04/15/2005 08:30 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB37 | |
| HB218 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| HB 218 | |||
| = | HB 37 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
April 15, 2005
8:41 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas, Co-Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Jim Elkins
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Woodie Salmon
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 37
"An Act relating to public access to fishing streams."
- MOVED CSHB 37(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 218
"An Act relating to cost recovery fisheries for private
nonprofit hatchery facilities."
- MOVED CSHB 218(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 37
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC ACCESS TO FISHING STREAMS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GARA
01/10/05 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/10/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/10/05 (H) FSH, RES
03/21/05 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
03/21/05 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/23/05 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
03/23/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/23/05 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/15/05 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 218
SHORT TITLE: PRIVATE HATCHERY COST RECOVERY FISHERIES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) THOMAS
03/15/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/15/05 (H) FSH, RES
03/16/05 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
03/16/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/16/05 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/15/05 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As bill sponsor, presented CS for HB 37.
RICKY GEASE
Kenai River Sport Fishing Association
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 37.
DOUGLAS REYNOLDS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 37.
IAN FISK, Staff
to Representative Thomas
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented CS for HB 218 on behalf of
Representative Thomas, sponsor.
BRUCE WALLACE
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 218.
PETER ESQUIRO, General Manager
Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture (NSRAA)
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 218, and
suggested changes to the bill.
STEVE REIFENSTUHL, Operations Manager
Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (NSRAA)
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 218.
MIKE WELLS, Sales Manager
Valdez Fisheries Development Association (VFDA)
Valdez, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 218.
STEVE DAUGHERTY, Assistant Attorney General
Alaska Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 218, offered suggestions.
BRUCE WHITE, Hatchery Program Coordinator
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 218, offered suggestion.
BOB THORSTENSON, President
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA);
Executive Director,
Southeast Alaska Seiners Association
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 218.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR BILL THOMAS called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 8:41:25 AM. Representatives
Wilson, Elkins, LeDoux, and Thomas were present at the call to
order. Representatives Harris, Kapsner, and Salmon arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 37-PUBLIC ACCESS TO FISHING STREAMS
8:41:49 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 37, "An Act relating to public access to
fishing streams."
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX moved to adopt committee substitute for HB 218,
Version 24-LS0284\I, Bullock, 4/14/05. There being no
objection, Version I was before the committee.
8:42:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor
explained that Version I has a few changes from the original
bill. First, the title on page 1, line 1 was changed in order
to clarify that the bill only applied to voluntary land trades
and purchases. Second, page 1, lines 7-9 were added to further
clarify that that this would be a voluntary program. Third,
subsection (c) from the original bill, regarding sale price
negotiations "without regard to the fair market value of the
land or easement" was deleted in Version I. Fourth, language
was added on page 4, lines 9-10, which says, "The right of
eminent domain may not be exercised to acquire land or interest
in land under this section." Lastly, lines 20-23 were added on
page 4, which say:
Within 60 days after receiving a written request from
a landowner requesting the removal of the landowner's
land from the list to be acquired under the plan, the
commissioner shall remove the landowner's land from
the list, even if the removal leaves less than two
meander miles along fishing streams.
8:43:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS commented that HB 218 works well in
conjunction with HB 252, which would fund the construction of
new hatcheries. He said, "It doesn't make much sense to produce
more fish and not take some effort to try to allow people access
to the waters where the fish are going to be planted."
8:44:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that on her copy of the bill,
someone had crossed out the word "shall" and handwrote the word
"must" on page 5, line 2. She asked why this was so.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied that he wasn't sure why it was so
altered.
8:45:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON clarified that the words "shall" and
"must" don't mean the same thing and commented that statutes
usually contain the words "shall" or "may." She said, "I don't
like the word 'must.'" She noted that on page 4, line 9, the
word "may" is used.
8:46:07 AM
RICKY GEASE, Kenai River Sport Fishing Association, testified in
support of HB 218. He agreed that HB 252 and HB 218 are
related, and said, "If we're going to put more fish in places,
we need to have access to those places."
8:47:05 AM
DOUGLAS REYNOLDS testified in support of HB 218. He said, "I
think it's very important to have additional access to the
streams, especially on the Kenai [River]...." He noted that he
is a fly fisherman, and he opined that "combat fishing" reduces
the aesthetic experience of fishing. He said, "I feel that ...
opening up these areas would give a better experience for
fishing."
CO-CHAIR THOMAS closed public testimony.
8:49:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS moved to report the committee substitute
for HB 37, Version 24-LS0284\I, Bullock, 4/14/05, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
8:49:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON objected.
8:50:08 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Elkins, Kapsner,
LeDoux, and Thomas voted in favor of the bill. Representative
Salmon voted against it. Representatives Harris and Wilson were
absent. Therefore, CSHB 37(FSH) was reported out of the House
Special Committee on Fisheries by a vote of 4-1.
HB 218-PRIVATE HATCHERY COST RECOVERY FISHERIES
CO-CHAIR THOMAS announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 218, "An Act relating to cost recovery
fisheries for private nonprofit hatchery facilities."
8:50:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS moved to adopt the committee substitute
for HB 218, Version 24-LS0544/Y, Utermohle, 4/12/05. There
being no objection, Version Y was before the committee.
8:51:19 AM
IAN FISK, Staff to Representative Thomas, presented the
committee substitute for HB 218 on behalf of Representative
Thomas, sponsor. He pointed out that the findings were changed
to read:
The Alaska State Legislature finds that Alaska private
nonprofit salmon hatcheries should maximize the
harvests of returning hatchery-produced salmon by
commercial salmon fishing permit holders. The
legislature also finds that private nonprofit
hatcheries should minimize, to the greatest extent
feasible, the direct sale of salmon harvested in
special harvest areas.
MR. FISK explained that subsection (e) on page 3 has been
reworded to model other fishing industry assessments such as the
3 percent salmon enhancement tax. This was because the attorney
general's office advised that the original language, in which
the revenue from the assessment would be held in trust, would
not work; assessments are considered revenue to the state and
therefore must be appropriated by the legislature. He commented
that this will cause a delay in the distribution of the funds.
8:53:27 AM
MR. FISK stated that lines 20 and 22 on page 2 and line 3 on
page 3 had been changed such that the Alaska Department of
Revenue would no longer be able to set the dates of distribution
to the funds because the funds have to be appropriated by the
legislature. Also, line 22 on page 3 was altered to make the
violation of this bill a Class A fisheries misdemeanor rather
than a Class A misdemeanor, and therefore the fine can be up to
$15,000, and could require forfeiture of the vessel and the
gear. Mr. Fisk emphasized that there are no changes to the
bill's main language.
8:55:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if the hatcheries will be likely to
make any changes if the language in the bill is permissive.
MR. FISK replied that it wouldn't be appropriate for the
legislature to require these changes. He noted that the
hatcheries each have different circumstances, including
different debts and different types of fish, and therefore they
shouldn't be forced into operating in the same way. He
commented that it's hard to guess how many of the hatcheries
will make these changes; it's up to each hatchery board to
decide for itself.
8:57:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if the hatcheries are in a position
where they can handle the delay in funding.
MR. FISK responded that this would depend on the finances of
each individual hatchery.
8:58:33 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS stated, "The fishermen started the hatcheries,
the fish were for them to increase their profitability and
produce more common property fish. Hopefully ... the board of
directors have enough commercial fishermen on their board that
they can utilize this [bill]. And I think it's a good tool...."
8:59:37 AM
BRUCE WALLACE noted that he is on the Southern Southeast
Regional Aquaculture Association (SSRAA) board, and said that at
this time he doubted SSRAA would support this bill. However, he
commented that as long as the bill is permissive, it is good to
have it available as a tool.
9:01:06 AM
PETER ESQUIRO, General Manager, Northern Southeast Regional
Aquaculture (NSRAA), commented that he was glad the findings
were changed in the CS for HB 218. He explained that financing
a hatchery outside of the public sector is no small job; private
operation of hatcheries is very rare. He noted that 20 years
ago when private nonprofit hatcheries were authorized, cost
recovery was identified by the legislature as the mechanism most
likely to succeed in allowing for private payment of hatchery
operating costs. He continued:
For a number of years we have not been fully satisfied
with the way cost recovery is going. Despite the fact
that we have been, in this association, fairly
successful in getting 70 plus percent of our returns
every year to the common property fisheries. ... We've
always felt that there's some room for improvement.
And we continue to look for those areas where we can
improve that program. But ... in all the looking that
we've done in the past 15 years or so, we've not found
a replacement for it that does not result in a net
loss in value to the commercial fishery resource....
Contributions [to this cost recovery program] are very
diverse. ... We have several sources of income; we
have several species in several locations that feed
into our total cost recovery program....
9:05:29 AM
MR. ESQUIRO expressed appreciation for the permissiveness of the
bill. He also made some recommendations for other possible
changes. He asked for clarification regarding the word "board"
on page 2, line 10, as it isn't clear whether it is referring to
the Board of Fisheries or the board of directors of the
corporation. He commented that the words, "representatives of
affected commercial fishermen" on page 3, lines 5-6, are
redundant in that there are 15 commercial fisherman on the NSRAA
board of directors, which is the hatchery permit holder. He
recommended that the word "facility" on page 3, line 9 be
changed to "corporation" because the corporation is the entity
that has the fiduciary responsibilities to fulfill.
MR. ESQUIRO, regarding subsection (e) on page 3, commented, "I
know that's modeled after the language ... that authorizes the
salmon enhancement tax, and I hope that we can continue to have
the same kind of relationship that we've had with the
legislature for the last ... twenty-some years with respect to
appropriating the funds." He then turned to page 4, lines 1-4
regarding the exemption, he said:
In some years, the salmon enhancement tax, the 3
percent tax that's generated from the fish caught at
Hidden Falls hatchery can be one-quarter to one-third
of our entire enhancement tax in a given year. So in
the models that we've worked with to determine whether
or not this is a good thing for fishermen ... we did
not take exempting this from the 3 percent tax into
consideration. So I hope that you would reconsider
that exemption part there, because that is real income
that we have coming in to us.
MR. ESQUIRO stated that NSRAA is still opposed to HB 218. He
said, "I don't think that this is really enforceable, and in the
models that I've looked at, I don't know that this really
produces the results desired by the commercial fishermen."
9:10:08 AM
STEVE REIFENSTUHL, Operations Manager, Northern Southeast
Regional Aquaculture Association (NSRAA), remarked that the
findings in Version Y are much better that the original
language. He said that he has done an economic analysis of what
it would mean if this bill were implemented at Hidden Falls
hatchery. The conclusion of this analysis, he said, is that
there would be a net negative benefit to the fishermen with this
tax imposed at the hatchery. He commented that only under one
or two scenarios, with no administrative fees, no increase in
enforcement monies, and with a price of about 27 cents, is there
any benefit to common property fisheries; all other cases, there
would be a negative benefit and the fishermen would actually
have less money in their pockets at the end of the season than
they did to begin with.
MR. REIFENSTUHL noted that he sent the NSRAA letter of response
to HB 218 to all the representatives. He said:
Managing a fishery at one of the hatchery programs is
a very difficult and complex job. And to do that we
have to consider not only contribution to the common
property fisheries but also our cost recovery program
and, more particularly, our brood stock. And if this
proposal were implemented at Hidden Falls, we would
still potentially have to close down a midweek fishery
because of brood stock concerns.
MR. REIFENSTUHL explained that in many areas there are brood
stock requirements of over 100,000 fish, which can be 5-10
percent of the return. He noted:
It takes a great deal of effort to have that entire
return represented in the timing; we can't just wait
until the end of the return to take brood stock,
because that would skew the timing on future returns.
So we have to manage the fishery from the very
beginning to the end to assure representation of that
brood stock.
9:14:15 AM
MR. REIFENSTUHL commented on the exemption listed on page 4 of
the bill; he said that he didn't realize that the 3 percent tax
wouldn't be applied to the fish harvested in any one of these
special harvest areas. He stated that, for example, if they had
to have a 30 percent tax on the Hidden Falls fishery, this bill
would require that they change it to a 33 percent tax in order
to generate the revenue required for operations. He said that
the delay in revenue appropriations would be a major problem;
most organizations don't have the funds, or what funds they do
have are already allocated for certain purposes.
9:15:45 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked Mr. Reifenstuhl what percentage of the
contributions to the hatchery come from sport charter fleet.
MR. REIFENSTUHL replied that the hatchery does not get anything
on a regular basis from either the sport fish division [of
ADF&G] or from sport fish charter operations. He said that they
occasionally receive a small sum of money from the local charter
boat organizations, but he noted that the program is worth
hundreds of thousands of dollars to the sport fisheries.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS remarked that it is a $20 million industry to
the sport charter operators in Sitka.
9:17:52 AM
MIKE WELLS, Sales Manager, Valdez Fisheries Development
Association (VFDA), testified in opposition to Version Y of HB
218. He said that he has serious concerns about subsection (e)
on page 3. He said:
The suggestion that the assessed funds will go into
the general fund and then the legislature may or may
not appropriate these funds back to the hatchery
operator is just not going to work in our opinion.
There's just no guarantee that these funds would come
back to the hatcheries after being subjected to the
legislative process. Hatchery operators, including
VFDA, simply can't wait to pay expenses pending these
appropriations and we're not sure what, if any, loans
... or funding would be available in reserves to be
able to carry us over.
MR. WELLS pointed out that there is no fiscal note attached to
the bill and no financial analysis has been completed on what
the impact of HB 218 would have on the private hatcheries or on
the Alaska Department of Revenue, which holds the notes on most
of the hatcheries.
9:19:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS stated that the language in subsection (e)
on page 3 is "more boilerplate than anything else." He asked
Co-Chair Thomas if he knew of any language in statute that is
permissive in this way. He also asked if this bill would
develop a situation where a hatchery would not know from year to
year whether or not their cost recovery money would be returned
to them.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS replied that it is his understanding that the 3
percent salmon enhancement tax is handled in the same way.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if anyone from the Alaska Department
of Revenue was available to take questions.
MR. FISK answered that no one from that department could make it
to the meeting.
9:21:42 AM
STEVE DAUGHERTY, Assistant Attorney General, Alaska Department
of Law (DOL), stated that he is very happy with the changes in
the CS. He noted that DOL still has a very concerns with
subsection (d) on page 3 and the broad discretion that it gives
to the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Revenue to set
an assessment anywhere between zero and 40 percent without
definite guidelines and criteria for imposing a set level. He
said that DOL does recognize that there are criteria there and
that the bill may be defensible, however DOL does believe that
it would be more defensible if more explicit criteria for
establishment of the fee are set forth in the bill. He stated:
We note that there are no other statutes that give
such broad discretion to a department to set such a
wide range of an assessment. Most of the other
statutes that deal with this situation, such as the
salmon enhancement tax, the dive fishery management
assessment, and the seafood marketing assessment lay
out specific options that the department can choose
between, and in some cases have a vote of [an]
association to determine which one is going to be
imposed. We would be more comfortable with language
like that, but we do realize that with the uncertainty
and the variance between the different hatcheries,
that such a scheme might not be feasible, because it
might require 40 or more separate options. And we are
continuing to work with the sponsor of the bill and we
hope that we can develop some more definite criteria
for the assessment in future versions of the bill.
9:24:20 AM
BRUCE WHITE, Hatchery Program Coordinator, Division of
Commercial Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G),
stated that ADF&G has some concerns with the legislation. He
said:
The department ... does exercise authority over the
private nonprofit hatcheries through their annual
management plans. However the department has not been
involved in the actual mechanics of the cost recovery
operations of these hatcheries. And this legislation
would have the department establish rules and
conditions governing these common property cost
recovery fisheries, and the department would prefer
not to become involved as a referee on an issue that
is basically between the fishermen and the hatchery
operator.
MR. WHITE continued:
Second concern is this legislation has the [ADF&G]
consulting with the Department of Revenue in
establishing the rate of assessment to be levied on
the fishermen. And we currently do not know what
information or expertise the [ADF&G] is expected to
provide or its role in this consultation. And again,
historically the [ADF&G] has not had a role in setting
hatchery cost recovery policies or amounts, and would
prefer that it to continue to not have a roll in that
process.
MR. WHITE commented:
The {ADF&G] is concerned that the early and late
portions of the returns to the hatchery cost recovery
when the volumes of fish are relatively low may not be
adequately harvested, especially if other more
attraction opportunities are available to the
commercial fishermen. So the {ADF&G] would want to
ensure that the hatchery had a backup harvester or
harvesters to clean up any fish from the beginning or
end of the run that may not be harvested in the common
property fishery.
MR. WHITE concluded:
The {ADF&G] understands that this legislation has been
generated because of some conflicts between the
hatchery cost recovery operations and opportunities
for common property fisheries on hatchery stocks. The
{ADF&G] is willing to work on solutions to these
problems when they are brought to our attention. And
in closing, the {ADF&G] appreciates that this
legislation is voluntary and the hatchery operator has
the option to utilize common property fisheries for
cost recovery. We're also supportive of the efforts
to benefit ... commercial fishermen and hatchery
operators, which we believe this bill attempts to do.
9:28:17 AM
BOB THORSTENSON, President, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA);
Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Seiners Association,
testified in support of HB 218. He said, "All we're asking for
is the ability to discuss with the hatchery and the hatchery
board a way to have a direct user fee so the people that
actually catch the fish pay the fee." He continued:
[Under this bill, Alaska Department of Fish & Game's]
role will not change dramatically at all. The fish
are going to be caught during the common property
harvest, ... not in a special cost recovery fishery if
this legislation were to be passed; [ADF&G] already
manages that common property fishery. ... The cost
recovery fishery is going to be taken into the common
property fishery, so ... this is not going to be cost
recovery anymore if a hatchery decides to go down this
course because cost recovery will come out of the
assessment in the fishery.
MR. THORSTENSON remarked that ADF&G has a role in the 3 percent
enhancement tax and he said, "We're not asking for a greater
role than that. He continued, "The [ADF&G] has to make a guess
or make an estimate of how many fish are coming back. The
[ADF&G] doesn't have to levy taxes, come up with different
revenue ideas; [ADF&G] is just going to do the normal, simple
role of estimating how much fish are coming back." He opined
that there will always be fishermen available to catch the fish,
and [therefore there will be no need for backup harvesters].
9:31:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS commented that VFDA had expressed concern
about how the hatchery can be sure that it will get funding to
operate the hatchery.
MR. THORSTENSON replied that most districts have some sort of
overriding enhancement tax which then goes only to the main
regional aquaculture associations; therefore some of the
hatcheries do not collect an enhancement tax. For example, in
Southeast Alaska the 3 percent enhancement tax is given only to
NRSAA and SSRAA. He estimated that NRSAA collects an average of
between $700,000 to $1.2 million [per year], while SSRAA
collects about $350,000 to $800,000.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if that money automatically goes
back to those hatcheries.
MR. THORSTENSON answered that it is his understanding that it
takes 9-12 months for the money to come back to the hatchery.
He commented, "Some of the hatchery operators are looking at a
potential problem with this funding because it will mirror that,
the same kind of collection and it will be nine or twelve months
later that the funds will come back." He opined that because of
this delay, there might have to be a much higher assessment the
first year so that the hatchery can be prepared for the delay.
He pointed out that in cost recovery the hatchery would get paid
within 30 days of selling the fish.
9:34:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked Mr. Thorstenson if he understood the
hatcheries' concerns about waiting for the legislature to
appropriate funds every year.
MR. THORSTENSON said that hatchery boards have to take it on
faith that they will get the funds they need.
9:35:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that she doesn't understand the
process of allocating funds to the hatcheries. She asked if
this was part of the budget deliberations, and if the funding
has ever been adjusted by the legislature.
MR. ESQUIRO explained that in the beginning all the regional
aquacultures gave information to the legislature regarding what
they would need to get their programs started; it was forward
funded by appropriation by the legislature. From that point on,
what the hatcheries get in any given year is based on the
previous year's collection, and therefore there is no delay in
receipt of funds. He said, "If we were to start this program
just the same way that the 3 percent enhancement program was
started way back when, ... there should be an appropriation
equal to what the projected costs of operating would be for next
year." He noted that in 27 years, all the money that was ever
collected through the enhancement program was appropriated back
to the hatcheries.
9:38:33 AM
McKIE CAMPBELL, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G), offered to answer questions and noted that other
members of his staff were also available.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if the language in the bill is
similar to language in other bills for funding hatcheries.
COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL replied that he did not know the answer
but would find out and get back to Representative Harris.
9:40:16 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 218.
9:40:25 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS commented that the Alaska Department of Revenue
told him that the legislature can choose to allocate some of the
enhancement tax money to Douglas Island Pink and Chum, Inc.
(DIPAC).
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked why DIPAC doesn't usually get any of
the enhancement tax money.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS replied that this was because DIPAC is a private
nonprofit hatchery and not a regional aquaculture. He explained
that the regional aquacultures are owned by fishermen, while the
others are not.
9:42:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS moved to report the committee substitute
for HB 218, Version 24-LS0544\Y, Utermohle, 4/12/05, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS objected for discussion purposes. He
commented that he will research the issues and deal with his
concerns when the bill is heard by the House Resources Standing
Committee. He then removed his objection.
9:43:11 AM
There being no objection, CSHB 218(FSH) was reported from the
House Special Committee on Fisheries.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 9:43:15
AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|