrower, and
historically there had been a low default rate. He advised
the committee of a soft collection program and of work with
fishermen through an extension process.
RICHARD LAUBER, LOBBYIST FOR PACIFIC SEAFOOD PROCESSORS
ASSOCIATION, offered to answer questions as he had spoken at
the last meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked Mr. Lauber if he could note
any problems with the program, to be analyzed in the next
committee of referral.
MR. LAUBER stated HB 123 was designed to stop the migration
of quota shares to outside interests. However, non-
residents or residents with these shares might decide to go
south with their product. The more shares a person had, the
more likely they were to go south with their product, yet
the smaller operations would probably sell locally so the
funds go through the local community, he said.
MR. LAUBER continued by noting that if fish were caught off-
shore and went south, Alaska collected no tax. If caught
offshore and taken to Petersburg, for example, then the
state received the tax. The state wished to encourage
participation onshore for tax purposes, but also wanted
participation onshore so local economies and employment did
not suffer.
Number 430
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER noted she had done research about the
landing issue and discovered that enforcement personnel
logged landings at 16 primary ports, while other ports were
spot checked by officers randomly. Boats were supposed to
radio in after a catch, at least six hours before delivery,
with estimated arrival time and catch weight. At delivery,
the catch would be logged and recorded against the IFQ.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER pointed out any product destined for a
non-Alaskan port must be checked through one of the 16
primary ports in Alaska. Shipments outside Alaska would be
sealed by enforcement officers as Alaskan products and
checked for regulatory compliance. All shipments of frozen
fish must be through a primary port. Further, she noted
these proposed regulations solved the problems of outside
shipments.
MR. LAUBER commented that boats might be hesitant to check
into one of the ports as they would be taxed for the
product. The check-in was merely an in-transit federal rule
for enforcement purposes, to ensure no sale was taking
place. To tax the product might be a violation of the
interstate commerce clause to pose a tax, if the boats were
selling their product elsewhere. He further noted the
proposed legislation from years ago, which dealt with a
landing tax for processed products and boats that actually
sold their products in Alaska. He then differentiated that
the current issue was that the product would not actually be
landed in Alaska, but would merely have to come to port for
enforcement purposes, and then be transported elsewhere.
REPRESENTATIVE HARLEY OLBERG MOVED to ADOPT CSHB 123, as
amended, with the letter of intent and fiscal note, and MOVE
from the committee with individual recommendations.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN MOSES asked members and the public if there were
further comments. Hearing none, he adjourned the meeting at
10:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|