Legislature(1997 - 1998)

04/05/1997 01:12 PM RES

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
               HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                         April 5, 1997                                         
                           1:12 p.m.                                           
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
 Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman                                        
 Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chairman                                       
 Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair                                      
 Representative Fred Dyson                                                     
 Representative Ramona Barnes                                                  
 Representative Joe Green                                                      
 Representative William K. ("Bill") Williams                                   
 Representative Reggie Joule                                                   
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
 Representative Irene Nicholia                                                 
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
 HOUSE BILL NO. 19                                                             
 "An Act relating to licensing of sport fishing services operators             
 and fishing guides; and providing for an effective date."                     
      - MOVED CSHB 19(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                    
 CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 16(RES) am                                 
 Relating to reauthorization and reform of the Endangered Species              
      - MOVED CSSJR 16(RES) am OUT OF COMMITTEE                                
 CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 20(RLS) am                                 
 Requesting the United States Congress to accommodate Alaska's                 
 unique wetlands circumstances by amending the Clean Water Act to              
 modify the wetlands regulatory program and to recognize Alaska's              
 outstanding history of wetlands conservation.                                 
      - MOVED CSSJR 20(RLS) am OUT OF COMMITTEE                                
 CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 22(RES) am                                             
 "An Act relating to qualifications for appointment to the Board of            
      - HEARD AND HELD                                                         
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
 BILL:  HB  19                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: SPORT FISHING GUIDES                                             
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) AUSTERMAN, Ivan                                 
 JRN-DATE     JRN-DATE             ACTION                                      
 01/13/97        32    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97                           
 01/13/97        32    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/13/97        32    (H)   FSH, RESOURCES, FINANCE                           
 02/03/97              (H)   FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124                        
 02/03/97              (H)   MINUTE(FSH)                                       
 02/19/97              (H)   FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124                        
 02/19/97              (H)   MINUTE(FSH)                                       
 02/19/97              (H)   MINUTE(FSH)                                       
 02/26/97              (H)   MINUTE(FSH)                                       
 02/27/97       507    (H)   FSH RPT  CS(FSH) NT 3DP 2NR                       
 02/27/97       507    (H)   DP: AUSTERMAN, KUBINA, IVAN                       
 02/27/97       507    (H)   NR: HODGINS, OGAN                                 
 02/27/97       508    (H)   2 FISCAL NOTES (F&G, DPS)                         
 03/13/97              (H)   RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                        
 03/13/97              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 03/20/97              (H)   RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                        
 03/20/97              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 03/27/97              (H)   RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                        
 03/27/97              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 04/05/97              (H)   RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                        
 BILL:  SJR 16                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: REFORM THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT                                
 SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) LEMAN, Pearce, Taylor, Miller, Sharp                   
 JRN-DATE     JRN-DATE             ACTION                                      
 02/18/97       393    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/18/97       393    (S)   RESOURCES                                         
 03/05/97              (S)   RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                 
 03/05/97              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 03/10/97              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 03/11/97       669    (S)   RES RPT  CS  5DP       SAME TITLE                 
 03/11/97       669    (S)   DP: HALFORD, TAYLOR, LEMAN, SHARP,                
 03/11/97       669    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SJR & CS (S.RES)              
 03/12/97              (S)   RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 03/12/97              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 03/12/97       689    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR W/CS 1CAL 2DP 1NR               
 03/12/97       697    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES (S.RES)                  
 03/12/97       697    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 03/12/97       697    (S)   RES  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                      
 03/12/97       697    (S)   AM NO  1     ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                 
 03/12/97       697    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                         
                             UNAN CONSENT                                      
 03/12/97       697    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME CSSJR 16(RES) AM              
 03/12/97       697    (S)   COSPONSOR(S): PEARCE, TAYLOR,                     
 03/12/97       697    (S)   MILLER, SHARP                                     
 03/12/97       698    (S)   PASSED Y19 N1                                     
 03/12/97       698    (S)   DUNCAN  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                 
 03/13/97       725    (S)   RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP                      
 03/13/97       726    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 03/14/97       660    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/14/97       660    (H)   RESOURCES                                         
 03/27/97              (H)   RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                        
 03/27/97              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 04/05/97              (H)   RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                        
 BILL:  SJR 20                                                               
 SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) LEMAN, Pearce, Taylor                                  
 JRN-DATE     JRN-DATE             ACTION                                      
 03/05/97       568    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/05/97       568    (S)   RESOURCES                                         
 03/10/97              (S)   RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                 
 03/10/97              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 03/11/97       670    (S)   RES RPT  CS  5DP 1NR    SAME TITLE                
 03/11/97       670    (S)   DP: HALFORD, TAYLOR, SHARP, GREEN,                
 03/11/97       670    (S)   NR: LINCOLN                                       
 03/11/97       670    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SJR & CS (S.RES)              
 03/12/97              (S)   RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 03/12/97              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 03/12/97       689    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR W/CS CAL/DP2                    
                             CAL1 NR1                                          
 03/12/97       690    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES (S.RES)                  
 03/12/97       698    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 03/12/97       698    (S)   RLS  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                      
 03/12/97       698    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                         
                             UNAN CONSENT                                      
 03/12/97       699    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSJR 20(RLS)                
 03/12/97       698    (S)   COSPONSOR: TAYLOR                                 
 03/12/97       699    (S)   RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1                         
                             UNAN CONSENT                                      
 03/12/97       699    (S)   AM NO  1     ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                 
 03/12/97       699    (S)   AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                    
 03/12/97       699    (S)   PASSED Y19 N1                                     
 03/12/97       700    (S)   DUNCAN  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                 
 03/13/97       725    (S)   RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP                      
 03/13/97       726    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 03/14/97       660    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/14/97       660    (H)   RESOURCES                                         
 04/05/97              (H)   RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                        
 BILL:  SB 22                                                                
 SHORT TITLE: BOARD OF GAME QUALIFICATIONS                                     
 SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SHARP, Taylor                                          
 JRN-DATE     JRN-DATE             ACTION                                      
 01/03/97        19    (S)   PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97                           
 01/13/97        19    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/13/97        20    (S)   STA, RES                                          
 01/23/97              (S)   STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                     
 01/23/97              (S)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 01/24/97       124    (S)   STA RPT  CS  4DP 1NR   SAME TITLE                 
 01/24/97       124    (S)   DP:GREEN, MACKIE, WARD,                           
 01/24/97       124    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTES TO SB (GOV, F&G)                
 01/28/97       146    (S)   ZERO FN TO CS (F&G)                               
 01/31/97       190    (S)   ZERO FN TO CS (GOV)                               
 02/12/97              (S)   RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                 
 02/12/97              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 02/19/97              (S)   RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                 
 02/19/97              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 02/20/97       428    (S)   RES RPT  CS  5DP        SAME TITLE                
 02/20/97       428    (S)   DP: GREEN, TORGERSON,                             
 02/20/97       428    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FNS APPLY TO CS                     
 02/21/97              (S)   RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 02/21/97              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 02/24/97       469    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR & 1NR    2/24/97                
 02/24/97       475    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 02/24/97       475    (S)   RES  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                      
 02/24/97       475    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                         
                             UNAN CONSENT                                      
 02/24/97       475    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 22(RES)                 
 02/24/97       476    (S)   PASSED Y15 N4 A1                                  
 02/24/97       476    (S)   LINCOLN  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                
 02/25/97       498    (S)   RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING                 
 02/25/97       499    (S)   RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1                         
                             UNAN CONSENT                                      
 02/25/97       499    (S)   AM NO  1     OFFERED BY SHARP                     
 02/25/97       499    (S)   AM NO  1     ADOPTED Y16 N4                       
 02/25/97       499    (S)   AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                    
 02/25/97       500    (S)   PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y15 N5                  
 02/25/97       503    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 02/26/97       478    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/26/97       478    (H)   RESOURCES                                         
 04/05/97              (H)   RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                        
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN                                                 
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 434                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 465-2487                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of HB 19.                                        
 STEVE DAUGHERTY, Assistant Attorney General                                   
 Natural Resources Section                                                     
 Civil Division                                                                
 Department of Law                                                             
 P.O. Box 110300                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska  99811-0300                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 3600                                                        
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 19.                                      
 JOE KLUTCH, Guide                                                             
 P.O. Box 313                                                                  
 King Salmon, Alaska  99613                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 246-3030                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 19.                                      
 DALE BONDURANT                                                                
 HC1 Box 1197                                                                  
 Soldotna, Alaska  99669                                                       
 Telephone:  (907) 262-0818                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 19, CSSJR 20(RLS) am                     
      and HCS CSSB 22(RES) am.                                                 
 GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison                                              
 Office of the Commissioner                                                    
 Department of Fish and Game                                                   
 P.O. Box 25526                                                                
 Juneau, Alaska  99802-5526                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-6143                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided department's position and answered              
                      questions on HB 19 and HCS CSSB 22(RES) am.              
 LORALI MEIER, Student Intern                                                  
    for Senator Loren Leman                                                    
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 113                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 465-2095                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided sponsor statement for                           
                      CSSJR 16(RES) am.                                        
 ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Assistant                                       
    to Senator Loren Leman                                                     
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 113                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 465-2095                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided sponsor statement for                           
                      CSSJR 20(RLS) am.                                        
 SENATOR BERT SHARP                                                            
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 516                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3004                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of SCSSB 22(RES) am.                             
 NANCY HILLSTRAND, Secretary                                                   
 Homer Fish and Game Advisory Committee                                        
 P.O. Box 674                                                                  
 Homer, Alaska  99603                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 235-3877                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HCS CSSB 22(RES) am.                   
 WILLIAM DeCREEFT, Owner                                                       
 Kachemak Air Service                                                          
 P.O. Box 1769                                                                 
 Homer, Alaska  99603                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 235-8924                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HCS CSSB 22(RES) am.                   
 MARJOLEIN LEACH, Member                                                       
 Homer Fish and Game Advisory Committee                                        
 P.O. Box 1414                                                                 
 Homer, Alaska  99603                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 235-5649                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HCS CSSB 22(RES) am.                   
 DENNIS LEACH, Member                                                          
 Homer City Council                                                            
 P.O. Box 1414                                                                 
 Homer, Alaska  99603                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 235-5649                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HCS CSSB 22(RES) am.                   
 SUZANNE PESCHIER, Volunteer                                                   
 Alaska Environmental Lobby                                                    
 P.O. Box 8867                                                                 
 Kodiak, Alaska  99615                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 463-3366                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HCS CSSB 22(RES) am.                   
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
 TAPE 97-36, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 0001                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN SCOTT OGAN called the House Resources Committee meeting           
 to order at 1:12 p.m.  Members present at the call to order were              
 Representatives Ogan, Hudson, Green, Dyson and Joule.                         
 Representatives Masek, Barnes and Williams arrived at 1:22 p.m.,              
 1:28 p.m. and 1:30 p.m., respectively.  Representative Nicholia was           
 absent.  This meeting was teleconferenced to Kenai, Anchorage,                
 Delta Junction, Homer and Dillingham.                                         
 HB 19 - SPORT FISHING GUIDES                                                
 Number 0058                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR OGAN announced the first order of business was House Bill            
 No. 19, "An Act relating to licensing of sport fishing services               
 operators and fishing guides; and providing for an effective date."           
 REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN, sponsor, said this bill was                    
 relatively the same as the one introduced last year that did not              
 make it through the Senate.  He explained that HB 19 sets up a                
 system for charter boat operators, requiring them to register with            
 the state and to report their catches.                                        
 Number 0152                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON made a motion to adopt the proposed                   
 committee substitute, 0-LS0140\Q, Utermohle, 4/3/97.  There being             
 no objection, CSHB 19(RES) was before the committee.                          
 Number 0216                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN referred to Section 1 of CSHB 19(RES) and            
 said this amends the current statutes.  Everything on page 1 and              
 page 2 are in current statutes.  On page 3, line 14, under section            
 17, regulating the sport fishing services industry need for                   
 conservation, development, and utilization of fishery resources,              
 this language gives the Board of Fisheries the authority to                   
 regulate the sports fish guides.                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN addressed Section 2, which sets the                  
 license fee rates for the sport charter boat operators and the                
 guides.  There are three different classes of licenses:  sport fish           
 operator, guide and a combination of the two other classes.  A                
 concern that has been raised is the disparity between a resident              
 and a nonresident fee.  There is basically a one-to-three ratio               
 between resident and nonresident fees, the same ratio as is found             
 in a number of other fees throughout the state.  He wanted to leave           
 the disparity, at three to one, even though at some time it might             
 be out of synch with other fish and game charges.  There is a                 
 current court case involving those charges.                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said Section 3, beginning on page 3, line            
 29, gets into the different classes.  The first class is the sports           
 fish services operator license.  For instance, a lodge operator               
 might have any number of guides working for him, but he is the                
 operator.  This section provides criteria needed to be an operator,           
 everything from having insurance to holding a current fishing                 
 license.  On page 4, line 23, it provides a definition for a fish             
 guide:  a person who works for an operator.  The reason why they              
 are classified differently is a situation where someone is simply             
 an employee guide.                                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN referred to page 5, which states that a              
 guide must have CPR, First Aid, a fishing license and those kinds             
 of things.  The sport fishing services operator and fishing guide             
 license are mentioned in this section, but the definition goes back           
 to page 3, line 24.  This is a situation where you have an operator           
 who is the sole operator, who has no guides who work for him and              
 wants to be classified as an operator.  This person needs a guide             
 license as well as operating license because he is the actual                 
 person doing the guiding.  Those two classifications have been                
 combined, so that as a sole operator you can have your license and            
 be legal.                                                                     
 Number 0551                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN clarified that it is the same fee schedule           
 for both the sport fishing services operator license only and the             
 combination license.  He asked whether there was a reason why there           
 wasn't a slight cost increase for a combination license.                      
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied that it didn't seem fair, just               
 because operators and guides were classified, that a sole operator            
 should have to pay more.                                                      
 Number 0589                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether or not anyone would only                   
 purchase a sport fishing services operator license.                           
 Number 0605                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN responded that there might be absentee               
 owners who wouldn't go out and guide.                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN referred to Section 3, page 3, and said it           
 is actually a whole new section in statute.  Page 6 has a reporting           
 requirement, set up in statute, on how the guides and operators are           
 supposed to record their catch.  He felt this was a key component             
 of CSHB 19(RES).  The intent is to have the guides register and               
 have their catch reported so that the Department of Fish and Game             
 (ADF&G) and the Board of Fisheries would have some information                
 tools with which to work.                                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN addressed line 27, page 6, which sets out            
 the penalties for a violation by any of the guides or operators.              
 Page 7 sets up definitions for this new section.  He referred to              
 page 8, Section 4, and stated that this addresses a concern of the            
 Division of Sport Fish, ADF&G, and some operators who might be                
 collecting the in-season information.  In the reporting section on            
 page 6, it says, "The department shall collect".  This language               
 does not leave the ADF&G any options.                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said Section 4, page 8, repeals the in-              
 season collection.  It provides a sunset to that clause within CSHB
 19(RES) to appease the Division of Sport Fish and some operators,             
 who did not feel the "shall" language was the correct way to go.              
 This sunset provision gives them the option, in three years, to               
 look at it and repeal it if it is not working the way in which it             
 was envisioned to work.                                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN addressed Section 5, page 8, which                   
 addresses the transition period.  It gives the ADF&G time to set up           
 these statutes, put the paperwork in place and begin the collection           
 of information.  Section 6 is also a transition section regarding             
 the fees being charged; it prorates the fees from when the bill is            
 signed into law.  Section 7, page 9, is the effective date,                   
 relating back to Section 4, which repeals the language on the                 
 "shall", gathers the in-season information, and dates it.                     
 Number 0866                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred to Section 3, page 3, line 31, "holds a             
 current business license under AS 43.70".  However, the license               
 referred to in CSHB 19(RES) is a Title 16 license.                            
 Number 0899                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN responded that to do business in the state           
 of Alaska you need a business license, whether you are a sport fish           
 operator or running a business.  You can be without a business                
 license if you are a guide working for someone else.  This business           
 license is separate from the actual operator's license.                       
 Number 0940                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked if most businesses were under Title 8, under           
 Number 0953                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said Title 16 is under the ADF&G.  The               
 operator license would be distributed by the ADF&G.  A vendor such            
 as a sporting good store will be able to sell guide licenses.                 
 Number 1025                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN commented that this will be similar to commercial            
 fishing crew licenses, which can be bought through a vendor.  He              
 asked if any fees were set for a Title 43 operator license.                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said it would be the fee for a normal                
 business license, $25.                                                        
 Number 1040                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE asked if you would have to meet certain           
 requirements in order to purchase this license, as you do in order            
 to obtain a U.S. Coast Guard license.                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN explained that the Board of Game used to             
 have a series of assistant guide licenses, but CSHB 19(RES) is                
 different from those.                                                         
 Number 1085                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE questioned whether these requirements could be           
 set in regulation.  When the legislature passes a bill with a                 
 certain intent, the regulations can be changed from the original              
 intent.  He wondered if CSHB 19(RES) would leave any room for that            
 kind of change and whether this would be an area of concern.                  
 Number 1114                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN responded that if a group of charter boat            
 operators were to go to the Board of Fisheries requesting                     
 regulations to govern aspects of charter boat trips, the board                
 would then look at this request.  Without specific language in CSHB
 19(RES), the legislature would not know whether the Board of                  
 Fisheries could do that.                                                      
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Daugherty to look at Section 3,                    
 paragraph 17, located on page 3, line 14.                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN suggested that the committee look at                 
 version P, the version before CSHB 19(RES), regarding the same                
 section.  That version gave the Board of Fisheries the permission             
 to do the same things.                                                        
 Number 1188                                                                   
 STEVE DAUGHERTY, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources                
 Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, said the Board of                 
 Fisheries might have the authority to establish some type of                  
 testing, but only for the purposes of conservation and development.           
 With the language regarding safety and integrity of the industry              
 removed, the Board of Fisheries' only concern would be for                    
 conservation and development.  The board could require that the               
 guides know how to identify different species of fish and how to              
 safely release those without a high mortality rate, in a catch-and-           
 release fishery.  The board could conceivably adopt a regulation              
 requiring some basic knowledge, but the scope of regulations would            
 be limited to knowledge and testing.                                          
 Number 1243                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN explained the reason for omitting language           
 from CSHB 19(RES) was because of the question about giving the                
 Board of Fisheries the ability to regulate the industry.                      
 Number 1264                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN argued that this would be a Title 8 function of              
 the Department of Commerce and Economic Development.                          
 Number 1271                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether the current fee schedule, shown            
 in Section 6, page 9, was the listed $40 and $120.                            
 Number 1295                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN explained this is for the prorated                   
 transition year after CSHB 19(RES) is enacted.  The enacted fees              
 are located on page 3.  He said there is no current fee schedule.             
 Number 1321                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked that if Section 4 does not become                  
 effective until 2001, would the fee schedule listed on page 9                 
 remain effective until that time.                                             
 Number 1336                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN responded that the prorated fees would               
 become effective during the 1997 season.  The enacted fee schedule            
 listed on page 3 would then become effective for the 1998 season.             
 He clarified that Section 2 regards fees and is different from                
 Section 4.  Section 4 regards the collection of information and               
 comes into effect in 2001.                                                    
 Number 1378                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES asked if there was a Coast Guard                 
 insurance requirement for hauling passengers.                                 
 Number 1396                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN did not believe there was this                       
 requirement.  He believed their only requirement was the need for             
 a six-pack license.  The insurance companies have set the rates               
 that they would like the industry to have.                                    
 Number 1414                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said the operators need a six-pack license, be             
 annually or periodically inspected and carry the seal of the Coast            
 Guard inspection.                                                             
 Number 1423                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated that both of her sons were sports                
 fishing guides.  She thought they had to have insurance which was             
 a lot more than $300,000.                                                     
 Number 1438                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN believed that on the Kenai River, he                 
 couldn't remember which park, there was a license and insurance               
 requirement which was separate from the Coast Guard requirement.              
 Number 1457                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON clarified that there is an area requirement.               
 Number 1479                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said that it is the operators who get                    
 insurance, not individuals.                                                   
 Number 1489                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES responded that it was a family business.                
 Number 1508                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if CSHB 19(RES) came as a result of an               
 appeal from the sport fishing guide industry.                                 
 Number 1516                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN explained that he initiated this                     
 legislation based on his work with the Convention and Visitors                
 Bureau and the National Fisheries Council.  When Clem Tillion was             
 on that council they looked at a moratorium date of September of              
 1993 for the halibut charter boat industry.  They realized that               
 information wasn't available, in a good enough format, for them to            
 impose this moratorium.  In subsequent letters and information from           
 the council, those organizations asked the legislature to do                  
 something.  After he introduced legislation, he found that there              
 had been similar legislation introduced by Representative Williams.           
 Number 1592                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what the bottom line was of CSHB
 19(RES).  He questioned whether it would provide understanding                
 regarding the number of guides, does it involve a safety issue, or            
 some other issue.                                                             
 Number 1615                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN hoped CSHB 19(RES) would register the                
 vessels and report their catch, so we gain knowledge of how many              
 people are in the industry and how many fish are being caught.                
 This information will assist the conservation issue.  As this                 
 industry grows, the ADF&G and the Board of Fisheries need                     
 information to ensure a sound management of the resources.  There             
 is a need to have good, solid information on what is happening in             
 the resource industry.                                                        
 Number 1651                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that the state gets historical catch              
 information.  He asked if CSHB 19(RES) would provide a more                   
 accurate number.  In the past, fishermen have paid and the count is           
 Number 1661                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said, based on the experience of the                 
 council and convention and visitors bureau, information on the                
 Ayakulik River and Karluk River was controlled by the National                
 Wildlife Refuge.   The refuge requires operators on those rivers to           
 submit a catch report on a daily basis.  When those numbers were              
 compared to the numbers the ADF&G was coming up with on the creel             
 count, they were very different.  The want a better set of numbers            
 through in-season reporting.                                                  
 Number 1705                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the fees were estimated based on the            
 cost of obtaining this information.                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN answered that they hoped fees would offset           
 those costs.                                                                  
 Number 1723                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said the income in the second year creates about           
 $106,000, while the cost remains fairly constant at $282,000.  He             
 thought the ADF&G's fiscal note should reflect an annual loss of              
 $176,000.  He thought the fee schedule should be amended to cover             
 the cost of administering this program.                                       
 Number 1760                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN relied upon the ADF&G's estimates.  Once             
 this is done for a year or two, the figures will resemble the                 
 numbers listed on the fiscal note or else the legislature will have           
 to go back and look at the fee structure.                                     
 Number 1773                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated that the legislature is trying to set up            
 a system to collect information in order to understand what occurs            
 from a biological and management point of view.  Currently a lot of           
 nonresidents are able to come up with a six-pack license, buy a $25           
 license fee, bring their boat into the harbor and open up a                   
 business.  These nonresidents are taking a tremendous amount of the           
 state's resource.  He felt that if the state of Alaska was one of             
 the last major fisheries, then he there should be a fee which                 
 equaled the worth of the industry and the resource.  Alaska should            
 not have to subsidize this type of industry.  The commercial                  
 fishing industry has a license, a crew license, raw fish taxes and            
 things collected to put into the general fund.  He wanted someone             
 from the ADF&G or the sponsor to speak to the issue of having these           
 costs balance out the costs of the program.  He agreed with the               
 collection of the information from the sports fisheries.                      
 Number 1868                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN felt the industry should cover the cost of           
 the program.  Part of the costs could be made up through the                  
 ADF&G's and the Board of Fisheries' conservation measures such as             
 bag limits.  He suspected that a king salmon tag would be                     
 implemented, which would result in the costs being carried through            
 the users of the industry.  This bill deals with the operator, the            
 guide, and does not deal with individual fishermen who are coming             
 to Alaska.  Issues concerning those fishermen have to be covered              
 through the ADF&G and the Board of Fisheries, in sport fish license           
 fees and bag limits.                                                          
 Number 1924                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS asked if the sponsor had considered              
 raising the $75 fee.                                                          
 Number 1934                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said he had not.  The ADF&G would need to            
 address the issue of having the program pay for itself.                       
 Number 1959                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS stated that in talking to some of the                 
 guides, they would accept a higher rate in order to keep                      
 nonresident guides from coming into Alaska.  The nonresidents                 
 frequently come and work in Ketchikan.                                        
 Number 1994                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN agreed on the operator's license, but he             
 felt it was a different thing when it came to the guide license.              
 He expressed concern with raising the cost of this too much.                  
 Number 2040                                                                   
 JOE KLUTCH, guide and member of the local fish and game advisory              
 committee, testified next via teleconference from an offnet site in           
 King Salmon.   He stated that there has been a dramatic increase in           
 the level of commercial industries related to sport fishing,                  
 especially in the last four or five years.  This has resulted in a            
 number of conservation issues and associated impacts on fishing               
 stocks.  As a result, a heightened allocation conflict has arisen             
 among different user groups and within the individual user groups.            
 The quality of experience, around which Alaska has developed a                
 reputation, is slipping away.  He felt Representative Barnes                  
 expressed this when she referred to her sons giving up sports fish            
 guiding because of overcrowding on the Kenai River.                           
 MR. KLUTCH said the rate of growth, in many areas of the state, is            
 not sustainable if our objective to provide a quality experience              
 and to maintain healthy stocks.  To date, the Board of Fisheries              
 hasn't had adequate guidelines and definitions in statute to allow            
 it to regulate and allocate among sport fishing entities.  He                 
 believed CSHB 19(RES) would rectify that situation.  It certainly             
 is a step in the right direction.  The time is long overdue for a             
 state licensing program which will set proper definitions and                 
 provide the Board of Fisheries with the tools it needs to properly            
 regulate the resources among user groups, particularly among sport            
 fishing groups.                                                               
 MR. KLUTCH referred to page 3, line 16, regarding the licensing               
 function, and asked if the licensing authority rested with the                
 ADF&G or the Department of Commerce and Economic Development.                 
 Number 2171                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said Section 2 regards the Title 16, ADF&G                   
 function.  Section 3 of the bill, referring to a person who is a              
 sport fishing services operator, requires a business license under            
 the Department of Revenue (DOR).                                              
 Number 2190                                                                   
 MR. KLUTCH referred to the question of insurance.  He explained               
 that the respective land managers, the National Park Service, the             
 U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, private              
 land holders, Native corporations and state parks, can and do have            
 insurance requirements as part of their permitting schemes.  There            
 are no U.S. Coast Guard requirements.  Many operators are working             
 on navigable waters that do not require a land manager permit.  He            
 thought the insurance requirement in CSHB 19(RES) was a responsible           
 business practice that would ensure a higher quality of service.              
 Number 2257                                                                   
 MR. KLUTCH referred to page 7, line 8, the definitions section,               
 where there is a reference to a fishing club.  There is also a                
 reference to a fishing club on page 8, line 6.  He felt it was                
 important to have this fishing club definition.  In Southwest                 
 Alaska there is a problem when nonresident groups form a business.            
 The money for this business is collected in Europe; all the                   
 bookings are done in Europe.  They come to Alaska, acquire a piece            
 of property and equipment, and then they conduct a commercial                 
 activity, as a club, which exempts them from state taxes and                  
 commercial licensing requirements.  He suggested that a tight                 
 definition relating to fishing clubs be brought under this                    
 regulatory umbrella.                                                          
 Number 2318                                                                   
 MR. KLUTCH commented that one of the problems that the ADF&G will             
 have when they go to allocate amongst commercial entities is that             
 you need to have tight definitions that include everybody.  He                
 referred to page 7, line 26; he summarized that people who rented             
 a vessel, including rafts, boats, et cetera, without an operator              
 would not be included under the outfitter license or the guide                
 Number 2346                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN verified that was correct.                           
 Number 2350                                                                   
 MR. KLUTCH suggested the legislature was leaving one link of the              
 chain out there.  As a commercial entity, this group has the                  
 ability to impact resources and other user groups, and they ought             
 to be included in CSHB 19(RES).  If guiding activities are                    
 included, then boat renting activities should not be exempted.                
 Inclusion of these activities would allow the Board of Fisheries to           
 regulate them.  He felt the time for this type of legislation was             
 long overdue.                                                                 
 Number 2434                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said renting and leasing of vessels,                 
 including air charter services, was included in past versions of              
 CSHB 19(RES).  Having Alaska Airlines weigh the box and report the            
 amount was also suggested.  He felt this bill couldn't be all-                
 inclusive.  As a sports fisherman, he brings in catch that he                 
 doesn't report.  He stated that CSHB 19(RES) is a basic bill.                 
 TAPE 97-36, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 0000                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN explained that to include these provisions           
 would allow the bill to be defeated.                                          
 Number 0011                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred to page 7, line 23, regarding an                    
 outfitting description in Title 15, which would say that guides               
 could not outfit unless they had a guide license.  He expressed               
 concern that this would create a loophole.  Someone, under the                
 guise of outfitting themselves for fishing, could go out and set up           
 camps on rivers and run a hunting operation.  The new language                
 specifically regards fisherman, but he asked whether there was any            
 conflict within the hunting guide industry.                                   
 Number 0060                                                                   
 MR. KLUTCH said he would have to study the language carefully.                
 Based on what the co-chair stated, there could be the potential for           
 a problem.  He asked whether there was language to address this               
 Number 0078                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN responded that language could be added.  He felt             
 this issue should be thoroughly addressed in one of the committees            
 of referral to prevent a loophole where people would operate a                
 hunting operation under the guise of Title 16 fish outfitting.  He            
 suggested changing the description after, "(4)" to put "fishing               
 outfitting" or "fishing outfitter", for example, instead of                   
 "outfitting".  The language would enhance the clarity.                        
 Number 0134                                                                   
 MR. KLUTCH felt "fishing outfitting" was a good suggestion.                   
 Number 0155                                                                   
 DALE BONDURANT testified next via teleconference from Kenai.  He              
 felt the regulations in CSHB 19(RES) were valid.  Within the last             
 year, guides have begun supporting a bill such as this one.  This             
 would give their industry a lot more responsibility.  His interest            
 in this bill regards the operating license fees, the differential.            
 He referred to Mr. Daugherty's testimony on Carlson v. State of            
 Alaska, which raises legal question regarding the fee differential.          
 He thought if there was a legal question it should be settled now.            
 He felt the nonresident bashing is not something of which we should           
 be proud.                                                                     
 Number 0248                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if he had any citations for the committee            
 to refer to in order to see how the constitutional issue might be             
 Number 0277                                                                   
 MR. BONDURANT explained that he understood higher fees could be               
 charged for nonresidents in the way they contribute to the                    
 management of the resource.  He did not think this would be                   
 supportable in Alaska because 85 percent of sports fish management            
 money comes from nonresidents.  He referred to a case involving               
 Carl Anderson (ph), who fought a nonresident commercial fisherman             
 charge in Alaska's territorial days.  The court found that this was           
 not allowable.  The decision was based on the enforcement costs.              
 When the numbers were looked at, the nonresidents were paying four            
 times the amount of enforcement.   He said there were several cases           
 which support this decision.                                                  
 Number 0350                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to the statutes and a collateral                  
 reference in AS 16.05.340 on page 34.  There is a constitutionality           
 in state laws that prevents discrimination against nonresidents or            
 aliens in fishing and hunting rights, 52L edition, second date 24.            
 This is something the Department of Law should address.                       
 Number 0376                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN felt that until there was a resolution in            
 this case, the disparity could continue, but he wanted to let Mr.             
 Daugherty address it.                                                         
 Number 0412                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY stated that he represents the Board of Fisheries.  In           
 Carlson v. State of Alaska, the Alaska Supreme Court issued a test          
 to determine whether or not a differential fee can be applied to              
 nonresidents in a commercial activity.  This test is applicable               
 only to commercial activities; there is nothing that prevents a               
 higher fee for a sport fishing person or for hunting.  It is only             
 in a commercial activity that the privileges and immunities clause            
 of the U.S. Constitution is implicated.  It is implicated when a              
 person's ability to earn a living is affected.  The U.S.                      
 Constitution prohibits states from discriminating against out-of-             
 state residents through their income sources.                                 
 MR. DAUGHERTY explained the test:  an appropriate inquiry accesses            
 whether all fees and taxes paid to the state by a nonresident to              
 enjoy the state-provided benefit are substantially equal to those             
 that must be paid by similarly situated residents, when the                   
 residents' pro rata share of state revenues, to which nonresidents            
 make no contribution, are taken into account.  Basically this says            
 that oil revenues of the state general fund money, spent on an                
 activity, equal a pro rata share paid by residents to say that                
 nonresidents have to make up that difference.  Under the most                 
 recent Carlson case, the court has made it clear that only the              
 share of the people participating in the activity can be used.  The           
 Carlson case addressed commercial fisherman.  The argument used was         
 that oil revenues, which the state spent on managing fisheries,               
 were put up amongst all residents of the state and then divided out           
 to figure out how many commercial fishermen there were, then the              
 number was multiplied by that figure.  He reiterated that you are             
 not able to take all of the contributions of the state, only those            
 that can be credited to the individuals who participate in that               
 MR. DAUGHERTY said the Department of Law (DOL) was not aware of any           
 evidence indicating it is significantly more expensive for the                
 state to license a nonresident than a resident or that residents              
 contribute more to sport fish production than nonresidents.  There            
 is a probable constitutional problem with CSHB 19(RES) regarding              
 the privileges and immunities clause of the U.S. Constitution.  The           
 DOL would prefer to see that provision taken out and some other               
 provision added.                                                              
 MR. DAUGHERTY said another bill referring to commercial fisheries             
 delegates authority to the ADF&G to adopt a fee differential to the           
 maximum extent allowed by law.  This would allow the ADF&G to                 
 adjust to the changing court decisions to adopt fee differentials             
 and to figure out the budgets.  It is difficult to break up those             
 funds.  There are a number of economists working on the Carlson             
 case to break up the department's budget to determine what money              
 goes where and how much of that can be attributed to residents and            
 nonresidents.  It is a complicated thing which is not cost                    
 effective when you deal with such a small number of people who will           
 register to be a guide.                                                       
 Number 0590                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if this was an Alaska Supreme Court                
 decision or was it a federal court decision.                                  
 Number 0599                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY answered that the Carlson case was an Alaska Supreme          
 Court decision.                                                               
 Number 0609                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked if a two-to-one ratio would be better than             
 a three-to-one ratio.                                                         
 MR. DAUGHERTY said the smaller the differential, the easier it                
 would be to defend.  Yet, he was unaware of any information that              
 would support a two-to-one ratio.                                             
 Number 0628                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES believed there had been court cases in the              
 past relating to the residency/nonresidency requirement.  The cases           
 showed a nexus between the differential charged between the                   
 resident and nonresident which could be constitutional.  If you               
 show that nonresidents and sports fishers contribute to the budget            
 which manages those fisheries, then the fees are their contribution           
 to help manage those fisheries.  She asked whether he thought this            
 was the nexus to show it was constitutional.                                  
 Number 0667                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY answered that if the state could make that type of              
 showing, it would properly do the job.  However, the state cannot             
 make that type of showing.  The majority of money used for the                
 management of sport fisheries comes through federal money paid                
 through federal sport fish restoration funding.  The state receives           
 a large percentage of funding through the actual sports fishing               
 licenses where the state charges a higher fee to nonresidents than            
 to residents.                                                                 
 Number 0699                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES clarified that the funds being addressed were           
 Dingill-Johnson funds and Pittman-Robertson funds, used for the               
 management of fish.  She believed that the state contributed large            
 chunks of money to the ADF&G, and certainly some portion of that,             
 certainly the administrative cost applied to the budget, has to be            
 considered when you are taking into account the cost of managing              
 any fishery.                                                                  
 Number 0740                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY said that fees could be adopted to recover the                  
 state's costs if we charged residents and nonresidents equally.               
 Right now there is not a factual account showing that it costs more           
 to license a nonresident than a resident.  The administrative costs           
 are essentially the same for residents and nonresidents.  You can't           
 require nonresidents to pay their full share of the administrative            
 costs and not require residents to pay their full share of the                
 administrative costs.                                                         
 Number 0769                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to all the additional costs needed to             
 support this segment of the industry, such as the infrastructure,             
 including ports, harbors and launching areas.  Residents are paying           
 a property tax and a sales tax on a regular basis, which goes to              
 pay for that infrastructure.                                                  
 Number 0814                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES brought up the issue of her sons being                  
 unwilling to take fish out of the Kenai River because it was                  
 overcrowded.  She used this as an example where nonresidents                  
 displaced Alaska residents who contribute to this state in many               
 Number 0865                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY recognized the difficulty with this issue.  The                 
 problem, at this point, is that the state does not have the                   
 technical ability to break out and show what the resident                     
 contribution is and what the contribution by nonresidents should              
 be.  It would be difficult to make that showing and might cost more           
 money than could be made by having a differential fee scale.                  
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked when the Carlson case would be settled.  He          
 also asked whether, if this case were to be settled, the state                
 would have to refund monies.                                                  
 Number 0906                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY answered that the Carlson case has been in court for          
 approximately 12 or 13 years.  It is on remand from the supreme               
 court for the second time.  The prognosis is uncertain, and it                
 could still result in years of litigation.  The current dispute               
 regards how much the state owes by determining the nonresident                
 share and what the residents' contributions have been.  These                 
 questions could take a couple more years to resolve.  On the basic            
 issue of whether or not the state can charge the additional fee,              
 the courts have ruled against the state in all matters, unless the            
 state can do a break-out and show what the resident contribution              
 Number 0960                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to the issue of game, where we have            
 two fees that the state charges for big game species.  As far as              
 she knew, this fee differential wasn't a problem.  The state does             
 it, and they show a nexus because the residents pay to manage that            
 Number 0990                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY explained sport fishing and hunting does not                    
 implicate the privileges and immunities clause of the U.S.                    
 Constitution.  The state can charge a higher fee for hunting and              
 fishing.  It is only when occupational licenses are involved that             
 the privileges and immunities clause of the U.S. Constitution is              
 implicated.  The state can recover costs through charging a higher            
 fee to a nonresident for the actual act of hunting and fishing, but           
 the state is limited by the privileges and immunities clause when             
 they try to recover those costs from the guides themselves.                   
 Number 1036                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY said the other major point was the importance of the            
 provisions of Section 1, paragraph 17, which gives the Board of               
 Fisheries authority to regulate for conservation, development and             
 utilization of fishery resources.  A number of individuals have               
 tried to imply that the board does not need this authority, that              
 they already have this authority over guided sport fishing and this           
 is all the authority they need.                                               
 MR. DAUGHERTY stated, as a representative of the Board of                     
 Fisheries, that the board does not have the authority that they               
 need at this time.  The provision in CSHB 19(RES) would put sports            
 fishing services industry on a par with other fisheries, such as              
 commercial fisheries, overseen by the board.  The board's current             
 authority is over the guided sport fisherman, not over the guide.             
 The board needs the authority to require more extensive reporting             
 by guides and the ability to penalize, such as not renewing their             
 license the next year, in order to get compliance with the                    
 reporting provision.  The only regulation currently affecting                 
 guides is the requirement to register.  A few things regulate                 
 guides in the areas of methods and means, such as prohibiting                 
 guides from fishing while they have clients on board.  There is not           
 the same authority over a guide as there is over other fisheries.             
 This is an important management tool for the Board of Fisheries for           
 the conservation and management of fisheries.                                 
 MR. DAUGHERTY said the board has a limited source of data when it             
 comes to sports fisheries.  Currently, there is the authority to              
 allocate between guided and unguided sport fisheries, but there is            
 not enough information to make those allegations.  The board is               
 using bag limits, methods and means types of regulations in order             
 to try to give nonguided residents a fair opportunity to fish,                
 rather than making a state allocation.                                        
 Number 1233                                                                   
 GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,                 
 Department of Fish and Game, said the ADF&G supports CSHB 19(RES).            
 Representatives from the ADF&G have worked with the guide charter             
 task force, established by the Board of Fisheries, to look into               
 some of these issues.  That task force was involved with the                  
 development of this legislation.  The bill would provide                      
 information to the ADF&G and to the board.  Nonresident angling is            
 growing at a regular rate of about 5 percent a year.  A lot of that           
 angling is conducted with the aid of guides.  There is a lot of               
 concern and interest in the state, among users and managers, in               
 knowing the impact of this increased angling on the resource,                 
 specifically in knowing what opportunities are there for other                
 users, especially resident users.  Currently when the board asks              
 for this information, there is not much the ADF&G can offer.                  
 MR. BRUCE explained that CSHB 19(RES) would allow the ADF&G to                
 characterize the guiding industry in terms of the different                   
 regional aspects and operators involved.  It would also enable the            
 department to quantify the impact of the guided industry on                   
 particular resources in particular regions of the state, allowing             
 the department to provide this information in a summary form to the           
 board and the public.  This would help policy makers make the best            
 decisions regarding the utilization of resources for the common               
 MR. BRUCE stated that CSHB 19(RES) was thoroughly discussed.  He              
 felt as much input went into this bill as any other piece of                  
 legislation he has seen.  He did not know of any other legislation,           
 especially one which breaks new ground, which would be                        
 wholeheartedly liked.  This is a step that needs to be taken in the           
 long-term interest of the guiding industry, other users in the                
 state and the resource.                                                       
 MR. BRUCE said the effective date would fall toward the end of this           
 calendar year, if the legislation was passed this year.  Any time             
 the ADF&G has any changes in their licensing system, they like to             
 have it coincide with the calendar year because all license systems           
 are administered on a calendar year.  It makes a more orderly                 
 transition for those people affected and in regards to                        
 administration.  The ADF&G would like to have an effective date of            
 January 1, 1998.  There would only be a short period of time                  
 remaining in the 1997 season.                                                 
 Number 1481                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN explained that CSHB 19(RES) was set up to            
 do some good this year.  If the ADF&G does not feel that there is             
 enough time, or if they question whether or not it would work                 
 within the time frame, then he wouldn't object to this amendment.             
 Number 1503                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN felt if this occurred, then line 30, page 8,             
 would have to be amended.                                                     
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN suggested that Section 6 be deleted to eliminate             
 the transition period.                                                        
 Number 1549                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied that if the effective date was               
 changed to the first of the year, then some sections would no                 
 longer be valid.  The normal fees from Section 2 would take place.            
 Number 1576                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON made a motion to adopt a conceptual amendment              
 regarding page 8, line 29, to delete "Section 6 all the way down to           
 page 9, line 8, and underline ten, page 9, amend to read, Section             
 8, to read `takes effect January 1, 1998', and then under the same            
 Number 1620                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "I presume that mean also you'll                   
 remember those sections in your amendment.  If you cancelling                 
 number six, then you renumber the sections accordingly."                      
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said, "I am renumbering all sections                       
 Number 1639                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced, having heard no objections, that the              
 conceptual amendment was adopted to CSHB 19(RES).                             
 Number 1694                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK made a motion to adopt Amendment 2,              
 which read:                                                                   
      Page 3, lines 14 - 15:  Delete existing language in Work Draft           
      0-LS0140\Q and insert new language to read:  (17) regulating           
      the sport fishing services industry for purposes of                    
      establishing information gathering tools related to the                
      conservation, development, and utilization of fishery                  
 Number 1759                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN referred to Mr. Daugherty's testimony on             
 how important this section is.                                                
 Number 1788                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY explained that Amendment 2 would not put the guided             
 sports fisheries and services industry on par with the other                  
 fisheries.  It would prohibit substantive regulation of the sport             
 fishing services industry.  This amendment could be interpreted to            
 weaken, rather than enhance, the board's authority.  While the                
 board needs information gathering tools, when this specific                   
 authority is given, it is likely to be interpreted as limiting the            
 board's authority in that specific area, rather than adding to                
 their authority over guided sport fishing.  It would be interpreted           
 by a court as a restriction on the board's authority.                         
 MR. DAUGHERTY said this change would not allow the board to                   
 regulate knowledge of the fishery such as fish identification,                
 catch-and-release methods, and other areas where the board has                
 expressed a desire to require some knowledge on behalf of the                 
 guided sports fish industry.  The board currently has some                    
 regulations for guides such as the fishing prohibition while a                
 client is on board.  Those regulations might be challenged if this            
 amendment were adopted.  It might limit the Board of Fisheries to             
 an information gathering service only in the area of sports                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY noted that the use of "established" in the amendment            
 does not include implementing or enforcing. This would not give the           
 board any tools.  The board could require reporting and information           
 gathering, but it wouldn't have any tools to make sure people                 
 Number 1982                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK referred to the sponsor statement and said the           
 amendment spells out the intent more clearly.  In the bill it reads           
 "as needed"; she felt it should be changed to "for purposes of                
 establishing information".  Right now the board has the ability to            
 regulate.  She did not feel there should be that much of a conflict           
 with the proposed amendment.                                                  
 Number 2042                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN felt, from the testimony presented, that the             
 Board of Fisheries did not have the authority that they needed for            
 sports fishing.  If CSHB 19(RES) is left, rather than modified by             
 the amendment, then it definitely gives the Board of Fisheries                
 authority.  He felt the amendment would limit the board, and that             
 is not the direction the committee wants to go.                               
 Number 2097                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON felt the purpose of the amendment would alter              
 the bill so the industry would be regulated for information                   
 gathering tools.  He felt that if the board ever established                  
 limitations, seasons or bag limits, this amendment would cause the            
 bill to be contested in court.  He felt CSHB 19(RES) should provide           
 equal footing, good information and the ability to use that                   
 information to regulate for good biology.                                     
 Number 2174                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred to page 2, line 22, paragraph 12, where             
 there is already the authority to regulate commercial sport, guide            
 sport, subsistence, and personal use fishing as needed for the                
 conservation, development, and utilization of fisheries.  He asked            
 if this gave the Board of Fisheries the ability to regulate the               
 sport fishing guides.                                                         
 Number 2207                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY said the current authority is over guided sport                 
 fishing.  If you look at the legislative history of that bill and             
 the way it has been interpreted, then the authority is over the               
 actual fisherman not the person who is taken them out fishing.                
 Number 2252                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said the Board of Game and the Board of                 
 Fisheries only have the power which the legislature gives to them.            
 The constitution says that we manage these fish and game resources            
 on a sustained yield basis.  So the boards have an absolute                   
 authority to manage fish and game based on sustained yield                    
 principles.  She felt Mr. Daugherty said the Board of Fisheries               
 does not have the authority to do this, that they would only be               
 able to gather information under this section.  She did not feel              
 this was correct.  The amendment adds language relating to                    
 regulation of the sports fish guiding services.  She referred to              
 paragraph (12), which regulates commercial, sport, guided sport,              
 subsistence, and personal use fishing.  She referred to Mr.                   
 Daugherty's testimony relating to paragraph (12) and to the                   
 constitution, and she said it did not ring true to her.                       
 Number 2378                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY said the Board of Fisheries would certainly have the            
 authority to manage the total fishery for sustained yield.  The               
 problem comes in when you treat different fisheries differently,              
 you create different regulations for guided sports and sport.  If             
 someone made an argument that this bill could have been done                  
 without impacting the other fisheries differently or if there was             
 a provision which limited the board's authority over the sport                
 fishing services industry to information gathering tools, then any            
 regulation dealing directly with restrictions on the guides would             
 be subject to a potential court challenge, not over the guided                
 sport fishermen, but over the guides themselves.                              
 Number 2458                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated that if at any time it looked like the           
 Board of Fisheries or the Board of Game had the authority to                  
 regulate through exclusive use by allowing .... [testimony ends               
 TAPE 97-37, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 0000                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated that this had been proven in court, the               
 guide industry.                                                               
 Number 0029                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said it is the committee's intent to not limit           
 it.  He reiterated that this issue has been brought before this               
 committee with conflicting testimony from both sides.  This                   
 amendment would tip the scales.  The Board of Fisheries only has              
 the authority given by the legislature.  If the committee is going            
 to limit their authority, that is a restriction.  His did not think           
 the committee wanted to do this.  If the committee doesn't want to            
 do that, then the committee doesn't want this amendment.                      
 Number 0099                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN felt it was a policy call.  He asked if CSHB
 19(RES) puts the sport fishing industry on par with others, then              
 where is the language regarding the commercial fisheries.                     
 Number 0131                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY referred to AS 16.05.251(12) and said it regulates              
 commercial sport, guided sport, subsistence and personal use                  
 fishing as needed for conservation, development and utilization of            
 fisheries.  It is located on page 18 of the statutes.                         
 Number 0193                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN did not see the difference.  If we have a guided             
 sport in there, then why can't it be more broadly interpreted?  He            
 referred back to Representative Green's comment and said it is a              
 policy call on whether the committee wants the board to gather                
 information or to have more authority to regulate the industry.               
 Number 0251                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES agreed that it was a policy call, but                   
 referred to the section with the underlined language, "regulating             
 the sports fish services industry".  She asked what kind of                   
 regulations the Board of Fisheries would be adopting under this               
 Number 0290                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN responded that it could be whatever they felt                
 like; the legislature is giving them the authority.                           
 Number 0304                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY stated that the Board of Fisheries currently has                
 regulations which prohibit guides from fishing while they have                
 clients on board.  He said this is the type of regulations that the           
 board would like to see more of and would like a firmer authority             
 to adopt those regulations.  The board would like to say that if              
 you do not report, as required, then you can't get your license for           
 the next year.  The board would also like to see, in some cases,              
 some basic knowledge of how to release a fish and how to identify             
 fish.  He said people come up from the Lower 48, who do not have              
 that basic knowledge.                                                         
 Number 0367                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES foresaw big problems if the legislature left            
 this language wide open in CSHB 19(RES).  She thought that if the             
 committee did not adopt Amendment 2, then the committee should                
 spend a little time on what it is that they were willing to have              
 the board regulate.  This type of language would allow them to do             
 a lot more regulating then she would want them to do.                         
 Number 0418                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN referred to page 2, line 22, (12), and               
 said (17) was patterned on that language.  Paragraph (12) talks               
 about commercial, sport, guided sport, subsistence, and personal              
 use fishing as needed for the conservation, development, and                  
 utilization of fisheries.  The Board of Fisheries wants to do the             
 same with the commercial end of it, the guides who are taking these           
 sport fishing charters out on trips.  Paragraph (17), on page 3,              
 which Amendment 2 addresses, only deals with the conservation, the            
 development and the utilization of those fisheries.  This paragraph           
 does not deal with the integrity of it, the safety of the fishery,            
 but only the conservation, development and utilization of the                 
 Number 0501                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to the language, "as needed for the            
 conservation of", and said the Board of Fisheries could decide,               
 under this language, to limit the number of guides.  She felt this            
 would be unconstitutional.  Different requirements could be                   
 implemented, but she did not feel a limit could be placed.  She               
 would oppose CSHB 19(RES) if it is left with the current language.            
 Number 0549                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY explained that if the Board of Fisheries attempted to           
 adopt a regulation limiting the number of guides, they would still            
 have to go through the Department of Law regulations review.  The             
 department does not approve a regulation if they believe it is                
 unconstitutional.  Clearly the legislature has already acted in the           
 commercial fisheries to limit entry through the commercial                    
 fisheries entry commission, there is nothing like that for sports             
 fisheries.  At this point, he did not feel there would be anything            
 which would support the Board of Fisheries doing this without some            
 further action by the legislature providing that authority.                   
 Number 0611                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES responded that it was her experience that the           
 board could conjure up almost anything.                                       
 Number 0626                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS felt CSHB 19(RES) provided an important               
 tool for the board or for the ADF&G.  He said he attempted a                  
 similar bill four years ago.  The sports fishing services industry            
 is getting so big that CSHB 19(RES) will help regulate those people           
 going into the industry.                                                      
 Number 0672                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES responded that her sons' decision to leave              
 the industry was their choice, not someone else deciding there                
 would be limited entry into the sports fishery.  She felt this                
 could happen with the current language.                                       
 Number 0694                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said, if the language is left as it currently is,            
 the Board of Fisheries could say fishing could only occur on                  
 certain days.  He thought it would be ill-advised to do a limited             
 entry.  The Owsichek case with the guides was proved.                       
 Number 0731                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN reiterated that it was not his intent to             
 limit the number of guides.  He was more than willing to put this             
 language into CSHB 19(RES).  If this is the major concern being               
 raised, in reference to what the committee is doing with this bill            
 and why this bill is here, then he is more than willing to add a              
 phrase saying that the Board of Fisheries may not limit the guides            
 without legislative approval.  The industry has expressed this                
 concern, they want free, open range.  If that is the concern and              
 that is what the committee wants to see with this bill, he will add           
 this language.                                                                
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that then the sponsor would lose his              
 Number 0808                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON said two of his mentors in commercial               
 fishing have said that limited entry has never been applied well in           
 our state.  It has always been done too late and enfranchises or              
 monopolizes the utilization of the resource.  The only valid reason           
 for limiting entry into a fishery would be if the ADF&G could make            
 a case that there are so many participants in it that it is                   
 practically impossible to manage the conservation of the resource.            
 He thought the government had a responsibility to the conservation            
 of the resource.  He was convinced that the economic and the                  
 aesthetic decisions ought be left to the individuals.                         
 Number 0911                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON thought he would support the sponsor's                   
 Number 0918                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON felt the constitution would bar limited entry              
 without an action on the part of the legislature.  Only through               
 action by the legislature did the state enact limited entry.  The             
 law would be constitutionally upheld that the Board of Fisheries              
 has no powers to enact a limited entry provision.  The board can              
 establish a moratorium; everyone who was in the fishery now could             
 remain in it but others would be excluded until the board                     
 biologically determined that something else was feasible.  He felt            
 the board could do this at the present time.  He did not feel that            
 CSHB 19(RES) created any new power, it merely creates an                      
 information gathering mechanism and a financial means to provide              
 for that information.  The bill puts guided sports fishing, in the            
 regulatory schemes, on an equal footing with the other elements of            
 people taking fish resources.                                                 
 Number 1003                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said the constitution states that there                 
 should be no exclusive right of the fishery.  The only exclusive              
 right is occurs when people pass a constitutional amendment which             
 allows limited entry.  However, if the Board of Fisheries said that           
 we now have too many guides and enacted a moratorium, then you are            
 in fact setting up a regime of a limited entry system by                      
 grandfathering in those who are presently guides.  This moratorium            
 could go on for 20 to 30 years, and she felt this was wrong.  There           
 are better ways to manage the resource; she had no problem with bag           
 limits, days that you can fish and things like that.  She had a               
 problem with allowing one Alaskan to have an opportunity that other           
 Alaskans don't have.                                                          
 Number 1106                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON suggested that a moratorium was a time                     
 limitation and only for a period of time.  We need to modify that,            
 even for commercial fishing, if it doesn't already exist.  The                
 legislature needs someone who knows how a moratorium, limited entry           
 and the constitutional elements work.                                         
 Number 1145                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY explained at this time the Board of Fisheries does              
 not have authority to establish a moratorium on any fishery.  They            
 have frequently complained about their inability to do this.  They            
 would like to stop the growth of fishing on the Kenai River, but              
 they do not have the authority to establish any type of moratorium.           
 The Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) has some authority           
 in commercial fisheries, and there is currently a bill which would            
 expand that authority.  For fisheries other than commercial                   
 fisheries, there is currently no authority for any type of                    
 Number 1165                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON expressed concern that moratoria might lead the            
 state into a limited entry of sorts.  He still believed that a                
 moratorium is essentially a time of cease-and-desist from fishing,            
 which allows propagation of the fish.  He suggested moving the                
 bill, with the amendment and a statement that the committee                   
 recommend that the amendment be considered on the basis of a legal            
 opinion concerning moratoria and the impact on limitations of                 
 Number 1323                                                                   
 MR. BRUCE emphasized that his comments shouldn't be taken into the            
 context of the limited entry discussion.  He did not think it was             
 an issue.  He expressed concern about Amendment 2; the DOL said               
 this amendment would jeopardize the ability of the board to take              
 action.  They could receive the collected information and want to             
 shape the guided activity, in their activities, in a way to lessen            
 impacts on other users and to conserve the resource.  The ADF&G               
 would not like to see that happen.  They are not interested in                
 collecting information for information's sake and putting it on the           
 shelf.  They want the information to be available to the policy               
 makers at the Board of Fisheries level, who are acting under                  
 legislative direction.                                                        
 MR. BRUCE said the ADF&G would encourage the legislature to give              
 them as specific a direction as the committee thinks they need in             
 order for them to stay within parameters.  He did not think the               
 committee wanted to put the board in a situation where they can't             
 act on the information which CSHB 19(RES) authorizes the ADF&G to             
 collect and provide to them.  He urged the committee to not take an           
 action which would make it impossible for the Board of Fisheries to           
 use the information in a regulatory manner.                                   
 Number 1455                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected to Amendment 2.                                 
 Number 1460                                                                   
 A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 2.  Representatives Masek,            
 Barnes and Dyson voted yea.  Representatives Green, Williams,                 
 Joule, Hudson and Ogan voted nay.  Representative Nicholia was                
 absent for the vote.  Amendment 2 failed to be adopted to CSHB
 Number 1479                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved Amendment 3, located on page 3, lines 14           
 to 15, after, "sports fishing service industry and commercial                 
 fishing industry as needed for the conservation, development, and             
 utilization of fishery resource".  This amendment would be placed             
 right after, "sport fishing service industry and commercial fishing           
 Number 1499                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS objected for purposes of discussion.  He              
 felt these were already regulated.                                            
 Number 1516                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK referred to page 2, paragraph 12, "regulating            
 commercial, sport, guided sports, subsistence, personal use                   
 fishing."  She said she understood from the DOL that it regulates             
 fishing but not the fishermen.  "I think it would be important to             
 put commercial fishing industry in that subsection as well," she              
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN understood from the DOL that this is                 
 already in statute, the reference to the commercial fishermen.                
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if Amendment 3 amended Amendment 2.                  
 Number 1553                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said this is a new amendment on page 3, line             
 14, "regulating the sport fishing services industry and commercial            
 fishing industry as needed for the conservation, development and              
 utilization of resource".                                                     
 Number 1595                                                                   
 MR. DAUGHERTY said commercial fishing is already covered under                
 paragraph (12), which says regulating commercial, sport, guided               
 sport, subsistence and personal use fishing for the conservation,             
 development and utilization of fisheries.  The reason why there               
 isn't the same problem there as with guided sport is because                  
 commercial fishermen are actually landing the fish.  Therefore, the           
 board has authority over everything they do.  With guided sport               
 fishing, it is not the guide who actually fishes, it is the client,           
 and this is why the Board of Fisheries needs the additional                   
 authority over the guides.                                                    
 Number 1625                                                                   
 A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 3.  Representatives Masek             
 and Barnes voted yea.  Representatives Dyson, Green, Williams,                
 Joule, Hudson and Ogan voted nay.  Representative Nicholia was                
 absent for the vote.  Amendment 3 failed to be  adopted to CSHB
 Number 1675                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON made a motion to move CSHB 19(RES) as amended              
 with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes, which he           
 noted were not at odds with each other as he had first thought.               
 The cost of the program balanced out with the money being brought             
 into the program.                                                             
 Number 1697                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES objected to the motion.  She said that until            
 CSHB 19(RES) can be amended in the section of this bill, she would            
 oppose it moving forward.                                                     
 Number 1726                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN felt he was reasonably satisfied that the Board of           
 Fisheries did not have the authority to do limited entry moratoria.           
 A roll call vote was taken on CSHB 19(RES).  Representatives Dyson,           
 Green, Williams, Joule, Hudson and Ogan voted yea.  Representatives           
 Masek and Barnes voted nay.  Representative Nicholia was absent for           
 the vote.                                                                     
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced that CSHB 19(RES) was moved from the               
 House Resources Standing Committee.                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN announced that he would be happy to work             
 with Representatives Barnes and Masek to make them feel more                  
 comfortable with the bill.                                                    
 SJR 16(RES) am - REFORM THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT                          
 Number 1806                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the next item on the agenda was Senate             
 Joint Resolution 16(RES) am, relating to reauthorization and reform           
 of the Endangered Species Act.                                                
 Number 1815                                                                   
 LORALI MEIER, Student Intern for Senator Loren Leman, said SJR
 16(RES) am recognizes the importance of state, federal and private            
 partnerships for protecting against species extinction while also             
 protecting private property rights.   She referred to page 2,                 
 beginning with line 9; the resolution recommends that the re-                 
 authorize act contain nine specific features, including greater               
 flexibility for states in implementing the act, stricter scientific           
 requirements for listing and de-listing, elimination of the concept           
 of distinct population segments and standards which cover the                 
 ability of a species to recover costs and public interest.                    
 Additionally, starting on page 3, line 4, regarding the further               
 resolve clause, the resolution requests that the re-authorize act             
 not include any expansion of federal authority, the implementation            
 of the complicated biodiversity treaty or the creation of a new,              
 ambiguous biological diversity reserve system.                                
 MS. MEIER said the Endangered Species Act (ESA) can be an important           
 tool in protecting threatened and endangered species.  However, in            
 its reauthorization Congress needs to address identified weaknesses           
 in it.  Alaska has seen some radical decisions based on the ESA,              
 including cut-backs in fishing time for Southeast Alaska fisherman,           
 decreases in logging in the Tongass and loss of various development           
 proposals.  The resolution requests that approaches to end species            
 protection be balanced, realistic and focused on measurable goals.            
 On behalf of Senator Leman, she asked that the House Resources                
 Committee act favorably on this resolution.                                   
 Number 1906                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN expressed problems with the ESA in how far it                
 reaches into private property rights.  He understood that the                 
 people who own the property don't own the resource, but there was             
 no compensation for people who lose their private property or the             
 right to use that private property because of the ESA or the                  
 Wetlands Act.                                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN felt the definition of wetlands in this state            
 is absurd.                                                                    
 Number 1997                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON made a motion to move SJR 16(RES) am with a zero           
 fiscal note and ask unanimous consent.  There being no objection,             
 SJR 16(RES) am was moved from the House Resources Standing                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN handed the gavel over to Co-Chairman Hudson for              
 the next order of business.                                                   
 Number 2017                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced the next item on the agenda was CS for           
 Senate Joint Resolution 20(RLS) am, requesting the United States              
 Congress to accommodate Alaska's unique wetlands circumstances by             
 amending the Clean Water Act to modify the wetlands regulatory                
 program and to recognize Alaska's outstanding history of wetlands             
 Number 2064                                                                   
 ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Loren Leman,               
 said CSSJR 20(RLS) am supports the Alaska Congressional                       
 delegation's efforts to modify the wetlands regulatory program and            
 recognize Alaska's historical wetlands conservation.  Development             
 activities such as airports, safety measures, mining, logging, ice            
 pad or road construction and snow removal add to the cumulative               
 loss of wetlands nationally.  This is detrimental and inequitable             
 to a state with as little development as Alaska.  Under the                   
 national no net loss standard, the government can require anyone to           
 pay for the protection or restoration of wetlands elsewhere to                
 compensate for wetlands loss to their project.  Alaskans have                 
 argued that the no net loss standard makes little sense in Alaska,            
 where we have lost less than 0.1 percent of wetlands since the                
 MS. KREITZER explained that the resolution also requests                      
 modification to the wetlands regulatory program to provide                    
 flexibility for wetland permitting, whether it is for Section 404             
 fill permits or a new customized permitting process to replace the            
 nationwide permit, number 26.  It would also eliminate existing               
 requirements to mitigate unavoidable impacts or to prove that no              
 alternative sites are available.  The purpose for the Congressional           
 action and the thrust of CSSJR 20(RLS) am is to encourage states              
 with a good record of wetlands protection to continue those efforts           
 and reward them with more flexible permitting.                                
 Number 2112                                                                   
 DALE BONDURANT testified via teleconference from Kenai.  He felt              
 there was a lot of rhetoric attached to CSSJR 20(RLS) am and it               
 reduces wetland protection.  He expressed concern that there was              
 danger in Alaska that some of our species and races of fish are               
 increasingly in danger.  He found value in trying to bring some of            
 those things back.                                                            
 Number 2189                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to move CSSJR 20(RLS) am with              
 individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note.  There being no            
 objection, CSSJR 20(RLS) am moved from the House Resources Standing           
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON turned the gavel back to Co-Chairman Ogan for              
 the final item of business.                                                   
 CSSB 22(RES) am - BOARD OF GAME QUALIFICATIONS                              
 Number 2209                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the final item on the agenda was CSSB
 22(RES) am, "An Act relating to qualifications for appointment to             
 the Board of Game."                                                           
 Number 2222                                                                   
 SENATOR BERT SHARP, Sponsor of CSSB 22(RES) am, said there was a              
 committee substitute available which tempers the language of the              
 bill.  It sets a basic floor on the number of members that should             
 be license holders.  The committee substitute says that a minimum             
 of five out of the seven members should have hunting or trapping              
 licenses.  The number of years was brought down to three out of               
 five.  He felt it was imperative that some kind of assurance be               
 given to ensure that a majority of the members on the Board of Game           
 come from those who pay 100 percent of the cost to manage that                
 resource.  If in the future there was a conservation fee which went           
 into the fish and game fund, helping to finance the management,               
 then he would not have a problem with amending the number of                  
 members who need a license.                                                   
 Number 2302                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to adopt as a work draft                  
 version 0-LS0195\F, Utermohle, 4/4/97, and asked unanimous consent.           
 There being no objection, version F was before the committee.                 
 Number 2355                                                                   
 NANCY HILLSTRAND, Secretary, Homer Fish and Game Advisory                     
 Committee, testified via teleconference from Homer on behalf of               
 herself.  She lived and worked out in the Alaskan bush for 17 years           
 rehabilitating streams, creating salmon runs and working intimately           
 with fish and wildlife resources.  She has worked on habitat                  
 issues.  Her entire life and set of beliefs is guided by fish and             
 wildlife.  She has never had a hunting or fishing license, and this           
 could exclude her from the right to serve on a Board of Game.  In             
 her role on the fish and game advisory committee, she has seen many           
 people come and go; most had licenses, most were men.  Yet the                
 level of dedication and commitment for a balanced and diverse                 
 perspective, other than self-interest, was sadly lacking.  This               
 aspect of qualification is a shallow requirement.                             
 MS. HILLSTRAND said this is constitutionally offensive.  It raises            
 concerns of privileged access and immunities, and it does not allow           
 equal protection.                                                             
 TAPE 97-37, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 0001                                                                   
 MS. HILLSTRAND continued, saying the constitution abhors granting             
 special privileges or monopolistic access to wildlife.  To lock up            
 the diversity of access by mandating even five of the seven seats             
 will restrict the public process.  This bill tinkers, manipulates             
 and skews the diversity of equal access in the public process.  It            
 gives undue influence over the decisions of the Board and Game.               
 She said this creates division. It also resembles the types of                
 royal grants the common use clause expressly prohibits.  She asked            
 the committee to kill this bill.                                              
 Number 0076                                                                   
 BILL DeCREEFT, Owner, Kachemak Air Service, testified next via                
 teleconference from Homer.  He asked the committee to think about             
 whether or not those in the tourist industry are being represented            
 by the Board of Game.  He didn't feel that it was important that              
 someone have a hunting license.  He suggested that if they felt               
 there were such different viewpoints, then perhaps there should be            
 a Board of Game viewing.  He did not think the legislature                    
 understood the tourist industry.  They did not understand the                 
 amount of people who came to Alaska to view wildlife; it comprises            
 60 percent of his business.  He did not think that federal licenses           
 pay for all the costs of running the ADF&G, the Board of Game or              
 the legislature.  He referred to the wildlife viewing license which           
 the Alaska Outdoor Council opposed.  He felt they did not want the            
 wildlife viewers to have their own money put into the system and              
 gain some control over the resources.                                         
 Number 0196                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated that the legislature delegates authority to           
 the Board of Game to manage the resources.                                    
 Number 0229                                                                   
 MARJOLEIN LEACH, Member, Homer Fish and Game Advisory Committee,              
 testified next via teleconference from Homer on behalf of herself.            
 She does not have a hunting license, but is the owner of a travel             
 agency.  She commented that the tourist industry, outside of                  
 hunting, visits Alaska in order to view wildlife.  She listed all             
 the various components of the those in the tourist industry.  This            
 bill effectively denies a large number of those Alaskans residents            
 the right to participate in the process which controls this                   
 resource.  You are asking hunters to control the resource which is            
 one of three major income generating forces; fishing, oil and                 
 tourism.  Perpetuating the species is equally important to both               
 tourists and hunters.  She suggested there should be education-               
 based qualifiers, rather than a hunting license.  She concurred               
 with the ADF&G, who are not in support of the bill.  This bill will           
 not fulfil the diversity of interest requirements as stated in the            
 Number 0320                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated that the tourist industry does not pay           
 its way.  The oil industry pays for the sports fishing industry,              
 guiding industry and other industries in this state.                          
 Number 0347                                                                   
 DENNIS LEACH, Member, Homer City Council, testified next via                  
 teleconference from Homer.  He is representing himself, but only              
 because this fast-track bill has not given the council enough time            
 to prepare a resolution opposing it at the city level.  The bill,             
 as originally written, was an obvious attempt to limit membership             
 on the state board to one user group, the hunting group.  He                  
 submitted that the vast majority of funding, paying for all of the            
 services, comes from the state.  This state money is received from            
 the citizens of Alaska.  The amended bill allows the possibility,             
 not a guarantee, of a minority vote to all the other user groups.             
 He found this offensive, even though he subscribes to the majority            
 position.  Alaska's game resources are supposed to be managed                 
 strictly by biological criteria.  This bill is an obvious attempt             
 to stack the deck politically by ensuring that at least five of the           
 seven seats are held by one user group, to the exclusion of other             
 user groups.  He quoted Representative Barnes when she stated her             
 opposition to one Alaskan having an opportunity that other Alaskans           
 do not have; he said that is what this bill does.                             
 MR. LEACH personally wanted to see Alaska's surplus game animals              
 harvested by hunters as long as it is biologically sound to do so,            
 but not at the expense of someone else's constitutional rights to             
 participate in their government.  Deleting diversity of interests             
 and points of view in the membership of the Board of Game is wrong.           
 Number 0451                                                                   
 DALE BONDURANT testified next via teleconference from Homer.  He is           
 a hunter, but he did not think this bill was a fair way to run a              
 democratic government.  The legislature delegates authority to the            
 Board of Game, but it looks like they hold a finger to add balance            
 to one side of the scale.  It concerned him that the state would              
 make a preference for a particular use of the resource by                     
 delegating more pros than cons to it.  Allowing two positions to be           
 held by other user groups does not make it a fair set-up.  He felt            
 this amended bill is more repulsive than the original bill.  It               
 makes a farce out of what the legislature is doing.                           
 Number 0523                                                                   
 SUZANNE PESCHIER, Volunteer, Alaska Environmental Lobby, felt the             
 resources allowed opportunities for hunting, trapping, photography,           
 research and recreation.  These resources provides income for                 
 businessES related to all of these activities.  Since Alaska's                
 wildlife is economically and aesthetically important to such a                
 diverse group of people, all of these interests should be allowed             
 representation in the Board of Game.                                          
 MS. PESCHIER stated that despite changes to the bill, it would                
 prevent representation by all of those interests on the board.  The           
 bill discriminates against a large segment of Alaska's population,            
 and the end result would be a board that only represents                      
 consumptive users.  More than 80 percent of all Alaskans don't have           
 a hunting or trapping license, and most of these people would                 
 therefore not qualify to be a member of the Board of Game under               
 this bill.  Only 5 percent of Alaskan women have hunting licenses,            
 even though they make up 48 percent of the population.  This bill             
 will put the process into the hands of a special interest group,              
 consumptive users.                                                            
 Number 0630                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked whether her organization would suggest             
 amending the constitution regarding consumptive use to include                
 other nonconsumptive users.  The constitution speaks to the                   
 responsibility of managing fish and game for consumptive users.               
 Number 0687                                                                   
 MS. PESCHIER referred to Article VIII, Section 3, of the                      
 constitution where Alaska's wildlife has been reserved and should             
 be managed for the common use of all Alaskans.  She felt that her             
 testimony dealt with the common use clause of the constitution.               
 Number 0735                                                                   
 GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,                 
 Department of Fish and Game, stated that the department couldn't              
 support the bill even in this amended form.  They appreciated the             
 efforts to make the bill broader, but they did not think the                  
 current system was broken.  The constitution states that the                  
 renewable resources of the state belong to all people, subject to             
 preferences among beneficial users.  Those preferences can be                 
 determined by the legislature or the legislature can delegated this           
 authority to the Board of Game.  He did not think that the                    
 provisions of the bill are consistent with the constitution.                  
 MR. BRUCE explained that the Alaskan system, including the Board of           
 Fisheries, the Board of Game, the advisory committee and everything           
 else, was set up with a great deal of money to provide the most               
 open system possible.  The system allows all people to participate            
 in the process.  This was done to a large extent because of                   
 experiences, under the territorial system, where certain users of             
 the natural resources dominated, particularly the out-of-state                
 canneries.  The founding fathers and mothers of this state wanted             
 to ensure that this did not happen again.  They created an open               
 system.  This system can be seen in the statutes which deal with              
 the qualifications of people serving on the Board of Fisheries and            
 the Board of Game.                                                            
 Number 0829                                                                   
 MR. BRUCE felt that saying that you need a hunting license to serve           
 on the Board of Game would be like saying you need to be lawyer to            
 serve in the Alaska legislature.  He did not think it was                     
 consistent with the notion and the principle of allowing all the              
 citizens to participate in government.                                        
 MR. BRUCE stated that there might be a number of reasons why people           
 who are avid hunters might not meet the requirement of having a               
 license in three out of the last five years.  People might not                
 chose to hunt one year or they may travel out of state, have family           
 obligations, business obligations, or other things that may prevent           
 them from purchasing a license.  Hardly anyone who serves on the              
 Board of Game thinks ahead and continues to buy a hunting license             
 when they do not hunt one year.  This provision will exclude good             
 candidates for the Board of Game.                                             
 MR. BRUCE did not think that they understood what holding a hunting           
 license does in terms of strengthening the qualifications to serve            
 on the Board of Game.  Someone who is not a hunter can buy a                  
 hunting license.  The mere purchase of a hunting license in three             
 out of five years, or seven out of seven years, really does not               
 mean much in the way of qualifications; it seems more of a                    
 perception issue than one that is tangible.                                   
 Number 0922                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated that the legislature does in fact                
 delegate to the Board of Game the legislative powers through                  
 statutes.  Some powers the legislature keeps, while other powers              
 can be taken away from the Board of Game.  The legislature                    
 establishes qualifications for all boards in this state.  This                
 board belongs solely to the people through their elected officials.           
 Number 0958                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN commented that people who manage game on the Board           
 of Game are mandated to manage a sustained yield.  If there is                
 abundant wildlife, then the Board of Game is doing a good job.  If            
 there is huntable wildlife, then there is watchable wildlife.  He             
 felt Alaska has the most public and open fish and game management.            
 He added that people who have hunting licenses are people who have            
 experience out in the field.  He defined game as huntable wildlife.           
 The constitution states that the primary use of game will be for              
 consumptive users.  He suggested adding a requirement that people             
 should have experience in the field.                                          
 Number 1099                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE felt that just because someone has a hunting             
 license doesn't necessarily mean that person knows anything about             
 hunting and game or the issues for setting policy for it.  Based on           
 those feelings, he is opposed to the bill.                                    
 Number 1121                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN understood the merit of having this                      
 qualification.  He did not feel it was an onerous thing to say that           
 if you want to serve on the Board of Game that you need to purchase           
 a license.  It is the same as when you want to become a member of             
 a certain organization you pay the dues.  On the other hand, he               
 could understand that people would want to be involved in the                 
 process and maybe don't want to go to that extent.  He asked if the           
 requirement could it be four out of seven members.  If it is                  
 desirable for members to have a hunting license, then this change             
 would level up the playing field.                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, located on           
 page 1, line 13, changing "5" to "4".                                         
 Number 1215                                                                   
 SENATOR SHARP explained there are many misconceptions, heard today.           
 People can't imagine that the management of game costs are paid               
 entirely by people who buy hunting and trapping licenses.  He                 
 stated that there is not one dollar of general fund money that goes           
 to manage game in Alaska.  He suggested people buy a hunting                  
 license to contribute to the management of Alaska's wildlife.                 
 Number 1318                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN withdrew his motion.                                     
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced that SB 22 would be held over.                     
 There being no further business to conduct, CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN                  
 adjourned the meeting of the House Resources Standing Committee at            
 4:04 p.m.                                                                     

Document Name Date/Time Subjects