Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
03/16/2018 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 | |
| HCR23 | |
| HB315 | |
| HB260 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 315 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HCR 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 260 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 315-CONFIDENTIALITY OF ANIMAL & CROP RECORDS
2:38:20 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 315, "An Act relating to the confidentiality of
certain records on animals and crops; and providing for an
effective date."
2:38:30 PM
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), provided a
PowerPoint presentation in support of HB 315 entitled, "HB315:
Confidentiality of Animal and Crop Records," dated 3/16/18.
Turning to slide 2, she said she and Dr. Gerlach are before the
committee regarding HB 315, which would keep confidential
certain records held by DEC and the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR). [The departments] would continue to release
general information found in their records, but the bill would
prohibit [the departments] from being responsible for releasing
records that may contain personally identifying information. It
would also allow information disclosure from [the departments']
records if there were a threat [to the health or safety of an
animal, crop,] or the public, Ms. Carpenter stated. This can be
compared to some of the other protections that are already
provided to other commercial industries, one example being
commercial fisheries. The Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G) has a clause in statute that allows it to keep certain
information reported by commercial fishermen exempt from
disclosure, which includes such things as fishing holes. She
said ADF&G needs that information to properly manage commercial
fisheries, but commercial fishermen wouldn't like that subject
to disclosure because that's proprietary business information.
So, she continued, [DEC and DNR] are trying to get similar
confidentiality to Alaska's agricultural producers.
2:40:23 PM
MS. CARPENTER moved to slide 3 and noted the concept of HB 315
has been discussed between DEC, DNR, and Alaska's agricultural
producers for at least 10 years. This concept is even timelier
now given the recent M. ovi discussion, she added. The bill is
mutually beneficial to state agencies as well as individual
producers. She said [the departments] believe that animal and
crop producers will be more willing to participate in voluntary
surveillance sampling programs with DEC and DNR if they know the
results of those tests are not subject to public disclosure.
When the M. ovi discussion came up 18-24 months ago and Dr.
Gerlach was trying to set up this M. ovi study in domestic sheep
and goat populations, many Alaska livestock owners were
reluctant to participate in the study because they knew the test
results would be subject to disclosure if DEC were in possession
of them. A benefit of passing HB 315 is that [DEC] will receive
additional information on emerging threats and disease outbreaks
so the department can work with its peers in the other resource
agencies to properly manage Alaska's resources.
MS. CARPENTER addressed slides 4-5 to discuss the difference
between a record versus information and what [DEC] is trying to
do with this. She said the Office of the State Veterinarian is
not looking to withhold information from public consumption, but
is trying to protect the records it has on file. A record that
is currently subject to disclosure has personal information like
name, address, phone number, specific destination information,
and test results, as well as potentially including identifying
animal ear tag information. Right now if there was a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request, DEC would have to give out this
record without redacting it. Under HB 315, she continued, DEC
would still share information with the public, but it would be
in a more generalized and anonymous format. For example, the
department would say that in late December nine reindeer were
transported by air from Alaska to Texas and they came from a
herd that was confirmed to be chronic wasting disease free. Ms.
Carpenter explained that in an animal cruelty investigation DEC
would release the information from its records that would help
law enforcement officials in their investigation. But if there
was disease information that required public outreach, such as
rabies, DEC would coordinate with its peers in state public
health and fish and game agencies, as well as coordinate with
the local public health and veterinarian officials so they could
increase public outreach and awareness so that everybody was
looking for rabies symptoms in domestic and wild blocks.
MS. CARPENTER moved to slide 6 and said HB 315 would encourage
better animal husbandry because animal owners would be engaging
with the [state veterinarian's] office and participating in
surveillance sampling, which is non-mandatory sampling and which
owners can then use as a marketing tool for their Alaskan
agricultural products. She stated the bill would also allow for
early identification of and reaction to an emerging outbreak or
threat that public health and animal health officials need to
deal with. Further, proprietary information would be protected
from disclosure to a competitor. Turning to slide 7, Ms.
Carpenter said HB 315 would not keep DEC or DNR from releasing
general information that the public needs to know if there is a
public health threat. It would also not hamper efforts to
control a disease outbreak or mitigate a threat and it wouldn't
limit law enforcement agencies in animal cruelty investigations.
MS. CARPENTER reviewed the sectional analysis on slide 8. She
said Section 1, the meat of the bill, would make certain records
held by DEC and DNR exempt from the Alaska Public Records Act if
they meet certain criteria. But, she continued, those
departments would still be allowed to release information if
there were a public health threat.
2:46:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER stated he understands what Ms. Carpenter
is trying to convey about people being hesitant to declare or to
have their animals tested, and that people would be less
hesitant to come forward if HB 315 was passed. He said he was
singled out as possibly being the reason for [wild] goats having
this infection.
2:47:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND drew attention to slide 5 regarding an
example of release of information. She inquired whether Ms.
Carpenter is talking only about a zoonotic disease outbreak,
which is a disease that can be transmitted from animals to
humans, or whether it would also include pathogens [in animals
only, such as M. ovi in sheep and goats].
MS. CARPENTER replied [DEC] would release information related to
a disease outbreak that is zoonotic or transmittable but
transmittable through domestic or wildlife herds. For example,
rabies can impact domestic livestock and humans, so with rabies
[DEC] would want to involve the Department of Public Health and
ADF&G. However, she continued, M. ovi s not transmittable to
humans, so [DEC] would have no reason to release that
information to its peers in public health.
2:49:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH drew attention to HB 315, page 2, lines 7-
11, which state, "Notwithstanding (a) of this section or any
other provision of law, the Department of Environmental
Conservation and the Department of Natural Resources may
disclose any records that are subject to this section if the
Department of Environmental Conservation or the Department of
Natural Resources determines there is a threat to the health or
safety of an animal, a crop, or the public." He asked whether
he is accurate in interpreting this language to mean that on any
occasion in which an animal were diseased, it would be at the
discretion of DEC and DNR whether or not to release the full
records.
MS. CARPENTER responded that that is accurate.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH offered his apologies for an earlier
remark and said it was very unlikely that [Representative
Rauscher's] animals were implicated.
2:48:37 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR opened public testimony on HB 315.
2:51:10 PM
MARY ANN HOLLICK, DVM, testified she has practiced veterinary
medicine for the past 30 years and supports HB 315 because it
represents an individual's medical privacy. Animal owners are
currently required to disclose diagnostic test results to be in
compliance with state rules, she related. These results are
currently public records. These owners know these records are
available for all to see and they may very well be reluctant to
have their animals tested voluntarily for these diseases. The
owners and where they live should not be public knowledge, she
said. Early detection is the key to controlling serious
widespread outbreaks that could jeopardize animals and public
health. These same test results are private in other states,
she pointed out. If there is credible threat, she continued,
the state veterinarian would disclose relevant information and
act to ensure animal and public safety. Dr. Gerlach was in
private practice before becoming the state veterinarian, she
added, and is very well respected by the veterinary community.
2:52:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked which diseases are not required to
be reported to the state veterinarian.
DR. HOLLICK answered that diseases such as parvovirus, a small
animal disease, are not required to be reported.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND inquired whether Dr. Hollick supports or
opposes HB 315.
DR. HOLLICK replied she supports the bill.
2:54:18 PM
JOHN ANDERSON testified that HB 315 has good parts as well as
questionable parts. He said he likes the [confidential] testing
and that it is a way to get more animals tested. However, he
continued, he has an issue with the import side of the bill as
there are no checks and balances. He said he has looked at
import records from the state veterinarian's office for the past
two years and imported animals are being misrepresented and sold
as Alaska Grown. When he brought this issue to the Division of
Agriculture he was told there is no budget to be able to check
even though the paperwork that a person signs to participate in
Alaska Grown says the Division of Agriculture can come out to
the participant's farm at any time. The division isn't checking
Alaska Grown accountability through the state veterinarian's
office, he said, and he has personally done that because he
would like to protect his farm and the work he does with his
cattle. For example, he is caring for his cattle at 50 degrees
below zero while other people bring in animals and slip them in
as Alaska Grown to receive a premium. He requested that import
records be looked at. He pointed out that import records can be
obtained from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as well
as the Division of Agriculture and said there is no difference
in the records. He reiterated that he likes the testing part of
HB 315, but that the import records won't help because they can
be found elsewhere.
2:57:43 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR requested Ms. Carpenter clarify whether HB 315
addresses the import issue.
MS. CARPENTER responded HB 315 would allow [DEC] to keep animal
or crop importation records confidential that identify a
particular animal, crop, business, or individual. She said she
is sensitive to Mr. Anderson's concerns, but DEC's mission is to
ensure that those animals imported into Alaska are healthy and
disease free. Any marketing aspect issue would need to be
answered to by DNR. The reason [DEC] would want to keep those
animal importation records subject to a confidentiality clause,
she continued, is because the records include the name, physical
address, and location where those animals are going to and where
they came from, and that could be considered private business or
proprietary information that is part of what [DEC] is looking to
do keep people's business information private. The intent is
to protect the state's agricultural producers so they can grow
their business.
2:59:36 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR noted that Alaska Grown misbranding provisions are
in another section of statute which the committee is looking at
in HB 217.
3:00:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked whether the USDA is already
furnishing information about animal and crop importation records
with the things that are trying to be protected with HB 315.
MR. ANDERSON answered correct, he has used the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) to go through the state veterinarian's
office as well as the USDA and he has those documents. The same
truckloads of animals can be looked at from each agency and
except for one or two lines they have the same information that
can be compared. He offered to provide this information.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH inquired whether there is a difference
between the state and federal agencies in the fees or costs to
access that information.
MR. ANDERSON replied there is no charge by either agency at this
time. He added that the USDA takes a about a month to provide
the records and the state takes about 10 business days.
3:01:43 PM
AMY SEITZ, Executive Director, Alaska Farm Bureau, Inc.,
testified in support of HB 315. Allowing confidentiality for
certain personal and business records will afford Alaska's
farmers some security in their business as well help to keep
Alaska's agricultural sector healthy, she said. To comply with
state and federal laws, farmers must supply certain information
to DEC or DNR, she continued. There are also situations where a
farmer may be required to submit test results or want to
participate in a voluntary surveillance program. Records that
DEC and DNR maintain can be specific to particular animals,
crops, information on the farmers' businesses, and specific
results from testing. Under current law these records are not
protected, she noted. The bureau wants farmers to feel
comfortable in working with state agencies in maintaining the
health of animals and crops. Knowing that someone can access
specifics on these results does not afford security to Alaska's
farmers, she advised, and it does not encourage participation in
these testing programs. Having more farmers participating in
testing could help in producing higher quality products and
increase efficiencies in production. It could also help with
early detection of a possible outbreak or concern, which would
give agencies time to respond appropriately.
MS. SEITZ noted HB 315 does cover general information on
imports. She said general information on testing would still be
available if the bill were passed and that this should be
sufficient information to let people know what is happening in
the state. Steps are available to take for a person with
concerns about misuse of the Alaska Grown logo or concerns that
the appropriate steps aren't being taken for a possible disease
or pathogen. She reiterated the Alaska Farm Bureau's support
for HB 315 for the aforementioned reasons.
3:04:45 PM
KEVIN KEHOE, President, Alaska Wild Sheep Foundation (AK WSF),
testified his organization generally supports keeping personal
information private, but that AK WSF also thinks testing records
should remain public. He allowed that trying to weigh these two
is a big challenge and deferred to Ms. Schwanke to provide more
specific information.
3:05:25 PM
REBECCA SCHWANKE, Staff Biologist, Alaska Wild Sheep Foundation
(AK WSF), testified HB 315 is vague, which concerns her from a
biological perspective. [The bill would cover] M. ovi that
affects Alaska's wild sheep and goats as well as other diseases
and pathogens that can affect any number of Alaska's wild animal
populations, she said, so it is much bigger than M. ovi. To
fully understand the current state of pathogens, parasites,
viruses, and other diseases that may be detrimental to wildlife
in Alaska, she continued, it will be critical to have access to
all available test and import records.
MS. SCHWANKE said the components of HB 315 that concern her
focus on the confidentiality of individual and specific test
results. She stated that the general information which DEC says
it will release is not good enough for independent scientific
community members and isn't fair to domestic owners who wish to
know what diseases or pathogens are present in the state. In M.
ovi outbreaks in the western states, understanding the strains
is critical to understanding what is being dealt with and where
it came from, she continued. Understanding the pathways of
disease is important and critical for mitigating and controlling
disease. She said she is far more concerned with maintaining
open access to what comes in the state through imports and what
is already in the state as known from testing records than any
individual names or personal information.
MS. SCHWANKE offered her belief that the majority of Alaska's
domestic animal owners are responsible and don't let their
animals come in contact with wild sheep and goats. However, she
continued, not every owner is responsible, some animals escape
farms, and some owners let their animals open-land graze when in
the mountains, which is documented by photos. The recent
importation and testing records must remain publically
accessible in case a conflict is seen or a novel pathogen shows
up in the state. Sometimes that will only be known through
import records or the testing the state does. Geographic
locations or at least the specific regions must remain public
information when it comes to understanding any possible threat
to wildlife or other domestic owners. In no way does AK WSF
want to jeopardize individuals with these comments, she said,
but there are larger concerns when it comes to protecting
Alaskan wildlife.
3:07:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH drew attention to page 2 of the bill,
lines 10-11, which state DEC and DNR can disclose any records if
"there is a threat to the health or safety of an animal, a crop,
or the public." He inquired whether in the case of any positive
test result for a disease, [AK WSF] would argue that there
exists such a threat. He further inquired whether [AK WSF]
believes that if it came to a court case it would prevail.
MR. KEHOE responded that that is one of [AK WSF's] concerns and
the hope is for a re-write of the bill so [AK WSF] could get
behind this. As it stands currently, he noted, the committee
just heard a debate on whether it is or isn't a threat. So
there'd come a time when [AK WSF] would be blocked from any
information simply because someone didn't think it is a threat
and then it would evolve into a court case. That is a concern
and [AK WSF] believes "threat" should be clearly defined in
statute; for example, is or isn't M. ovi a threat. Otherwise,
he continued, that information could be blocked and probably
would be blocked from [AK WSF].
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH invited the Alaska Wild Sheep Foundation
and DEC to work with him in his office to figure out what
language would answer AK WSF's concern. He invited Mr. Kehoe to
make a suggestion for today's record if Mr. Kehoe would like.
MR. KEHOE answered [AK WSF will] submit some language and some
concepts on doing that. He said AK WSF would be happy to work
with anyone to resolve these issues to get to where AK WSF and
the sportsmen's groups that support AK WSF would also be
comfortable with this particular language.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked about the Division of Agriculture's
position on HB 315 and whether the division has concerns.
3:10:33 PM
ARTHUR KEYES, Director, Division of Agriculture, Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), replied he supports HB 315. He said
the Division of Agriculture needs to collect information when
working with farmers and there is a need to keep that
information confidential. In regard to the Alaska Wild Sheep
Foundation's position, he said that without the confidence the
information would be kept confidential there would be trouble
trying to gather the information needed to make informed
decisions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated her hope that a way can be found
to facilitate this and bring both sides to agreement on
something that will work for both. She surmised Mr. Keyes would
be willing to work on that.
3:12:28 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
else wished to testify.
3:12:32 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR held over HB 315.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HCR23 Game Mngmnt Unit 13.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 23 |
| HCR23-wildlife econ importance-in-2011-summary-report.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 23 |
| HCR23_ NR_Movi Detected_3-13-18.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 23 |
| HCR 23_AK-WSF-PRESS-RELEASE.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 23 |
| HCR23_ AK WSF Support Ltr.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 23 |
| HCR23_dalls_sheep_news_winter_2017.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 23 |
| HB 315 Transmittal Letter 2.14.2018.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB 315 ver A 2.14.2018.PDF |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB 315 Fiscal Note DEC-EHL 2.14.2018.PDF |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB 315 Supporting Document - Presentation 3.15.18.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB 315 Additional Documentation - DEC Letter re Alaska Grown 2.14.2018.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB 315 Supporting Documents - Homer Swift Creek Ranch 2.8.2018.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB260 Sponsor Statement 1.25.18.pdf |
HFSH 2/20/2018 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 260 |
| HB260 ver A 1.25.18.pdf |
HFSH 2/20/2018 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 260 |
| HB260 Residential Hunters AK Letter of Support HB 260.pdf |
HFSH 2/20/2018 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 260 |
| HB 260 Fiscal Note-DFG- 2.16.18.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 260 |
| HB 260 Supporting Document - Status of Electronic Fish Game licenses, mobile apps and websites in other states 3.15.18.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 260 |
| HCR 23 Version A .PDF |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 23 |
| HCR23 Disease Free in the North.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 23 |
| HCR 23 Supporting Document - Territorial Sportsmen 3.16.18.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 23 |
| HCR 23 Fiscal Note - LEG-SESS- 03.16.18.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 23 |
| HCR23 Support ltr, AK Prof Hunters Assoc..pdf |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 23 |
| HCR23 Opposition, Judd.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 23 |
| HCR 23 Opposition, Crosby.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 23 |
| HB315 Support, AK WSF Comments.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |