Legislature(1999 - 2000)
05/07/1999 02:20 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
May 7, 1999
2:20 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
Representative Joe Green
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 225
"An Act relating to election campaigns and legislative ethics; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 225(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 74
"An Act relating to hunting on the same day airborne."
- MOVED HCSSB 74(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 219
"An Act relating to the rule against perpetuities, nonvested
property interests, and powers of appointment; and providing for an
effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 220
"An Act relating to the amendment and revocation of spouses'
community property agreements and community property trusts; and
providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 11(JUD)
"An Act relating to good time credits for prisoners serving
sentences of imprisonment for certain murders."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 225
SHORT TITLE: CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND LEGISLATIVE ETHICS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) COWDERY, Kohring
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
5/05/99 1180 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
5/05/99 1180 (H) JUDICIARY
5/06/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
5/06/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
5/07/99 1247 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING
5/07/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 74
SHORT TITLE: SAME DAY AIRBORNE HUNTING
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) KELLY PETE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/17/99 270 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/17/99 270 (S) RES
2/24/99 (S) RES AT 3:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
2/24/99 (S) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
2/24/99 (S) MINUTE(RES)
2/25/99 (S) RLS AT 11:30 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
2/25/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
2/25/99 363 (S) RES RPT 6DP
2/25/99 363 (S) DP: HALFORD, TAYLOR, PARNELL, PETE
KELLY
2/25/99 363 (S) MACKIE, GREEN
2/25/99 363 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G)
3/04/99 407 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 3/4/99
3/04/99 409 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
3/04/99 409 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
3/04/99 409 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 74
3/04/99 410 (S) PASSED Y14 N6
3/04/99 410 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
3/05/99 426 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
3/05/99 427 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
3/08/99 386 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/08/99 386 (H) RESOURCES, JUDICIARY
3/17/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
3/17/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
3/17/99 (H) MINUTE(RES)
4/07/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
4/07/99 (H) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
4/07/99 (H) MINUTE(RES)
4/08/99 688 (H) RES RPT 6DP 1NR
4/08/99 688 (H) DP: OGAN, SANDERS, HARRIS, BARNES,
4/08/99 688 (H) MORGAN, WHITAKER; NR: KAPSNER
4/08/99 688 (H) SENATE ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G) 2/25/99
4/08/99 688 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
5/03/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
5/03/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
5/07/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3879
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 225.
WAYNE REGELIN, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-4190
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 74.
SENATOR PETE KELLY
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 510
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2327
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 74.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-60, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 2:20 p.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Kott, Green, Rokeberg, James, Croft and
Kerttula. Representative Murkowski arrived at 2:27 p.m.
HB 225 - CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND LEGISLATIVE ETHICS
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the first order of business is HB 225, "An
Act relating to election campaigns and legislative ethics; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 0073
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt the proposed committee
substitute for HB 225, Version 1-LS0931\G, Cramer, 5/7/99. There
being no objection, it was so adopted.
Number 0128
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to page 5, subsection (H), and noted
the phrase - "...however, a legislator or legislative employee may
not use governmental resources to solicit contributions for or
gather signatures on..." It's appropriate to say "resources" in
that phrase because it means a state employee cannot be used from
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. to gather signatures for a petition or use
a Legislative Information Office, for example. It read
"facilities" before when it was suppose to incorporate the two
concepts.
Number 0239
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that is his understanding of the intent of the
language in (H) as well.
Number 0261
CHAIRMAN KOTT offered a conceptual amendment to Section 4 of the
proposed committee substitute. Susie Barnett is requesting an
effective date of December 1, 1999. In reading a memo from her,
she indicated that she spends several hours with Terry Cramer of
the Legislative Affairs Agency every time the ethics code is
amended discussing how it should be interpreted. She also has the
responsibility of compiling that information into a handbook for
new employees.
Number 0406
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Chairman Kott whether it would change
only the ethics portion of the proposed committee substitute or the
campaign portion as well.
CHAIRMAN KOTT replied it would change only the ethics portion.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES inquired as to whether Section 4 actually says
that.
CHAIRMAN KOTT reiterated the intent of the conceptual amendment is
to make sure that the ethics portion of the bill goes into effect
December 1, 1999.
Number 0471
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY, Alaska State Legislature, came before
the committee as sponsor of HB 225. It is also his understanding
that a pamphlet has to be worked on for new employees. The
conceptual amendment would give ample time for that; it is
acceptable to him.
Number 0512
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES clarified as to whether Sections 1 and 2 would
have an immediate effective date, while the rest of the proposed
committee substitute would have an effective date of December 1,
1999.
CHAIRMAN KOTT replied that's the intent of the conceptual
amendment.
Number 0602
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that the only reason Section 2 is in
the bill is because of a cross-reference to Section 3. He noted
that Section 1 should match the effective date in Section 5, while
Sections 2 and 3 should match the proposed December 1, 1999
effective date. He suggested substituting "December 1, 1999" for
"effective immediately" on page 5, line 21, of the bill.
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that he would inform the drafter of the intent
of the conceptual amendment in the event that the change is not
accurate.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there is any objection to the
conceptual amendment. There being none, it was so adopted.
Number 0750
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move HB 225, Version
1-LS0931\G, Cramer, 5/7/99, as amended, from the committee with
individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note(s). There
being no objection, CSHB 225(JUD) was so moved from the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
SB 74 - SAME DAY AIRBORNE HUNTING
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is SB 74, "An
Act relating to hunting on the same day airborne."
Number 0883
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved Amendment 1. It reads as follows:
Page 1, line 5 insert after "airborne."
"However, the Board of Game may authorize a wolf control
program involving the shooting of wolves from the air if
(1) the Commissioner of Fish and Game makes
written findings demonstrating that a
biological emergency exists and that there is
no feasible solution other than airborne
control to eliminate the biological emergency,
and
(2) the program is conducted only by
Department of Fish and Game personnel
(3) the program is limited to the specific
geographical area where the biological
emergency exists, and
(4) the program removes only the minimum
number of wolves necessary to eliminate the
biological emergency.
Page 2, line 8, after "flight" delete
"; and
(2) an employee or agent of the department
who, as part of a game management program, is
authorized to shoot or to assist in shooting
wolf, wolverine, fox, or lynx on the same day
that the employee or agent has been airborne."
Insert:
";or
(2) activities conducted by the Department of
Fish and Game to remove diseased or louse
infected wolves that are considered a threat
to the health of the population."
Page 2, line 13 insert
"Sec. 3 AS 16.05.783(d) is amended to read:
(2) "biological emergency" means a condition,
as determined by the commissioner, where a
wolf population in a specific geographic area
is causing a serious decline in a prey
population to the point that the prey
population might not likely recover within a
reasonable time without implementing wolf
control."
Page 2, line 13, Sec. 3 is renumbered to Sec. 4
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected.
Number 0914
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated the amendment attempts to address some
of the major concerns voiced in the testimony - the irreversible
decline issue, as noted by the sponsor; the agent issue, as noted
by the testifiers; the inability to move quickly for disease or
louse infected wolves, as noted by the sponsor; and concern about
the definition of the term "biological emergency." In particular,
the definition of the term "biological emergency" has "serious
decline" rather than "irreversible decline." The testimony
indicated that it's not an unheard of biological idea.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT further stated that the amendment would still
require findings but it takes out the adequate data. Under the
criteria before, the commissioner had to show written findings
based on demonstrated and adequate data. Under the amendment, the
commissioner would have to make written findings demonstrating that
a biological emergency exists. The adequate data portion didn't
materially add to the statute but it added a hook for a legal
challenge.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT further stated that the amendment would
eliminate the authorization of agents, whose purpose is to take out
diseased wolves, and would insert a specific authority to remove
diseased or louse infested wolves.
Number 1197
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to the language - "the Commissioner
of Fish and Game makes written findings demonstrating that a
biological emergency exists and that there is no feasible solution
other than airborne control to eliminate the biological emergency"
- and stated without wolf control there will not be any moose to
eat in a subsistence area. She asked Representative Croft whether
that would be considered a biological emergency.
Number 1226
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied under the amendment there wouldn't
need to be proof of irreversible decline, which the sponsor has
indicated is hard to prove, but there would need to be proof of a
serious decline to the point that the prey population might not
likely recover within a reasonable time without wolf control.
Number 1257
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked whether that means all moose hunting has
to be stopped for subsistence users before wolf control.
Number 1276
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted that it doesn't change any other
standard in statute. She suggested hearing from the Department of
Fish and Game on that matter.
Number 1310
WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Department of Fish and Game, came before the committee to answer
questions. He noted the language Representative James is
questioning would not require the Board of Game to eliminate all
hunting before wolf control could start. He cited in one area,
where there is wolf control, a minimal harvest is allowed in order
to meet the subsistence needs of the people. It is a small harvest
so that the herd can recover faster.
Number 1356
SENATOR PETE KELLY, Alaska State Legislature, came before the
committee as sponsor of SB 74. He also has an amendment which
attempts to do some of the same things, but he thinks that his is
the amendment that Representative Croft, himself, and the committee
members can live with.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that there are some conceptual
similarities and differences.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT withdrew his motion on Amendment 1 in order to
discuss Senator Pete Kelly's amendment.
Number 1444
SENATOR PETE KELLY explained the following amendment:
*Section 1:(a) would read:
(a) A person may not shoot [OR ASSIST IN
SHOOTING] a free-ranging wolf, wolverine, fox,
or lynx the same day that a person has been
airborne. However, the Board of Game may
authorize a predator [WOLF] control program
involving shooting from the air if
*Section 1: (1) would read:
(1) The Commissioner of Fish and Game makes
written findings based on biological data that
(A) Predation is an important factor
contributing to low or to a declining prey
population that is inconsistent with a game
management program authorized by the Board of
Game and
(B) Reduction of predation can reasonably be
expected to result in aiding an increase in
the prey population or in arresting the
decline of a prey population or,
(C) A disease or parasite is threatening the
normal biological condition of a predator
population or, if left untreated would spread
to other populations.
*Section 1: (2) would read:
(2) The Commissioner determines that airborne
or same day airborne shooting is necessary to
accomplish a game management program
authorized by the Board of Game.
SENATOR PETE KELLY noted that his amendment would put some
sideboards by bringing the commissioner back into the loop. Under
Representative Croft's amendment, there are ambiguities that might
make it an irresistible target for a lawsuit from the more radical
environmental and animal rights groups in the state.
Number 1550
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Senator Pete Kelly whether the commissioner
would make written findings on (A) and (B) or (C) independently.
SENATOR PETE KELLY replied yes. He is concerned about the
necessity in dealing with a predator population should it have
parasite or disease outbreaks, which was not brought up in the
initiative process, as seen in the lice infestation jump from the
canine population to the wolf population.
Number 1593
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that there are a couple of points of
agreements and disagreements. He cited the definition of troubling
terms, adequate data, irreversible decline, and the authority to
get rid of diseased wolves as areas of agreements. He cited the
use of agents, and definition of "biological emergency" as areas
that are not consistent between the two amendments.
Number 1698
SENATOR PETE KELLY stated the findings are specific and sound to
implement predator control. The "minimum number of wolves
necessary" creates another target. He said, "What Doug Popes' (ph)
idea of minimum is and what the average Alaskans idea of what the
minimum is may be very different. It may also be very different
between what Doug Pope (ph) thinks or the Friends of the Animals,
who would more than likely institute a lawsuit, or the people of
McGrath who depend on prey populations for food source and what
they consider a minimum." The Board of Game is called to manage a
specific resource for abundance, therefore, he is afraid that
putting in "minimum" is counter to what the steward agency is
suppose to do. He thinks the sideboards that he has recommended
are very defendable; they still allow the Board of Game to be in
the loop and to make some calls for predator control without
worrying about a lawsuit, which is also why a biological emergency
doesn't need to be defined. He would rather leave it up to the
public process than to memorialize it in statute.
Number 1801
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated the language - "there is no feasible
solution other than airborne control to eliminate the biological
emergency" - in Representative Croft's amendment troubles her
because it is open to who a person is and that person's beliefs.
In other words, it is open to debate. In addition, removing the
language - "minimum number of wolves necessary" - is of concern
because what constitutes a minimum number - one, two, three, the
alpha male, alpha female, or the entire pack. Those are decisions
that have to be made by those who are into these types of things.
Number 1866
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, in reading both amendments side by
side, Representative Croft's deletes any authority for airborne
hunting. He wondered whether that is the intent.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied it is neither the intent nor the
effect.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted the deletion of the language - "(2)
an employee or agent of the department who, as part of a game
management program, is authorized to shoot or to assist in shooting
wolf, wolverine, fox, or lynx on the same day that the employee or
agent has been airborne" - and the insertion of the language - "(2)
activities conducted by the Department of Fish and Game to remove
diseased or louse infected wolves that are considered a threat to
the health of the population" - makes no reference to airborne
hunting.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded the first part of the amendment
reads, "However, the Board of Game may authorize a wolf control
program involving the shooting of wolves from the air if ..."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved the following language incorporating
Senator Pete Kelly's disease language [new Amendment 1]:
"However, the Board of Game may authorize a predator
control program involving the shooting of wolves from the
air if
(1) (A) A disease or parasite is threatening
the normal biological condition of a predator
population or, if left untreated would spread
to other populations."
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted it seems to be similar language.
Number 2042
SENATOR PETE KELLY said he would resist any amendment other than
the one that he has provided because the stated reason for the
initiative was to stop airborne hunting of wolves, and this stops
it. Further restrictions on the Department of Fish and Game
restricts its ability to carry out game management. His amendment
can go as far as it can and still have a departmental management
program while not allowing for aerial hunting of predators.
Number 2079
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated new Amendment 1 is good because it
considers both amendments.
Number 2105
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he took part of his amendment verbatim,
and clarified as to whether Senator Pete Kelly is considering his
amendment as all or nothing.
Number 2116
SENATOR PETE KELLY stated Representative Croft is pulling out of
his amendment something that further protects wolves/predators, but
nothing that protects prey populations. The current law already
over protects predators when he wants to protect both predators and
prey populations.
Number 2155
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated the new Amendment 1 gives a whole new
blanket authority in the area of diseases and lice.
SENATOR PETE KELLY replied he doesn't have any objection to that.
He has objection to going too far to protect predator populations
even to their detriments. It wouldn't allow for aerial hunting if
they have a disease. He further stated that the original bill was
just fine. It carried out the objectives of the original
initiative - to not allow for aerial hunting. But language was
purposely included to make it so that no predator - specifically
wolves - could not be killed by the department even when necessary
because some people don't like killing wolves. He reiterated he
wants to maintain the objective of the initiative and still allow
the department to carry out predator control.
Number 2226
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT withdrew his motion on new Amendment 1.
Number 2240
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether it would be the same if it read,
"to allow predation of the predator for parasitically bothered
critters."
Number 2295
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that is what he did, but he is getting
the sense that this is a package deal. His idea of incorporating
elements of both amendment is not what the sponsor wants, which is
why he withdrew it.
Number 2340
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected. The most problematic section is the
removal of the language "or assist in shooting".
Number 2381
SENATOR PETE KELLY stated the language was removed to deal with the
issue of assisting departmental employees so that they can carry
out the actual shooting of the animal while being transported by a
helicopter or airplane, which is the current practice in most
cases.
Number 2411
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated the departmental personnel would be the ones
actually pulling the trigger.
SENATOR PETE KELLY said yes.
Number 2419
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she doesn't have a problem with the
removal of the language - "or assist in shooting" - because the
department needs the flexibility to hire a pilot while they do the
shooting. She does have a problem with the language - "agent" - in
Section 2 (2), however.
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated that is not addressed in this amendment.
TAPE 99-60, SIDE B
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN KOTT called for an at-ease at 3:08 p.m. and called the
meeting back to order at 3:12 p.m.
Number 0029
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there is any objection to Amendment 2.
There being none, it was so adopted.
Number 0038
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move SB 74, as amended, from
the committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero
fiscal note(s). There being no objection, HCSSB 74(JUD) was so
moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN KOTT recessed the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to the call of the chair at 3:14 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|