Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/28/2000 01:17 PM House RES
| 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 CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business 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. Number 2776 EDDIE GRASSER, Legislative Aide for Representative Beverly Masek, Alaska State Legislature, explained that HJR 53 is companion legislation of sorts to HB 349. [See testimony on HB 349 for this same date.] He indicated that several states have introduced legislation or have amended their constitutions to protect hunting, fishing and trapping. The intent of HJR 53 is to make hunting, fishing and trapping a preferred use of wildlife. He pointed out that some of the same arguments made in HB 349 are made in HJR 53. For instance, there is an increasing and growing attack on legitimate uses by consumptive users of wildlife resources. MR. GRASSER commented on letters to the editor with regard to the McGrath wolf situation; he pointed out that there are letters from radical environmentalists and members of animal rights groups that openly state that [the writers] have one goal in mind: to completely eliminate those uses. He explained that Representative Masek felt that if a state like Alabama can pass a constitutional amendment that says its citizens have a right to hunt, then Alaska should probably be able to do the same. He added that it is clear that hunting, which [is only done by] a minority of the citizens of the state, is a protected right, [and people who exercise that right should be] free from persecution by those who would like to place their values on other people. Number 2637 WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, stated that he has the same concern that he expressed in his testimony on HB 349. [See testimony on HB 349 for this same date.] He explained that it is with regard to using the term "enhanced" rather than "developed." Number 2602 DICK BISHOP, Vice President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), stated that the AOC does strongly support the concepts expressed in HJR 53. Section 2 makes clear what the original intent was of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, where it states that wildlife as well as other replenishable resources "shall be utilized, developed and maintained on the sustained yield principle." He explained that the sustained yield principle refers to consumptive use, and a review of constitutional language makes that clear. Unfortunately, Mr. Bishop said, in the general language of the constitution it is susceptible to different interpretations. MR. BISHOP recommended amending line 11 to read "the taking of fish and wildlife" rather than just "the taking the wildlife." He also recommended on line 12 changing the "a" to "the," so that it would read "the taking of fish and wildlife for human consumption is the preferred use." He referred to Gordon Harrison's book Alaska's Constitution: A Citizens Guide, where it reads: The principle of sustained yield management is a basic tenet of conservation. It is the 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 emphasized that fundamental to the sustained yield principle is the idea of annual harvest, and that annual harvest of a biological resource is by people. That central element is often overlooked or even disputed as more people's lives become more urban-oriented. He indicated that the AOC believes that it is essential for the continuation of traditional Alaskan lifestyles that the connection to the land and waters through the harvest of fish and wildlife be recognized. He noted that [AOC] has the same concerns expressed by Mr. Regelin with regard to substituting the term "enhanced" for "developed." He concluded that the AOC supports HJR 53 with the inclusion of the offered amendments. Number 2256 BILL HAGAR, Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association (AWCA), testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in support of HJR 53. He believes the resolution to be constitutionally sound, and he pointed out that the sponsor has done a lot of research on it. He encouraged the committee to pass HJR 53. Number 2210 NANCY HILLSTRAND testified via teleconference from Homer. She stated: I really don't think what we're seeing is primarily an anti-hunting agenda. I'd call it recognition that we are in the twenty-first century with a society which understands that the preferred use of wildlife includes other preferential uses. The present management, coupled with the high human population, is not fine- grained enough to perceive the complexities of species interactions, reproductive strategies and life-stage histories. For instance, the tiny jackscrew was the deciding factor of Alaska's huge jetliner going down. As in wildlife management, these tiny, obscure relationships are unseen by our present management. The precautionary principle must enter into this or we have crisis management. I sent you a copy of a summary from the 1996 national survey of fishing, hunting and wildlife-associated recreation for Alaska. And if you are concerned with budgets, you might want to look at this table and just realize that there is actually a very large constituency which has a different viewpoint on what a preferential use is. The total expenditure on wildlife viewing was actually $780 million; that's getting up to close to a billion dollars, whereas "huntingwise" the total expenditure was $198 million. It's important to look at this and see what you think and maybe set up your own survey, so [that] we can truly find out what is the preferential use. Right now, we have no mechanism set up to allow anyone, except the people that can enter into the Dingell- Johnson Act or Pittman-Robertson Act, who put money into the funds of fish and wildlife conservation -- and I think that maybe it would help if we did that also, because then we'd have a more rounded, better democratic process in our society to pay the fair share; so we could all put our money where our mouth is. I really appreciate your work on this, but I really feel that it's not what we need right now, because I don't think it is true that indeed human consumption is the preferred use. Number 2097 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Ms. Hillstrand if she agrees that the wildlife resources are managed by the ADF&G through laws that have been handed down by the legislature and the constitution on a sustained yield principle, and that are managed through the department through bag limits and conservation of the resources. MS. HILLSTRAND replied, "Yes, I do." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated that she has never heard anyone testify before asserting that the feeding of one's family is less preferential than the viewing of wildlife. MS. HILLSTRAND explained that some people feed their families by creating a business for wildlife viewing, which might be allowing them to feed their families. She pointed out that the reason she had brought up expenditures is because money can be made by the wildlife just being there and being viewed. She added that it is good to err on the side of conservation. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she believes HJR 53 is self- explanatory. She explained that they are not talking about the people selling fish and wildlife, but instead that they are securing the fish and wildlife for human consumption. She said human consumption is entirely different from someone using it for a business purpose, because they are talking about people going out and harvesting the fish and wildlife to get food on the table. Number 1937 CARL ROSIER, Territorial Sportsman Incorporated (TSI), stated that TSI is an outdoor recreation group with a membership of slightly under 2,000 individuals, most of whom live in the Juneau and Douglas area. The organization was formed in 1945 and has been continuously involved in fish and game and other outdoor issues since that time. He indicated TSI does not take lightly the importance of making changes to the Constitution of the State of Alaska, but realizes that on occasion it is necessary. In view of recent actions by the Governor, apparently due to political ties with extremist animal rights groups, ecotourism interests and federal park interests, TSI is in support of HJR 53, he said. MR. ROSIER referred to a letter written on February 24, 2000, to the Board of Game outlining the Governor's plan for how game populations are to be managed in the state; Mr. Rosier said that should be of concern to every citizen. The policy direction issued by the Governor completely ignores the significance of ADF&G's funding sources for its game management program. He added that under the Governor's direction, wildlife viewing is to be considered on the same priority plane as the lifestyle and recreational hunting which are so important to most Alaskans. He pointed out that the Governor has assigned the highest priority to subsistence and then takes the tools and the decision process away from the Board of Game, placing it with a unknown adaptive- management workgroup appointed by the commissioner; it is a total subversion of the public process Alaskans have participated in since statehood. MR. ROSIER said TSI believes it must be the legislature that decides the policy that supports the constitutional mandate of sustained yield. He stressed that lacking the legislature's involvement and oversight, the public and the resources are destined to lose. The Governor's letter and recent action on Board of Game appointments sends a chilling message to all fish and game users in this state, he asserted. MR. ROSIER noted TSI's recommendations: to change "a" to "the" following "human consumption is", and to have the change from "developed" to "enhanced" because there is a connotation of use associated with "developed" that is not there with "enhanced." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Rosier whether, when he was the commissioner of ADF&G, he had looked upon the legislature, the Board of Game or the administration as the policy-making body of the state. MR. ROSIER replied that it takes all three working together, but he thinks that the legislature itself is where the basic policy for the utilization of the resources actually emanates from. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES recognized that it takes all three to assure the sustained yield. She stated that the Constitution of the State of Alaska establishes the legislature as the policy- making body of the state. The administration and the professionals are there to carry out the policies made by the legislature. MR. ROSIER pointed out that they are saying the same thing. He said the Board of Fisheries and Board of Game [use] a public process that he believes needs to be protected. He pointed out that when they begin to see the politics taking place with the Board of Game in terms of reappointments and giving them the absolute direction of how things are going to go, it is in total violation of the policy direction. He indicated that if they are going to begin to see that kind of political meddling, then it is time to include some of the rights that protect hunting and fishing and the enjoyment of those resources. He said there is nothing wrong with the viewing of wildlife, and there is nothing wrong with those activities being carried out in the same areas that hunting is taking place. He suggested that they can be carried out at different times of the year and everyone can be satisfied. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to a bill passed by Don Bennett, back when he was a legislator, having to do with the Nelchina area, that forbade the closure of those areas to motorized vehicles. She wondered if Mr. Rosier knew of that bill and if the law was ever repealed. MR. ROSIER replied that he was not sure. Number 1367 CO-CHAIR HUDSON asked Mr. Rosier: If this provision were in the Constitution of the State of Alaska presently, would the Governor be forced to conduct aggressive wolf-control measures in the McGrath area and other areas where there is pressure on the moose and caribou populations? MR. ROSIER replied that the Governor would have to take a very hard look at making that decision. He said it seems to him that they have gone through quite a process on wolf control in the state; the Governor spent thousands of dollars on a predator-prey relationship study, and there has been a lengthy public process. He pointed out that in the headlines the Governor said "No." So there has to be something that changes that attitude, and if the constitution is modified to accommodate that, then he believes the Governor would be forced to move in that direction. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES indicated that Mr. Rosier may have received the answer to her previous question. MR. ROSIER stated that the note that was put before him indicated Don Bennett's bill forbade state parks from closing areas to hunting. Number 1209 SUSAN SCHRADER, Conservation Advocate, Alaska Conservation Voters (ACV), informed the committee that one of ACV's main concerns centers around the substitution of the term "enhanced" for "developed." She indicated ACV's concern with Section 2 really goes to the heart of some of the changes that others have recommended, for instance, changing "a" to "the." In actuality, since there are not any other preferred uses outlined, it is safe to say that human consumption, whether there is "a" or "the" before it, would be the preferred use. She believes none of the members of the ACV have any wish to limit the ability of other Alaskans, including themselves, to harvest wildlife. However, they do realize that as the society is changing, other uses are becoming apparent. MS. SCHRADER explained that the issue in Alaska has always been how to resolve the conflicts between users and make the fairest decisions with all users. She said ACV has a concern with saying that human consumption is the preferred use, because it may be at the total exclusion of other uses. She concluded that the members of the ACV do not feel that HJR 53 and the potential amendment to the constitution that may come out of it are going to help to solve these problems. Number 0964 ROD ARNO testified via teleconference from Wasilla. He stated that he is in support of HJR 53. He indicated he has been the president of the Alaska Outdoor Council for the last eight years and is on the board of directors for the Alaska Professional Hunters Association. He pointed out that at the time that the framers of the Constitution of the State of Alaska were writing the constitution, in particular the section on sustained yield, they were not aware that there would be the anti-hunting advocates that there are today. CO-CHAIR MASEK indicated there was no more public testimony on HJR 53. Number 0780 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to adopt a conceptual amendment [Amendment 1], on line 6 after "shall be utilized", to add "developed, enhanced". Therefore, it would read "shall be utilized, developed, enhanced and maintained." [There was some deliberation and an attorney was asked to come forward.] TAPE 00-16, SIDE A Number 0182 TED POPELY, Majority Counsel, House Majority Office, Alaska State Legislature, indicated that it would appear that the maker of the amendment is trying to strengthen the role, so that the resources in question are actively managed. He explained that if "enhanced" and "developed" are going to be added as a matter of constitutional interpretation, it is one additional requirement. He pointed out that to "develop" or "enhance" means to increase, by the basic meaning of the language. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES wondered why they would want "developed" to come before "enhanced." MR. POPELY indicated that he is not sure it would make any difference. He pointed out that a concern could be with the priority of listing, and may be used to interpret that the first word will have more priority than the latter. He said that he is not sure whether that is true. CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if there was any objection to the conceptual amendment, Amendment 1. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 0705 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to adopt a conceptual amendment, Amendment 2, on lines 2, 11 and 12, to add "fish and" before the word "wildlife," so that it would read, "fish and wildlife." CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if there was any objection. There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 0897 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to move HJR 53 [as amended] from committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE objected. He indicated that there are still some unanswered questions with regard to the fiscal note. He wondered if adding the term "enhanced" changes the fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES interjected that the only cost for a constitutional amendment is putting it on the ballot; then, if the people choose to adopt it, it is put into statute. REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER wondered if on line 12 "a" was changed to "the." CO-CHAIR MASEK replied no. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked that the motion to move the resolution from committee be withdrawn, because she agrees that the word "the" should be inserted instead of "a." She explained that feeding one's family should be the primary use of the fish and wildlife resource. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked if someone could define human consumption. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES replied that she believes human consumption means that if someone takes a moose, it is to feed his or her family; it includes the taking of fish by any means, as long as it is for human consumption. She indicated that she does not feel that commercial fishing is necessarily for human consumption. She asked Mr. Popely if he would comment on changing "a" to "the." Number 1260 MR. POPELY stated that the way he would interpret it is if they left it as "a preferred use" it would allow, in statute, for broader flexibility. Changing it to "the preferred use" would establish an absolute priority that the taking for human consumption would be the only preferred use. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said the heart of HJR 53 goes to feeding one's family. She explained that if they leave "a" and do not put in "the", then they really are not going to feed anyone's family. If they are allowing other things to take place right alongside the preferential use for human consumption, there is a tier system. MR. POPELY agreed with Representative Barnes. CO-CHAIR MASEK asked Representative Kapsner if she was satisfied with the definition of human consumption. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER said she does not feel that there is a very clear definition of what human consumption is. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES indicated definitions are not put in the constitution. Number 1656 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE stated that the House Judiciary Standing Committee is the next committee of referral for HJR 56, and there are a lot of legal questions; therefore, he removed his objection. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to adopt a conceptual amendment, Amendment 3, on line 12, to change "a" to "the"; she asked for unanimous consent. There being no objection, Amendment 3 was adopted. CO-CHAIR HUDSON expressed concern with Amendment 2, adding "fish," because he believes it may put commercial fishing at risk and may adversely affect fishing in Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES restated the motion to move HJR 53 [as amended] out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note and asked unanimous consent. CO-CHAIR HUDSON objected for the purpose of revisiting the addition of "fish" [Amendment 2]. MR. POPELY said Representative Hudson is correct: it does call into question whether or not commercial fishing takes a backseat to human consumptive uses. He explained that it is likely that the state statutory scheme enabling the legislation, should it pass, would include a specific definition of human consumption in order to be implemented; he doubted that commercial fishing would be included in that definition. He indicated that human consumption would be the preferred use, and in his opinion commercial fishing would probably not rise to the same level of statutory preference under the sustained yield principle. Number 1928 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES indicated that there is a small amount of fish and wildlife taken for human consumption, whereas there are huge amounts taken for commercial use. She asked Representative Hudson if he thought commercial use should come before feeding one's family. CO-CHAIR HUDSON replied no. He explained that he is concerned with the same thing that is happening with the federal subsistence issue, where they can stop all commercial fishing downstream until they have all the abundance upstream in order to take for subsistence, but in this case it would be for consumptive uses. If that were the case, then there would be two demands upstream for fish. He said he would prefer analyzing it further. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Morgan, Barnes, Whitaker, Cowdery and Masek voted in favor of moving the resolution from committee. Representatives Harris, Joule, Kapsner and Hudson voted against it. Therefore, CSHJR 53(RES) moved from the House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 5- 4.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|