Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/14/2008 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB307 | |
| HB348 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 348 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 307 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 311 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 14, 2008
1:47 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the House Finance Committee meeting to
order at 1:47:04 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Vice-Chair
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Les Gara
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Mary Nelson
Representative Bill Thomas Jr.
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Harris
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Lindsey Holmes; Representative Wes Keller;
Dwayne Peeples, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Corrections; Nick Jans, Alaskans for Wildlife, Juneau; Jim
Pound, Staff, Representative Wes Keller
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law; Kevin
Saxby, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law; Wade
Willis, Anchorage; Scott Ogan, President, Sportsman for Fish
and Wildlife, Anchorage; Thomas Scarborough, Fairbanks;
Wayne Heimer, Fairbanks; John Toppenberg, Director, Alaska
Wildlife Alliance, Soldotna; Gerald Brookman, Kenai
SUMMARY
HB 307 An Act relating to penalizing certain misdemeanor
domestic violence offenses as felonies.
CS HB 307 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "no recommendation" and with (2) new fiscal
notes by the Department of Administration, (1)
Department of Corrections, (1) Department of Law,
(1) Alaska Court System, and a new zero note by
the Department of Public Safety.
HB 348 An Act relating to the adoption of regulations by
the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game.
HB 348 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
1:47:56 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 307
An Act relating to penalizing certain misdemeanor
domestic violence offenses as felonies.
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT work draft 25-LS1236\K,
Luckhaupt, 3/12/08 as the version of the bill before the
Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
1:48:39 PM
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1(a). Vice-
Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Hawker explained that the amendment would
delete language on Page 3, Line 7, "(2) adults or minors who
live together or who have lived together." Additionally, it
would renumber the sections following. On Page 3, Line 13,
following "(7)", deleting "minor" and inserting "parents
or". (Copy on File).
He noted that the amendment addresses the qualifications to
be a household member in a domestic violence act and would
not affect the existing statewide domestic violence
statutes. He listed the seven definitions of a household
member. He noted that the issues of what is considered a
household member for purposes of a domestic violence, three
strikes out. He noted that Item 2 is of concern with
language "have lived together"; and he thought the provision
was too encompassing and recommended that the language be
limited to familial relationships.
Representative Hawker addressed another change on Page 3,
Line 13, deleting "minor" child and instead include
"parents or children of a person in the relationship". He
maintained the immediacy of a familial relationship. He
urged support for the amendment.
1:53:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LINDSEY HOLMES, SPONSOR, commented on
Amendment 1(a). She noted that she would endorse Lines 6-8
of Amendment 1(a); however, indicated she would not choose
to delete language on Lines 1-7. That choice was made
because prosecutors would have to prove an element of a
crime that they never have had to prove before. Until now,
domestic violence was something simply checked on a box by a
judge. It is common in domestic violence, where the woman
recants; the prosecutor would then have to prove the
domestic violence, under one of the above listed elements.
Without the perpetrator or the victim admitting to it, it
would be very difficult to prove that domestic violence had
occurred. A third party would not be able to prove that
they were engaged in a sexual relationship. Representative
Holmes voiced concern deleting the proposed language, the
State would miss a lot of domestic violence, which can occur
because of the frequency that the woman recants. She
understood the possibility the language could sometimes pick
up that should not be included; she was willing to entertain
limiting factors.
1:56:42 PM
Representative Hawker advised that as written, there was a
presumption of guilt; he wanted to see the prosecutors
requiring a certain degree of proof. He thought it could be
reasonable protection for certain situations, worrying about
the broad dimension of the language.
Representative Kelly submitted that domestic violence issues
create a special category of "hate crimes". Representative
Holmes said, she was open to including a time-limit factor
including necessary limiting language. She did not want to
see non-guilty persons be picked up. She reminded members
that a person must have three separate convictions before
the bill is implemented and will not be a one-time thing.
2:00:17 PM
Representative Joule wondered what would happen in a
relationship, in which the couple had separated and then
there was another domestic violence occurrence. He asked if
a second assault could still be categorized the same way.
Representative Holmes suggested that the relationship would
still be considered domestic violence for retaliation in the
attempt to leave and would be tied to the prior relationship
& assault.
Representative Hawker MOVED to DIVIDE the question in
Amendment 1(a) at Line 5. Lines 1-4 would become the new
Amendment 1(a) and Lines 5-8 would become Amendment 1(b).
There being NO OBJECTION, the amendment was divided.
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1(b). There
being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
2:03:02 PM
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT the new Amendment 1(a).
Representative Kelly OBJECTED.
Representative Joule asked if the sponsor had recommended
the language. Representative Holmes was amenable to
limiting 1(a) either by making a time-limit that the couple
had lived together or by excluding specific certain
categories of relationship. Representative Hawker suggested
deleting "or have lived together" on Line 2.
Representative Holmes replied in "the spirit of compromise",
she would recommend adding something similar to "having
lived together in the last few months". She was concerned
about those people that recently fled a relationship, now
living in a shelter and not currently living together.
2:05:32 PM
Representative Hawker WITHDREW new Amendment 1(a). There
being NO OBJECTION, it was withdrawn.
2:05:44 PM
Representative Holmes spoke to the changes made to the work
draft addressing concerns of some of the Committee members,
as well as the Department of Law, the Public Defender's
Agency and the Office of Public Advocacy.
· Now, the bill is only prospective, which means all
three convictions would need to occur after the
effective date of the bill.
· The bill has a 10-year look back, so all three
convictions would need to occur within 10 years of
each other.
· Due to the 10 year look back, language was added to
clarify the date on which a conviction is considered
to have occurred.
· Presently, the first two strikes need to be felony
th
convictions or 4 degree physical assaults, and
eliminating "fear" assaults, reckless endangerment
and other misdemeanors as strikes.
· The bill's mechanism has slightly changed. Instead
th
of the third strike making a 4 degree assault a
felony, it now makes the third strike an assault in
rd
the 3 degree, which is already a felony.
· The bill does counts convictions from other
jurisdictions as strikes. It allows municipal
assault convictions to count as strikes.
· The bill limits the definition of a household member
(which is defined in AS 18.66.990[5]) to exclude
"adults or minors who are related to each other up
th
to the 4 degree of consanguinity, whether of whole
or half blood or by adoption, computed under the
th
rules of civil law." The 4 degree of consanguinity
would include for example, cousins and great uncles,
language, which was too broad.
2:08:53 PM
Representative Thomas asked about prior out of State
convictions. Representative Holmes requested the Department
of Law responded to that question, but she assumed they
would count in Alaska.
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
(Testified via teleconference), stated the convictions from
out of state, which meet all the conditions described by
Representative Holmes, would count. Representative Thomas
inquired how new people moving to the State would know. Ms.
Carpeneti explained that it is not a new concept and happens
for example, with drunken driving executions.
2:10:44 PM
Representative Kelly inquired what will be accomplished
through passage of the bill. Representative Holmes hoped
the bill could raise awareness of the problems which happen
so often in Alaska. From information provided by the Court
System, it is known that there are people out there that
have 8 to 12 of counts of domestic violence, which she found
horrifying. She emphasized the need for education and
raising awareness that the behavior is no longer tolerated.
She hoped that the bill could be used as an opportunity to
not only punish but also create a broader effort, to raise
awareness to reduce the scope of these problems.
Representative Kelly understood that it should apply to both
male and female violence; however, pointed out that the bill
does not relate to both. Representative Holmes replied, it
will not be limited. Representative Kelly asked if it would
affect homosexual violence. He worried that the legislation
will end up creating many problems; he prefers the standard
statute. Representative Holmes asked if Representative
Kelly was suggesting eliminating the domestic violence
portion, assuming all assaults of the three strike crimes.
Representative Kelly reiterated his concern with hate
crimes. Representative Holmes acknowledged that was one
approach. The goal of the legislation is to deal with
people that are being terrorized by people that are close to
them. She emphasized that her focus was more limited than
that suggested by Representative Kelly.
2:15:20 PM
Representative Kelly asked if the Department of Corrections
or the Department of Law support the bill. Representative
Holmes pointed out the letters of support including ones
from the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault and
the Alaska Peace Officers. [Copies on File].
2:16:16 PM
Representative Gara discussed all the testimonial documents
regarding someone that has a control relationship over
another person and a repeated cycle of violence patterns.
He commented the most graphic is between spouses when it
becomes a terrorizing relationship. If the bill applies
only to those living together, by three times, it is
obviously a recurring pattern.
2:18:50 PM
Representative Nelson responded that the goal of the bill is
to save lives because evidence indicates that when there are
cases of domestic violence, they are escalating and
progressive. Cases rarely de-escalate and when there is
domestic violence, it tends to turn to extreme battery and
eventual death.
2:19:39 PM
Representative Kelly spoke in opposition to the statement
that domestic violence happens traditionally between married
couples. He maintained that is not supported through
evidence and that the violence is not related just to the
marriage relationship. He commented that language was too
broad. He inquired what counts as one, two and three
strikes on an assault charge.
Representative Holmes emphasized that a felony assault is
considered a very serious assault. The trigger offense is a
th
4 degree assault, which is the person recklessly causing
physical injury to another person or criminal negligence and
that person causes injury by means of a dangerous
instrument. The fear assault language was eliminated.
2:22:16 PM
Representative Nelson asked Representative Kelly where the
statistics came from regarding "married people batter less".
She believed it is more difficult for a married woman to get
away from her spouse. Representative Kelly offered to
research the statistic. He acknowledged that married people
do have problems; however, maintained that the "safest
person on the face of the earth is a married female".
Representative Nelson followed up that many people do not
know who they are marrying until they are securely in that
marriage-relationship. She reiterated her curiosity
regarding his observation. Representative Kelly emphasized
the safety of a legal marriage and argued that domestic
violence does not occur as much in a marriage relationship.
2:24:42 PM
Representative Gara interjected that if the situation is a
third domestic violence assault, it would become a Class C
felony and be sentenced. Representative Holmes clarified
that the presumptive sentence for a first felony is zero to
two years in jail.
Representative Gara commented if the sentence was three
domestic violence abuses to a wife & the first two were
felonies that would be considered quite serious. There
already exits an accommodation for different types of
relationships & the seriousness of the pattern. The statute
builds in flexibility for different levels of violence.
Representative Kelly observed that the language used to
define a relationship seems to be "any two people walking
down the street together" and that troubled him.
2:26:43 PM
Representative Hawker noticed that civil liberties were
being discussed and he hoped that anyone viewing the
discussion would look at his personal record in sponsoring,
caring and passing legislation that made strangulation a
crime of domestic violence.
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT new Amendment 1(a),
clarifying no changes made to new Amendment 1(a).
Vice-Chair Stoltze OBEJCTED.
2:28:14 PM
Representative Hawker discussed the modification proposed by
the sponsor. He paraphrased the purpose of the legislation
as presented by the sponsor, which was explained the purpose
was to "stop people being terrorized in their homes by
people that love them". He stated that the egregious factor
is the control relationship and that Amendment 1(a) removes
that situation.
Representative Hawker MOVED to AMEND new Amendment 1(a) by
deleting the language on Page 3, Line 7, "or have lived
together". Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED.
Representative Hawker advised that the intent was to make it
easier when the conviction felony is determined.
2:32:09 PM
Representative Holmes clarified her previous testimony
regarding those people being "terrorized in their own homes
or [not and] by people that love them". She possible for
the prosecutors but did not want it to be impossible for
them to prove the domestic violence. Representative Holm
stood at the will of the Committee.
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if "living together" included co-
habitation.
Representative Nelson spoke to the amendment. She stated
that the most dangerous time for a woman in an abusive
relationship is when she is about to leave, leaving, or just
left, arguably not living together. Representative Hawker
pointed out those concerns were addressed in the remaining
criteria. Representative Nelson appreciated that notation.
2:34:31 PM
Representative Joule echoed sentiments of Representative
Hawker, pointing out number three and four, agreeing that
the protection was covered. He questioned if the
departments intended to testify on the amendment.
2:35:34 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze reiterated his query regarding "living
together". Representative Holmes did not believe it would
require cohabitation but rather sharing the domicile.
Representative Nelson asked the difference.
Ms. Carpeneti agreed with Representative Holmes that living
together is sharing a home. She thought cohabitating was
the same thing, which is why the language was included to
clarify living together in addition to engaging in a sexual
relationship with other factors.
Representative Holmes commented that following the
Committee's discussion, she was willing to support the
amendment as proposed with the understanding that if the
prosecutors were unable to prosecute down-the-road, the
guidelines could be reconsidered.
2:37:23 PM
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION to the amendment.
Vice-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION to the new
Amendment 1(a).
Representative Crawford OBJECTED for a question regarding
the language being voted on, & if it was just "adults and
minors who live together". Co-Chair Meyer said that was
correct. Representative Crawford WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTIONS, new Amendment 1(a) was
adopted.
2:38:03 PM
Co-Chair Meyer reviewed the six [6] fiscal notes,
understanding that two fiscal notes by the Department of
Administration would be replaced.
2:39:21 PM
Co-Chair Meyer requested testimony on the note from
Department of Corrections.
DWAYNE PEEPLES, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, explained that the note dated 3/13/08, does
address the work draft.
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if the assumption was it would take
people off the streets. Mr. Peeples responded that the
Department made no calculations on the deterrent effect of
the bill. The Department used the numbers provided by the
Courts to make the determination.
Vice-Chair Stoltze did not believe the increasing numbers of
incarceration costs would be coming to a halt. Mr. Peeples
could make no calculation for any projections or changes in
human behavior. When pulling the statistics, the Department
observed that the average midpoint for a pool of people
getting their third offense is approximately 2.5 years.
2:41:12 PM
Representative Gara asked how the number was determined that
in 2014, the bill would reach a point where 366 people a
year would reach three assaults. Mr. Peeples referenced
Page 2 of the note, arriving at the accumulating effect.
The first year, based on the Department's percentage points,
by the time they are adjudicated, sentencing for the two
years would be a slow growth, which is an estimate.
Representative Gara asked if there was a difference in cost
for someone in jail for two years and someone in jail for
six months with 1.5 years of probation. Mr. Peeples replied
yes. Representative Gara assumed that the Department would
choose the high point number. Mr. Peeples said it is
difficult to determine how the sentencing will be handled
through the Courts.
2:43:06 PM
Representative Thomas inquired if counseling was considered
to be used as a preventative. Mr. Peeples suggested that
the Department of Public Safety or the Council on Domestic
Violence & Sexual Assault could address that idea. The
Department of Corrections does offer some counseling and
treatment inside the facility, but diversion should be
addressed by the above mentioned entities. Representative
Thomas maintained that when spending $11 million dollars a
year, at lease $1 million should be used for counseling.
Representative Joule inquired where most of the people live
who will be impacted through the bill. Mr. Peeples replied
that statewide with the largest population in Anchorage.
Representative Joule urged utilizing the number of wealthy
statewide resources that should be tapped such as the tribal
courts. He noted that the standards of behavior are
changing and that these issues should be addressed by the
elders living in those communities.
2:46:15 PM
Representative Hawker discussed the idea of a travel court
being intriguing. He asked if in the evaluation of current
statistics, the Department would suggest that 80% of
offenders would be Alaska Native. He elaborated that was
profound. He referenced the anticipated calculation for the
fiscal note of 366 offenders, questioning where they would
be housed. Mr. Peeples responded that would depend on the
length of their sentence and how well the Department does in
securing and building new facilities in the State. By that
time, the Department anticipates having a new facility built
at Fort MacKenzie; he suspected anyone sentenced over nine
months could end up there. He maintained that they would
still need out of State beds for those sentenced over
eighteen months. The Department is growing on an average of
250 beds per year plus what comes out of the bill.
Representative Hawker believes the bill will exasperate the
current bed situation for the Department. Mr. Peeples
advised it is just another factor considered when managing
that population.
Representative Hawker asked if the fiscal note includes only
the day rate costs and not capital costs for constructing a
new facility. Mr. Peeples replied that the Department
provided a blended rate for running a bed in State and then
the out of State contractor; there is no capitalization of
bond debt payments in that calculation.
2:48:39 PM
Representative Gara delineated the three things passage of
the crime bill would accomplish:
· Get dangerous people off the streets;
· Punish the conduct that needs to be punished; and
· Reduce the costs.
Representative Gara encouraged putting dollars into the
crime prevention through education. He reiterated
indications on the fiscal note, and asked if there was real
information showing that in 2014, 366 people would be picked
up for their third domestic violence assault in ten years.
Mr. Peeples responded that the Department is using the
Court's determined numbers of 250 a year, using a "snap-
shot" of 2007, falling under the third hit. The Court's
have assumed a 77% conviction rate, reaching 190 per year
sentencing.
2:50:53 PM
Representative Joule questioned the behavior the bill
intends to change. He agreed that it is one option method
and hoped it would not be the only one. He wanted to see a
deterrent to the behavior.
Representative Kelly interjected that there was a time in
history when men took better care of their families. He was
worried about the direction the legislation leads the issue.
He commented that the long range message is that women are
doing "stupid things" by marrying the beasts among men. He
thought that the uncles, brothers and fathers should be
taking care of these problems. He was bothered that it was
one more thing insidiously placed onto government to
monitor.
2:54:14 PM
Representative Nelson countered previous testimony by
Representative Kelly regarding the intellectual ability of
women engaged in abusive relationships. She stated that
sometimes, there are vulnerable people that are preyed upon,
who need help.
Co-Chair Meyer directed conversation to the Department of
Law's fiscal note. Ms. Carpeneti understood that the note
addresses the new draft. The cases will be pursued whether
they are misdemeanors or felonies. As soon as the cases are
prosecuted, there will be a new element to prove, that
"without a reasonable doubt". That language is the reason
for the note.
2:56:04 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze emphasized that it is a serious issue and
he wished that there was a better way to separate the
circumstances.
2:57:36 PM
Representative Gara credited Representative Holmes for
removing specific portions of the bill, which includes the
"scaring" component; it now addresses three actual times of
physically hurting someone before the felony option kicks
in. He applauded the amount of work done on the bill to
narrow the focus. Co-Chair Meyer agreed.
2:58:49 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to REPORT CS HB 307 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying new fiscal notes. Representative Kelly
OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Crawford, Gara, Hawker, Joule, Stoltze,
Thomas, Meyer
OPPOSED: Kelly
Representatives Chenault, Harris and Nelson were not present
for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7-1).
CS HB 307 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with (2) new fiscal notes by the
Department of Administration, (1) Department of Corrections,
(1) Department of Law, (1) Alaska Court System, and a new
zero note by the Department of Public Safety.
3:00:25 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 348
An Act relating to the adoption of regulations by the
Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game.
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT work draft 25-LS1328\F,
Kane, 3/12/08 as the version of the bill before the
Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, SPONSOR, introduced the bill as a
needed clarification to make regulations to allocate game as
an asset. The bill codifies the terms. He argued that
human beings are capable of sustainable relationship with
the natural world including game. He noted that he does not
support the California legislation that implies that
Alaskans are incapable of competent game management. HB 348
would strengthen statute by incorporating the Constitutional
language and reflects Alaskan's values. He noted that the
Board by regulation, establishes the methods and means of
bag limits related to game. He added that HB 348 was
accompanied by HJR 31, which is currently in the House Rules
Committee.
3:04:30 PM
Representative Gara asked if incorporating "asset" in the
language of the bill would prevent future initiatives.
Representative Keller hoped the bill would address the
following areas of importance:
· Provide a level of confidence to the Board of Game,
by clarifying that game is an asset worthy of
allocation
· Make for less lawsuits
· Provide a statement to non-residents that there will
be management of Alaskan game & predators
· Maintains legislative control
Representative Keller added no part of the bill directly
addresses the initiative process. It clarifies only the
language that already exists that game is an item to be
allocated.
Representative Gara questioned if the statement made is that
game is an allocated asset, would it then be removed from
the initiative process. Representative Keller responded, it
is already out of the initiative process.
3:07:29 PM
Representative Gara discussed the emotional issues of
allocation & management of subsistence and wolf control. If
the Courts had interpreted that game was an allocated asset
& the Courts already agreed, would that keep the Courts from
allowing those issues on the initiative ballot.
Representative Keller referred to the Court battles related
to the allocation of fish. The bill attempts to clarify
such concerns for the Board of Game.
Representative Gara did not understand all the
correspondence he had received regarding how the bill
affects the initiative process. Representative Keller
clarified that the allocation of game does not change the
initiative process. It clarifies that the allocation fees
are not part of that process. The management of fish and
game places the responsibility on the Legislature.
Representative Gara queried if State law indicates that the
allocation of game is an asset and made clear in Statute for
the Courts, the category then can not be subjected to the
initiative process. Representative Keller understood that
could clarify it and is a policy statement for the
Legislature to make.
Representative Gara noted that once the policy statement is
made, then the subject can no longer go on the initiative
ballot. Representative Keller replied that would be
determined by the State attorneys. He imagined it would
improve the current situation.
Representative Gara noted that in order to allocate by
initiative, the subsistence preference issue or the same-day
airborne wolf control concern would be covered through HB
348. Representative Keller replied that the Board of Game
does make those regulations.
Representative Gara inquired if the bill is passed, would
the State surrender their ability to have a subsistence
preference or same day airborne wolf killing in place.
Representative Keller responded that the bill does not
address preference, leaving that to the Board of Game. He
hoped the choices would be less likely through the bill's
passage.
3:12:03 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze interjected that the subsistence issue
has been a Constitutional amendment that has not been
available for the initiative process since the late 1980's.
Representative Hawker reviewed testimony from the previous
committee hearings. The Alaska Supreme Court has already
ruled that fish are an asset. Representative Keller agreed.
Representative Hawker referenced previous testimony from an
Attorney General relating to game, on the precedence of a
fish case, an attempt to allocate game through the
initiative process would likely is held to the same
consideration and that, game would be held as an asset.
Representative Keller shared that understanding.
Representative Hawker thought that there was reasonable
inference that game is an asset and that he did not see
anything in either the Constitution or the bill that would
impede the initiative process. The controversy is the use
of "allocation" of assets.
KEVIN SAXBY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
(Testified via teleconference), offered to answer questions
of the Committee. He agreed that game is an asset and
established in the precedence and that the real question is,
in the future, would it be considered an appropriation of
the asset or characterized in some other manner.
Representative Hawker questioned if a prohibition would be
an appropriation or allocation and if an absolute
prohibition on a certain activity would be a question of an
appropriation. Mr. Saxby responded that sometimes it would
depend on what the initiative is. Representative Hawker was
satisfied with that clarification.
3:17:01 PM
Representative Gara asked if the ban on initiatives is that
an initiative can not be submitted, creating a ban on
appropriations. If game is an asset, apportioning it as an
appropriation of an asset, the Courts would then prohibit it
from moving through the initiative process. Mr. Saxby
advised that there would continue to be a question in the
future depending on the wording of a given initiative as to
whether or not it is an appropriation.
Representative Gara commented that if by adding the language
in the bill, "appropriations" would it make it more likely
that the decision would not be allowed in the initiative
process. Mr. Saxby thought it would make it more likely
"sometimes". Essentially, the language in the work draft
codifies two separate fish cases.
Representative Gara asked if there was a determination
regarding a rational definition of subsistence preference
relying on the resource. Mr. Saxby thought the bill did not
change current law, but rather, is a statement by the
Legislature that it agrees with what the Supreme Court has
already stated.
Representative Gara countered that Mr. Saxby's perspective
was because the prior Supreme Court precedence. Mr. Saxby
argued that it was stated in two separate cases and that the
Legislature would be combining it.
Representative Gara asked if the same-day airborne wolf
killing would be affected by the proposed legislation. Mr.
Saxby responded that would depend on the way the initiative
was worded, but could very well be.
3:20:22 PM
NICK JANS, ALASKANS FOR WILDLIFE, JUNEAU, noted that he has
lived 28 years in Alaska in the Native subsistence-oriented
villages. He stated that he has worked for a big game guide
as a packer. He offered to provide members of the Committee
with copies of his testimony, as well as supporting
documents.
He pointed out that HB 348 appears to be an innocuous bill,
which changes a word or two, redefining Alaska's wildlife as
an asset. The Department of Law has argued that it and the
companion bill, SB 176, simply clarify existing statutes
governing wildlife management. However, the intent of HB
348 is far ranging. The legal analysis exposes stealth
legislation, designed to subvert the right of the Alaskan
people to sponsor ballot initiatives and vote on the issue
of predator control, as well as on future wildlife
management issues at the behest of special interest groups,
notably the Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), which the Governor
is a member. Once wildlife becomes an asset, only the State
legislature holds the power to determine the allocation. He
maintained that the intent of the bill is to silence the
collective voice of Alaska's voters on the issue of aerial
predator control.
Mr. Jans encouraged legislators to check the voting records
from the past two aerial predator control ballot
initiatives. In 1996, each district voted down aerial
predator control; however, the practice was reinstated by
the Legislature. In 2000, 8 of the 12 districts represented
again voted against shooting wolves from aircraft and
statewide, 29 of the 40 districts did the same. Now, 56,000
Alaskans are again asking that the Legislature does not
silence the voice of the people. Thousands of rural
Alaskans have voted against it. All Native bush communities
voted against the practice. To say that those people do not
understand the nature of subsistence or wolves is an insult
to the Native traditions and culture.
3:25:39 PM
Mr. Jans continued, aerial predator control is not a matter
of science, but a matter of policy, directed by political
appointees. It is the right of Alaska's people to decide
how the management tools will be wielded. Alaska's citizens
have a constitutional right to vote on matters of wildlife
management policy, and to raise a ballot initiative when the
collective will is ignored by those sworn to represent
citizens.
Mr. Jans concluded that the issue of aerial wolf and bear
shooting pales in comparison to the real issue at stake, the
democratic process. He urged members to protect and nurture
the democratic process but striking down HB 348.
3:27:00 PM
Representative Gara agreed with testimony provided by Mr.
Jans on the ariel wolf hunting issue. He admitted that
there have been powerful arguments on the other side of the
issue, an issue which is quite divisive.
Mr. Jans clarified that the attempt of the group he
represents is to place the management of wildlife into the
Department of Fish and Game for management and make
decisions and providing the resources to do so.
Mr. Jans pointed out that none of the specific predator
control programs have passed peer review because they do not
have enough funding to do so. He maintained that wolves are
only one limiting factor in the eco-system. He pointed out,
he supports predator control. He emphasized that science
should govern these issues, not political appointees. The
group Friends of Animals is a polarizing group and full of
extreme views and does not accept their input. The Alaskans
for Wildlife want a Board of Game that represents sensible
use of wildlife for all Alaskans, not just the 15%
representing special interest groups. He maintained that
predator control should be implemented on area needs basis.
3:32:59 PM
Representative Nelson agreed that science should govern, not
political appointees or the ballot box. She asked Mr. Jans
if he was familiar with some of the voting rights act
infringements that Native Alaskans have been facing. She
pointed out that initiative language is not always plain-
spoken English. In Western Alaska, 11% of the population
does not speak English at all. She worried about ballot
language and how many people can understand the concepts.
Mr. Jans could not speculate on that, however, he found the
elders to be quite astute, agreeing that Alaska Natives are
often cut out of the process.
3:36:06 PM
Representative Nelson noted the vulnerability of the people
in her districts that do not speak English as their first
language and how difficult the initiative process can be for
them. There is a lot of outside money & advertising put
into Alaska during the initiative process. Mr. Jans agreed.
3:40:11 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze interrupted Mr. Jans, pointing out the
number of other testifiers on line.
3:40:31 PM
WADE WILLIS, BIOLOGIST, ECO-TOURISM BUSINESS, ANCHORAGE
(Testified via teleconference), mentioned a previous
conversation he had with Mr. Pound, Staff to Representative
Keller, who has clearly stated that HB 348 intends to remove
"ballot-box biology", once and for all. Mr. Willis spoke
against the bill.
Mr. Willis commented that changing the wording from
resources to assets to be allocated, ties into the intensive
game management laws. A previous chairman of the Board of
Game, Mike Fleger, stated that the intent of that was to
reallocate, harvestable, surpluses of game from predators to
humans. Mr. Willis observed that the proposed wording would
remove people from the initiative process. He added that it
will strengthen management to reallocate from predators.
The bill does not reflect Alaskans intent and that in nearly
every district in the State, 72% voted to keep the
initiative process in the management of the State's
wildlife.
In 2004, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game testified to
the Board of Game that they did not have the size to justify
predator control.
Mr. Willis directed testimony to Representative Nelson
indicating that the Native community very much knows what
they are voting on and for. He added that HB 348 removes
the public's ability to use the initiative process. The
bill removes the tourism industry away from the process. He
maintained that any back-door legislation attempting to
remove a population base from the process of predator
control is wrong. He urged that the Committee should not
support the legislation.
3:46:24 PM
SCOTT OGAN, PRESIDENT, SPORTSMAN FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE,
ANCHORAGE (Testified via teleconference), noted opposition
for a rural priority. He wanted to see the resources
managed for abundance, which he hoped would mitigate the
allocation conflicts amongst Alaskans. He maintained that
HB 348 provides the opportunity to bridge the rural/urban
divide.
Mr. Ogan testified that over twenty well funded groups,
listed in the Anchorage phone book, are attempting to "save
the State from itself". He asked if the Alaska Supreme
Court subverted or corrupted the Constitution with the
ruling Polin versus Ulmer. He thought that the bill would
codify that ruling. Mr. Ogan pointed out that the bill
would not change the initiative process, but rather codifies
the Alaska Supreme Court language. He maintained that the
bill would elevate wildlife as an asset and urged support.
3:50:14 PM
THOMAS SCARBOROUGH, FAIRBANKS (Testified via
teleconference), echoed sentiments expressed by Mr. Ogan and
urged that the bill be passed quickly from Committee.
3:51:17 PM
WAYNE HEIMER, FAIRBANKS (Testified via teleconference),
indicated his support for passage of HB 348. He pointed out
that the Alaska Constitution allows initiatives and
referendums through Article 11; however, Section 7, lists
specific things that can not be done through that process.
He pointed out that special legislation can not be addressed
through the initiative process. He worried about the
political struggles while attempting to manage Alaska's
wildlife. He maintained that initiatives were always driven
by personal & emotional perceptions of what is honorable or
fair & whether an initiative passes or fails, always depends
on which side has the most money.
Mr. Heimer thought that the legislation could be clearer by
identifying the means for harvest. He added that some of
the functions authorized by the Board of Game have been
previously authorized through the commissioner of the
Department and that should be addressed. He cautioned that
voting for the bill would take courage because the
initiative industry will be actively involved. He urged
passage of the bill.
3:54:35 PM
JOHN TOPPENBERG, DIRECTOR, ALASKA WILDLIFE ALLIANCE,
SOLDOTNA (Testified via teleconference), aligned his
testimony with the comments made by Mr. Jans. He assumed
that HB 348 is an attempt to "kill" the initiative process
and silence Alaskans on the issue of predator control. It
is not about biology but rather about eliminating another
point of view. Alaska has a well established history of
supporting science and the formulation of regulation. The
initiative process exists to provide a check on legislative
power. Alaskans are entitled to that check. The reality is
that Alaska wildlife is a public resource and the public has
a role to play in establishing the policy. He urged that
the bill be opposed by all legislators.
3:56:53 PM
GERALD BROOKMAN, KENAI (Testified via teleconference),
indicated his opposition to HB 348. He referenced the used
of "assets" in the bill. He pointed out that Representative
Keller was evasive in his response to the use of that
language and he [Mr. Brookman] questioned the true intent of
the sponsor. He urged that the Committee vote against HB
348.
3:58:21 PM
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED
3:58:55 PM
HB 348 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:01 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|