HB 229-BIG GAME COMMERCIAL SERVICES BOARD  4:40:31 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 229, "An Act relating to activities, including violations and penalties, under the supervision of the Big Game Commercial Services Board." 4:41:03 PM MICHAEL PASCHALL, Staff, Representative Eric Feige, Alaska State Legislature, read from a prepared statement, as follows [original punctuation provided]: HB 229 was introduced at the request of members of the Big Game Commercial Services Board addressing changes to rules regarding the administration and licensing of guides. Big game guides are regulated under statute and regulation and oversight is provided by the Big Game Commercial Service Board. The proposed changes provide more flexibility in where guides can work when contracting with another guide, allows a registered guide-outfitter more flexibility in the use of class-A guides, and changes penalties for minor procedural violations by guides. Section 1 of the bill allows registered guide- outfitters to be employed by another registered guide- outfitter versus contracting with a client to provide services either as a registered guide-outfitter in a certified area or as an a class-A assistant guide anywhere in the state. Section 2 allows the registered guide-outfitter to work with those they employ to supervise hunts. Currently the contracting registered guide-outfitter must "stop-in," if only to shake the hand of a client, at a camp to comply with statute. Section 3 adds a provision to allow the board to suspend or revoke a license for conduct involving unprofessionalism, moral turpitude, or gross immorality. 4:42:30 PM MR. PASCHALL continued reading from his prepared statement [original punctuation provided]: Section 4 standardizes penalties for violations of wanton waste, hunting on same day airborne, or providing services while license suspended or revoked. Section 5 lessons (sic) the penalty for unspecified violations to allow the board the option to suspend a license instead of a mandatory suspension. The concern expressed by the board is a minor violation, such as a paperwork violation, would result in a mandatory suspension of a license. Section 6 conforms AS 12.55.125(e) (Sentencing and Probation) with the changes in Section 4. Section 7 completes the changes in Section 4 by removing language no longer needed. 4:43:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER requested a copy of the section by section analysis of the bill. CO-CHAIR SEATON asked for clarification on the changes in the role of the master guide versus an assistant guide-outfitter. He asked for the expanded role of the assistant guide-outfitters and to address the assistant guide-outfitters' ability to operate independently. MR. PASCHALL was uncertain whether he was referring to Section 2 of the bill or changes in employment. CO-CHAIR SEATON answered that he was interested in the changes to supervision in the field. He wondered whether the changes would make assistant guide-outfitters more like a full or master guides. MR. PASCHALL answered that the current statute only requires the licensed guide to be present at some point in the field. He related that meeting at the airport would not qualify but if weather prevented the guide from meeting the client in the field that the guide would be in violation of the statute. This bill would not give any additional authority to class-A assistant guide-outfitters. 4:46:03 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON asked for clarification on whether the licensed master guide would have the same level of accountability for any violations that happen if he/she never observes the client in the field. MR. PASCHALL answered yes. He pointed out that the supervision requirement does not change under HB 229, but offered to obtain an opinion on the scenario described. The bill would address guide-outfitters placing themselves in the field with the client once during the hunt. 4:46:53 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON expressed interest in knowing whether the licensed/master guide is responsible for the client's actions absent any field contact. 4:47:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as to whether the reason for HB 229 is that the master guide was not contacting anyone in the field. MR. PASCHALL answered that under current statute the registered guide-outfitter must travel to the field and meet with the client in the field. The current statutes do not require the guide-outfitter to supervise the hunt or the camp. The guide- outfitter merely needs to be present at some point in the field. This, it would be sufficient to fly in, shake a client's hand or eat dinner with him/her since the bill does not pertain to supervision. He said the requirement in statute creates a huge economic issue for the guides. He also suggested that the guides may be able to better answer this. 4:48:39 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE interjected that the supervision can be provided by the assistant guide-outfitter's use of a satellite phone in communication with the master guide. This bill would delete the requirement for the master guide to be present in the field. He clarified that the master guide can provide communication to guides working under him/her, but he would not need to be physically present. MR. PASCHALL, in response to Representative P. Wilson, agreed that the presence or lack of presence is a business issue between the master guide and his employees and the service the guide-outfitter provides to the client. However, to meet the actual statute the master guide needs only to make contact. Thus, the master guide could potentially see 10 people in a day and still meet the statutory requirement. 4:50:01 PM DON QUARBERG related he is a 35-year Alaska resident who has never been a guide and does not intend on conducting any guided hunts. He acknowledged the importance of the economic benefits of guiding to Alaska and contributions of nonresident hunters to big game management in Alaska. He related he has served as chair of the local fish and game advisory committee in Delta Junction. He attended a work session with five local guides as they reviewed DNR's concession. Additionally, he has attended the Alaska Professional Hunters conference in Anchorage, and the Big Game Commercial Services Board meeting with respect to the DNR's concession. He found one common concern that prevails among all of the user groups is to revisit the statutes that regulate this industry. He offered his belief that HB 229 represents a good start in this process. He encouraged members to support HB 229. In response to Representative P. Wilson, he said he attended the meetings due to his involvement in the Delta Junction Fish and Game Advisory Committee. He explained he did not represent the committee, but attended the meetings to become more informed about the big game guide-outfitter industry. 4:52:59 PM VIRGIL UMPHENOUR, Master Guide, related that he has lived in the area since 1971 except for a period of time he spent in Nome. He stated that he is a master guide and the vice-chair of the Fairbanks Fish and Game Advisory Committee. He has previously served on the Board of Fisheries. He agreed with Mr. Quarberg that HB 229 is a good first start to clarify the statutes. He referred to Section 5 of the bill. Under current statutes, the court must suspend a guide's license for a year a guide if he/she makes an administrative error. 4:54:51 PM MR. UMPHENOUR referred to Section 1 of the bill. He explained that currently a camp must be run by a class-A assistant guide- outfitter or a registered guide-outfitter, or master guide who is licensed for the game management unit. Currently, guide- outfitters are restricted to only three guide areas in the state. He explained the proposed change would allow a master guide or registered guide-outfitter who contracts with clients to hire another registered or master guide-outfitter to run a camp, including assistant guide-outfitters without being registered in the specific game management unit (GMU). He reiterated that under current law a guide-outfitter is restricted to three GMUs. He characterized this as badly-needed statute changes to allow guide-outfitters to be treated fairly and equally under the law. He offered his belief that guide- outfitters are not treated fairly under the U.S. constitution. 4:56:27 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON inquired as to whether the effect of HB 229 is to eliminate the three unit GMUs so a master guide can employ someone to operate a camp. MR. UMPHENOUR answered no. He explained he operates in GMU 21, 22, and 24, in the Seward Peninsula, the Koyukuk National Wildlife Refuge, and the Nulato Hills. Under the proposed bill, if he wanted to work with a friend who is a guide-outfitter who operates in the Alaska Peninsula, even though Mr. Umphenour has not been certified for GMU 9, he could work as a class-A assistant guide-outfitter for that contracting guide and supervise a camp. He clarified that this bill would allow him to be an employee but not be the contracting guide-outfitter. Instead, he would act as a class-A assistant guide-outfitter for the contracting guide-outfitter. He would be working under the supervision of the contracting guide-outfitter, he said. 4:58:06 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON inquired as to what happens with respect to supervision if the contracting guide is not required to meet with clients in the field and provide direct supervision or field supervision. He wondered if under the scenario just described, that essentially it would allow him to operate as the contracting guide-outfitter. MR. UMPHENOUR answered no. He explained that the contracting guide-outfitter would be responsible for any violations that would occur and for any other guide statutes. The licensed guide-outfitter would be responsible for any violation that occurred, but the assistant guide would not be responsible. He maintained that this bill does not address supervision. It would allow a guide-outfitter to work for another guide- outfitter in his/her GMU unit as an employee. 5:00:01 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON surmised then that the contracting guide- outfitter could contact his employee and clients by satellite phone and would never have to appear in the field. He said this seems confusing and asked for further explanation. MR. UMPHENOUR further explained that the regulation under 12 AAC 75.250 refer to participation in the hunt, and reads: "A registered guide-outfitter who contracts a guided hunt, in which participating in a hunt is required in statute should be in communication either personally or through an agent with an assistant guide who is in the field with the client at least once during the hunt." Thus, the guide-outfitter must either show up in person or talk to the client on the satellite phone. 5:01:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked for examples of the administrative error that currently requires the suspension of license. MR. UMPHENOUR answered that a guide-outfitter must fill out a hunt record for each client. He further explained that the guide-outfitter fills out the top portion out and signs it prior to the hunt. In 2008, when the ADF&G made changes and printed the form, it did not include any instructions along with the form. The department also removed the signature block for the contracting guide to sign and date to certify the information pertaining to the client's name, license name, big game tag number, and harvest ticket number, and guide-outfitter accompanying the client in the field. The bottom portion of the form lists the field dates, the species of game hunted, the date each animal was taken, the GMU, and specific details on the game taken. He expressed concern that only one signature block was available on the form which by regulation must be signed prior to the hunt. The signature implied the guide-outfitter approves of all the information on the form, yet the guide-outfitter could not ascertain the details of the kill since he/she was signing the form prior to the hunt. The form also specified the guide-outfitter will be prosecuted for unsworn falsification if any information on the form is incorrect. 5:05:45 PM MR. UMPHENOUR reiterated the frustrations of having a form that makes it impossible for the guide-outfitter to accurately complete. He recalled a master guide-outfitter currently being prosecuted for this very thing. He referred to the hunt record and other issues that have arisen when clients carry the client copy instead of the field copy. 5:06:55 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE indicated that his office would work on this during the legislative interim. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she would like more information on the process to become a master guide-outfitter and assistant guide-outfitter. [HB 229 was held over.]