Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/03/1998 03:00 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 3, 1998
3:00 P.M.
TAPE HFC 98 - 88, Side 1.
TAPE HFC 98 - 88, Side 2.
TAPE HFC 98 - 89, Side 1.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 3:00 P.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Hanley Representative Kelly
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Kohring
Representative J. Davies Representative Grussendorf
Representative G. Davis Representative Moses
Representative Foster Representative Mulder
Representative Martin was not present for the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Sean Parnell; Representative Ivan Ivan; Richard
Vitale, Staff, Senator Sean Parnell; Jack Fargnoli, Senior
Policy Analyst, Office of Management and Budget, Office of
the Governor; Rod Arno, President, Alaska Outdoor Council;
Ken Taylor, Deputy Director, Division of Wildlife
Conservation, Department of Fish and Game; Tom Wright,
Staff, Representative Ivan; Mike Tibbles, Staff,
Representative Therriault.
The following testified via the teleconference network:
Virgil Umpenour, Board of Fisheries, Fairbanks; Michelle
Sparck, Resource Specialist, Association of Village Council
Presidents, Bethel; Ted Krieg, Natural Resource Department,
Bristol Bay Native Association, Dillingham; Herman Morgan,
City Manager, Aniak; Gilbert Huntington, Galena.
SUMMARY
HB 12 "An Act relating to civil liability for injuries
or death resulting from equine activities."
CSHB 12 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with
"no recommendation" and with a Department of Law
Department of Law, 2/12/98.
HB 364 "An Act requiring nonresident hunters to be
accompanied when hunting moose; and providing for
an effective date."
HB 364 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SB 76 An Act relating to long-term plans of certain
state agencies and recommendations regarding
elimination of duplication in state agency
functions.
HCS CSSB was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with zero fiscal note by
the Senator Finance Committee, 3/20/98.
SENATE BILL NO. 76
"An Act relating to long-term plans of certain state
agencies and recommendations regarding elimination of
duplication in state agency functions."
Co-Chair Therriault provided members with Amendment 1 at the
request of the Office of Management and Budget (copy on
file).
Page 1, Line 9:
Change: "issue"
To: "adopt"
Page 1, Line 11:
Change: "issue"
To: "adopt"
Page 1, Line 12:
Delete: "should represent the priorities of the
majority of state residents and"
Page 3, Line 12:
Change: "issued"
To: "adopted"
Page 3, Line 12:
Change: "the guide"
To: "a guide"
Page 3, Line 13:
After the word "law", insert:
"unless contrary to law "
Page 3, Lines 13 - 14:
Delete: "The governor shall assure that each agency
complies with the mission statement and
achieves the desired results identified by the
legislature."
Page 4, Line 14:
Replace: "each agency shall, on a quarterly basis,
identify"
With: " each agency shall report periodically on"
Page 4, Line 16:
Change: "issued"
To: "adopted"
Page 4, Line 19:
Replace: ".legislative finance division. The
information must"
With: ".legislative finance division; this
information must"
Page 4, Line 29:
Change: "issued"
To: "adopted"
Page 5, Line 3:
Change: "issued"
To: "adopted"
Page 5, Lines 23 - 25:
Delete: All of subsection (12); i.e., lines 23 - 25,
inclusive.
Page 6, Line 16:
Change: "issued"
To: "adopted"
Page 6, Line 24:
Change: "issued"
To: "adopted"
Page 6:
Insert new section, to read as follows:
* Sec. 10 Transition.
(a) To provide for an orderly implementation of the
process envisioned in sections 1-9, sections 1-9
shall apply to:
(1) two departments of the executive branch, to
be selected jointly by the legislature and the
governor, in the preparation of their fiscal year
2000 operating budgets, and
(2) all departments and agencies of the
executive branch in the preparation of their
operating budgets for fiscal year 2001 and
afterwards.
(b) Mission statements, desired results, performance
measures, and the frequency of performance reporting
for departments under (a)(1) shall be issued by the
legislature through a concurrent resolution.
(c) The finance committees of the legislature and the
office of management and budget shall jointly formulate
procedures and timetables for applying the provisions
of sections 1-9 under (a)(1) and under (a)(2).
Procedures shall address, at a minimum, how agency
missions may be issued or established, and modified;
how aspects of agency performance should be selected
for measurement; how performance-related information
should be collected and reported, including the
frequency of reporting; how performance assessment
activity should be incorporated into the executive
branch and legislative branch budget processes; and how
costs associated with the adoption of performance
assessment should be identified.
(d) The finance committees of the legislature and the
office of management and budget shall publish the
results of their efforts and their recommendations
under (c) no later than October 1, 1998.
Recommendations shall include the identification of
issues or problems, which have not been resolved, and
options for resolving them.
(e) In its fiscal year 2000 operating budget
instructions to departments, after consultation
with the legislature, the office of management
and budget shall include as much or as many of
the procedures and timetables published under
(d) as it deems practicable. Upon issuance of
the instructions, the office of management and
budget shall identify in writing to the finance
committees the procedures or timetables
published under (d) which it has chosen not to
include, and its reasons for not including
them.
(f) No later than January 15, 1999, the office of
management and budget shall submit to the finance
committees in writing:
(1) its findings regarding the adequacy of the
procedures and timetables adopted under (e),
(2) its findings regarding cost impacts
experienced by departments under (a)(1),
(3) its recommendations regarding application of
the provisions of sections 1-9 under (a)(2), and
(4) Any proposals for clarifying amendments or
legislation, which it may consider, appropriate.
Representative Grussendorf MOVED to ADOPT New Amendment 1.
JACK FARGNOLI, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR discussed New Amendment
1. He explained that the amendment has two pieces. One
piece is the transition section. The other part conforms to
the transition section. He explained that the transition
section would describe a transition period and a set of
activities. During the next budget cycle two departments
would implement mission statements and performance measures.
The two departments would be selected jointly by the
legislature and the governor. This would be for preparation
of their fiscal year 2000 operating budgets. Mission
statements and performance measures would be included for
all departments and agencies for the fiscal year 2001 and
every year thereafter. The mission statements and
performance measures would be included in a concurrent
resolution. This would avoid intent language in the
operating budget. He maintained that a concurrent
resolution would be the simplest form to put the principles
forward. He maintained that there would be no intent
language conflicts. The resolution would be for the year
2000.
Mr. Fargnoli explained that subsection (c) would provide
that the finance committees of the legislature work with the
Office of Management and Budget to jointly formulate
procedures and timetables. The details of the process would
be worked out.
Mr. Fargnoli noted that by Oct 1, 1999 the findings and
recommendations of the joint effort would be published. Any
areas that remain unresolved would be identified.
Mr. Fargnoli observed that subsection (f) provides that the
Office of Management and Budget include as much of the
procedures and timetables published under (d) as it deems
practicable. The Office of Management and Budget would
identify in writing areas not included, and its reasons for
not including them.
Mr. Fargnoli explained that Office of Management and Budget
would, no later than January 15, 1999, submit to the finance
committees in writing:
(1) Findings regarding the adequacy of the
procedures and timetables adopted under (e),
(2) Findings regarding cost impacts experienced by
departments under (a)(1),
(3) Recommendations regarding application of the
provisions of sections 1-9 under (a)(2), and
(4) Any proposals for clarifying amendments or
legislation, which it may consider, appropriate.
Mr. Fargnoli clarified that "adopted" was substituted for
"issue" to reflect that a resolution would be adopted.
Mr. Fargnoli stated that "unless contrary to law " was added
to clarify the separation of powers.
SENATOR SEAN PARNELL discussed New Amendment 1. He stated
that the amendment fails to recognize that mission
statements can already be statutes. Additional mission
statements could be implemented through intent language,
statute or adoption of a resolution. He maintained that the
amendment would restrict mission statements and performance
measures. He asserted that the current language is more
open. He felt that New Amendment 1 would add unnecessary
tonnage. He acknowledged that the process may be going in
the direction of the amendment but stressed that it is
premature. He maintained that New Amendment 1 would add
unnecessary cost.
Senator Parnell expressed his willingness to change the
reporting requirement to semi annual. He stated that one
report can come at the end of the fiscal year and the next
report can be submitted with the budget. He supported the
change to page 4, line 19:
Replace: ".legislative finance division. The
information must"
With: ".legislative finance division; this
information must"
Senator Parnell stated that "unless contrary to law" is
already assumed.
Representative Grussendorf asked if the deletion on page 1,
line 12, "should represent the priorities of the majority of
state residents and" is also assumed. Senator Parnell
acknowledged that if something is enacted into statute that
it can be assumed that it represents the majority of the
State.
Senator Parnell reiterated that the transition section is
more complicated than what he thinks is warranted.
Representative Davies noted that the legislation provides on
page 3, line 20 that the budget must be accompanied by the
information required under ASA 37.07.050. He maintained
that the legislation requires 100 percent participation and
does not allow flexibility.
Representative Grussendorf MOVED to divide New Amendment 1.
Amendment 1A would begin with the addition of a new section
on page 6:
Insert new section, to read as follows:
* Sec. 10 Transition.
(b) To provide for an orderly implementation of the
process envisioned in sections 1-9, sections 1-9
shall apply to:
(1) two departments of the executive branch, to
be selected jointly by the legislature and the
governor, in the preparation of their fiscal year
2000 operating budgets, and
(3) all departments and agencies of the
executive branch in the preparation of their
operating budgets for fiscal year 2001 and
afterwards.
(b) Mission statements, desired results, performance
measures, and the frequency of performance reporting
for departments under (a)(1) shall be issued by the
legislature through a concurrent resolution.
(c) The finance committees of the legislature and the
office of management and budget shall jointly formulate
procedures and timetables for applying the provisions
of sections 1-9 under (a)(1) and under (a)(2).
Procedures shall address, at a minimum, how agency
missions may be issued or established, and modified;
how aspects of agency performance should be selected
for measurement; how performance-related information
should be collected and reported, including the
frequency of reporting; how performance assessment
activity should be incorporated into the executive
branch and legislative branch budget processes; and how
costs associated with the adoption of performance
assessment should be identified.
(d) The finance committees of the legislature and the
office of management and budget shall publish the
results of their efforts and their recommendations
under (c) no later than October 1, 1998.
Recommendations shall include the identification of
issues or problems, which have not been resolved, and
options for resolving them.
(f) In its fiscal year 2000 operating budget
instructions to departments, after consultation
with the legislature, the office of management
and budget shall include as much or as many of
the procedures and timetables published under
(d) as it deems practicable. Upon issuance of
the instructions, the office of management and
budget shall identify in writing to the finance
committees the procedures or timetables
published under (d) which it has chosen not to
include, and its reasons for not including
them.
(f) No later than January 15, 1999, the office of
management and budget shall submit to the finance
committees in writing:
(1) its findings regarding the adequacy of the
procedures and timetables adopted under (e),
(2) its findings regarding cost impacts
experienced by departments under (a)(1),
(3) its recommendations regarding application of
the provisions of sections 1-9 under (a)(2), and
(4) Any proposals for clarifying amendments or
legislation, which it may consider, appropriate.
Co-Chair Hanley referred to subsection 1(a)(1) and (2). He
spoke in support of doing a smaller subset of the entire
process on the first year.
RICHARD VITALE, STAFF, SENATOR SEAN PARNELL observed that
all of the agencies are currently submitting mission
statements. He pointed out that adoption of subsection
1(a)(1) and (2) would reverse the current process. He
acknowledged that the intent was that the process be on a
deeper level for two agencies. Representative Davies
acknowledged that the agencies have been issuing mission
statements. He emphasized that the difference is that the
Legislature and the Administration are now having a
discussion and are reaching a consensus about the mission
statements. He maintained that the joint discussion process
should be limited. Mr. Vitale agreed with Representative
Davies' assessment, but pointed out that subsection 1(a)(1)
and (2) by themselves do not mandate joint discussion. The
legislation would begin joint discussions during the
session.
Senator Parnell agreed that collaboration and coordination
is needed between the legislative and executive branches.
He observed that the effort has been present during the
current year. The legislation's intent is to codify the
process.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Representative
Davies noted that agencies are required to submit their
mission statements on page 3, line 20 and on page 5, lines
27. Senator Parnell added that existing law under AS
37.07.050 says that each state agency on the date and in the
form prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget shall
prepare the goals and objectives of the agency's programs
and the proposed plans to implement goals and objectives.
Representative Grussendorf MOVED to amend Amendment 1A by
deleting subsections (b) through (g).
Representative Davies stressed that the difference between
Amendment 1A and current statute is that the amendment
directs a joint effort of the Legislature and the
Administration to focus on two departments. Senator
Parnell felt that the amendment would short-circuit the
joint process that has taken place during the 1998 session.
Representative Grussendorf pointed out that a new
administration may not be as cooperative.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1A was amended.
Insert new section, to read as follows:
* Sec. 10
Transition. (a) To provide for an orderly
implementation of the process envisioned in sections 1-
9, sections 1-9 shall apply to:
(1) Two departments of the executive branch, to be
selected jointly by the legislature and the
governor, in the preparation of their fiscal year
2000 operating budgets.
(2) All departments and agencies of the executive
branch in the preparation of their operating
budgets for fiscal year 2001 and afterwards.
Representative Davis spoke in support of Amendment 1A. He
expressed concern that the full process would be required
during the first year under the legislation. Senator
Parnell emphasized that the agencies already engage in the
process.
Representative Davies stressed that the process during the
1998 session has been different that previous years. Time
was spent in committees and subcommittees working jointly
with the legislature and the executive branch. Results
Based Government was focuses on coming to consensus about
the mission statements. He pointed out that mission
statements have been issued in previous years, but were not
discussed. A lot of the difficult discussion centered on
measuring success. He felt that the legislation was a
little premature. He spoke in support of a measured
approach to phase in the process and allow flexibility.
Co-Chair Hanley referred to section one of CSSB 76 (RLS).
He asked how the Legislature would issue a mission
statement. Senator Parnell envisioned mission statements as
taking the form of intent language in the operating budget.
He stated that he wants to encourage coordination and
cooperation between the legislative and executive branches.
Mission statements by the Legislature could also be put into
statute or adopted in a resolution. Co-Chair Hanley pointed
out that the House and Senate may not always agree on the
mission statement. Senator Parnell stated that whatever is
enacted into law would represent the majority of the
legislators. Co-Chair Therriault stated that negotiated
intent language is the easiest route.
Representative Grussendorf emphasized that a lot of time
would be spent on letters of intent. He stressed that there
would be nothing to stop letters of intent by individual
legislators that are parochial in nature. He questioned if
the conference committee would want to struggle over mission
statements.
Representative Grussendorf spoke in support of Amendment 1A.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Davies, Grussendorf
OPPOSED: Mulder, Davis, Kelly, Therriault, Hanley
Representatives Kohring, Martin, Moses and Foster were
absent from the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (2-5).
Representative Grussendorf did not move Amendment 1B.
Representative Grussendorf questioned if language on page 5,
lines 23 - 25 should be deleted: "include an evaluation of
the advantages and disadvantages of specific alternatives to
existing or proposed agency activities or administrative
methods. Senator Parnell emphasized that the language is in
current law. Mr. Fargnoli spoke in support of the deletion.
Representative Grussendorf MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2,
delete on page 5, lines 23 - 25. Senator Parnell spoke
against the amendment. He emphasized that it is helpful to
have evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of
specific alternatives. He questioned if existing law is
being followed. Representative Davis spoke in favor of the
amendment. Co-Chair Hanley suspected that the Division is
not fulfilling the requirement of the language.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Davies, Davis, Grussendorf
OPPOSED: Mulder, Foster, Kelly, Hanley, Therriault
Representatives Martin, Moses and Kohring were absent from
the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (3-5).
Representative Grussendorf MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3, to
change "quarterly" to "semi annually". There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Grussendorf MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4, on
page 4, line 19:
Replace: ".legislative finance division. The information
must"
With: ".legislative finance division; this
information must"
Representative Grussendorf MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 5, on
page 3, lines 13 and 14, Delete: "The governor shall
assure that each agency complies with the mission statement
and achieves the desired results identified by the
legislature."
Mr. Vitale observed that Senator Parnell does not support
the deletion.
Representative Davies MOVED to AMEND the amendment, to add
"The governor shall assure that each agency complies with
the mission statement and strives to achieve the desired
results identified by the legislature."
Mr. Vitale thought that the sponsor would accept the
amendment to the amendment.
Representative Kelly questioned if "good faith effort" would
be preferable. He pointed out that "good faith effort" is
defined in law.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to amend Amendment
5.
IN FAVOR: Davies, Grussendorf, Hanley
OPPOSED: Davis, Foster, Kelly, Mulder, Therriault
Representatives Kohring, Moses and Martin were absent from
the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (3-5).
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
5.
IN FAVOR: Davies, Grussendorf, Hanley
OPPOSED: Davis, Foster, Kelly, Mulder, Therriault
Representatives Kohring, Moses and Martin were absent from
the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (3-5).
Representative Davis MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 6, on page 1,
line 12 Delete: "should represent the priorities of the
majority of state residents and." Co-Chair Hanley spoke in
support of the amendment. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 7, on page 3,
line 12, change "the guide" to "a guide."
Mr. Vitale stated that the only guides that the governor
should have are the statutes. Co-Chair Hanley questioned if
mission statements are defined as statutes. He spoke in
support of the amendment. He maintained that the governor
should consider intent language passed by the legislature as
a statement of the legislature.
Representative Davies pointed out that statues for the
Department of Natural Resources exist in several titles. He
questioned which is the mission statement. Senator Parnell
pointed out that it depends on which division is being
looked at. If the mission statement is not clearly defined
in statute than they may be found in intent language passed
by the legislature.
Representative Davies maintained that what constitutes a
mission statement for an agency is ambiguous.
Representative Davis spoke in support of the amendment.
Senator Parnell stated that he did not object to the
amendment.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 7 was adopted.
Representative Davies referred to Article II, Section 13 of
the Alaska State Constitution. The Constitution states that
"bills for appropriation shall be confined to
appropriations." He cautioned that mission statements that
have the effect of statute should not be in an appropriation
bill.
Representative Grussendorf spoke in support of changing
"issue" to "adopt".
Representative Mulder MOVED to report HCS CSSB 76 (FIN) out
of Committee with the accompanying fiscal note.
HCS CSSB was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with zero fiscal note by the Senator
Finance Committee, 3/20/98.
HOUSE BILL NO. 364
"An Act requiring nonresident hunters to be accompanied
when hunting moose; and providing for an effective
date."
REPERSENTATIVE IVAN IVAN spoke in support of HB 364. He
noted that are two reasons why HB 364 was introduced. The
first reason addresses conservation and would require
nonresident hunters to take a moose hunting orientation
course offered by the Department of Fish and Game. There is
concern that it is difficult for nonresidents to determine
whether or not a moose is legal. The present moose antler
restriction for nonresident hunters is a minimum of 50
inches and spike/fork regulations are in effect in most game
management units. The requirement for an orientation course
would result in less sub-legal moose being killed and
wasted.
An additional concern for the legislation would be to reduce
the waste of moose meat. The purpose of the transporter
requirement is to reduce waste of moose meat by those who
may not have the knowledge or capability, for whatever
reason, to care for the meat in the field. The transporters
would be held responsible for spoilage or wanton waste if
they fail to check on their clients and take moose meat out
of the field before waste or spoilage can occur. The
transporters currently have no responsibility for the
actions of their clients. He provided members with
Amendment 1 (copy on file).
TOM WRIGHT, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE IVAN reviewed Amendment 1.
He observed that the Department of Public Safety requested
the first part of the amendment. The amendment would delete
the three-day requirement. Transporters would be required
to keep a written record, which they already have to file
with the Department of Commerce and Economic Development,
with them when they make a transport of hunters or meat in
or out of the field. The Department of Public Safety feels
that this would allow them to keep better track of hunters
and meat. The three-day requirement was deleted because the
Department felt it was not an enforceable statute.
(Tape Change, HFC 98 -89, Side 1)
KEN TAYLOR, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME reviewed Amendment
1. He observed that a moose hunting orientation course
could be sent through the mail, to hunters who apply by
mail, for licenses and tags. A substantial number of
hunters apply for their licenses and tags through the mail.
The Department's fiscal note includes funding for a kiosk at
the Anchorage airport. He noted that the Department would
like the legislation to be amended to delay the effective
date to July 1, 1999.
Co-Chair Hanley asked if it is constitutional for a non-
resident to have to take a course that a resident doesn't
have to take. Mr. Taylor could not answer. In response to
a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Mr. Taylor explained that
every non-resident that applies by mail, would receive a
video of the course. The video would cost $10 dollars. An
affidavit affirming that they have watched the course would
be signed on their non-resident moose tag. The video would
help hunters identify legal moose and take care of meat.
Co-Chair Hanley expressed concern that there might be
constitutional concerns. Co-Chair Therriault suggested that
"or" be changed to "and". Mr. Wright agreed. Co-Chair
Hanley recommended that the legislation state that a
"nonresident may not obtain a moose tag unless the
nonresident signs a statement affirming they have either
completed a moose hunting course offered by the Department
or will be accompanied." Mr. Taylor noted that the
Department's concern was that two mailings would be required
because hunters would not receive their tag until after they
had completed the course. The Department wants to ship the
tag, license and videotape at on time. Co-Chair Hanley
emphasized that the legislation seems to say that persons
that apply by mail would not have to take the course. The
intent is not that those that apply by mail would not have
to take the course. Co-Chair Therriault added that the only
tags that can be received by mail would come from the
Department.
Representative Grussendorf did not think that there would be
a constitutional problem. He observed that hunting is a
privilege.
Mr. Taylor explained that $5 thousand dollars in the
Department's fiscal note would go toward airport leasing.
The kiosk would be approximately $20 thousand dollars.
Twenty-six hundred dollars is included for postage. In FY
99, would be contractual to put the video footage together.
Representative Davies suggested that the first "obtain" be
changed to "use" on page 1, line 22 of Amendment 1.
Everything from the second obtain would be deleted through
to the word "nonresident". The recommended language would
provide that the tag could be received but could not be used
unless they had signed a statement. Mr. Taylor spoke in
support of the suggested language.
Representative Foster noted the difficulty of discerning
moose size. Mr. Taylor clarified that a one-year residence
would be required. Representative Foster observed that some
residents would benefit from the course. He expressed
concern that transporters would be burdened by Amendment 1.
Mr. Wright explained that transporters would only be
required to carry records that currently must be submitted
on an annual basis. He emphasized that the information
would assist the Department of Public Safety in their
enforcement efforts. Representative Foster expressed
concern that transporters would have more paper work
requirements.
TED KRIEG, NATURAL RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, BRISTOL BAY NATIVE
ASSOCIATION, DILLINGHAM spoke in support of the legislation.
He noted that wanton waste has been a concern of the
Association. He spoke against allowing course certification
through video participation. He maintained that viewing a
video is not enough. He spoke in support of requiring
transporters to check with hunters every three days. He
stressed that some hunters only want the horns. He asserted
that meat should be taken care of, so that it can be used by
locals. He expressed concern that moose are being left and
the meat wasted because they are not legal size. The course
should provide the ability to identify a legal moose, make
sure that meat will not be wasted and assure that hunters
realize the amount of meat that is involved. He asserted
that transporters must be responsible for the hunters they
take out.
Representative Foster questioned the premise that hunters
should be responsible for the actions of another person.
Mr. Krieg reiterated that transporters should be
responsible. Representative Foster observed that weather
could prevent transporters from contacting hunters within
the suggested three-day period. He stressed that pilot's
job is to fly not to police. Co-Chair Therriault noted that
the legislation currently requires that the transporter
check on hunters every three days. Representative Foster
questioned what would happen if the hunter does not pay the
transporter to come back in three days. Representative
Grussendorf suggested that hunters would have to pay for
checks. Representative Foster acknowledged the intent, but
expressed concern with making transporters responsible for a
third party.
VIRGIL UMPENOUR, BOARD OF FISHERIES, FAIRBANKS spoke in
support of HB 364. He noted that he is a registered hunting
guide and operates a meat and fish processing plant in
Fairbanks. He stressed that the primary issue is the direct
competition with subsistence use of non-regulated
nonresident hunters. He felt hunters should be required to
be physically present at the course. He observed problems
with sub-legal moose being shot and left in the field and
meat being wasted due to a lack of transportation. He
observed that the number of nonresident moose hunters in
unit 21D increased by 300 percent in 1995-1996. As much as
30 percent of the moose are taken by nonresidents. He
maintained that the majority of the meat is spoiled.
In response to a question by Representative Davies, Mr.
Umpenour observed that guides are responsible to get the
meat out in good condition. He emphasized that transporters
already have to keep a hunt record. The legislation would
require that the record be kept with them when they are
transporting hunters or meat. Transporters would be
required to report violations of their clients in the same
manner as a guide.
MICHELLE SPARCK, RESOURCE SPECIALIST, ASSOCIATION OF VILLAGE
COUNCIL PRESIDENTS, BETHEL spoke in support of the
legislation. She emphasized that moose meat is being
wasted. One moose is equivalent to five caribou. She
stressed the importance of the meat to feed local residents.
Meat keeps longer when it is attached to the bone, but
hunters cut it away to reduce weight. She maintained that a
video is not sufficient preparation for hunters. She spoke
in support of the legislation's original language.
HERMAN MORGAN, CITY MANAGER, ANIAK spoke in support of HB
364. He noted that he is a subsistence hunter. He asserted
that moose meat is being left to rot and waste. He
maintained that the moose that locals depend on are being
endangered. A lot of meat is going to waste that could feed
locals during the winter. He maintained that it is an
insult to the dignity of the subsistence life style. He
stressed that a video can not take the place of an
experienced guide. He asserted that no one is taken
responsibility for all of the rotting meat.
GILBERT HUNTINGTON, GALENA spoke in support of HB 364. He
noted that he is a registered guide and a subsistence
hunter. He spoke in support of the original language of HB
364. He expressed concern that moose meat is being wasted.
He asserted that transporters bring hunters in without
guides. He emphasized that guides look after the resource.
He stressed that anyone can sign his or her name to an
affidavit.
ROD ARNO, PRESIDENT, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL spoke in support
of HB 364. He stressed that nonresident hunters are
perceived as trophy hunters that allow meat to spoil. He
noted that wanton waste is a crime punishable by one to five
in jails. He maintained that it is an enforcement issue
problem. He stated that it would be advantages to increase
hunters' skill levels and spell out the client transporter
obligation and relationship. He cautioned that too large of
a hurdle not be created to nonresident hunters. He observed
that in 1997 there were approximately 14,000 nonresident
hunters. Nonresident hunters brought in $6.5 million
dollars in 1997, or $462 dollars per hunter in licenses and
fees. Federal aid based on the license sales of nonresident
hunters was $8.5 million dollars in 1997. Nonresident
hunters are responsible for more than 90 percent of the
Division of Wildlife Conservation's' budget. He stated that
the perception of nonresidents would benefit from the care
of meat. He spoke against Amendment 1. He stated that the
amendment would take the guts out of the legislation.
Section 1 of CSHB 364 (RES) would make transporters
responsible for wasted meat. He suggested that Section 1
could be amended by removing language-requiring transporters
to check on clients every three days. The remaining
language would read, " In order to maximize the use of game
taken by clients of transporters, transport meat of game
taken by the clients out of the field before waste or
spoilage can occur." He maintained that the
transporter/client relationship needs to be clear. He
emphasized that the transporters advertise for nonresident
for drop off hunts. Transporters decide where nonresidents
will hunt. He maintained that they need to be held
responsible for wanton waste. He stressed that transporters
should follow the same procedures as guides to make sure
that there are not too many clients in the field to be
adequately served. If transporters report spoiled meat the
responsibility would be on the client. If meat is spoiled
because a transporter can not cover all of his clients
before spoilage occurs they should be partially responsible.
HB 364 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 12
"An Act relating to civil liability for injuries or
death resulting from equine activities."
Representative Davis MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 12, work draft 0-LS0097\B, 3/30/98. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT observed that
the legislation concerns liability for persons that are
injured and their rights to sue. He clarified that if a
person is injured while riding a horse and has an insurance
policy they would not be precluded from collecting for the
injury. Representative Davies was concerned that limitations
on the right to sue not limit the right to collect under an
insurance policy. Legislative counsel indicated that they
are two different issues. Amendment 1 amends the definition
of compensatory damages to not include benefits paid under
an insurance policy (copy on file).
Co-Chair Hanley MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Mulder MOVED to report CSHB 12 (FIN) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
House Finance Committee 2 4/03/98
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|