Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/03/1997 05:05 PM FSH
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= 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.