Legislature(2007 - 2008)BARNES 124
02/20/2008 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB348 | |
| HJR31 | |
| HB348 | |
| HB330 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 330 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 348 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 348-BOARD OF GAME REGULATIONS 1:04:37 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that the first order of business would be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 348, "An Act relating to the adoption of regulations by the Board of Game." CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved that the committee adopt as the working document the proposed committee substitute (CS) for SSHB 348, labeled 25-LS1328\Resources. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected. He said reintroduction of the Board of Fisheries into the bill would cause extreme complications because it would include commercial fisheries and the potential allocation of assets between those fisheries, as well as between personal use, sport, and subsistence fisheries. He said he will maintain his objection unless the bill is referred to the House Special Committee on Fisheries where this can be addressed in detail. 1:07:51 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON opposed the objection because four of the seven members of the House Special Committee on Fisheries also sit on the House Resources Standing Committee. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the difference is that the House Special Committee on Fisheries concentrates only on the fisheries aspects and reintroduction of the Board of Fisheries into the bill will take study and investigation. The House Resources Standing Committee has looked solely at game during its previous hearings on this bill. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON agreed with Representative Seaton. She asked why an amendment could not be made to strike the Board of Fisheries from the bill. 1:09:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 348, related his constituents' overwhelming support for HB 348 at a weekend meeting in his district. The Department of Law and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game assisted in writing the amendments at his request and gave some level of support, he said. JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State Legislature, noted that the new language, including the reference to the Board of Fisheries, came from Mr. Kevin Saxby of the Department of Law and is based on language used in two Alaska Supreme Court decisions: the 1981 Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Cooperative Association, Inc. v. State and the 1996 Pullen v. Ulmer. This new language keeps the bill's initial intent of declaring both game and fish an asset in order to eliminate management by initiative, he said. However, fish could be eliminated. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON understood the difference between the proposed CS and the sponsor substitute to be the addition of "Board of Fisheries" in the title with no other substance being changed. The proposed CS would thus be compliant with the supreme court ruling. MR. POUND replied correct. However, he noted, there is a proposal in the committee's packets to change the title from the proposed CS. In further response to Co-Chair Johnson, Mr. Pound confirmed the Alaska Supreme Court has already ruled that fish are an asset. The bill would codify Alaska Supreme Court case law so it applies to game in the same context as fish. 1:14:42 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO proffered that adding the Board of Fisheries is a major change. MR. POUND responded this is what the [Alaska Department of Fish & Game] and its attorney wanted to do. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked what was deleted from the original bill and why. MR. POUND said SSHB 348 would provide that game be considered an asset in regard to Board of Game allocation and management decisions. Under a loose interpretation of the law that could be considered appropriation. The bill's purpose is to eliminate biology management by initiative, and the proposed CS would accomplish this with fewer words. 1:16:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired whether the Board of Fisheries or the Alaska Department of Fish & Game would be commenting on the proposed CS. MR. POUND replied that Mr. Barry is here from the Alaska Department of Fish & Game. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she would like assurance that the commercial fishing industry will not be affected by the proposed CS because commercial fishing is a big part of her district. MR. POUND said he had advised the primary people involved with commercial fish. However, he noted, neither he nor anyone else has had much time to look at this because he only received the proposed language at 5:30 p.m. yesterday. 1:17:47 PM TIM BARRY, Legislative Liaison, Public Communications Director, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, informed the committee that Mr. Saxby is the person that members need to talk to, but he is presently testifying at another committee meeting and therefore unavailable. He said Mr. Saxby instructed him to tell the committee that the Alaska Department of Fish & Game and the Department of Law support this new language and that it would accomplish what the sponsor is attempting to achieve. He could not say how it would affect the commercial fishing industry because he had not asked Mr. Saxby that question. 1:19:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked why moose and caribou are not automatically considered an asset given that fish are considered an asset. MR. BARRY understood there was at least one [Alaska] Supreme Court case involving fish, but there is no similar case involving game so it has never been explicitly stated by the court [that game is an asset]. REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH added that fish are a commodity that is sold and traded, which is not the case for caribou and bear. Thus, fish are monetized differently even though there may be an in-kind trade of caribou and bear in Alaska which is not necessarily recognized as an open trade. She said she thinks fish have been at the forefront of being an asset because they are a monetized commodity. 1:20:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired whether SSHB 348 designates that moose, caribou, and bear are assets when before they were not. MR. BARRY deferred to Mr. Pound. MR. POUND said yes. The Pullen case specifically declares that fish are an asset, but the case only addresses fish. This bill would provide that game also be considered an asset and be managed accordingly. 1:22:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON cited apparent contradictions between statements made by Senior Assistant Attorney General Kevin Saxby and Attorney General Talis Colberg. In addition to including the Board of Fisheries, he warned, lines 6-7 on page 1 contain language that Mr. Colberg specifically stated would cause huge problems in his fiscal note analysis for SSHB 348. Additionally, the proposed CS was written by Mr. Saxby, not Legislative Legal and Research Services. Representative Seaton cited three February 2008 legal opinions from Legislative Counsel Brian Kane regarding SSHB 348 and stated he is reticent to adopt a CS that is not written by Legislative Legal and Research Services and for which there is no opinion from [Mr. Colberg]. MR. BARRY understood that Mr. Saxby did not draft the original legislation. MR. POUND said correct. MR. BARRY further understood that the [fiscal note analysis] cited by Representative Seaton was written by Mr. Saxby as comments on the original SSHB 348. Mr. Saxby has worked with the sponsor since then and is the person who either drafted or approved the new language in the proposed CS. He drew attention to the two-page document written by Mr. Saxby entitled, "Preferred option", which states Mr. Saxby's preference for the language in the proposed CS now before the committee. This language addresses Mr. Saxby's initial concerns on the SS, said Mr. Barry. 1:28:16 PM MR. POUND added that the Board of Fisheries has been operating under this since 1997 because it is working under the Pullen decision. This language mirrors the Pullen decision. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied that is not the case because the proposed CS directs that the board "must regulate" in this manner. The board has broad statutory authority and the Alaska Supreme Court found that an initiative could not take that over because it is an asset. However, the court's ruling that an initiative cannot be done to allocate an asset is far different than requiring that the Board of Fisheries must make all of its management decisions based on an asset allocation. He apologized for being mistaken regarding Mr. Saxby's earlier involvement. MR. POUND offered that removing the Board of Fisheries from the proposed CS would not be a problem. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER confirmed Mr. Pound's statement regarding removal of the Board of Fisheries. CO-CHAIR GATTO stated that if the committee adopts the proposed CS it will be on the presumption that it will be amended to delete the Board of Fisheries. 1:31:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired whether the Board of Game has been looking at game as an asset or whether the legislation will completely change how the board has been dealing with game. She suggested the bill be set aside until legal counsel is obtained in this regard. MR. POUND said the Board of Game is not presently managing game as an asset because there is no language that allows the board to do so. The bill would eliminate management of game by initiative by applying to game the same principle applied to fish by the Pullen decision. The Board of Game would then operate in the same manner as the Board of Fisheries which manages fish as an asset. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she had no problem with that. MR. BARRY interjected that Mr. Saxby is the attorney for the Board of Game, and since Mr. Saxby is comfortable with the language he therefore assumes the Board of Game is comfortable with it. 1:33:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH stated that without absolute testimony as to what the language actually does and with the committee being asked to assume, she can sign no recommendation should the committee choose to move the bill forward today. The Alaska Department of Fish & Game and Legislative Legal and Research Services should be here to answer the questions given the contrary opinions, she submitted. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG questioned whether AS 16.05.221 is the correct section because it is more about who is on the Board of Game and Board of Fisheries than it is about regulations. MR. POUND acknowledged that this is a good point. CO-CHAIR GATTO set aside SSHB 348. [Consideration of SSHB 348 was continued at 1:52:31 p.m.] The committee took an at-ease from 1:37 p.m. to 1:39 p.m. HB 348-BOARD OF GAME REGULATIONS 1:52:31 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO returned to consideration of SSHB 348. MR. POUND drew attention to the Department of Law's one-page document entitled, "Less-preferred option". The committee took an at-ease from 1:53 p.m. to 1:54:26 PM due to a technical difficulty with the online sound system. MR. POUND related that this language is Mr. Saxby's less- preferred option primarily because it does not deal with fish at all and could result in some questions as to different management styles or philosophies between the two boards. He noted that fish had been taken out of the original sponsor substitute (SS), as well. The committee took an at-ease from 1:55 p.m. to 2:04:30 PM due to another technical difficulty with the online sound system. MR. POUND pointed out that since the less-preferred option only addresses game, the applicable section of statute is therefore AS 16.05.255. 2:05:30 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired whether Representative Keller is agreeable to making changes to the proposed CS for SSHB 348. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER responded yes. CO-CHAIR GATTO said the motion to adopt Version 25- LS1328\Resources as the working document is still on the table, but that Representative Seaton, maker of the objection, is absent [while momentarily attending another committee meeting]. He conveyed his understanding with Representative Seaton that the objection was over the term fisheries. Co-Chair Gatto therefore considered Representative Seaton's objection as not maintained. There being no further objection, the proposed CS for SSHB 348, labeled 25-LS1328\Resources, was before the committee. 2:07:18 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1 as follows: Page 1, line 1; Delete "Board of Fisheries and the"; Page 1, line 7; Delete "fish or" REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG [objected]. Would fish not still be involved because the purpose of the language is to conform to the Pullen opinion, he asked. CO-CHAIR GATTO offered his belief that this is the Board of Game section and this section does not address fish. 2:09:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved an amendment to Amendment 1 to include an additional deletion as follows: Page 1, line 6, Delete "appropriate" REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON further noted that the statute reference on page 1, line 4, should be changed. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG removed his objection to Amendment 1. There being no further objection, the amendment to Amendment 1 was adopted. There being no objection, Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted as follows: Page 1, line 1: delete "Board of Fisheries and the" Page 1, line 7: delete "fish or" Page 1, line 6: delete "appropriate" The committee took an at-ease from 2:12 p.m. to 2:17 p.m. 2:17:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH moved that the committee adopt Amendment 2 as follows: page 1, delete lines 4-7 and insert the text from [Mr. Saxby's] "less preferred option". CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected. REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH, in response to Co-Chair Gatto, explained the purpose of Amendment 2 is to bring forward a blank page and on that blank page insert what an attorney has drafted as the appropriate language. In further response to Co-Chair Gatto, Representative Fairclough confirmed that AS 16.05.255(j) is the correct reference, but that she will be making a following amendment to have Legislative Research and Legal Services look at the renumbering. She understood the proposed amendment is not a definition; rather it is a way to manage and is therefore an action item that will need to be (j). 2:19:54 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON withdrew his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted as follows (original punctuation provided): Page 1, lines 4-7: Delete "Section 1. AS 16.05.221 is amended by adding a new subsection to read. (e) In this section, the terms 'conservation' and 'development' both require that the Board must regulate in a manner that primarily concerns if, how, when and where the public assets of game will be allocated or appropriated. insert "AS 16.05.255(j) is amended by adding a new paragraph to read. (e) In this section, the terms 'conservation,' 'development' and 'utilization' all require that the Board must regulate in a manner that primarily concerns if, how, when and where the public asset of game will be allocated or appropriated." 2:20:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH moved that the committee adopt Conceptual Amendment 3 as follows: insert this (j) and renumber the following subsection that is currently labeled (j) to (k) REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH, in response to Co-Chair Gatto, confirmed Conceptual Amendment 3 will reletter and then renumber. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted. 2:21:43 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved to report CSSSHB 348, labeled 25- LS1328\Resources, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected. There are still questions and one question is whether the word must changes how the board is required to operate. He said he believes that the bill's purpose to affect ballot initiatives is a bad thing and it will not change anything except that there will be another lawsuit. He expressed his concern over the legislature taking away the people's right to ballot box for initiatives. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Roses, Edgmon, Fairclough, Wilson, Gatto, and Johnson voted in favor of CSSSHB 348, as amended. Representative Guttenberg voted against it. Representative Seaton was excused from voting. Therefore, CSSSHB 348(RES) was reported out of the House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 6-1.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|