Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
03/02/2021 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB79 | |
| HB80 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 80 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 2, 2021
10:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Louise Stutes, Chair
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Andi Story
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative Kevin McCabe
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 79
"An Act relating to salt water sport fishing operators and salt
water sport fishing guides; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED CSHB 79(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 80
"An Act establishing the sport fishing hatchery facilities
account; establishing the sport fishing facility surcharge; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 79
SHORT TITLE: SALTWATER SPORTFISHING OPERATORS/GUIDES
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) FSH, FIN
02/23/21 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/23/21 (H) Heard & Held
02/23/21 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/25/21 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/25/21 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/02/21 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 80
SHORT TITLE: SPT FSH HATCHERY FACIL ACCT; SURCHARGE
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) FSH, FIN
02/23/21 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/23/21 (H) Heard & Held
02/23/21 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/25/21 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/25/21 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/02/21 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the governor, provided a
history of HB 79.
THOMAS TAUBE, Operations Manager
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question related to HB 79.
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the governor, provided an
opening statement in support of HB 80.
DAVID LANDIS, General Manager
Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (SSRAA)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 80.
BEN MOHR, Executive Director
Kenai River Sportfishing Association (KRSA)
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 80.
KATIE HARMS, Executive Director
Douglas Island Pink and Chum, Inc. (DIPAC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 80.
AL BARRETTE
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 80.
FORREST BRADEN, Executive Director
SouthEast Alaska Guides Organization (SEAGO)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 80.
SUSAN DOHERTY, Executive Director
Southeast Alaska Seiners Association (SEAS)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 80.
MICHAEL KRAMER, Chair,
Fisheries Subcommittee
Fairbanks Fish & Game Advisory Committee
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 80.
RAY DEBARDELABEN
Kasilof, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 80.
RONI CARMON
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in regard to HB 80 and common
use.
LISA VON BARGEN, Borough Manager
City and Borough of Wrangell
Wrangell, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 80.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:02:42 AM
VICE CHAIR LOUISE STUTES called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. Representatives Vance,
Story, Ortiz, Kreiss-Tompkins, McCabe, Tarr, and Stutes were
present at the call to order.
HB 79-SALTWATER SPORTFISHING OPERATORS/GUIDES
10:04:13 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 79, "An Act relating to salt water sport fishing
operators and salt water sport fishing guides; and providing for
an effective date."
CHAIR STUTES noted the bill sponsor is the House Rules Standing
Committee by request of the governor. She said the committee
previously heard public testimony on HB 79, and today the
committee will be holding discussion and considering amendments.
10:04:49 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:04 a.m. to 10:06 a.m.
10:06:22 AM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G), on behalf of the governor, provided a history of
HB 79. He stated that about 15 years ago a guide-licensing
program for fresh and salt waters was put together at the
request of Alaska guides who felt there was a need at that time
to set some standards for the industry. As well, ADF&G had
requirements under treaties and different acts to collect data
on salt water fisheries. The legislature subsequently put in
place a guide-licensing program [House Bill 452, adopted May
2004] that set minimal standards for both fresh and salt waters,
and instituted ability for ADF&G to start collecting information
in both fresh and salt water.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG related that when the bill came up for
sunset, fresh water guides across Alaska had some valid, as well
as invalid, concerns for why they weren't interested in
participating in this process any longer. Salt water guides
operating on halibut and salmon understood that there were
treaty obligations, and that ADF&G's management of fisheries was
closely tied to the collection of information. However, fresh
water guides, except in a few fisheries, weren't as convinced
that ADF&G was using that information for in-season purposes,
and ADF&G "kind of agreed with them." There were many cases
where the number of grayling that were caught and released just
wasn't of interest to the department and ADF&G wasn't using it
for in-season management purposes. As a result of the logbook
requirements, many of the guides in rural Alaska operating on
federal lands were being cited by federal agents for minor
violations on the number of grayling released or minor violation
of logbook statute. A guide loses his or her concession on
federal lands as a result of too many citations at the federal
level. The legislature chose to let the bill sunset but gave
ADF&G money to deal with the bill.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said that when the bill came up a
second time, salt water guide licensing was reinstituted, but
the bill sunset about a year and a half ago. Now, HB 79 is
before the committee to reinstitute the salt water portion in
order for ADF&G to meet its obligations for [the Northern
Pacific Halibut Act] and the [2019 Pacific Salmon Treaty], as
well as management purposes in salt water under state
management. The department isn't requesting the fresh water
portion right now because that information isn't used for in-
season purposes except in a few isolated cases, and in those
instances ADF&G would do it on a case-by-case basis.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG explained that ADF&G is currently
funding the logbook program in salt water with [federal dollars]
from the Dingell-Johnson Act ("D-J") and [state dollars] from
the fish and game fund. The department took a big hit in sport
fish license sales last year with the fish and game fund, so
ADF&G's ability to dip into the fish and game fund is a bit
harder this year going forward than it was in past years. The
department has used more leverage of the D-J funds to basically
ensure that the department can backfill that loss in fish and
game funds throughout the Division of Sport Fish by putting some
of the managers on a 75/25 percent match.
10:10:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked how much money would be needed and
exactly what the money would be used for within the program.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that the money would go to the
licensing program that licenses the salt water charter guides
and outfitters, and the license requirement for the businesses
and operators. Currently, it goes into the paper logbook
program, which ADF&G hopes to have converted into an electronic
logbook within the next two years.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE inquired about the exact amount of money.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that he didn't bring that
information with him, but the bill's proposed licensing fee
would not pay the entire cost of the logbook program.
10:12:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she understands that one reason for not
including the sport fish folks is that ADF&G isn't using the
information for in-season management. She asked why that
information wouldn't be useful for post-season review to help in
the next season's management, given the state has been having
issues, one example being fishery closures on the Kenai River.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that he doesn't want to put
too many requirements on the state's fishermen who are trying to
make a living if the department isn't using that information,
especially for in-season purposes. It is correct that post-
season information could be useful, such as knowing how many
guides or how many businesses are operating in a fishery.
However, there are other ways the department can tackle that for
many of these fisheries, especially non-salmon fisheries such as
rainbow trout in Western Alaska. Right now on the Kenai River
there is still a requirement to license on the river in the
state park area. The licensing of businesses on the Kenai River
in this area has been taken over by the Division of Parks &
Outdoor Recreation ("Alaska State Parks"). When king salmon
fisheries are held on the Kenai River, ADF&G conducts a creel
survey to know what is actually being harvested, so that
information is collected in another manner.
10:14:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ assumed that in some situations there are
bag limits on the number of fish that can be caught when guides
take people to access the fresh water resources. Since it isn't
the logbook, he asked what process takes place to monitor people
and ensure that regulations and bag limits are being followed.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that for all fisheries in the
state of Alaska, whether guided or unguided, the department has
enforcement personnel out in the field to randomly check people.
Many fisheries in rural Alaska, for example, are subsistence or
recreational, not guided. They don't have any reporting
requirements, so they are basically on some kind of a random
check through enforcement to ensure adherence to bag limits.
10:16:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ offered his understanding that the amount
of people and resources to do that enforcement monitoring is
limited and has probably been reduced over the years. He asked
about the amount of time that people are essentially on the
honor system.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that he likes to think most
people are relatively honest. He stated that if a fresh water
guide is breaking the law consistently, then enforcement will
probably go out and pay them a visit and there's a good chance
they'll get caught. In addition, there is a really good chance
that if they are operating on federal lands, which two-thirds of
Alaska is, they are going to lose their concession program on
federal lands. So, there is very little incentive for them to
break state laws on bag limits.
10:17:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked whether the commissioner's testimony
today is that the fresh water logbook process doesn't in any way
contribute to the overall sense of self-monitoring or self-
regulation as far as what's actually happening out on the fresh
water on a day-to-day basis.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that he can't put his mind
into the mindset of being a guide because he's never been one.
However, he has gone on a couple different guided fishing tours
in Western Alaska, and at the end of the day knowing the number
of rainbow trout he has caught and released could be easily
forgotten. When a guide drops off a client that guide is
responsible for asking the client how many rainbows were caught;
it is up to the client to report what he or she thinks was
caught. If an enforcement officer was watching, whatever is
written in the logbook is what [the guide] will be held
accountable for. A charter boat is a whole different situation
because the guide has control of the fish and can see the
client, and it's a lot easier to track that.
10:19:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered his appreciation to the
commissioner for coming before the committee, given many people
are interested in this issue. He requested an explanation of
what the creel survey is, the process, and the purpose of the
data that is collected.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that a creel survey is ADF&G
randomly going to the docks, interviewing anglers and asking
them what they caught, and then making an expansion from that
sub-sampling of the fish to come up with a total harvest for a
species. Through a creel survey ADF&G is also able to put hands
on a fish; for example, in Southeast Alaska ADF&G can look for
coded wire tags on king salmon and any hatchery fish caught by
sport fishermen don't count against Alaska's treaty quota. Even
if ADF&G had a logbook program, it would still be out on the
docks to estimate the number of hatchery-contributed fish to the
catch. Right now there is no fresh water reporting requirement,
so a creel survey is ADF&G's opportunity to get a handle on how
many non-guided trout, king salmon, or halibut are caught. The
logbook gives the department a better estimate for the guided
portion, but it doesn't give a good estimate for the non-guided.
The department is working on the non-guided piece through a new
licensing program that has a reporting option in it and "toying"
with making that a reporting requirement, at least in Southeast
Alaska, so ADF&G can get a better estimate in-season of non-
guided sport harvest of king salmon.
10:21:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS related that the committee
received testimony from an operator in Southeast Alaska
highlighting the broad concern about the lack of data and
reporting from the non-guided charter sector. Given this issue
is of concern to the committee, he requested the commissioner
elaborate further on what the department is starting to do and
considering in this regard.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that he was recently briefed
on the department's electronic licensing program. One of the
pieces is that an angler can report on the license "app" what
was caught, along with the date and time, and that information
will automatically download to the department once the angler
gets back into cell phone range. This will give ADF&G another
tool in the non-guided piece to be able to estimate harvest.
For instance, there is a harvest-reporting requirement for king
salmon in Cook Inlet, which has a five-fish annual limit. The
problem with all these programs is that they work within cell
phone coverage, but ADF&G has set it up so that the angler can
log it at the time of harvest and then once back into cell phone
range it downloads.
10:22:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS posed a scenario of an unguided
charter operator renting boats to people who then go catch fish
in Southeast Alaska. He asked who would electronically enter
the data about the number of salmon or halibut that were caught
by those unguided fishermen.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered, "They're reporting through
the statewide harvest survey and then we actually will go sample
those things on a periodic basis through our creel surveys on a
random basis. Their boat charters are not covered underneath
the current definition of sport fish operators and licensing."
10:23:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered his understanding that for
unguided charter operators there isn't anything in place or in
the works to try to get data on that sector.
COMMISSIONER replied correct. He said ADF&G has been discussing
with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) the
need to start collecting information on bareboat charters. As a
department, ADF&G is looking at whether it can start collecting
information through a registration program on the number of
these boats out there and the number of businesses that are
operating as a first step. The Council didn't want to step into
regulating those things until a baseline was had on how big the
problem was or how big the issue was.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS inquired as to the department's
thinking about when such a registration program might be rolled
out or what the next step might be and when.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that he's not yet had time
to tackle that and will get an answer back to the committee.
10:24:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE noted the fee has gone from $0 to $400,
and asked how this fee was arrived at for one small subset. He
related that people catching halibut have said the cost is being
put on one small subset.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that $400 is what was
determined to be the cost of the program when it was put in
place under the first surcharge bill.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE inquired whether there isn't a better way
to do this other than making the guides shoulder it; for
example, spreading it over guided as well as unguided anglers by
a tag system or some other mechanism. He pointed out that
guides are a revenue-generating group in Alaska.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that there are two ways this
revenue could be captured: 1) Make the guides themselves pay
the fee, which they will in turn pass on to their clients; and
2) Make all Alaskans pay a fee regardless of whether they are
using a charter boat outfitter. When the original legislation
was passed it was thought that the better approach would be to
put the burden on the business and the business could pass the
cost on if needed; rather than, say, a subsistence user of
halibut in Hoonah have to pay that fee.
10:26:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE offered her understanding that the current
proposal in the bill is set to generate about $400,000.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered he believes that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether she is correct in
understanding that the actual cost is about $600,000.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied correct, that is his best
guess for what the department is currently spending.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked from where the other $200,000 would
come.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that ADF&G is collecting
some money to do some of these programs through federal
programs, but not enough to cover the $400,000 that is left.
10:28:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that many members are struggling
with what is needed, how it is going to be used, and how it is
currently being funded. She said she is struggling with
imposing a license and fee onto businesses right now in light of
the pandemic and the loss of tourism that has sent a shock wave
through the state. She added that most members agree with the
idea that the logbook program is needed and want to continue to
maintain it because they don't want the federal government
coming in. She offered her hope that a way can be found that
doesn't impose a burden on businesses that are trying to stay
afloat right now even though it seems like a nominal fee. She
said some sport guides must pay $1,100 to Alaska State Parks.
She inquired whether there would be instances in which guides
would have to pay the salt water licensing fee in addition to
their fee to parks.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied he is unaware of any salt
water state parks with a requirement to pay $1,100 and is
unaware of anybody in salt water where that licensing
requirement overlays. He said he would get back to the
committee with an answer. He addressed Representative Vance's
first question and said ADF&G is fully cognizant of trying to
keep businesses afloat, which is partly why this bill wasn't
forwarded with raising the licensing fee to cover the entire
$600,000 cost. The department is aware of the impact that COVID
is having given the loss of nearly $6 million in license sales
to the Division of Sport Fish. Commissioner Vincent-Lang
suggested that an option available to legislators would be
staggering in the licensing fees to give businesses a year to
recover some of the cost. A bright spot in Alaska's economy is
its fisheries and the department doesn't want to do anything
that would harm them. At the same time, they could be harmed
pretty harshly if ADF&G isn't collecting the necessary data
under its treaty and halibut obligations, as that would shut
them down quickly.
10:30:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked whether Alaska's guides are the only
ones who are going to shoulder the reporting requirements for
halibut. He further asked what would happen if the state didn't
do it. He offered his understanding that there is a huge
halibut bycatch that is either under-reported or not reported by
commercial fisherman, and asked whether guides are the only ones
who are going to be held to a high standard.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that currently the charter
boat fishermen are the only people who are under an allocation
for halibut. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council made
that decision about eight years ago when it chose not to put the
recreational non-charter boat fishery under a quota. They are
still under a two-fish daily limit and a four-fish bag limit,
and ADF&G captures that through its creel survey programs. He
confirmed there is halibut bycatch in the Gulf of Alaska and the
Bering Sea, but said there are stringent reporting requirements,
especially in Alaska's trawl industry, for reporting the number
of halibut. Many of those programs have observers onboard.
Right now the department is struggling with how to look at
halibut bycatch for the smaller individual fishing quota (IFQ)
fleet. It is a smaller fleet, and an observer cannot be put on
many of those boats because it isn't cost effective, so ADF&G
has logbook reporting requirements for them on the number of
halibut that are released that are undersized or just released
overboard. As part of the Council priorities when he became
commissioner, [ADF&G] set bycatch and the observer program as a
department priority. The department is tackling the issue to
get better discard numbers on halibut mortality in both the Gulf
of Alaska and the Bering Sea.
10:33:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE inquired whether all the bycatch and creel
halibut surveys go into one logbook reporting system or separate
systems. He surmised it all has to be collated into one system
somewhere in order to keep track of the halibut. He said he is
struggling with putting the onus of paying for the entire system
on one small subset, the guides and operators.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded by using last year as an
example. The department used its logbook program to estimate
the number of halibut caught in Southeast Alaska. The
department knew that tourism was down, but didn't know what the
harvest was. The department was able to go back into its
logbook program and see that the number of halibut caught was
way under the allocation to the charter boat fishery. The
department then took that information to the International
Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and got fishery restrictions
lifted or relaxed on the Southeast Alaska charter boat fishery
that allowed them greater opportunity to try to recoup some of
that because ADF&G had in-season information. That is a use of
this logbook information, and it benefitted the industry because
the industry was able to attract clients in the fall that it
otherwise wouldn't have been able to attract.
10:34:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 79,
labeled 32-GH1608\A.3, Bullard, 3/2/21, which read:
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "salt water" in both places
Page 1, line 6:
Delete "Salt water sport"
Insert "Sport"
Delete "400"
Insert "200"
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "Salt water sport"
Insert "Sport"
Delete "200"
Insert "100"
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "Salt water sport"
Insert "Sport"
Page 1, line 9:
Delete "400"
Insert "200"
Page 1, line 11:
Delete "Salt water sport"
Insert "Sport"
Page 1, line 12:
Delete "salt water"
Page 2, line 9:
Delete "salt water"
Page 2, line 11:
Delete "salt water"
Page 2, line 13:
Delete "salt water"
Page 2, line 14:
Delete "salt water"
Page 2, line 16:
Delete "salt water"
Page 2, line 17:
Delete "salt water"
Page 2, line 20:
Delete "salt water"
Page 2, line 22:
Delete "salt water"
Page 2, line 24:
Delete "in salt water"
Page 2, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "salt water" in both places
Page 2, line 27:
Delete "on"
Delete "salt water" in both places
Page 2, line 28:
Delete "salt water"
Page 2, line 31:
Delete "salt water"
Page 3, line 1:
Delete "Salt water sport"
Insert "Sport"
Page 3, line 2:
Delete "salt water"
Page 3, line 12:
Delete "salt water"
Page 3, line 13:
Delete "salt water"
Page 3, line 16:
Delete "salt water"
Page 3, line 18:
Delete "salt water"
Page 3, line 20:
Delete "salt water"
Page 3, line 22:
Delete "salt water" in both places
Page 3, line 23:
Delete "salt water"
Page 3, line 24:
Delete "salt water" in both places
Page 3, line 25:
Delete "salt water"
Page 3, line 26:
Delete "salt water"
Page 3, line 27:
Delete "salt water"
Page 3, line 31:
Delete "salt water"
Page 4, line 4:
Delete "salt water"
Page 4, line 7:
Delete "salt water"
Page 4, line 15, following "from":
Insert "salt water"
Page 4, line 18, following "providing":
Insert "salt water"
Page 4, line 19, following "a":
Insert "salt water"
Page 4, line 21, following "of":
Insert "salt water"
Page 5, line 20:
Delete "salt water"
Page 5, line 24:
Delete "salt water"
Page 5, line 25:
Delete "salt water"
Page 5, line 27:
Delete "salt water"
Page 5, lines 30 - 31:
Delete "on"
Delete "salt water" in both places
Page 6, line 4:
Delete "salt water"
Page 7, line 9:
Delete "salt water"
Page 7, line 11:
Delete "salt water"
10:34:45 AM
CHAIR STUTES objected for the purpose of discussion.
10:34:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ said Amendment 1 would address some of the
concerns that committee members have raised. The purpose of
Amendment 1, he stated, is to provide equity amongst guides and
operators by removing the language requiring only salt water
guides or operators to sign up for a license, and instead ask
that all guides and operators become licensed. By increasing
the number of licenses, the cost to license can be cut by half:
to $100 for guide license, to $200 for operator license, and to
$200 for a combined guide and operator license. Amendment 1
also includes language that reporting is to be done by salt
water guides and operators only, so the logbook portion of it
will continue to no longer need to be done by fresh water
guides, but all guides would pay $200. In doing so, the state
would collect the same amount of money that the original bill
would have collected, but reduce the fee from $400 to $200 for
salt water guides, but then add that fee to all guides including
fresh water guides.
10:36:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked how many fresh water guides
would be affected by the proposed amendment and would therefore
be required to pay a license fee of $200.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG guessed it would be about 1,400-1,600.
He deferred to Mr. Taube to answer the question definitively.
10:37:10 AM
THOMAS TAUBE, Operations Manager, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), confirmed that it is about
1,400, maybe slightly less. He said that when ADF&G had both
logbooks in place the number of guides in salt water versus
fresh water was about a 50:50 split.
10:37:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS surmised that Amendment 1, in
summary, is a net revenue neutral amendment given the number of
operators in both salt water and fresh water.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG qualified that, without talking to his
staff, he believes the amendment is not net neutral. He said
ADF&G would have to reinstate the licensing requirement for
fresh water guides and operators and institute that program to
get them licensed and get them boat decals. There would be
costs associated with that, but right now he doesn't know what
they would be.
10:38:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated he is frustrated because another
level of bureaucracy is being added that isn't needed and is a
stepping-stone into more government. The department saying it
needs revenue sounds like maybe [HB 79 and HB 80 should be
combined and HB 80] increased a bit. He stated he isn't in
favor of amending HB 79, but favors tabling it in lieu of HB 80,
and putting more money into HB 80 and letting the department
figure out how it wants to spend.
CHAIR STUTES related that in conversations with ADF&G, the
department has said it is adamantly opposed to combining these
two bills, as it could possibly be the demise of both.
10:39:27 AM
CHAIR STUTES removed her objection to Amendment 1.
10:39:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE objected to Amendment 1. She stated she
doesn't like the idea of putting a license requirement on one
segment of sport guides and not the other, and Amendment 1 would
spread that out. She appreciates the intent behind the
amendment, she continued, but isn't comfortable voting yes when
the committee doesn't have a clear picture on how much it would
cost the department to implement the program. The committee
didn't have an answer on how much it would cost to implement the
licensing on the salt water guides and now this would add the
fresh water guides. She said she therefore doesn't have enough
information to vote yes on Amendment 1.
10:40:32 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tarr, Kreiss-
Tomkins, Story, Ortiz, and Stutes voted in favor of Amendment 1.
Representatives Vance and McCabe voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 5-2.
10:41:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 2 to HB
79, labeled 32-GH1608\A.1, Bullard, 2/24/21, which read:
Page 1, lines 1 - 2:
Delete "operators and salt water sport fishing
guides"
Page 5, following line 5:
Insert a new section to read:
"Sec. 16.40.287. Reports from unguided rented
boats equipped with gear for salt water sport fishing.
(a) The department shall collect information on the
rental of unguided boats equipped with gear for salt
water sport fishing, including
(1) the name and address of the person
renting the boat;
(2) the name and address of the person
offering the boat for rent;
(3) the stated reason for the boat rental;
(4) a declaration of whether the person
renting the boat used the boat for salt water sport
fishing; and
(5) the sport fishing license number of any
person who used the boat for salt water sport fishing
during the rental period.
(b) A person who rents an unguided boat equipped
with gear for salt water sport fishing shall record
the information required in (a) of this section.
(c) A person who, for compensation or with the
intent to receive compensation, offers unguided boats
equipped with gear for salt water sport fishing for
rent shall collect the information required in (a) of
this section and report the information to the
department.
(d) A person who is required to report or
collect information under this section may not provide
false information or omit material facts in a report.
(e) The board may adopt regulations under
AS 44.62 (Administrative Procedure Act) to implement
this section.
(f) In this section, "gear" includes rods, reels,
nets, gaffs, downriggers, fish finders, bait, tackle,
and fishing traps and pots."
10:41:49 AM
CHAIR STUTES objected for the purpose of discussion.
10:41:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS explained Amendment 2 would add an
uncodified section of law asking the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game to prepare a report regarding the problem of visibility
deficit about what is happening in the unguided sector. He said
Amendment 2 asks the department to share with the legislature
some ideas and thinking on how to solve that problem. There is
interest in a harder solution on this, he continued, such as a
registration program. However, time is limited and perhaps that
can be considered in the next committee of referral.
10:43:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated Amendment 2 would require ADF&G to
get that information from somewhere, the unguided sport fishing
industry and charter boat rental. He maintained the amendment
would add yet another level of unneeded bureaucracy and
therefore he would vote no.
10:43:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that this issue has been talked about
for the last couple years. The problem must be understood
better to know its extent, she said, therefore the question is
how to address the problem before it has been defined fully. It
is important work, she added. She requested the commissioner to
provide his reaction to the proposed directive in Amendment 2,
given that department staffing is stretched thin.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied he has thought a lot about how
to address this question. If HB 79 is passed, he said, the salt
water piece would have a good program in place, and given the
program will be made electronic within the next year or two
there will be good information on the guided piece. However, he
continued, the unguided piece is a challenge across Alaska,
especially the pieces where there is treaty and halibut
requirements, because a lot of that halibut occurs off the docks
of people's homes and how does ADF&G tackle that? The
department's new licensing "app" is a way of having reporting
requirements for these fisheries as well as many of the state's
personal use fisheries, so ADF&G would have accurate accounting
of what is being taken off the beach. Commissioner Vincent-Lang
noted the amendment's proposed deadline for the report is May 1,
2022. He suggested that the committee consider giving ADF&G
more time than a year to resolve these issues because they are
complex. He stated he would have no trouble with tasking staff
to look at this issue and come forward with recommendations.
10:46:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ offered his support for Amendment 2. He
stated he agrees with Representative McCabe about avoiding over-
regulation, but said Alaska's strong constitutional directive to
manage fish resources to maximum sustainable yield takes people,
money, and regulations. Given the state's connections with the
federal government and international treaty obligations for
halibut and salmon, the resources must be provided to do the
job, he stressed. Over the years ADF&G has seen fewer and fewer
resources to carry out the constitutional mandate. The
department is down at least 30 percent in state support for
doing the job it is asked to do.
10:48:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE clarified he isn't saying to not give the
money to ADF&G. Rather, he is suggesting that the proposed
method would unjustly cut into the guides who are at the
frontline of the resource. Spreading it over the larger group
of the state, he opined, would make it a smaller burden and
effectively do the same thing without all the kerfuffle of this
bill. He said he is suggesting that this proposed method would
add to the level of bureaucracy, which isn't needed.
10:49:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that everything the department does
has a cost associated with it because of personnel. She asked
whether the commissioner foresees that Amendment 2 would take on
another financial burden for the department.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that it would take staff
time to put together the report, but the cost would not be
significant. He said it is an important enough question that he
is willing to find the staff time to deal with it because the
department has to answer questions on the unguided piece of the
sport harvest, whether halibut or especially salmon treaty in
Southeast Alaska. The department needs to look at how to
improve those estimates, he continued, because creel surveys are
expensive and if there is an electronic way of doing it then
ADF&G should be looking at it.
10:50:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE inquired whether, in lieu of the licensing
requirements, a more effective mechanism to get this data and
fund the logbook program might be to institute a halibut tag,
that guided and non-guided halibut fishermen purchase and report
on the electronic fishing license.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that this has been talked
about, but he hasn't given it a great deal of thought. He said
it might be one of the things the department could consider when
putting together this harvest report. He pointed out that the
intent here is to get information from the guided portion of the
fishery, as right now ADF&G is not tackling the non-guided
portion of the fishery. If a halibut tag approach were taken it
would miss the salmon piece of it, he advised, so he would need
to give more thought to Representative Vance's suggestion.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that her sense of the committee is
that it wants to help the department be able to collect the data
to the best of its ability. She said she is excited that there
is now an electronic licensing program that easily provides
catch data to the department, and fishermen no longer have to
pull out a wet license from their pocket. It seems, she
continued, that instead of the department going and collecting
this data, salmon or halibut data could be duly collected just
with that license program. She said she would like to have
ideas of what can be done in that regard that's already in
place. She is trying to get to the heart of what is being asked
with Amendment 2 and getting in sight of solutions rather than
just saying "here's another report." She posited that all
members are looking for that same data piece and funding
mechanism because it is so needed, but figuring out the best way
to make that happen. She would like to get as much insight as
possible, she added, on what ADF&G is doing and how the
committee can help make that happen through legislation.
10:53:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS noted Amendment 2 states May 1,
2022, for the [report deadline]. He asked whether that would be
sufficient time for the department.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that the department could do a
more comprehensive report if the [deadline] was extended by one
year, but that the department would do either [deadline].
10:53:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to table Amendment 2 until the
commissioner is able to provide a monetary accounting of what
the amendment would cost.
10:54:02 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
10:54:20 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked whether the commissioner could answer
Representative McCabe's concerns.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG confirmed there would be some cost,
but it would not be significant. He explained that these are
things the department needs to be looking at as part of its
current business model.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE withdrew his motion to table Amendment 2.
10:54:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that if the May 1 [deadline] were
pushed out to the end of that summer, it would provide that
second season of information. She inquired whether getting two
seasons of information is what the commissioner was thinking.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that Amendment 2 is asking
him to provide a report to the legislature as to how ADF&G sees
the future of reporting working out, whether ADF&G has
recommendations to bring to legislators, and for ADF&G to look
at how other states and the province of British Columbia collect
this information. He said the department is currently doing
that, but he is worried that putting together a report by May 1,
2022, might be a bit burdensome, although the department would
get it done. In further response to Representative Tarr,
Commissioner Vincent-Lang noted the committee would likely not
meet as a legislature until the following December, which would
give ADF&G more time to get the information before members.
10:56:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 2: line 16, delete "May 1" and insert
"December 1".
10:56:24 AM
CHAIR STUTES objected for the purpose of discussion. There
being no discussion, she removed her objection. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 was
adopted.
10:56:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered his appreciation for the
commissioner's thoughts, and noted that Alaska's North Pacific
Fishery Management Council team is already spending time working
on this issue. He stated his hope that Amendment 2, as amended,
would make the connection between the agency's thinking and the
legislature, given many people are interested in getting this
data. Addressing Representative McCabe's comments, he said he
represents the part of Alaska that is most affected, and his
constituents believe it is needed. He has received a lot of
feedback from the charter sector because they are reporting data
and the non-guided sector isn't. As far as the rule of
government in all of this, he opined, by that thinking Alaska
should stop requiring commercial fishing vessels from submitting
fish tickets because that is unneeded bureaucracy. But, he
continued, that data is needed to manage common resource and it
only makes sense that all sectors should be required to submit
data in some form or fashion, and Amendment 2, as amended, would
be a step toward the non-guided sector contributing their fair
share.
10:57:57 AM
CHAIR STUTES removed her objection to Amendment 2 [as amended].
There being no further objection, Amendment 2, as amended, was
adopted.
10:58:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved to report HB 79, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
10:58:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE objected.
10:58:42 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
10:59:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR withdrew her motion to report HB 79, as
amended, in order to restate the motion. [The motion was the
same, with added mention of the identifying numbers in the top-
right corner of page one of HB 79.]
10:59:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE objected. He moved to adopt [Conceptual
Amendment 3]: page 5 of HB 79, line 17, delete "second" and
insert "third".
10:59:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR withdrew her motion to report HB 79, as
amended, out of committee.
11:00:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS requested Representative McCabe
restate Conceptual Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE [moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3].
He noted that page 5 of HB 79, line 17, states "second or
subsequent offense in a three-year period, guilty of a class B
misdemeanor. He maintained that a class B misdemeanor is a
pretty heavy lift; therefore, he would like to change ["second"]
to "third".
11:00:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS objected to Conceptual Amendment
3. He stated that while there may be a good conversation to
have here, it is conforming language that would be amended [by
Conceptual Amendment 3], so it is well removed from the subject
of the proposed legislation. He said he is hesitant to change
criminal statutes on the fly without wildlife troopers coming
before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said he understands, but that a minor
reporting requirement is being added into this statute. He
recalled the commissioner testifying that federal officers are
stopping the regular sport fish guides for minor offenses, such
as an extra grayling or a catch and release that didn't work
well. Therefore, he argued, if this requirement of a guiding
license and reporting is going to be put onto Alaska's guides,
then the guides need to be relieved from small mistakes to
prevent the heavy handed prosecution that the commissioner
talked about.
11:02:49 AM
CHAIR STUTES agreed with Representative McCabe. She said she
has heard from guides and a simple mistake can create a
violation. If a guide gets a couple of those, then the guide
will lose his/her livelihood because of a revoked license. She
stated she supports Conceptual Amendment 3 because it is
pertinent.
11:03:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR specified that class B misdemeanors in
Alaska are punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a fine of up
to $2,000. She concurred it seems a fairly hefty punishment if
it is an innocent mistake. She observed from line 16 that the
first offense in a three-year period is guilty of a violation
and from line 17 that the second or subsequent offense in a
three-year period is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. She
stated that if "second" is changed to "third" then "the second
violation is hanging out there and doesn't live anywhere." She
therefore suggested that it would need to say "first and second
offenses in a three-year period guilty of a violation" because
otherwise there is no penalty for the second offense. She said
she could support amending line 16 so it would state "first and
second offense in a three-year period, guilty of a violation"
and on line 17 [deleting "second" and inserting "third"].
11:04:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his concern with
changing criminal law without [consulting] any troopers or other
experts, and said there should be another committee hearing.
While it may well be a good amendment, he continued, it is going
to get unwound down the road and, as well, there should be more
visibility on what the committee is about to do.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated he doesn't disagree with that
necessarily, but if a guide forgets to dot an i" on a report
that is being made mandatory by HB 79, then the guide could have
a $2,000 fine and 90 days in jail, and he thinks that is wrong.
The bill adds a report, he reiterated, but the penalty isn't
being changed for a minor mistake.
11:05:28 AM
CHAIR STUTES suggested that Representative McCabe could withdraw
Conceptual Amendment 3 and that the House Finance Committee, the
bill's next committee of referral, could address this issue.
She asked whether that was satisfactory with the committee. No
objection was stated.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ, a member of the House Finance Committee,
stated he would put this forward in that committee with
consultation from wildlife troopers and others given it might
affect how things are enforced.
11:06:24 AM
Representative McCabe withdrew Conceptual Amendment 3.
11:06:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved to report HB 79, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
11:06:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE objected. She stated she is objecting in
the friendliest way possible because she believes the committee
is on the cusp of finding a really good solution to the funding
and reporting mechanism for the logbook program. She said she
doesn't want to pass something just because it is in front of
the committee without the committee finding a better solution.
Regardless of the bill's movement, she continued, she believes
the committee will continue looking for a solution, and
therefore she cannot support the bill at this time.
11:07:35 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Ortiz, Story,
Kreiss-Tomkins, Tarr, and Stutes voted in favor of moving HB 79,
as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. Representatives McCabe and Vance
voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 79(FSH) was reported out of
the House Special Committee on Fisheries by a vote of 5-2.
HB 80-SPT FSH HATCHERY FACIL ACCT; SURCHARGE
11:08:39 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 80, "An Act establishing the sport fishing
hatchery facilities account; establishing the sport fishing
facility surcharge; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR STUTES noted the bill sponsor is the House Rules Standing
Committee by request of the governor.
CHAIR STUTES invited Commissioner Vincent-Lang to provide an
opening statement on the bill.
11:09:03 AM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G), on behalf of the governor, provided an opening
statement in support of HB 80. He explained that HB 80 goes
back to the unique package used to fund construction of the
Anchorage and Fairbanks hatcheries. The package attached a
surcharge to sport fishing licenses to pay back bonds that were
taken out; no general funds were used to build the two
hatcheries. The surcharge money was used to match Dingell-
Johnson federal funding and the bonds were repaid much quicker
than expected. When doing the bonding it was realized that
Southeast Alaska anglers, both nonresident and resident, were
paying surcharge fees but not getting benefit from these
hatcheries. It was therefore decided to take $500,000 of
surcharge fees right off the top and support various private-
non-profit (PNP) hatcheries across Southeast Alaska to produce
Chinook and coho salmon.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG explained that the bonds are paid off,
but that there is a hole for deferred maintenance on the
existing hatcheries, along with a $500,000 hole in Southeast
Alaska for production of Chinook and coho salmon. The
department recognizes that it made a commitment to get rid of
the surcharge when the bonds were paid off. But, since the
hatcheries must be maintained and cannot just be closed, it was
realized that without a surcharge the money would be taken from
the fish and game fund. The department looked for a way to
continue enhancement projects in Southeast Alaska, and HB 80 is
an attempt to reinstate a surcharge at a lower level to maintain
hatchery activities throughout sport fish related activities
across Alaska. Commissioner Vincent-Lang voiced ADF&G's support
of the bill, along with that of the governor's office.
11:11:59 AM
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony on HB 80.
11:12:11 AM
DAVID LANDIS, General Manager, Southern Southeast Regional
Aquaculture Association (SSRAA), testified in support of HB 80.
He noted that SSRAA operates seven hatcheries in the region.
One of those facilities is Crystal Lake Hatchery in Petersburg,
a designated sport fish facility owned by the State of Alaska.
The state owns three sport fish hatcheries one in Anchorage,
one in Fairbanks, and Crystal Lake in Petersburg. As the
state's contracted operator of the Crystal Lake Hatchery, he
said SSRAA supports the passage of HB 80.
MR. LANDIS stated HB 80 would allow ADF&G to continue funding
operation of the Crystal Lake facility, and to fund critically
needed repairs, which the department has characterized as a
critical need. Failure of the raceways at the facility is truly
not "if" it is going to happen but when, putting the millions of
Chinook salmon reared at the facility in jeopardy. It is a
shovel ready project fully designed, engineered, and ready to
go; it just needs funding. If additional funding beyond the
surcharge amount currently in the bill becomes available,
SSRAA's view is that this project and others like it could
happen more quickly. Keeping Crystal Lake intact with full
operational and maintenance funding is compelling. A recent
department fact sheet shows Crystal Lake providing an impressive
amount of Chinook in Southeast Alaska, and SSRAA's figures
reflect that 40-50 percent of hatchery king salmon harvested in
Southeast Alaska result from the Crystal Lake production. This
would be a user paid system that is fair and appropriate, and
SSRAA supports the bill's passage.
11:14:38 AM
BEN MOHR, Executive Director, Kenai River Sportfishing
Association (KRSA), testified in support of HB 80. He related
that the sport fish license surcharge ended last year because
the bonds that were issued for sport fish hatcheries were repaid
early. The hunting and fishing communities have acted for
nearly 100 years to support the user pays model for fish and
game conservation management, and this case is no different.
The sport fishery, whether in fresh or salt water, directly
benefits from Alaska's sport fish hatcheries. This is the
central reason why KRSA supports the governor's bill, which
introduces a surcharge on sport fishing licenses, the funds from
which are specifically dedicated to supporting sport fishing
activities. It is KRSA's understanding that these funds will
specifically be used for operation and maintenance costs of the
sport fish hatcheries across the state. To KRSA, the critical
portion of the bill is that the funds generated from sport
fishing licenses stay with the users.
MR. MOHR pointed out that the average Alaska fishermen will see
a net $5 reduction in annual licenses between last year and next
year while maintaining the services of ADF&G. The association
recognizes that it may be a challenge for some to see the
decrease of license fees when ADF&G has sustained such
significant losses due to COVID. However, the previous
surcharge wasn't used for operations necessarily, it was a bond
repayment. The loss in sport fish license sales in 2020 was
primarily driven by a lack of participation by nonresident
anglers specifically due to their inability to travel to Alaska.
Directing this surcharge to operations and maintenance of sport
fish hatcheries provides some relief to ADF&G's budget. The
sport fishing community is happy to contribute and KRSA supports
HB 80 as submitted.
11:17:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR recalled that when this bill was seen last
year, the committee amended it to just be a status quo situation
thinking there was great need, and that was prior to COVID-19.
She asked whether it would change KRSA's support for the bill if
the committee were to consider that again this year.
MR. MOHR replied that it would come down to the details. The
sport fishing community in general is happy to see a decrease in
license fees, he said, and KRSA is supportive of whatever
measures can be taken to reduce hurdles for the average Alaskan
to access the fishery. The net $5 decrease between last year
and next year is something KRSA fully supports, so going back to
the full surcharge would be dependent on the details.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR remarked that Alaskans highly value their
salmon, and that is why she is asking if Alaskans would be
willing to support the status quo for something so important.
11:18:29 AM
KATIE HARMS, Executive Director, Douglas Island Pink and Chum,
Inc. (DIPAC), testified in support of HB 80. She noted that
DIPAC is a private-non-profit corporation with the primary
mission to sustain and enhance the valuable salmon resources of
the state of Alaska for economic, social, and cultural benefits
of all citizens. She expressed DIPAC's support of HB 80.
MS. HARMS stated that DIPAC operates a Chinook sport fishing
program through funds from ADF&G's Division of Sport Fish that
is currently almost 90 percent supported by this sport fishing
license fee surcharge. Prior to 1994, ADF&G produced Chinook
salmon to enhance the Juneau area recreational fisheries. These
fish were raised at the state's Snettisham hatchery and released
at selected sites in the Juneau area. In 1994 Snettisham was
converted to a sockeye salmon production facility and the Juneau
Chinook program was transferred to DIPAC's Macaulay Salmon
Hatchery. Since that time DIPAC has received just over $340,000
each year for this sport fishing enhancement program. Without
these outside funds the Chinook program would have never gotten
off the ground at DIPAC, yet it has become a stable program for
the Juneau area anglers.
MS. HARMS related that during the past two years Southeast
Alaska has seen depressed salmon returns. Due to poor chum
returns in 2019 and 2020 DIPAC came up well short of its
operational and capital revenue needs from its cost recovery
harvest programs. With no surcharge license fee revenues coming
from ADF&G to DIPAC this year the Chinook program will likely be
greatly reduced. If no consistent funding source can be
identified for the program into the future, then there is a
potential that the DIPAC board may be faced with the tough
decision to eliminate the program altogether.
11:20:34 AM
AL BARRETTE testified in opposition to HB 80 as written. He
stated he is a sport fish user and a subsistence fisherman. He
supported the [first] bill passed several years ago that paid
off the two hatcheries in Anchorage and Fairbanks that directly
affect sport fishermen. He supports continuing the maintenance
and operation of those two hatcheries that are dedicated to
sport fishing. However, sport fishermen are subsidizing
commercial cost recovery programs in the Southeast Alaska
hatcheries and as a sport fisherman he cannot support that. He
would amend the two state hatcheries in Southeast Alaska that
are primarily set up for cost recovery and secondary to sport
fishermen users.
11:21:48 AM
FORREST BRADEN, Executive Director, SouthEast Alaska Guides
Organization (SEAGO), testified in support of HB 80. He noted
SEAGO is a nonprofit association representing fishing lodge and
charter businesses across the Alaska panhandle, with these
businesses making up roughly half of the marine charter fishing
activity in the state. The bill has SEAGO's full support and
SEAGO hopes to see the enhancement surcharge quickly
reestablished. Hatchery production at the state-operated
facilities in Fairbanks and Anchorage, as well as production
through private contracts in Southeast, are critical in
maintaining key sport fishing opportunities across Alaska, and
these programs need continued funding.
MR. BRADEN spoke to the surcharge funds that have benefitted
Southeast Alaska anglers. He said the Southeast sport fishery
is heavily dependent on fishing opportunity for kings and cohos
and, to date, surcharge money directed to Southeast has gone
largely toward Chinook hatchery production. A quarter of all
king salmon harvested in the Southeast sport fishery are fish
from Southeast hatchery origin, and for inside waters around
Juneau, Petersburg, and Ketchikan that number goes up to 50
percent. Given current wild stock closures on inside waters
into late season, terminal harvest areas with hatchery returns
are the only access many anglers have to king salmon all year.
When waters are open to wild stock harvest, hatchery fish
available for harvest in common property fisheries help take
pressure off those wild stocks while those stocks rebuild.
MR. BRADEN pointed out that a lot of the Southeast hatchery
production benefitting sport anglers in common property
fisheries is supported from landing taxes in the commercial
fishery. So, he continued, sport fishermen can and should
contribute to the availability of target species in waters that
they share with other user groups by paying an enhancement
surcharge to fishing licenses. Hatchery production costs are
rising, and repair of infrastructure continues to be needed.
Maintaining fishing opportunities for sport, personal use, and
commercial fisheries supported by current hatchery production
and sport surcharge funds are key in making that happen. Mr.
Braden added that SEAGO can support placing nonresident
surcharge amounts back to original levels with the condition
that any additional funds go toward increased production of
fishery access, and not activities unrelated to the intent of
the bill. He urged that HB 80 be moved forward.
11:24:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS thanked SEAGO for testifying on
both HB 79 and HB 80.
11:24:37 AM
SUSAN DOHERTY, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Seiners
Association (SEAS), testified in support of HB 80 and its intent
to provide a source of revenue to ensure critical infrastructure
and enhancement activities can be maintained and have a
continued funding source. She said SEAS would favor keeping the
nonresident surcharge at its previous level to guarantee that
the many projects in ADF&G's fact sheet can be sufficiently
funded. Addressing previous testimony that sport fish dollars
support the cost of recovery activity, she said it is the
opposite. Chum production and the cost of recovery activities
of those fish allows the association to continue to raise coho
and Chinook, which are not as valuable commercial harvested
fish, except to the trollers.
MS. DOHERTY pointed out that when looking at projects and their
locations, the six sites in Southeast Alaska only depict
projects where sport fish dollars are partnered with private-
non-profit association dollars to achieve these release numbers.
The commercial fishermen in Southeast, through their regional
associations, pay for and operate the majority of enhancement
activities in this region, many of which are coho and Chinook.
Over the 35 years from 1985-2019, commercial fishermen through
their 3 percent enhancement tax have provided more than $104
million through assessment alone. This is an average of $3
million every year for the last 36 years. The private-non-
profit associations operate many programs that provide sports
opportunity for coho and Chinook harvest throughout the region
that are solely paid for by the fishermen associations. Some
assurance that the share of the surcharge money comes to
Southeast is an important piece of this legislation to consider.
She said SEAS supports passage of HB 80, hopefully with some
amendments to address ways to make it even better.
11:27:16 AM
MICHAEL KRAMER, Chair, Fisheries Subcommittee, Fairbanks Fish &
Game Advisory Committee, testified that the advisory committee
opposes HB 80, and he personally opposes it as well. He said
the surcharge was designed for the specific purpose of
constructing the hatcheries in Anchorage and Fairbanks that
benefit sport users. A small portion of that, $517,000 a year,
was directed to Crystal Lake, which annually produces about 2
million king salmon smolt. According to Crystal Lake's website,
about 20,000 of those fish were harvested in 2020, of which
17,525 were harvested in the commercial fishery, leaving less
than 2,500 available for cost recovery for the hatchery and for
directed sport fishing. The surcharge, even if cut in half,
would still raise tens of millions of dollars that the advisory
committee doesn't think would be well spent by a private-non-
profit hatchery run by the commercial fish industry. The
commissioner has said that ADF&G will support the rearing and
release of all the hatchery kings produced by Crystal Lake in
2021 and 2022. The advisory committee doesn't know where those
funds are coming from but apparently there are funds still
available.
MR. KRAMER argued that most of the state funds going into the
Crystal Lake Hatchery are benefitting the commercial fishery
approximately 90-95 percent. While of some interest to sport
opportunity in the Southeast area, that is not the hatchery's
mission as it is releasing at remote sites that are primarily
engaged in by commercial fishing. Recent regulatory changes
would expand cost recovery efforts in those terminal release
areas that are remote and not accessed often by sport fishers.
The specific purpose of the surcharge was to build the two
hatcheries in Fairbanks and Anchorage. That purpose has been
accomplished and it is time for the surcharge to go away. There
needs to be concern about Alaska's wild fish stocks and the
impacts that hatchery over-releases are having on wild stocks.
Taxing sport fish anglers who primarily rely on wild stocks to
support a commercial fish enhancement program is inappropriate.
11:30:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR acknowledged Mr. Kramer's concerns about
Crystal Lake, but said the hatchery is just one piece of a much
bigger effort here. According to the committee's research, she
continued, the bill would benefit both commercial and sport
anglers. To provide Mr. Kramer with a better sense of how
Interior Alaska sport anglers would benefit from this program,
she stated she would email him an ADF&G document that shows 270
release locations throughout Alaska.
11:31:28 AM
RAY DEBARDELABEN testified in support of HB 80. He stated he is
testifying on behalf of himself, but that he is currently
president of the Kenai River Professional Guide Association
(KRPGA). He related that he has spoken with several KRPGA board
members and general members, and they are in full support of HB
80. He pointed out that while the hatcheries in Anchorage,
Fairbanks, and Southeast are mentioned, the hatchery at Crooked
Creek is not and it could also use some help. He questioned why
this hatchery isn't mentioned in the language given the king
salmon concern on the Kenai River, and that over the past five
seasons it has been rare to harvest any Kenai kings that are
greater than 34 inches. He said he likes Representative
McCabe's suggestion to combine HB 79 with HB 80 because
increasing the license fee by $4.00 for the hatchery program and
$2 for the logbook program would be a simple solution.
11:33:04 AM
RONI CARMON noted that the term "common use" is used often in
relation to HB 80, a term that means everyone can use it. Even
though Southeast hatcheries are being talked about, it relates
to all hatcheries. The 3 percent paid by commercial fishermen
has enhanced the sport fishery. The Prince William Sound
hatcheries are for commercial fishermen and their livelihoods,
and so should not be mixed with common use. The Kenai River is
common use, and everything is common use, so it means everybody
has a right to fish. It is the commercial fishery that is
paying that price, so if it's common use then the sport fishery
should pay the 3 percent enhancement off of their fees and
licensing. As stated by a previous witness, the commercial
fishery is paying for this. Nothing or very little is being
contributed by the sports fishery. Common use means that the
commercial fishermen should get their cost recovery and the
expenses they've paid for their hatcheries first; common use is
a term that shouldn't be used for those hatcheries.
11:35:30 AM
LISA VON BARGEN, Borough Manager, City and Borough of Wrangell,
testified in support of HB 80. She stated that on the surface
HB 80 appears to be a vehicle only for sustaining sport fish
enhancement, but offered her understanding that the committee
realizes that is not the case. The funding generated under this
program will support hatcheries like Crystal Lake in Petersburg,
considered to be a sport fish hatchery. However, Crystal Lake
also rears king salmon used to stock four commercial fisheries
used by seine, troll, and drift fishers in southern Southeast
Alaska. In 2020 the estimated ex-vessel value of those
fisheries was $1.284 million, and over the past five years the
ex-vessel value was estimated at $7.341 million. The Anita Bay
fishery is vital to the Wrangell fleet; its ex-vessel value in
2020 was about $640,000 and over the past five years more than
$4 million. In August [2020] Wrangell was the first community
in Southeast Alaska to declare an economic disaster, one of the
reasons being the collapse of the salmon fisheries. Without
this enhancement funding, hatcheries like Crystal Lake will
close and those commercial fisheries will disappear. Wrangell
and the entire region cannot sustain another economic blow. She
requested that the committee approve HB 80.
11:37:06 AM
CHAIR STUTES, after ascertaining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 80.
11:37:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY observed from the backup documentation that
the objective is for maintenance and operations for some
hatcheries, and in Southeast Alaska it is projected for DIPAC to
receive about "$300" and Crystal Lake "$200." She asked what
assurance does the bill give in the language on page 1, line 10,
Section 1, that directly translates to a fee paid by an angler
in say, Region C, allocated for the hatchery stock release.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that he gives his assurance.
Even though it wasn't written in the original bill, he said,
[ADF&G] is currently giving $500,000 to Southeast Alaska and
plans to continue that in recognition of the importance.
Crystal Lake is a state-owned hatchery, rather than PNP-owned,
and ADF&G is looking at ways to fund its continued operation
through the $500,000, as well as other potential funding sources
through the salmon treaty, to do some of the long-term deferred
maintenance at that hatchery. He allowed there is no written
assurance in the bill, but said it is his intent to continue
that production in Southeast Alaska given how important it is to
all the users and knowing also that any hatchery-produced fish
are added on to Alaska's annual allocation of fish.
11:39:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said she is aware the surcharge has lapsed
and offered her understanding that it has been a long-standing
practice to distribute the funds in this way. She asked whether
that understanding would continue under another commissioner or
authority even though there is nothing clearly delineated.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that he intends to continue
the funding. There have been four or five commissioners since
this began, he said, and those commissioners have all followed
through on that commitment to Southeast Alaska. Even though
that surcharge would go down, he added, it is his intent to
continue the $517,000 investment, which would be a higher
percentage of the surcharge fee than ADF&G has paid in the past.
11:40:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked whether he is correct that the
Crystal Lake Hatchery feeds salt water, while the other
hatcheries for stocking sport fish in lakes, although Anchorage
might have a little salt water.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that the William Jack
Hernandez State Fish Hatchery in Anchorage does salt water and
fresh water releases, and most of the releases out of the [Ruth
Burnett State Fish Hatchery] in Fairbanks are fresh water.
11:42:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked whether there are any other
contributions to the Crystal Lake Hatchery besides the
surcharges, such as commercial fishers.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that all Alaska anglers and
nonresidents are charged a surcharge. A sport fisherman in
Anchorage or Fairbanks gets the benefit of lake stocking and the
benefit of salt water stocking along the coast. In Southeast
Alaska, about one-fourth of the fees are collected but ADF&G
doesn't provide any fish from the Anchorage hatchery because it
is too costly to bring those fish to Southeast. So, ADF&G's way
of supporting the hatchery operations in Southeast Alaska is
through its state-owned facility at Crystal Lake that is run by
a PNP, and a couple other facilities. This is done through two
mechanisms: 1) giving $517,000 in surcharge money, and 2) in
recognition of the importance of sport fishing, additional
monies from the fish and game fund are matched with Dingell-
Johnson monies to support fish production.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked who else besides the sport fishermen
help fund those hatcheries and the repairs to those hatcheries;
for example, whether commercial fishermen help fund them.
Because some of the fish from the Crystal Lake Hatchery and from
the Anchorage hatchery are going to be caught by commercial
fishermen, he would like to know if any money is collected from
commercial fishermen. While he is a fan of hatcheries, if
multiple groups are going to benefit from the fish, then
multiple groups should be supporting both hatcheries.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that in Anchorage and
Fairbanks, sport fishermen pay the entirety of the cost. For
the Crystal Lake and Southeast Alaska hatcheries, contributions
come from the commercial industry as well as other federal
sources associated with the salmon treaty.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS quipped that Southeast Alaskans
would welcome 100 percent of the costs of that hatchery being
supported by the surcharge.
11:44:07 AM
CHAIR STUTES said the committee would continue considering the
bill along with any proposed amendments on [3/4/21]. She
further noted that consideration is being given to rolling the
changes into a committee substitute (CS).
CHAIR STUTES announced that HB 80 was held over.
11:45:08 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:45
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB79 Support Doc - Paper Logbook 2.24.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/2/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 79 |
| HB79 Support Doc - eLogBook 2.24.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/2/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 79 |
| HB79 Support Doc - Salmon Treaty - Chinook Mitigation FAQ 2.24.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/2/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 79 |
| HB80 Support Doc - Stocking FAQ Revised 2.24.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/2/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/9/2021 11:00:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| HB 79 Amednment #1 3.2.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/2/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 79 |