SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 452(RES) "An Act relating to licensing and regulation of sport fishing operators and sport fishing guides; relating to licensing and registration of sport fishing vessels; authorizing the Department of Fish and Game and the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission to release records and reports to the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Public Safety; and providing for an effective date." This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance Committee. Co-Chair Wilken informed the Committee that this legislation would establish minimal licensing requirements and fees for two types of sport fishing guide licenses: sport fishing services operator licenses and sport fishing guide licenses. He stated that Version 23-LS1619\W and its accompanying fiscal notes are before the Committee. JON BITTNER, Staff to Representative Cheryll Heinze, the bill's sponsor, informed the Committee that the sponsor is presenting this bill at the request of the Department of Fish and Game. He noted that the bill would create two new licenses and requirements. The fee for a sport fishing guide license, he noted, would be $50 annually and the sport-fishing operator's license would be $100 annually, and he clarified that were a person to provide both services, the fee would be limited to $100. Continuing, he stated that the sport-fishing guide licensing requirement mandate the licensee to have minimum liability insurance, first aid training, and conduct certain "minimum" reporting requirements. Mr. Bittner pointed out that Members' packets contain a chart titled "Regulations after passage of HB 452" [copy on file] that depicts current reporting requirements and those that would be implemented were this legislation adopted. He stated that currently, with the exception of minimal reporting requirements in the Kenai River Management area, no reporting is required for guided freshwater fishing. He noted that the freshwater fishing report requirements that would be established by this bill would provide the Department with "more useful information" and would align with current saltwater fishing report requirements which include such things as the number of hours fished, the number and types of fish caught, and the general location fished. Mr. Bittner stated that Version "W" differs from the previous version of the bill, CS HB 452(FIN)am, Version 23-LS1619\U.A, in regards to sport guide vessel licensing registrations. This language, he noted, is located in Section 2, subsection Section 16.05.395 and Section 3, subsections (a), (b), and (c) on page two of the bill. He summarized that this language would move sport guide vessel registrations from the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) to the Division of Sport Fish, Department of Fish and Game in order to "consolidate information" and to streamline the process by having all the sport guide information in one State agency. He noted that the $20 vessel registration fee currently charged by CFEC would be eliminated were this legislation adopted and the guide registration fee enacted. SARAH GILBERTSON, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game, commented that the sport fish industry is important as it generates approximately $6 billion in revenue a year. She stated that currently, while individuals participating in the sport fishing industry, must register with the Department of Fish and Game, there are no registration fee, license, insurance, medical, training or reporting requirements in place. This legislation, she continued, would establish annual $50 sport fish guide license fees, annual $100 operator license fees applicable to the owner of a business who employs guides, or an annual $100 combination guide/operator license. Ms. Gilbertson stated that this legislation would also allow the Board of Fish to establish reporting guidelines that would provide the Department and the Board of Fish "better information" with which to manage the fishery. This information, she shared, would include such things as where the guides are operating, how many and what fish are being caught, and the frequency of the operations. She stated that rather than implementing "onerous and burdensome" reporting requirements, the Department's desire is to make them flexible and area appropriate. Ms. Gilbertson stated that the bill, during its numerous committee hearings, has been amended to best serve the desired objectives and has garnered wide spread support from numerous sport fishing charter boat and guide associations in Sitka, Homer, Kenai and other areas. She noted that the language in Version "W" which moved vessel registration to the Division of Sport Fish within the Department of Fish and Game and eliminated the vessel fee was "the icing on the cake for a lot of folks." Senator Dyson asked the difference between an operator and a guide. ROB BENTZ, Deputy Director, Division of Sport Fish, Department of Fish and Game explained that an operator is the owner of a business that provides boats and employs guides. He stated that, particularly in Southeast Alaska and Cook Inlet, there are numerous one-person businesses in which the owner owns the boat, owns the business, operates the boat, and serves as the guide. This person, he stated would be considered a sport fish guide. Senator Dyson asked the difference between a charter business operation and a situation in which a guide accompanies a client in a boat. Mr. Bentz stated that the definition of a guide in a charter business "is a person that accompanies and personally assists other people during any portion of the fishing trip." This, he attested, is different from a transporter or an outfitter who just provide transportation services from one point to another. Senator Dyson asked whether a person who owns and operates a boat but does not provide any fishing assistance to a client would be classified as a guide. Mr. Bentz responded yes, as he is providing a charter vessel and is accompanying the client. He noted that there is also such a thing as a "bare boat charter" in which people rent a boat and fish unaccompanied by a guide. Senator Dyson asked for further clarification regarding a situation in which an accompanying owner/operator of a vessel is on the boat but does not provide assistance to a client who is fishing. Mr. Bentz expressed that were an owner/operator of a boat to take a client out fishing but not provide them "assistance in any way," he would be considered the operator rather than a guide, "if he had someone down there to assist them down there on the deck." Senator Dyson asked at what point, a trip, with a guide accompanying clients on a boat, would be recognized as a charter operation. Mr. Bentz responded that when a guide accompanies clients on a boat trip, it would be considered a chartered fishing operation the instance they begin to fish. Continuing he stated that were the trip to simply involve whale watching, and not engage in sport fishing, it would not be considered a chartered fishing trip. Senator Dyson asked in what situation a boat with a guide and fishing clients would be required to adhere to United State Coast Guard charter license regulations. Mr. Bentz responded that anytime "a paying client is onboard a vessel and they are being accompanied by an operator of that vessel," that operator is required to possess a United States Coast Guard operator's license. He noted that the size of the boat is not a factor in this requirement. Senator Dyson understood therefore that were a client to operate, for example, an eight-foot boat, an operator license would not be required; however, were a guide to accompany that client on a vessel that the client operated, the guide would be required to have a Coast Guard license. Mr. Bentz responded, "to my knowledge, yes." Senator Olson asked whether this legislation is being presented as a result of a problem with the current management of the sport fish guide industry. Mr. Bentz responded that one reason for the legislation is to assist in addressing the current lack of information regarding the impact on a fishery and the number of people fishing, particularly in remote freshwater areas He stated that while this might not be classified as a problem, it is difficult to track overall usage. He also noted that, as a result of the lack of information, the Department might recommend more conservative regulations than necessary to the Board of Fisheries. Senator Olson opined that the Department is currently experiencing funding shortfalls which are serving to reduce fishery management. He voiced concern that more staff and more funding would be required to manage the licensing process, and as result, the Department's efforts might be further negatively impacted. Ms. Gilbertson responded that the costs of the license program and subsequent data analyses have been analyzed and that the proposed program would be receipt-supported. The fee structure proposed, she continued, would provide sufficient funding to implement the program. She referenced the Division of Sport Fish fiscal note # 2 and noted that while the analysis specifies that four new full-time positions and one new part-time positions would be required, the full-time positions would be staffed by shifting four Department funded employees, who currently process the Saltwater Log books reports, to staff the needs of this proposal. The receipts generated from this legislation, she attested, would then pay these people's wages. Therefore, she declared, this proposal would be increase staffing by only the one part-time position. Ms. Gilbertson noted that it was made known during the bill's hearing in the Senate Resources Committee that increasing the scope of State government is not a desired end result. She shared that shifting vessel registration to the Division of Sport Fish was supported by numerous entities as it would increase efficiency in government and create "one stop shopping." Senator Olson asked how these fishing management changes might affect subsistence fishing issues in areas under federal management. Mr. Bentz responded that this legislation would serve to alleviate a lot of the problems that have arisen during the last few years as the federal government, the Board of Fish, the Department of Fish and Game and State would have better information as to who is operating where and what they are doing. This, he stated, would enable better management decisions to be made. Senator Olson respectfully argued that many problems have arisen due to the dual management scenario in which federal entities manage one area and the State manages another. The current situation, he declared presents hardships to residents who are therefore "double hand-cuffed." He stated that, in his experience, "the route" is more complicated. Mr. Bentz agreed that this legislation would not simplify the situation, as he noted there is the chance of controversies when there are "two, in some cases, conflicting regulatory regimes." He stated, however, that the information this legislation would provide would benefit State and federal agencies. Senator Olson referenced language pertinent to the reporting requirements as specified in Section 6, subsection 16.40.280(b) on page seven, lines 19-23 that read as follows. (b) A person who holds a license issued under AS 16.40.260 or 16.40.270 shall comply with the reporting requirements in this section and reporting requirements adopted in regulation by the department or board. The department and the board may adopt by regulation requirements for timely submission of reports required under this section or under regulation adopted by the department or board. Senator Olson asked what consideration would be provided to individuals in remote settings who experience difficulties in submitting reports due to such things as infrequent or poor mail service in respect to fines and other penalties. AT EASE 10:18 AM / 10:18 AM Senator Olson asked whether this language could be eliminated or modified. Mr. Bentz clarified that the intent of the language is to allow the Department to develop reporting and guide regulations on a "least intrusive, less problematic" area-by-area basis. AT EASE 10:19 AM / 10:19 AM Mr. Bentz declared that the regulations would be developed, by area, with input from the guides and would be user friendly. He stated that the Board of Fish, whose meetings are open to the public, would formulate reporting and other guidelines dependent on an area's circumstances. Ms. Gilbertson reiterated that the Department would continue to work with the industry to address the logbook reporting concern, and she noted that recently, the Department decided to waive the logbook submittal requirement when periods of inactivity occur. She stressed that there is no intent to place "a burden" on operators, and that the intent is to gather "better information" with which to better manage the resource. Senator Olson noted that the reporting submittal issue could be a burden to anyone anywhere in the State as oftentimes, weather could hinder the submittal for weeks at a time. He asked for industry testimony in this regard. JIM PRESTON, Boat Charter Owner/Operator, stated that the timeliness of reporting and the obligation to maintain logbooks is an industry concern. He disclosed that he had been fined $200 last year for not submitting his logbook when his boat was out of commission and, during that period of inactivity, he had forgotten to remit his logbook. However, he acknowledged that, as a result of industry and Department discussions, the Department has changed the reporting requirement concerning periods of inactivity. He noted that the Department has also specified that, were this legislation enacted, there would be more industry/Department collaboration regarding regulations. He stated that guides in remote areas of the State often have to depend on air taxi pilots, ferry personnel and others to assist in getting their logbooks reports to the Department. In summary, he voiced the understanding that the Department would, through cooperative efforts, address the areas of industry concern. Mr. Preston noted that he was speaking on behalf of operators in Homer and other places, as some of them were unable to participate due to being unable to access their local Legislative Information Office. Senator Olson asked whether Mr. Preston would support eliminating or changing language in Section 6(b) that pertains to reporting requirements. He noted that while he understands that additional information would be helpful to the management of the resource, the penalties for non-reporting or tardy reporting are of concern; especially when someone is very busy at the peak of their season. Co-Chair Wilken understood that language in Section 6(b) addresses these circumstances by allowing for "timely submission of reports required under this section or under regulation as adopted by the department or board." Therefore, he understood that regulations would consider the circumstances and accommodate them. Mr. Bittner concurred. Mr. Preston informed the Committee that he is also a member of the advisory panel of the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council. He stated that the Council views logbook data as a way to verify and justify information pertinent to harvest. He stated that the validity of the information is crucial to the legitimacy to the data. Continuing, he noted that the Department currently relies on the data provided by the saltwater reporting logbooks. He stated that were this legislation adopted, it would provide the industry legitimate standing before the Board of Fish, which, he declared, is currently not the case. Therefore, he stated that this legislation would provide the industry the ability to work with the Board to develop area appropriate regulations. Senator Olson reiterated the importance in accommodating remote area guiding operations. Senator B. Stevens understood that there are many requirements that must be met in order to obtain a sport fishing guide license including such things as being a citizen of Canada, the United States, or Mexico; meeting first aid and six-pack license requirements; and submittal of the proper fees. Therefore, he asked what additional requirements must be met as referenced in Section 6, subsection (a)(6) on page six, lines five and six that reads as follows. (6) satisfies all additional requirements adopted in regulation by the Board of Fisheries. Mr. Bentz explained that this language would allow additional things to be adopted as required by the adoption of new proposals by the Board. Senator B. Stevens voiced that with the exception of the vagueness of this language, which would allow "a non-legislative institute to create the guidelines for the qualifications of a license," he supports the legislation. Senator Dyson asked Mr. Preston whether a licensed fishing guide, employed by Mr. Preston and operating one of Mr. Preston's boats, would be required to be individually licensed by the Coast Guard. Mr. Preston affirmed that anytime an individual is operating a boat available for hire and has paying passengers, he is required to have either a United States Coast Guard license, commonly referred to as "a six-pack license," or a Master's License. Senator Dyson asked whether the fact that the client, rather than the guide, is operating the vessel would have a different bearing on the Coast Guard license requirement. Mr. Preston stated that he would defer to the Coast Guard to provide an answer to the question. Co-Chair Green asked whether the licensing guideline parameters Senator B. Stevens was concerned about might be addressed in other State statutes. Mr. Bentz responded that the State's codified regulations do address future license changes; however, he stated that the language in question is specific to a Board of Fisheries proposal that might be adopted and would modify requirements. He stated that the Board does operate under public process guidelines. Ms. Gilbertson pointed out that this legislation, at the recommendation of the Alaska Outdoor Council, is scheduled to terminate on January 1, 2010. Therefore, she noted that were it determined that the program is not beneficial to the industry, it could be eliminated. She stated that the Department supports the proposed timeline, as the intent of the program is to enhance the industry. Senator B. Stevens voiced appreciation for Senator Green's efforts to address his concern. However, he noted that while he continues to question the Board's ability to dictate requirements, he would not prevent the bill from moving forward; especially in light of the fact that the sport fish industry supports the bill. Senator Hoffman asked whether the sport fish industry in Southwest Alaska has testified in regard to this legislation. Mr. Bentz expressed that the progress of this legislation has been continually updated and distributed to Department area offices and to groups and lodges throughout the State. He noted that while feedback was received from the Fairbanks and Chitna area, he could not recall any comments being received from the Southwest region of the State. Senator Hoffman asked whether the Department could anticipate whether Native Corporations in the Southwest region of the Sate would support this legislation. Mr. Bentz replied that he could not answer on their behalf. Senator Olson asked, were this legislation enacted, that follow- up reports be provided to the Legislature; particularly in regard to the implementation of the reporting timelines. Senator Dyson reported a conflict of interest, as he is involved in the sport fish guiding industry. Co-Chair Green moved to report the bill from Committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, SCS CS HB 452(RES) was REPORTED from Committee with $3465,600 fiscal note #2, dated March 16, 2004 from the Sport Fish Division, Department of Fish and Game; zero fiscal note #3, dated April 1, 2004, from the Department of Public Safety; and negative $92,000 fiscal note #4, dated May 6, 2004 from the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, Department of Fish and Game.