Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/04/1999 05:00 PM House WTR
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 109 - GLACIER BAY NATIONAL PARK Number 2092 CHAIR BARNES announced the next order of business was House Bill No. 109, "An Act relating to management of fish and game in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve and navigable waters." She called on Representative Ogan to introduce the bill. Number 2111 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked for an at-ease. CHAIR BARNES called an at-ease at 5:35 p.m. and called the meeting back to order at 5:36 p.m. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to Section 1, AS 16.20.010, of HB 109, which reads (new text underlined): The legislature recognizes that (1) the state has jurisdiction over all fish and game in the state except in those areas where it has assented to federal control; (2) the state has not assented to federal control of fish and game in (A) those areas that [WHICH] were set apart as National Bird and Wildlife Refuges while the state was a United States territory; and (B) Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve or the navigable waters within or adjoining the park and preserve. He said, it seemed an appropriate place to state in statute that the state has not assented control in Glacier Bay National Park. Also added in Section 2, "the state may not expend funds to adopt, enforce, or otherwise assist in the implementation of the federal regulatory program." Language was also included from the court case New York v. United States, which reads, "the federal government cannot commandeer the lawmaking processes of a state to compel it to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program." Number 2233 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed concern about the New York v. United States court case and the supremacy clause in the United States Constitution. He asked Representative Ogan to explain, "What sort of force this would have if it came into a federal law that disagreed with our intention here?" REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied that it is probably not going to make much difference to the National Park Service (NPS) and the federal law, however it could help in a court case, which the Governor has seen the wisdom in defending our sovereign rights and state in statute that the state has not assented to federal control. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ requested clarification, he asked Representative Ogan, "You're objecting to federal control over our management of Glacier Bay?" REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded that he is objecting not to federal control of the state's management, but the loss of the state's management to the federal government in Glacier Bay National Park. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ wondered, "Why Glacier Bay is different from loss of state management over the entire state resources?" Number 2330 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated, "The Attorney General and the Governor made my case today in their press conference, and they talked about 1953 Submerged Land Act and how it deeded to the states these simple titles to submerged lands and with it the right to control fishing. [They] talked about police powers, navigable waters, states rights, sovereign rights and I think because we have, I believe, a consensus in this state that it's a bad thing in Glacier Bay, I think it's an appropriate venue to leave it there." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he agrees with Representative Ogan. He voiced concern, "Title 8 and the Katie John case, somehow, render mute all our protestation until we do something about it." REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated, "I don't think we should ever give up the battle without a fight." Number 2414 WARREN OLSEN testified via teleconference from Anchorage, saying that he has some reservations about the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and it's ramifications on federal lands with regards to use and users. He said that he thinks there are some problems. One being a state law that is on the books right now on subsistence, passed in 1992, that is creating preference among users. The case is weakened when the state steps up to bat and tells the federal government that they're going to manage these users. The other problem is with ANILCA, in removing sovereignty from the state of Alaska. Number 2518 ROD ARNO, President, Alaska Outdoor Council, testified via teleconference from Palmer, saying that he was representing the Alaska Outdoor Council and was in support of HB 109. He stated, "The fact that we have to be here and continue to reiterate our sovereignty is getting old, but we stay at it." In the Totemoff case the Alaska Supreme Court said, "Under ANILCA the definition of public lands in ANILCA excludes navigable waters." Also in the Totemoff case it states, "Nothing in Title 8 of ANILCA discloses a clear and manifest service to prohibit all state regulations. Nothing in this Act is intended to enlarge or diminish the responsibility and authority of the state for management of fish and game on public lands." ED DUNCAN, over 30-year commercial fisherman, testified via teleconference from Petersburg. He said that he has been fishing in Glacier Bay National Park for over 20 years and that he supports HB 109. He expressed his appreciation towards the Governor's lawsuit decision, which gives more support. Number 2654 KAY ANDREW testified via teleconference from Ketchikan, saying that she supports HB 109. She stated, "I would hope that the full House and senate would support this bill. It's a matter of sovereign rights and state rights. The federal government is trying to take away something they have no right to take away. Congratulations to those representatives who will protect all Alaskan's rights and the Governor for finally standing up for Alaskans." HOWARD STARBARD, Lieutenant, Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection, Department of Public Safety, testified via teleconference from Palmer, stated that he has worked for 16 years with the fish and wildlife troopers and has spent 11 of the 16 years patrolling resource enforcement in and around Glacier Bay National Park. Speaking on behalf of the Department of Public Safety, he said that HB 109 is designed to put the federal government on notice that the state has not assented to federal control of resource management within Glacier Bay National Park. The problem the Department of Public Safety has is with Section 2 of HB 109, which would significantly impact how the Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection operates it's program objectives, specifically with the prohibitation of state agencies from assisting with the implementation of a federal resource program in Glacier Bay National Park and adjoining navigable waters. The definition of "assist" could be interpreted to include all federal law, including the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), Endangered Species Act and various other Acts. "Navigable waters" could include Cross Sound, Icy Strait, the Gulf of Alaska from Cape Spencer to Dry Bay, because there is not a clear definition of what that includes. Therefore, it is unclear, in terms of location, where taking action would be in violation of this law and also would the state be prohibited from sending in enforcement if someone was trespassing. Number 2808 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if there was a problem with federal funding or assistance in other areas of the state if the provisions of Section 2 of HB 109 were enacted. MR. STARBARD replied that the Department of Public Safety receives some funding from the federal government, U.S. Forest Service, for patrolling within their area and the department is reimbursed. In addition, the federal enforcement agencies, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Coast Guard, provide a valuable service to the state by their assistance in enforcing state regulations. He stated, "If they were to curtail their enforcement efforts, the Department of Public Safety would be unable to adequately fill the void." Number 2867 KATHIE WASSERMAN, Mayor of the City of Pelican, Testified via teleconference from Pelican, stating that she supports HB 109. The people of Pelican have suffered many hits already due to the possible impacts from the closure of the fisheries in Glacier Bay National Park. The people of Pelican believe that this might fall within the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which requires consideration by the federal agencies of economic impact on adjacent communities. As fisherman go by the entrance to Glacier Bay National Park and see the possible decrease of fishing, yet see an increase of cruise ships, it brings many questions to mind. She asked Representative Ogan, "What if we should lose the lawsuit that Governor Knowles suggested, would this have -- serve any risk on the outside waters that might then be in danger of being closed to fishing?" Number 2930 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that HB 109, currently as written, would not assist in controlling the navigable waters that the federal government has control of. The area of control [Representative Ogan refers to a map] starts three miles out on the outer coast up past Lituya Bay and goes to the boundary of Glacier Bay National Park. That whole three mile area, the adjoining waters and the area that the federal government is claiming reserved water rights to, we would not be able [sentence cut off by tape change]. TAPE 99-04, SIDE B [zeroed the tape] Number 9999 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN continued, saying that it's important if the state decides not to assent to federal control that they do not help the federal government. It could be argued in court that the state is indeed assenting to federal control, because currently there are joint patrols there and if someone breaks the law the state helps the federal government with their program. CHAIR BARNES noted that Section 2 has language similar to that out of a federal court case, which she recalls possibly relating to the case out of Colorado, could be the "Brady Bill" , where the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal government cannot commandeer state resources. Number 9929 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ questioned that without Section 2 it could lead to a legal argument which a court would recognize that the state was assisting the federal government and therefore acquiescing. He asked Representative Ogan, "Do you have any authority to support that contention?" REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied, no. He said, "You don't know until you get into court, but I don't think it's an illogical argument that we got into court and said, ya, they agree with the takeover, after all they're helping us enforce it." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded, "Unfortunately, logic and the law are not Siamese twins." REPRESENTATIVE OGAN agreed. CHAIR BARNES addressed Representative Ogan, stating that he could agree that some of the language in Section 2 would already have been ruled on by the United States Supreme Court in the case out of Colorado, where it is clear that the federal government cannot commandeer state resources or assets. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded, correct, and that indeed some of the language in Section 2 is from the Colorado case, which is the Brady case, but the language was specifically taken out of the New York v. United States case in 1992. Number 9831 KEN EICHNER testified via teleconference from Seattle, saying that he is the owner and operator of the fishing vessel Emily Nicole(ph) and a 33-year Ketchikan resident. He said that he was asked to give testimony on HB 109 because of his recent dealings with the park service in Glacier Bay National Park. He stated his testimony: I don't think the federal government has any business regulating fish and game within the state boundaries, especially the navigable waters of Alaska. It's very important to reaffirm the state has not assented to federal control in Glacier Bay Park. I'm a tanner crab fisherman and fish in Glacier Bay Park. Under federal control, fishing will be fazed out in Glacier Bay proper. The crab stocks are very healthy in the bay, with approximately 25 percent of the Southeast quota coming from the bay. This is where federal management makes no sense to close a heathy state fishery out of the park makes no sense. To close a healthy fishery out of the park that takes place for only six days in the middle of winter, while there's no one else using the park, makes no sense. I think it is impossible for the federal government to manage fisheries effectively. One, their decisions are more politically influenced than scientifically influenced. Unlike the state of Alaska that does a very good job conservatively managing for sustained yield. Two, a vast majority of the persons working for the government agencies, like the park service, are so anti-commercial fishing that complete closure is their preferred method of management. Further more, they have proven in the past that they are terrible fish managers. On to the second part of my testimony, regarding park service enforcement. On February 17, two days into the six day tanner crab season, we were boarded by park service enforcement officers. We were fishing in the waters of Hugh Miller wilderness area, the same place where we have fished for the past four seasons. The same place fisherman have been allowed to fish since it became a wilderness area nearly 20 years ago. The officers said it was against the law to have gear in the wilderness area and requested we remove it as soon as possible. They handed us a news release dated October 21, 1998 outlining areas closed by emergency and grandfathered areas that can be fished, signed into law 10/21/98. While the armed officers are telling us it's against the law to fish where we are, the enforcement vessel is hovering around us filming with a cam-corder and snapping still pictures as if collecting evidence. We showed the officers a tanner crab packet picked up from the state of Alaska prior to the fishery, showing them that we have no information from the state that the waters have been closed. They reply, 'It's against the law to have your gear here. We would like it to be out of here tomorrow.' After the enforcement vessel left, we ran out until we could use the cell-phone. Unfortunately it was 4:30 and we couldn't get anyone we contacted at the state to say, no it's not closed, you don't have to remove your gear. So, we had no choice but to remove our gear fearing legal action against us from the park service. We removed our gear, losing 24-hours out of six day season and lost 25 to 50,000 dollars. After the season we started contacting people about being kicked out of Hugh Miller. One person I contacted was Gerry Merrigan of Petersburg Vessel Owners'. He had questioned Tomie Lee, director of the park service, about mid-way through the season on what the boardings being conducted were about. She said in a return letter, 'We are educating people and asking for voluntary compliance, and are issuing no citations.' We're positive they were interpreting the legislation right. It seems the boarding officers forgot to tell us, or anybody else that I know of that was boarded, that it was strictly voluntary to move our gear and no citations would be issued. We would have definitely stayed where we were if the officers had not told us the full story. This is why federal management is no good for the state. The park service is in such a hurry to close the park that they will deceive and intimidate people to do what they think is right. As a fisherman, I shouldn't have to quiz an officer or ask him the right questions to force him to state his full intentions. He shouldn't hold back the parts of his message that would be damaging to the park service agenda or his personal agenda. I absolutely resent what happened to us. I resent the park service for not revealing their full intentions while on my vessel, I resent them for wasting my fishing time and I resent them for blind siding us by not stating their intentions before the season. In conclusion, any federal management of state's navigable waters means lost revenues for the state's fisherman, lost revenues for the state, political based fished management and confused fisherman trying to figure out which agency to believe. I would like to read a quote from the director of the park service, Tomie Lee, responding to a purse seine vessel owner's, Gerry Merrigan's, in season questions about park service boardings, says, 'Gerry Merrigan, I do appreciate your personal phone call yesterday. I especially appreciate that you did not blind side me on this matter, you gave me a chance to answer some of your questions. While we may or may not reach agreement on all issues, I'm looking forward to working with you with the same consideration and respect you have given to me.' I just wish Tomie Lee and the park service had not blind sided us, and had some respect and consideration for the fisherman involved in a tanner crab fishery. I just want to thank Scott Ogan for introducing this bill. Number 9502 DOUG OGILVY testified via teleconference from Gustavus. He said that he has lived in Gustavus for the last 20-years and has worked as a commercial fisherman for the last 22-years. His testimony was stated as follows: I'm in favor of the bill. Any statement the state can make attempting to assert our right to jurisdiction over these waters is helpful. Also, it would be unfortunate if any of our state enforcement officers were ever in cooperation with the federal policy it disagrees with, that the state disagrees with and feels is illegal, this bill addresses this. The bill becomes even more pertinent in relation to future co-management of the waters of the park, outside of Glacier Bay proper, which with the settlement that Stevens' made this winter will remain open in future years and is suppose to be under co-management of the state and federal government. So, it would give us a little more leverage on that aspect to try and keep the feds [federal government] from superseding anything that the state -- that any state management would have. Number 9408 KENNETH GRANT, President, Hoonah Indian Association (HIA), testified via teleconference from Hoonah. He said that the HIA has not been able to meet and come up with an official statement on HB 109, but that the HIA is in favor of the continuation of fishing and that's what HB 109 states, so the HIA strongly supports HB 109. He said that Glacier Bay is part of their ancestral home land and they'd like to see the continuation of park values and he knows that the state professes this. Fish and Game has done a good job in managing the fishery in the park. MR. GRANT continued, saying that as far as the subsistence part, the state has come into compliance with (indisc.) [teleconference sound problems] we'll just wait and see what the state does. Number 9300 JOHN OBRIEN, SR. stated that he has lived in Alaska since the 1940s when Alaska was a territory and he remembers that getting management of fishery resources was a long hard battle for the Alaskan people. There were powerful interests that were opposed to Alaska getting control of it's own affairs. It was found out that the only way Alaska could get management of it's fisheries was for it to become a state. At the time Alaska was a territory there was only one Representative in Congress, an excellent Representative, but he did not have the power to counteract the powerful interests that were exploiting the Alaskan fisheries at that time. It took about 25-years of the Alaskan people working on this before Alaska was granted statehood, as well as, management of it's own affairs. MR. OBRIEN, SR. further stated that over a period of time Alaska's rights to manage it's own fisheries is being eroded. It is very important that the state firm up on seeing that the federal government ceases assuming power over Alaskan government and Alaskan people. We see continuing cases of federal employees wearing pistols among Alaskans who are conducting their livelihood in a peaceful manner, and this is a frightening development. The government is assuming more power over the people, and the founding fathers of our country envision not that the government would have the power, but that the people would have the power. It is important that bills of this nature be passed. Number 9038 PATRICK WRIGHT, President, Scientific Management of Alaska's Resource Treasures (SMART), testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He stated, "SMART, as the organization is known, is dedicated to the preservation of our public trust resources. As our elected representative, we commend you for your judiciary responsibilities of the public trust doctrine. I would like to bring to your attention some resource documents. One, is a book, Madam Chair, called 'Putting the Public Trust Doctrine to Work'. It's the application of the public trust doctrine to the management of land, waters and living resources of a coastal state. This would be very helpful for all of your committee. Another resource is a video, produced here in Anchorage by PCS video, called 'Public Trust Doctrine 101' by Attorney Joseph Pratt(ph)." CHAIR BARNES interjected that all the members on the committee have the 'Public Trust Doctrine' book. MR. WRIGHT continued, "We had some concerns about limiting this type of legislation only to the Glacier Bay area, because as this bill states at the time of statehood, there were other places that had a similar type of situation. Specifically, the Katmai National Monument at that time, which had adjoining navigable waters and intertidal zones. In other words, public trust doctrine jurisdiction. Also, we'd like to bring to your attention of Article 2, Section 19 of the Alaska Constitution that says that 'the legislature shall pass no local or special Act if a general Act can be made applicable', and we're suggesting that you need to take a look at these type of concerns for all the navigable waters and intertidal lands. We want to thank you for working with the Governor to maintain the state's sovereignty over fish and game resources." Number 8871 PAUL ANDERSON, City Council member, City of Petersburg, testified via teleconference from Petersburg. He stated that Petersburg is directly affected by the closer of Glacier Bay National Park, yet in the environmental assessment it said that Petersburg would have little economic affect if there was a closure. Petersburg has the highest percentage of permits in Glacier Bay National Park, whether it be tanner crab or halibut quotas. He said that he considered a lawsuit against the NPS against the closure of Glacier Bay National Park and he commends the legislature on HB 109. This is a start to what Senator Murkowski is doing with SB 501 and keeping these waters open to commercial fisheries. Number 8771 DICK COOSE, Executive Director, Concerned Alaskans for Resource and Environment (CARE), testified via teleconference from Ketchikan. He stated, "We support HB 109 and we support access to and the use of all of our natural resources. The Alaskans continue to lose this battle as evidence by this Glacier Bay episode and the closing down of the Tongass by the feds [federal government]. The federal government continues to deny access, by Alaskans, ... to the resources. Alaskans must protect their rights under the Alaska and U.S. Constitution. We are glad that Governor Knowles is standing up for Alaska's rights and suing the feds [federal government]. It's time. We also support Section 2 of HB 109; why should we Alaskans help tighten the federal noose around our own necks." He asked, "Will the Governor's suit prevent the National Park Service from implementing the proposed regs [regulations] or is an injunction in order to prevent that regulation from being implemented until the suit is settled in court?" He concluded, please pass this legislation. Number 8687 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that you have to be very close to being damaged before you can ask for injunctive relief, but that he is not sure what the Governor's strategy is on that. He said that the Governor's lawsuit could prevail and that those who have been around navigable water issues for a while believe that it is the best case the state has to assert it's sovereignty. DICK HOFMANN, President, Alaska Trollers Association, stated that the Alaska Trollers Association is in support of HB 109. The state should maintain jurisdiction of those waters and the management of the resources that come from there. He referred to Mr. Coose's question on injunctive relief, and said that it is an avenue that should be explored, because if the NPS is preventing people from fishing, harvest opportunities will be lost that cannot be regained. Number 8556 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded, "The Governor gave notice that under the Quiet Title Act, that the state intends to claim title, and they must give the feds [federal government] 180 day notice." GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), said, as a representative of ADF&G, that they agree that it is important to maintain and defend Alaska's right to manage fish and wildlife. They do have some concerns about what Section 2 of HB 109 entails, because it contains very broad language. He wondered how it might affect other activities in Glacier Bay National Park that ADF&G could be involved with, with the federal government, regarding fisheries closures. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if Mr. Bruce thought Section 2 was necessary to convey the state's intent not to relinquish rights in Glacier Bay National Park. MR. BRUCE replied that he believes the statement is clear in Section 1 of HB 109 and that Section 2 is not necessary. CHAIR BARNES stated, that concludes the public testimony. It would be the intention of the chair to pass HB 109 from committee, with the four attached zero fiscal notes. Number 8341 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ interjected that before the committee moves the bill he would like to offer an amendment. He made a motion to delete Section 2 of HB 109. CHAIR BARNES objected. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN objected to the amendment. He added that the previous statement by Mr. Bruce in answer to the question Representative Berkowitz asked regarding Section 2, may not have been appropriate, because Mr. Bruce is not an attorney and it involves some legal strategy. He indicated that he believes it is important to make a strong statement. On the one hand the state is saying that they won't assent to federal control, but on the other hand the state is assisting in the take-over. Number 8224 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that his concern with Section 2 is whether or not it has ramifications with regards to other agreements the state may have with the federal government. He noted that HB 109 does not have a Judiciary referral and that he is concerned that HB 109 could go to the floor without official legal response. He recommended that HB 109 have a Judiciary referral. CHAIR BARNES responded that she doesn't believe that HB 109 has judiciary implications and it does have a Resource Committee referral after this. She noted that she is happy to hold HB 109, or the questions could be answered in the Resource Committee. She said that the reason she objected to the amendment was because she recognizes the language as being language that has already been ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court as it relates to the commandeering of state assets. She stated, even if this bill passes, if there are any agreements that the state has, that this language would fly in the face of, she will continue to seek answers. Number 8070 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said that her concerns are the same and that HB 109 is very strong and she supports the concept of HB 109. Her concern is with a legal cloud over HB 109 in Section 2. The question that came to mind was what is the responsibility of the military. The only bill this committee has before it is HB 109 and it is up to this committee to decide whether to keep Section 2 in the bill. She added, this committee has nothing to do with what the next committee does and she would feel better if this bill was passed out of the committee without a legal cloud over it. CHAIR BARNES stated that she doesn't see anything in HB 109 that relates to the military. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS replied that none of the members on the committee have any legal background, with the exception of Representative Berkowitz. She stated that the committee is unable to clarify whether or not there is going to be a legal cloud. CHAIR BARNES said that HB 109 could be held over or the committee can vote on the amendment. She reiterated that she objects to the amendment because Section 2 doesn't seem to affect the state's regulatory process, but without Section 2 it could be said that the state has assented to federal control. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS pointed out that the reason she brought in the military was the language from Section 2, "the federal government cannot commandeer", but the federal government can commandeer all Alaskan National Guard if there was a necessity for controlling associated waterways. Number 7892 CHAIR BARNES reiterated that the language in Section 2, which says, "that the federal government cannot commandeer the lawmaking processes of the states to compel the state to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program, an agency, employee, or agent of the state may not expend funds to adopt, enforce, or otherwise assist in the implementation of the federal regulatory program", is language that she recognizes from the Brady case which arose out of the Brady gun law that was ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court that said, "the federal government cannot commandeer state assets." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ offered a hypothetical example. Imagine that there has been a homicide in Glacier Bay National Park and federal officers are the first ones on the scene and they need backup. The way HB 109 is currently written prevents the state from providing backup. Number 7795 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN addressed Representative Berkowitz requesting that he read a little farther where HB 109 states, "the state may not expend funds to adopt, enforce, or otherwise assist in the implementation of the federal regulatory program for control of fish and game in the park", meaning that it doesn't have anything to with felony actions. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS remarked that there could be a felony action involving fish and game. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded, that's true. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS confirmed, "Therefore, it could." REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said that it could involve the "Lacy Act". The scenario that Representative Berkowitz was talking about had to do with an act against a person. He said, "The Lacy Act is a federal Act and it's a federal law and the feds [federal government] can enforce it." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that the point he was trying to make, with regards to the homicide example, was that if there was a situation, possibly involving fish and game, that needed backup law enforcement the safety of the officers involved could be compromised. He reconfirmed that Section 2 is unnecessary to pass on the message. The message is clear in Section 1, where it states, 'the state has not assented to federal control of fish and game'. The more language that is out there, the more difficulties, from a legal perspective, you wind up inviting. Number 7619 CHAIR BARNES requested a roll call vote on the motion to remove Section 2 from HB 109. Representatives Phillips, Green and Berkowitz voted in favor of removing Section 2 of HB 109. Representatives Cowdery, Masek, and Barnes voted against it. Representative Joule was not present. Therefore, the motion to remove Section 2 from HB 109 failed by a vote of 3-3. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to move HB 109 from the committee with individual recommendation and attached fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS objected. Number 7518 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that many people have testified in the meeting today and have voiced their concerns with the problems associated with federal control of fish and game management. This is a small snap-shot of what could happen if the subsistence problem is not resolved in a way that retains state management. The reason he supports HB 109 is because he supports state management, in Glacier Bay National Park, as well as, across the state. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said that she supports HB 109 and the concept, but she feels that the legal questions still need to be answered. CHAIR BARNES said that she will do whatever is necessary to find the answers to Representative Phillips questions. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS interjected that her vote is only for this committee. CHAIR BARNES reminded Representative Phillips that she also has a vote on the floor of the House and those same questions can be raised there. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Cowdery, Masek and Barnes voted in favor of moving the bill. Representatives Phillips, Green and Berkowitz voted against it. Representative Joule was not present. Therefore, HB 109 failed to move out of committee by a vote of 3-3.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|