HB 173-SPORT FISHING GUIDING SERVICES    1:27:28 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business is HOUSE BILL NO. 173, "An Act amending the termination date of the licensing of sport fishing operators and sport fishing guides; and providing for an effective date." 1:28:00 PM JOMO STEWART, Staff, Representative Steve Thompson; Staff, House Special Committee on Fisheries, paraphrased from the following written sponsor statement: House Bill 173 will ensure the continuation of Alaska's sport fish guide licensing and reporting program. Legislation authorizing the program was passed in 2004 and the program has proven beneficial to both the sport fishing industry and resource managers. With more than 1.8 million clients, 88% of whom are nonresidents, taking more than 460,000 guided fishing trips in Alaska annually, guided sport fishing has become an integral part of Alaska's tourism economy. In fact, a study commissioned by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game estimated that nonresident spending on sport fishing was more than $650 million in 2007. Since the program's inception, an average of 1,670 sport fishing business licenses and 1,981 sport fishing guide licenses have been sold annually. 90% of license holders are Alaska residents and the professionalization of the sport fishing guide industry has benefitted both the industry and the resource. The data collected through the program provides information state and federal managers need to sustainably manage sport fish populations. The program also allows Alaska to receive an exemption from the National Saltwater Angler Registry; a federal program that would begin levying fees for registration in 2011. Recognizing the importance of the program, the Alaska legislature extended the program's termination date for one year in 2010. HB 173 proposes to similarly amend the program's statutory termination language to allow this valuable program to continue serving Alaskans and their valuable fishery resources. 1:31:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to why only a one-year extension is being proposed. MR. STEWART noted that the program has regularly come up for one-year extensions. The program generates a lot of good information, but because of the way the information has been gathered it takes some time to process that information. He related that he has heard that the industry thinks it's good to have the information, but they would prefer that the information be better processed and utilized. Currently, SB 24 is moving through the Senate. The Senate legislation was more ambitious in that it was going to establish a regulatory board that would have oversight over the sport fishing and guide licensing industry. However, SB 24 was placed in a subcommittee for work over the interim. Mr. Stewart recalled that there has regularly been discussion of having a more detailed review of the program and to make recommendations to achieve optimal functioning. However, it just hasn't happened, and thus the legislature has regularly made one-year extensions. 1:33:52 PM CHARLES SWANTON, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), began by relating the administration's support for HB 173 and the program. The legislation allows for basic professional standards for the industry and to collect data on how many are participating in this industry and where, as well as their activities. From a manager's perspective it's always a good thing to know how many people are operating in a particular area, whether it's a harvest or catch activity. Mr. Swanton informed the committee that the legislation enacting the program included a three-year sunset, after which the program was placed on a one-year sunset cycle. 1:35:09 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked if there is any advantage to extending the program for more than one year. MR. SWANTON related his preference for a three-year sunset. In further response to Co-Chair Feige, Mr. Swanton acknowledged that, like any new program, there are issues to be addressed. Some believe that the data being collected isn't to their advantage to being collected, especially when that information is placed in a regulatory format. He then told the committee that there have been improvements to the program. For instance, the saltwater logbook sheets, which were a cumbersome size at 11.5" X 17", have been changed to a standard 8.5" X 11" size. The program is moving from entering the data via key punch to a scannable program for the salt water this year. The hope is to work out any technical problems. The department also plans to institute a scannable spreadsheet for fresh water in 2012. Those improvements, he opined, will result in an improved timeliness with regard to the availability of the data. 1:37:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON questioned whether it's difficult to work on something for which it is unknown whether it will be continued in the next year. MR. SWANTON reiterated that he would like the program to be extended for three years, but related that in his line of work much isn't set in concrete and thus he works with it as best he can. 1:38:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER inquired as to which groups aren't in favor of extending the program for more than a year. MR. SWANTON answered that he didn't believe it's necessarily any one group, per se. For a program with over 3,000 participants there will be those who don't agree with the program for a variety of reasons, including the belief that the state should pay for the program rather than the participants. 1:40:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked whether an extension for more than one year could be achieved if the budgeted amount was reduced to $240,000. To further clarify his question, Representative Herron asked whether the program could be run for $240,000 rather than the expected $400,000. MR. SWANTON responded no, not without substantial decreases in terms of the effectiveness of the program and timeliness of the data. He noted that efficiencies have been gained by distributing the logbooks and answering questions to the 22-plus area management offices throughout the state. However, he acknowledged that adding to area managers' duties is difficult to do without some pushback. Mr. Swanton stated that it would be very difficult for the program to operate with a budget of $240,000. 1:42:19 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON, referring to the fiscal note, inquired as to why there is a $400,000 appropriation for 2013 when the program is scheduled to end in 2013. MR. SWANTON explained that the logbooks are issued in January of a year, and thus it's the beginning of the sequence. Part of the disparity in the money taken in and the cost of the program has to do with the start of the program when registration for a sports fishing guide was voluntary. Therefore, from the outset the cost of the program and the receipts from the guides were disparate with each other. The $400,000, he specified, is the cost to run the program for 12 months, while the $240,000 is the receipts received from the fees from the guides and the owners of the businesses. 1:44:29 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON pointed out that HB 173 doesn't have a House Finance Committee referral. Furthermore, the fiscal note is basically zero because [the appropriation] is incorporated into the governor's 2012 budget. However, if [there's an extension] to 2013, would that result in the need for there to be a fiscal note that requires a House Finance Committee referral, he asked. He further asked if the 2013 $400,000 would be necessary if the program sunsets December 31, 2012. Co-Chair Seaton related his assumption that the House Special Committee on Fisheries, since it's the sponsor of HB 173, fully vetted and determined that it wanted a one-year extension of the program. Therefore, he questioned why there's a two-year fiscal note. MR. SWANTON responded that he can't answer that question other than to offer that in many cases, the cost of the program is merely being projected forward versus the $240,000, an average of the receipts over the past years, that's carried forward. He related his belief that a better job of splitting out the costs between one calendar year and the fiscal year could be achieved, if that is what is requested. CO-CHAIR SEATON remarked that perhaps the sponsor could comment on that matter at some point. 1:46:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled that this issue was before the House Special Committee on Fisheries last year and some of the opposition came from the perception that the fees were going to increase due to a more sophisticated data entry system. However, it appears the costs won't increase and thus may alleviate the aforementioned opposition. MR. SWANTON clarified that the aforementioned opposition occurred two years ago when conceptually the fees were being reviewed in terms of making the program solvent. As one would imagine, there was a fair amount of opposition to that. In further response to Representative Munoz, Mr. Swanton confirmed that under HB 173 the fees will remain the same. Therefore, the fee will remain $100 for a [business owner] or business owner/guide combo and $50 for a guide. 1:48:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ stated that she would like the committee to consider an extension of the program because it has been successful. 1:48:36 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked if would be possible for the fees to decrease. MR. SWANTON expressed hope that over the course of time with scannable logbooks and other foundational changes to how the data is collected that [there would be some savings realized]. However, to suggest what those savings would be at this point is probably problematic and premature. CO-CHAIR FEIGE encouraged Mr. Swanton to review decreasing the fees. He suggested that decreasing the fees may offer a reasonable trade for extending the program to provide Mr. Swanton and his staff certainty in terms of the length of the program. 1:50:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON commented that the fees don't come close to covering the costs of the program now, and she doubted that even if the costs were to decrease that they would decrease even by half. She said she wouldn't believe the fees would be lowered unless the revenues received are more than the cost of the program. Representative P. Wilson then related that she is in favor of renewing the program for three years. 1:51:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE DICK said that although he understands the need for good data to make good decisions, he pointed out that at the same time there are folks who don't want to give out information. He then inquired as to where this logbook information can be found. MR. SWANTON answered that he believes it's on the ADF&G website, but since its redesign he isn't sure exactly where it can be found. He offered to provide the specific site and the requested information to the committee later. 1:52:11 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON pointed out that the committee's backup material includes 2006 and 2007 saltwater charter logbook registration forms. He asked if those are the same pages currently being used. MR. SWANTON recalled that the department's comprehensive review and modifications to the logbook pages occurred between 2008 and 2009. The aforementioned timeframe was when fairly substantial modifications were being made to the saltwater logbook pages. He explained the changes came about after the department travelled to 10 different locations in the state in which the local guides were invited to provide comments regarding how best to accommodate their needs for filling out the logbook sheets in a timely and efficient manner. The suggestions from the guides resulted in the modified logbook sheets in 2010. CO-CHAIR SEATON clarified that the backup material the committee has doesn't include the modified logbook sheets from 2010, rather it has logbook sheets from 2006, 2007, 2008 for salt and fresh water. 1:54:22 PM MELVIN GROVE, President, Prince William Sound Charter Board Association (PWSCBA), began by stating that he has been dealing with this issue for the last three years. Mr. Grove explained that originally, the administration wanted to terminate the sunset of this program altogether. The PWSCBA was opposed to the aforementioned primarily because the guides and sport fishermen have seen no benefit from the data provided. In fact, fewer fish and lower allocation has resulted, and thus the information provides has hurt guides rather than help them. He highlighted the halibut issues in Southeast Alaska as an example. Additionally, there is the cost. The $100 fee provides a guide with a logbook, a sticker for the boat, and a wallet card. Mr. Grove related that the guides aren't opposed to the requirements and filling out the logbooks. However, the guides don't feel they should have to pay for this data, especially if they don't receive any benefit from it. Mr. Grove suggested that if the total cost of the program is divided by the amount of fishermen [PWSCBA] supports, it amounts to about a $.30 increase in the fishermen's licensing fees. He opined that the cost of the program should be derived from the licensing fees rather than allowing the state to make revenue from the fishermen [and guides]. He then encouraged the committee to consider what is spent on the statewide harvest survey, which he estimated to be over $4 per survey sent out when that information has already been gathered from PWSCBA's clients. He suggested that perhaps some of the funds spent on the statewide harvest survey could be shifted to this logbook program. He further suggested reviewing the percentage of funds spent on the program in comparison to the benefits received. Mr. Grove said that he didn't have a problem extending the program, and opined that the one-year extension was offered in order to review the sport fish guide service legislation mentioned earlier. However, he said he didn't believe Senate Bill 24 could be fixed within a year without some serious changes. 1:59:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON recalled her time as a nurse and working at the hospital the day a sport fishing boat that didn't have enough life jackets sunk. In the aforementioned situation, some lived and some did not. The fact that fishermen are required to know CPR and other things is very important, as the aforementioned situation brought to bear that day. She then expressed hope that Mr. Grove could view [the legislation] as a way of helping the whole industry. The counts, she emphasized, are important in order maintain a sustainable fishing industry that includes guides. 2:01:20 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE requested that Mr. Swanton reiterate the value of the information the guides are submitting. MR. SWANTON said that one benefit of the data is that the area management staff responsible for maintaining the health of the stocks has timely and geographically proximate information with regard to catch effort and harvest. Within the guiding industry, the aforementioned information wasn't available prior to this program. He recalled that Mr. Grove referenced other programs, such as the Statewide Harvest Survey that has been a standard program since 1977. He noted that the Statewide Harvest Survey has a fair amount of opponents and critics. In fact, recently the department received information that other places in the country are struggling to collect harvest information from recreational anglers and are considering instituting a mail-out survey very similar to the one [ADF&G] is instituting. He attributed this consideration of Alaska's program to the quality of the data collected from the program. Furthermore, some of the creel clerks, which collect size and harvest information, have been noticed. Mr. Swanton emphasized that because of the size of the state and the diversity of the recreational anglers throughout the state, a one-size fits all program can't be used, and therefore there are multiple programs. He then informed the committee that the Board of Fisheries received and addressed over 200 proposals for the Upper Cook Inlet and for over one-third of those proposals data provided from the logbook program was provided and utilized by the board. 2:04:13 PM KEN LARSON, Owner/Operator, Sanity Charters, began by noting that he is a past president and current secretary of PWSCBA. He said he wanted to offer observations about not doing something like SB 24, but rather extending the sunset through January 2013 with HB 173. He stated that halibut charter operators already have to meet almost all of the requirements included in SB 24, except for onerous exams and adhering to exclusive sport fish guide use areas. The latter of which is the largest problem for Mr. Larson. In fact, he opined that the exclusive sport fish guide use areas will be extremely difficult if not impossible for saltwater guides to adhere to. Furthermore, [sport fish guides] are already guided by their own association of professionalism and conservation rules of the resource. Moreover, sport fish guides have a minimal impact in terms of bycatch and waste issues, such as continually occurs with the commercial fisheries. Mr. Larson opined that the logbooks have shown that the sport fish industry, particularly in terms of halibut, has had a minimal impact on the fishery when one considers sport fisheries, both guided and non guided, account for 10-15 percent of the annual catch of halibut. The big impact players are the commercial fisheries, such as the long liners and the draggers. He informed the committee that the commercial fisheries has a bycatch and waste issue of 13 million pounds annually while the entire sport fisheries is catching 8-9 million pounds annually. Regardless, halibut charter guides have already been reduced by 35-40 percent by implementation of the halibut charter limited entry program this year. The aforementioned has reduced the amount of halibut charters to about 600 boats and it's steadily declining. Furthermore, the one fish, 37-inch rule in Southeast Alaska is going to eliminate more guides and businesses. Therefore, he questioned who is really going to be regulated. He characterized [the halibut sport fish industry] as a dying industry that's overregulated. As was mentioned earlier, the guide license legislation has been worked on since 2004. Historically, 85 percent of the guides have opposed the guide license legislation, and therefore he questioned why such an expensive oversight regulation would be continued. Furthermore, the existing logbook program seems to work well and provides the desired and needed data. 2:07:39 PM MR. LARSON, as an aside, informed the committee that ADF&G's nonresident license revenues and overall revenues have been declining since 2005. Therefore, he opined that costs to guides will drastically increase to fund and implement a guide licensing board. "Extend the sunset, if you must, but use the time to just permanentize a guide services board with a nine- person staff will just cost a whole lot more money. I've never seen a growing government program go down in cost," he remarked. 2:08:25 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON noted that the commercial fishery has an electronic logbook that it has been perfecting over the years. He asked whether such an electronic logbook would generally be available so that the [charter guide] forms could be submitted electronically or is it beyond the current capacity of the charter guides. MR. LARSON acknowledged that the charter guides are aware that electronic submission of forms is probably in the future. However, there are areas that don't have Internet service. For instance, Mr. Larson told the committee that his lodge is 25 miles out of Valdez and just recently received intermittent Internet service. Furthermore, there are many "dead areas" in Prince William Sound where he can't obtain an electronic signal to send in the data, which he assumed is also the case in areas of Southeast Alaska. Mr. Larson surmised that technology will eventually catch up and he doesn't object to [submitting forms electronically]. In further response to Co-Chair Seaton, Mr. Larson related that he often flies his clients from Valdez to his lodge and then hauls them back, and thus sometimes he runs afoul of the seven-day rule of the logbook to get it in the mail. He said the same could happen if he doesn't have adequate electronic service at his lodge. He assumed that the aforementioned would be more critical in Southeast Alaska where there are more dead spots and mainly have fly-out clients. Therefore, there is a concern, he stated. 2:11:28 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE, inviting Mr. Stewart back, announced that some issues have been discovered with the fiscal note and the committee should review it again. MR. STEWART said that he noticed [the issues] with the fiscal note as well, and then pointed out that the legislation has been referred to the House Finance Committee. 2:11:59 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON recalled that when the House Special Committee on Fisheries introduced HB 173 it had a one-year sunset. He inquired as to whether there was much discussion regarding a one-year extension versus a three-year extension. MR. STEWART informed the committee that HB 173 mirrors SB 91, which is a one-year extension. There was no discussion regarding an extension longer than one year as folks seemed satisfied with it pending other possible activities. [HB 173 was held over.]