HB 179-FOOD PROGRAM DONATIONS; FISH AND GAME  5:52:45 PM CHAIR STUTES announced that the final order of business would be, HOUSE BILL NO. 179 "An Act relating to donations of fish and game to food service programs." 5:53:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT moved to adopt CSHB 179, labeled 29- LS076\E as the working document. CHAIR STUTES objected for discussion. 5:53:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS presented the CS for HB 179, Version E, and said the bill allows people to donate sport or subsistence harvested food to non-profit meal programs, such as senior centers, pre-schools, or schools. He paraphrased the following summary of changes, [original punctuation provided], as follows: Defines and uses "covered organization" to mean the list of organizations in section 3(4) of the prior version (version A) that are allowed to accept donations of wild food for their meal service programs. Expands the list of covered organizations listed in the prior version to add private schools; public, nonprofit, and private child care facilities, including preschools and head start programs; licensed residential psychiatric treatment centers; a wider variety of senior center facilities; and senior meal programs. Defines and uses "covered food item" to mean the food allowed to be donated to a covered organization under section 1 of version A, now section 1(b) of version E. Moves definition sections from Title 17 to Title 16. Defines additional terms. Removes personal use fish from the list of covered food items that can be donated. This means the status quo rules remain in place for personal use caught fish. Makes clear that all game, marine or aquatic plants, and nests or eggs of fish and game, not just those harvested for subsistence or sport, can be donated under the bill. Explicitly allows a covered organization to accept state funding, federal funding, and fees from staff and users for meals containing covered food items. Explicitly bars a covered organization from accepting payment for meals provided to people who are not staff or users, including the general public. Users are individuals a covered organization serves. Removes the specific language on food safety in Section 4(a) of version A. Discussions with DEC led to the conclusion that this language was better left to regulation. Standardizes language between the sections of the bill in Title 16 and Title 17, so that all sections refer to covered organizations and covered food items. Moves language on indemnification from liability for covered organizations to the existing section providing indemnification to food banks, rather than creating a separate section. 5:54:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS advised that a large change in Version E removes any mention of personal use in the bill. Other changes, he said, clarify the eligibility of organizations. He explained that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) currently has regulations as to how people can donate sport or subsistence food to, for example food banks, and advised the bill allows DEC to continue that flexibility through regulations. 5:55:05 PM REID MAGDANZ, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Alaska State Legislature, said that word choices and definitions are different in Version E than within Version A, due to a change in drafting attorneys. He explained the following changes: the term "covered organization" was added to define which organizations are eligible to receive these donations; "covered food item" refers to eligible foods to donate; more of the language was pulled into Title 16 - wherein Version A had a significant amount of language pulled from Title 17, which puts everything in one place and standardizes the definitions across those titles; and clarification language was included to ascertain the bill fully reflects the intent and sponsor statement. CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony. 5:56:57 PM MAX WORHATCH, testified in opposition for HB 179, and advised he is a sports, subsistence, and personal use fisherman and a hunter. He stated he is not opposed to benefiting non-profits, but the bill creates a whole new user group for Alaska's resources. He opined that in speaking with Representative Kreiss-Tomkins determined the bill is more for villages and outlying areas; therefore, the problem is that it is a state law and Petersburg's fish and game resources are being used to their full capabilities. He expressed that any sport fish donated or served to schools should come from the highly regulated commercial industry where the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) food approved processing capabilities are required and adhered to. He referred to game and said he is opposed, although it would be nice for Alaska's children to eat deer chops at lunch the problem is that the chain of custody and care of the meat is too vague for him. When it comes to management of the resources involved, he said, it would lead to an increase in harvests which complicates management and may preclude people from harvesting meat for the needs of their family. 5:58:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT clarified that this bill does not increase the amount of bag limits or fish to be taken, in that a person must stay within the Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) rules and regulations. For example, she remarked, she can only take her eligible two King Salmon but can donate one of the salmon to a non-profit. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated her comment is accurate in that the bill does not touch on allocations. MR. WORHATCH argued that there is no annual limit for sport fish, not King Salmon, but for other species an individual is allowed six salmon per day, every day of the year. In that regard, he related, fishermen could fish their daily limit and donate the catch, which could cause an increase in demand around larger communities, such as Juneau, Petersburg, Wrangell, or Ketchikan where local users do not have go out far in the ocean to fulfill their needs. He opined that as more fish are taken out of that area, there will be less for everyone. 6:00:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT pointed out that currently people could fish their six salmon every day and ship it to their family in the lower-48 if they wanted to, it does not change any allocation. MR. WORHATCH responded that he does not know how that works, and opined that even though personal use is not being addressed, a sport fishing Alaskan resident falls under personal use regulations. He said he is unclear as to whether an Alaskan is allowed to send a huge amount of fish out of the state. 6:01:51 PM SETH BEAUSANG, Attorney, Natural Resources Section, Department of Law (DOL), responded there is no clear answer to the question of whether an individual can send their daily catch to the lower-48, in that sport fishing is defined in state statute as taking or attempting to take for personal use, and not for sale or barter. He remarked that in the past, the Department of Law (DOL) has advised that in taking sport caught fish for personal use there is limited amount of sharing allowed. He said whether it would be permissible to share on the above-mentioned scale, there is no clear answer in the law. 6:03:23 PM JERRY McCUNE, Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU), offered that there are a couple salmon donations provided by CDFU, such as a senior salmon day, and donating fish to the school. He mentioned that they have the processors process the fish because the school uses the fish throughout the year; therefore, it can't be home vacuumed packed and must be commercially processed. He opined that while he understand the intent is to allow people to donate game, but on the fish side he is nervous about someone "willy nilly" taking fish out of their freezer at the end of the year and dumping it somewhere. He offered that for any public event wherein CDFU is serving salmon, it has been run through the DEC processor. He said the bill's intent is for a good cause, but he is cautious when it comes to fish. 6:04:48 PM LORINDA LHOTKA, Food Safety & Sanitation Program, Division of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), answered that (indisc.) currently, and they've (indisc.) for many years that a school could receive (indisc.) involving seafood and plants and that would include fish. She said they could receive the fish whole (indisc.) and then process them in a facility (indisc.) permanent space allows them to do that. They could also get fish donated from a commercial processor, she explained. CHAIR STUTES said she heard that one way to donate is through a commercial processor, but could not hear the first way to donate in that the telephone line is muffled. MS. LHOTKA said (indisc.) allow a school food service or a non- profit program to receive the fish whole, gutted, or gilled, and the school could process (indisc.) store at the school, food service, head-start, or a long-term care facility. She added that the regulations allow the school or food establishment to [process] it, or it can come from a commercial food processor. CHAIR STUTES closed public testimony after ascertaining no one further wished to testify. 6:06:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked what prompted the bill. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS responded that there is increased public interest in eating good local foods in Alaska with nutritious foods for schools programs. He said his second motivation is that in some communities, variations of "what is described in this bill may, or may not, already be happening," which speaks to an existing reality in a significant number of Alaskan communities. 6:08:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON pointed out that the witness from DEC said there are regulations where certain facilities can receive these donated goods, and asked what the bill is trying to expand. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS explained that a line in statute is changed by this bill, as currently if an individual wants to donate salmon to a food bank, for instance, it is allowed through DEC regulations. He said the food bank will give the food away without any monetary transactions, but there is an issue with a senior center where people may pay a nominal amount of money for their lunch which disallows that facility to engage in donated fish and game. The bill changes that and, he noted, DEC regulations are not being substantively altered. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said with regard to the senior center example, if a normal meal is $5.00 and on that particular day are eating donated food, couldn't the value of the meal be reduced related to the donated food. 6:10:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that institutions could create an internal policy allowing free meals when serving donated foods. He suggested clear segregated systems offering days of donated foods, and not donated foods. CHAIR STUTES pointed out that fish and game donated meals include other side dishes in the meal wherein costs would be incurred through a senior center, and said she could see the point of this bill. 6:11:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER asked whether the term game includes marine mammals. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS deferred to attorney Seth Beausang. MR. BEAUSANG responded that the definition of game in Title 16 does include marine mammals; however, the taking of marine mammals is highly regulated and generally prohibited by the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, which would come into play. CHAIR STUTES closed public testimony after ascertaining that no one further wished to testify. CHAIR STUTES removed her objection and Version E was before the committee. 6:12:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT moved to report CSHB 179, labeled 29- LS076\E out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 179(FSH) passed from the House Special Committee on Fisheries.