Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/31/2014 06:00 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB202 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 202 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 31, 2014
6:06 p.m.
6:06:16 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 6:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Michael Paschall, Staff, Representative Eric Feige; Ed
Fogels, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural
Resources.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Doug Vincent-Lang, Director, Division of Wildlife
Conservation, Department of Fish and Game; Bryce Wrigley,
President, Alaska Farm Bureau, Delta Junction; Gary
Stevens, Member, Board of Directors, Alaska Outdoor
Council, Chugiak; Don Quarberg, Self, Delta; Al Barrette,
Member, Fairbanks Fish and Game Advisory Committee,
Fairbanks.
SUMMARY
HB 202 BISON DRAWING PERMIT FEES
HB 202 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 202
"An Act raising the application fee for a drawing
permit for the hunting of bison to $20; requiring the
game management plan for bison in the Delta Junction
Bison Range Area to include mitigation of bison damage
to farm crops and farm and personal property; and
authorizing the commissioner of natural resources to
make grants to mitigate or prevent damage caused by
bison."
6:07:40 PM
MICHAEL PASCHALL, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ERIC FEIGE, read
from a prepared testimony:
In 1928 a group of hunters brought a small number of
bison from the National Bison Range in Montana to what
is now known as Delta Junction Alaska and released the
animals to hopefully one day provide additional
hunting opportunities in the state. This magnificent
animal is large, elusive, and a prized hunting trophy,
as well as a source of excellent meat.
When the animals were brought to Alaska, there was
most likely little discussion on the negative impact
of interaction between these animals and humans. Nor
was there likely any discussion on these animals not
being native to Alaska and thus a possible invasive
species being introduced into the state.
As the animals adapted to their new home, they looked
for the most available sources of food. Unfortunately,
some of this food was located at existing settlements
in the area along the Tanana River. Documented history
shows the bison interacting with humans at Rika's
roadhouse shortly after their release, consuming food
planted for travelers using the roadhouse.
By the 1950s, the herd had grown to several hundred
animals and plans were made to realize the dream of
hunting bison in Alaska. Since the first hunts, the
desire to hunt bison has resulted in the development
of the most popular draw permit for hunting in Alaska.
In 2013, 19,605 applications were received with less
than 100 permits issued.
The hunt is not easy. Most of the hunt takes place
during the winter when it is cold, dark, and windy in
Delta Junction. Fish & Game refers to the hunt as a
"challenging endeavor" and requires those that receive
a permit to study a package of material and pass a
test before being allowed to hunt. The success rate
for the hunt averages around 80 percent, depending
upon the specific hunt.
Hunting Delta Bison is one of the premier hunts in
Alaska.
As mentioned previously, depredation of crops has been
a problem since shortly after the bison were released
along the Delta River.
Traditionally the largest herds were found along the
Delta and Tanana Rivers and animals were often found
in Delta Junction. Stories abound of children not
being able to go to school because they could not get
out of the house because bison were in their yard.
Once the herd discovered the presence of grains being
grown east of the community center, the herd adjusted
its annual migratory route, traveling from the Delta
River to the farm area east of Delta Junction. On page
17 of the "Delta Bison Interim Management Plan," you
can see that the bison travel over military land from
the spring calving area west of the Delta River to the
Bison Range and agricultural areas to the east. Today
bison are rarely seen in the more heavily developed
areas or around Rika's Roadhouse. Two smaller animals
were reported near the city limits a few years ago.
Work to determine the damage to crops and other
property has only been casually reviewed in the past
few years. Up to that point, no known surveys of
damage have been done. Most recent surveys have put
the damage near $100,000 annually. Unfortunately,
damage isn't spread equally across all producers and
can have a significant negative impact on a single
producer. Also, loss of opportunity income from higher
dollar crops, that are not planted due to the
potential for loss, is not included in the damage
estimates.
6:11:40 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered if the $100,000 was the aggregate
for all farms, or per farm. Mr. Paschall replied that that
the $100,000 referred to three years of surveys.
Co-Chair Stoltze restated his question. Mr. Paschall
responded that it referred to the aggregate.
Co-Chair Stoltze stressed that he did not make a statement.
Mr. Paschall apologized, because he thought that he heard a
statement.
Co-Chair Stoltze announced that the $100,000 was the
aggregate for the entire farms combined. Mr. Paschall
replied that it was $100,000 per year that was determined
as the amount of damage that occurred.
Mr. Paschall continued with his presentation:
In addition to the problems the bison cause for
farmers and the occasional vehicle/bison collision is
the problems the animals cause for the military. The
military operates under strict rules pertaining to
interference with local wildlife. The Donnelly
Training Area "Integrated Natural Resources Management
Plan" places restrictions on interaction between
military training operations and wildlife, including
bison.
To help address both the problems with interaction
between the military and bison and between farmers and
bison, along with improving the condition of the herd,
the state has developed the Delta Bison Range and the
military has done work to improve the conditions near
the calving areas.
The military contracted with the local soil and water
conservation district in 2012 to make improvements to
food for the bison on land along the Delta River in an
attempt to control the location and movement of the
bison by keeping the herd nearer the river and on
inactive ranges for a longer period of time, thus
keeping the bison off agricultural land.
The bison range, created and funded by the state, has
cleared fields where grains and other crops are
planted in an attempt to provide the bison with
sufficient food and to attempt to keep the bison south
of the Alaska Highway until after harvest. The bison
range also has wells where water is provided for the
bison. The herd is intensely managed, fed, and watered
by the state for the benefit of hunters. Similar to
how farmers manage their livestock.
During discussion on the management plan for the bison
range, the state's wildlife biologist indicated there
is no definitive evidence that the natural habitat is
sufficient to supply food and water to the herd and,
absent the food on the bison range and in farmer's
fields, the herd may not be sustainable at its current
size.
Questions also arose surrounding the current
activities on the bison range as to whether they are
having the desired effect of keeping bison south of
the highway until later in the farming season or does
the feed on the range move up the arrival of the bison
in the area. Also, does the feed on the bison range
allow a herd to exist that is larger than could exist
naturally.
Reducing the herd size was recommended by the state's
biologist to determine if such a reduction would
reduce damage. The experimental plan that was
introduced was rejected by the hunters on the working
group.
One consensus that the working group did reach was
that fencing was the option that would have the most
impact on reducing the amount of damage that occurs.
Four major options were considered; fencing the herd
in, creating an enclosure to temporary restrain the
herd, placing some type of barrier along the south
side of the highway to restrain the herd, and finally,
fence the farms. All of which have positive and
negative aspects.
Fencing farms solves the immediate problem of keeping
bison out of fields while, at the same time, proposes
to cause the animals to relocate in search of winter
feed.
6:15:29 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered how many farms he was
referencing. Mr. Paschall replied that there were
approximately 30 to 40 farms that were impacted currently.
Co-Chair Stoltze queried that number that would potentially
be fenced. Mr. Paschall did not know the intention of the
individual farmers.
Co-Chair Stoltze stressed that the state would be providing
grants. He felt that other committee members may restate
the concerns.
Mr. Paschall continued with his presentation:
The idea of having farmers fence in their own fields
was mostly supported by hunters. Unfortunately,
fencing crops is not normally part of the business
plan for farming. Yes, farmers often fence fields to
keep animals in and it is a realized cost of raising
livestock, it is generally not viable to fence
wildlife out of crop fields.
The Delta Bison Interim Management Plan, produced by
the Department of Fish & Game and Completed in 2012,
introduced four new management objectives directed at
addressing bison damage. They are listed on page 3 of
the plan.
The first recommendation is to reduce the precalving
herd size objective from 360 bison to 275-325. Fish
and Game has not implemented this objective.
Second, continue the cooperative program between ADF&G
and DNR to annually assess the level of bison caused
crop damage. Fish and Game and Natural Resources have
discontinued this assessment.
Third, for the legislature to increase the cost of the
drawing permit application fee from $10 to $20.
Section 1 of HB 202 completes this objective.
Fourth, for the legislature to establish a state cost-
sharing program to assist farmers with constructing
fences to keep bison out of private agricultural
lands. Section 3 of HB 202 is the first step to
completing this objective.
There has been some misunderstanding about this bill
appropriating money from the game fund to be spent on
the proposed grant program. As I expect this committee
is fully aware, this legislation only creates the
ability for the Commissioner of Natural Resources to
spend money on the grant program, it does not
appropriate funds for this purpose. That would be done
through the appropriation process, which would not
include a prohibited appropriation from the game fund.
Co-Chair Stoltze surmised that the expectation was to
double the bison permit fee, and earmark it for the
program. Mr. Paschall replied that the intent was to
increase the fee, as recommended by Department of Fish and
Game (DFG) to create the ability for the commissioner of
DNR to request an appropriation.
Co-Chair Stoltze stressed that there was a linkage in the
expectation. Mr. Paschall agreed.
Representative Wilson wondered if the bison originally
inhabited the area before the farmers. Mr. Paschall
responded that people were farming that area before the
bison were introduced. The commercial agricultural projects
that were referred in the Sawmill Creek and Barley Way
areas were created after the bison were introduced.
Representative Wilson asked if the original farmers were
still farming, or if the focus was only on the farmers that
came after the bison. Co-Chair Stoltze further queried if
timeframe was surrounding the 1970s. Mr. Paschall replied
that the timeframe regarding when the bison was introduced,
but as the population grew and outside food was introduced
to the area, but agriculture was enhanced in the 1970s and
1980s. During that time, the state created a land sale in
the area where they sold property in the Delta 1 and Delta
2 projects. The Delta 1 project did not have any notice of
the bison, other than it was out as part of the
advertising. The Delta 2 project specified that the farmers
could not sue the state from damage by the bison. He
stressed that the legislation protected the Delta 1 and 2
projects.
6:21:11 PM
Representative Wilson looked at the Delta Bison Interim
Management Plan 2012 (copy on file), and noted that page 20
discussed fences. The legislative intent stipulated that
they would be managed as a free-ranging herd. She wondered
if the bill was contradictory to the management plan. Mr.
Paschal responded that the legislative intent language that
created the Delta Bison Range indicated that the purpose of
the bison range was to support a free-ranging herd. This
lead to dismissing the idea of fencing the bison, but he
stressed that the current legislature was not currently
restricted by previous legislatures' intent language.
Representative Wilson felt that "fencing out" was also
"fencing in", but looked slightly different.
Representative Gara queried the cost of a fence on an
average farm. Mr. Paschall replied that // He stressed that
the intent of the legislation was to assist the cost,
rather than cover the full cost.
Representative Gara queried the cost of an average fence.
Mr. Paschall replied that there were two distinctions:
bison are not native to Alaska, and were only brought into
the state for the purpose of hunting; and there was a
policy decision to provide the farmers protection from the
bison.
Co-Chair Stoltze felt that the farmers in his district
would not ask him to build a fence. He felt that animals
many different types of animals destroyed crops.
Representative Gara stressed that he was asking a serious
question.
Co-Chair Stoltze felt that his constituency would not ask
for fences to be built on their farms.
6:26:34 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman asked if he had heard from farmers in
other areas of the state regarding similar assistance. Mr.
Paschall responded that he had discussions with various
farmers across the state regarding assistance from the
state.
Vice-Chair Neuman stressed that he had never heard the
issue at the forefront. He felt that his constituency would
not ask him to ask the state to pay for fencing.
Co-Chair Stoltze stressed that he had never been asked to
get the state to pay for fencing.
Vice-Chair Neuman restated that his constituency had never
asked to keep moose out of their land. Mr. Paschall stated
that the farmers in the Delta Junction area were not asking
for funding to keep the moose out of their land. They
understand that the moose are a natural animal to the
state.
Vice-Chair Neuman felt that fencing out bison would fence
out all of the animals. Mr. Paschall replied that most of
the farmers wanted to see the bison restrained, but that
was not the recommendation of DFG.
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (via
teleconference), explained that DFG participated in a work
group to assess Delta Junction bison management. The
department's involvement was to facilitate a discussion
regarding bison damage to crops. The meetings led to a
publication of an interim management plan, referenced
previously. The management plan was published to facilitate
a discussion of the options that were identified by that
work group. One of the options determined by the work group
to address bison damage to agricultural fields was an
increase to the application for Delta bison from $10 to
$20. The funds from the increase would be used to mitigate
bison damage to farm crops and farm personal properties. By
law, the funds raised by the fee increase must be deposited
into the Fish and Game Fund. The department would, in
accordance with the plan, determine the best approach to
mitigate damage to agricultural interest, which could
include fencing or other options such as working on barley
fields that provide some diversionary feeding. He urged the
inclusion of flexibility in the legislation regarding
development of management options to address the issue.
6:31:45 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze felt that the legislature should make the
decisions regarding the action. Mr. Vincent-Lang remarked
that he facilitated the discussion, and there were options
regarding fee increases for the construction of fences.
Co-Chair Stoltze stressed that a fee increase for hunters
should be backed up with a specific use of the additional
fee.
Representative Wilson queried what other diversionary feed
the state used for other animals. Mr. Vincent-Lang replied
that DFG used forest cutting to create browse for moose
Co-Chair Stoltze interjected that DFG used browse for
moose.
Mr. Vincent-Lang announced that the animals were not being
fed across the landscape with the type of program at the
Delta Bison Range.
Representative Wilson queried the cost of the barley field.
Mr. Vincent-Lang agreed to provide that information.
Representative Wilson asked if the diversionary feeding was
effective. She remarked that if it were working, the fences
would be unnecessary. Mr. Vincent-Lang felt that the barley
field was effective, however the bison were transient. He
stated that the bison could not be contained to one area of
feeding.
Representative Wilson wondered if the uneaten barley was
sold. Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that the barley was not
sold.
Representative Wilson stressed that barley could be used in
wood stoves, and burn cleaner than wood. Mr. Vincent-Lang
responded that the bison's barley would not be competing
with the farmers.
Representative Gara understood that the bison were
introduced to the state over 100 years ago, and wondered if
the state had spent money to encourage the moose
population. Mr. Vincent-Lang stressed that the bison were
introduced to Alaska, before Alaska became a state.
Representative Gara felt that the financing of fences
should be used for farmers who want to keep the moose of
their crops.
6:36:54 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze asked for the two different bison
projects. Mr. Vincent-Lang replied that the bison that were
identified in the bill were Delta bison, which were brought
up from the Lower 48 approximately 100 years prior. The
wood bison was a sub-species of bison from the woodland
areas of Canada, but were not introduced to Alaska because
of the Endangered Species Act.
Co-Chair Stoltze restated that there were two different
types of bison in Alaska, and should not be confused with
one another.
ED FOGELS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES, testified in support of HB 202. He felt that the
legislation would stem a long-standing problem. He
understood that farms in other parts of the state had
experienced damage from wildlife. He stressed that the
sport hunt was maintained by the bison's ability to eat the
high value food. He remarked that the main focus of his
department was to ensure the protection of Alaska's natural
resources.
Co-Chair Stoltze understood the frustration of getting
one's crops destroyed.
Representative Thompson wondered how many acres were
producing barley for the bison. Mr. Fogels agreed to
provide that information.
Representative Thompson noted that there were 5000 acres
producing barley on Fort Greely. He stressed that most
farms were approximately 1000 acres each.
Representative Thompson wondered if there was a current
cost sharing program for fencing. Mr. Fogels responded that
the Delta Soil and Water Conservation District had a cost
sharing program. The intent of the program outlined in the
legislation was to pass the money to that district to
augment their cost sharing program. He stressed that DNR
did not intend to begin a grant program.
6:41:42 PM
Representative Thompson noted that there were areas that
did not have any bison, and wondered if the fencing would
move the bison to undesirable locations. Mr. Fogels
responded that the program was intended to be ongoing. He
stated that there would be constant work with the farmers
in order to determine the best course of action.
Representative Thompson noted that the report from the
Division of Wildlife Conservation indicated problems about
more animals hit by vehicles, because they could not get
across fences. He encouraged the committee to examine that
report.
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered if Mr. Fogels was familiar with
the Conservation Range Protection Program from the federal
government. Mr. Fogels replied that he was not very
familiar with that program.
Co-Chair Stoltze explained that the program paid landowners
to leave portions of their land. He wondered if any of the
farmers participated in that program. Mr. Fogels replied
that there were farmers that took advantage of the program,
but did not know the numbers of acreages. He agreed to
provide that information.
Co-Chair Stoltze shared program's website.
Vice-Chair Neuman stressed that the program required public
access on the land. He wondered how the fenced in land
would allow for public access. Mr. Fogels responded that
the program was for ongoing mitigation for the bison
problem. He explained that there would probably be a focus
on the fields that held higher value crops.
Vice-Chair Neuman understood that the barley was a large
part of the bison's diet. He wondered if there was enough
food for the animals to live off of, outside of the fenced
in areas. Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that the bison may be
impacted by the restricted area. He felt that the bison
would be diverted to other food crops.
6:46:19 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman remarked that the legislation did not
have an end date. If the bill was enacted, and five farms
were fenced in, and people continue to pay a $230 fee after
every farm was fenced in, he wondered if there were be a
decision to lower the fee. Mr. Vincent-Lang replied that
feed associated with drawing permits were legislative
decisions.
Vice-Chair Neuman stressed that the amount of money would
be substantial after the fee raise.
Representative Guttenberg expressed concern regarding the
bison interfering with the safety of the bison on the
highway. Mr. Vincent-Lang replied that there were two types
of bison in the world: ranched bison and free range bison.
He stated that Alaska's bison were free range. He noted
that there were some bison ranches, which held fenced
bison.
Representative Guttenberg wondered if there were other
mitigating programs. Mr. Vincent-Lang was not aware of any
large agricultural fencing projects to restrict bison
access.
Representative Guttenberg wondered if there were other
places in the U.S. that mitigated the ruined crops. Mr.
Vincent-Lang replied that there were some projects in the
lower 48 that dealt with wolf purgation. He was not aware
of other programs where farmers were paid for damage from
bison.
Representative Thompson wondered if the passage of the bill
would require changing AS 16.23.20. Mr. Fogels replied that
he was not very aware of Title 16 statutes. He furthered
that the intent of the project was to fence property, not
fencing public lands.
6:52:32 PM
Co-Chair Austerman wondered if the area where the bison
were located was open range. Mr. Vincent-Lang replied that
the area was for free-range bison.
Co-Chair Austerman understood that the Kodiak farmer
referenced had his bison on open range. Mr. Vincent-Lang
responded that there was an expectation for him to keep the
bison on his property, and have control of his herd.
BRYCE WRIGLEY, PRESIDENT, ALASKA FARM BUREAU, DELTA
JUNCTION (via teleconference), testified in support of the
legislation. He remarked that the working group was
intended to address the bison damage to the crops, and
there was agreement on the success of fencing. The bison
range was created around the same time that farms were put
into production. At that time, the legislature provided
funding for a drift fence. The drift fence would go on the
south side of the Alaska Highway, which would have kept the
bison off of the developing farm land. The governor at that
time stripped the funding for the drift fence. He stated
that, at the time, the bison were considered a free range
herd. The legislature at that time, however, did not feel
that a drift fence violated the free range designation. He
stated that the exclusion of the drift fence created an
inevitability that the bison would venture to the crops at
the same time of harvest. He stressed that the bison travel
in herds, which was a greater burden than lone moose. He
announced that the Delta Junction farmers had no issue with
the native wild animals. He objected to the fact that the
bison were so intensively managed by the state, but the
farmers were unable to receive high impact solutions. He
acknowledged that the bison were there before the farmers,
but stressed that the farmers were an important part of the
economy. He stated that the large farms would require a
fence that would cost approximately $100,000 to $110,000
per farm. The cost share program paid for half of that
cost, at a rate of $1.25 per quarter foot. He remarked that
there were many farmers that could not afford their portion
of the cost share, so there were many farms that would not
be fenced.
7:00:33 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze referred to HB 121 that had enhanced
ability for commercial loans for farming. He wondered if
Mr. Wrigley had examined that legislation. Mr. Wrigley was
not aware of that bill. He furthered that there were some
loans that ranged from 3 to 4.5 percent, which was fairly
low. He stressed that many farmers borrowed money for
operating expenses. He felt that farmers would utilize all
resources to protect their crops.
Co-Chair Stoltze stressed that the legislation would
provide a loan not a grant. Mr. Wrigley agreed.
GARY STEVENS, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ALASKA OUTDOOR
COUNCIL, CHUGIAK (via teleconference), testified very
strongly against the legislation. He felt that the state
should find a different source of funding, if the state
wanted to support private for-profit businesses. Revenue
from hunting permits should be spent on game management and
habitat by DFG. He remarked that the legislation raised the
price on all permits, not just Delta Bison. He shared that
the state had a unique system in fish and game management
in that there were regional and local advisory committees.
The Delta Advisory Committee expressed opposition on the
legislation.
Vice-Chair Neuman wondered if any other outdoor groups
opposed the legislation. Mr. Stevens responded that the
thought the Rough Grouse Society probably opposed the bill.
7:05:11 PM
DON QUARBERG, SELF, DELTA (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition the legislation. He shared that he had been a
resident of Delta Junction for a long time. He served on
the Delta Bison Working Group since the group's inception.
He understood that the $20 fee for the application of a
bison hunting permit would be used to manage the Delta
Bison Range. The $10 fee that existed previously was
enacted in the 1980s, so there was 20 years of flat
funding. He felt that it was time to increase the fee. He
shared that there was approximately 1000 acres of crop land
that was destroyed by the bison. He shared that the
legislation was written and presented by the Delta Chapter
of the Alaska Farm Bureau of which Mr. Paschall is the
chair. He felt that Mr. Paschall had worked to eliminate
the species. The Delta land purchasers signed a contract
with the state acknowledging the presence of bison, and the
likelihood that the bison would cause damage.
7:12:00 PM
AL BARRETTE, MEMBER, FAIRBANKS FISH AND GAME ADVISORY
COMMITTEE, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified in
opposition to the legislation. He looked at AS 16.05.130,
and stressed that money collected from hunting licenses
could not be used for a purpose other than protection,
investigation, and restoration of game resources. The
revenue from the sales of hunting licenses and tags were
intended to benefit the license purchasers. He felt that
the legislation was against statute. He stressed that the
intent of the working group was to create a management plan
within the 90,000 acres of the Delta Bison Management
Range. He felt that the discussion of fencing was out of
the working group's jurisdiction.
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
7:15:49 PM
Mr. Paschall agreed to answer any questions.
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered if Mr. Paschall could respond to
the concerns of the testifiers.
Mr. Paschall stated that he would provide a written
response to the inaccuracies.
Co-Chair Stoltze felt that Mr. Paschall had responded by
saying that the testimony was "inaccurate." Mr. Paschall
announced that he was attempting to complete a statement.
Co-Chair Stoltze did not want to get in a combative
discussion.
Mr. Paschall announced that he would provide a written
response to the testifiers.
Representative Wilson wondered how many of the farmers
would be impacted by the legislation. Mr. Paschall replied
that the geographic area would include all producers that
received any form of federal payment under any of the farm
programs.
Representative Wilson queried the exact number of farms
that were being discussed. She also wondered why the state
should manage the bison in this legislative manner. Mr.
Paschall responded that he did not know what loans were
forgiven. The herd was managed as the millions of dollars
the state spends on managing wildlife throughout the state.
Representative Thompson noted that there were some
diversion mechanisms including the creation of watering
holes. He wondered if the revised language would allow the
ability to build more wells. Mr. Paschall responded the
language was removed by the Legislative Legal.
7:20:25 PM
Representative Thompson felt that the removal of the
phrase, "but not limited to" would restrict the ability to
build a well. Mr. Paschall replied that he understood that
the removal of the term "but not limited to" was done every
time there was a revision of statute. He deferred to
Legislative Legal for more information, but assumed that
the removal of the phrase had no impact.
Vice-Chair Neuman agreed that the removal of the phrase had
a significant impact.
Representative Gara felt that Mr. Paschall did not need to
respond to the testimony. Co-Chair Stoltze agreed.
Mr. Paschall announced that he would not respond to the
testifiers unless his boss advised him to do so.
Co-Chair Austerman felt that after hearing the public
testimony, he felt that he was not in favor of the bill. He
expressed concern regarding using the DFG receipts to fund
the program.
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered if there was a consideration of
proposing the project as a capital budget request. Mr.
Paschall replied that there was not a discussion to include
the request in a capital project.
Co-Chair Stoltze assumed that the proposal would be funded
through fees, the Fish and Game Fund, and the farmers. Mr.
Paschall responded in the affirmative, because that was the
recommendation of DFG.
Co-Chair Austerman stated he fenced his own property, in
order to protect his land.
Co-Chair Stoltze felt that there was always a risk with
land ownership.
7:24:49 PM
Representative Thompson stated that he did not take issue
with an application fee, but rather took issue with some
other concerns that were expressed.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that there was some discussion
regarding increasing DFG licenses as a conservation method.
He was a strong supporter of the agriculture industry. He
felt that the legislation proposed a very awkward
mechanism.
Mr. Paschall thanked the committee for hearing the
legislation.
7:28:51 PM
RECESSED
7:55:12 PM
RECONVENED
HB 202 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
7:55:37 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|