Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
02/28/2014 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB79 | |
| HB202 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 202 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 207 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 202-BISON DRAWING PERMIT FEES
2:34:03 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 202, "An Act raising the application fee for a
drawing permit for the hunting of bison to $20; requiring the
game management plan for bison in the Delta Junction Bison Range
Area to include mitigation of bison damage to farm crops and
farm and personal property; and authorizing the commissioner of
natural resources to make grants to mitigate or prevent damage
caused by bison." Co-Chair Feige noted that public testimony on
HB 202 is still open.
2:34:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), Version 28-LS0412\P, Bullard, 2/24/14, as the
working document. There being no objection, Version P was
before the committee.
2:34:45 PM
MICHAEL PASCHALL, Staff, Representative Eric Feige, Alaska State
Legislature, explained the changes to HB 202 made by Version P,
saying these changes were made in response to testimony heard at
the bill's previous hearing in this committee. He said the
title was changed to reflect the changes made within the bill.
Additionally, page 3, line 10, of the bill was changed to
restrict grants awarded by the state to only soil and water
districts. The amount of the grant that could be awarded in any
given year was limited to 50 percent of the fee collected for
bison permits and fencing was limited to "fencing used to
prevent bison damage."
2:36:27 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:36 p.m. to 2:37 p.m.
2:37:42 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE clarified that the working document before the
committee is Version P.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON drew attention to Version P, page 3, lines
15-16, which state that the grants "may not exceed an amount
equal to 50 percent of the total revenue collected under AS
16.05.346(b) in the previous fiscal year". He understood AS
16.05.346(b) is the total amount, which would mean that the
difference of $10 between the current fee of $10 and the new fee
of $20 could be, but would not have to be, issued in grant.
MR. PASCHALL replied correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he asked the aforementioned question
to make the change clear to the people listening online.
2:38:44 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE continued public testimony on HB 202.
2:39:03 PM
ROD ARNO, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC),
explained AOC's concern about HB 202 deals with "fish and game
funds," which are near and dear to everybody he grew up with
and to everybody who is a new outdoors person. He said the
"fish and game fund" is a dedicated fund related to the Pittman-
Robertson Act of 1937 under which hunters pay an excise tax on
things and that money goes back to the states to be used mainly
for restoration. While AOC members sympathize with the farmers
for the damage done, AOC is concerned with the bill. He said
[AS] "16.05.[130](a)" says "except as provided in section (c),
which only has to do with trapping, money that is procured by
the state from sport fishing license, trappings, tags, permit
fees, may not be diverted to a purpose other than protection,
propagation, investigation, or restoration of sport fish and
game resources." Where HB 202 is looking at trying to mitigate
damage, he continued, the outdoor community does not see that as
dealing specifically with the provisions of use for the "fish
and game fund."
2:41:10 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE offered his belief that the money still goes to
the "fish and game fund" as far as the Pittman-Robertson Act is
concerned, but the grant monies would be coming out of the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
MR. ARNO responded that is AOC's concern -- "having 'fish and
game fund' money not being allocated out from fish game but
being transferred to DNR."
2:41:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON maintained that the money would still
be used for game.
MR. ARNO agreed, but said it is being given to farmers for the
purpose of mitigating damage that is done by wildlife, not for
restoration. While [damage to farmers] is a legitimate concern,
AOC does not want any slippage of what those Pittman-Robertson
funds can be used for and that use is described in [Alaska]
statute, "16.05.130," about diverting that to something else.
It can only be used for protection, propagation, investigation,
and restoration of game resources.
2:42:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said Version P, page 2, does not allow
mitigation money to go to individuals; rather, it can only be
used for preventing bison damage to farm crops, while the
previous bill version said it can be used for mitigation. He
asked whether this change gets closer "to where we want to be"
or does not get there at all.
MR. ARNO replied it is still the idea of taking money out of the
"fish and game fund" away from ADF&G for other things even
though it is collected just for this and then handed out through
DNR. In the past DNR has tried to get "fish and game funds" and
AOC resisted those in the past and will continue doing so.
2:43:52 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired whether Mr. Arno has any suggestions for
how to help mitigate the damage [caused by bison to farmland].
MR. ARNO answered the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked whether that would take away from future
hunter's opportunities, if what Mr. Arno is suggesting is that
the USDA shoot them all.
MR. ARNO responded no and explained the USDA spends money in the
Lower 48 to mitigate damage by wildlife. He said he did not
come prepared to show specific examples of that, but he knows
the USDA does that in the mid-western states.
2:44:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested an opinion be sought from
Legislative Legal and Research Services because he is unable to
ascertain whether DNR is making these grants or whether the
"ADF&G 'fish and game fund'" is making the grants and he would
like for this to be clarified.
MR. PASCHALL replied it is the difference between formatting a
formula or the tying of funds through the appropriation and the
allocation of funds. Under HB 202, the fund is being increased
to give [ADF&G] more money, which will go into the "game fund,"
but then [ADF&G] receives unrestricted general funds that are
not tied to the federal legislation that requires that money to
go only for wildlife restoration.
2:45:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether it is the commissioner of
ADF&G or DNR that will be designating the funds. He offered his
belief that the commissioner of one department cannot reach into
the funds of another department.
MR. PASCHALL answered the commissioner that is making the grants
to the soil and water districts is the commissioner of DNR. He
understood through conversation with DNR Deputy Commissioner
Fogels that DNR would work out an agreement to do an inter-
agency transfer of the funds to make the appropriation and to
provide for the grant.
2:46:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood, then, that the money from the
license fees would go to the "fish and game fund" and would not
come out of the "fish and game fund."
MR. PASCHALL responded yes, conceptually that is the idea of
what is trying to be done with this. A tie is not being made to
the money where the money would physically go into the fund and
then come out of the fund because there are questions as to
whether that would violate the federal legislation that allows
for the reimbursement. It is not wanted to risk that
reimbursement because these animals are there and available to
hunt and hunting these animals is a great activity for people in
the Interior and throughout the US. It is just how to come up
with a formula to go about it, so the formula is simply tied to
the amount and that is all.
2:47:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood, then, that the money would go
into the "fish and game fund," [ADF&G] would be legally
obligated to spend those monies from the "fish and game fund" in
the way that it is restricted to spend those monies. So, if
there is an inter-agency transfer from [ADF&G] it is not going
to diminish that $20; that $20 per bison permit is still going
to stay in the "fish and game fund" and [ADF&G] would have to
reach to some other portion of its revenue to transfer to DNR
for DNR to make these grants.
MR. PASCHALL replied correct.
2:48:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR surmised it would supplant the funds that
would otherwise be unrestricted general funds that went to
[ADF&G] for similar purposes. So, [ADF&G] would have its needs
met by this additional $10 and the unrestricted general funds
that are not needed would be diverted to DNR for award of these
grants through the soil and water conservation districts.
MR. PASCHALL answered correct, that is the intention of what is
trying to be done in HB 202 so as to not risk the matching
federal dollars in the program because the money can be used
under the federal legislation for administering [ADF&G].
2:49:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON concluded [ADF&G] would be getting more
into its "pot" than it had before.
MR. PASCHALL qualified he is not an expert on this particular
topic, but responded that since [ADF&G] would receive more funds
and thus receive more match, [ADF&G] would actually receive more
revenue than it would expend overall on this process.
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), explained the "fish
and game fund" is statutorily protected and it is very difficult
for a legislature to dedicate money out of it for a specific
purpose that is not aligned with what the federal statutes call
for. In this case, since the money is being deposited into the
"fish and game fund" it would be up to [ADF&G] to do things that
would be in benefit of bison and future hunting opportunities
associated with bison management and restoration. He said he
has not seen Version P, but that the original version gave ADF&G
flexibility in how best to address those issues in working with
DNR. It allowed ADF&G to enter into a reimbursable services
agreement (RSA) with DNR to possibly build fences but not
necessarily direct ADF&G only to build fences; to take the best
approach to try to mitigate those damages so there were still
opportunities to restore bison and manage bison for hunters. As
long as that flexibility rests with ADF&G in that context,
[ADF&G] can move forward.
2:51:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood the DNR commissioner may make
grants; there is nothing that requires ADF&G to have an RSA and
transfer funds to DNR. He understood there is no statutory
requirement for ADF&G to transfer money to DNR for this program
that DNR may or may not do; the DNR commissioner is not required
to do this. He requested a correction if his interpretation of
Version P is incorrect.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE offered his belief that Representative Seaton's
interpretation is correct.
MR. PASCHALL replied correct, the purpose of the bill is to
enable two events. One is to increase the amount of the fee
because it is a logical thing to do considering the number of
people that are applying and how low the fee is. Second is to
give authority to the commissioner of DNR to make these grants
because the commissioner does not statutorily have that
authority. While these two things are in one bill, they are not
tied together.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE continued with public testimony.
2:52:51 PM
WAYNE BROST stated he is a farmer at Point MacKenzie and he has
a couple of questions. First, why was moose wildlife mitigation
not included in this? At Point MacKenzie he had about $10,000
in predation on his hay during a heavy snow year and many other
farmers are also having problems with moose issues. Second,
does this potential mitigation and legislation muddy the waters
on the proposed "Woods Bison Project" that proposes to introduce
bison? He charged that the state has poured lots of money into
this project through a [nonprofit] organization near the turnoff
to Whittier and that the person running the organization is
basically making a profit off the state having bison there. He
related that other states around the US have similar programs
that mitigate wildlife [damage] to keep peace between producers
and fish and wildlife.
2:54:28 PM
AL BARRETTE requested the committee not support HB 202. He said
the bill states it is an act entitling management for bison on
the Delta Junction Bison Range. The bison range is clearly
codified in state statute, so everything in the bill pertaining
to mitigation of crop damage to farmers only applies in the
Delta Junction Bison Range. It is not a farm. It is a separate
different spot than where the traditional farming has been going
on. The bill will not "get you anywhere" because it only
applies to that small area that was enacted by the legislature
in 1979. Mr. Barrette further argued that when taking out the
language "but not limited to" it is being said that the
department must include these four things. It does not give the
department any tools to work with if it comes up with better
ideas or other ways of keeping bison off the traditional Delta
Agricultural Project. He added he does not think it fair that
only consumptive users are paying for this given there are other
users such as wildlife viewers. Further, this is a slippery
road to people who have damages by bison to their vehicles and
will also demand to be compensated and mitigated. He urged that
Legislative Legal and Research Services look at the bill to see
whether it will do what is intended.
2:57:05 PM
JEFF LIPSCOMB stated he is a 16-year resident of Delta Junction
and a member of the Delta advisory committee to [ADF&G]. He
allowed there are crop damage issues, but said he opposes HB 202
because it is only hunters who would be paying to support
private individuals. Other options are available, such as land
use fees charged by landowners to hunters accessing their land.
Additionally, he asked what share of the cost of these grants is
borne by other beneficiaries of bison and/or farming, such as
non-consumptive users like tourists. It is far beyond hunting
because the area's identity is centered on the bison herd.
Purchasers of the farm products that are being protected should
also share a cost in this. If average applications have been
around $18,000 a year, then that is about $180,000 of additional
funding that will be collected solely from hunters to build
fencing, as the bill is currently written. If $180,000 is the
number, and accounting for the matching funds, he would like to
know what is the real net increase of funding available to ADF&G
for non-fencing bison management. The bison were in this
location 30 years before commercial farming and no one pays him
when the moose eat the cabbage in his backyard.
2:59:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired whether Mr. Lipscomb would support
this measure if it was for a shorter-term basis rather than an
indefinite time period.
MR. LIPSCOMB answered it is not the duration that concerns him,
but rather the special interest discrimination. Funding would
be solely on hunters who are not the only users and
beneficiaries of the bison herd. He does not have a problem
with fee increases when they really are to allow ADF&G to use
its science-based biological management techniques and tools to
do what is best for the resources and the community. If the
legislature determines more funding is needed for fencing, crop
damage, payments, or other things, he is okay with that if that
is the right answer, but that should not be paid for by hunters.
Rather, it is a general funding issue for the legislature.
3:00:41 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE requested Mr. Lipscomb to be more specific as to
who the other beneficiaries of the bison are.
MR. LIPSCOMB responded tourism is one instance. He said he
cannot provide any tourism figures, but there is a reason the
city limit signs in Delta Junction have bison on them. Delta
Junction started out being called Bison Center until the highway
came through. Delta Junction's local identity centers on that
bison herd. Local businesses include "bison" in their names.
So, it is not just hunters that identify with and need the
bison. At the working group meetings, quite a few non-
consumptive people testified about their feelings for the bison
herd. His wife is not and never will be a hunter, but she loves
having a bison herd in the community.
3:01:56 PM
DAVID DAVENPORT noted he and his wife have lived in the Delta
Junction/Buffalo Center/Big Delta area for a combined 87 years
and have witnessed many things in Alaska in that time. He and
his wife attended the meeting about the proposed experimental
barley project where two straw polls were conducted by the
presenting committee. The first vote was overwhelmingly against
the project. Several mothers left the meeting to tend to their
children and a second vote was held that passed. Pappy Moss and
a few others in government had already decided it would be in
Delta and not Nenana. The following spring began the barley
project fires that lasted from 1979 to 1981, which was mass
chained-down black spruce forest. After the first few years of
crops failing due to early snows, not to mention the state
having no infrastructure to ship, receive, or deal with the
bushels of barley, the state bailed on the farmers, forcing many
of them to liquidate or turn to welfare or even suicide. Bison
are large animals that require food, shelter, and water and
since 1928 they have freely ranged from the Little Delta River
east to the Johnson River, north to Healy Lake to the south fork
of the Good Pastor River, and as far south as Black Rapids
Glacier, an area of nearly 10,000 miles in size. The area
selected for the transplant was rich in large grassy meadows and
wetlands, including the Bluff Cabin Slough area near Rika's
Roadhouse and the Clearwater River Bog, located in the middle of
the now-disputed farm area and the Healy Lake and Volkmar River
grasslands and natural occurring springs that offered water year
round. Native grasses were cut by the old-timers to feed their
horses and livestock and use as bedding for sled dogs. Free
ranging bison thrived in the area as well. [Paragraph 11 of
Section 3] of the bill would make grants to those whose property
or crops have been damaged by bison or the threat of bison; this
is a "load of ... bison droppings," he charged. Also, it does
not require a farmer to fence. So, is this a solution? If it
required fencing, then the bison issue would no longer exist,
but the damage would still occur from migratory waterfowl or the
weather. The weather being experienced over the last few years
will likely continue to raise issues with all farmers worldwide.
In time, this fee increase of $10 would be paying for damages
that are not bison related. When the last farm in the area is
fenced off, where do the free ranging bison get their food,
water, and shelter? Are wildlife corridors mentioned or
required in this bill? "At a cost of 60 million bison later
here we are." The bison were brought to the area by the Tanana
Valley Sportsmen's Association to offer different hunting
opportunity. The association requested mule deer and/or elk but
the federal government at the time was trying to establish a
free range bison herd in a remote area to protect and preserve
the last remnants of the American Bison. In 1928 there was only
Big Delta, no Delta Junction. Before Delta Junction there was
Buffalo Center. The bison are what put Delta on the map. They
bring countless dollars into Alaska, not just Delta. To let
this farm bill determine their fate is wrong. He urged HB 202
not be supported. Noting that the allocation of these grant
funds would be restricted to only soil and water districts, he
pointed out that the Clearwater federal watershed project built
many years ago in the Delta area was a failure, which leaves a
lot to be desired about giving these districts any money.
3:06:33 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE closed public testimony and held over HB 202.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 202 Quarberg Testimony.pdf |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Explanation of Changes (Version P).pdf |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Work Draft Version P.pdf |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Delta Farm Bureau Email.xps |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Lipscomb Email.xps |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 202 |
| HB 207 Kenai SWCD Letter.pdf |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 207 |
| HB 79 AKSAF Letter.pdf |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB 79 Stahl Letter.xps |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB 207 Pettit Email.xps |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 207 |
| HB 79 AK Chamber Letter.pdf |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB 79 Nick Steen Testimiony.pdf |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB 79 Ruffed Grouse Society Letter.pdf |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB79 Proposed Forest Management Plan Framework.pdf |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB79 Douse Letter.pdf |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |