Legislature(2007 - 2008)
2008-03-25 House Journal
Full Journal pdf2008-03-25 House Journal Page 2409 HB 256 The following was read the second time: HOUSE BILL NO. 256 "An Act relating to active game management and to the airborne or same day airborne taking of certain game animals; making conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date." with the: Journal Page RES RPT CS(RES) 2DP 1DNP 3NR 3AM 1955 FN2: ZERO(DFG) 1956 JUD RPT CS(JUD) 4NR 1AM 2049 FN2: ZERO(DFG) 2050 **The presence of Representative Gara was noted. Representative Samuels moved and asked unanimous consent that the following committee substitute be adopted in lieu of the original bill: 2008-03-25 House Journal Page 2410 CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 256(JUD) (same title) There being no objection, it was so ordered. Amendment No. 1 was offered by Representative Seaton: Page 4, line 20, following "that": Insert "objectives set by the board for a moose, caribou, or deer population identified under AS 16.05.255(e) have not been achieved, that predation is an important cause for the failure to achieve the objectives, and that" Representative Seaton moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 1 be adopted. Representative Coghill objected. **The presence of Representative Kawasaki was noted. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 1 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSHB 256(JUD) Second Reading Amendment No. 1 YEAS: 15 NAYS: 21 EXCUSED: 4 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Cissna, Doll, Doogan, Gara, Gardner, Gatto, Gruenberg, Guttenberg, Holmes, Kawasaki, Kerttula, LeDoux, Lynn, Salmon, Seaton Nays: Chenault, Coghill, Dahlstrom, Edgmon, Fairclough, Harris, Hawker, Johansen, Johnson, Joule, Keller, Kelly, Meyer, Neuman, Olson, Ramras, Roses, Samuels, Stoltze, Thomas, Wilson Excused: Buch, Crawford, Foster, Nelson And so, Amendment No. 1 was not adopted. Amendment No. 2 was offered by Representative Seaton: 2008-03-25 House Journal Page 2411 Page 4, line 21: Delete "would be conducive to achieving" Insert "can reasonably be expected to aid in the achievement of" Page 4, line 23: Delete "would be conducive to" Insert "can reasonably be expected to aid in protecting" Representative Seaton moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 2 be adopted. Representative Coghill objected. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 2 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSHB 256(JUD) Second Reading Amendment No. 2 YEAS: 15 NAYS: 21 EXCUSED: 4 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Cissna, Doll, Doogan, Gara, Gardner, Gatto, Gruenberg, Guttenberg, Holmes, Kawasaki, Kerttula, LeDoux, Lynn, Salmon, Seaton Nays: Chenault, Coghill, Dahlstrom, Edgmon, Fairclough, Harris, Hawker, Johansen, Johnson, Joule, Keller, Kelly, Meyer, Neuman, Olson, Ramras, Roses, Samuels, Stoltze, Thomas, Wilson Excused: Buch, Crawford, Foster, Nelson And so, Amendment No. 2 was not adopted. Representative Samuels moved and asked unanimous consent that CSHB 256(JUD) be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading, and placed on final passage. There was objection. CSHB 256(JUD) will advance to third reading on tomorrow's calendar.