Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/14/1994 08:15 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 14, 1994
8:15 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Williams, Chairman
Representative Bill Hudson, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Pat Carney
Representative John Davies
Representative David Finkelstein
Representative Joe Green
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Eldon Mulder
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Carl Moses
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HJR 59 Relating to reduction of wanton waste in North
Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea fisheries.
PASSED CS HJR 59(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH
INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS
HB 496 "An Act relating to sport fish guides; and
providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4451
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HJR 59
PAUL SEATON, President
Alaska Marine Conservation Council
58360 Bruce Drive
Homer, Alaska 99603
Phone: 235-6342
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 59
SEAN MARTIN, Representative
Homer Charter Association
P.O. Box 889
Homer, Alaska 99603
Phone: 235-5130
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 59 and HB 496
RICK LAUBER, Representative
Pacific Seafood Processors Association
Chairman, North Pacific Fisheries Management Council
321 Highland Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 59
THERESA WEISER
P.O. Box 2300
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Phone: 747-8883
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 59 and supported the
concept of HB 496
PETE ECKLUND, Aide
Representative Bill Williams
State Capitol, Room 128
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-3424
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave briefing on HB 496
PAUL KRASNOWSKI, Director
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Phone: 465-4180
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 496
FRANK HOMAN, Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
8800 Glacier Highway, #109
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 789-6160
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 496
RICHARD ANDREW
P.O. Box 7211
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Phone: 225-2463
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 496
MICHAEL LOCKABEY
P.O. Box 1542
Wrangell, Alaska 99833
Phone: 874-3723
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 496
HAROLD BAILEY
5 1/2 Mile Zimovia Highway
Wrangell, Alaska 99833
Phone: 874-3958
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 496
BARBARA BINGHAM, Member
Sitka Charter Boat Operators Association
P.O. Box 6112
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Phone: 747-5777
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 496
ED JONES
P.O. Box 897
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Phone: 772-4868
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 496
MIKE COATES
Sorry Charlie Charters
1269 Upland Court
Homer, Alaska 99603
Phone: 235-2553
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 496
JIM HESTON
P.O. Box 331
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Phone: 835-5115
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns about HB 496
JOHN GEORGE, Representative
Alaska Outdoor Council
9515 Moraine Way
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 789-0172
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 496
DENNIS PETRE
5901 Boondox Drive
Salcha, Alaska 99714
Phone: 488-4589
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 496 with concerns
BOB ELLIOTT
4582 Elliott Lane
Fairbanks, Alaska 997009
Phone: 479-6323
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 496
DONALD WESTLUND
P.O. Box 7883
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Phone: 225-9319
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 496
ROBERT WARD
A-Ward Charters
P.O. Box 631
Anchor Point, Alaska 99556
Phone: 235-7014
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 496
TIM EVERS
Deep Creek Charters
P.O. Box 39547
Ninilchik, Alaska 99639
Phone: 567-3518
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 496
PAUL GOEDERT
P.O. Box 39415
Ninilchik, Alaska 99639
Phone: 567-3665
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 496 with changes
ROGER WATNEY
Anchor Point Charters
P.O. Box 511
Anchor Point, Alaska 99556
Phone: 235-4063
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 496 with changes
GARY PLUMB
441 Hillcrest
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Phone: 225-6409
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported concept of HB 496
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 59
SHORT TITLE: WANTON WASTE OF FISH N.PACIFIC/BERING SEA
SPONSOR(S): RULES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/18/94 2457 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/18/94 2457 (H) FSH, RESOURCES
03/02/94 2577 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) 5DP
03/02/94 2577 (H) DP: MOSES,PHILLIPS,NICHOLIA,
DAVIDSON
03/02/94 2577 (H) DP: OLBERG
03/02/94 2577 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (H.FSH)
3/2/94
03/02/94 (H) FSH AT 08:30 AM CAPITOL 17
03/02/94 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/14/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 496
SHORT TITLE: SPORT FISH GUIDE LICENSING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) WILLIAMS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/14/94 2381 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/14/94 2381 (H) FSH, RESOURCES, FINANCE
02/23/94 (H) FSH AT 08:30 AM CAPITOL 17
02/23/94 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/04/94 (H) FSH AT 08:30 AM CAPITOL 17
03/07/94 2642 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) 3DP 1NR
03/07/94 2642 (H) DP: MOSES, PHILLIPS, OLBERG
03/07/94 2643 (H) NR: DAVIDSON
03/07/94 2643 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (F&G) 3/7/94
03/07/94 2643 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
03/14/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-31, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by
Chairman Bill Williams at 8:25 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Williams, Hudson, Bunde,
Davies, Finkelstein, Green, James, and Mulder.
Representative Carney was absent.
CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS announced there is a quorum present.
He said the meeting is on teleconference with Fairbanks,
Homer, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Seward, Sitka, Kenai/Soldotna,
Wrangell, and Valdez.
HJR 59 - Wanton Waste of Fish N. Pacific/Bering Sea
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES, PRIME SPONSOR, stated there is an
executive summary contained in members' folders entitled
"Discards In The Groundfish Fisheries Of The Bering
Sea/Aleutian Islands & The Gulf Of Alaska During 1992". He
said the document was prepared for the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game (ADF&G) by Pacific Associates. He pointed out
that statistics used in HJR 59 are found in the executive
summary. He urged committee members to adopt HJR 59 and
move it from the committee. He said the message contained
in the resolution is very timely in light of the activities
within Congress on federal reauthorizations and other bills,
addressing conservation of fishery resources within
federally managed waters.
Number 037
PAUL SEATON, PRESIDENT, ALASKA MARINE CONSERVATION COUNCIL,
testified via teleconference and expressed support for HJR
59. He said the Alaska Marine Conservation Council has been
working with the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council
to develop a method of reducing waste and discards in the
North Pacific. He stressed waste and discards are impacting
all fisheries. He stated Senator Murkowski has a bill
introduced already and Senator Stevens has a bill which is
in the drafting stage. He urged the committee to pass HJR
59 to further interest the Senators to look at the issue in
a way that will resolve it to the benefit of Alaska.
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE
CARNEY had joined the committee at 8:30 a.m.)
Number 066
SEAN MARTIN, PRESIDENT, HOMER CHARTER ASSOCIATION, testified
via teleconference and expressed support of HJR 59.
RICK LAUBER, REPRESENTATIVE, PACIFIC SEAFOOD PROCESSORS
ASSOCIATION (PSPA), AND CHAIRMAN, NORTH PACIFIC FISHERIES
MANAGEMENT COUNCIL (NPFMC), stated PSPA supports HJR 59.
The waste and discards of fish ongoing offshore is a
disgrace. He said Alaska has had a wanton waste statute for
many years allowing discards, including roe stripping,
salmon herring, etc., but the policy does not include waters
off the coast of Alaska or the U.S. He noted the bill
drafted by Senator Murkowski makes it clear that the NPFMC
could direct its attention toward the wanton waste.
MR. LAUBER remarked he was intrigued with a recent speech
given by Don Tyson of Tyson Chicken and Tyson Seafoods who
is the owner of the largest factory trawler operation off
the coast of Alaska. He said Mr. Tyson indicated Tyson
Chicken utilizes all of the chicken. Mr. Lauber wondered
why Mr. Tyson discards so much fish in his fishing
operation. He stated it is the position of PSPA that all
fish should be brought to shore and if the fish is caught,
it is kept; if it is kept, it is utilized. He pointed out
there are millions and millions of pounds of fish being
wasted and at some point, the public is going to force the
industry to clean up its act.
THERESA WEISER, SITKA, testified via teleconference and
expressed support of HJR 59. She felt the resolution is
timely and appropriate especially in light of other problems
being dealt with in the sport fishing industry.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE made a motion to ADOPT CS HJR
59(FSH).
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to MOVE CS HJR 59(FSH)
with a zero fiscal note out of committee with INDIVIDUAL
RECOMMENDATIONS.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
HB 496 - Sport Fish Guide Licensing
Number 143
PETE ECKLUND, AIDE, REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS, stated the
guided sport fishery is an important and rapidly growing
industry in the Alaskan economy, and will continue to grow
and expand throughout the state. The ability of the state
to provide for sustainable development and sound, sensible
management of the guided sport fishery is dependent upon the
availability of complete information upon which to base
decisions. He stressed the goal of HB 496 is to provide a
mechanism for the collection of crucial data regarding the
guided sport fishery.
MR. ECKLUND said in some parts of Alaska, the rapid growth
in the charter industry has motivated sport fish guides to
request a moratorium on further expansion. While
researching the feasibility of various limitation schemes,
it was discovered that nearly every approach to a moratorium
in the guided sport fishery for state managed species of
fish would be unconstitutional. He added since there is
room for further growth in the guided sport fishery in many
areas of the state, including parts of Southeast, it may be
premature and unwise to pursue limitation.
Number 158
MR. ECKLUND stated there is an incredible lack of hard data
available regarding the guided sport fishery in Alaska. In
some parts of the state, not all, regulation requires
vessels engaged in sport fish guiding to be registered.
Registration of guides themselves is required in a few
rivers, but not elsewhere. He stressed that no uniform
licensing procedure exists in Alaska. Therefore, there is
no information on who is actively engaged in sport fish
guiding, how many clients are served, what catch rates are,
and what rivers, streams, and marine waters are being
utilized.
MR. ECKLUND stated without a means for gathering dependable
information, it is impossible to monitor the activity or
growth of the guided sport fishery on a statewide basis. It
is imperative for the state to have solid information to
ensure the sustainable development of the industry and to
ensure the sound management of the fishery resources upon
which the industry depends. He said this data collection
would provide a picture on which the state could base any
future decisions about whether or where limitation schemes
might be feasible or desirable. He pointed out that it is
time to acknowledge this important growing industry and make
sure that management decisions can be based on complete
information, not on guesswork, perception and supposition.
He explained that is what HB 496 is intended to accomplish.
Number 175
MR. ECKLUND stated HB 496 establishes a guided sport fishery
license. Each person who plans to engage in sport fishing,
both on fresh and salt water, from a vessel or otherwise,
will be required to purchase the license. He said the
Division of Sport Fish, ADF&G, will develop reports which
license holders will be required to submit. This will
enable the state to build a data bank regarding the guided
sport fishery. He explained the costs of the guide
licensing and data gathering and analysis will be funded by
the revenues generated from the license fees. Therefore,
the program will be fiscally self-sustaining.
MR. ECKLUND stated HB 496 does not impose any limitations on
the number of guides or vessels in the state, or who can
purchase the license to guide, nor does it affect their
activities. HB 496 is the first and most crucial step
toward having solid data upon which to base sound management
policy for the guided sport fishery in Alaska.
MR. ECKLUND advised that the Fisheries Committee had made
two changes to the bill. The committee added intent
language which clarifies it is the legislature's intent that
program receipts from the sale of sportfish guide licenses
go to the Division of Sport Fish, to be used for the data
collection and analysis provided for in the bill. He said
the Fisheries Committee also made language changes which
tightened up the definition of a sport fish guide. He
mentioned there has been some interest in the possibility of
exempting guides from having to also obtain a business
license each year. He stated Representative Williams does
have an amendment available to accomplish that if the
committee wishes to consider it.
MR. ECKLUND stressed that HB 496 is a piece of forward
looking legislation which five, ten, twenty years from now
the charter industry and our states' resources will be
better off because of its passage.
Number 211
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated he has worked as a sport fishing
guide so he wanted the committee to be aware he may have a
conflict of interest.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN said it was mentioned that the
program will be fiscally self-sustaining and yet there is a
fiscal note.
MR. ECKLUND responded the fiscal note from ADF&G estimates
the cost the first year to be $161,700 and the program
receipts are above and beyond that figure.
REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY said there are different fees for
resident and nonresident. He asked if it is possible to
limit sport fish guiding permits to Alaska residents only.
MR. ECKLUND replied that would be unconstitutional.
REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER pointed out that in the fee
chart for the state of Washington contained in members'
folders, the resident salmon guide fee is $150 and the
nonresident salmon guide fee is $730.
MR. ECKLUND also pointed out that those fees mentioned are
for fresh water guiding. He said there are also salmon
charter and salt water guiding fees listed on the chart.
Number 245
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON asked what type of fees Canada
charges for sport fish guides.
MR. ECKLUND replied fees in the states of Oregon and
Washington were primarily reviewed.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he is somewhat confused with the
fiscal note.
MR. ECKLUND said someone from ADF&G will be testifying and
can possibly clear up the confusion.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked why, in the proposed
legislation, the fees are not lower than the fees in the
state of Washington, especially for nonresidents.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said during past public hearings in
December and January, $200 was arbitrarily chosen as a
result of the charter boat operators suggesting that amount
at both of those teleconferences.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY stated in the fee chart for the state
of Washington, there is a $480 fee for a resident, $785 for
a nonresident, as well as an additional $100 surcharge which
is supposed to be deposited in a regional fisheries
enhancement fund. He said while Alaska might not want to
increase the cost to residents, he felt that the state
should be in line with Washington on the nonresident
charges.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated there is a constitutionality issue
involved. The state is required to charge three times the
amount for nonresidents. He said the reason the charter
boat operators in Ketchikan wanted the nonresident fee to be
higher is because the charter boats from out of state are
coming to Ketchikan. By charging a high fee, the out of
state charter boat operators might think twice whether or
not they would like to pay the required amount to compete
with the charter boat operators in Ketchikan and Southeast
Alaska.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said while in Seattle over the weekend, he
read in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that there will be
zero fishing in the Puget Sound area.
Number 319
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER added that the zero fishing is not
just for Puget Sound, it goes all the way from the State of
Washington down to Northern California. He stressed as
those areas are closed down to sport fishing, those people
are going to be moving north to pursue their advocation. He
asked Mr. Ecklund to explain page 2, lines 4-9, and how it
pertains to the Kenai River Special Management Area. He
asked if guides in that special area already require a
registration fee.
MR. ECKLUND said fees in the special management area are
required by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and
are substantially higher than the proposed $200 resident
fee.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked what the fees are in that area.
MR. ECKLUND replied there is a $50 nonrefundable application
fee, an additional $450 fee for residents, $1,350 for
nonresidents and an additional daily per client fee set by
negotiation with DNR.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked if those funds go to DNR.
PAUL KRASNOWSKI, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SPORT FISH, ADF&G,
responded the funds go into the General Fund.
MR. ECKLUND added if a person has a guide license in that
special management area and that area is an exclusive area,
they will not pay the additional fee provided for in HB 496.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE pointed out that nonresident fishermen
are buying a license which is three times the cost of a
resident license. He expressed support for an increased fee
for nonresident guides.
Number 368
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the special fees for the
Kenai River Special Management Area are imposed by DNR
through statute.
MR. KRASNOWSKI replied they are administrative regulations
of DNR.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON clarified there is no statutory basis
behind the fees charged in the Kenai River Special
Management Area and asked if there are any limitations on
the fees.
MR. KRASNOWSKI stated the fee schedule is not set in
statute. The authority to set fees is in statute. He said
he is not aware of any limitations.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated there is a limitation in that
there has to be a relationship and the state cannot charge a
million dollars in order to keep people out. He said in
regard to the Kenai River Special Management Area, the fees
are an attempt to regulate the number of people in that
area. He stated there are days on which guides cannot work
in that area.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY stated the differentiation in the
proposed fees is a serious consideration on HB 496 and he
stressed he is not convinced the fees should not be
increased. He felt it is in the best interest of Alaska to
get as much as possible from nonresident guides and he
supports anything which discourages out of state guides
coming to the state. He asked if there is any reason not to
raise the fees.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS replied there are some charter boat
operators who are opposed to higher fees. He said to attain
the higher fees for nonresidents, using the formula
required, the fees will also have to be higher for
residents.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked if the Kenai River Special
Management Area fees meet the formula.
MR. ECKLUND said it is a 3-1 ratio.
Number 449
MR. KRASNOWSKI stated that sport fish guiding in fresh water
and charter operations in salt water provide an important
service for both nonresident and resident sport fishermen in
Alaska. He said the service is growing and is a significant
part of the state's tourism industry. There currently are
no statutory requirements to license or register guides or
charter operators. He explained there are Board of
Fisheries regulations which require fresh water fishing
guides in Cook Inlet and Southeast Alaska to register with
ADF&G, and there also are regulations for charter operators
in Cook Inlet and Southeast Alaska to register their vessels
with ADF&G.
MR. KRASNOWSKI said the department fishery management
program is capable of maintaining fish stock health under
present conditions. However, continued growth in the
guiding industry in some areas presents increasing
challenges to the department's management activities as the
years go on. He stated even more important, at every
meeting of the Board of Fisheries, an increasing number of
regulatory proposals from the public on issues of management
and fishery allocation, involving guides and charter
operators, are being addressed. He pointed out that most
often the issues are based on public perceptions which
cannot be substantiated, explained, or refuted on the basis
of any agency information.
MR. KRASNOWSKI stated the creel survey is conducted only in
some areas of the state, as it is expensive, and he stressed
it is only a sampling process, just as the mail out survey
is. ADF&G only gets an estimate on the composite catch in
the area. The survey does not tell the department anything
about individual fishermen. It gives the department a
mechanism to extrapolate total harvest. He said there is no
way to take creel survey, statewide harvest or mail in
survey information and describe individual fishermen,
individual charter operators, or individual guides and what
their impact is on the resources, how many clients they are
taking, etc. The information which ADF&G presently gathers
does not satisfy the needs which have been identified.
MR. KRASNOWSKI said ADF&G supports HB 496 since it will
provide a mechanism by which the department can begin to
accumulate information on the number of guides, the general
areas in which they operate, the number of clients they
serve, and the number of days fished. He emphasized that HB
496 requires the information about individual operations to
be kept confidential, just as information currently
collected on fish tickets about commercial fishermen is by
law confidential.
Number 525
MR. KRASNOWSKI stated the information will prove essential
to the Board of Fisheries' actions about management and
allocations, will provide stability in the industry and
assure that growth is consistent with resource health. He
added that after action in the Fisheries Committee, the
fiscal note was revised. He said the only change is that
revenues will be deposited as program receipts into the
General Fund. The original intent was to put the revenues
in the ADF&G fund to be expended for the program but it was
determined that the revenues, by law, must go in the General
Fund as program receipts.
Number 541
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY expressed concern in regard to the
definition of sport fish guiding in that there may be a
loophole for people who take their relatives out fishing.
He did not think the definition allowed for that.
MR. KRASNOWSKI said the definition is a slight modification
of the definition currently in regulation. He stated the
key phrase is "in exchange for compensation for services, or
an agreement for compensation for services,...". He
explained if money is changing hands, other than just
sharing expenses, it will constitute doing business as a
guide.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated the total requirements for being
a sport fishing guide is to buy a business license and label
yourself as a sport fishing guide. He said he is also aware
of the requirements involved in being a big game guide. He
felt one of the reasons there are regulations on game guides
is to ensure that the public is getting what they are paying
for, just as there should be for sport fishing guides. He
did not feel the proposed legislation goes far enough. He
felt the state should begin to look at establishing
requirements which prove that people have the knowledge and
skill they sell. He asked ADF&G to comment on whether or
not the committee should be looking in the direction of big
game guiding and establishing requirements.
MR. KRASNOWSKI responded HB 496 addresses both fresh water
fishing guides and charter operators and to some extent, the
issues which Representative Bunde described are already part
of the requirements for charter operators under Coast Guard
licensing. He said approximately five years ago there was
proposed legislation to license guides in the state and the
bills included requirements. He pointed out that those bills
did not pass.
Number 625
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Krasnowski to comment on the
requirements currently in place and asked if those
requirements should be added to the bill.
MR. KRASNOWSKI felt that other people planning to testify
will describe those requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked if there will be a
constitutional problem with having duality in regard to the
Kenai River Special Management Area fees. HB 496 proposes
to charge one class of guides a fee, but for guides in the
Kenai River Special Management Area another fee is charged.
MR. ECKLUND said Representative Phillips asked that question
in the Fisheries Committee and since that question was asked
a legal opinion from the drafting attorney has been
received. It says, "In my opinion, the exemption does not
violate the state or federal Constitutions."
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated he supports eliminating the
provisions which create a special fee for people on the
Kenai and raising the overall fees to be the same for
everyone. He felt there are as many, if not more guides in
Southeast Alaska than there are on the Kenai River. He
stressed people are making a living off of the state's
resource so the state should be charging something for that
resource.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated the Kenai River Special Management
Area is being managed by DNR.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER felt his suggestion should be amended
into the bill, the provisions which allow DNR to charge fees
for that special area should be deleted, the fees should be
higher, but the fees should be the same for all resident
guides.
TAPE 94-31, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES disagreed. He stated the Kenai
River Special Management Area is an area which was created
due to special problems and a large amount of money has been
spent to focus on those problems. He said to change that
special management area without a series of hearings
focusing on the issue would be premature. He noted the
fiscal note indicates that the fees will generate twice the
revenues needed for the purpose of the bill. He commented
if it is determined that a higher fee should be charged, as
a result of the information gathered, that can always be
done in the future. He did not see anything required in HB
496 to charge a higher fee.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY said increasing charges for sport
fishing guides will not increase the fees charged in the
special management area. He expressed concern that in the
sponsor statement, it says the industry would like to see a
limit put on the number of people fishing. Although he is
normally opposed to increasing costs to Alaska, he felt by
having higher fees, especially a higher fee for nonresident
guides to limit their activity, local sport fishing guides
will be ahead in the long run.
Number 029
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated the issue before the committee
is equity. He said what is being discussed is having a user
group pay for what they are having access to and what they
are deriving their livelihood from. He pointed out it is a
resource that everyone owns. If a decision is made to
assess a fee, the issue becomes how much and whether it can
be equitably enforced or assessed. Why make a special class
of people pay a different fee than those who are involved in
the same advocation as they are in Southeast, Southwest, and
anywhere in the state. He felt that if a fee is going to be
imposed, it should be imposed equally as opposed to creating
a separate class.
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES felt the state does not
sufficiently collect enough money in the fishery resource
area to effectively manage the resource. She stated
revenues are severely declining in the state and expressed
fear that natural resource managers will not be able to do a
proper job. She said somewhere in the future, the state
will have to pay the price. She felt even though it is
indicated in the fiscal note that there are more funds than
what is required to implement HB 496, it still is not
enough.
Number 070
FRANK HOMAN, COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY
COMMISSION, stated last year the commission worked with
Representative Williams to look at the sport fish guiding
industry in the Ketchikan area to determine if there was a
way to establish a moratorium or stop the increase which was
rapidly developing. He said because the commission is
involved in moratoriums and limitations for commercial
fisheries, commission members sat in on several meetings to
determine if they could work with the sport fishery in the
same way. He stated the commission's limitation is to
commercial fisheries.
MR. HOMAN stressed that what was clear in all of the
discussions was that there is a severe lack of data
available on which to manage the sport fish charter
industry. He felt HB 496 is a step in the right direction
to gather information from individual operators to be used
to manage the sport fishery more effectively. He said on
the commercial side of the commission's limitation program,
there are individual catch records and income tax records
and the commission conducts a lot of analysis in assigning
limited entry permits. He stressed the information existing
currently in sport fish is not detailed, but rather is
overall information which cannot be used to limit
individuals.
Number 103
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY said Mr. Homan had mentioned the
commission was not able to put any type of moratorium in
place and asked if that was due to a lack of data.
MR. HOMAN responded the commission is only authorized to
place a moratorium on commercial fisheries, not sport
fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked what it would require to
authorize the commission for sport fisheries.
MR. HOMAN stated it would take a constitutional amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY clarified there is no way the
collection of sport fish information could have any bearing
on future allocations of the resource.
MR. HOMAN replied not with the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission, but the information could be available for
structuring a moratorium or limitation on the sport fish
charter industry itself through another system.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if the Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission has information on the relative amount of
catch represented by the sport fish industry in Southeast
versus the catch by the commercial fishing industry. He
wondered what impact the catches have on the resource on a
percentage basis.
MR. HOMAN replied ADF&G should answer that question because
the commission only deals with commercial fisheries.
Number 134
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE felt there is a semantics problem. He
stated sport caught fish are being discussed but in his
opinion, there is no question that sport fish guiding is a
commercial enterprise and should be regulated as commercial
fishing. He said sport fish guides are really commercial
fishermen. He reminded committee members that the guides
will not be paying the proposed fees, the fishermen will pay
the fees through what they are charged to use the guide.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said while sport fish guiding may be
considered a commercial entity, who are the guides taking
out. They are taking sport fishermen, not commercial
fishermen. He expressed concern about the definition of
sport fish guiding. He felt there may be a problem in the
future whereby there is an operator who advertises and
people stay in his/her lodge. The guest pays for overnight
accommodations, food, etc., but is not charged for the
guiding on the river. Therefore, the guide does not have to
register as a guide because he/she is not being paid as a
guide. He thought the definition of sport fish guides needs
to be tightened so it does not just reflect upon the
activity of guiding on the river, but rather reflects the
overall exchange of goods or services of the individual who
is receiving the benefit.
Number 180
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the person in Representative
Mulder's scenario who has the boat and is taking guests out
is the same person who owns the lodge.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated then that person is getting
compensated for what he/she is doing because it is a part of
the operation.
Number 201
RICHARD ANDREW, KETCHIKAN, testified via teleconference and
expressed support for HB 496. He felt the bill will do a
lot to help the tourism industry and charter businesses in
getting a stable allotment of fish. He stated HB 496 will
give the department the latitude and solid numbers to
address the issues at hand.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked Mr. Andrew what his vocation is.
MR. ANDREW replied he is a commercial fisherman, gillnetter
and sport fishermen.
Number 225
MICHAEL LOCKABEY, WRANGELL, testified via teleconference and
stated he is a commercial fisherman, sport fisherman,
charter operator, and a seafood processor. He stated there
are 645 registrants in the halibut sport and commercial
fisheries, which is about 50 percent of the total
registrants in the state with the halibut commission for
sport, and half of them are both sport and commercial. He
commented on the costs to do business: He buys two business
licenses annually; he buys a DEC permit costing $100 per
year; processing shrimp costs five percent of the gross; for
salmon harvested there is an aquaculture assessment of three
percent gross and a one percent market assessment; licenses
for scales cost $10 annually; it costs $650 annually to
renew his permit and that permit cost $30,000 to buy; if he
sets foot on forest service ground to take a fisherman on a
stream, it costs three percent of the gross; he pays $180
for a drug test for his Coast Guard license; every five
years he renews his Coast Guard license at a cost of $80; he
has an approved life raft which costs $750 per year to
repack; and he takes annual first aid, CPR, etc.
Number 275
MR. LOCKABEY stated he would like to see the bill more
Alaskanized. (Indiscernible) and other resource users,
resident and nonresident, do allow fees to go way beyond the
three times. He gave examples of game guide fees. He said
recently in conducting some research, he determined that the
halibut sport catch is about 15 percent of the total catch
in area 2-C which encompasses all of Southeast. The king
salmon sport harvest is set at 17 percent which is the
allocation determined by the Board of Fisheries. He added
that level is going up to 20 percent in the next three
years. He told committee members he does not need another
license or another $200 license fee. He is not opposed to
the compilation of data.
Number 294
HAROLD BAILEY, WRANGELL, testified via teleconference and
stated he is primarily a commercial salmon fisherman. He
said his income has been severely reduced the past five
years because of lower salmon prices due to farm fish and
the recession. He pointed out the state and federal
government's income has also gone down due to the recession.
He has diversified into processing and chartering to make
more money. His need to make more money is adding more
taxes and licenses (indiscernible) raising fees and cutting
business deductions. He is squeezing his prices on one side
and taxes and fees on the other side to the point of being
forced out of business. If that happens, the state will
collect less license fees and taxes and both he and the
state will lose. He stated he is not opposed to charter
boat operators paying their share, but he felt charter
businesses are being hit from all sides and are trying to
survive.
Number 317
BARBARA BINGHAM, MEMBER, SITKA CHARTER BOAT OPERATORS
ASSOCIATION, testified via teleconference and stated the
method of tracking legitimate active charter operators is
desirable, but she also believes it can be done in simpler
and less costly ways, such as requiring more information on
licenses and permits which operators already have. She
expressed opposition to HB 496 for several reasons. The
substantial fee charged will go into the General Fund and
may or may not be allocated for its intended purpose. In
response to the discussion about use of the public resource,
charter operators make a living providing access to the
resource for the public who do own the resource.
MS. BINGHAM pointed out there is a distinction between
commercial operators who sell the fish they catch and
charter operators who sell a service. She said the bill
contains no provision requiring operators to prove they have
met other legal requirements such as a Coast Guard license,
valid business license, membership in a drug testing
program, etc. It seems that anyone can receive a guiding
license. She stated it was determined during a recent
Halibut Charter Working Group meeting that a mandatory law
in this program would not be feasible because it would be
difficult to implement and enforce. The data collected
would not necessarily be accurate and the data would be very
expensive to collect and analyze. She stressed that will
most likely be the same for the reports proposed in HB 496.
MS. BINGHAM felt the vague wording as to what information
exactly will be required is disturbing. She said it sounds
like the reporting procedures could be substantially
detailed and time consuming to produce with a possibility of
new requirements at any time. She stated in the words of
Bill Foster, the association president, this bill will be
like lying down and asking to have money taken from our
billfolds and then be covered by paperwork. She felt by
working together, useful legislation can be created.
Number 355
THERESA WEISER, SITKA, testified via teleconference and
stated she agrees with most of Ms. Bingham's testimony.
However, she does support the concept of fees for the study,
but when she hears the fees are going to go into the General
Fund as program receipts and may or may not be actually
designated, she has concerns. She stated there is a need
for information to be gathered because there is going to be
a continued glut into the charter operator industry,
especially since commercial fishermen are saying they cannot
make it in their own industry and are trying to diversify.
She does not oppose diversification but she felt if
commercial fishermen are going to step into the charter boat
industry and cause hardships for present operators, they
should pay to be there. She agrees with across the board
fees for all of Alaska and that nonresident guides should
pay more to participate in the state.
ED JONES, PETERSBURG, testified via teleconference and
expressed opposition to HB 496. He supports the collection
of information by ADF&G. He does not agree with the fee
amounts proposed to get the information. He pointed out
that in the past, when ADF&G had a need to get data from a
fishery or a group of people, they budgeted for it and got
the information. He does not understand why charter
operators are getting singled out as a user group who has to
pay for the information gathering. He noted he does not
trust ADF&G, particularly the Division of Sport Fish.
Number 410
MIKE COATES, SORRY CHARLIE CHARTERS, HOMER, testified via
teleconference and expressed support for HB 496. He felt
the information gathered should be released on a timely
basis to the public rather than releasing the information up
to four years after it is collected. He also felt the fees
should remain with ADF&G. He does not like the fact that
the bill does not contain a sunset clause. If the fees are
being paid for collecting information for a study, he
assumes the study will end at some point. He stated the
fees proposed are fine, but arbitrarily picking numbers does
not make sense.
SEAN MARTIN, PRESIDENT, HOMER CHARTER OPERATORS ASSOCIATION,
testified via teleconference and stated the association
supports HB 496 as long as the funds stay with ADF&G. He
said the association also would like to see the information
gathered be available to the general public on a timely
basis. In the future, there will be a point reached where
charter operators will be restricted because of overfishing
in the Homer area and the only way to determine the proper
management of the fishery is through accurate studies. He
felt once the study is complete, it should not cost as much
to fund the study every year.
Number 460
JIM HESTON, VALDEZ, testified via teleconference and stated
he is concerned about whether or not ADF&G will get the
funds. He also noted the bill does not outline what type of
report will be used and expressed concern about the possible
paperwork involved. He agreed the information is needed but
added if HB 496 is to gather information from a user group,
he wondered why recreational fishermen are not included. He
expressed concern that anyone can pay $200 to be a sport
fish guide which could mire the numbers. He stated there
may be a problem with the sport fish guide definition.
JOHN GEORGE, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL, stated
the council supports HB 496 and feels the collection of
information is pivotal in further discussions on allocations
and resource management. He said based on declining state
revenues, it is appropriate that fees be charged to provide
this type of data collection. He felt there is an
opportunity to eliminate the business license requirement
for a sport guide and to convert that to a sports guide
license at an equivalent or higher fee for specific
gathering of information. He noted the association would
also like to see the funds go directly to ADF&G.
MR. GEORGE said he has personally testified before the Board
of Fisheries and one of the key issues which come up is the
question of allocation. He felt the collection of data as
proposed in HB 496 will clarify many of those issues and
allow the Board to do a much better job of resolving that
issue.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if big game guides also have a
business license.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied anyone in business has to
have a business license.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE pointed out that medical doctors are
licensed and they also have to get a business license, and
he felt if sport fish guides are licensed, they should also
get a business license.
MR. GEORGE stated there are specific classes of businesses
which are excluded from licensing.
Number 610
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. George to comment on the
proposed fees.
MR. GEORGE felt the fees are a legislative prerogative. He
said if the business license is replaced with the sport fish
guide license, that is $50 a year which could be included
and there could be a surcharge for the gathering of
information. He noted there are possibilities for a
reciprocity fee where if someone from Alaska goes to the
state of Washington and pays a $750 fee, then a person
coming to Alaska from Washington would also pay $750
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted the state of Washington does have a
limited entry program.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said the only problem he has with a
reciprocity fee program is if the state of Washington
charges less, then Alaska would have to charge less.
TAPE 94-32, SIDE A
Number 000
DENNIS PETRE, SALCHA, testified via teleconference and
expressed support of HB 496, but felt the study should
encompass all fish taken by sporting groups. He did not see
a difference between fish being caught through the service
of a sport guide and fish taken by a recreational fisherman.
He said some boats are not just mom and pop operations; many
have a crew. He stated if the fees get too high, many
operators will not be able to afford them. He suggested a
one time fee.
BOB ELLIOTT, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
stated he is a registered hunting guide. He pointed out he
has never seen a power boat or salt water, but is strictly a
fresh water fisherman in Interior Alaska. He expressed
opposition to HB 496 because all fresh water guides are
going to be included and there is no justification for it.
He pointed out that ADF&G, in conjunction with the
University, sent out a survey to try and determine the
economic impact of fishing guides on the state. He said it
is a very complicated survey and it will take several days
with an accountant to complete.
MR. ELLIOTT is fearful that once the state begins to license
fish guides, there will be a myriad of statutes and
regulations. He said thus far all that has been discussed
is salt water fish and boats. He stated the legislature
needs to remember that there are operators in the Interior
who are different than the salt water guides.
Number 050
DONALD WESTLUND, KETCHIKAN, testified via teleconference and
stated he is a charter boat operator. He expressed
opposition to HB 496. He felt the bill is strictly a
revenue generating bill. He stated he does not dispute that
he is not a commercial entity, but what he does dispute is
that he does not catch the fish, his customers do.
Therefore, if a fee is going to be imposed upon the user of
a public resource, the amount of the fee should be based
upon the degree of impact on the resource, meaning the more
a person catches, the more the person should pay. He
pointed out that commercial fishermen catch 98 percent of
the salmon resource in the state. He said without a
business license, he cannot go to the borough and get a
retail license. Without a business license, it is not
possible to pay sales tax and the borough he lives in will
not receive any revenue from his sales.
Number 073
MR. ECKLUND stated he checked with the revenue departments
both in Ketchikan and Juneau and was told there will be no
problem with accepting a specialized license from the state
in lieu of a business license.
MR. WESTLUND said a commercial fisherman should be paying a
tax since he begins and ends his fishing trip from
Ketchikan.
MR. ECKLUND said he was only answering the question about
the business license exemption. He stated if a person
currently pays taxes and uses a business license for
identification, the borough will accept a special license by
the state or a sport fish guide license in lieu of a
business license for tax purposes.
ROBERT WARD, A-WARD CHARTERS, HOMER, testified via
teleconference and expressed opposition to HB 496. He
stated he has a problem with an arbitrarily picked fee
schedule and wondered why a fee cannot be determined based
on what is needed to accomplish the study. He asked how HB
496 will affect a charter business which owns a multiple
number of boats and has nonresident crew members. He stated
at one meeting of the Halibut Charter Working Group, ADF&G
says they have enough information to consider going into a
limited entry program for halibut charters, but yet now the
state is looking for $200-$700 from operators to fund an
information gathering. He stated the air taxi people have
been left out of the bill and wondered if they should also
have a guide license.
MR. WARD pointed out that charters are only 50 percent of
the sport equation of all removals and felt that should be
proportioned out properly. If charters are not having an
impact on the resource and are 50 percent of the sport,
which is four percent of the total, charters should only be
responsible for two percent. He stated if the resource says
a study is needed, then do a study and fund it
appropriately.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated the arbitrary fee schedule was
brought up by the charter boat operators in past hearings.
He also pointed out the halibut commission is a federal
issue not pertaining to this issue. He thought the air taxi
guides are covered in HB 496 if they are assisting with
fishing.
Number 143
TIM EVERS, NINILCHIK, testified via teleconference and
agreed with Ms. Bingham's comments. He asked what is being
done with the money currently being collected off the Kenai
River Management plan.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER commented he called DNR to get a
response in regard to the number of permits issued on the
Kenai, both resident and nonresident, and the amount of
funds collected as well as the use of those funds. He said
hopefully at the next meeting he will have those answers.
PAUL GOEDERT, NINILCHIK, testified via teleconference and
expressed support of HB 496 but felt a sunset clause is
needed. Once a person starts giving money to the government
it is hard to get it stopped. He stated the lowering of the
resident fee would be beneficial since people in his area
are already paying several other fees. There needs to be a
recognition of the fact that people are paying already for,
which according to the Constitution, should be free access
to the fishery.
ROGER WATNEY, ANCHOR POINT, testified via teleconference and
expressed agreement with those testifying from Homer. He
stated the data is needed, but felt it is a high price to
attain that information. He urged committee members to
lower the resident fees.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he does not believe the
Constitution guarantees free access, just equal access.
GARY PLUMB, KETCHIKAN, testified via teleconference and
expressed support of the concept of HB 496. He felt the
information is needed but thought there should be an easier
way to attain it. He suggested a mandatory survey at the
end of each season with a requirement that if the survey is
not completed, the charter operator cannot register the
following year. He stressed HB 496 should include insurance
requirements, drug testing requirements, etc. He felt if
people are allowed to continue to come into Alaska and make
use of the industry, they should have to have proof of their
capability of operating in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said while at this point the priority
may be data gathering, this is a resource state and there is
a need for the state to make money off of its resources. He
pointed out the ADF&G budget keeps getting lower and lower
and there needs to be a greater source of income. HB 496
provides for not only data gathering, but also a source of
income for the state.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee will meet on
Wednesday, March 16 at 8:15 a.m. to hear HB 404 and HB 238.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House
Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting
at 10:07 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|