Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/17/1995 08:37 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HRES - 03/17/95 HB 59 - RAFFLE OR AUCTION OF BIG GAME PERMITS REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE, PRIME SPONSOR, stated HB 59 is a revenue generating piece of legislation. HB 59 would allow Alaska to join a number of other states in issuing Governor's tags. He said there are philanthropic hunters and people who feel a strong responsibility to contribute to wildlife conservation, habitat restoration, and sound fish and game management. In other states, several hundred thousand dollars have been raised by auctioning off sheep permits, elk permits, etc. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE explained the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has calculated that $25,000 will be raised the first year, using this process, going up to $100,000 in future years. He said a representative from the Outdoor Council has said his organization alone, through these tags, has generated $100,000 for the North American Foundation for Sheep. He felt that by using this process, funds could be generated for ADF&G. He explained HB 59 allows the Governor's tags to consist of two harvest permits each for dall sheep, bison, musk ox, brown or grizzly bear, moose, caribou and wolf. He noted these tags will not affect the number of permits made available to Alaskan residents. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said people in the guiding industry have expressed this program would offer a great opportunity to guide these kinds of hunters, probably gratis, just for the referral business they could potentially receive. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted for the record that Representative Williams had joined the committee. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE reviewed two amendments he wished to offer. The first amendment is on page 1, lines 12-14: Delete "(1) an amount not to exceed 50 percent of the net proceeds, which the qualified organization shall use to promote fish and game law enforcement, and (2)". He said further research has shown this verbiage would cause problems with the procurement code. He explained these kinds of state sponsored events are generally limited to 10 percent of the net proceeds and if the amount becomes more than that, the procurement code goes into effect. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated amendment number two is on page 2, line 9: Delete "ethical", and on page 3, line 5: Delete "ethical". He noted there has been discussion around the fact that the word ethical is a fuzzy word, open to many interpretations and would best not be in statute because it speaks to hunting which is regulated by the applicable laws and those laws demand ethical behavior. Number 187 RANDY WILD, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA FISH AND WILDLIFE SAFEGUARD (AF&WS), testified via teleconference and stated when this legislation was started previously, AF&WS worked with Senator Frank. He said AF&WS could not say that legislation was for wildlife safeguard but added that AF&WS is the only organization qualified and is established to promote fish and wildlife or fish and game law enforcement. He noted that original statute is in HB 59 on page 1, line 4, AS 16.05.343. He explained that Representative Bunde has basically attached paragraphs (b) and (c) to the original legislation. MR. WILD told committee members in the past AF&WS has provided bison raffles in excess of $60,000. He expressed opposition to the deletion contained in amendment number one because the procurement code does say for the use of an individual organization. He said the 50 percent, as written, states "which the qualified organization shall use to promote fish and game law enforcement". He stated it is the intent of Safeguard to use that for payment of reward proceedings. He urged the committee to leave the language in for that purpose. MR. WILD said Colonel John Glass, Director, Division of Fish & Wildlife Protection, believes the best way to enhance the state's enforcement ability is to have organizations, such as Safeguard, to have the ability to get out to the public, bring an awareness forward, and use self-policing type avenues, which is being incorporated currently by providing a 1-800 number. He stressed to continue Safeguard's program, the organization must have some type of funding. He explained that Safeguard is not funded by any kind of statute and the state courts are no longer allowing the organization to receive various fines. In the past, the court system allowed a person to pay a donation to Safeguard in lieu of a fine, which is not now available. MR. WILD pointed out if HB 59 could be amended to include one each of the big game species listed in paragraph (b), in paragraph (a) and retain the 50 percent for the payment of rewards, the program could be funded. He said members of Safeguard volunteer because they feel it is a good and necessary program. The money given to the state is a side note for Safeguard, but a very good benefit. He stated on January 5, 1994, Safeguard deposited $27,182 with the ADF&G in proceeds from the bison raffle. He stressed Safeguard supports the state in many ways including promoting the proper use of game and providing funds as well. He urged committee members to not delete the 50 percent of what is used to pay rewards and to bring the big game species listed in paragraph (b) to paragraph (a) so the program can be funded. Number 268 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he totally supports Safeguard and feels they do a great job. He stated he would prefer to leave the 50 percent in the bill because it is money well spent. He noted if the state had to pay for the hours the volunteers put in, it would involve thousands and thousands of dollars. He explained the department felt the 50 percent would not fly in the courts and would lose ultimately. He knows Safeguard needs more money because they cannot generate enough money just on a single bison raffle. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE called members attention to page 2, lines 7 and 8 where it says "a qualified organization" means a nonprofit corporation established to promote fish and game law enforcement. He said in his mind that qualifies Safeguard to apply for the permits which are listed, as well as apply for their original bison permit. He stated while the bill does not give Safeguard the 50 percent and all the tags, it does allow them to apply for the tags plus have the bison raffle. He hoped that was a reasonable compromise. Number 298 JOHN HARTWICK, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA FISH AND WILDLIFE SAFEGUARD, testified via teleconference. He stated last fall while hunting he stopped at several of the fish and game offices in the states of Montana and Wyoming and talked to them about their Safeguard programs. Both states have state funded programs for wildlife Safeguard. In Wyoming, the funding is through direct funding from the Department of Fish and Game and in Montana, the program is funded by taking one dollar off the top of every hunting license sold. He noted that fund-raising has been a continual problem. He stressed if HB 59 can be passed, preferably with the 50 percent retained, it will allow Safeguard to continue in Alaska and provide great benefits to all citizens. Number 324 EDDIE GRASSER, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL (AOC), testified via teleconference and said AOC supported this legislation last year and supports it this year. He agreed with the comments of Mr. Wild and Mr. Hartwick regarding the 50 percent retention. He wondered if it was ADF&G or the Department of Public Safety that had problems with the 50 percent. He stated last year when he talked to the ADF&G, there was no problem with the 50 percent. MR. GRASSER said another concern is on page 2, lines 7-10 where it reads "established to promote fish and game law enforcement or an organization established to promote management of hunted game species". He stated AOC's concern is the first qualifier is not linked up with the second. He pointed out AOC would like Safeguard to continue their program. AOC's concern is that other organizations, that may be nonhunting or even anti-hunting, could claim to promote fish and game wildlife enforcement. Number 358 GERON BRUCE, REPRESENTATIVE, ADF&G, explained the question about the 50 percent came up in the prior committee HB 59 was heard in. The question was asked if the 50 percent would constitute a diversion of fish and game funds. The department reviewed the question and contacted the federal aid administrator, who informed the department that a level at 50 percent could be construed as a diversion, and recommended the 50 percent be adjusted to 10 percent. MR. BRUCE said in looking at the fees organizations get for providing the service, it has to be viewed like a vendor selling a fishing or hunting license--they are allowed to keep a certain percentage of the cost of the license for their own use. He stated the reason for the concerns is the fish and game fund is one of few, if not the only, dedicated fund in state government. The reason the fish and game fund is a dedicated fund is because there is a provision in the state Constitution which says funds can be dedicated if federal laws require it in order to receive federal funds. He noted that is exactly the case in this situation. MR. BRUCE explained federal aid and restoration, for both sport fish and wildlife, requires that all license fees be used for the administration of the agency and the conduct of the programs, on behalf of fish and wildlife resources for recreational folks, and that the programs be directed at those. He said a small percentage going to an organization could be viewed as a fee for conducting a service and that could be part of the agency's administrative function which it has contracted to a private party. However, when it goes beyond that to the point the 50 percent does, that arena is left and you begin to go into a point where you are starting to provide funds out of the fish and game fund for other organizations. He noted, regrettably, that is what led the department to the recommendation of 10 percent instead of 50 percent. MR. BRUCE stressed the department supports and highly values the work Wildlife Safeguard does and wants to see it continued. He said in Section (b) of the bill, the department supports adding language that would make it clear that an organization like Safeguard, which is involved in promoting law enforcement activities related to hunting and fishing, would be a qualified organization and able to auction off the two harvest permits per year. Number 420 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated the agencies who will be allowed to raffle the permits will be chosen by the department. He thought there could be some level of confidence that the commissioner and the department would not issue a permit to someone who is working counter to the goals of sound fish and game management and the use of game populations for hunting. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted for the record that Representatives VEZEY and FOSTER were present. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES asked if there is anything in fish and game regulations preventing the department from using an equivalent amount raised through a raffle contractually to an organization like Safeguard to provide a service. MR. BRUCE responded he did not know. He said he would look into it and get back to him. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES felt what Safeguard does is consistent with the overall mission of the department and the department could earmark an amount equivalent to the amount raised in this way for that purpose and then make it available through a competitive contract. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated he would like to see Safeguard funded out of state monies. He said it was felt that taking funding out of the appropriation process was wise because with the challenges faced today, that money would be jeopardized and would not involve a consistent cash flow from year to year. He pointed out Safeguard has a little more control by raising their own money. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he understood that concern but on the other hand, he would not regard his suggestion so much in the line of general funds as in the line of program receipts. He felt the department could determine a way to make it happen legally, in such a way that it would not be that different than what is proposed in HB 59. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled there was another concern in Fairbanks on page 2, line 8 about the word "or". He assumed that "or" was in there so as not to be so restrictive as to require both conditions be met. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated he reads it as either or not restrictive. He said he would take the question back to the bill drafter. Number 485 LISA BLACKER, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY (AEL), said AEL does not strongly oppose the intent of HB 59. However, AEL feels that if the purpose of HB 59 is to raise money for the fish and game fund, then all nonprofits should have an opportunity to participate in the extension of this program. She said page 2, lines 9-11, opens it up, beyond the Safeguard organization, to other nonprofits to use this as a fund raiser for their own organization. She stressed if that is the case, AEL feels it is important to not be exclusive and all nonprofits should have an opportunity to raise money for the fish and game fund and should be able to have an opportunity to raise money for themselves. REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT noted that on page 2, line 13, it indicates brown or grizzly bear. He wondered if that meant either or, or both. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied the term is brown or grizzly because in many cases they are the same or close to the same. He stated two separate species are not being referred to. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if there is a difference between the two. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE responded the generally accepted definition indicates a grizzly bear is defined by where it lives. If it is within 75 miles of salt water, it is a brown bear and if it is further away, it is a grizzly bear. He said the bear's diet contributes to the size differences. REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY stated any bear north of the 63rd parallel is considered a grizzly. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE added the definition he uses is that which the different hunting organizations use when they record trophies. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked the sponsor if he had thought about including a sealed bid along with the auction or raffle. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said the definition of auction could be construed to be a silent auction as well as a cry out auction. He stated in the past when these auctions occur, there is a large convention of hunters who take pride in spending money to support their sport. He noted in many cases, the cry out auction provides some psychological rewards for those who spend the money. He suspected in many cases a raffle would raise the most money. He pointed out it is in the organization's best interest to choose the vehicle which will raise the largest amount of money because they are in for a percentage of the amount raised. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed with that. He said if it is desired, outsiders' sealed bids might generate more money.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|