Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/08/2000 02:10 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 56 - CONST. AM: WILDLIFE INITIATIVES REPRESENTATIVE GREEN announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 56, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska prohibiting certain initiatives relating to wildlife. Number 2046 REPRESENTATIVE CARL MORGAN, JR., Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor of HJR 56, came forward. He offered to read the sponsor statement. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether there were any questions. Number 2092 REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT asked Representative Morgan, in essence, whether there was any history regarding the framers of the Alaska constitution and why the provisions that were included were selected. REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN said he didn't know. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested that might be a good question for Dick Bishop [Alaska Outdoor Council]. He then called upon Holly Carroll to testify. Number 2138 HOLLY CARROLL came forward to testify on behalf of herself and Alaskan voters. She expressed appreciation for the work that legislators do, which is a part of democracy. However, the ballot initiative process is also a wonderful thing given to people by the constitution. She believes it is the only way, aside from electing legislators and letting them do what they do, that people can get involved in the lawmaking process; in that way, they voice their opinions and try to get a law made. MS. CARROLL continued. She told members that this process hasn't been abused. Since 1960, only 17 ballot initiatives have passed, and only 2 of those had anything to do with wildlife. The process isn't being misused by the public; instead, it is being used if and when it is needed. Ms. Carroll said she could live with this resolution if it made the ballot process more available to Alaskans or would resolve the complex issues regarding subsistence or wildlife management. However, it will do neither. Instead, it will remove a democratic process, a check and balance available to "the fourth branch of government," the people. Ms. Carroll noted that she had chosen to testify before this particular committee because she believes its members are to decide upon the merits, legalities or fairness of individual bills. She concluded: ... I think this bill is going to remove some of my democratic rights - and I don't have a lot after I elect you. That's it. I elect you, and then you get to look out for me, which is great. But ... the ballot initiative is a nice process that if I need to get involved, I can. If you take this away, even on single issues, you're taking it away completely from all Alaskans. So I'm urging you to oppose HJR 56, in that I think it's the removal of my democratic rights as a voter. And I urge you to consider the best interests of all Alaskans and allow us to use this process when we feel the need. Number 2250 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Carroll whether she lives in Juneau. MS. CARROLL answered that she lives in Juneau now but was born and raised in Fairbanks. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested that because she lives in Juneau, where laws are made and there is access to lawmakers, Ms. Carroll's input would be far more valuable and effective using the [legislative] process, rather than being part of a ballot petition effort and being one of 22,000 signers on a petition. MS. CARROLL pointed out that if she lived in Fairbanks, she could participate in the legislative process via teleconference. Furthermore, she may not be just one of 22,000 signers on a petition; she may want to start a petition herself. She believes it is a very valid democratic process, no less effective than the [legislative] process here. Ms. Carroll mentioned two recent initiatives, one regarding same-sex marriage and one involving snaring that wasn't passed. She restated that it is a very effective process, and removing it completely won't solve the problem. Number 2338 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES responded that she appreciates Ms. Carroll's testimony and certainly doesn't want to depress the public's ability to make changes in laws about which they can't seem to get the legislature to listen. But the constitution also requires, in the area of resources, management on a sustained yield basis and for the common use of everyone, including people who want to look at [animals] or eat them. When using a sustained yield basis, it appears to her that it needs to be "biologically driven." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES further said that initiatives, however, aren't passed based on science but on public opinion, which doesn't always match scientific developments. The interest in this piece of legislation is because it wasn't anticipated, at the time of creating the constitution, that outside influence on these issues, through money and efforts, would convince people to do certain things. She suggested that a line should be drawn at allowing public opinion to make those decisions. Representative James asked Ms. Carroll whether she sees a difference between management of resources and something like legalizing marijuana or another issue that is more based on general consensus and public opinion. Number 2447 MS. CARROLL agreed that many times there is outside influence. Larger groups such as the NRA [National Rifle Association] and the [Alaska] Outdoor Council get a lot of money from outside, for instance, as do conservation groups sometimes. Ultimately, however, it is only money and money cannot cast votes. Alaskans cast votes. Outside influence will always be there, and this [resolution] won't solve that. Ms. Carroll pointed out that the constitution doesn't allow initiatives in a couple of areas having to do with money and the budget. She also agreed that people could put something outlandish on the ballot. But she believes that history has shown [ends mid-speech because of tape change; log notes show that Ms. Carroll cited the recent anti-snaring initiative regarding wolves, which didn't pass, as an example where the public has made a sound decision]. TAPE 00-30, SIDE B Number 0001 MS. CARROLL continued. She pointed out that she, a regular voting member of the public, is a zoologist; in that sense, she is more qualified than some legislators to make decisions about wildlife management, because she fully understands it. Furthermore, she would be just as concerned if this resolution were about any other issue such as marriage. She said it is about the process itself and taking it away with this resolution. Ms. Carroll concluded: I think that you have to trust that even if an outlandish group of people get some very, very unbiological view and craft a ballot initiative, that the general people will consider it on its merits, and it will not pass if it is not sound. Number 0060 GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), came forward to testify on behalf of the department. He noted that Wayne Regelin, director of the Division of Wildlife Conservation, had asked him to testify because he is attending a Board of Game meeting in Fairbanks; otherwise, he would have been here today. MR. BRUCE told members that wildlife and fish are two subjects that Alaskans like to argue about the most. They have been very important in Alaska's history and statehood. He cited that the outside interests that did not want to see statehood and see the state manage its own fisheries resources made the argument that Alaskans were not capable of managing their own resources; that they were too close to them; that they wouldn't be professional; that they would be too emotional, et cetera. When Alaska became a state, the citizens chose to have a system of wildlife and fisheries management that was very open and involving. MR. BRUCE continued. There have been citizen boards since statehood, which are comprised of average citizens knowledgeable about these types of issues who are empowered by the legislature and governor to make decisions on how resources should be used. That system is further strengthened by an entire network of local fish and game advisory committees to even further allow citizens to vocalize and provide ideas on how wildlife and fisheries resources should be managed. History has shown that Alaskans are not too emotional or that the issues are not too technical for citizens to make decisions on, as the resources speak for themselves. The resources are in general very healthy, unlike many other places. Number 0164 MR. BRUCE continued. The ADF&G cannot support this resolution. It fails to recognize that there is more to managing the public's wildlife resources than the application of science and technical expertise. Wildlife management must also consider and respond to the values held by the public on how they want their wildlife managed. In other words, the role of scientific management is to achieve the goals and objects desired by the people for the conservation and utilization of their resources. There are usually many options for wildlife management that are biologically sustainable and consistent with sustained yield. The principle of achieving the maximum human harvest of big game for human consumption as the highest and best is not a scientific matter; it's a public policy matter, and like many public policy issues there are differing views. The initiative process is the most direct way that the public can sort out their views on public policies, and taking that away is something the ADF&G cannot support. MR. BRUCE continued. Wildlife management involves scientific and technical expertise, and so does the administration of many other public functions. He cited fisheries, education, public health, and transportation planning as examples of complex subjects involving the application of special training and expertise to manage and conduct programs effectively. There appears to be no reason to single out wildlife management as a subject too complex or too emotional for the public to make policy decisions through the initiative process. Furthermore, it is worth remembering that a law enacted by an initiative can be amended by the legislature immediately, if there is an error or if it brings about unanticipated consequences that are injurious to the public or wildlife resources. And after two years the legislature may repeal the law passed by the initiative entirely, if the legislature believes that it is inappropriate for the state. Given these checks and balances, he said, there is little risk that a poor initiative in the eyes of the legislature would cause any lasting harm to the state's wildlife. MR. BRUCE continued. The department believes that removing wildlife issues from the reach of the initiative process would lead to more conflict rather than less. The initiative process, he said, at least allows an outlet or venue for people to make decisions collectively. The people are still going to have views, and they're still going to take measures to get those views advanced. The department thinks that this would result in increased litigation, and politicize the work of their biologists. The department does not think that removing the public's ability to act directly, when they feel that it is necessary, does not promote better faith in government. The department also believes that it would make their job of managing the state's wildlife more difficult rather than easier. Number 0329 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Bruce whether he had said that there was discussion during the constitutional convention on wildlife matters. MR. BRUCE answered that he was not referring to the constitutional convention itself; he was referring to history. Richard Cooley (ph) and former-Senator Gruening have written histories on salmon management during territorial days. Number 0355 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that the state's wolf control program was adjusted for political correctness, and now it is facing some critical issues because of the biological neglect created by that controversy. She asked Mr. Bruce whether he would agree that there has been a change and that the issue is more acute today as a result of abandoning that biologically determined program. MR. BRUCE replied that he worked for former-Commissioner Rosier [Hickel Administration] when an aerial wolf control program was proposed and the Administration was prepared to move it forward. This issue has been controversial for a long time. He elaborated: You may all remember what happened. There was a great outcry both from within Alaska and out[side] Alaska. There was the threatened tourism boycott, and in the end Governor Hickel made the decision that moving ahead with that program was too costly, too controversial, and the benefits did not outweigh the cause. Number 0491 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Bruce whether the state is in an acute situation now because it has abandoned the sustained management program. MR. BRUCE replied he doesn't think that the state has abandoned sustained yield management. The populations are still sustaining themselves and providing a yield, in most cases. The question really is whether or not the state wants to adopt a policy to manipulate predator populations in order to boost prey populations for a higher yield. The debate really is about whether or not the state wants to have a high yield for human use in particular locations or whether the state wants a system that allows a low level of natural equilibrium to develop between unmanipulated predator populations and their prey. Number 0574 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Bruce whether he agrees with nature taking its course as a cycle. MR. BRUCE replied that is not a decision for the department to make. It is a decision for the public, the legislature and the Board of Game. The department works to achieve the goals set by the aforementioned. He stated: One of the things that is characteristic of the Alaska system is that we have tried to separate and make clear when policy decisions are being made and when the biological, technical expertise is being exercised to try to achieve those policy decisions. The department does that part. The public processes that we have do the other part. Number 0665 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Bruce whether McGrath is at a Tier II level. In other words, which areas are restricting outside hunters in relation to predator control? MR. BRUCE replied he can't answer that question off the top of his head. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Bruce whether there has ever been a study on the impact of outside hunters in relation to moose and the impact of predators. MR. BRUCE replied he can't reference a study right now. The Board of Game restricts guided hunting and takes other measures when a population is declining in order to maximize opportunities for Alaskans. Number 0713 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Bruce whether the Board of Game has eliminated outside hunters in McGrath. MR. BRUCE replied he can't answer that question now. He would get back to him with an answer. Number 0727 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that this is a very emotional issue. He posed an example where an initiative says "we're not going allow you to control predation, that we do want to go on the natural cycle." A herd like the Fortymile [caribou] herd, he said, migrates across the international line; he mentioned that the Canadians had decided to "sterilize the alpha male and female to help reduce rather than to actually kill the predators," which was somewhat successful. He stated: My question though is, if we had some initiative like this that we were going to mess with the predator side of it and it was my understanding that Fortymile herd was kind of going over the limits would that preclude you then. Would you, as a biologist, say that well gosh we can't do anything about that. We're just gonna have to live with that and maybe say "sayonara" to the Fortymile herd. MR. BRUCE answered that the ADF&G is conducting a sterilization program with wolves in the Fortymile area, and they are seeing some recovery. It is experimental, however, and they are trying to learn from it. It looks promising at this point, but it is too early to tell how successful it might be and how wide it might be applied. In response to Representative Green's broader question, it would be hard to tell whether an initiative involving a natural cycle would get past the Alaskan people. Number 0838 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN rephrased his scenario: The initiative petition hasn't passed, but it's up now; it's got the required number of signatures .... Let's assume it's the Fortymile herd that we're concerned about or something else like that. Would the Department of Fish & Game then go on any kind of an educational program to say, "Well, now, wait a minute; we may not want to do this from a scientific standpoint"? MR. BRUCE answered that it is the department's job to provide information on the likely outcome, which can be done without lobbying for one side or the other. Number 0911 SUSAN SCHRADER, Conservation Advocate, Alaska Conservation Voters (ACV), stated that ACV is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting Alaska's environment through public education and advocacy. She said that they have 40 organizations that represent about 22,000 registered Alaskan voters. They have consistently opposed efforts by the legislature to limit Alaskan's constitutional right to participate in the initiative process and unfortunately HJR 56 is yet another attack on that right that they oppose. She explained that none of their reasons are new; they have been echoed by other folks that have testified on HJR 56. MS. SCHRADER stated that although HJR 56 addresses just wildlife initiatives to many of their members it represents an erosion of public access to government, in general. When one group of Alaskans is denied an opportunity to address an issue that they strongly believe in, through the initiative process, the freedom of all Alaskans is being threatened. She pointed out that public policy issues that are addressed through the initiative process are very likely a lot more public discussion than many of the bills that make their way through committees in the legislative process. Supporters of the resolution speak to wanting to put the wildlife management issue back into the hands of the biologists and the policies back into the hands of the legislators. MS. SCHRADER continued. The legislature directs policy to the ADF&G, and, through its confirmation process, essentially chooses the members of the Board of Game. Thus the initiative process is one of the few ways left to the citizens to perform an important check on the powers of the legislature. She pointed out that when they are being asked to relinquish their right to vote on wildlife management issues, through the initiative process, they feel they are being told that they are not competent enough to do so and that they should trust the decisions resulting from an unbalanced process that currently promotes the principles of intensive game management and the values of consumptive users to the near- exclusion of other users. MS. SCHRADER indicated that the constitution's sustained yield and multiple-use provisions have served Alaskans and their wildlife very well. Those same framers of our constitution who were wise enough to put Article VIII into it also included the initiative process. They had faith in the ability of Alaskans to make informed decisions through the initiative process and obviously that faith that our framers had is not being shared by the legislature. The legislature has ways to reverse the initiative process if they see fit. SB 74, that passed into law last year, was a fine example. It is within the legislature's power to correct any legitimate problems that might result from the initiative process. Clearly, the system is not broken and clearly the wildlife of Alaska are not going to be safer if this tool of democracy is taken away from the citizens of Alaska. Number 1153 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA wondered whether there are other states that ban wildlife initiatives like this. MS. SCHRADER replied that the one state she is aware of is Utah, which passed an amendment to their constitution in 1998. She indicated that is does not directly ban the use of the initiative process on wildlife issues, but rather it requires a two-thirds vote by the general public to pass an initiative instead of a majority. She noted that the supporters of the amendment on the ballot out spent the opponents 12-1; they spent over a half-million dollars and the National Rifle Association (NRA) figured most prominently in the money coming in. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that she appreciates Ms. Schrader's testimony and in a lot of ways is in agreement, but expressed concern with the fact that Alaska is like five states within itself, with Anchorage having the largest concentration of people that make the decisions and many of those people really have no understanding of the rural issues. She pointed out that HJR 56 is a constitutional amendment and the public will have an opportunity to vote on it, for it is not an advisory vote like last September. If the legislature was to pass HJR 56, which would take a two- thirds vote from the House and Senate, the public will still have the opportunity to say, "No." She added that she believes having a two-thirds vote required for a constitutional amendment is a good one. She wondered whether Ms. Schrader was opposed to the ideas she just suggested. Number 1357 MS. SCHRADER said that obviously Representative James is right that if HJR 56 gets its two-thirds vote in the House and Senate then it will go to the public and once again the concern is that it will once again pull in outside money and a lot of time, money and effort will be spent on both sides. She disagreed with Representative James's comment about so many folks being concentrated in an urban setting, like Anchorage, and not having an appreciation for rural issues. She pointed out that it does not take long to be in Alaska and gain a respect for people who live in rural areas. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to Ms. Schrader's comment about huge sums of money coming in from both sides. She pointed out that in their campaign finance reform issue they have made a limit on the amount of money that candidates can get and where they can get the money from, but they have not made any restrictions on the initiative process. She said that she disagrees with outside money coming in. She indicated that if Alaskans could make their own decisions without influence from people outside of the state then she believes they would not be so concerned with issues like the one before them. MS. SCHRADER agreed with Representative James and said that the money issue is so troubling with all aspects of the democratic process. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that it would also help if there was truth in advertising. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI expressed concern with Ms. Schrader's comment that the legislature does not have faith in the Alaskan people on wildlife management issues. She pointed out that their concern is not with what the Alaskan people know and understand, but rather the influence by the outside dollars. She said that to say that the legislature does not have faith in Alaskans is a pretty condemning and broad statement. She explained that Alaska is a very cheap state to buy on an issue with only 650,000 people living here. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that she believes every single legislator is concerned with what the public wants and they want to be sure that the public has all the information they need to make an informed decision. She added that the legislature needs to do a better job in communicating. She asked Ms. Schrader if the legislature worked harder to let the public know the details of what they deal with everyday would it help them to have a better relationship with the public. MS. SCHRADER replied that she is not sure what the public would end up hearing along the lines of communication; there is a lot of opportunity for a disconnect. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed that the disconnect is there, but she stressed that she does not want it to be said that she does not trust the public. MS. SCHRADER indicated that it has to do with the legislature not having faith in the values of many Alaskans. She pointed out that there are many Alaskans who have values that differ from many of the more vocal hunters and trappers in the communities. She said that those values may be influenced by outside money, but that really their value system is something held more deeply. She pointed out that the whole reason they are having initiatives is because many Alaskans feel that their values are being discounted by the Board of Game and some of the actions by the legislature, such as the intensive game management statutes. Number 1929 DICK BISHOP, Vice President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), stated it's astounding that the legislature is being blamed for wanting to restrict the opportunities of the general public, when in fact it was a segment of the public that requested that this type of resolution be introduced. The AOC strongly supports HJR 56 and is part of that segment of the public who has supported the introduction of this resolution. The reason is simple, he said: "ballot box biology" is not the way to manage natural resources. He pointed out that 26 states do not have an initiative process for any subject matter, and as far as he can tell those states continue to function. MR. BISHOP continued. He referred to a letter from The Wildlife Society, date March 3, 2000, which indicates that the initiative process is not a very good way to manage wildlife. He's glad to see the association taking such a position because it represents approximately 300 wildlife biologists in the state who work for state or federal agencies and are unable to take a position for fear of risking their job. He noted that the society doesn't take a direct position on this resolution, but it is clear that in general they believe the initiative process for wildlife management is a "loose canon." MR. BISHOP continued. In reference to an earlier question about the number of outside hunters in the McGrath area, he pointed out that in Unit 19D-East there were 3 successful non-resident moose hunters from 1995 to 1997, and 16 in 1998. The numbers indicate that the level of human harvest by non-residents is quite low and not significant in terms of the moose population levels in the area. The take for residents is not very high either. He cited that there were 55 successful resident moose hunters in 1995, 54 in 1996, 58 in 1997, and 38 in 1998. The information, he noted, is from the Department of Fish & Game. Having been an area biologist for that area, he said, most of the non-resident takes were in the foothills and not in the controlled areas. Number 2417 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Bishop whether she heard him say that non-resident moose hunters went from 3 in 1996 to 16 in 1998. MR. BISHOP replied, "That's correct." He read the following asterisk from the statistics: There is an error in the reported non-resident harvest that occurred in that portion of Unit 19, referenced as 19D-East. This error was most obvious in the 1998 harvest data. That portion of Unit 19D is closed to non- residents for moose hunting and has been closed since 1995. At this time, it's unknown what might have caused this error. It could have been that non-resident hunters incorrectly reported their hunt location... [TAPE CHANGE] TAPE 00-31, SIDE A Number 0001 MR. BISHOP continued. The AOC is concerned that the initiative process is being abused; that it invites and even promotes the casual, misinformed or uninformed reaction by people on complex issues. He said, "It has become a battle of 30-second sound bytes and there are no requirements for truth in advertising. And the big bucks usually win." Initiatives, he said, are usually promoted with emotions and simplistic reactions to complicated questions, and quite often the issue is misrepresented as a failure of the system. The system being the Board of Game, advisory committees, and the perspectives of the members thereof. History has shown, however, that initiative proponents generally fail to make their case with the boards. He cited that at a debate in 1996, when the same-day-airborne initiative was being advertized as a prohibition on aerial shooting, which in itself was a misrepresentation, a representative of Green Peace indicated that they had been going to the Board of Game with their arguments for 10 years and had not been able to make any headway. Mr. Bishop asked the representative whether it ever occurred to them that they didn't have a credible position. The representative was not forthcoming with an answer. He further pointed out that, although people who promote restrictions on hunting or trapping are displeased or uncomfortable with their proposal not being accepted by the Board of Game, there are lots of pro-hunting and pro-trapping proposals that are turned down every year because they are "lousy." It's not just a question of the board reviewing anti-hunting proposals with skepticism; it's a question of all proposals being reviewed. MR. BISHOP continued. He is familiar with the background of the constitutional convention, but he believes this wasn't an issue at the time. This wasn't even an issue at the national level until about 10 years ago, when initiatives became popular as a means to raise concerns that were not being successfully raised through the regulatory and legislative processes. Mr. Bishop said "ballot box biology" is mass marketing. He elaborated: It's a great way to sell soap. If it looks, smells, feels good and you can buy it, and you can read the list of ingredients later and see whether you think it's all right. If you do that though with our management of wildlife reading the ingredients later can be very unfortunate. MR. BISHOP continued, saying "ballot box biology" is an end-run around a representative government. He agrees that the loss of a democratic privilege should not be taken lightly, but the system is not set up for decisions of public policies to be made by "mob rule" or by the majority-of-the-moment; it's set up to be decided through a systematic process. Number 0505 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA indicated that same-day-airborne hunting is not really a sport but rather a type of predator control. She further mentioned that this issue was discussed today on the floor of the House of Representatives, and asked Mr. Bishop whether it's more logical to use a helicopter rather than a small plane. MR. BISHOP replied he didn't hear the debate on the floor, so he's not sure of the exact context. He can say, however, that the use of an aircraft is an issue of predator control, not sport hunting. Moreover, there is a relative advantage to using a helicopter in that it is more mobile, but it is also more expensive. He reiterated that there are regulations against the use of helicopters for hunting or trapping, so the only option is for a government program, which can be an efficient means to control predators. Number 0654 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she was told that the only way to control wolves is to take the pack or a major part of the pack, not the occasional wolf. She asked Mr. Bishop whether that is a reason why any type of predator control has to be done from the air. MR. BISHOP replied there is no significant effect on lowering the population of wolves, unless more than 40 percent are removed on an annual basis. Wolf populations are capable of recovering 40 percent of their population within one year. He further stated that in order to affect an actual reduction that is going to provide a lasting opportunity for moose or caribou populations to recover, 70 percent to 80 percent of the wolf population needs to be removed for several consecutive years. That assumes, however, that wolves are the problem. There are situations where bears are a substantial or principal part of the problem. However, in Unit 19D-East wolves are clearly the problem. Number 0781 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she is trying to understand the fear associated with this issue. She asked Mr. Bishop whether it's a fear of the Alaskan voters or a fear of outside influence. In other words: Is the AOC's concern a true reflection of what Alaskan themselves want to do? MR. BISHOP replied it's a combination of both. He believes that the ideological leadership is promoted by outside organizations. He cited People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Friends of the Animals, and Defenders of Wildlife as examples of outside influence. Those organizations are in business to focus on an issue, and they are very successful in raising a considerable degree of concern. Yet a substantial part of the information presented is untrue. He cited that Friends of the Animals raised concerns nationwide when they indicated that wolf control in Alaska would affect wolves in the Lower 48. He also cited that in 1996, when the same-day-airborne hunting imitative was on the ballot, the television advertisements indicated that the initiative intended to ban aerial hunting. Number 0971 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated is seems that the problem is with truth in advertising and the influences therein, not Alaskans themselves. She believes that the people of Alaska should have their fundamental democratic right to speak up when they feel that something is too far "out of wack." MR. BISHOP replied the AOC recognizes that the initiative process is something the people prize highly, but he can say with confidence that the opportunity for public input on management policies and actions is underutilized because it is so extensive. The people simply don't use the current system, a system that has been remarked as the most democratic for setting regulations in the nation, if not the world. MR. BISHOP continued. He commented it is a myth that those who sit on the Board of Game who have a hunting license are incapable of representing those who value non-consumptive uses. He knows that a number of the members were appointed because they were considered moderates or advocates of non-consumptive uses, and Governor Knowles appointed them for those purposes. They have taken their responsibilities very seriously and have done a very good job in addressing all interests, and their position on wolf control reflects that quite well. Number 1129 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated that the big increase in Unit 19D was for non-resident hunters, which went from 19 to 31 from 1995 to 1998, respectively. Resident hunters went from 92 to 56. He said, ... If the moose that had been taken by non-residents had been taken by residents instead, they'd have the same historic levels they always had. Or, playing with the numbers, in [19]95 it was an 82-percent resident take. By [19]98 it had dropped to 66. Taking the numbers one more way. The success rate has stayed about the same for resident hunters in that area. About 42 percent of the hunts result in success. But the non-resident success rate had skyrocketed by [19]98. Seventy-five, twenty- five. So, isn't for [Unit] 19D the problem that you have extremely successful and more numerous non-resident hunters in the 19D McGrath area. MR. BISHOP replied that he can't say for sure, but Unit 19D-East is an area that cannot be legally hunted by non-residents. Even when it was legal, he said, the area was rarely hunted by non-residents because of competition with locals. He further pointed out that the area isn't susceptible to guides because of the terrain, which consists mostly of bottom lands and river lands, compared to highlands and ridges favored by non-resident hunters. As a result, the influence of non-resident hunting in the uplands probably doesn't have much to do with the population levels of moose in the lowlands. Number 1299 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT wondered whether taking a lot of moose in the highlands isn't going to affect the moose in the lowlands eventually. MR. BISHOP answered that it's not uncommon to have altitude segregation for moose. Number 1320 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said the data for Unit 19D indicates that there is an error for 19D-East, not necessarily 19D itself; in that way, the numbers reflect a decrease for residents and an increase for non-residents. MR. BISHOP replied that an increase from 19 to 31 is pretty slow. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied 12 is not a big number, but a 50- percent increase is a big number. MR. BISHOP indicated that he is just suggesting there are a number of different ways to look at velocities. Number 1403 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said, Having been a hunter, there's an awful lot of ... If you go hunting the same place every year, as we always did, sometimes they were there and sometimes they were down the road, so to speak. So, it happened to be that where they went hunting there was more moose there that year. It doesn't necessarily mean that it was a lot more people or anything coming, I don't believe. And, you know, how far these moose go is also an issue. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES continued. According to individuals in her district and others, a reason why they want this legislation is because they are afraid that if a new issue comes up they will not have the ability to put up a fight. She noted that last year's snare legislation just about took all the "breath" and money out of them. Number 1500 MR. BISHOP stated, according to his retired yet professional opinion, neither the harvest by residents nor non-residents nor even the combined harvest is a significant factor in the level of moose populations. Most likely, the significant factor is the level of predators because, in general, 85 percent to 90 percent of the annual mortality of big game prey is due to predators, and only 2 percent to 7 percent is attributable to harvest by humans across the state. A single wolf, he cited, requires about 12 moose a year, the same number that non-residents took in 1998 compared to the previous year. People incorrectly believe that hunting is a huge factor in the population levels of big game prey, although it can be the case in some circumstances. In general, however, throughout most of Alaska, predation accounts for about 85 percent of the mortality for big game prey. Accidents and diseases also contribute. Number 1608 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN called an at-ease at 4:09 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 4:12 p.m. He announced that all the public testimony had be heard, and therefore he closed the public testimony and asked if there was any committee discussion. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commented, "On the one hand, ... the discussion about what's happening in the state with the wolves is somewhat of a detractor because we get focused on that and we've got to recognize that what this bill does is amend the constitution to allow for a restriction on the initiative process regarding wildlife." She turned to Representative James' comment regarding the constitutional obligation to manage for sustained yield and the Wildlife Society's position paper which mentions the public trust doctrine and how it applies to wildlife management. Representative Murkowski expressed concern that there must be a good reason in order to place wildlife within the restriction. She believes there is probably a far better reason to place wildlife in a list of restrictions than there is to make restrictions on initiatives that relate to marriage or marijuana. However, "you don't want this to ... be the slippery slope for making this restriction to the initiative process and kind of whittling away the people's ability to participate in the process." Representative Murkowski said that she believes wildlife is different than marriage or marijuana. Therefore, she announced that she would support moving this [HJR 56] out of committee. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to Mr. Bishop's testimony that about 2-3 percent is human harvest while over 80-85 percent is [taken from] predators. Therefore, he believes there will be times when those things have to be taken into consideration. Representative Green was concerned with the state becoming more populated, in particular with individuals who did not grow up in Alaska and do not "know the wildlife way," and sooner or later finding itself in a bind. Number 1818 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that he has a problem with any limit on the initiative and referendum process, which he believes is in place as a check on the legislature. "Given that this is the people's check on us, we should almost never do it and I don't think we should do it in this case." He commented that in these discussions it tends to be condescending to the public, as though they cannot understand an issue the way the legislature can. He said, "We run two dangerous paths. One that when we take away their [the public's] constitutional check on us and two when we start to tell them what they meant and question whether they meant anything at all or were informed enough to do it." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT commented that the initiative process is a very modern process of the Western states primarily. Alaska, the most westernmost state, should be the last place to limit the initiative process. "The legislature has the potential to be inherently anti-initiative because it is the major threat to our power." Representative Croft said: I find an irony in the idea that we were struggling to vote on a constitutional amendment for a rural preference. I assume if we had voted on that rural preference and they'd voted yes and given us the constitutional authority that we would be saying that was a good reason to implement and yet we can't trust them, apparently, in any other area of fish and game management. I have not yet, and I hope I can survive my tenure without voting to restrict the people's power in initiative and I'll continue that by voting against this [HJR 56]. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that he believes that the court system is a threat to the legislature not the initiative process because the legislature, through the initiative process, can take corrective action within two years. The check is the ballot box and the voter's ability to make those decisions. In this instance, bringing this before the people is justifiable because of what has occurred with the two issues that resulted in "biology by the ballot box." He noted the inordinate amount of outside money and influence that came in during those issues. This [HJR 56] is an endeavor to stop that and maintain the state's sovereignty. Representative Rokeberg said that he supported HJR 56. Number 2039 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with Representative Croft in that she did not want to take away any of the public's rights. However, historically public opinion, although the strongest political power, has not always been correct. She pointed out that this country has a republic not a democracy, which is a check and balance on this issue. She noted her belief that when people are given all of the information, they will make the right decision. The problem is that people do not always have all the information. Still, there is another constitutional check and balance in this issue as this constitutional amendment requires a two-third vote of both houses in order to even place it on the ballot and those same people have the opportunity to vote on the issue. Therefore, the people's rights are not be taken away. In regards to the rural amendment to the constitution, Representative James pointed out that two-thirds of the districts in the state must agree to it. Representative James concluded by saying that she is very much in support of HJR 56. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA commented that if [the legislature] left the Board of Game and the ADF&G alone to make decisions based on science, she might be able to go for this. However, that is not the case as exemplified last session when the legislature set harvest levels high for human consumption. Representative Kerttula believes this is a pendulum. She agreed that she did not like the outside influences either, but it is condescending to Alaskan voters to say that they cannot make a reasonable decision on this. She noted that she has felt bad because her belief that the legislature is behaving in a noninclusive manner. Therefore, she said that she could not support this [HJR 56]. Number 2231 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved that the committee report HJR 56 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA objected. Upon a roll call vote, Representatives Rokeberg, James, Murkowski and Green voted in favor of reporting HJR 56 out of committee and Representatives Croft and Kerttula voted against reporting HJR 56 out of committee. Therefore, HJR 56 was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee committee by a 4-2 vote.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|