Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/05/1997 01:12 PM 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
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
Act.
- 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
Game."
- 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,
GREEN
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
3/12
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
SHORT TITLE: MODIFY FED WETLANDS PROGRAM FOR AK NEEDS
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,
LEMAN
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,
MILLER;NR:DUNCAN
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,
LEMAN,SHARP,TAYLOR
02/20/97 428 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS APPLY TO CS
(GOV,F&G)
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
commerce.
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
recorded.
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
license.
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
concern.
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
resolved.
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
fishery.
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
ways.
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
is.
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
resource.
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
good.
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
provisions."
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
accordingly."
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
resources.
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
fishing.
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
complied.
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
mid-speech].
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
language.
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
fisheries.
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
support.
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
language.
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
moratorium.
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
entry.
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
19(RES).
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
industry".
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
added.
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
19(RES).
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
Committee.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN handed the gavel over to Co-Chairman Hudson for
the next order of business.
CSSJR 20(RLS) am - MODIFY FED WETLANDS PROGRAM FOR AK NEEDS
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
conservation.
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
1700s.
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
Committee.
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
constitution.
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.
ADJOURNMENT
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 |
|---|