Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/19/1998 09:11 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 168 - TRADITIONAL ACCESS FOR TRADITIONAL ACTIVITIES Number 1149 CHAIR JAMES announced the committee would address HB 168, "An Act relating to use of traditional means of access to assist in taking game or fish and to traditional means of access for traditional outdoor activities on land and water set aside for fish and game purposes; and providing for an effective date," sponsored by Representative Masek. An at-ease was taken to await the arrival of the sponsor. REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK came before the committee and read the following statement into the record: "House Bill 168 was introduced as a companion measure to access bills, HB 23 and SB 35, which was passed by the legislature last year. Public access to the resources they own has been one of my primary areas of concern and I believe this bill completes the effort I began three years ago. "Since the passage of ANILCA [Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act] in 1980, Madam Chairman, the land tied up in conservation units in Alaska, both on federal and state land, makes up a large percentage of public lands. Many of these lands are either restricted by law or by some sort of features dealing with the conservation aspect. Furthermore, there are millions of acres of private land where access has been restricted. If we are going to consider further restrictions it seems to me they should take into account the amount of land set aside already for restricted use, and whether the restriction is for truly necessary reasons or at the request of a special interest group. "The previous hearing on this bill brought out some concerns that appeared to be generated by misconceptions. I would like to try to clear up those misunderstandings, Madam Chairman. "House Bill 168 grandfathers in all of the existing controlled use areas in the establishment of refuges and critical habitat areas has always been by legislative action. Secondly, House Bill 168 specifically allows the board to act without legislative intervention if a biological concern is evident. So this bill will not give the Board of Fish or Game the authority to close public lands only unless it was a biological factor, which I think is very important. Last and most importantly, Madam Chairman, House Bill 168 does not prevent the boards from creating controlled use areas with access restrictions if it lasts more than 2.5 months a year and or a larger parcel of 640 acres or more. "Once again, Madam Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to discuss House Bill 168 before your committee and I look forward to working with you to put this final piece of legislation in place to protect the ability of Alaskans to access the resource they own." Number 1366 CHAIR JAMES asked what effect, if any, does this legislation have on private property. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated that the bill does not deal with private property. CHAIR JAMES said the bill would only affect state and federal lands that are designated other than by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). REPRESENTATIVE MASEK responded that it only affects state lands. CHAIR JAMES asked if it affects state lands if they are designated as parks or refuges. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated, "That was one provision that is not in the bill as DNR [Department of Natural Resources], so that would not affect any of the state parks or the national refuges." CHAIR JAMES asked if there will be a mapping of the traditional access routes so that we know that they will be preserved. She said her concern is if some of this land is sold or is transferred in any way to private ownership, would the legislation establish a history for a route so that the route can't be erased. Number 1446 EDDIE GRASSER, Legislative Assistant to Representative Beverly Masek, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to respond to the question. He stated the bill doesn't pertain to that. It only deals with the Board of Game and Board of Fisheries regulations which deal with hunting and fishing. Access routes (indisc.) and access across land are DNR prerogative as far as mapping the trails. The bill only deals with regulation of hunters and fishermen as they access the resources that they're targeting. Number 1479 CHAIR JAMES asked, "Would you kind of tell me what these kinds of traditional access - means of access might be?" MR. GRASSER responded that one of the more utilized areas for access off road system is unit 13 in the Nelchina Basin just north of Anchorage or south of Fairbanks. Both the population of Anchorage and Fairbanks utilizes this area a great deal. Mr. Grasser pointed out that there is a large network of trail systems that go into unit 13. Snow machiners, hikers, horseback riders, cross country skiers and all terrain vehicles all access this area. He referred to hunting and said it wouldn't be practical to close an area like this because it is 80 miles from the nearest highway to the Oshetna River. Most of the people who are accessing this area for hunting are either hunting moose or caribou. He indicated that he has spent a great deal of time hunting professionally and said it would be physically impossible for anybody to hunt the Oshetna River without having some kind of motorized access to get there. Number 1559 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON informed the committee that he sees a potential conflict which is repeated twice in Section 1 of the bill. He said the Board of Fisheries or the Board of Game cannot ban the use of traditional means of access "unless" the ban is temporary in nature and effective cumulatively less than 8 months in a 3-year period. He said another exception under the "unless" provision is unless it's biologically essential for the protection of the game resource or a fish resource. Representative Elton said it seems to him that those two provisions may be in conflict. If it is necessary or biologically essential for the protection of the game resource, that necessity may be for longer than an 8-month period. He asked which clause is a pre-eminent clause. He asked if it could be longer than 8 months in a 3-year period if it is biologically necessary or is the pre-eminent clause unless it's temporary in nature.... CHAIR JAMES interjected, "I guess underneath (4) it says 'or'. So I think those are all 'ors' not 'ands.'" REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said that it seems to him that the two provisions may be in conflict. Number 1633 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said, "This provision here, if you take a look at the history in the state here, there have not been any closures of any type. For emergency purposes, it has been closed more than the given time here. What we're trying to do here pretty much gives the opportunity for the Board of Game if let's say there is a salmon problem and they close it down. With our seasons in Alaska, it's very uncommon to see something that's shut down for a longer period of time, but if it's for a biological reason then this bill would give that opportunity for them to care for that matter." CHAIR JAMES referred to number (3), "biologically essential for the protection of a game resource or of fish or game habitat;". She asked what would happen if there was a four-wheeler trail and the use of that trail was so extensive that there are ruts forming and runoff occurring to where it was affecting a stream or some other habitat. She asked if the evidence is there, could they restrict four-wheelers from going over the trail. She also asked if they could do it for more than 8 months out of 3 years. Number 1707 MR. GRASSER informed the committee that the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game only have the authority to enact restrictions on access as it pertains to actual hunting or fishing. He explained that the Department of Natural Resources has the ultimate authority over those types of access issues. He pointed out that the issue was raised during the discussion of unit 13 at the November board meeting. It was pointed out to the board by their attorney that they only have the opportunity to restrict access as it pertained to people actually hunting. He said if people were recreationally riding their ORV (off-road vehicles), the Board of Game did not have the authority to restrict that. They would have to go to DNR and get concurrence for that type of restriction. Number 1768 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked what would happen if the Board of Fisheries made a decision that the catch impact at a remote river is too high and one way of reducing that catch impact is to restrict motorized access. He said it would be a management decision to protect a biological resource. If they made that decision, they would then be restricted to only allow that decision to stand for no longer than 8 months out of a 3-year period. MR. GRASSER responded, "I think part of the problem with that type of discussion is people's lack of understanding of actual - like season on -- that could happen on say a rainbow trout fishery, but if you're talking about a salmon fishery then you're probably talking about a restriction that could take place in 2 months every year. You'd still take care of the problem because you have a weak run. You want to close the fishery down. You want to restrict access. You could do that forever. You'd never have to come to the legislature for approval because you'd meet the 8-month test. And you basically have targeted the prime fishing area of the summer months - that when a motor boat could be used." REPRESENTATIVE ELTON pointed out that it could also be winter months. There could be snow machine access for ice fishing. He said you wouldn't necessarily be talking about a seasonal fishery unless you're talking about a migratory species. Number 1855 MR. GRASSER said that is correct. He said, "There again you'd have to -- like on a snow machine going out for ice fishing, the board would have to probably use some other tool because, again, DNR would have the ultimate authority over whether or not people could actually snow machine in that area unless they were fishing." Number 1900 DON SHERWOOD, Alaska Boating Association, testified via teleconference from Anchorage in support of HB 168. He explained the association is made up of motorized and nonmotorized users with 100 percent of hunters and fisher persons. If the legislation is passed, we can be assured of management for all users of traditional means of access. He indicated that there are special interest groups that are misinforming the public and referred to a specific letter from Kay Brown of the Alaska Conservation (Indisc.). He referred to page 2, line 11, "biologically essential for the protection of a fishery resource or of fish and game habitat;", and said if this isn't as plain as it can be written, he doesn't know what is. Mr. Sherwood informed the committee that his organization has been adamant about the protection of our habitat. He urged that the bill be passed. Mr. Sherwood also asked the committee to consider passing HJR 39. Number 2000 MICHAEL EASTHAM, Homer Anchor Point Snow Machine Club, testified via teleconference from Homer in support of HB 168. He said the bill does not discriminate against any type of user group. This means that any user group could use and have access of state lands including handicapped people who can't hike or ski. Mr. Eastham pointed out that the Department of Fish and Game always has the alternative to close a fishing or hunting season to protect the resource. They could also shorten bag limits. By closing or having shortened bag limits, it will cut down on the number of people who actually use the resource. The bill guarantees equal access to the opportunity to hunt or fish by leaving it open to everyone. Mr. Eastham referred to a state park survey and said over 94 percent of Alaskans recreate in some form in the outdoors. This is the highest per capita in United States. He said he believes it would be criminal to close state lands to select user groups by restricting the ORVs of traditional use. Number 2077 BILL EASTHAM, President, Mat-Su Motor Mushers, testified from the Mat-Su LIO. He said he would echo the comments of his brother, Michael Eastham. He concluded that the Mat-Su Motor Mushers supports HB 168. Number 2094 WALTER "RED" DECKER testified via teleconference from the Mat-Su Legislative Information Office. He informed the committee he has spoken with many people around the state regarding HB 168. Mr. Decker referred the committee to Article VIII, 1, of the Constitution of Alaska, "Section 1. Statement of Policy. It is the policy of the state to encourage the settlement of its land and the development of its resources by making them available for maximum use consistent with the public interest." He said, "And then it says, 'The commissioner shall allow traditional access to the Nelchina public use area by motorized or nonmotorized means of transportation to private land interests and private land and in the lawful sport and subsistence hunting, fishing, trapping and recreational purposes in the manner compatible with the purpose specified in AS 41.23.010.'" Mr. Decker stated that this is a constitutional amendment which was revised on November 12, 1971. He said what he has gathered from this is there is a special interest group priority preference, conflict of interest and neglect of representation. He said that HB 168 should have been passed a long time ago. Mr. Decker said, "To start with, (indisc.) how things are spread out so much. You've got the Governor, he fights like hell for the tourism business and for the million dollars from the Canadian government suit over the Malaspina and the fishermen in the canneries and don't mention -- not to mention the tour buses that tour through this state, but has done nothing for the people inland of the state. We the people that live inland depend on the natural resources and wildlife to put meat on the table to families. We are required to take one moose, 50 inches, or (indisc.) and one caribou. But here we go, the federal government gives rural residents special permits to take any moose and as many caribou necessary for subsistence in Glennallen, Paxson and Delta area. This is prejudice and a conflict of interest to other residents of the state. Unit 13 is bordered by the Denali Highway and 90 percent of the people want it unimproved and left alone just the way it is. That's what makes the Denali Highway what it is. But now they sent out a questionnaire asking the public, in other words, what they should do with it. Well this happens to be in unit 13, the part that we're talking about right now is the Nelchina caribou herd." Mr. Decker continued by saying that there are thousands of miles of road in the state and in the valley that need repair and they want to pave the Denali Highway. They don't have the backing of the people, but they're going to do it anyway. He stated that how things have been run is a conflict of interest. Mr. Decker continued to give testimony in support of HB 168. Number 2359 LEONARD HAIRE was next to testified from the Mat-Su LIO. He informed the committee that he is a boat manufacturer and resident of Mat-Su. He also noted he is a member of the Alaska Boating Association, the Alaska Outdoor Council and is an avid hunter and fisherman. Mr. Haire said he strongly supports HB 168. The bill has been needed for a long time. The Board of Game needs to spend their time on the protection of game and game habitat, and less time on trying to handle people problems. He referred to the phrases "quality of experience" and "quality of the hunt" and said those phrases could be defined in 1,000 different ways. He thanked Representative Masek for introducing the bill and urged its passage. Number 2417 CLIFF JUDKINS, President, Alaska Boating Association, was the last person to testify from the Mat-Su LIO. He stated that he lives in Wasilla and is a 36-year resident of Alaska. Mr. Judkins noted he is also a member of the Alaska Outdoor Council. He stated he strongly supports HB 168. The restriction of access to hunting and fishing, motorized or otherwise, should be based on sound biological data and not on the emotions or personal likes and dislikes of a particular individual. The option of HB 168 will give needed direction to the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game who are currently spending many hours listening to proposals and debate concerning motorized access that have nothing to do with fish and game management. He said there will always be a debate between those that favor efficient modern technology and those that favor the old ways. That debate should not be carried on in the arena of wildlife management. There are many management techniques that do not require restriction of the means of access to the hunting area. He thanked the committee for listening to him. TAPE 98-20, SIDE B Number 0001 CHAIR JAMES stated that she would close the public testimony on HB 168 with the exception of Wayne Regelin of the Department of Fish and Game. She stated the committee would hear from Mr. Regelin at the next hearing on HB 168. House Bill 168 was held for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|