HOUSE BILL NO. 79 "An Act relating to saltwater sport fishing operators and saltwater sport fishing guides; and providing for an effective date." 9:07:31 AM Co-Chair Merrick indicated there were 2 amendments for HB 79. She noted that the commissioner and the legislative liaison for the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) were available for questions. Representative Carpenter MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy on file): Page 4, line 13: Delete "saltwater" Page 4, line 15: Delete "saltwater" Page 4, lines 16- 17: Delete "saltwater" Page 4, line 18: Delete "saltwater" Page 4, following line 21: Insert a new subsection to read: "(b) The department may limit the information it collects from a sport fishing guide under this section to (1) saltwater sport fishing guide services; (2) freshwater sport fishing guide services; or (3) guided sport fishing for certain species." Reletter the following subsections accordingly. Page 5, line 12: Delete "AS 16.40.282(b)" Insert "AS 16.40.282" Representative Josephson OBJECTED for discussion. Representative Carpenter reviewed the amendment. He reported that Article 8, Section 4 of the Alaska Constitution stated that fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and other replenishable resources belonging to the state should be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle subject to preferences among beneficial uses. The bill and the amendment addressed how the state was managing preferences of beneficial uses. With the passage of HB 79 saltwater guides would continue to record and report harvest data through their logbook program. Drift and setnet commercial fishermen would continue to record and report harvest data and was not addressed in the bill. Representative Carpenter explained that the freshwater guides would be the only commercial fishing interest that would not be required to record and report harvest data. freshwater guides would be licensed under the bill and would be paying for the saltwater guide program. The amendment allowed DFG to instate a freshwater guidebook program but did not require it. He thought it would provide the department the ability to collect the data that was necessary to manage to a sustained yield principle in a fair manner amongst all of the state's commercial fishing interests. Representative Rasmussen asked if Commissioner Lang could speak to the amendment. 9:09:48 AM DOUGLAS VINCENT-LANG, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, thought the Representative's intention with the bill was to allow the department to institute stand-alone freshwater reporting requirements if the department found it necessary for management of the fishery. He did not think the bill required the department to implement it entirely for the freshwater industry. If the department saw a need in freshwater on the Kenai Peninsula, the department could implement just a piece of it. He asked if he was correct. Representative Carpenter responded, "That's correct, or any other way that you might see fit." Commissioner Vincent-Lang provided some historical information. He explained that the reason the department had elected to exclude freshwater from the bill originally was due to the department not using much data to run the freshwater fisheries in the past. There were instances, especially on federal lands, in which minor violations in the number of graylings released resulted in the loss of the concessions by freshwater guides operating in the area. The department did not want to impose a statewide approach to the reporting. Currently, if there was a need for data on a case-by-case basis, there was nothing prohibiting the department to collect the data. For instance, if DFG had a need to collect information in freshwater, it could collect the data through a creel survey or another type of program. His understanding was that the amendment applied on a case- by-case basis and would not require the department to institute a comprehensive program. Co-Chair Merrick relayed that the committee had been joined by Representative Edgmon. Representative Rasmussen was trying to establish if the department already had the authority through regulations to do what the amendment offered. She wondered if it was necessary to have the provision in statute. She asked the commissioner to speak to any specific needs of having the issue in statute. Commissioner Vincent-Lang suggested Representative Rasmussen was correct that the department could already do what the amendment was trying to do. Although the amendment was not needed for regulatory authority, it provided clarity and created another option in managing the fishery. 9:12:59 AM Representative Josephson suggested guides currently on the Kasilof or Kenai Rivers were not required to have to report catches to the department each day. He asked if he was correct. Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded that if the department was concerned with the number of salmon taken by the guide industry, the department had the ability to perform a creel survey which was how it collected such data. Representative Josephson was surprised that individuals were required to report their catch, yet freshwater sport fishing guides were not. Commissioner Vincent-Lang explained that the department walked away from the mandatory system on guide was because across much of Alaska it was not using the information for in season management. For example, information such as the number of graylings and rainbow trout being released was not being used to manage those fisheries especially in areas where there were trophy fisheries. The department withdrew its focus on the freshwater portion focusing more on the in season need: saltwater. Saltwater fisheries included halibut, salmon, and rockfish fisheries. If the department needed the information regarding freshwater on a case-by-case basis, it could be obtained through creel surveys. Representative Josephson asked the commissioner to repeat himself. Commissioner Vincent-Lang indicated the department used a creel survey, a dockside sample. Representative Carpenter also heard that freshwater guides were having a difficult time filling out log books - a reason for why it was no longer required. He asserted that technology had come a long way and that the department should be able to create an online reporting system which would allow guides to enter their harvests on their phones. He thought treating one user group differently from another was not appropriate. He did not understand why the state would not want reporting from freshwater guides. He thought it was a red herring. The issues on the Kenai were numerous regarding sport fishing. He thought it would be in the best interest of the people and the resource to see that all of the commercial entities were recording and reporting their harvest numbers in order for the state to properly manage on a sustained yield principle. He thought it was a fair way to approach the issue when discussing preferences among beneficial uses. He was not being heavy handed with the language he was offering. The amendment would create in statute a means for the state to be able to manage its resources by collecting data. Commissioner Vincent-Lang noted that the department collected the harvest information. Guides provided a sports fishing service and the information was being provided through a mailout survey and through dockside creel surveys by contacting anglers. It was not that the department was not capturing the harvest information, it was capturing the data in a way that was delineated to that sector and its allocation. In the marine fisheries, the department had sector allocations to the charter boat fishery that the department needed to track for halibut and salmon. The department did not have many sector allocations that it needed to track in season in freshwater. He reemphasized that the department was capturing the number of fish for biological and sustainability purposes. Representative Carpenter responded, "And yet we have a decline in King Salmon on the Kenai River." He opined that something in the previous decade was not working. He suggested that a collection of more data might help to better understand the problem. He found it strange that a dockside survey would be okay for one user group but not another. All the other commercial user groups had to report each individual fish they caught, not just a dockside survey. He suggested that one user group was being treated less harshly by requiring less reporting than another. 9:19:26 AM Representative Wool had some of the same concerns as Representative Carpenter. He was especially concerned with the king salmon fishery. He had taken guided trips on the Klutina River where the King Salmon fishery had been closed for periods. He did not always mail the surveys back to DFG. He thought the department would want more precise data for a delicate fishery. He asked if the department required guides to report for a sensitive fishery in a sensitive area. Commissioner Vincent-Lang replied that if there was a desire and a need for in-season management, the department would likely implement some sort of reporting requirement. The department had a requirement for marine fisheries presently. The department did not have many instances where the Board of Fisheries had given it an allocation in freshwater that had to be tracked in-season. Representative Wool asked if the amendment would change anything in the commissioner's current management approach. Commissioner Vincent-Lang commented that the amendment would allow more flexibility in both freshwater and saltwater on a case-by-case basis. The department would likely continue with the saltwater piece because of treaty and obligations under the Halibut Act and the Pacific Salmon Act. If a need arose in freshwater, the department would apply a program. However, he would not immediately institute a statewide freshwater program. Vice-Chair Ortiz asked about collecting data on freshwater systems. He wondered what kind of coverage took place on rivers like the Kenai River in terms of creel surveys and whether it was consistent and thorough from day-to-day. He inquired whether there was always a presence on the Kenai River. He was familiar with creel surveys in saltwater. Most of the time there was a creel survey person present when he came into the dock. He asked for more information about creel surveys in freshwater situations. Commissioner Vincent-Lang answered that when the department did a creel survey someone was not present 24/7. The surveys were randomized so that when a person was not present the information could be extrapolated from when they were present. There were two purposes of a creel survey. The first was to estimate the number of fish that were harvested. The second and more important reason was to collect biological samples from the fish for genetic information that indicated where a fish was from. In Southeast Alaska the department had to collect information to find out what the state's treaty versus US and Alaska allocations were between the different stocks. It was a mix of biologic sampling and sampling to estimate the harvest from a river system. In the Kenai, the state was still collecting biological samples from the sport harvest. 9:23:34 AM Vice-Chair Ortiz understood the random survey concept. He wondered if the amount of data was useful with spotty coverage. Commissioner Vincent-Lang was convinced that in Southeast Alaska and on the Kenai River the creel survey program provided sufficient information for management purposes. Representative LeBon spoke in support of the amendment. The state was managing its resource for sustainability and abundance. He suggested that having the most complete data base possible for whatever resource, be it saltwater or freshwater resources, made sense. He thought back to his personal fishing activities on the Kenai River in the 80s and 90s and recalled the guide he was with kept impeccable records of what was taken into the boat. He also noticed the same care taken in record keeping when fishing for halibut out of Homer. He believed the ability to keep records had significantly improved since the 80s and 90s. He asked the commissioner if he agreed. Commissioner Vincent-Lang agreed that guides were keeping records as part of their business operations. The concern that arose 6 years or 7 years prior was the enforcement piece. There were minor violations resulting in businesses receiving significant violations for things that did not matter to the department in terms of managing the fishery. In Southeast Alaska the state had so much at stake in marine fisheries that it decided to continue that specific piece because the information was needed. However, the data was not needed on a statewide basis for many of the freshwater fisheries for which it had been instituted. Also, the department incurred significant costs related to data entry for information that was not being used. The department moved to obtaining freshwater fishery information on a case-by-case basis. Saltwater requirements remained in place around the state. 9:26:56 AM Representative LeBon thought the strategy was to manage for abundance and sustainability. He wondered if the commissioner was able to gather enough information from guiding services to succeed in the department's goals. He asked if the amendment would hurt the department in any way. Commissioner Vincent-Lang would answer in two ways. A good example of the utility of the state in saltwater was that in the previous year the state had a significant drop in tourism. The number of tourists participating in the charter boat fisheries was significantly reduced. However, the state had allocations through the halibut commission for charter boat fishing for salmon and halibut. The state was able to use the data half way through the season to demonstrate that the state was nowhere near reaching its allocations. The department went back to the halibut and salmon commissions to let them know the department was going to relax its regulations allowing more fish to be caught. The state had never had an exercise with freshwater fisheries where the state needed that kind of in season management. The amendment would not interfere with the department's efforts since the word "may" was used. Representative LeBon was aware of an application developed by DFG that guides could use on their smart devises to make it easier to keep track of what was occurring. Commissioner Vincent-Lang noted the department was trying the application in the saltwater fisheries in Southeast Alaska. Remote areas created a challenge with cell service, but the department was working on the issue. He anticipated a 95 percent compliance in Southeast Alaska in the following year. Vice-Chair Ortiz had a follow-up question regarding the creel survey. He was aware that the department had experienced significant funding reductions over the past 7-8 years. He wondered if the cuts resulted in preventing the department from being able to hire the same amount of creel surveyors as it hired 6 years prior. He asked if the department had less of a workforce. Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded that the department had been successful in getting some additional federal money to help with the implementation of the salmon treaty. It had not had to reduce the workforce. He added that the department had a better program at present than 5 years prior. 9:29:36 AM Representative Carpenter appreciated the discussion. He was thinking the amendment was not strong enough considering over the prior decade the state had lost both size and quantity of King Salmon out of the river. He was disheartened to know that the state was collecting data but not using it. The amendment would solve the problem. If the state was collecting data currently that it had been collecting before, the state would better understand what was going on within the river. However, the state was no longer collecting the data. The information was obtained through samples and extrapolation adding human error and inconsistency. The bill did not force anything to change. It simply provided the department with the ability to create a program and manage the state's resource. The expectation was that the state would manage its resource effectively. There were plenty of old-timers that had seen a change in fishery numbers and would argue the freshwater fisheries were not being managed properly. He reiterated that collecting data was the most important thing the state could do to manage the sustained yield principle. Representative Wool referred back to the comments made about getting freshwater data and many people being out of compliance. Violations went out that were unnecessary and burdensome. He thought the department had the flexibility of targeting certain areas. Whereas, if there was something in the King Salmon fishery of concern, the department could focus in on that instead extracting more data. He wondered if the data could be targeted while letting other fisheries conduct their businesses with less constraints. Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded that under the former logbook program the department did not have flexibility. If the amendment was adopted, the department would have the flexibility to act on a case-by-case basis. He reiterated the word "may" being used in place of "shall." Representative Josephson asked the commissioner about how there was less logbook focus on sports guides because they were losing concessions over technical infractions. In reviewing the bill, a bunch of new sections were being added in Title 16 regarding general liability and licensure. There was a number of new regulations for guided fishing in the bill. He wondered if it was regulatory before and was being changed to statute. Commissioner Vincent-Lang answered that it was originally statutory language then became regulatory language when it sunsetted. The bill would change it back to statutory language. 9:34:19 AM AT EASE 9:38:20 AM RECONVENED Representative LeBon asked about an application that could be used for reporting to DFG. He supposed the department was receiving real time data every day, whether on freshwater or saltwater. He asked if he was accurate. Commissioner Vincent-Lang indicated the department was moving in the direction of technology. However, he was not sure if it was a true statement that the technology was willingly accepted by all. Change was difficult for some, especially regarding business models in remote areas of Alaska. The more remote of an area, the more difficult it was for guides to use the technology. He felt the department was moving in that direction and, there was a general willingness by the majority of guides in the saltwater logbook program to go to the electronic format. The department's goal was to have immediate reporting in areas where there was cell phone coverage. He did not think electronic reporting would reach the level of 100 percent due to the vast size and remoteness in certain areas of the state. Representative LeBon relayed a fishing experience out of Hoonah. The guide kept a log, and every time a person on the boat caught a fish, he took a picture. Representative Thompson spoke in favor of the amendment. He thought it provided another tool in the tool box. He clarified that the amendment did not hinder the department. Commissioner Vincent-Lang indicated the department would not be hindered with the amendment, as the use of the word "may" provided flexibility. Representative Josephson WITHDREW his OBJECTION. Representative Johnson OBJECTED. She thought it was additional data collection with no benefit. Commissioner Vincent-Lang replied that if the program was instituted on a statewide basis, he would agree with Representative Johnson. He would also have strong objection if the amendment was predicated on the department having to collect the data on a statewide basis. The way the amendment was written the department would only collect the data if it deemed it necessary. Representative Johnson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Thompson, Wool, Carpenter, Edgmon, Johnson, LeBon, Ortiz, Foster, Merrick OPPOSED: Johnson, Rasmussen The MOTION PASSED (9/2). Amendment 1 was ADOPTED. 9:43:22 AM Representative Wool MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2 (copy on file): Page 1, line 5: Delete "a new paragraph" Insert "new paragraphs" Page 1, line 6: Delete "Fishing" Insert "Resident fishing" Page 1, line 7: Delete "Sport" Insert "Resident sport" Page 1, line 8: Delete "Sport" Insert "Resident sport" Page 1, line 9: Delete "Sport" Insert "Resident sport" Page 1, following line 9: Insert a new paragraph to read: "(29) Nonresident fishing services licenses (A) Nonresident sport fishing operator license... 400 (B) Nonresident sport fishing guide license... 200 (C) Nonresident sport fishing operator and guide combined license... 400." Page 3, line 26, following "(C)": Insert "or 16.05.340(a)(29)(B) or (C)" Page 4, line 2, following "(C)": Insert "or 16.05.340(a)(29)(A) or (C)" Page 4, line 3, following "(C)": Insert "or 16.05.340(a)(29)(A) or (C)" Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion. Representative Wool explained that the amendment kept parody with other types of guide licenses for in-state and out-of-state residents. Fishing, hunting, and hunting guide licenses for out-of-state residents cost more than for in-state residents. The amendment aligned the fees for out-of-state fishing guides and operators to pay more for their licenses than for in-state guides and operators by a factor of two. Representative Josephson asked what the commissioner would do with the extra revenue provided with the amendment. Commissioner Vincent-Lang replied that the money would fully pay for the saltwater logbook program. He would also institute the use of freshwater logbooks in areas deemed necessary by the department. Currently, the department had to pay for the saltwater logbook program. He continued that based on the prior amendment, the department would be required to have freshwater guide licensing and operator requirements in place. The department would have to reinstitute that portion of the program. The monies could be used for both. Representative Rasmussen asked if anyone from Legislative Legal Services was available online. She wanted to confirm that there were no conflicts at the federal level regarding commerce across state lines. Co-Chair Merrick indicated Alpheus Bullard from Legislative Legal Services was available for questions. 9:45:27 AM ALPHEUS BULLARD, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES (via teleconference), responded that perhaps there might be issues with the privilege and immunities clause. He expounded that the particular piece of legislation should not be analogized to hunting or fishing licenses with a license to access Alaska's resources. He suggested that when it came to a profession like a sport fishing guide, care needed to be taken under the federal constitution to ensure that the state was not making it difficult for people to cross state lines and practice their professions in the state. He reported that in a series of cases the Alaska Supreme Court found that it was possible for the State of Alaska to charge non-residents more for commercial fishing licenses and other licenses. However, the additional expense charged to non-residents needed to be justified by some added expense or management concern presented by out-of-state licensees, or that residents were making some sort of contribution to the health of the resource while non-residents were not. He continued that in the current case he could not say there was a justification for a 2-to-1 differential for non-residents. Co-Chair Merrick asked if Mr. Bullard was speaking to the legality of the bill or the amendment. Mr. Bullard responded that he was speaking to the amendment. Representative Rasmussen asked Mr. Bullard if he was aware of any other states that charged a higher fee to a non-resident for a license to do business in the state. She wondered if there had been any court cases brought forward for such an issue. Mr. Bullard replied that he had not conducted a comprehensive survey of what other states did or did not do. The most perinate cases and precedent on the topic were cases having to do with commercial fishing residences. The cases in Alaska where the state charged non-residents more for commercial fishing licenses were the Carlson Cases. 9:49:04 AM Representative Rasmussen asked if the commissioner could cite a situation in which non-residents would pose a need for higher fees than resident guides or licensees. Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded that his area of expertise was not in law and the constitutionality of higher fees for residents versus non-residents. He was aware of the state having higher fees for residents versus non-residents for sport fishing and hunting. The state could justify the higher fees because residents were paying through other mechanisms for access, infrastructure, and a variety of other things. On the business side the non-residents were paying higher licensure fees themselves to participate. He did not have a good answer as to whether a non-resident guide would have higher costs. His clients were paying a higher cost, but he was unsure about the guide paying higher costs. Representative Rasmussen was in support of the concept. She favored any opportunity to provide Alaska the lowest fees possible to access the state's resources. She was concerned with the possibility of a law suit with a non-resident trying to do business across state lines. Representative Carpenter asked if the fees resulting from the amendment would fully support the saltwater logbook program. Commissioner Vincent-Lang had not run the numbers. Representative Carpenter thought it was important for the committee to know whether the fees would cover the total cost of the logbook program. He had a question for Mr. Bullard concerning fairness and what the courts might take into consideration. In terms of interstate commerce, if the State of Alaska was already charging non-resident guides a different fee than resident guides, he wondered if the court would look at whether the state was fairly singling out guides from out-of-state. He suggested that at least one user group did not have to pay higher out-of-state rates while the ones the committee discussed did. He was curious how the courts would view the fairness. Mr. Bullard responded that if someone was challenging the statute under the federal privilege and immunities clause, the clause provided a fundamental right for a person to be able to travel and engage in their profession in another state. The clause did not permit the state to discriminate unless there was legally a substantial reason which had to be closely related to the interest served by the statute. He was unsure if the courts would look to other licensing groups because the context for sport fishing guides might be unique to them. The courts would definitely look at whether the additional expense was justified by some substantial state reason. 9:53:51 AM Representative Wool noted the question had arisen previously. He had talked with the Department of Law who had a different opinion than Mr. Bullard. He mentioned that in statute or regulation an out-of-state hunting guide paid twice as much as an in-state hunting guide. He asked Mr. Bullard if he was saying that it was also questionably legal and that it could be challenged through federal statute. He was unsure if anyone had struck a challenge. Mr. Bullard responded that there was no statute that permitted the Board of Big Game Services to deal with a challenge. If there was a Board of Big Game Services, he was unsure if there had ever been a challenge instigated. It could be challenged under the privileges and immunities clause. He was aware of license fees for non-residents that were charged and challenged in Alaska and how those cases were resolved. Representative Wool thanked Mr. Bullard for his answer. He thought he would have researched and found out there was a statute or regulation for hunting guides. His office had found out that out-of-state hunting guides were charged more for their licenses. That was why he felt doing the same for fishing would not be a stretch. He was part of a legislature that passed a law increasing fees for out-of-state hunters for certain kinds of game. In some cases, the fees were many-fold higher than for an in-state resident. He was unsure if the justification was because the in-state resident paid several other fees that went towards the management of game. Other than the license he was unsure what was paid. There were no statewide taxes. He was reassured based on the commissioner's comments about the increase in the license fees going towards the logbook program. He thought it would be a good use of the funds. He indicated that the Department of Law supported the amendment. He had just received a note that the Department of Law's opinion was not definitive. He would stand by the fish and game parody. Representative Johnson asked how many non-resident sport fishing guides had licenses in the state. Commissioner Vincent-Lang answered that he did not have the information on hand. 9:58:00 AM Representative Johnson asked whether a new system would have to be created to track the sport fishing guides if the legislature were to implement the amendment. Commissioner Vincent-Lang thought it would be critical for the state to identify the meaning of residency. He provided some examples of what residency could mean. The department would struggle with trying to define the residency of a business and of a guide. He wondered if a person's eligibility to receive a PFD could be used to prove residency or whether there was something else that could be used. Representative Johnson thought the state would incur additional costs to implement the program. Commissioner Vincent-Lang indicated there would be some additional costs associated with determining a person's residency. He posed the question of whether residency of a business had to do with the location of the business or where the business was licensed. It was more difficult to determine the residency of a business versus the residency of an individual. Alaska statute clearly defined the payment of a non-resident hunting or license fee and a resident hunting or license fee. Representative Johnson asked if the additional fees would be taken from sport fish users but used for the saltwater logbook program. Commissioner Vincent-Lang reported that the original bill would institute a licensing requirement for saltwater guides and operators to pay for the saltwater reporting requirement. The bill was amended in the House Fisheries Committee to include the requirement for freshwater guides and operators to get licensed and would provide the department the option of using the fees on a case-by-case basis to implement reporting requirements in saltwater or freshwater. Representative Johnson could not support the amendment although she liked the concept. She thought it would be added bureaucracy without significant return. Representative Rasmussen clarified that there seemed like there was confusion between an individual sport fishing license or an individual hunting guide license versus an operator/business license. She asked the commissioner to provide clarification regarding fish and game licenses. Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded that a person had to be a resident of the state for 12 months to qualify for a resident sport fishing license or a resident hunting license and to apply for tags as a resident. However, when a person was operating a business, the terms were somewhat different. A person could get a business license in Alaska immediately upon arrival which would make them a resident of Alaska for business purposes. However, it would not make a person a resident for fish and game purposes. The amendment addressed a business license for a sport fish operator or guide. Whether a person was a resident or a non-resident depended on how much time they spent living in Alaska. The department would need some further guidance. 10:03:18 AM Representative Rasmussen thought she heard from Mr. Bullard that a state could charge a higher fee to a non-resident guide or operator, but the state needed to have substantial cause to support a higher fee for that business. She asked if out-of-state residents or non-residents incurred any higher fees. She was trying to understand if there was any reason to substantiate a difference between a resident and a non-resident guide. She asked about additional risks or costs to the department. Commissioner Vincent-Lang suggested that Representative Rasmussen's question had a complex answer. He explained that the clients of the non-resident guides were paying higher fees through the purchase of a non-resident sport fishing or hunting license. He had not done the math to figure out whether fees from business licenses for non-residents had a higher impact to state coffers than business licenses for residents. He was unaware of how the big game guide services board came to the conclusion of having a rate of 2 to 1. He had not been part of any discussions. Representative Wool read from a section of the bill beginning on Page 2, line 31. He suggested that in order to be a guide a person had to buy a sport fishing license. To buy a sport fishing license the person had to declare their residency. He recalled being told in committee that 80 percent of the fees collected from fishing licenses were from out-of-state people. He did not think it meant that there were 4 times as many out-of-state people fishing. Rather, he thought it meant they were paying significantly more for their licenses. If the same person wanted to get a guide license in Alaska, it seemed simple that a person with an out-of-state fishing license would get an out-of- state guide license. Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded that the issue was two- fold. First was the issue of the guide. He concurred with the representative's perspective. The operator was not necessarily doing the guiding but was running the business. He meant to focus on how to define the residency of an operator who was not guiding. There were cases where operators were different from its guides. Representative Wool was aware of a license fee if a person was an operator and guide. He wondered if an operator had to have a separate license. Commissioner Vincent-Lang did not think a person had to have a sport fishing license to become an operator. Representative Wool understood the distinction the commissioner was trying to make between an operator and a guide. He still supported the amendment but would look into the issue in further detail. 10:07:27 AM AT EASE 10:08:50 AM RECONVENED Co-Chair Merrick indicated the committee would come back to HB 79 at a later date. HB 79 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration.