Legislature(2007 - 2008)BARNES 124
04/04/2007 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB132 | |
| HB176 | |
| HJR4 | |
| HB194 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 176 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 194 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HJR 4-KENAI/KASILOF SUBSISTENCE PRIORITY 1:44:12 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4, Requesting the Federal Subsistence Board to reconsider its decision regarding the subsistence fishery priority given to Ninilchik residents. [Before the committee was CSHJR 4(FSH).] CO-CHAIR GATTO noted that public testimony was previously heard. He closed public testimony after ascertaining that no additional people wished to testify. 1:45:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG commented that the previous testimony was dueling testimony, and no one has squared that up or given a better explanation. The people supporting HJR 4 argued that the Federal Subsistence Board (FSB) did not do its job the way it is supposed to. REPRESENTATIVE KURT OLSON, Alaska State Legislature, responded correct. 1:46:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired whether the state lost its arguments as they were making them, whatever those arguments were, and now there is another set of state arguments. REPRESENTATIVE OLSON replied correct. CO-CHAIR GATTO noted that this was a November 2006 decision [by the Federal Subsistence Board]. 1:46:48 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said this is an example of clearly overstepping the traditional and cultural uses that subsistence is based on. It is appropriate for this resolution to go forward and, hopefully, have some impact. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON discussed his concern that a saltwater usage is being used to extend a traditional right for an upstream area because the fish in the stream had passed through a saltwater area in Cook Inlet where they were being caught. He feared it could set a precedent that could be very detrimental to any stream where there is a saltwater fishery. He said this is a very new concept that should be reconsidered. REPRESENTATIVE OLSON stated that Representative Seaton cut right to the heart of the issue, as did the previous two speakers. REPRESENTATIVE OLSON, in response to Co-Chair Gatto, said the resolution would go to the House floor next. 1:48:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report CSHJR 4(FSH) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected. He said he is unsure what happens next and whether the state has the ability to go to court to appeal this, or whether there is some other legal process outside of asking the Federal Subsistence Board to reconsider. He understood that this was seven years in the making and HJR 4 would be asking the Federal Subsistence Board to appeal its own decision. The FSB must have had a checklist of things that are required to be done in order to get through this process and this would be saying that it did not. 1:49:50 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO directed attention to language in the bill [page 1, line 13,] stating, "fall short of meeting the eight factors ...." He inquired how many of those factors were not met. REPRESENTATIVE OLSON deferred to the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G). 1:50:18 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO asked Representative Olson to relay to the committee ADF&G's opinion and any statements of fact that are not rebuttable since there is no one present from ADF&G. CONRAD JACKSON, Staff to Representative Kurt Olson, Alaska State Legislature, said he cannot speak for ADF&G, but that he can point to ADF&G's various Requests for Reconsideration (RFRs) [included in the committee's packets]. He said it appears to him that on almost every page ADF&G points out another circumstance where the Federal Subsistence Board seemed to not quite be there. 1:51:04 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired whether Mr. Jackson believed ADF&G had reasonable argument. MR. JACKSON answered yes. 1:51:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether it is the state's, ADF&G's, or administration's intent to take this into the courts. He said that for him this would be the next obvious place to challenge this. MR. JACKSON guessed the state would take this to court. He understood that HJR 4 is the step the state needs to take in order to say it has exhausted all opportunities for appeal, otherwise the state would not have standing in court. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG surmised that if the legislature was divided and the bill did not pass, the administration would have no problem taking it to court. 1:52:36 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO drew attention to the 8/3/06 letter in the committee's packet from ADF&G Commissioner McKie Campbell which states: "As you are aware, the State of Alaska has grave concerns regarding recent FSB decisions establishing customary and traditional use ...." He noted that this is a statement that is now part of the record. There is nothing that can be done in committee to either defend or oppose the likelihood of a lawsuit, he said. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that exhausting all forms of administrative appeal is the universal procedure before going through the court system, and a request for a reconsideration by the body that makes the regulation is a normal part of the administrative appeals process. He said it seems to him that HJR 4 is perfectly in line with this process and he is therefore comfortable with moving the resolution. 1:55:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG maintained his objection to the resolution. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton, Roses, Kohring, Johnson, and Gatto voted in favor of CSHJR 4(FSH). Representative Guttenberg voted against it. Therefore, CSHJR 4(FSH) was reported out of the House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 5-1. The committee took an at-ease from 1:56 p.m. to 1:59 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|