Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/27/2000 01:20 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 53 - CONST AM: WILD FOOD RESOURCES CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the final order of business before the committee would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 53, Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to a preference for taking wildlife for human consumption. He noted that there was a new proposed CS, Version K [1-LS1337\K, Utermohle, 3/27/00], that would address all of Representative Croft's prior concerns. Number 0840 EDDIE GRASSER, Staff to Representative Masek, Alaska Staff Legislature, testified on behalf of the sponsor of HJR 53. He noted that after the last hearing, a CS that addresses some of the committee's concerns was drafted. He informed the committee that the new CS, Version K, deletes the word "enhanced" from Section 1. Therefore, the language in Section 1 of the bill and Section 4 of the constitution is the original language of the constitution. He specified, "So, the only change is in Section 2 on lines 11 through 13, where on line 13 we added 'except as provided by the legislature.'" That language clarifies that areas such as the McNeil River Sanctuary, set aside by the legislature or by law would be maintained. MR. GRASSER noted his past experience sitting on the Board of Game and indicated the language "solely to provide for nonconsumptive use" allows for many other things besides legislatively-designated areas that are to be closed. He pointed out that while he sat on the board, the board closed several areas to hunting in what is called a controlled use area. All of those closures were made for hunting purposes, not for nonconsumptive reasons. He believes that most of the controlled use areas that have been set aside in the last 10 years are similar in effect, because these areas have mainly been set aside in order to deal with conflicts between hunters. MR. GRASSER said this language would still allow the board to do that, if there is a public safety reason, a conservation reason or a scientific research reason, or if there is a reason to restrict access or uses by different groups of hunters. Under this language, the legislature would have the authority to continue to close areas as they see fit. He pointed out that in Title 16, the Board of Game cannot create refuges, sanctuaries or critical habitat areas. The Board of Game can suggest the creation of such areas, but the legislature is the body that must act on them. Mr. Grasser informed the committee that this language is "pretty much" the same as that passed by the people of Alabama in 1996 and was included in their constitution. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT recalled that Mr. Grasser had said this is a preference among beneficial uses authorized by Section 4 [of the Constitution of the State of Alaska], which he believes to be correct. Therefore, he understood that [the legislature] currently has the constitutional authority to make a preference between consumptive and nonconsumptive uses in statute. MR. GRASSER replied, "That is correct." Number 1004 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT surmised, then, that [the legislature] could currently write in statute, "... consistent with the sustained yield principle, the harvest of fish and wildlife may not be diminished solely to provide for nonconsumptive use of fish or wildlife." There would not be anything unconstitutional about that because it is a distinction of uses. MR. GRASSER again agreed, but pointed out that if it is in statute, then it can be changed by a future legislature. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT commented, "But here, a future legislature can change the constitutional provision." The language "except as provided" allows the legislature the ability to exempt various things and cases, he added. MR. GRASSER answered, "That is correct. The legislature could, with ... ample public pressure, continue to close areas to hunting for purposes other than conservation, public safety, et cetera." However, he believes that would be more difficult for the legislature to do that versus achieving that by the initiative process or by other processes. Mr. Grasser specified that the intent is to establish some protection for a legitimate use of wildlife that has been eroded for the last 30 years. He said, "All of the diminishing uses of our natural wildlife resources or fish have all come at the expense of hunters and trappers; they've continually lost ground." He echoed earlier comments that this historical trend indicates that those uses will continue to come under attack and probably continue to be stopped in favor of another use. Number 1124 DICK BISHOP, Vice President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), informed the committee that AOC strongly supports the work draft, Version K. This amendment clarifies the original intent of Section 4 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska. Mr. Bishop said that in the view of AOC, the key in fortifying the language of the constitution is the sustained yield principle. The sustained yield principle, however it is defined, refers to the consumptive use of resources by people. Mr. Bishop commented that some years ago Gordon Harrison (ph) had explained the sustained yield principle very simply in his book titled "Alaska's Constitution - A Citizen's Guide," which he quoted as follows: The principle of sustained yield management is a basic tenet of conservation. It is a simple yet fundamental idea that the annual harvest of a biological resource should not exceed the annual regeneration of that resource. Maximum sustained yield is the largest harvest that can be maintained year after year. MR. BISHOP pointed out that the constitution and the minutes of the constitutional convention emphasize sustained yield management of replenishable natural resources for beneficial uses. He reiterated that "harvest by people" is central to the sustained yield principle as pointed out by Mr. Harrison (ph). However, that central point has been obscured in the course of discussion and the emphasis of other uses and other preferences for uses of wildlife. This has happened as people have become less associated with direct dependence and direct relationships with fish and wildlife as well as traditional Alaskan lifestyles. Mr. Bishop said, "We think it's really important ... to the continuation of traditional Alaskan lifestyles that our connections to the lands and waters through the harvest and use of fish and wildlife be recognized." Version K reinforces the relationship of consumptive use to sustained yield while allowing the legislature to retain its ability to exercise policy-making authority to set other goals for management and use. Number 1338 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES turned attention to the management for sustained yield, which she believes is more than two "pieces." She identified the allowance for consumptive use of fish and game as "very much according to Alaska's history." However, maintaining a sustained yield basis means that habitat must also be maintained. When habitat is maintained in this state, there is also a land control use, which she noted that she supported. She stated, "As long as we're continuing to maintain a population that can be harvested for consumptive use, we also ... continue in the effort to maintain sufficient and valuable habitat." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES continued. With regard to those who want to let nature go, those same people want to maintain the habitat, she said, adding, "It seems to me like there is a better opportunity, as long as you maintain the ability for those folks who want consumptive uses to do it. You have a protectionist group out there that's going to maintain the health and status of the habitat because you can't have one without the other." This is an important issue that needs to be addressed. She suggested looking at the long-term goal of what is best for Alaska. Number 1451 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion that the committee adopt the proposed CS, Version K [1-LS1337\K, Utermohle, 3/27/00] as a work draft. There being no objection, it was so ordered. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained his objections to the bill. He noted his appreciation of the sponsors' meeting a lot of the concerns. He said, however, "I think what I learned from this is when you meet those concerns, as they did, you don't have anything left." Currently, subsection (a) gives the legislature the power to make preferences among beneficial uses. He noted, "There's no question that a consumptive use and a nonconsumptive use are different beneficial uses. We have this power now." Therefore, he objected to including surplus language in the constitution. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested, "If what we want to do is establish this with just exceptions from McNeil and wherever, let's just put that in statute. I don't think ... consumptive [use] should always trump nonconsumptive [use]." He identified himself as a primarily consumptive user, then said although he knows many other hunters who are primarily consumptive users, he also knows that people in his district have legitimate nonconsumptive uses that they enjoy. "We ought to be able to accommodate both and not say one always wins and one always loses," he emphasized. He said the main part of the new CS doesn't do anything but put in the constitution an authority "we already had and are reluctant to exercise," and he doesn't want to clutter up the constitution. CHAIRMAN KOTT called an at-ease, which lasted from 3:27 p.m. to 3:32 p.m. He then announced that the committee would recess to the call of the chair. CHAIRMAN KOTT reconvened the meeting at 5:27 p.m. and continued the hearing on HJR 53. [Present were Representatives Kott, Green, Rokeberg and James.] Number 1624 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move CSHJR 53 [Version K] out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection, it was so ordered and CSHJR 53(JUD) was moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|