Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/28/1996 05:13 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 28, 1996
5:13 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Chairman
Representative Carl Moses, Vice Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Kim Elton
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 51
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to limited entry for sport fish guides and allied
professions.
- PASSED CSHJR 51(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 519
"An Act making an appropriation to the Department of Public Safety
for the construction or the purchase and upgrade of a fishery law
enforcement vessel; and providing for an effective date."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 390
"An Act relating to the nonresident anadromous king salmon tag and
the anadromous king salmon stamp; requiring nonresident alien sport
fishermen to be accompanied by a sport fishing guide; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD; ASSIGNED TO SUBCOMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 51
SHORT TITLE: SPORT FISHING GUIDE LIMITED ENTRY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
12/29/95 2358 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2358 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2358 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FSH, JUDICIARY
02/13/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/13/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/17/96 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/17/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/20/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/20/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/96 2822 (H) STA RPT 2DP 4NR 1AM
02/21/96 2822 (H) DP: GREEN, OGAN
02/21/96 2822 (H) NR: JAMES, IVAN, ROBINSON, WILLIS
02/21/96 2822 (H) AM: PORTER
02/21/96 2822 (H) FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
02/21/96 2822 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAW)
02/21/96 2822 (H) REFERRED TO FSH
02/28/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 519
SHORT TITLE: APPROP: FISHERY ENFORCEMENT VESSEL
SPONSOR(S): COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
02/16/96 2790 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/16/96 2791 (H) FISHERIES, FINANCE
02/28/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 390
SHORT TITLE: KING SALMON TAGS & STAMPS/GUIDE FOR ALIEN
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ELTON
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
01/05/96 2368 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2368 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2369 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FSH, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/22/96 2861 (H) STA REFERRAL WAIVED
02/22/96 2861 (H) REFERRED TO FSH
02/28/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JEFFREY LOGAN, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Joe Green
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HJR 51.
MARK BUCHNER
P.O. Box 1103
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-4435
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 51.
BRUCE BLANDFORD
P.O. Box 789
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-2073
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 51.
ERIC STIRRUP, Owner and Operator
Kodiak Western Charters
P.O. Box 4123
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-2200
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 51.
KENT HALL
500 Lincoln Street, Number 641
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-5777
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 51.
KEITH GREBA
504 Monastery Street
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-8309
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 51.
JAMES FITZGERALD
Kings Sportfish
34794 Poppywood
Soldotna, Alaska 262-6368
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of wife in support of
HJR51.
GARY HULL
P.O. Box 1964
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-5661
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 51.
LANCE DOMONOSKE
P.O. Box 554
Sterling, Alaska 99672
Telephone: (907) 262-7671
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 51.
BRAD ADAMS
P.O. Box 994
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-1961
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 51.
JOE HARDY
P.O. Box 3391
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-9881
POSITION STATEMENT: Did not support HJR 51.
ALAN LEMASTER
P.O. Box 222
Gakona, Alaska 99586
Telephone: (907) 822-3664
POSITION STATEMENT: Asked questions about HJR 51.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99811-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-6143
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding CSHJR 51.
JOE GREEN, Representative
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor, answered questions on CSHJR 51.
FRANK HOMAN, Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
8800 Glacier Highway, Suite 109
Juneau, Alaska 99801-8079
Telephone: (907) 789-6160
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided commission's position and answered
questions regarding CSHJR 51.
STEPHEN WHITE, Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on CSHJR 51.
JOHN GLASS, COLONEL, Director
Central Office
Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection
Department of Public Safety
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507-1225
Telephone: (907) 269-5509
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 519.
JOHN BURKE, Deputy Director
Division of Sport Fish
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-6134
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 390.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-8, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN ALAN AUSTERMAN called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 5:13 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Austerman, Moses and Ogan.
Representatives Elton and G. Davis arrived at 5:19 p.m. and 5:20
p.m., respectively.
HJR 51 - SPORT FISHING GUIDE LIMITED ENTRY
Number 0063
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted that HJR 51 had been sponsored by
Representative Joe Green, whose legislative assistant was present.
Number 0091
JEFFREY LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Green,
introduced HJR 51 on behalf of the sponsor, who was in another
meeting. He presented the following statement:
"HJR 51 proposes a constitutional amendment to grant the state the
authority to limit entry into the sport fish guide profession.
HJR51 is needed because the state's authority to impose such
limits is not clear at this time. We believe that without a
constitutional amendment, any attempt to limit sport fish guides
will surely be followed by litigation.
"While it is anticipated such limits will be the conclusion of a
public process, based on scientific data, HJR 51 does not address
the specifics of implementing such restrictions. HJR 51 simply
grants a clear and concise line of authority from the voters to the
state."
Number 0175
MR. LOGAN explained that what Alaska had was a "Catch-22"
situation. The fisheries needed attention, which equated to some
type of resource management. "Resource managers can't take the
action they believe is necessary without the authority embodied in
the constitutional amendment," he said.
Number 0233
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN noted that he had heard HJR 51 in the
House State Affairs Committee and was therefore familiar with the
resolution.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN referred to the rights already in the Alaska
Constitution regarding commercial fishing. He noted there had been
discussion about whether a charter boat operator who took clients
out and collected money for it was actually a commercial operator.
Chairman Austerman mentioned that the constitution, as currently
written, did not specify whether a commercial fisherman could be a
sport operator; he asked if that was part of the problem.
Number 0307
MR. LOGAN replied, "We believe that is part of the problem." He
directed the committee's attention to a memorandum dated
December4, 1995, from George Utermohle, Legislative Counsel for
the Division of Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency, to Representative Green. That memorandum, which was in the
committee packets, addressed the problem alluded to by Chairman
Austerman. Mr. Logan referred to the second paragraph, which read,
"The courts may construe `any fishery' to include sport fisheries
as well as commercial fisheries." He explained, "We were hoping
with HJR51 to clarify `that may.'"
Number 0361
MR. LOGAN brought to the committee's attention the proposed work
draft that had been delivered to committee members' offices that
afternoon. He suggested that draft might address Chairman
Austerman's question.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN wondered whether they could just define a sport
operator as being a commercial fisherman somewhere in the existing
statutes, without having to go through a public election to change
the constitution.
MR. LOGAN replied that would certainly be a lot simpler and less
work, if it would be as effective. "It's an avenue we'd certainly
like to explore," he added.
Number 0425
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted that Representatives Elton and Davis were
present.
MARK BUCHNER testified via teleconference from Valdez, indicating
he had not had time to review the draft. He thought the current
limited entry program was too restrictive.
Number 0520
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN pointed out that the bill had another committee
of referral, the House Judiciary Committee, where additional
hearings would be held.
BRUCE BLANDFORD testified via teleconference from Valdez, saying he
had been a sport fish guide for about 18 years. Like Mr. Buchner,
he knew too little about the intent of the bill to comment. He
asked, "If the tourism keeps expanding and the number of fishing
guides is kept stationary, ... what happens to the increased amount
of tourists who want to go fishing that aren't able to find a
guide?"
Number 0609
ERIC STIRRUP, Owner and Operator, Kodiak Western Charters,
testified via teleconference, voicing strong support for HJR51.
"I think the history book is well written on resource management,"
he said. "Our industry is growing by leaps and bounds. Our
resources are not growing by leaps and bounds. And it's time for
all of us to face the music." He expressed preference for limited
entry over an Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) system. "Let's put
the tool on the Board of Fish's plate for them to use limited entry
as an option," he concluded.
Number 0696
KENT HALL testified via teleconference from Sitka, saying he ran a
charter operation there. "I guess I don't have any strong feelings
one way or the other," he said. "One of the things I'd like
clarified is if the state agrees to a limited entry, will that just
be in the state waters?" For example, he wondered if fishing for
halibut more than three miles from shore would be included.
Number 0743
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN commented that the bill, as he read it, would go
to the voters to change the constitution. It provided authority to
impose a limited entry system on the charter boat operators. The
bill being considered that evening would take the question to the
voters to the state of Alaska as to whether they wanted to allow
limited entry to take place in the industry, he elaborated.
Number 0790
KEITH GREBA testified via teleconference from Sitka, saying he
believed something in the nature of HJR 51 should be done, whether
it be through limited entry or a moratorium. He expressed concern
that if the bill was enacted, people might just sign up because
they had heard about it and would try to get themselves a license.
Mr. Greba suggested looking at some type of point system that used
economic dependence as a priority, so that people with time and
effort invested in the industry as a means of supporting their
families could have a viable future. He agreed with previous
testimony that something needed to be done.
Number 0901
JAMES FITZGERALD testified via teleconference from Kenai, saying he
was speaking on behalf of his wife, who had begun guiding on the
Kenai River the previous year. His wife was in favor of HJR51 and
wished to see some sort of limitation or cap put on it "through
attrition." Every year, he said, a number of guides dropped out
for one reason or another; it would not take long to have a cap
that way.
Number 0965
GARY HULL testified via teleconference from Kenai, presenting a
prepared statement:
"I am in favor of limiting the number of guides on the Kenai River.
The limited entry permit should be owned by the guide, and the
guide should have the right to sell the permit at the termination
of his business. Preference on selecting limited entry permit
holders should consider the following:
"1. Higher preference for local guides. The income they derive
from guiding is reinvested into our community.
"2. Higher preference for guides with a substantial financial
investment, such as owning their own boat and equipment. Guides
with little or no investment generally work for someone else. They
use boats and equipment owned by others, and are not responsible
for advertising and booking clients.
"3. Preference given based on number of years a person has guided
on the Kenai river and not rivers in other states or areas.
"Since the limited entry permit process will be a lengthy process,
I have recommendations that may effectively limit the number of
guides in the future. These things could be implemented easily
without congressional action. They are: 1) registration for the
permit must be done in person each year, during the months of
January and February; 2) guides would be required to pay for a
three-to-five-year permit, which would demonstrate commitment to
the guide industry, and increase the initial investment; 3) every
guide, including drift boat guides, should have to belong to an
Alaskan-based UA consortium; 4) to qualify for a permit, a person
would have had to have fished in Alaska three out of the last five
years; this qualification is similar to that of the Assistant Guide
Outfitter's license. I would like to urge the House Fisheries
Committee to consider these points. I request that the committee
members support that limited entry permit be owned by the guide, so
he can realize some of his investment back at retirement by selling
his permit along with his business."
Number 1127
LANCE DOMONOSKE testified via teleconference. A Kenai River drift
boat guide, he supported HJR 51. He thought there was a severe
problem with growth on the Kenai River. "I think this legislation
would really apply here," he said. From 1993 to 1994, there had
been 45 new Kenai River fishing guides; from 1994 to 1995, it
jumped again by another 71 guides. "Most of these guys are
concentrated in about 35-40 miles of this river," he explained,
saying the total number of guides was approximately 317. He hoped
the local resident guides would be kept in mind. "We have a lot
of people blowing into town that really don't have a vested
interest in the industry at all," he added.
Number 1220
BRAD ADAMS testified via teleconference from Kenai, saying he had
fished professionally on the Kenai River for the past 12 years. He
strongly supported a limit in the sport fishing industry. He
indicated it was critical to the industry "to limit ourselves." He
felt it had been needed for several years and wanted to see
something happen "the sooner the better."
Number 1264
JOE HARDY testified via teleconference from Kenai, saying he was a
Kenai River guide. "I do not support HJR 51," he said. "We do,
however, have a problem with the number of guides working the Kenai
River and other areas of the state. However, we should not create
a group of privileged citizens, privileged to have a limited entry
guide permit. The state constitution is fair. Fish and game
belong to each and every state citizen, with equal opportunity for
all to utilize the resources, whether it's commercial or for sport.
There are other and better ways to solve the problem."
Number 1300
MR. HARDY listed possible solutions. He referred to HB 175, which
he suggested could be passed to register all guides statewide.
Minimum professional qualifications could be established so that a
person could not just go in a door and get a license. The license
fee on the Kenai could be raised, for example, to $2,500 a year,
with $7,500 a year for nonresidents. A three-year permit could be
required. The licensing period could be from January 1 to March1,
with the requirement of having to apply in person, which would
favor local residents but would not disqualify any nonresident who
wanted to come get it.
Number 1338
MR. HARDY thought all guides statewide should be subject to a drug-
testing program. He said, "there's been some watering down of the
Coast Guard regulations for licenses on the Kenai River and we need
to go back to what we had before and we need to require a full,
uninspected motor vessel license, not a special Kenai River
license." He emphasized that the problem could be worked within
the confines of the state constitution. "Hunting guides are
regulated," he said. "There's no reason why fishing guides can't
be regulated also under the same guidelines."
Number 1367
MR. HARDY concluded by saying, "Above all, whatever system we
choose must be fair and give reasonable access to new or aspiring
guides and not create a special, privileged class."
Number 1387
ALAN LEMASTER testified via teleconference from Gakona, asking why
it was felt there was a need for limited entry or a constitutional
amendment for that purpose. "Do you feel that all the rivers of
the state need to be limited entry, or just certain ones," he
asked, "and, if so, which ones?" Referring to a question posed
earlier, he said, "in terms of definition, what is the difference
between the sport fish guides and the commercial fisheries as it is
noted in our constitution and in our laws?"
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN replied that the bill permitted the state to do
limited entry in the sport fish business. It did not set out any
criteria on who, what, why or where. If the resolution was passed,
it would go to a vote of the people to decide whether they wanted
to limit the sport fish operator. At that point, all the
discussion would take place on rules and regulations specifying how
the limit would occur. Chairman Austerman asked if that had
answered Mr. Lemaster's questions.
Number 1487
MR. LEMASTER replied yes, it did answer the question as far as this
particular bill was concerned. He indicated he wanted to know if
it was felt that limited entry was necessary on all the rivers of
Alaska and, if not, which fisheries were being addressed. He
added, "Or do you care at this point?"
Number 1510
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN responded, "We didn't draft this bill. We are
the fish committee that hears the bills that are assigned to us by
the speaker. Representative Green is the one who drafted the bill
and feels that it's time to limit the sport fish charter boats,
apparently, or he would not have drafted this and presented it to
us."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted there was a committee substitute before
them, version C and asked for a motion to bring that before the
committee.
Number 1574
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS moved that the committee adopt for use CS for
House Joint Resolution\C, dated 2/28/96. There being no objection,
it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referred to testimony by Lance Domonoske
indicating he wanted to see more details. Representative Davis
explained that in a resolution that would go before the voters, as
this one would, the question would simply be asked, "Should the
state of Alaska adopt statutes and rules and regulations and allow
for limited entry of sport fish guides?" If the resolution passed,
it would be on the ballot. It would then be up to the general
public and special interest groups to "go out and sell it," either
through committees, associations, task forces or individually.
Similarly, anyone opposed to it, as Mr. Hardy was, would also try
to bring their viewpoint to the voting public.
Number 1674
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES expressed concern that "how we get into
these kinds of situations is because of one part of the state." He
pointed out that in large parts of the state, sport fish guiding
was virtually unheard of. "That's slowly developing," he added.
He emphasized there were areas of the state with no problem. "I
have a lot of interest in seeing Adak developed, for instance," he
said, "and there isn't a sport fishing guide out there." He
thought there were two guides in Unalaska, where tourism business
was just developing. "If you create something like this for one
part of the state, you do harm to another part of the state," he
concluded.
Number 1716
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS responded that question had come up during the
testimony. He suggested someone from the Department of Fish and
Game could provide an answer. However, he assumed that if the
resolution passed, it would be somewhat on an as-needed basis, for
example, on the Kenai. Representative Davis mentioned attempts to
impose restrictions through the Kenai River Advisory Committee that
had been "shot down by the Attorney General's office." "If this
did pass, I think it would come up as requested," he said. "It
would not affect areas that do not have a problem and that do not
have, even, any sport guides in them. That would be my
understanding," he stated. "Whether that's legal or constitutional
or not is another question."
Number 1780
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN emphasized that, with HJR 51, the voters would
be asked to establish the right for the state to create limited
entry for this purpose. "It would behoove us as citizens to make
sure that, when that's done, it is done in the way we want to see
it done," he said. "I've often envisioned that if they did
something like this, that it would be done by fishing management
areas, so that each area would have its own number of permits and
they could at least have some kind of control on it."
Number 1907
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Fish and Game, affirmed that if the resolution were
to pass by a vote of the people, it would authorize the Alaska
State Legislature to develop a limited entry system for sport fish
guides. "And you then would have to pass subsequent legislation
which would actually set up the program," he said. "And you could
design it however you wanted to design it. It could be statewide
or it could be modeled more after the one that exists for the
commercial fishing industry, which is on not only an
administrative-area basis, but also on a species basis. So, you
could design it however you want, but that would be a second step.
The initial step, and the step that you are contemplating right
now, is simply to ask the people of the state whether or not they
want to amend the constitution to allow you to develop such a
program in state law."
Number 1854
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS agreed that was the point that would cause
people to promote or not promote HJR 51. The resolution addressed
what restraints the legislature would or would not be under in
developing statutes. "There are some questions that I think
everybody needs to feel comfortable with," he said, "before they
would want to promote it or not promote. And, of course, if they
don't want to promote it, then they probably don't support the
resolution."
Number 1895
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted that Representative Joe Green, sponsor of
HJR 51, had joined the meeting.
MR. BRUCE referred to the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission and
said, "that's probably the closest model you have and it's probably
a reasonable assumption to think that a system devised for sport
fish guides might take that as, at least, some model to start
from."
Number 1992
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referred to an earlier question about
jurisdiction outside the three-mile limit. He asked Geron Bruce
whether sport fishing outside that boundary could be limited.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN suggested that might have to do with whether or
not there was an Fisheries Management Plan (FMP).
Number 1947
MR. BRUCE responded, "Yes, I think that would be a part of it,
whether or not the council had delegated to the state any
management authority." He added, "You could have a limited entry
system, and under that system, people limited could go out and fish
in the federal zone, subject to whatever the federal rules were
there. So, it's not an either/or answer. It's possible but it
would depend on the interaction between the state and the federal
government."
Number 1962
MR. BRUCE explained what must occur before a fishery goes to
limited entry, using the current commercial system as a model.
First, the participants had to request it. Second, there had to be
evidence demonstrating a resource conservation issue was involved.
And third, the participants requesting it had to provide
information that CFEC could look at to determine that the
requesting participants were suffering economic distress. "In the
case of the guided sport fishery," he said, "you don't have that
kind of information available like you did in the commercial salmon
fishery before limited entry came into effect. And you really need
something like House Bill 175 in place in order to provide that
kind of information base, before you could really answer those
kinds of questions and go to a limited entry system, even if you
had the constitutional authority."
Number 2023
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked, under that scenario, what sort of
time period Mr. Bruce anticipated would be required if the
resolution passed and was deemed desirable. He wondered if Mr.
Bruce was talking about a year, five years, or how long.
Number 2034
MR. BRUCE replied that he could only guess. He indicated he would
defer to Frank Homan from the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC) for an answer. "Just my own personal guess would be that
you would be looking at, probably, no less than two or three years
and maybe as long as five years," he said.
Number 2078
FRANK HOMAN, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission,
indicated that Geron Bruce was correct. "The current limitation
system that we use for commercial fisheries requires us to look
back at least four years," he said, explaining that was the normal
period of time, although it could be longer.
Number 2108
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if, in looking back, data already there
could be used or whether they would start from ground-zero to
establish data. "There's bound to be a significant amount of data
on escapement, catch and all that sort of thing in certain
fisheries now," he said.
Number 2120
MR. HOMAN replied that the way it worked now was using existing
data. "The benefit in the commercial fisheries is that we are able
to use fish tickets for past catches and harvest levels," he said.
"So, we have fish tickets for every commercial fisherman who has
harvested fish in Alaska. Unfortunately, with the sport fish area,
we don't have that data that defined. As Geron mentioned, House
Bill 175 gives a framework for gathering that kind of information."
Number 2153
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "We see published figures, though, of
numbers of fish, by species, in certain areas, probably those areas
that are most susceptible to needing this kind of assistance." He
asked if those historical figures would not be appropriate or
adequate to use for this.
Number 2168
MR. HOMAN replied there were gross figures developed by Department
of Fish and Game biologists. "I can't speak to the details of how
they do that," he explained, adding, "but I don't believe that
they're defined to the individual fisherman, as ... commercial
fishing is." He indicated the harvest level for commercial fishing
was identified to specific harvester. "I don't believe that
information is available on the sport fish side," he added.
Number 2201
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed confusion, saying, "If there were a
certain number of fish in there and there are a certain number of
guides now, there isn't an analogy that would be useful to say that
we either are approaching, we've exceeded, or, to some degree, say
there is a necessity to, in this fishery, limit, but maybe over
here, it's just getting close and maybe in the next five years
we've got to do it. It seems you can do that on historical
figures."
Number 2233
MR. HOMAN responded, "You're correct in looking at the total catch
in an area. And if -- the Kenai is one that's popular now -- it
was determined that the number of salmon taken in the Kenai area
was exceeding a number that could potentially develop into a
resource conservation problem and/or causing economic distress
amongst the fishermen, then you could look at a limited entry
system." He explained that on the commercial side, the CFEC looked
at the number of participants that had been in the fishery the last
four years. That established a maximum number, which was the
highest number that had participated in any one year. "But over
the four-year period that we look at, there are many more fishermen
than that," he pointed out. On the commercial side, they looked at
fish tickets from all participants. Individually, the participants
were then ranked against each other and the line drawn when they
reached the maximum number established. "So, that's why you need
to specify the harvest to the individual," he said, "so that they
can be properly ranked amongst all the other individuals."
Number 2299
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referred to commercial tickets and suggested
the king salmon tags "would be a similar guide in this respect."
MR. HOMAN agreed that would be one source of information. "And I
don't know, specifically, if that's identified to the sport license
holder or to the sport guide operator," he said. "That's something
that would have to be looked at." He added, "at this point, what
happens in the commercial side is not necessarily what would happen
on the sport fish side. And as you indicated, this resolution is
only allowing the state to develop a system." Mr. Homan noted that
if this passed by public vote, legislation would be developed. He
pointed out that the opportunity to design the program specifically
would come at that point. "And you could include the whole state
or sections of the state or a particular species," he said. "You'd
have complete flexibility with legislation, if it was authorized by
this resolution. All of the concerns that were brought up today
could be ironed out during the legislative process."
Number 2365
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON mentioned that, as an example, the state
could limit the number of liquor licenses and used to limit the
number of big game guides. He pointed out they were talking about
a common property resource. However, they were not denying access
to that resource. Instead, they were talking about denying a guide
a business practice or license that would allow a person to operate
as a guide. He asked for clarification on the difference and why
a constitutional amendment was needed.
Number 2417
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said, "It sounds to me like we'd have to
research back to what they did in the '70s, when they passed the
original limited entry."
MR. HOMAN said in order to limit the number of sport fish guides,
constitutional authority was needed. He suggested there could not
be unlimited access to that fishery except for the number of
permits. If those were freely transferred, as occurred on the
commercial side, anyone could buy a permit and enter the fishery.
TAPE 96-8, SIDE B
Number 0007
MR. HOMAN explained there was a clause in the constitution that
said fish and wildlife were open to all. "That was why the limited
entry constitutional amendment for commercial fish was passed in
'72," he said, "because before that, they couldn't restrict the
number."
Number 0026
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS clarified that Mr. Homan was referring to
commercial fishers. He then added, "if we designated guides as
commercial fishers, then they'd fall into the authority already
vested in the constitution."
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN said, "On that point, we formerly had the
big game commercial services board, which regulated the commercial
use of hunting and fishing ... and there wasn't a limit on the
number of guides." He referred to the Owsichek case involving
whether a guide could own a usage area.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked whether that board limited the number of
guides in an area. "For example," he said, "do they limit the
number of bear hunting guides in Southeast Alaska?"
Number 0074
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied, "No, they limited the amount of areas
that they could hunt in and restricted them to three areas, but
there was no limit on amount of guides that could actually use the
area. They had to register and the way they managed the resource,
if there was an over-harvest, they would use things like a drawing
hunt or a registration hunt, or adjust seasons and bag limits. But
constitutionally, you can't limit the amount of guides in an area
at this point." He added, "It might be an appropriate thing to
address, constitutionally, at some point, maybe with this bill."
Number 0107
STEPHEN WHITE, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, indicated that
Representative Ogan had at least pointed to the answer to
Representative Elton's question. He referred to the 1988 Owsichek
decision in the supreme court. That decision said that the equal
access clauses, which included the common use clause and the other
clauses of Article VIII, protected equal access to the resource by
guides as well as by people actually taking the resource. Thus,
the clauses had to be amended to allow limited entry for guides as
well as for fishermen, hunters or other groups that might be
contemplated.
Number 0145
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked, "What about the back door suggestion,
where you change the designation of a lodge owner or a charter boat
guide to a commercial user?" He further asked, "Can you do that
statutorily without the need of a constitutional amendment?"
Number 0160
MR. WHITE thought that was not feasible because essentially that
would, by statute, change a provision in the constitution. He
explained that the exception in the constitution allowing limited
entry into commercial fisheries spoke about fisheries and
fishermen. It was adopted in the context of distress and problems
in a commercial fishery. "If you would go in and attempt to define
fish and fishermen as guide operators, you'd essentially be
amending the constitution by statute," he stated, "and I think
that's real problematic. In other words, when it was adopted, it
was anticipated that it was commercial fishing, fishermen and
fisheries. One of the problems with just taking that language now
and trying to interpret it, broad enough to cover guides - sport
fishing guides - is it just begs for people to challenge it under
the constitution and we're going to be tied up in court for a long
time. This is the cleanest, easiest way to get to the result that
people want."
Number 0220
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS thought there was no question that the intent
of that constitutional amendment was to deal with commercial
fishermen with big boats out in the water catching a lot of fish.
He asserted that fish guides taking five or six people out were
commercial fishermen. "And I think the fishery that they're
fishing in is a commercial fishery," he said. "But when you get
back to the intent of the limited entry as it is in the
constitution now," he said, "I think it does fall out as a
different story."
Number 0251
MR. WHITE said, "We looked back through the legislative history of
when this came before the voters in the legislation in 1972 and
there was no testimony ever discussing guides in any capacity. It
was all commercial fishermen. So, looking back to what the people
thought they were adopting at that time, it would be problematic
now, even if we now know that it is a problem that does include
guides."
Number 0269
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN responded, "But in 1972, we didn't really
realize that there was going to be half the state living on one
river system, basically."
MR. WHITE said, "And if you do it by statute instead of
constitutional amendment, we'll try to defend it."
Number 0278
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to the constitutional amendment
approved in the early 1970s and pointed out it did not say
"commercial fishermen," but rather, "fishermen and those dependent
upon them for a livelihood." He said he assumed "them" referred to
fish or the fish resources. "It seems to me that language fits,
almost exactly, a Southeast Alaska troller or a charter boat
operator," he said. "I appreciate the position you're in, and I
would certainly be the first one that would guess that you're
absolutely correct that somebody's going to challenge it in court
if, in fact, we did try to do it statutorily."
Number 0317
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented, "I'm the sponsor of the bill but I
still have heartburn with the whole concept when I read that this
does not restrict the power to limit entry into any fishery for
purposes of resource conservation - which certainly is a fact that
we have a problem with - or prevent economic distress among
fishermen. And we have that," he said. "There's a significant
economic distress among fishermen, assuming fishermen are
professional fishermen, or as well as personal use, and dependent
upon them for a livelihood. It seems to me, even without this
modification, that a strong case could be made that this does, in
fact, allow for limited entry among sports fish guides." He asked
Mr. White, "What would your opinion be if you were asked to defend
this, that there is, for some reason now, a limit imposed and
somebody challenged it in court, would you be willing to defend,
without these underlying portions of this?"
Number 0380
MR. WHITE asked, "Without changing it?"
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied, "Just the way it is, without these
changes."
MR. WHITE replied, "after exhaustive research, we came to the
conclusion it was totally equivocal." He added, "It was unclear
either way and we would certainly defend it." He said he could not
predict what the result would be because the history of the clause
did not indicate either way. Although a good-faith effort would be
made to defend it, the whole issue would be tied up in court for a
long time. "And if you want to avoid that, the easiest thing is to
amend the constitution," he concluded.
Number 0399
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN responded that had been one reason he had
discussed defining commercial fisherman under statute to include
the sport operators. He thanked Mr. White for his comments and
noted that the bill's next committee of referral was the House
Judiciary Committee.
Number 0420
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved that CSHJR 51 move out of committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. There being
no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 0442
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "I don't object because I think it does
need to move on. And I want to commend the sponsor because I think
we're beginning to address an issue that is extremely important."
He referred to earlier testimony about the need for data and said
he hoped that would increase support for HB 175, which began to
provide that data and to allow intelligent decisions to be made on
this constitutional amendment and other issues. "I'm looking at
this as a pair," he said. "But I'm not sure we can get to where
you want to go until we get the data that is in HB 175."
HB 519 - APPROP: FISHERY ENFORCEMENT VESSEL
Number 0481
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN read a portion of the sponsor statement for
HB519, which was also provided in the committee packets:
"Enforcement of fishing laws is difficult over Alaska's vast
distances. The Department of Public Safety has need of a seaworthy
vessel of at least 150 feet for fishery law enforcement activities
in the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska. With a reduction in
force of Coast Guard vessels, it is more important than ever to
provide the Department of Public Safety with the means to provide
fishery law enforcement.
"On February 5, 1996, the state reached a settlement with Tyson
Seafoods that resolved the state's pending lawsuit against the
company's predecessor, Arctic Alaska Fisheries. In the settlement,
Tyson agreed to pay the state $4.1 million in civil damages. Money
from the settlement would go into the fish and game fund, which
could be used to purchase a new enforcement vessel.
"There is a serious need for increased enforcement in Alaska's
waters. When fishing grounds are protected, commercially important
species are permitted to maintain maximum populations. Money
appropriated for fishery enforcement will be recouped by violation
fines, landing taxes, and a healthier resource providing for
increased fishermen incomes and tourists dollars."
Number 0551
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON moved that HB 519 be put on the table for
discussion. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Representative Elton referred to the fiscal note and said, "if you
add a vessel, you add skippers, you add mechanics, you add future
capital costs." He asked that testifiers address that.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS expressed that was his concern also.
Number 0587
JOHN GLASS, COLONEL, Director, Central Office, Division of Fish and
Wildlife Protection, Department of Public Safety, expressed strong
support for HB 519. "The purpose of this bill is to give us a
patrol vessel to patrol the Bering Sea, primarily," he said. He
pointed out that the fisheries resource, which was a renewable
resource, was a multi-million-dollar industry in Alaska that needed
protection. "Hopefully, with an enforcement vessel of this type,
we can continue to have our fishery resource available to use in
the future." The requested vessel was a replacement for two
vessels that had been, basically, decommissioned. The 97-foot
patrol vessel Vigilant, used in the Bering Sea, had been
decommissioned in 1992. "It took a beating, a pounding, in the
Bering Sea for approximately 15 years and was ruled to be unsafe,"
Colonel Glass said. In addition, the Polaris had been dry-docked
the previous year because of budgetary considerations; they had
since found that it was also unsafe. He suggested they could put
a patch on that vessel to make it last another two or three years
before substantial repairs would be needed.
Number 0666
COLONEL GLASS referred to a hand-out he had provided to the
committee, entitled "Draft FY 97 Vessel Plan," that showed the
potential patrols for the vessels. "As you know," he said, "we
have a 121-foot vessel currently, the patrol vessel Woldstad, that
has and is being used in the Bering Sea Area. This gives you an
approximation of what fisheries are out in the Bering Sea that a
vessel of this sort - a 150-foot vessel - could and would be
actively participating in." Colonel Glass explained the hand-out
also showed, by replacing the current patrol of the Woldstad with
the new vessel, where the Woldstad could be used for other
fisheries. "By obtaining a 150-foot vessel, we could get into some
of the areas that we are not able to patrol at all or are very
limited in scope," he said. He noted that the commercial fisheries
and crab fisheries in the Bering Sea were rapidly changing. The
Woldstad, built in 1982, "was not keeping up or maintaining the
technology that is going on with the fishing fleet," he said.
Colonel Glass advised that Lieutenant Alan Cain, who had been a
vessel operator with the Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection
for the past 18 years, and who was knowledgeable about the Bering
Sea, was available to answer questions.
Number 0754
COLONEL GLASS said, "I look at the East Coast fisheries and see
what has happened to those over the years. I do not wish or desire
that the same thing happen to our Alaska fisheries. And by having
a vessel of this nature, we will at least be out there to cover
some of the fisheries we are supposed to be protecting." He voiced
that the Department of Fish and Game had done an outstanding job of
managing the fisheries. "But if we do not have some sort of an
enforcement, all the management in the world is not going to do us
any good and we will not have that renewable resource for our
grandchildren," he concluded.
Number 0785
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked Colonel Glass to touch on the operational
costs of a new vessel and how that would affect his division's
budget.
COLONEL GLASS responded that the plan he had given the committee
showed what they wanted to do with the fisheries. He explained
that when the legislature gave them a budget, they knew the cost of
the vessel and budgeted those days out. "Currently," he said, "the
Woldstad is scheduled for 164 days. This shows an increase because
we've added some other fisheries to that. If we had the money,
this is what we would do."
Number 0850
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN thought that the concern was more that by adding
the vessel, there might not be funds next year to operate.
COLONEL GLASS replied, "We would reduce some other fisheries and
put this vessel on line." He explained that if they built a new
vessel, it would be 18 months to two years down the road. "I will
come back to this body asking for more money for more sea days for
that vessel, for those fisheries, that's true," he added. "We
would have to ... take one other vessel and alter its schedule to
operate these two vessels for approximately 100 days. I would come
back to this body, or the legislature, asking for more sea days
down the road. In order to effectively do our job, we have to have
those days," Colonel Glass concluded.
Number 0891
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "I can't think of a more appropriate use
for this money." He referred to Colonel Glass's initial testimony
about one vessel going into dry-dock for budgetary reasons. He
expressed concern that if they took the $4.l million and converted
it to a vessel, that vessel might also remain in dry-dock for
budgetary reasons.
Number 0930
COLONEL GLASS responded, "We can share those concerns with you.
This is a one-time opportunity that has presented itself to the
state, that this body can give us a patrol vessel that will last
into the 21st century, if you will, for the enforcement. There's
probably, in my opinion, no larger single item that we can do for
the fisheries enforcement than buy this boat. We will work around
the monies that we are given, as we do now, and get the most bang
for our buck for this vessel or any vessel that we have and
operate. Yes, it will be reductions in places, but we also have a
safety issue in the Bering Sea. We have a 121-foot vessel. We
have a fishery that's out on the Aleutian Peninsula that has gone
now to ten-by-ten pots; we can't even inspect those ten-by-ten pots
with the current vessels that we have, and we need the
modernization of the equipment to do that."
Number 0983
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES said he thought it could be proven that with
a capable, adequate vessel, the additional fines coming in would
more than pay for the operation of the vessel. "And that's been
proven up in Bristol Bay," he added. "In some cases, it's four or
five times the cost of the enforcement operation."
Number 1010
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said, "It seems a little strange that the
Tyson settlement was $4.l million and the request is $4.1 million.
Tyson doesn't have a boat they want to sell you, do they, to take
care of their debt?"
Number 1020
COLONEL GLASS replied, "I wish they did because then we could put
it into use tomorrow instead of two years down the road." He
added, in response to Representative Elton's concern, that his
division had also been in contact with the Department of Fish and
Game. "As you will see, on some of that, they are interested," he
said. "The fisheries are expanding out there; they're changing.
We've talked with them. They have come on board and want to use
this vessel also for research on the fisheries that are going on
out there. With a few modifications of this vessel, that can be
accommodated. So, it's going to be, if you will, a multi-purpose
vessel, not just solely for us."
Number 1068
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON thanked Colonel Glass and said, "I don't
disagree with anything you say. I guess I'm just cynical about us
living up to our responsibility. I have no doubt at all that
you'll live up to your responsibility. I just hope we give you the
resources to do it."
COLONEL GLASS replied, "We sure hope so, too, and that's why we're
here. It's extremely important to us and to the fishery.
Number 1091
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES moved that HB 519 bill move out of committee
with individual recommendations. There being no objection, it was
so ordered.
HB 390 - KING SALMON TAGS & STAMPS/GUIDE FOR ALIEN
Number 1101
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted that the next item of business was HB390,
sponsored by Representative Elton.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON moved that HB 390 be adopted for
consideration. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Representative Elton pointed out that harvests are currently capped
by biological constraints, including hatchery and wild production.
In some cases, they were also capped by political constraints,
which included salmon treaty issues in Southeast Alaska and the
different allocation decisions made by the Board of Fisheries.
Number 1163
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON explained that HB 390 adopted the game
approach to trophy animals, applying it to "what could probably be
best defined as Alaska's premier trophy fish." He referred to an
Associated Press article, dated October 31, 1995, in the committee
packet, which noted that in Southeast Alaska, the existing cap on
sport fish harvest of king salmon was in the neighborhood of
40,000. "The AP article notes that because of Pacific salmon
treaty problems, we may have a cap in the range of 16,000 -
26,000," he said. He acknowledged that subsequent to the time of
the article, people had become a little more optimistic. However,
even the optimistic scenario might mean the cap in Southeast Alaska
would drop from 40,000 to 30,000. "And the problem that creates,"
he said, "is that right now, two out of every three king salmon
that are harvested in Southeast Alaska in the sport fishery are
harvested by nonresidents." Taking the optimistic view, if the cap
dropped to 30,000, assuming no growth in the nonresident harvest,
there would be 27,000 kings caught by nonresidents for a 30,000
cap, resulting in nine out of ten being harvested by nonresidents.
Representative Elton stated, "I think the issue before the state
is: How do you balance the needs of Alaska sport fish harvesters
in the king salmon fishery in Southeast, and how do you balance the
imperatives of the tourist industry and the nonresident harvesters
of king salmon in the Southeast fishery?"
Number 1285
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON noted that some of the same issues existed
outside Southeast Alaska, especially in the Cook Inlet area,
including the Kenai and Mat-Su drainages. The game animal model
for HB 390 provided that a nonresident coming to Alaska to harvest
a game animal would have to pay for the privilege. For example,
the price for harvesting a Sitka black-tail deer was $150 for a
nonresident tag; for two deer, the price was $300. "And a black-
tail is the cheapest game animal for a nonresident," Representative
Elton said. "It goes up to $1100 for musk oxen."
Number 1345
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON pointed out that the model he had proposed was
less stringent than the game model. "It provides that a
nonresident who comes to Alaska to fish for king salmon will buy
the king salmon stamp that we already have in existence," he said,
"and upon purchase of that king salmon stamp, would be issued one
king salmon tag." A portion of that tag would be affixed to the
fish and a portion would be mailed back to the department along
with whatever data was requested. "So, they get one tag for free,"
he said. "If they want a second tag, they would have to pay $100."
The amounts would rise with each subsequent salmon, up to a cap of
$500 per salmon.
Number 1407
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "Essentially, what this model provides
is that it does not tell a nonresident they can't come up here and
catch a fish. They can catch as many as they want. They can catch
as many as they're catching now. It does provide that if you want
to catch a second fish, thereby taking that fish out of the
fishery, or out of the ... quota pool, you've got to pay, because
you're taking that fish away from an Alaska resident or you're
taking that fish away from another visitor that may happen to come
in June and you're here in May."
Number 1441
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON complimented the Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G) for their work on the fiscal note for HB 390. He noted
that for 1994, the harvest of king salmon by nonresidents was just
over 100,000 fish. Using the assumptions from ADF&G's fiscal note
if HB 390 were in place, the harvest rate by nonresidents would
drop almost 50 percent, with nonresidents taking approximately
52,000 fish. That would leave more fish available to Alaska
residents.
Number 1500
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "I guess the challenge in front of us is
to try to pick the best way we're going to handle the brick wall
that's in front of us. And I think I'd probably be remiss in not
noting that there are other solutions." He added, "But some of the
other solutions are fairly draconian and, I think, fairly harmful."
He referred to time and area closures, wherein ADF&G could keep the
catch of king salmon within a given quota. "I think if they do
that, that's going to have a negative affect on, for example, the
visitor industry, because it would preclude a lodge, for example,
from selling a lodge/sport fish experience in July if they're not
sure that they're going to be open in July. I don't think a lodge
owner is going to want to go out and book their lodge if there is
no clarity on whether or not that lodge is even going to be allowed
to take fishermen on a guided experience because they can't define
when the time and area closures may be," he said.
Number 1563
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "The other way of doing it is bag limit
restrictions." He added, "I think that is also very destructive to
the visitor industry because a person that's coming up and spending
$3,000 for a four-day stay at a fishing lodge may not want to do
that if the bag limit or the possession limit is dropped
dramatically. It's going to be tough, I think, to attract somebody
up here for a king salmon fishing experience at a lodge, where they
pay $3,000 for four days, if they know that when they catch the one
fish on the first day, they're going to be kind of out of luck on
the second, third and fourth day."
Number 1600
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON suggested, "Another way, of course, is gear
restrictions. But if you adopt gear restrictions, like outlaw the
use of down-riggers here in Southeast Alaska, I think you may also
be harming a portion of the visitor industry because it's going to
be very difficult to guarantee or to have a high success rate if
you're not using down-riggers." He noted that a further option was
limited entry for sport fish guides, which had been discussed
previously in committee.
Number 1632
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON emphasized that HB 390 presented a reasonable
alternative. "I will be frank with the committee," he said. "I
have had charter boat people in beating me up and I've had lodge
people in beating me up, saying, `Let's do something different.'
The challenge that I've issued to them is, `Okay, what do you
suggest?' And we haven't come back with an alternative on what can
happen to avoid this brick wall. And I think it's also fair to
say, as long as I'm admitting that sport fish charter guides and
lodge owners have beaten me up over the head, that there have been
some that - probably reluctant to testify in public - that have
said, `Yes, we either do this or I'm going to be running a lodge
where I'm teaching people how to cook wild fish rather than how to
catch wild fish, because we're going to have some problems with the
artificial caps and the quotas.'"
Number 1687
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to allegations in the Cook Inlet
region that people were canning or preserving fish for sale in
Arizona or elsewhere. "That may or may not be the case," he said.
"But if it is the case, I can guarantee that if they have to pay
$100 for the second king salmon, or $200 for the third king salmon,
it will not be cost-effective for them to be taking those fish
elsewhere and selling them." He noted a second anecdote, which
revolved around the allegation that foreign visitors were taking
the fish out of country for sale. "This makes it not cost-
effective to do that," he emphasized. "And I think it therefore
protects the resource a little bit more." He noted that one of the
provisions of the bill was that nonresident alien fishermen, from
foreign countries, were required to have a guided sport fish
experience, in the same way that nonresident alien hunters were
required to use game guides. Representative Elton acknowledged
that there was a question about whether requiring nonresident alien
hunters to have a game guide was legal; that question would pertain
to this bill, as well.
Number 1812
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON expressed that requiring game guides for
nonresident aliens not only provided a stream of traffic to the
guides but also was good public policy because it made it more
difficult for foreigners to organize as a group and fly in to some
river "where they're acting as vacuum cleaners."
Number 1842
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON concluded by saying he had not spoken to the
sponsor statement. "I'll just let that stand as it is," he added.
Number 1870
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked about the current king salmon tag or
stamp.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON responded, "One of the problems, and you'll
see that in the course of the bill, is the king salmon stamp is
actually identified in statutes as a king salmon tag. So, because
we're adding another tag, we're adopting what everybody calls `the
king salmon stamp'; we're saying that is a stamp and not a tag."
He added, "And the cost of the tag remains the same."
Number 1941
JOHN BURKE, Deputy Director, Division of Sport Fish, Department of
Fish and Game, indicated much of his testimony would parallel that
of Representative Elton. He stated:
"We feel the concept embodied in this legislation has merit.
First, the legislation will reduce the harvest of sport-caught
Chinook salmon by nonresidents as well as participation by
nonresident anglers in Chinook salmon fishing. There would be
fewer anglers and fewer days fished by those fishermen. This
reduction would occur generally among all nonresident anglers and
specifically among those nonresidents who catch a large number of
Chinook salmon. Because of this, the Chinook that are available to
sport anglers would probably be spread over a greater number of
anglers."
Number 1980
MR. BURKE continued, "Second, through the increase in fees, the
nonresident anglers will increase their contribution to the
management of Chinook salmon. Stock assessment and accurate catch
monitoring have become very important in Chinook salmon management
relative to allocation of harvest and conservation. This stretches
all the way to the international arena relative to the treaty, as
well as to local allocation conflicts in places like the Kenai
River.
"With a number of assumptions, and at best these are certainly
guesses, we estimate that the legislation would increase the Fish
and Game fund by about $350,000 a year, as well as diminish the
nonresident harvest by approximately 50 percent a year.
"Thirdly, and to the division, this may be the most important
point, the legislation helps to acknowledge Chinook salmon as a
special trophy fish. There certainly are a limited number of these
fish available to recreational anglers and, quite frankly, there
are probably fewer of these fish than there are anglers who want to
catch them."
Number 2054
MR. BURKE continued, "We believe, in a sort of general consensus,
that the price structure described in the legislation may be a
little bit steep. At the same time, we do not feel it is our role
to suggest an alternative, nor would we have consensus among our
staff as to what that alternative might be. There is certainly a
wide range of opinions amongst `Fish and Gamers,' some that would
charge more, some that would charge less."
Number 2090
MR. BURKE concluded by saying, "In summary, we note the tag
requirement and associated price structure would reduce
participation and harvest by the nonresident segment of the sport
fishing population. In this sense, this legislation is allocative.
Relative to the elements that would reduce the harvest and
participation, we're traditionally neutral on allocative measures.
At the same time, there are parts of this bill that are not
necessarily allocative and we certainly support the concepts -
those concepts - as they are embodied in this legislation,
primarily, the idea of this fish as a trophy fish and spreading the
opportunity to harvest one over as many people as we possibly
could."
Number 2144
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to Representative Elton's mention of
a tag being attached to the fish. He wondered where the tag would
be attached. He said, "You get situations where people harvest
these fish and process them and freeze them, cut them, smoke them -
- at what point is the tag not necessary?"
Number 2199
MR. BURKE replied he believed, the way the legislation was written,
that the tag would have to accompany the fish until it got to the
residence of the person and, in a sense, "went out of possession."
He added, "I'm guessing." He supposed a processor could certify
that there was one fish there and attach the tag to that
certification. "It would be fairly easy, at least to propose
something that would work that way," he added.
Number 2248
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON acknowledged that Representative Ogan had
brought up a good point. "It's going to be very, very difficult in
some cases," he said, "and the legislation does note that it must
remain attached to the king salmon until the king salmon is
processed, consumed or removed from the state. If somebody's
putting it in a can ... it would be very difficult to know whether
or not you have a case of salmon that is two kings or three kings
or one king." He added that was the reason for the language,
"until processed."
Number 2318
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN pointed out that was similar to moose or
caribou the way it was written. He expressed concern about "people
that show up with their RV" catching fish and then canning or
freezing them.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked Mr. Burke to comment on the cost
associated with the tags.
Number 2394
MR. BURKE responded, "Personally, I've made these comments on
behalf of the director, who wasn't able to be here tonight." He
said, "I've spoken with a number of charter boat people also and
had the same response that Representative Elton has heard. Some
actually favor this. Most that do would suggest a slightly lesser
cost or perhaps a tag that came into play after several fish, as
opposed to one fish." He mentioned that some resident fishermen,
particularly charter operators, resented the harvest of fish by
nonresidents and thought the fee schedule may be too little. "It
does seem a bit steep," he said at first, adding that he personally
felt it was a trophy animal and therefore perhaps was not too
steep. He emphasized there was no consensus in his group.
TAPE 96-9
Number 0007
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN discussed fishermen at lodges, saying, "After
the second fish, I think they're getting greedy. And I think I'd
be more friendly to the bill if it had a graduating scale upwards
from two fish on, or after two fish. Personally, that would be my
preference."
Number 0079
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN responded that he also had a problem with the
price tag. He wondered if that would really cut down on the number
of fish being caught or would merely stop some businesses from
being economical. He added, "it's going to have a tendency to
drive some people away from that industry."
Number 0109
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS thought the concept was good. He mentioned
discussions around the Kenai Peninsula that the Kenai River king
salmon should be treated as a trophy fish, with special
regulations. He expressed concern about Mr. Burke's comment that
some aspects of the bill were allocative.
Number 0207
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "it's allocative in the sense that there
is an economic disincentive to take `x' number of fish, but it's
not allocation in the sense that this doesn't stop anybody from
taking exactly the same amount they're taking now. But if they
make that decision, there is an economic disincentive." He
expressed hesitation to call that "allocation." He added, "I guess
if you're spending $3,000 for a four-day stay at a lodge, it may
not be as much of a disincentive as I want."
Number 0270
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON commented on the fee structure, saying, "I
would not sit here and say that the fee structure that I have in
the bill is the best one." With a lower fee structure, there would
probably be less of an economic disincentive. "We're picking
numbers out here that we may not know exactly what the effects
are," he said. "And I think in a year or two, we may want to
readdress any kind of a fee structure, whatever fee structure is
included."
Number 0409
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON noted that Representative Ogan and Mr. Burke
had alluded to the fact there were different ways of structuring
fees. "One of the things that may accomplish what Representative
Ogan wants to do is two free tags upon the purchase of a king
salmon stamp by a nonresident, and then hammer them for the third,"
he suggested. "I don't know, frankly, if that's a better way of
doing it or not, but certainly it's an alternative. I know I would
object to a fee structure that went, $25, $50, $75, $100, because
I think that's too low." He mentioned that $100 might be the
market value of a king salmon. If the second one were $100, that
would be two fish for $50 apiece. "I picked those numbers because
I figure that if a Sitka black-tail is worth 150 bucks for the
first one, then certainly the second king is probably worth $100.
And that's not a very scientific way of setting a fee structure,"
he acknowledged.
Number 0451
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN assigned HB 390 to a subcommittee consisting of
Representatives Davis and Ogan, with the former as chair of the
subcommittee. He noted that HB 390 would be rescheduled for the
following week's meeting. He asked that recommendations for fee
structures be considered and a committee substitute be drafted, if
possible. He further suggested that the sponsor provide input to
the subcommittee.
Number 0500
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct, CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN
adjourned the House Special Committee on Fisheries meeting at 6:53
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|