HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES January 31, 1996 5:07 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Alan Austerman, Chairman Representative Carl Moses, Vice Chairman Representative Scott Ogan Representative Gary Davis Representative Kim Elton MEMBERS ABSENT All members were present. COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 175 "An Act relating to sport fish guides; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD Guide/Charter Task Force Proposals PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 175 SHORT TITLE: SPORT FISH GUIDE LICENSING SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) AUSTERMAN, Ivan JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION 02/10/95 303 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 02/10/95 303 (H) FSH, RESOURCES, FINANCE 02/27/95 511 (H) COSPONSOR(S): IVAN 03/13/95 (H) FSH AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124 03/13/95 (H) MINUTE(FSH) 03/29/95 (H) FSH AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124 03/29/95 (H) MINUTE(FSH) 01/31/96 (H) FSH AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124 WITNESS REGISTER AMY DAUGHERTY, Legislative Assistant to Representative Alan Austerman Alaska State Legislature State Capitol Building, Room 434 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4230 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement on CS HB 175. JOHN GOODHAND, Member Sport Fishing Guide/Charter Task Force P.O. Box 218 Ester, Alaska 99725 Telephone: (907) 479-5562 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175. ROBERT WARD, Member Sport Fishing Guide/Charter Task Force P.O. Box 631 Anchor Point, Alaska 99556 Telephone: (907) 235-7014 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CS HB 175. BARRY BRACKEN Kaleidoscope Cruises P.O. Box 1201 Petersburg, AK 99833 Telephone: (907) 772-3736 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CS HB 175. DENNIS KETCHUM, Charter Operator 2443 Second Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Telephone: (907) 225-7774 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175. DONALD WESTLUND, Charter Operator P.O. Box 7883 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Telephone: (907) 225-9319 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175. TERRY HOEFFERLE Bristol Bay Native Association P.O. Box 310 Dillingham, Alaska 99576 Telephone: (907) 842-5257 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175. MYRA OLSEN Rural Alaska Community Action Program (RurAL CAP) P.O. Box 74 Egegik, Alaska 99579 Telephone: (907) 233-2424 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CS HB 175 if subsistence deleted. OTTO FLORSHUTZ P.O. Box 547 Wrangell, Alaska 99929 Telephone: (907) 874-2522 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CS HB 175. BEVERLY MINN 500 Lincoln Street, Number 641 Sitka, Alaska 99835 Telephone: (907) 747-5089 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CS HB 175. KEITH GREBA 504 Monastery Street Sitka, Alaska 99835 Telephone: (907) 747-8309 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CS HB 175. JERRY GUSTAFSON Fish Tales Charters 10293 Old Valdez Trail Salcha, Alaska 99714 Telephone: (907) 488-3004 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175 as written. DARYL OLSON King for a Day Charters 661 Goldmine Trail Fairbanks, Alaska 99712 Telephone: (907) 457-3872 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CS HB 175. PATRICK BOOKEY Luck of the Irish Charters P.O. Box 55194 North Pole, Alaska 99705 Telephone: (907) 488-9890 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175 as written. JOHN MIZE Blue Bayou Charters P.O. Box 80366 Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 Telephone: (907) 452-5272 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175 as written. JOHN CHILDS 2091 Yellow Snow Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Telephone: (907) 455-6028 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175 as written. KEN AULT, Owner Northern Alaska Fisheries P.O. Box 10104 Fairbanks, Alaska 99710 Telephone: (907) 457-4124 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175. BOB ELLIOTT 4582 Elliott Lane Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Telephone: (907) 479-6323 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CS HB 175. DENNIS PETRI 5901 Boondox Drive Salcha, Alaska 99714 Telephone: (907) 488-4589 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CS HB 175. LARRY GROUT P.O. Box 82711 Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 Telephone: (907) 479-4866 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CS HB 175. MIKE KRAMER P.O. Box 73196 Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 Telephone: (907) 479-0860 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175. JOE KILIAN Alaskan Angler Charters P.O. Box 1947 Valdez, Alaska 99686 Telephone: (907) 835-5002 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CS HB 175. RIK VANSTONE P.O. Box 744 Valdez, Alaska 99686 Telephone: (907) 835-5732 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175 as written. JAMES HESTON P.O. Box 331 Valdez, Alaska 99686 Telephone: (907) 835-5155 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CS HB 175. HOWARD SHORT P.O. Box 3284 Valdez, Alaska 99686 Telephone: (907) 835-2205 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175. BRUCE BLANDFORD P.O. Box 789 Valdez, Alaska 99686 Telephone: (907) 835-2073 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175. PAT McKAY P.O. Box 3418 Valdez, Alaska 99686 Telephone: (907) 835-2073 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175. MARK BUCHNER P.O. Box 1103 Valdez, Alaska 99686 Telephone: (907) 835-4435 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175. ERIC STIRRUP, Owner Kodiak Western Charters P.O. Box 4123 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Telephone: (907) 486-2200 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175. KEN LARSON Sanity Charters 1074 Eliz Street North Pole, Alaska 99705 Telephone: (907) 488-2960 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CS HB 175. CATHERINE REARDON, Director Division of Occupational Licensing Department of Commerce and Economic Development P.O. Box 110806 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806 Telephone: (907) 465-2534 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented department's position and answered questions on HB 175. KEVIN DELANEY, Director Division of Sport Fish Department of Fish and Game 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1579 Telephone: (907) 267-2218 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented department's position and answered questions on HB 175. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 96-3, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIRMAN ALAN AUSTERMAN called the House Special Committee on Fisheries meeting to order at 5:07 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Austerman, Moses, Davis and Elton. Representative Ogan arrived at 5:09 p.m. HB 175 - SPORT FISH GUIDE LICENSING CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted that before the committee were HB 175 and the recommendations from the Sport Fish Guide/Charter Task Force ("Task Force"). He said the committee substitute which he had drafted incorporated the Task Force's recommendations into HB 175. Number 0058 REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON moved that CS HB 175, version G, dated 1/29/96, be accepted for the purpose of discussion. There being no objection, it was so ordered. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN advised that he did not plan to move the bill out of committee that evening. Number 0150 REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS expressed concern over the various fees. He said there were three licenses or certificates required, including the business license and two others. He questioned whether the committee substitute addressed that issue. He asked the committee to consider combining licenses. AMY DAUGHERTY, Legislative Assistant to Representative Austerman, sponsor of HB 175, read a prepared statement into the record that explained CS HB 175: "This CS incorporates the final Task Force proposals which we heard last week from Bud Hodson. It also contains the reporting requirements and penalties for not reporting data, which was in the original language of HB 175. "As you recall, the overall point of this bill is and remains to provide some funding to the department to develop and maintain a meaningful and well-needed data base. What the Task Force has provided is a mechanism to receive that data effectively. As presently drafted, the two-tier licensing system will add only one additional piece of documentation, which was one of the biggest concerns raised at the teleconference this interim. Only one piece because the Fish and Game registration will be eliminated with this system. Another huge concern raised was in the area of enforcement at the teleconference. In order to avoid additional costs, this draft does not address enforcement, but we are open to comments in this area." MS. DAUGHERTY added that another outstanding issue was found in the definitions section of the legal document received from George Utermohle. Mr. Utermohle had concerns with definitions in the current draft, she explained, which needed to be addressed in the next one. Number 0370 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted that one of the Task Force members, John Goodhand, was on teleconference and wished to speak for longer than three minutes if the committee did not object. Number 0421 JOHN GOODHAND, Member, Sport Fish Guide/Charter Task Force, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. Although he resided in Fairbanks in the winter, he operated a halibut charter out of Valdez. He had become involved with the Task Force while working with the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC) on limitations on halibut charters in salt water. He said the Task Force had been presented to him as a tool to fight limitations. MR. GOODHAND stated he had a different impression of what the Task Force was going to look into, and a different vision of what was going to happen. This bill was not it. The Task Force, he said, had been asked to both increase public awareness and gather public opinion. However, although technically there had been a unanimous decision, the Task Force recommendations had been voted on at a time when they had received extremely little public input. Mr. Goodhand said no public input of any quantity occurred until October, November and December. Furthermore, the data base being discussed was readily available though the Department of Commerce and Economic Development (DCED), through business licensing. Number 0636 MR. GOODHAND thought that except for participants who were already legal, few people would be added to the data base. He emphasized that CS HB 175 had nothing to do with making anyone legal. However, he thought there definitely was an enforcement problem. He said that if existing laws were enforced, a lot of the problems that people imagined would disappear. Number 0681 MR. GOODHAND reiterated that the data base was already available. Eighty percent of the people involved were owner/operators with state business licenses from DCED. There was a fee there, he pointed out. The Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) had raised their fees 150 percent, with fees on 25-foot vessels raised from $20 to $50 and fees for 50-foot vessels raised to $100 this year. Number 0714 MR. GOODHAND referred to a meeting he had with two CFEC commissioners. When asked what those fees went for, the commissioners had replied, "we give you a triangle and that's all we do for you." Mr. Goodhand suggested redirecting some of that money. He briefly discussed conservation, which this bill would not accomplish; the problem with enforcement; and the problem with asking the government to require insurance. He himself carried insurance, he added, but that was his own business decision. Number 0780 MR. GOODHAND surmised that if the Task Force members could vote again, others besides himself would dissent. He acknowledged that other Task Force members had worked hard, without personal agendas. However, he felt there had been an assumption that "something was going to happen that was going to be put into law." MR. GOODHAND said this was not the correct direction. He already had six or seven licenses. It was complicated for people to determine what was required of them. He said that HB 175 would do no good at all. He suggested it should be labeled as a specialized tax, which was the only benefit he saw from it. If the idea was to get money to the Department of Fish and Game, he said, more money could be raised by increasing sport fishing license fees by a dollar. Number 0931 MR. GOODHAND apologized for not being able to participate in key meetings in October through December. He said he had read 46 letters from the public and talked to 29, out of 39, registered guides in the Fairbanks area. He asserted that approximately 89 percent of the guides in the business, of which 80 percent were owner/operators, were against the legislation. It would do the halibut charter industry no good; it would not identify the players any more than they already were identified; and according to Department of Fish and Game personnel, there was more data available than the department could compile. Mr. Goodhand saw HB 175 as a vehicle that would have "all kinds of things added on" at a future date. Putting that vehicle in motion scared him, he said. He added that the state of Alaska had an opportunity to create a management plan, but it was not happening. If anything, it should be done by region, preferably by the Board of Fisheries rather than the legislature, he concluded. Number 1019 BOB WARD, Member, Sport Fishing Guide/Charter Task Force, testified via teleconference from Homer. Although he did not want to contradict Mr. Goodhand, who represented a different part of the industry and the state, Mr. Ward said that Homer was totally supportive of CS HB 175. [NOTE: MR. WARD'S TESTIMONY WAS INTERRUPTED FOR A COUPLE OF MINUTES DUE TO TELECONFERENCE LINK-UP PROBLEMS] Number 1078 MR. WARD suggested that people purchasing the sport fish operator's license would not have to also purchase the guide license in an owner/operator situation such as that involving 80 percent of the guides in Alaska. He read the bill as permitting a person holding a sport fish operator license to also buy a guide license. It did not say someone was exempt from that, he noted. He thought there was a problem with the language regarding mother ships, which operated in Southeast Alaska. As CS HB 175 read, it required a guide to personally accompany or direct the fisherman. This left a big loophole, he said, for a registered guide on one ship with a number of small boats operating around it, where that guide was supervising or directing the fishermen. Despite these problems, all in all, Southcentral Alaska favored the bill. He admitted they saw it from a different perspective than that of the interior regions. He noted that while attending a meeting of the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), he had talked with staff from the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC), who thought it good for the state to be getting in alignment on the issues with the NPFMC and the halibut charter cap. Number 1207 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN responded that the committee would contact the IPHC to see about getting a letter from them. He commented that the IPHC had said the same thing the previous year, when the legislation was introduced. He requested that testifiers send their written comments or fax them to 465-4956. Number 1236 REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS noted that concern had been expressed from Fairbanks about enforcement. He asked Mr. Ward how he felt about the those concerns. MR. WARD responded that right now, if he were with Fish and Wildlife in Cook Inlet, he would not know of any tools for enforcement. He saw CS HB 175 as a step toward enforcement, enabling an enforcement agent to at least ask for a license and identification. That did not provide 100 percent enforcement, he acknowledged. He added he would like to see vessels marked to indicate they were charter vessels, beyond the commercial triangle currently placed on the boat. As far as the individual and the company, this was a step towards enforcement. Right now, they had nothing. Number 1299 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN informed the committee that Kevin Delaney from the Department of Fish and Game was on teleconference in case there were questions. Number 1320 BARRY BRACKEN, Kaleidoscope Cruises, testified via teleconference from Petersburg, saying he was a relatively new member of the industry. He commended the Task Force and the committee. He thought they were generally moving in the right direction. However, he had a couple of concerns. First, he did not see how CS HB 175, as written, really satisfied the Task Force mission statement, which was to better identify the industry. He felt the statewide registration enacted the previous year, which he assumed would be abolished under this bill, would satisfy the objective of identifying the players and their activities. That, he said, was just a matter of how the registration and accompanying regulations were written. He also expressed concern that with the service operator's license going through DCED, there might be delays in getting information to the managers and enforcers. If DCED had one license, he clarified, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) had the other, he did not see how those data bases would be merged to create a clear picture of who was involved. Number 1407 MR. BRACKEN referred to AS 08.54.610(d), which appeared contrary to the testimony heard from Mr. Hodson at the previous week's meeting regarding the merger of those two licenses. He informed the committee he wished to hear additional comments on that. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN thanked Mr. Bracken and replied that the committee would be looking at trying to consolidate those licenses, as Representative Davis had indicated earlier, to avoid unnecessary paperwork. Number 1477 DENNIS KETCHUM, Charter Operator, testified via teleconference from Ketchikan, saying that five people present there agreed with Mr. Goodhand's testimony. They felt it was a duplication of data already generated by a number of agencies in the state. He suggested a statewide requirement of placing numbers, one foot high and one inch wide on, all charter vessels, duplicating the numbers on the triangles sent by ADF&G; something similar was already required in Southeast Alaska. "Just have a statewide register," he added. Number 1550 DONALD WESTLUND, Charter Operator, testified via teleconference from Ketchikan, agreeing with Mr. Goodhand's testimony regarding duplication. To correlate between ADF&G and business licenses in Southeast Alaska, there was a spot on the Fish and Game registration where the applicant wrote the business license number, Mr. Westlund noted. He referred to CS HB 175, page 3, and asked where the fee was for the fishing service operator's license. Number 1651 TERRY HOEFFERLE, Bristol Bay Native Association, testified via teleconference from Dillingham that the licensing of fishing guides and outfitters was an important issue to consider. He was concerned about the unavailability of information on sport catch of salmon in Bristol Bay. He had found available information to be woefully inadequate and thought CS HB 175 went a long way toward correcting that situation. Number 1710 MR. HOEFFERLE said it was evident, looking at the bill, that there had not been a lot of public input in crafting the legislation. If there had been, he said, there might be provisions addressing local hire within the guiding/tourism industry. He wanted to see the licensing fee schedule, and perhaps other elements, be "tweaked" to encourage the employment of more local people. He suggested a sliding fee schedule reflecting the amount of locally hired employees. Number 1771 MR. HOEFFERLE thought the requirement for insurance could be struck from the bill without being missed. He discussed the "continued reference to guiding subsistence fishermen" in the bill and wondered why it was felt to be necessary. The mention of subsistence fishing in this particular legislation, he said, might offer back-door methods of regulating subsistence fishing down the road. He referred to page 4, item 5(e), which he found confusing, as it seemed to exempt the specific things the bill was designed to address. Number 1854 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN thanked Mr. Hoefferle and said his read on the subsistence part was that a person running a charter boat who took people subsistence fishing would have to meet the same requirements as a person who took people sport fishing. It had no further direction, he added. Number 1874 MYRA OLSEN, Rural Alaska Community Action Program (RurAL CAP), testified via teleconference that the bill, whether by intent or inadvertently, might provide another means of regulating subsistence. If any subsistence fishermen hired guides, she said, there was already a method, within ADF&G, of obtaining data regarding subsistence catches. Ms. Olsen did see a need for more fishing data, especially since ADF&G escapement goals were not reflecting how many sport fish were being caught after the fish were counted as having escaped commercial fishermen. She expressed discomfort at placing subsistence fishing into guiding license requirements. However, she had no problem with the bill if subsistence was deleted. Number 1922 OTTO FLORSHUTZ testified via teleconference from Wrangell, saying he saw a need in the industry to compile information. He expressed a liking for page 3, Section 08.54.610(e), requiring a person to fill out a fish ticket or report any species taken; he asked if that was a correct reading. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked Mr. Florshutz to repeat the question. MR. FLORSHUTZ clarified that if Section 08.54.610 required reporting all fish and shellfish species to ADF&G, with the information then becoming available, he was definitely in favor of the bill. Number 1977 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN responded that the original intent of the bill was to come up with a system to facilitate reporting in all of the fisheries. Number 1986 BEVERLY MINN testified via teleconference from Sitka. She referred to the definition of fish guide services on page 7, lines 15 - 18; she said it needed to be clarified. She thought the bill would either make law-abiding Alaskans feel guilty about taking visiting friends fishing without a guide license or else penalize legal guides, who were already burdened with five government licenses or registrations. She said the bill would have no effect on an important management and law enforcement problem, which was "preventing out-of-state yachts from doing as they please." If the intent of the bill was to better manage the fish resource, she did not feel it would. Number 2050 KEITH GREBA testified via teleconference from Sitka, saying he had a few problems with the bill. He referred to Mr. Florshutz's testimony and said he had the same question in AS 08.54.610, which said a person who held a fishing service operator license shall comply with the reporting requirements adopted by regulation by the Department of Fish and Game. Mr. Greba thought this was double- dipping. There was already a creek survey established a few years previously in Southeast Alaska, required by the state, as well as the requirement of buying king salmon stamps. Now, he said, it was being done twice and he was paying for it indirectly both ways. He disagreed with that portion of the bill. Number 2124 JERRY GUSTAFSON, Fish Tales Charters, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, saying he chartered for halibut and salmon. As written, the bill could create a lot of paperwork and additional fees. He referred to page 6, line 23, subsection (e), and said he could see himself spending a great deal of time filling out forms for different types of fish. Throughout the state, species under concern were being censused, including the Southeast Alaska creel survey and ADF&G's halibut sampling at the docks. The bill would not address the non-charter operators such as private parties, he added. He noted that identification for enforcement purposes already existed with the ADF&G licenses. To make charter boats obvious, he suggested the operators receive a different symbol, instead of a triangle, to hang on their vessels. Mr. Gustafson concluded by saying he was against the bill as written. Number 2214 DARYL OLSON, King for a Day Charters, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, saying he had been a guide for ten years. He said the bill had a lot of good ideas. However, many of them did not apply to his area. As a result, he wanted to see it tailor-fit to certain areas and broken down into regions. He added that much of the bill did not apply to guides in the interior, either. They might need different information in order to have success in managing their resources, he said. Number 2249 PATRICK BOOKEY, Luck of the Irish Charters, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, indicating he operated out of Valdez. He opposed the bill as written. He feared that operators would later have to pay for all the enforcement that would occur. The bill excluded lodges and rental agencies that did not actually provide the guide or the boat, he noted, from all of the paperwork and regulations for operators. If the state was looking to gather data, there was a huge amount of data that would not be included. He referred to pages 6 and 7, subsection (e), and discussed the type of records required. He wondered what "information the department considers appropriate" meant; he suggested it could be a lengthy report. He referred to the three-year exclusion on page 7, subsection (f), which could occur because of a mishap of paperwork or other things. He thought a fine or eliminating a person from the field for three years was utterly ridiculous. For those reasons, he was opposed to CS HB 175 as it was written. Number 2321 JOHN MIZE, Blue Bayou Charters, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, saying he was not sure the insurance was necessary. He felt that might enable the insurance companies to raise the cost because it was required. He referred to Mr. Bookey's previous testimony and said he had the same problems with the bill. As written, he was against it. Number 2364 JOHN CHILDS testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, saying he was against the whole bill as written. He did not see how it could be written better, however. He added that John Goodhand had pretty much stated his views. Number 2384 KEN AULT, Owner, Northern Alaska Fisheries, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, saying he opposed CS HB 175. First of all, it did not say what people were getting. If the intent was to find out who was fishing, the current registration system was adequate. Second, if the intent was to gather information on harvest, ADF&G had that authority and responsibility. Mr. Ault was also concerned about insurance. As a small operator, he purchased insurance after determining whether he had enough clients to make a profit. It would be a hardship to have to buy both insurance and a license before obtaining clients. Number 2477 BOB ELLIOTT testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, saying he had a big game hunting outfitting license. He thought he should not be required to buy two more licenses to take people fishing. A game guide for 36 years, he used a float plane to take clients sport fishing for nonmigratory freshwater species. There were no charter boats in interior Alaska and the far north, he said, and things being discussed in CS HB 175 did not exist there. He suggested the legislation should be done by region. He concluded by saying for his operation, liability insurance for people on the ground was virtually impossible to buy in Fairbanks, although he could and did buy aircraft liability insurance. TAPE 96-3, SIDE B Number 0003 DENNIS PETRI testified via teleconference from Fairbanks that he operated a fishing charter business out of Valdez. He thought CS HB 175 was highly slanted towards lodge owners. He felt that either everyone should be licensed and have to fill out reports, with no exceptions, or they should forget the whole thing. He said he knew there were problems in the saltwater areas. He suggested taking care of those regions and leaving interior Alaska alone. Number 0031 LARRY GROUT testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, saying he did not think the bill should even be here, as there had only been one year of registration with ADF&G as fishing guides. There had been no chance to compile the data from that. He commented on obtaining $300,000 worth of insurance for a three-month operation in the interior, saying it was almost impossible to find insurance. Furthermore, the bill duplicated licensing already done by the U.S. Coast Guard, as well as services already provided by the state. He said the original scope of the Task Force had been completely changed into a thinly veiled limited entry. Number 0089 MIKE KRAMER testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. Although he commended the Task Force and the committee for their work, he thought the bill should be scrapped in its entirety. He said people had been kept in the dark as to Task Force activities in the past year. He thought the bill was ill-considered. Because of the tensions between commercial and sport halibut fishermen, Mr. Kramer also suspected the halibut council might be a driving factor for the bill. While some considered it a back-door attempt to regulate subsistence, he thought the bill was a back-door attempt to regulate and burden guides under the name of reporting. He noted that commercial fish interests were in favor; he was not surprised, as their interests were vastly different from that of sport fish guides. Number 0150 MR. KRAMER referred to the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) and said it had a hold over the inland waters guide industry with the requirement of a triangle; that requirement had been attached as a rider to guide registration legislation the previous year. He still had not heard a satisfactory explanation about that. MR. KRAMER said the word of the evening was "duplicativeness." He did not think the bill would help management of resources by ADF&G, which already had more data than it could compile. He considered the guide registration initiated the previous year, with its simple reporting forms, adequate. The current legislation was burdensome and was a limit to entry. He also thought the bill should have nothing to do with local hire considerations. He said increasing paperwork and costs would drive people out of the industry and certainly prevent new people from getting into it. In general, he said, guides were opposed to it. Number 0246 JOE KILIAN, Alaskan Angler Charters, testified via teleconference from Valdez, stating he had chartered for one year; prior to that, he had done bare boat charters, which were basically rentals. He said his views were the same as John Goodhand's. The bill was unnecessary, was duplicative, and would do nothing towards having an accurate count, because people doing illegal charters would still get by with this system. Number 0284 RIK VANSTONE testified via teleconference from Valdez, saying John Goodhand had hit everything squarely. He referred to Bob Ward's comments about enforcement and said that in Southeast Alaska, boats without the one-foot high numbers, which could be seen for miles, were stopped immediately. He thought that would settle the problem as far as Mr. Ward's concern about recognizing which boats were charters. The way CS HB 175 was written, there were too many problems. He opposed just about everything in it. Number 0322 JAMES HESTON testified via teleconference from Valdez, stating he was against a lot of things, especially the reporting requirements. Like previous testifiers, he feared it would be time-consuming and a "paperwork headache." He felt the current registration provided numbers of charter boat operators. He was concerned about violations resulting in a three-year suspension of license. He asked what that penalty would do for those who operated illegally, as they would not fill out the reports anyway. He also expressed concern about enforcement costs, with a resulting increase of fees and paperwork. He wondered what the intent of the bill was. If someone wanted to know the number of charter boats, they already had that information, he said. Number 0426 HOWARD SHORT testified via teleconference from Valdez, saying, "the longer you read it, the stronger the smell gets." He felt ADF&G would not come up with anything. Halibut were being killed "by the millions of tons" by draggers and nobody raised a squawk, he said, or put any fee on it. But if some poor guy from Florida came to Alaska to catch a halibut, we wanted to know immediately what size, place, shape and color it was. MR. SHORT referred to page 3 and said if a person violated the section about reports, that was a Class A misdemeanor. At the top of the same page, "somebody's in bed with the insurance company," he said. He foresaw insurance rates skyrocketing. He asserted that if he wanted to carry insurance, that was his business and it was between him and his customers, not between him and the state. He further referred to page 5 and asked if aircraft flying people to fishing holes were exempt. Number 0549 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN replied that currently was correct. MR. SHORT asked how an airplane that took off over water was not considered a vessel. He felt if a plane had its floats in the water, it was a vessel. He said that by law, pilots would be required to have this license, yet they were exempt. Number 0598 MR. SHORT concluded that there were more and more licenses. Furthermore, dragging was going to kill the whole fishery. When they were done, there would not be a halibut left. Millions of tons of fish were being killed, he reiterated, and nobody was doing a thing. "Let's do something worthwhile," he added. Number 0633 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded that the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC) dealt with bottom fisheries by-catch and waste; he said he was concerned with that, too. Number 0649 BRUCE BLANDFORD testified via teleconference from Valdez, saying he had been a charter guide there since 1978, running a small, part- time operation. When he began, he was only required to have a U.S. Coast Guard license and a business license. Then they added a vessel license, halibut license and city license. The list just kept growing, he said. He felt the proposed bill created yet another unwieldy bureaucracy, with questionable results. He thought CS HB 175 should be scrapped. Instead, a concentrated effort should be made using existing resources, such as creel surveys, to come up with the data they professed to need. Number 0711 PAT McKAY testified via teleconference from Valdez. He said all his points had already been made about opposing CS HB 175. He explained he was a captain who one day might take people sightseeing and the next, take people fishing, which entailed additional safety requirements. He did not think it was up to the state to enforce those safety issues. He thanked John Goodhand for his direction on CS HB 175 and said the bill could pretty much be thrown in the trash. Number 0779 MARK BUCHNER testified via teleconference from Valdez that he was against the bill as written. Everything he felt had already been stated, he said. He particularly opposed eliminating people for three years for not doing the paperwork and giving them a Class A misdemeanor. Number 0825 ERIC STIRRUP, Owner, Kodiak Western Charters, testified via teleconference in opposition to CS HB 175. He saw it as a back- door approach for an Individual Fishery Quota (IFQ) allocation for sport fish guides. He said he could see how the state would be so eager to have reporting and licensing procedures, because they could then say, "O.K., we've got five years of data and that's what you're doing and that's what you get." It could happen quickly, he added. Number 0870 MR. STIRRUP provided background on the halibut fishery, saying the NPFMC wrestled for seven years with management programs for the commercial halibut fisheries. During that time, participants increased from 1,000 vessels to over 6,000. "They back-doored themselves into an IFQ program," he said. Nobody wanted it; while some areas of the state were for it, most were against it. Mr. Stirrup reiterated this was an attempt, though not necessarily an overt one, to create an IFQ system. He felt the bill would not help. Number 1005 KEN LARSON, Sanity Charters, testified via teleconference from Kodiak, saying he had fished in Prince William Sound since 1984 as a sport fisherman and had recently started a small charter operation out of Valdez. Just going through the license acquisition process was enough to discourage most people, he said. Required were boat licenses, a U.S. Coast Guard master's license, a State of Alaska business license, a City of Valdez business license, a Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission vessel license, the IPHC license, the sport fishing guide registration, the U.S. Coast Guard documentation certification and a personal fishing license. The draft bill was duplicative, he said, and just another piece of paper to comply with. He added that John Goodhand had spoken well on these issues. If he could see some good from the bill, he said, he might support it. However, he felt the information was already covered and that the cure was worse than the problem envisioned. Number 1011 CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, Department of Commerce and Economic Development (DCED), explained that her division was the one that would administer the fishing services operator license under CS HB 175. She added that ADF&G, the lead agency on this legislation, was the department that could address policy questions. She indicated she would talk to committee staff about drafting language issues, including, in particular, clarification of the definitions. Number 1151 MS. REARDON explained that DCED's fiscal note would be greatly influenced by the amount of enforcement responsibility. She referred to page 3, line 29, which specified that a person who violated that section was guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. If, for example, it was the legislature's intent that her staff investigate complaints of unlicensed activity and prepare court cases, that would be a significant consideration for the fiscal note. Number 1192 MS. REARDON addressed business licensing, which she also administered, to clarify what information her division already had about fishing guides. The business licensing law required her to license businesses for each line of business they were in. To do that, there was a lengthy list of Standard Industrial Classifications, known as SIC codes, to choose from. At this time, there was no specific SIC code for fishing guides, which were grouped under a larger fish and game business activity category. It would be possible to create a specific SIC code number for guides, she added. That would probably mean a business would need to obtain a specific license for that code. If they also performed other activities related to game guiding or lodging, they might have to register under a second SIC number. Number 1270 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked Ms. Reardon if DCED had looked at streamlining the permitting system so there was one place where people could go. Number 1303 MS. REARDON replied that business licenses and occupational licenses were in one division, which included all the licenses issued by DCED. They were in one location. As for other licenses from ADF&G or local licenses, she had not developed plans to co- locate them. However, DCED did try to assist new business license applicants by directing them to other places where they may need to get certification. She thought her division could probably do a better job of providing more information at the time of entry into the business profession. Number 1348 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN referred to testimony about the duplication of effort that businesses had to go through in licensing and reporting. He said he was barraged by outfitters and guides about the phenomenal number of licenses they had to obtain. He suggested that the legislature could give DCED direction to conduct a study relating to that. Number 1403 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN expressed concern that DCED would end up being the policeman for guides, as well as for insurance and other issues. He asked Ms. Reardon about the two types of licenses proposed, for guides and operators. MS. REARDON responded that she would compare the fishing operator to the hunting guide outfitter. Those were the ones with the right to contract to sell services. The fishing guide, on the other hand, was comparable to the assistant hunting guide in that they could not contract but could take clients out into the field. Number 1544 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied that was a good comparison. His main question was what kind of regulatory scheme was being proposed. He referred to language in the bill about providing whatever information was deemed necessary. He said he would feel better if they could identify the necessary information and reporting requirements and lock those into statute. He expressed concern that the paperwork would discourage businessmen, or motivate them to become outlaws. Number 1620 MS. REARDON stated her understanding that ADF&G would determine the reporting requirements, not DCED. She thought that was good, because ADF&G would be using the data, and felt she should not have a major role in deciding what data should be presented. Number 1650 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked whether DCED would be the policeman for ADF&G when data was not reported, resulting in denial of a license. MS. REARDON said as she understood it, if reports were not submitted to ADF&G by an operator, then ADF&G would tell her they had not received them. Her division in DCED would then ensure that person did not receive a license for the next three years. One of her recommendations, if the bill went forward, was to grant DCED the authority to revoke the existing license, rather than let the individual continue for the year. Those issues could be resolved easily, she added. Number 1700 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN referred to page 3, line 25, and suggested to Representative Ogan that area was something the committee could look at to determine how much direction to give ADF&G and what kind of report was wanted. Number 1726 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON commented that this conundrum was being faced in a lot of different issues. One segment of the guiding industry was saying, "require insurance, require CPR training, require the two different licenses." Then another segment of the industry was saying, "you're burdening us with paperwork." Some of the requirements were not being imposed by the state bureaucracy or the legislature; rather, the legislature was being requested to look at them. He referred to the SIC codes and asked Ms. Reardon if he understood correctly that one should not be asking DCED for information about fishing guides. Number 1804 MS. REARDON replied that was correct. She could not provide that detail of information about what type of business people were in. KEVIN DELANEY, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), spoke via teleconference from Anchorage, stating Doug Vincent-Lang was also there, on another line. Number 1841 REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS referred to a comment that there was a fee for a guide but not for the other licenses in the bill. He asked Ms. Reardon if that was to be established by regulation. MS. REARDON replied yes. She referred to page 2, the underlined language adding fish services operators to DCED's fee authority, and said she believed that would give her the authority to adopt the regulations. Number 1882 REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS noted there was that question by one of the testifiers. He explained that regulation was an option many times, as opposed to legislation. He asked if, specifically, it was at the discretion of DCED. MS. REARDON replied that within her division, she was entirely funded with program receipts which were licensing fees. For all of her programs, with one exception, they set the fees at the level to cover the costs of that program. Number 1925 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN referred to the duplication of reporting forms and said some areas, such as the National Wildlife Refuge at Kodiak, required operators to fill out reports and file them on the number of fish taken. He asked Ms. Reardon if, in her experience, a form for the National Wildlife Refuge could supplement the ADF&G form. Number 1970 MS. REARDON deferred to Kevin Delaney from ADF&G, saying that question was out of her area of knowledge. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if Ms. Reardon dealt with other reporting requirements that could supplement. MS. REARDON replied that the only reports she received involving fish or game had to do with big game commercial services operations plans. Under the hunting guide statute, she explained, DCED was the recipient of a variety of reports concerning game. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked Kevin Delaney if he had heard that question. Number 2024 MR. DELANEY replied yes. In a case such as Kodiak, he said, ADF&G made full use of the reports given to the Fish and Wildlife Service. In many cases, however, that was somewhat deficient, because the report only covered activities or harvests that occurred on National Wildlife Refuge lands and waters. A fairly significant proportion of people doing business on the refuge also did business off of it. Mr. Delaney added that ADF&G was sympathetic to the issues of duplication and burdening people with paperwork. They had become aware of it, he said, in their efforts to get a comprehensive list of who was operating and where. Each individual land management agency asked for a specific list of information, to serve a specific purpose, which was not necessarily a good list of information to use in managing the sport fish component. It was difficult to coalesce, he said. Number 2109 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if, other than the creel survey, there were currently any requirements for sport fish operators to report their catch. MR. DELANEY responded that ADF&G either required reporting through the creel survey or through the statewide harvest survey. In addition, ADF&G had in past years experimented with log book programs, which they might also do in the future. Other than that, there were no requirements in place right now. He explained the kind of information collected on ADF&G's registration form was more distribution of effort, asking where people intended to operate. When ADF&G went statewide with the form, a significant proportion of people who signed up did so for all of the areas of the state, despite the fact they did not operate in all of those areas. He surmised people were speculating that some day the door may close and they wanted it to close behind them, not in front of them. Now ADF&G was faced with sorting out and surveying those people to find out where they actually did operate. Number 2259 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Delaney how many operators were in Prince William Sound and what the catch level on halibut was. MR. DELANEY replied that by the time he went off the air, he could tell him the number of operators who registered for Prince William Sound. Number 2300 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON responded the question was more or less rhetorical. He expressed curiosity as to whether Mr. Delaney and ADF&G felt comfortable with the data relating to numbers of people operating in a particular place, as well as the numbers of pounds being harvested. Number 2361 MR. DELANEY replied that he could say how many people registered with an intent to guide in Prince William Sound. In addition, by the time ADF&G compiled the information collected the previous summer, he could estimate the total number of halibut taken by guided anglers. However, there were two things they could not do. Without going back through a survey process, they could not estimate how many guides actually operated in Prince William Sound, as opposed to how many registered. They also could not presently assign levels of harvest to any particular guide out of the current data base. Number 2463 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON clarified that he did not wish for Mr. Delaney to go through that process for him; he had wanted to know if Mr. Delaney felt he had the ability to assign those different numbers. TAPE 96-4, SIDE A Number 0001 MR. DELANEY stated there were "three pieces," including the data base of "who, what, where," of particular interest to ADF&G; items pertaining to quality and insurance, about which industry representatives, at least those on the Task Force, felt strongly; and catch reporting, of interest to a segment of the population. He acknowledged there was a registration process, begun in 1995, that ADF&G was learning to use. What they found on the face, he said, was that a large proportion of people who signed up did so for multiple areas. For those areas having a long history, such as Southeast Alaska and Cook Inlet, it was evident that people with no immediate intention of guiding in those areas signed up anyway. The department also found, from the previous year's experience with the registration process, that it was difficult for them to distinguish deck hands from lodge owners. The definitions currently in use to define guides and guiding operations were inadequate. Regardless of what was done, those activities needed to be redefined. Number 0159 MR. DELANEY said the day had passed where ADF&G could proceed without a better understanding of the guiding industry, which was an important component of the state's sport fishery. The fishery provided recreational opportunity and was important economically. He said ADF&G was obligated to provide decision-making bodies with assessments of the size, characteristics of, and geographic distribution of the guiding industry. The department was going to be committed to a data gathering exercise, whether it was through a licensing procedure or a more intensified registration and survey process. Otherwise, they would be without crucial information for decision-making bodies. Number 0248 MR. DELANEY said they needed to go back to the Board of Fisheries to require that the reporting obligations of ADF&G were made mandatory. If ADF&G sent out information forms, they needed to receive that information. Currently, the guide who accompanied an angler in the field was linked to the angler's activities. For example, if an angler violated a law, the guide was also accountable. There was no accountability back to the owner, however, unless it was an owner/operator. A number of people had commented on this over the course of the process, Mr. Delaney said. He added that they were not going to be able to put a dent in illegal guiding that took place under the guise of fishing clubs or outfitting. He referred to yachts in Southeast Alaska and said right now, there was no way of "chasing that down." He was not sure a licensing procedure would help, but at least it would provide another tool. Number 357 MR. DELANEY concluded by saying the pieces included in the draft of CS HB 175 came in part from ADF&G, the industry and interested individuals. The department needed a better information gathering system. Licensing was attractive because it provided the most easy access to people. It could be accomplished through a registration process, but they were going to have to do it one way or another. Number 0419 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted that several people had asked to give second comments. Because of the lateness of the hour, he requested that testifiers put their comments in writing and fax them to 465- 4956 or else wait for a future hearing, as yet unscheduled. Number 0466 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to the stipulation about losing a license for three years for failure to fill out paperwork. He said he would prefer that people lose their licenses for violations rather than for paperwork, if such a stipulation was to be included. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN replied that was a good comment. He suggested the license could be held up if there was no reporting, instead of making it a violation. Number 0518 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to conduct, CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN adjourned the House Special Committee on Fisheries meeting at 6:48 p.m.