Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
04/17/2017 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB201 | |
| HB217 | |
| HB218 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 201 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 197 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 217 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 218 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 201-MUNICIPAL REGULATION OF TRAPPING
1:04:24 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 201, "An Act relating to municipal
regulation of trapping; and providing for an effective date.
[Before the committee was CSHB 201(CRA).]
1:04:35 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON opened public testimony.
1:04:58 PM
NICK STEEN testified in opposition to HB 201. He said the bill
would give the borough control over trapping regulations on
state and/or federal lands. He stated that this would add a
third level of potential law or regulations on trapping in a
given area state, federal, and borough and would do nothing
to correct a perceived problem. Mr. Steen further maintained
that trap identification is a worthless bit of information
because all a trapper has to do is claim that a trap has been
stolen at the beginning of the season, and the trapper is "home
free" for the rest of the season. He clarified he isn't saying
trappers are illegal, but rather it is an unenforceable
regulation. All the bill would do is add more paperwork to the
already existing problem of too many regulations on hunting and
fishing in the state. For example, when he came to Alaska over
50 years ago the regulations were pocketbook sized, but not any
longer. He recognized that things are becoming more and more
involved because there are more people, but said more laws don't
make it better.
1:06:22 PM
KNEELAND TAYLOR testified in strong support of CSHB 201 (CRA).
He said it is an excellent bill because it provides
clarification on what a municipal government can and cannot do.
He offered his belief that municipalities should have their
authority clearly outlined on regulating the placing of traps
that can cause injury and, in particular, injury to dogs. The
idea that the Board of Game and the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game (ADF&G) can handle this is somewhat far-fetched, he
continued. It is a mind-boggling task on a statewide basis to
identify literally hundreds of trails, hundreds of small public
parks, and densely populated subdivisions where everyone agrees
that traps shouldn't be placed. It is the local governments
that have the expertise and knowledge as to whether traps should
be placed at the end of a particular street, in a particular
subdivision inside that municipality. In the case of federal
lands, he said, a clear delineation of what a local government
can do in terms of setbacks or placing of traps on trails on
federal lands gives those municipal governments a chance to
fight back if the federal government tries to impose its view.
It is an excellent bill because it would provide for local
control.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON, sponsor of HB 201, referenced a letter of
opposition that the committee received from Al Barrette in which
Mr. Barrette states that the Board of Game can handle this. He
asked whether Mr. Taylor is personally aware of residents of the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough who have drafted proposals to deal
with the problem of dogs getting caught in traps.
MR. TAYLOR replied he is not personally aware of whether they
have or have not. However, he continued, he was on a Board of
Game subcommittee that addressed this issue in 2002 and, after
many meetings with trappers, board chairman Ted Spraker said the
board did not think this issue was a problem. Four years ago,
local residents of Cooper Landing submitted a proposal to the
Board of Game that would have designated several trails,
trailheads, and beach along Kenai Lake as places where traps
could not be placed, but that proposal was rejected. In talking
with board members about the rejection of that proposal, he
related, it really boiled down to a people issue. Basically,
one member of the board, Ted Spraker, viewed it as the local
residents asking for too much and therefore they got nothing.
It is a far-fetched idea, he reiterated, that the Board of Game
will be able to do this or would be inclined to assist local
communities in handling this problem.
1:11:07 PM
AL BARRETTE testified in opposition to HB 201. If enacted, he
said, it would be a competing statute with Alaska Statute (AS)
16.05.255, Regulations of the Board of Game, under which the
Board of Game is granted the regulation of wildlife, even for
public safety. Further, he continued, he has a problem with two
competing authorities creating regulations or ordinances because
this would hinder trappers in finding restriction information.
The current trapping regulation handbook distinguishes what
trapping restrictions exist. He said municipalities such as
Fairbanks, Anchorage, Valdez, Skagway, and Prince of Wales have
come before the Board of Game concerning trapping issues and
have received favorable action by the board. Not every proposal
before the Board of Game gets passed. Proposals must meet some
merits and input is taken from regulation specialists within the
Department of Law and other state agencies.
MR. BARRETTE stated he specifically has an issue on page 1, line
13, which states, "trap identification requirements". He said
this provision is unclear and it could be argued what that
actually means. Terminology is everything in a court of law or
in regulations or statute. He then drew attention to the bill
on page 2, line 1, which states, "restrictions on the use of
types of traps likely to cause injury or damage to persons or
property." He said he doesn't know of any trap made that
doesn't cause injury, so he wonders what trap is out there that
would fit this definition if the bill were enacted.
MR. BARRETTE pointed out that the bill doesn't mention the use
of snares and said there is a difference in definition in
regulation between a steel trap and a snare. He suggested this
be clarified. He further pointed out that the bill uses what
trapping means by the statutory definition and maintained that
this definition only relates to furbearers. Other animals are
classified as small game, unclassified game, and fur animals, he
continued, and these animals are allowed to be trapped with a
trapping license or a hunting license. This bill has many
complications, he said, including having two governing bodies,
one which has been appointed and confirmed based on knowledge of
wildlife resources, and the other that is basically elected by
their political views.
1:14:45 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON surmised Mr. Barrette wants the bill to be
more expansive because one of Mr. Barrette's positions is that
municipalities should not have any authority, but when it comes
to what municipalities have authority over Mr. Barrette wants to
expand the definition to even more mammals.
MR. BARRETTE replied that he is pointing out he is not for the
bill as written and that he is further pointing out the errors
and complications in the bill should it be passed as written.
1:15:33 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON recalled Mr. Barrette's statement that the
Board of Game responds to municipal interests in this regard,
but stated that he thinks there is evidence the board does not
respond to municipal interests. He inquired why there is a
problem with the bill if the Board of Game does respond to
municipalities. He posed a scenario in which a local government
is concerned for public safety, which is within the local
purview, and wants to regulate around a schoolyard. He said Mr.
Barrette's position is that the board will accommodate that and
therefore he doesn't understand the concern.
MR. BARRETTE responded that his main issue is with state lands.
He offered his belief that Co-Chair Josephson is correct that
boroughs and municipalities have ownership of their lands;
however, there have been times when state land was an issue. He
recalled that Juneau brought a [proposal] to the Board of Game
that was passed. Municipalities can write a proposal and bring
it to the board, he continued. It will be vetted through the
deliberation and public comment processes but there is a chance
it might not pass, which happened in Cooper Landing's case.
Justification was put on record as to why the board didn't pass
it, he said, not all proposals get passed.
1:17:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE noted the committee has been working on
making this back into a local control issue. He said he sees
where Mr. Barrette is coming from and that Mr. Barrette is
talking about state regulations versus municipal regulations.
Representative Westlake offered his understanding that if, for
example, his village wanted to opt in and create its own laws
and ordinances for trapping within the city limits, it could do
that, and the state would have no real say, but beyond the city
or borough limits it would go back over to the state. He asked
Mr. Barrette whether he is misunderstanding something.
MR. BARRETTE answered that he thinks Representative Westlake has
it perfectly. The Board of Game controls state land and private
property and the boroughs control their property.
1:18:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said he shares Mr. Barrett's concerns. He
related that the Matanuska-Susitna Borough has implemented some
sort of local control on trapping, as has Anchorage. He offered
his appreciation for Mr. Barrette's concerns and said local
control works well from his experience.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked legal counsel Alpheus Bullard whether
snares would be something a local government could regulate
under HB 201.
1:19:36 PM
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency,
acknowledged it's possible that the [regulation of snares] is an
inadequacy in this legislation. But if it is, he continued,
it's also a problem in the state's fish and game statutes
because the definition of trapping that's provided for all of
Title 16 is referenced in this legislation and that definition
of trapping is what controls what can be taken with a trapping
license. So, he added, if snares are allowed under Title 16,
then a local municipality could regulate them under this
legislation.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON noted the committee has an opinion from the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough attorney. He requested Mr. Bullard's
opinion on whether municipalities have the power within their
purview to regulate trapping within their borders.
MR. BULLARD responded that to the extent it is a legitimate
ordinance and it protects human life and property within the
municipality's boundaries, it is a legitimate local concern and
well within the municipality's purview.
1:21:11 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON closed public testimony after ascertaining no
one else wished to testify.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired whether he is correct that the
bill does not reference private lands.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON answered that the bill doesn't speak to
private lands except by implication. It would be a heavy lift,
he said, for a member of a city council or assembly to offer an
ordinance to regulate trapping on someone's private land; but
there would be nothing prohibiting it in this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER understood there is nothing prohibiting
that and asked whether that means it is inclusive.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON replied it is inclusive per page 1, line 10.
He said bills that list everything become very long.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated he does not support the bill because
it is unnecessary. As said by Mr. Bullard, he continued, local
communities can take care of themselves and can implement
trapping regulations as was done by the Matanuska-Susitna
[Borough]. He said his preference is that it be left up to the
local communities to manage their own affairs.
1:24:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO remarked that it is clear as mud as to
where this will fit in the actual charter code of ordinances for
particular municipalities and ordinances that they have adopted.
[The committee] could probably get a legal opinion to say it
will be land use regulation because theoretically it could be
said that an ordinance has been written that traps cannot be put
on the ground in particular spots. However, he continued, the
issue is that most of the codes for land use regulation that he
is familiar with deal with boundaries and lines and community
plans and that type of structure, not restrictions on these
other things. The other avenue, he said, would probably be the
adoption of public safety powers. However, whether real or
imagined, a fear in smaller municipalities is that if they adopt
public safety powers they are not far away from losing their
state trooper when the state then steps in saying that because
the municipality has public safety powers it must now take
responsibility.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO said his biggest issue has to do with
previous experience in that he is very defensive of Title 29 in
its current form and the way it is written. Before any changes
are made, he continued, he would have to hear from an enormous
number of municipalities saying they need this particular change
in Title 29. He argued that a municipality choosing a trapping
ordinance would not have enforcement provided by the Alaska
Wildlife Troopers because these troopers do state regulatory
issues. He said he opposes the bill, but appreciates the idea
of trying to figure out a way to resolve this issue, but the
bill does not resolve it for him.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON responded he takes the aforementioned point,
but said that if a municipality passes an ordinance and doesn't
wish to enforce it, it just will not be enforced very well.
1:27:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE inquired whether HB 201, as proposed,
would grant more power to municipalities or boroughs. For
example, he said, whether it would move it over to the local
level where the local level can use these powers and enforce
these powers on their own.
MR. BULLARD answered that if the legislation is passed and
enacted, it would be in the general powers in AS 29.35 and it
would provide that both for general law and home rule
municipalities, this is the power that municipalities have and
in that way, it would clear up what power these municipalities
have to enact an ordinance like this.
1:29:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE asked whether it would then be up to the
municipality or borough to enforce these powers.
MR. BULLARD replied yes, correct, it would be completely up to
whatever municipality that passed it to enforce it.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON added that a local government would have to
make a legitimate claim that the restriction was necessary to
prevent injury or damage to persons or property and that it was
in an area or location where that injury or damage could occur.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said he appreciates that "may" was used
so many times in the bill and appreciates that the sponsor was
working with municipalities and their abilities to choose by
using the word "may". However, he continued, what the
legislature does with people's private property and how the
legislature regulates it is of worry to him. He said he had an
amendment that he didn't offer because he didn't think it would
have passed. He stated he is not in favor of the bill, although
he appreciates that the sponsor is trying to work on a problem.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH noted that the bill explicitly expands the
authority of municipalities/local governments into an area where
it would be thought that they already have the authority to say,
for example, no traps near the local school regardless of
whether that school is on state or private property. He
recalled a tragic story told by Representative Westlake about a
child who came too close to a cyanide trap and the child's dog
died but the child was able to rinse his own eyes. He said he
thinks it appropriate to explicitly give the power to
municipalities to be able to say that there are some areas where
they do not want traps that could harm people or property. The
sort of trap that doesn't harm persons or property would be live
traps, and these types of traps are used frequently for nuisance
animals. He said it is a useful bill that he supports.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON noted that HB 40 [a bill he sponsored] was
clearly a much more ambitious bill in regard to 200-foot buffers
near public trails. He said the feedback on HB 40 was that it
should be handled by the local governments and so that is the
bill now before the committee. The criticism of HB 40 was vast,
he continued, while the criticism of HB 201, to his knowledge,
has been restricted to a couple letters.
1:34:39 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR moved to report CSHB 201(CRA) out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO objected.
1:35:44 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Westlake, Drummond,
Parish, Tarr, and Josephson voted in favor of CSHB 201(CRA).
Representatives Rauscher, Talerico, and Birch voted against it.
Therefore, CSHB 201 (CRA) was reported from the House Resources
Standing Committee by a vote of 5-3.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 197 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/28/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/1/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 197 |
| HB197 Version J 4.5.2017.pdf |
HRES 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/28/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/1/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 197 |
| HB197 Sectional Analysis ver J 4.6.2017.pdf |
HRES 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/28/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/1/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 197 |
| HB197 Fiscal Note - DNR-PMC 4.7.17.pdf |
HRES 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/28/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/1/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 197 |
| HB197 Supporting Document - Article. Seed Bill 4.9.17.pdf |
HRES 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/28/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/1/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 197 |
| HB 201 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| HB 201 vers A 3.30.17.PDF |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| HB 201 1982 AG Opinion.pdf |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| HB 201 Case law.pdf |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| HB 201 Matsu Ordinance 3.21.2017.pdf |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| HB 201 Muni Trapping Codes.pdf |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| HB 201 News Articles.pdf |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| HB201-DFG-DWC-04-07-17.pdf |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| HB 201 LAA Legal Memos.pdf |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| HB217 Version A 4.16.17.PDF |
HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/7/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 |
| HB217 Supporting Document - Wyoming Expands Food Freedom Act 4.16.17.PDF |
HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 |
| HB217 Supporting Document - USDA Wrongly Targets Wyoming's Food Freedom Act 4.16.17.PDF |
HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 |
| HB217 Supporting Document - Colorado Cottage Foods Act Fact Sheet 4.16.17.PDF |
HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 |
| HB217 Supporting Document - Article Natural News 4.16.17.PDF |
HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 |
| HB217 Supporting Document - Article Mother Earth Jones 4.16.17.PDF |
HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 |
| HB217 Supporting Document - Colorado Cottage Foods Act.pdf |
HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 |
| HB217 Fiscal Note - DEC-EHL 04-07-17.pdf |
HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 |
| HB217 Fiscal Note - DEC-FSS 4.7.17.pdf |
HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 |
| HB218 Sponsor Statement 4.11.17.pdf |
HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/1/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB218 Version A 4.16.17.PDF |
HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/1/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB217 Sponsor Statement 4.17.17.pdf |
HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 |