Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
03/20/2013 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB27 | |
| HB158 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 158 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 158-DNR HUNTING CONCESSIONS
2:44:30 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 158, "An Act authorizing the commissioner of
natural resources to implement a hunting guide concession
program or otherwise limit the number of individuals authorized
to conduct big game commercial guiding on state land."
2:44:38 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE stated a proposed committee substitute has been
prepared that combines three separate amendments committee
members have asked to have considered.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute for HB 158, labeled 28-LS0444\U, Bullard, 3/20/13 as
the working document.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE objected for the purpose of discussion.
2:45:06 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked sponsors of the three previous amendments
[not yet offered] to discuss the pertinent section of the
proposed committee substitute, Version U. He stated the change
in Section 1, adds paragraph (11), which read, "(11) implement
commercial concession programs on state land." This would
provide authority for the DNR to implement commercial concession
programs on state land, which is to accommodate big game guiding
and transporters.
2:45:54 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE explained that Section 2 would add the big game
commercial services to subsection (b). He asked Representative
P. Wilson to address this provision.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to page 3, lines 3-11, of
Version U, and argued that it is important consider both the
land and the wildlife resources. She did not want DNR to change
the land use automatically, but rather to consider whether
wildlife resources are sustainable in a unit or area and
identify any user conflicts. In the event that the wildlife
resources are sustainable and user conflicts do not exist, it
would not be necessary to make any changes to the GMU.
2:47:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for clarification on the version, Co-
Chair Feige identified as Version U.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, in response to a question, referred to page 3,
lines 3-11.
2:48:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether the language on page 2 was
necessary to incorporate the relationship with the commissioner
of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G).
CO-CHAIR FEIGE referred to page 2, line 28, of the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 158, Version U. He said this
language is intended to slightly broaden the language to include
guides and transporter concession programs.
2:49:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to page 3, lines 12-19, to
subsection (c) of Version U. He said that the committee has
heard testimony that a certain number of guides are allowed to
operate in areas. He explained the concern was that if a guide
was assigned three areas, it would exclude other guides from the
area. This change also would consider the federal concession
holdings held by individual guides and limit guides to a
combined total of three concession areas. The overall effect
would be to add to the number of guides who will have access to
state resources.
2:50:34 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE referred to page 3, lines 20-24, to subsection
(d), which adds definitions for "concession permit" and "game
management unit." He also referred to page 3, lines 25-31,
which lays out the section related to the big game transporter
concession program.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE referred to page 4, line 11, which would
establish an effective date for the transporters that would
start one year after the DNR implements the big game guide
commercial concession program. This would allow the department
one year to develop the transporter program after the department
established the big game guide concessions. This recognizes
that perhaps implementing the entire program at once might be
"too big of a bite" and separating it into two sections seemed
more appropriate.
2:52:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to page 1 [line 7] and to language
that reads "may" instead of "shall". She understood the intent
of the bill is to give the department the authority. She noted
that proposed AS 38.05.023 (a) would give the DNR the authority
to adopt a concession program, but the language also reads,
"may" [which means optional.] She asked whether the department
will follow through on the commitment to implement the provision
or if the language should be changed to read "shall" to give the
DNR explicit direction.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked to return to that question after adopting
the proposed committee substitute, Version U.
2:53:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 3, lines 3-11, and asked
whether this means the ADF&G will change the number and types of
concessions that DNR must allocated. He understood the program
is a DNR program; however, this subsection directs that the
commissioner of fish and game "shall" determine the number and
type of concessions that may be provided in each game management
unit (GMU). He assumed the ADF&G's determination would be based
on the fluctuating biomass of the resource. He further asked
whether additional testimony is needed to determine the
interaction between the DNR's guide concession program (GCP) and
the ADF&G's control over the number and types of permits it must
issue.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE offered his belief that the intent is for DNR to
manage the land and how land is allocated. The number of
concessions allowed would also depend on the carrying capacity,
which is determined by the ADF&G. He suggested this is
something the department addressed when they formulated the GCP
program, which is formalized by this language. This specifies
that the legislature expects ADF&G to provide the information to
DNR for the proposed guide concession program (GCP).
CO-CHAIR FEIGE referred to page 3, line 9, which requires the
ADF&G to review this every five years. This also matches the
timeframe for the concession review, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the committee has not heard from the
DNR on the coordination between DNR and ADF&G.
2:57:09 PM
CRAIG FLEENER, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish &
Game (ADF&G), prefaced his comments by stating he hasn't had an
opportunity to thoroughly consider this bill version since he
just received it about an hour ago. He suggested one area to be
careful about would be [on page 3, lines 3-9, subsection
(b)(2)], which discusses the commissioner of ADF&G. The
department has long stayed away from concept of allocation of
resources since this responsibility has been up to the Board of
Game. He highlighted one problem is whether it would place the
ADF&G and its staff in the business of allocation and how many
guides will be able to harvest. Probably, it would be good to
get the DNR's perspective on this as well; however, it seems as
if the amount of work would likely require significant staff
time. Further, one of the things that the ADF&G is careful
about is the relationship between the "on the ground" staff and
hunters or guides throughout the state. If the "on the ground"
staff help determine the numbers and types of concessions, it
could jeopardize those relationships. Clearly the ADF&G does
want to work with the DNR on determining the proposed concession
areas. He suggested it might be necessary to include language
such as "DNR consulting with the Department of Fish and Game and
the Board of Game to determine population levels and harvestable
surplus." This has been the process the ADF&G has used until
now, which might work a little better.
2:59:28 PM
EDMUND FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), agreed that the DNR and
ADF&G have not had much opportunity to discuss Version U. He
said that the DNR worked closely with the ADF&G in the process
of preparing maps and proposed allocations. Since the DNR does
not have expertise in wildlife management, it has relied on the
ADF&G to provide the expertise. Since concessions will be
reviewed every five years, he envisioned the agencies will work
closely at that time during the review process. Again, the DNR
has not had enough time to consider the merits of the proposed
committee substitute.
3:00:45 PM
CLARK COX, Natural Resources Manager, Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), echoed what Mr. Fleener said, that DNR's
mission is related to land access and the land use. These [GCP]
figures were determined based on the use patterns and the
appropriate number of guides and hunters in an area, not on game
allocation. He suggested that the DNR & ADF&G could spend more
time on the program as a whole.
3:01:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON expressed her concern that DNR has not
taken all of ADF&G's recommendations. She referred to page 3,
line 6, to paragraph (1), and suggested if it was removed, she
would still want the [decision] to be weighted toward ADF&G.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON concurred that the DNR and ADF&G are
working together; however, she remained concerned about the
wildlife resources. Clearly, ADF&G controls the harvest levels
and how much is available in each game management unit (GMU).
Therefore, the DNR must listen closely to what ADF&G says, to
make sure it is sustainable. She mentioned she has a
constituent who works as a guide in an area and while he said
[wildlife management] problems didn't exist, it seemed as though
the GCP still made significant changes. Thus, she has some
concerns about [the GCP plan.]
3:03:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON shared the concern, but said the question
is whether the ADF&G's commissioner or the Board of Game (BOG)
would have the authority to determine allocation. He said he
wasn't opposed to the changes, but wants to ensure the
amendments are correctly crafted.
3:04:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to page 3, lines 12-19. She asked
whether any reason exists to prevent the DNR from limiting the
number of state concessions based on federal concessions held.
In response to a question, she wondered if the DNR has the
authority to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled holding discussions with the
legislative bill drafter and concluded that the state has the
authority to limit concessions on state lands. However, if a
guide already has federal concessions, this provision would
allow the state to limit state concessions, accordingly. In
fact, he offered his belief that the federal and state
concession decisions are independent decisions.
3:05:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she is unaware of whether the
information is public. She asked whether the state can request
the applicant to list any outstanding federal applications or
any federal concessions that can be awarded.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that it would be up to the
department to regulate. He surmised the information would be
public information.
MR. FOGELS offered his belief that the information is public as
which guides can operate in specific areas. He deferred to Mr.
Clark.
MR. COX said the department has been working closely with the
federal agencies and the information has been made available.
He offered his belief that this language would not limit someone
who holds three state concessions from securing federal
concessions, permits, or licenses on Native lands or federal
lands after they obtain the three state concessions. Therefore,
the guide could still hold more than three guide concessions if
the guide obtained the state concessions first.
3:06:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said the language clearly states that the
guide cannot hold more than three concession permits. He
offered his belief that the guide would lose a state concession
permit if the guide later gained federal permits. He suggested
that obtaining additional federal concession permits could lead
to jeopardizing losing all permits.
MR. COX agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested that would be a pretty risky
business.
MR. COX pointed out that permits on Native Corporation lands
would not be public information.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE replied that the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 158 doesn't address Native Corporation lands and it
doesn't need to either.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said it was not his intention to regulate
private landowner activities.
3:07:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 3, line 26, which read,
"... commissioner may implement a concession program ...." He
recalled the committee discussed changing it to "shall". He
expressed concern that it may take DNR more than one year to
fully implement a program. He also referred to the language [on
page 3, line 27] related to "individuals who provide
transportation services to big game hunters in the field," which
could be boat operators or air taxi operators. He suggested
"may" is appropriate since the committee has not heard from air
taxi operators so it seemed more appropriate to allow additional
time.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE agreed.
3:09:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK, with respect to transporter services, asked
whether any licensing requirements or business licenses are
necessary before an operator is allowed to transport passengers.
He further asked whether DNR has the authority to regulate the
activity.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE answered that transporters fall under the Big
Game Commercial Services Board's (BGCSB) authority.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether that would also include air
taxis.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE answered that air taxis have an exemption if the
transportation is "incidental" to their business. He suggested
the committee may wish to review the definition.
3:10:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR returned to the discussion by Representative
Johnson with respect the number of concession permits that could
be issued. It sounded as though an issue exists in terms of the
total number of state and federal concession permits. She
related a scenario in which in which a guide obtained three
state concession permits and subsequently obtained three federal
permits, which would mean the guide could potentially have six
concessions but not be up for concession permit review for five
years. She wondered if this provision could potentially be
abused.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his belief that if a guide
subsequently obtained federal permits he/she would be in
violation of the state permits. He pointed out the language
indicates the guide cannot hold more than three concession
permits and anything done to circumvent that would be in
violation of the application.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE surmised it would be a simple matter to indicate
the concession permit the guide wanted to drop in the event a
federal concession permit was subsequently awarded. The state
concession permit could then be reallocated by the department.
3:12:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether the DNR have an easy way to
access this information.
MR. FOGELS replied yes; that this kind of information is
transparent. He thought it would be more than a high risk since
the industry would know who held the concession. Additionally,
he also thought it would be possible to put in a stipulation on
the application.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his belief that the situation
would be a self-policing circumstance.
3:13:43 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE removed his objection.
3:14:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK objected. He said he would rather keep the
old version of the bill than to keep the language as is.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE said that is not part of the question.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered his support for the original bill
and to address amendments individually.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested that it would be easier to keep
the amendments in the bill and address the language in the
proposed committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK removed his objection.
3:15:44 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, in response to Representative Tarr, agreed the
committee would take further testimony.
3:16:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON supported adopting the proposed CS so
people can comment on it and the committee can review it.
3:16:33 PM
There being no further objection, Version U was adopted as the
working document.
3:16:48 PM
[HB 158 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB27 Virginia 404 Feasibility Study 2012.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SB 27 |
| SB27 USACE-Alaska Legislative Briefing 2.28.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SB 27 |
| SB27 DEC Response to HRES 3.19.2013.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SB 27 |
| SB27 Amendment A.2.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SB 27 |
| HRES HB 158 Amend A.4.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 158 |
| HRES HB158 Letter Packet 9.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 158 |
| HRES CSHB158 3.20.13.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 158 |