HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE March 3, 1993 8:00 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Bill Williams, Chairman Representative Bill Hudson, Vice Chairman Representative Con Bunde Representative Pat Carney Representative John Davies Representative Joe Green Representative Jeannette James Representative Eldon Mulder Representative David Finkelstein MEMBERS ABSENT None COMMITTEE CALENDAR HB 172: "An Act relating to the wildlife conservation tag and to entry onto state game and wildlife sanctuaries, state game refuges, state range areas, and fish and game critical habitat areas; and providing for an effective date." CSHB 172 (RES) MOVED FROM COMMITTEE WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION Committee discussion of Subcommittee's recommendation on Mental Health Lands issues. WITNESS REGISTER Representative Bill Williams State Capitol, Room 128 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Phone: 465-3424 Position Statement: Prime Sponsor of HB 172 David G. Kelleyhouse, Director Division of Wildlife Conservation Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Phone: 465-4190 Position Statement: Supported HB 172 Geron Bruce, Special Assistant Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Phone: 465-4100 Position Statement: Addressed amendments to HB 172 Nancy Lethcoe, President Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association P.O. Box 1353 Valdez, Alaska 99686 Phone: 835-4300 Position Statement: Supported HB 172 John George Alaska Outdoor Council 9515 Moraine Way Juneau, Alaska 99801 Phone: 789-0172 Position Statement: Supported HB 172 Mary Forbes, Volunteer Alaska Environmental Lobby 419 6th Street Juneau, Alaska 99802 Phone: 465-3366 Position Statement: Supported HB 172 Tom Garrett Alaska Visitors Association 234 Gold Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 Phone: 586-2480 Position Statement: Supported the motivations of HB 172, and suggested amendments PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 172 SHORT TITLE: WILDLIFE CONSERVATION TAG AND FEE BILL VERSION: SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) WILLIAMS,Phillips,Larson, Davies,Bunde,Finkelstein,Porter,Ulmer,James TITLE: "An Act relating to the wildlife conservation tag and to entry onto state game and wildlife sanctuaries, state game refuges, state range areas, and fish and game critical habitat areas; and providing for an effective date." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/22/93 413 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 02/22/93 414 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE 02/24/93 445 (H) COSPONSOR(S): JAMES 03/03/93 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 93-24, SIDE A Number 000 The House Resources Committee was called to order by Chairman Bill Williams at 8:07 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Williams, Bunde, Carney, Davies, Green, James, Finkelstein and Mulder. Representative Hudson was absent at the call to order. HB 172: WILDLIFE CONSERVATION TAG AND FEE CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS announced the meeting was being held by teleconference with additional sites in Anchorage and Valdez. He said the committee would first consider HB 172, and then discuss the recommendations of a subcommittee chaired by Representative Hudson, which met to consider the possible introduction of a Resources bill on the Mental Health Lands issue. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 172, explained that the bill creates a program which would allow, and in some cases require, non-consumptive users of Alaska's wildlife to help pay for management of the resources. The fee would purchase a tag or pin that would support wildlife programs, as well as entitle the purchaser to apply for admittance to several specific viewing areas. Walrus Islands and McNeil River would require the tags initially, he explained, and added the program would otherwise be voluntary. It was hoped that with a small fee, large numbers of people might be enticed to purchase the tag voluntarily, he stated. Number 100 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted the fiscal note accompanying HB 172 was based on a fee of $15. In response to concerns raised after introduction of the bill, he drafted five amendments to resolve those concerns, and told the committee that each amendment would be explained and considered after testimony on the bill was taken. He noted amendment one would exempt the Stan Price Bear Sanctuary in Southeast Alaska from the entry fee requirement, because that facility is jointly managed with the U.S. Forest Service, which will not allow an entry fee. Number 128 DAVID KELLEYHOUSE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (ADF&G), offered strong support for HB 172. He explained that a similar bill had been introduced during the 17th Legislature. The wildlife tag and fee, he said, would provide a way for those who did not hunt or fish to contribute to wildlife management. House Bill 172 would provide a stable funding source, he added, by creating a user-pay funding base. The ADF&G hoped to market the program to tourists who view wildlife. He suggested the fee amount be set within the ADF&G rather than being established in statute. Number 185 MR. KELLEYHOUSE recommended provisions be made to exempt or waive the fee for groups like school children who visit wildlife areas. He noted HB 172 would allow those with valid hunting or fishing license to access the resources without purchasing the additional tag, and anticipated net revenues of $60,000, which he called a modest estimate, based on a $15 fee. If sales to tourists were strong, he said that would allow expansion of the program. Number 200 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted Representative Bill Hudson had joined the meeting. Number 205 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE indicated his strong support of individual consumers contributing to management of the resources. He said more broad participation should be encouraged, and asked Mr. Kelleyhouse his views on how this might be accomplished. Number 219 MR. KELLEYHOUSE noted the fee was for facilities that were actually staffed, and personnel costs made those facilities more costly to maintain. He added tourism was anticipated to be a substantial source of revenue. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented that a pin would be a good idea to increase visibility of the program and encourage sales. Number 235 GERON BRUCE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, ADF&G, explained that some of the amendments offered were technical in nature, specifically amendments three, four and five, which were developed after hearings were held on a companion bill in the Senate, during which questions arose regarding the subsistence use of resources, and potential penalties for not paying the tag fee. Those questions were addressed, he explained, in amendments three and five, respectively. Amendment four, he said, established guidelines to allow the ADF&G discretion to adopt regulations setting the fees and other administrative factors. Number 286 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE referred to amendment number five, and Mr. Kelleyhouse's statements that those holding valid hunting or fishing licenses would not need to purchase the tag. He asked whether it might be assumed that subsistence hunters would abide by the law and buy a license. MR. BRUCE affirmed that was a fair assumption. He noted there were subsistence activities that did not involve hunting or fishing, such as berry-picking, which would not require a license. He said amendment five clarified those activities were not going to be subject to the fee. Number 304 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN commented that the program might be hard to enforce. His concern was with the fiscal note and its reference to part-time and contract personnel, with revenue going up. He asked Mr. Bruce what would happen if revenues were not high enough to cover the costs of administering the program, and whether there were safeguards to address that possibility. Number 320 MR. BRUCE responded first to the question regarding enforcement. The tag would only be required in areas where entry was limited and where the ADF&G had personnel. He cited McNeil River as an example, where visitors were escorted into the area. Other areas would not require the tag, but voluntary participation would be encouraged. He said it was not likely the program would "run in the hole." Number 353 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE related the success of the duck stamp program, which he said appealed to people who collect stamps, people interested in the conservation of duck habitat, and also people who hunt. He hoped the program proposed in HB 172 might appeal to people interested in contributing to wildlife conservation in general, even those who might not directly use the resources. Number 371 NANCY LETHCOE, PRESIDENT, ALASKA WILDERNESS RECREATION AND TOURISM ASSOCIATION, testified by teleconference from Valdez. She referred to her written comments on HB 172 contained in members' files. She repeated her strong support for the bill, and commented that she has been involved and interested in this issue for many years. Number 391 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE referred to Ms. Lethcoe's written testimony and her reference to vendors of the tag. He asked whether she envisioned the vendors selling the tags on a commission or percentage basis. He also asked whether the vendors might promote the tag. Number 404 MS. LETHCOE responded that people have approached her at her place of business asking whether Alaska has a watchable wildlife tag, because many visitors are familiar with such programs in their home states. She indicated she would be interested in including a check-off option on her company's invoices, and would rather see all funds received from sales of the tag go toward wildlife conservation programs, but allowed that others might market the tag more if they received a commission. She commented that the way HB 172 is written, it appeared the only place to purchase the tags would be outlets that sold hunting and fishing licenses. This might cause a loss of sales to non-hunters or fishers who did not frequent those establishments, but might purchase the tag if it were offered at a gift shop. Number 432 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked what Ms. Lethcoe believed might be the most marketable physical form for the tag to be offered in. MS. LETHCOE preferred to leave those decisions to the experts, but personally thought a pin would be nice. Number 443 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE addressed his next question to Mr. Bruce. He asked what the normal commission was on tags. MR. BRUCE responded that either $1.00 or 10% usually went to the vendor on tags. He added the program proposed in HB 172 would not restrict the type of vendor who could offer the tag. He said gift shops would be able to enroll with the ADF&G to offer the wildlife conservation tags. Number 465 REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER asked Mr. Bruce how the ADF&G planned to market and promote the wildlife conservation tags. He foresaw a tremendous potential for sales of the tag, if adequately promoted. Number 462 MR. BRUCE suggested those in the visitor industry be called upon to work cooperatively in promoting the sale of the tags. He commented on the potential for displaying posters and other materials promoting the tags at airports and ferry terminals. If a revenue stream was generated, he anticipated advertisements in national periodicals. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER suggested many of the same groups that have "screamed the most" about other programs should be the first to sign up for the conservation tag program. Number 490 VICE CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON referred to Ms. Lethcoe's prior comments on where the wildlife conservation tag would be available. He perceived, as the bill was written, the only place would be through vendors of fishing and hunting licenses and tags. He suggested an AMENDMENT to HB 172, page 2, line 25 ADDING, AFTER "fish and game license" the words "and other outlets at the discretion of the commissioner." He explained this would provide the ADF&G's Commissioner the opportunity to market what could become a collector's item. He compared the marketing potential to the successful efforts with duck stamps. He asked Ms. Lethcoe and Chairman Williams, prime sponsor of HB 172, how each might feel about such an amendment. MS. LETHCOE responded that Representative Hudson's suggestion sounded like a good way to handle the question. VICE CHAIR HUDSON said he would offer that wording as an amendment when the committee came to consideration of the amendments. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE MOVED to ADOPT the AMENDMENTS. Number 522 REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN commented that it would be correct procedure to act on the amendments one by one. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE, making changes as described in the amendment packet prepared by George Utermohle of the Division of Legal Services, dated March 1, 1993 (8-LS0650/A.1). CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections to the motion. Hearing none, the AMENDMENT was ADOPTED. Number 538 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO. There were no objections, and IT WAS SO ORDERED. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE. There were no objections, and IT WAS SO ORDERED. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR. There were no objections, and IT WAS SO ORDERED. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE. Without objection, the AMENDMENT was ADOPTED. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX, proposed in prior discussion, which was not part of the Utermohle packet. Number 548 VICE CHAIR HUDSON repeated the wording of the amendment: INSERT after "licenses" on page 2, line 25 of HB 172: "and other outlets at the discretion of the commissioner." CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections to the adoption of amendment six. Without objection, the AMENDMENT was ADOPTED. Number 552 JOHN GEORGE, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL, told the committee that HB 172 has the support of a number of sportsmen's clubs. He noted with the pressure on the ADF&G's budget, this user-pay program would help alleviate the squeeze on the budget. Number 560 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented he would not want to see diminished general fund support of the ADF&G in an amount equal to the amount of revenues from the wildlife conservation tag program. Number 577 MARY FORBES, ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY VOLUNTEER, stated her support for HB 172, and stressed that a strong marketing campaign would be the key to the program's success. She recommended a kick-off attention-getting campaign, such as a design contest among Alaska schools. She said the Environmental Lobby believed people will be happy to participate in the program if they were aware of it and knew how the funds would be used. Number 590 TOM GARRETT, ALASKA VISITORS ASSOCIATION (AVA), addressed the committee, mentioning that in addition to his role with the AVA, he was also general manager of Alaska Discovery Tours. He said that company ran about 70 tour packages in the state, among which were day trips to the Stan Price Bear Sanctuary, mentioned in HB 172 as potentially requiring a wildlife conservation tag for entry. MR. GARRETT said the AVA supports the motivations for HB 172, and had recommendations for amendments to make the bill work better. He noted Alaska's wildlife was integral to the marketing of tour companies. Therefore, he added, the ADF&G was a key player in Alaska's tourism industry, whether they wanted to be or not. He noted the political and economic clout of Alaska's visitors to influence decisions regarding game management, as evidenced by the recent boycott after announcements the state would engage in aerial wolf hunts. MR. GARRETT suggested as common property, Alaska's wildlife resources should be managed for the highest and best use of Alaskans, without regard for the amount of money collected by the ADF&G through special fees. He stressed efforts to collect money for management of non-game wildlife activities should be voluntary. A broad based market driven program of wildlife stamps would be the most effective way to generate large amounts of revenue, he believed. MR. GARRETT commented that if priced correctly (under $10) and marketed so that visitors have convenient access, the AVA estimated closer to half a million dollars in revenue could be generated. Regarding the tag being required for entry, he said the AVA considered that a separate issue from a voluntary wildlife stamp program. He added entry fees should not be one mandatory across the board amount, but should be adjusted to the type of activity and resource. As an example he noted a $15 entry fee to view Potters Marsh would be unreasonable, while a similar fee to enter the McNeil River area would be justifiable. MR. GARRETT also recommended the effective date of the program proposed in HB 172 be timed to allow the visitor industry to react in its marketing. He said for the 1993 visitor season, prices were already set and tour packages arranged. He suggested the prices be set in statute and not left to the discretion of the ADF&G's Commissioner. MR. GARRETT referred again to entry into the Stan Price Bear Sanctuary, and noted the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) managed the area jointly with the state, and charged a fee to visitors, called a "scheduling fee" and not an "entry fee." He recommended any fee for entry into that area be coordinated with the USFS so the total fee to the visitor is charged in one amount that was not out of line. In closing, he remarked that the AVA supported the concept of HB 172 and the state's efforts to generate revenue through creative market driven programs. Number 688 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted in response to Mr. Garrett's remarks regarding the effective date, that HB 172 had an effective date of January 1, 1994. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented that the proposed fee for entry into areas like Stan Price and McNeil River was small in comparison to the cost to the state of managing those areas. He expressed concern with what he termed a mixed message from the AVA. He said they were willing to have the state pay tens of millions of dollars to promote their private industry, and yet were resistant to a $15 fee. TAPE 93-24, SIDE B Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked Mr. Bruce for his reaction to the two-tier pricing structure proposed by Mr. Garrett. He referred to the example of the Potters Marsh area, and agreed that a $15 fee would be too much. MR. BRUCE responded that this was the reason the ADF&G had requested the discretion to set prices, so that fees could be fine tuned to the area, the cost of services, and the type of use. He added there would be opportunities for public comment and the ADF&G would not adopt a fee schedule that would meet with the objections of the very people they wanted to attract. Number 052 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES remarked on the suggestion by Mr. Garrett that the two ideas be addressed separately (one entry fee and one tag or stamp program). This would allow the wildlife conservation stamp (or tag or pin) to be marketed on a broad basis as a voluntary contribution. A separate entry fee program would allow the flexibility needed to set fees for various areas and allow for waivers. Number 078 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES commented on the cost involved in managing wildlife areas and making them available for public use. She supported the theory behind HB 172, that would require those using wildlife areas to help support them. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE referred to the Potters Marsh area, and stated he would not lose any sleep over the visitors being charged $15 each. Number 112 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON expressed concern that the legislature and the ADF&G should not enter into a program that would eventually require Alaskans to purchase an entry tag to use a variety of areas that had not previously been regulated. He also asked about trademark or copyright protection of whatever type of tag, stamp, or pin used in the program. Number 157 MR. KELLEYHOUSE understood the committee's concerns, and said that the ADF&G would be careful not to price people out of the market, and that any required fee would be set with actual costs in mind. In response to Representative Hudson's concern about trademark or copyright of the state's design for a pin or tag, he was not well-versed in copyright law, but thought it would not hurt to have a protective clause regarding the logo or design. Number 204 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN took issue with Representative Bunde's previous remarks about the AVA. He noted the AVA had been one of the few groups in the state to come forward in favor of a statewide sales tax. Number 223 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted Potters Marsh was in his district, and said he visited the area often. He remarked on a potential problem with regulating entry into the area. He said the way HB 172 was written, he would be able to visit the facility because he had a hunting license. His wife, however, does not. He asked how the program would allow for such situations, and how the ADF&G might enforce entry requirements. Number 238 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS clarified the program was voluntary, and noted the only two areas slated under HB 172 for entry fees were McNeil River and Walrus Island. Number 245 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES saw the wildlife tag as a very worthwhile program, and as the tag became available she promised to buy one for herself and every member of her family, and encourage her neighbors to purchase the tag as well. She said the proposed $15 fee was nominal and the benefits would be great. Number 260 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE agreed with Representative James that there was no free lunch. He reiterated HB 172 only required the entry tag for two areas, which he perceived as a weakness of HB 172. He said the program might fail because it was voluntary, as has happened with similar programs in other states. Number 270 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN referred to page 3 of HB 172, which stated Potters Marsh was an area where the entry fee would not be required. Number 285 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES objected to negative characterizations and innuendoes expressed previously regarding those who did not use wildlife resources for hunting or fishing. He said those people had an equal interest and right to the use of the wildlife. He also expressed concern over pricing of the tag, noting that it should be reasonably priced if the state expected to make the program work. Number 300 VICE CHAIR HUDSON made a MOTION to MOVE HB 172 with unanimous consent, as amended, with individual recommendations. He added the motion would include the fiscal note from the ADF&G. Number 309 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections to the motion. Hearing none, HB 172 with the ADF&G fiscal note was MOVED from committee with individual recommendations. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the next item for the committee's attention would be discussion of the subcommittee's recommendations on the Mental Health Lands Trust Settlement. Number 326 VICE CHAIR HUDSON, who chaired the subcommittee, reported that he had worked with Representatives James, Davies and Carney, as well as others who were not members of the subcommittee. It was the subcommittee's recommendation that the House Resources Committee sponsor and introduce a bill identical to SB 67 with one exception. He said the subcommittee was unable to identify the justification for the six percent revenue stream called for in SB 67, and instead recommended a three percent amount. VICE CHAIR HUDSON said the subcommittee recognized the percentage would be open to debate among all concerned groups. He referred to the report of the subcommittee in members' files, which identified various alternatives, including a lease-back program. He said the problem with that alternative was the same as the state faced with the land exchange solution. Another option was a cash pay-off, which was not recommended because of the cost. Number 360 VICE CHAIR HUDSON noted since SB 67 was a known commodity, the various parties who wanted to see the issue settled might find this proposed legislation to be a possible solution. He noted while SB 67 has not won the enthusiastic support of the Attorney General, it has not been rejected either. Regarding the anticipated revenues based on the six percent versus three percent figures, Vice Chair Hudson said that based on FY 94 unrestricted revenues, six percent would equal approximately $140 million and three percent would be $70 million. Number 412 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented on the concerns the subcommittee faced. First was the issue of the courts. Even if the legislature passed a bill, she said there would be no guarantee that the courts would accept it as a settlement. She preferred a document more closely related to the court order already in existence. The problem has been on the failure of the parties to agree on how much to pay, she stated. Regarding the reconstitution of the trust, she does not believe the land exchanges would ever come to fruition. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she would like to see an actual dollar amount in capital and operating expenditures that the state has paid for its mental health programs since 1978 until 1992. She said this amount should be incorporated into the purchase price for the lands that could not be given to the parties to the settlement. Number 437 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to SB 67, and said it was her understanding that in order to guarantee the revenue stream, the state has to give the plaintiffs a secured interest in the Legislatively Designated Areas (LDAs). If the plaintiffs did not want the LDAs, then giving them those lands would not work. She suggested giving them those lands now and paying rent on them. Number 452 REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY commented that there would be plenty of opportunity once a house bill was introduced for Representative James' concerns to be addressed and debated. Number 458 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN concurred, adding that he has heard at least one of the attorneys of the non-settling plaintiffs indicated he was amenable to the solution posed by the proposed legislation. He stressed a settlement should be reached quickly, because potential users of the land were being lost as long as the land was tied up in litigation. Number 476 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES was not opposed to getting some piece of legislation on the table. Number 478 VICE CHAIR HUDSON noted the lease-back situation had been discussed in subcommittee, and the option could be discussed and public testimony taken once a bill was before the committee. He recommended the committee submit for introduction the February 26, 1993 Chenoweth draft, with the House Resources Committee as sponsor. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted there should be a motion on the table for the committee to sponsor the draft legislation. Number 495 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES MOVED that the House Resources Committee sponsor the draft legislation as a house bill. Number 500 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objection to the motion, Without objection, the MOTION PASSED. ANNOUNCEMENTS CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the House Resources Committee would next meet on Monday, March 8, and Wednesday, March 10, 1993, at 8:00 a.m., to hear testimony on the confirmation of appointees to the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game. He noted there was a legal question pending on the nomination of one game board member, and requested committee members read the legal opinion on the issue that was distributed to them. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the House Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 9:21 a.m.