Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/17/2003 11:45 AM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 24-AGREEMENTS ON MANAGEMENT OF FISH AND GAME
REPRESENTATIVE BRUCE WEYHRAUCH, bill sponsor, explained that when
Congress passed ANILCA, [Alaska National Interest Land
Conservation Act] it made Glacier Bay National Park a monument
and expanded the boundaries to include the inside waters of
Glacier Bay out into Icy Strait to the middle of Cross Sound and
the outside waters off shore three miles into Lituya Bay, which
encompasses about 500,000 marine acres of water. In 1991, the
Alaska Wildlife Alliance sued the park superintendent and said
ANILCA prohibited fishing in the bay. The Ninth Circuit Court
confirmed that ANILCA didn't prohibit commercial fishing in the
bay, but the National Park Service (NPS) could, by regulation,
close commercial fishing in the park. After that decision, the
NPS began to close areas of the bay to fishing and then because
of the growing storm in Alaska, Senator Ted Stevens inserted a
provision in law that closed commercial fishing in certain areas
of Glacier Bay and restricted continued commercial fishing in the
bay proper to those who were in the tanner crab, salmon and
halibut fisheries giving them a lifetime access permit. Later,
Senator Frank Murkowski passed Senate Bill 501 that required the
State of Alaska and the federal government to enter into co-
management agreements on commercial fishing. Co-management is a
concern, and the intent of this bill is to disallow the
commissioner to enter into agreements with the federal government
that cede jurisdiction by contract what can't happen by federal
or constitutional law.
Initially the bill was introduced to prohibit all co-management
agreements between the sovereign and the State of Alaska that
surrender jurisdiction and management over commercial fisheries.
Currently the bill prohibits the commissioner from entering into
any contract with the federal government [National Park Service]
that cedes jurisdiction over the management and jurisdiction of
Alaska commercial fisheries.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS said he understands that jurisdiction could be
ceded, but only after a hearing and the legislative process.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said, "It would prohibit it. If the
State of Alaska and the NPS entered in agreement that the NPS
could set species to be harvested or manner and method or
seasons, that would be ceding its jurisdiction over the
management of commercial fisheries and it couldn't do that by
contract because the state has plenary jurisdiction over the
management of our commercial fisheries."
The House Judiciary Committee wanted to extend this to every
contract between the state and federal government, which was
problematic. There are certain agreements that are ministerial
and beneficial to the state and don't cede jurisdiction. Co-
management agreements are fine so long as they don't cede
jurisdiction.
SENATOR JOHN COWDERY asked how many co-management agreements
there are.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said there are many. He said he knew of
no co-management agreements over fisheries in Glacier Bay proper
and the outside waters, but this is to provide notice that the
Legislature is sensitive to this as well as to caution agencies
not to cede management jurisdiction.
SENATOR COWDERY asked about economic impacts.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said there aren't now any co-management
agreements that are jurisdictional. The measure is prophylactic.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Mr. White to comment on the bill.
STEVE WHITE, Department of Law, said their initial concerns had
been addressed. It is clear that the intent of the bill does not
apply to existing agreements in which the state is acting under
acknowledged federal authority and assisting in the process of
co-management. The state is cooperating with the federal
government in areas such as migratory bird management and
management of subsistence, but it's their interpretation that the
bill doesn't affect that.
SENATOR FRED DYSON asked what would happen if the federal
government determined the state should cede jurisdiction and
state law prohibited that.
MR. WHITE replied the federal government couldn't take any state
management prerogatives away without an act of Congress.
SENATOR DYSON asked whether it would be necessary to file suit in
the event of a disagreement since federal law supercedes state
law.
MR. WHITE said he wasn't sure which party would initiate a
lawsuit.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said the state should not cede, through
contract, what it can't cede by constitution; and the Legislature
needs to go on record as setting a policy in statute that says
the state doesn't have co-management agreements that cede
management jurisdiction.
SENATOR DYSON asked if anyone had testified against the bill as
it moved through the House.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH replied no one had. Initially there was
discussion regarding language nuance, but there was no
opposition.
SENATOR COWDERY made a motion to move CSHB 24(JUD) from committee
with individual recommendations. There being no objection, it was
so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|