Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/05/1997 01:12 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CSSB 22(RES) am - BOARD OF GAME QUALIFICATIONS Number 2209 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the final item on the agenda was CSSB 22(RES) am, "An Act relating to qualifications for appointment to the Board of Game." Number 2222 SENATOR BERT SHARP, Sponsor of CSSB 22(RES) am, said there was a committee substitute available which tempers the language of the bill. It sets a basic floor on the number of members that should be license holders. The committee substitute says that a minimum of five out of the seven members should have hunting or trapping licenses. The number of years was brought down to three out of five. He felt it was imperative that some kind of assurance be given to ensure that a majority of the members on the Board of Game come from those who pay 100 percent of the cost to manage that resource. If in the future there was a conservation fee which went into the fish and game fund, helping to finance the management, then he would not have a problem with amending the number of members who need a license. Number 2302 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to adopt as a work draft version 0-LS0195\F, Utermohle, 4/4/97, and asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, version F was before the committee. Number 2355 NANCY HILLSTRAND, Secretary, Homer Fish and Game Advisory Committee, testified via teleconference from Homer on behalf of herself. She lived and worked out in the Alaskan bush for 17 years rehabilitating streams, creating salmon runs and working intimately with fish and wildlife resources. She has worked on habitat issues. Her entire life and set of beliefs is guided by fish and wildlife. She has never had a hunting or fishing license, and this could exclude her from the right to serve on a Board of Game. In her role on the fish and game advisory committee, she has seen many people come and go; most had licenses, most were men. Yet the level of dedication and commitment for a balanced and diverse perspective, other than self-interest, was sadly lacking. This aspect of qualification is a shallow requirement. MS. HILLSTRAND said this is constitutionally offensive. It raises concerns of privileged access and immunities, and it does not allow equal protection. TAPE 97-37, SIDE B Number 0001 MS. HILLSTRAND continued, saying the constitution abhors granting special privileges or monopolistic access to wildlife. To lock up the diversity of access by mandating even five of the seven seats will restrict the public process. This bill tinkers, manipulates and skews the diversity of equal access in the public process. It gives undue influence over the decisions of the Board and Game. She said this creates division. It also resembles the types of royal grants the common use clause expressly prohibits. She asked the committee to kill this bill. Number 0076 BILL DeCREEFT, Owner, Kachemak Air Service, testified next via teleconference from Homer. He asked the committee to think about whether or not those in the tourist industry are being represented by the Board of Game. He didn't feel that it was important that someone have a hunting license. He suggested that if they felt there were such different viewpoints, then perhaps there should be a Board of Game viewing. He did not think the legislature understood the tourist industry. They did not understand the amount of people who came to Alaska to view wildlife; it comprises 60 percent of his business. He did not think that federal licenses pay for all the costs of running the ADF&G, the Board of Game or the legislature. He referred to the wildlife viewing license which the Alaska Outdoor Council opposed. He felt they did not want the wildlife viewers to have their own money put into the system and gain some control over the resources. Number 0196 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated that the legislature delegates authority to the Board of Game to manage the resources. Number 0229 MARJOLEIN LEACH, Member, Homer Fish and Game Advisory Committee, testified next via teleconference from Homer on behalf of herself. She does not have a hunting license, but is the owner of a travel agency. She commented that the tourist industry, outside of hunting, visits Alaska in order to view wildlife. She listed all the various components of the those in the tourist industry. This bill effectively denies a large number of those Alaskans residents the right to participate in the process which controls this resource. You are asking hunters to control the resource which is one of three major income generating forces; fishing, oil and tourism. Perpetuating the species is equally important to both tourists and hunters. She suggested there should be education- based qualifiers, rather than a hunting license. She concurred with the ADF&G, who are not in support of the bill. This bill will not fulfil the diversity of interest requirements as stated in the constitution. Number 0320 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated that the tourist industry does not pay its way. The oil industry pays for the sports fishing industry, guiding industry and other industries in this state. Number 0347 DENNIS LEACH, Member, Homer City Council, testified next via teleconference from Homer. He is representing himself, but only because this fast-track bill has not given the council enough time to prepare a resolution opposing it at the city level. The bill, as originally written, was an obvious attempt to limit membership on the state board to one user group, the hunting group. He submitted that the vast majority of funding, paying for all of the services, comes from the state. This state money is received from the citizens of Alaska. The amended bill allows the possibility, not a guarantee, of a minority vote to all the other user groups. He found this offensive, even though he subscribes to the majority position. Alaska's game resources are supposed to be managed strictly by biological criteria. This bill is an obvious attempt to stack the deck politically by ensuring that at least five of the seven seats are held by one user group, to the exclusion of other user groups. He quoted Representative Barnes when she stated her opposition to one Alaskan having an opportunity that other Alaskans do not have; he said that is what this bill does. MR. LEACH personally wanted to see Alaska's surplus game animals harvested by hunters as long as it is biologically sound to do so, but not at the expense of someone else's constitutional rights to participate in their government. Deleting diversity of interests and points of view in the membership of the Board of Game is wrong. Number 0451 DALE BONDURANT testified next via teleconference from Homer. He is a hunter, but he did not think this bill was a fair way to run a democratic government. The legislature delegates authority to the Board of Game, but it looks like they hold a finger to add balance to one side of the scale. It concerned him that the state would make a preference for a particular use of the resource by delegating more pros than cons to it. Allowing two positions to be held by other user groups does not make it a fair set-up. He felt this amended bill is more repulsive than the original bill. It makes a farce out of what the legislature is doing. Number 0523 SUZANNE PESCHIER, Volunteer, Alaska Environmental Lobby, felt the resources allowed opportunities for hunting, trapping, photography, research and recreation. These resources provides income for businessES related to all of these activities. Since Alaska's wildlife is economically and aesthetically important to such a diverse group of people, all of these interests should be allowed representation in the Board of Game. MS. PESCHIER stated that despite changes to the bill, it would prevent representation by all of those interests on the board. The bill discriminates against a large segment of Alaska's population, and the end result would be a board that only represents consumptive users. More than 80 percent of all Alaskans don't have a hunting or trapping license, and most of these people would therefore not qualify to be a member of the Board of Game under this bill. Only 5 percent of Alaskan women have hunting licenses, even though they make up 48 percent of the population. This bill will put the process into the hands of a special interest group, consumptive users. Number 0630 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked whether her organization would suggest amending the constitution regarding consumptive use to include other nonconsumptive users. The constitution speaks to the responsibility of managing fish and game for consumptive users. Number 0687 MS. PESCHIER referred to Article VIII, Section 3, of the constitution where Alaska's wildlife has been reserved and should be managed for the common use of all Alaskans. She felt that her testimony dealt with the common use clause of the constitution. Number 0735 GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game, stated that the department couldn't support the bill even in this amended form. They appreciated the efforts to make the bill broader, but they did not think the current system was broken. The constitution states that the renewable resources of the state belong to all people, subject to preferences among beneficial users. Those preferences can be determined by the legislature or the legislature can delegated this authority to the Board of Game. He did not think that the provisions of the bill are consistent with the constitution. MR. BRUCE explained that the Alaskan system, including the Board of Fisheries, the Board of Game, the advisory committee and everything else, was set up with a great deal of money to provide the most open system possible. The system allows all people to participate in the process. This was done to a large extent because of experiences, under the territorial system, where certain users of the natural resources dominated, particularly the out-of-state canneries. The founding fathers and mothers of this state wanted to ensure that this did not happen again. They created an open system. This system can be seen in the statutes which deal with the qualifications of people serving on the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game. Number 0829 MR. BRUCE felt that saying that you need a hunting license to serve on the Board of Game would be like saying you need to be lawyer to serve in the Alaska legislature. He did not think it was consistent with the notion and the principle of allowing all the citizens to participate in government. MR. BRUCE stated that there might be a number of reasons why people who are avid hunters might not meet the requirement of having a license in three out of the last five years. People might not chose to hunt one year or they may travel out of state, have family obligations, business obligations, or other things that may prevent them from purchasing a license. Hardly anyone who serves on the Board of Game thinks ahead and continues to buy a hunting license when they do not hunt one year. This provision will exclude good candidates for the Board of Game. MR. BRUCE did not think that they understood what holding a hunting license does in terms of strengthening the qualifications to serve on the Board of Game. Someone who is not a hunter can buy a hunting license. The mere purchase of a hunting license in three out of five years, or seven out of seven years, really does not mean much in the way of qualifications; it seems more of a perception issue than one that is tangible. Number 0922 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated that the legislature does in fact delegate to the Board of Game the legislative powers through statutes. Some powers the legislature keeps, while other powers can be taken away from the Board of Game. The legislature establishes qualifications for all boards in this state. This board belongs solely to the people through their elected officials. Number 0958 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN commented that people who manage game on the Board of Game are mandated to manage a sustained yield. If there is abundant wildlife, then the Board of Game is doing a good job. If there is huntable wildlife, then there is watchable wildlife. He felt Alaska has the most public and open fish and game management. He added that people who have hunting licenses are people who have experience out in the field. He defined game as huntable wildlife. The constitution states that the primary use of game will be for consumptive users. He suggested adding a requirement that people should have experience in the field. Number 1099 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE felt that just because someone has a hunting license doesn't necessarily mean that person knows anything about hunting and game or the issues for setting policy for it. Based on those feelings, he is opposed to the bill. Number 1121 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN understood the merit of having this qualification. He did not feel it was an onerous thing to say that if you want to serve on the Board of Game that you need to purchase a license. It is the same as when you want to become a member of a certain organization you pay the dues. On the other hand, he could understand that people would want to be involved in the process and maybe don't want to go to that extent. He asked if the requirement could it be four out of seven members. If it is desirable for members to have a hunting license, then this change would level up the playing field. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, located on page 1, line 13, changing "5" to "4". Number 1215 SENATOR SHARP explained there are many misconceptions, heard today. People can't imagine that the management of game costs are paid entirely by people who buy hunting and trapping licenses. He stated that there is not one dollar of general fund money that goes to manage game in Alaska. He suggested people buy a hunting license to contribute to the management of Alaska's wildlife. Number 1318 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN withdrew his motion. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced that SB 22 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|