Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/08/2000 02:10 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
March 8, 2000
2:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTMENTS
Alaska Judicial Council
Katie Hurley - Wasilla
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Commission on Judicial Conduct
Arthur Peterson - Juneau
Michael McConahy - Fairbanks
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Violent Crimes Compensation Board
Stephen Boyer Wallace - Kodiak
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 56
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
prohibiting certain initiatives relating to wildlife.
- MOVED HJR 56 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 56
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: WILDLIFE INITIATIVES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/16/00 2206 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
2/16/00 2206 (H) RES, JUD, FIN
2/28/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
2/28/00 (H) <Bill Postponed to 3/1/00>
3/01/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
3/01/00 (H) Moved Out of Committee
3/01/00 (H) MINUTE(RES)
3/03/00 2384 (H) RES RPT 8DP
3/03/00 2384 (H) DP: COWDERY, BARNES, MORGAN,
WHITAKER,
3/03/00 2384 (H) JOULE, MASEK, KAPSNER, HUDSON
3/03/00 2384 (H) FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
3/03/00 2408 (H) COSPONSOR(S): JOULE
3/08/00 (H) JUD AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
KATIE HURLEY, Appointee
to the Alaska Judicial Council
P.O. Box 870157
Wasilla, Alaska 99687-0157
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as an appointee to the Alaska
Judicial Council.
ARTHUR H. PETERSON, Appointee
to the Commission on Judicial Conduct
DILLON & FINDLEY, P.C.
350 North Franklin Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as an appointee to the Commission
on Judicial Conduct.
STEPHEN BOYER WALLACE, Appointee
to the Violent Crimes Compensation Board
P.O. Box 4054
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as an appointee to the Violent
Crimes Compensation Board.
MICHAEL P. MCCONAHY, Appointee
to the Commission on Judicial Conduct
711 Gaffney Road, Suite 202
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as an appointee to the Commission
on Judicial Conduct.
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MORGAN, JR.
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 56.
HOLLY CARROLL
(Address not provided)
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged members to oppose HJR 56 because it
removes the democratic rights of Alaskan voters.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 56.
SUSAN SCHRADER, Conservation Advocate
Alaska Conservation Voters
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, Alaska 99802-2151
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 56.
DICK BISHOP, Vice President
Alaska Outdoor Council
211 Fourth Street, Number 302A
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 56.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-30, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 2:10 p.m. No other members were
present at the call to order. Representatives Rokeberg, James,
Murkowski, Croft and Kerttula arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTMENTS
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN announced that the first order of business
would be confirmation hearings on the Governor's appointments. He
pointed out that the Senate Judiciary Committee was supposed to
have met with the committee for joint confirmation hearings on this
date; however, the Senate was in session, and that was no longer
the case.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN acknowledged that there wasn't yet a quorum
present but indicated he would take testimony from the various
appointees.
Alaska Judicial Council
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN called on Ms. Hurley and asked her explain why
she wants to be on the Alaska Judicial Council.
Number 0076
KATIE HURLEY, Appointee to the Alaska Judicial Council, came before
the committee to testify. She indicated that she did not seek the
position but was asked by the Governor to serve. She was honored
to receive the phone call because she considers the council very
important for the government of the state, and having been present
at the constitutional convention when the council was created she
thought that she could give an additional perspective on the
judicial article of the constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated he can't think of anybody else who
could add such a broad perspective as Ms. Hurley. She is right in
that the council is important. The council is where all the
appointees come from.
Number 0185
MS. HURLEY stated the two meetings that she has attended so far
have presented interesting and exciting exchanges.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated that he is considering such an
approach for other technical positions. He cited a board of
engineers as an example, which could be used to screen engineering
applicants for very specific jobs.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed his appreciation of Ms. Hurley and
her willingness to serve on the council. He suggested that she
contact the Senate Judiciary Committee's aide for their schedule
and how to proceed forward, as this was suppose to be a joint
meeting.
Commission on Judicial Conduct
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN called on Mr. Peterson and asked him to
express how he would contribute to the commission.
Number 0412
ARTHUR H. PETERSON, Appointee to the Commission on Judicial
Conduct, came before the committee to testify as an attorney in
private practice in Juneau. He currently serves on the commission
and is present today for a reappointment hearing. His merit in
being on the commission is due to a reasonable amount of
intelligence. He has over 30 years of practice in the state and
has gained some worthwhile knowledge during that time working for
the legislature, the attorney general's office and in private
practice. He noted that serving on the commission is not always
fun, especially given the issues that it addresses. It requires a
certain level of patience and diligence.
Number 0539
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Peterson whether there really are
problems with the legal system in relation to judicial conduct.
MR. PETERSON answered the commission deals with the ethical
behavior of judges; it does not deal with the wisdom of their
decisions. The commission deals with judges who have misbehaved on
the bench or who have engaged in some conduct off the bench that is
relative to his/her judicial performance. Having been on the
commission now for almost five years, he said, he is repeatedly
amazed at the squeaky clean "bunch" of judges here in the state
compared to other jurisdictions. A reason for this, he believes,
is the selection method for the judiciary. Judges in other states
have found that campaigning for an elected position puts them in
difficult situations, and has resulted in unqualified judges.
Number 0795
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Peterson how the commission finds
out about a judge's misbehavior.
MR. PETERSON answered the overwhelming majority of cases stem from
complaints presented to the commission, which primarily come from
dissatisfied litigants. Upon receipt of a complaint, staff
conducts a primary investigation into the matter and makes a
recommendation to the commission. In the case of a dissatisfied
litigant, the commission typically summarily dismisses the
complaint and provides advise on the proper process for an appeal.
The commission, he noted, has the authority to initiate a complaint
itself.
Number 0951
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Peterson whether it takes legal
action for the commission to dismiss a judge from the bench. It's
a pretty high calling.
MR. PETERSON answered the commission makes recommendations to the
supreme court for action on misconduct, but the commission can take
action for low-level complaints such as, the recommendation for
counseling in the case of a substance abuse problem, or the
recommendation for more training in a particular area of the law.
Actions such as removal, suspension or retirement from the bench
are matters for the supreme court.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN announced the arrival of Representative Beth
Kerttula.
Number 1072
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed his appreciation of Mr. Peterson and
his willingness to serve on the commission. He suggested that he
contact the Senate Judiciary Committee's aide for their schedule
and how to proceed forward, as this was suppose to be a joint
meeting.
Violent Crimes Compensation Board
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN called on Mr. Wallace and asked him to
indicate why he in interested in being reappointed to the board.
Number 1245
STEPHEN BOYER WALLACE, Appointee to the Violent Crimes Compensation
Board, testified via teleconference from Kodiak. He was appointed
in the fall of 1998 and has served since that time. He would enjoy
continuing to serve as the attorney member of the board. It has
been an interesting process for him. When he started, he remarked,
that he didn't know a lot about the board, other than his
association with it as a police officer and prosecutor making
referrals and answering questions regarding cases. He doesn't have
a specific case to present to the committee, but he is willing to
answer any questions.
Number 1319
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Wallace whether he sees any conflict
with his duties as an associate attorney with Jamin, Ebell, Schmitt
& Mason and his service on the board.
MR. WALLACE answered the only time that there was a conflict was
when he personally knew of a particular case out of Kodiak; in
which case, the other board members "stepped in."
Number 1386
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Wallace what type of law he
specializes in for the firm.
MR. WALLACE answered the firm is a general practice law firm with
offices in Kodiak and Seattle. He practices domestic relations,
criminal law, estate planning, contracts, and corporations. The
firm does not practice personal injury law in Kodiak, although the
firm has been involved in the Exxon Valdez litigation on behalf of
a plaintiff.
Number 1451
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Wallace whether the firm may deal in
some phase of the law that might somehow compromise his judicial
balance in relation to his service on the board.
MR. WALLACE answered the firm practices criminal law, and in
private practice the only way to go is criminal defense. He has
not found his employment with the firm in conflict with his work on
the board, except when he is personally familiar with a case out of
Kodiak. He feels that he is very confident in discerning any
conflict and announcing it for the record.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN announced the arrival of Representatives Eric
Croft, Lisa Murkowski and Norman Rokeberg.
Number 1544
REPRESENTATIVE LISA MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Wallace how many members
serve on the board.
MR. WALLACE replied three members serve on the board. There is a
physician member, a public member and an attorney member.
Number 1566
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA asked Mr. Wallace about the average
type of claim and award.
MR. WALLACE answered in statute the maximum compensation is $25,000
per incident. In the case of death, the maximum compensation is
$40,000. He noted that individuals submit expense applications,
which can be anywhere from less than one hundred dollars to
thousands of dollars of uninsured medical expenses. Individuals
who incur additional fees can submit an addendum claim as well.
The board submits a report annually through the Department of
Public Safety, which lists the claims paid during a given year.
Number 1683
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed his appreciation of Mr. Wallace and
his willingness to serve on the board. He suggested that he
contact the Senate Judiciary Committee's aide for their schedule
and how to proceed forward, as this was suppose to be a joint
meeting.
Commission on Judicial Conduct
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN called on Mr. McConahy and asked him to expand
on his dossier.
Number 1742
MICHAEL P. MCCONAHY, Appointee to the Commission on Judicial
Conduct, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He indicated
that the most important part of his dossier is that he is a fly
fisherman. [The comment was followed with laughter.] He has been
in Fairbanks since 1978, the year he graduated from law school.
After about two years of private practice, he went to work for the
City of Fairbanks as an assistant attorney. From there he worked
for a pre-paid legal trust for a plumber and pipefitters union in
the early 1980s. From there he worked for the district attorney as
an assistant district attorney during which time he dealt with
rural prosecutions and ultimately became in charge of drug
prosecutions. Since 1986, he has been with the law firm McConahy,
Zimmerman & Wallace as a trial lawyer for insurance cases, which
takes him around the state. He explained that he is on the
commission as the result of flattery. In other words, an outgoing
commission member indicated that he would do a good job and
encouraged him to apply.
Number 1879
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. McConahy whether he agrees with the
previous appointee who indicated that the state has a squeaky clean
judicial system compared to other jurisdictions. He also asked Mr.
McConahy how he would feel and what he would do if there was a
misconduct of a peer.
MR. MCCONAHY replied he has attended three meetings so far, but he
has not been involved in a hearing dealing with the merits of
judicial conduct. He has, however, reviewed voluminous records of
allegations of misconduct. Furthermore, he's impressed with the
quality, dedication and insight of the civilian members of the
board, and feels comfortable in reviewing the statutes and
regulations. He noted that there is a provision for recusal; in
which, he has exercised but he wouldn't have a problem dealing with
a judge in Fairbanks, for example, who has been accused of
misconduct.
Number 2007
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed his appreciation of Mr. McConahy and
his willingness to serve on the commission. He suggested that he
contact the Senate Judiciary Committee's aide for their schedule
and how to proceed forward, as this was suppose to be a joint
meeting.
HJR 56 - CONST. AM: WILDLIFE INITIATIVES
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 56, proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the State of Alaska prohibiting certain
initiatives relating to wildlife.
Number 2046
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MORGAN, JR., Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of HJR 56, came forward. He offered to read the sponsor
statement.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether there were any questions.
Number 2092
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT asked Representative Morgan, in essence,
whether there was any history regarding the framers of the Alaska
constitution and why the provisions that were included were
selected.
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN said he didn't know.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested that might be a good question for
Dick Bishop [Alaska Outdoor Council]. He then called upon Holly
Carroll to testify.
Number 2138
HOLLY CARROLL came forward to testify on behalf of herself and
Alaskan voters. She expressed appreciation for the work that
legislators do, which is a part of democracy. However, the ballot
initiative process is also a wonderful thing given to people by the
constitution. She believes it is the only way, aside from electing
legislators and letting them do what they do, that people can get
involved in the lawmaking process; in that way, they voice their
opinions and try to get a law made.
MS. CARROLL continued. She told members that this process hasn't
been abused. Since 1960, only 17 ballot initiatives have passed,
and only 2 of those had anything to do with wildlife. The process
isn't being misused by the public; instead, it is being used if and
when it is needed. Ms. Carroll said she could live with this
resolution if it made the ballot process more available to Alaskans
or would resolve the complex issues regarding subsistence or
wildlife management. However, it will do neither. Instead, it
will remove a democratic process, a check and balance available to
"the fourth branch of government," the people. Ms. Carroll noted
that she had chosen to testify before this particular committee
because she believes its members are to decide upon the merits,
legalities or fairness of individual bills. She concluded:
... I think this bill is going to remove some of my
democratic rights - and I don't have a lot after I elect
you. That's it. I elect you, and then you get to look
out for me, which is great. But ... the ballot
initiative is a nice process that if I need to get
involved, I can. If you take this away, even on single
issues, you're taking it away completely from all
Alaskans. So I'm urging you to oppose HJR 56, in that I
think it's the removal of my democratic rights as a
voter. And I urge you to consider the best interests of
all Alaskans and allow us to use this process when we
feel the need.
Number 2250
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Carroll whether she lives in Juneau.
MS. CARROLL answered that she lives in Juneau now but was born and
raised in Fairbanks.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested that because she lives in Juneau,
where laws are made and there is access to lawmakers, Ms. Carroll's
input would be far more valuable and effective using the
[legislative] process, rather than being part of a ballot petition
effort and being one of 22,000 signers on a petition.
MS. CARROLL pointed out that if she lived in Fairbanks, she could
participate in the legislative process via teleconference.
Furthermore, she may not be just one of 22,000 signers on a
petition; she may want to start a petition herself. She believes
it is a very valid democratic process, no less effective than the
[legislative] process here. Ms. Carroll mentioned two recent
initiatives, one regarding same-sex marriage and one involving
snaring that wasn't passed. She restated that it is a very
effective process, and removing it completely won't solve the
problem.
Number 2338
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES responded that she appreciates Ms.
Carroll's testimony and certainly doesn't want to depress the
public's ability to make changes in laws about which they can't
seem to get the legislature to listen. But the constitution also
requires, in the area of resources, management on a sustained yield
basis and for the common use of everyone, including people who want
to look at [animals] or eat them. When using a sustained yield
basis, it appears to her that it needs to be "biologically driven."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES further said that initiatives, however, aren't
passed based on science but on public opinion, which doesn't always
match scientific developments. The interest in this piece of
legislation is because it wasn't anticipated, at the time of
creating the constitution, that outside influence on these issues,
through money and efforts, would convince people to do certain
things. She suggested that a line should be drawn at allowing
public opinion to make those decisions. Representative James asked
Ms. Carroll whether she sees a difference between management of
resources and something like legalizing marijuana or another issue
that is more based on general consensus and public opinion.
Number 2447
MS. CARROLL agreed that many times there is outside influence.
Larger groups such as the NRA [National Rifle Association] and the
[Alaska] Outdoor Council get a lot of money from outside, for
instance, as do conservation groups sometimes. Ultimately,
however, it is only money and money cannot cast votes. Alaskans
cast votes. Outside influence will always be there, and this
[resolution] won't solve that. Ms. Carroll pointed out that the
constitution doesn't allow initiatives in a couple of areas having
to do with money and the budget. She also agreed that people could
put something outlandish on the ballot. But she believes that
history has shown [ends mid-speech because of tape change; log
notes show that Ms. Carroll cited the recent anti-snaring
initiative regarding wolves, which didn't pass, as an example where
the public has made a sound decision].
TAPE 00-30, SIDE B
Number 0001
MS. CARROLL continued. She pointed out that she, a regular voting
member of the public, is a zoologist; in that sense, she is more
qualified than some legislators to make decisions about wildlife
management, because she fully understands it. Furthermore, she
would be just as concerned if this resolution were about any other
issue such as marriage. She said it is about the process itself
and taking it away with this resolution. Ms. Carroll concluded:
I think that you have to trust that even if an outlandish
group of people get some very, very unbiological view and
craft a ballot initiative, that the general people will
consider it on its merits, and it will not pass if it is
not sound.
Number 0060
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), came forward to testify
on behalf of the department. He noted that Wayne Regelin, director
of the Division of Wildlife Conservation, had asked him to testify
because he is attending a Board of Game meeting in Fairbanks;
otherwise, he would have been here today.
MR. BRUCE told members that wildlife and fish are two subjects that
Alaskans like to argue about the most. They have been very
important in Alaska's history and statehood. He cited that the
outside interests that did not want to see statehood and see the
state manage its own fisheries resources made the argument that
Alaskans were not capable of managing their own resources; that
they were too close to them; that they wouldn't be professional;
that they would be too emotional, et cetera. When Alaska became a
state, the citizens chose to have a system of wildlife and
fisheries management that was very open and involving.
MR. BRUCE continued. There have been citizen boards since
statehood, which are comprised of average citizens knowledgeable
about these types of issues who are empowered by the legislature
and governor to make decisions on how resources should be used.
That system is further strengthened by an entire network of local
fish and game advisory committees to even further allow citizens to
vocalize and provide ideas on how wildlife and fisheries resources
should be managed. History has shown that Alaskans are not too
emotional or that the issues are not too technical for citizens to
make decisions on, as the resources speak for themselves. The
resources are in general very healthy, unlike many other places.
Number 0164
MR. BRUCE continued. The ADF&G cannot support this resolution. It
fails to recognize that there is more to managing the public's
wildlife resources than the application of science and technical
expertise. Wildlife management must also consider and respond to
the values held by the public on how they want their wildlife
managed. In other words, the role of scientific management is to
achieve the goals and objects desired by the people for the
conservation and utilization of their resources. There are usually
many options for wildlife management that are biologically
sustainable and consistent with sustained yield. The principle of
achieving the maximum human harvest of big game for human
consumption as the highest and best is not a scientific matter;
it's a public policy matter, and like many public policy issues
there are differing views. The initiative process is the most
direct way that the public can sort out their views on public
policies, and taking that away is something the ADF&G cannot
support.
MR. BRUCE continued. Wildlife management involves scientific and
technical expertise, and so does the administration of many other
public functions. He cited fisheries, education, public health,
and transportation planning as examples of complex subjects
involving the application of special training and expertise to
manage and conduct programs effectively. There appears to be no
reason to single out wildlife management as a subject too complex
or too emotional for the public to make policy decisions through
the initiative process. Furthermore, it is worth remembering that
a law enacted by an initiative can be amended by the legislature
immediately, if there is an error or if it brings about
unanticipated consequences that are injurious to the public or
wildlife resources. And after two years the legislature may repeal
the law passed by the initiative entirely, if the legislature
believes that it is inappropriate for the state. Given these
checks and balances, he said, there is little risk that a poor
initiative in the eyes of the legislature would cause any lasting
harm to the state's wildlife.
MR. BRUCE continued. The department believes that removing
wildlife issues from the reach of the initiative process would lead
to more conflict rather than less. The initiative process, he
said, at least allows an outlet or venue for people to make
decisions collectively. The people are still going to have views,
and they're still going to take measures to get those views
advanced. The department thinks that this would result in
increased litigation, and politicize the work of their biologists.
The department does not think that removing the public's ability to
act directly, when they feel that it is necessary, does not promote
better faith in government. The department also believes that it
would make their job of managing the state's wildlife more
difficult rather than easier.
Number 0329
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Bruce whether he had said that there
was discussion during the constitutional convention on wildlife
matters.
MR. BRUCE answered that he was not referring to the constitutional
convention itself; he was referring to history. Richard Cooley
(ph) and former-Senator Gruening have written histories on salmon
management during territorial days.
Number 0355
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that the state's wolf control
program was adjusted for political correctness, and now it is
facing some critical issues because of the biological neglect
created by that controversy. She asked Mr. Bruce whether he would
agree that there has been a change and that the issue is more acute
today as a result of abandoning that biologically determined
program.
MR. BRUCE replied that he worked for former-Commissioner Rosier
[Hickel Administration] when an aerial wolf control program was
proposed and the Administration was prepared to move it forward.
This issue has been controversial for a long time. He elaborated:
You may all remember what happened. There was a great
outcry both from within Alaska and out[side] Alaska.
There was the threatened tourism boycott, and in the end
Governor Hickel made the decision that moving ahead with
that program was too costly, too controversial, and the
benefits did not outweigh the cause.
Number 0491
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Bruce whether the state is in an
acute situation now because it has abandoned the sustained
management program.
MR. BRUCE replied he doesn't think that the state has abandoned
sustained yield management. The populations are still sustaining
themselves and providing a yield, in most cases. The question
really is whether or not the state wants to adopt a policy to
manipulate predator populations in order to boost prey populations
for a higher yield. The debate really is about whether or not the
state wants to have a high yield for human use in particular
locations or whether the state wants a system that allows a low
level of natural equilibrium to develop between unmanipulated
predator populations and their prey.
Number 0574
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Bruce whether he agrees with nature
taking its course as a cycle.
MR. BRUCE replied that is not a decision for the department to
make. It is a decision for the public, the legislature and the
Board of Game. The department works to achieve the goals set by
the aforementioned. He stated:
One of the things that is characteristic of the Alaska
system is that we have tried to separate and make clear
when policy decisions are being made and when the
biological, technical expertise is being exercised to try
to achieve those policy decisions. The department does
that part. The public processes that we have do the
other part.
Number 0665
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Bruce whether McGrath is at a
Tier II level. In other words, which areas are restricting outside
hunters in relation to predator control?
MR. BRUCE replied he can't answer that question off the top of his
head.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Bruce whether there has ever been
a study on the impact of outside hunters in relation to moose and
the impact of predators.
MR. BRUCE replied he can't reference a study right now. The Board
of Game restricts guided hunting and takes other measures when a
population is declining in order to maximize opportunities for
Alaskans.
Number 0713
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Bruce whether the Board of Game has
eliminated outside hunters in McGrath.
MR. BRUCE replied he can't answer that question now. He would get
back to him with an answer.
Number 0727
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that this is a very emotional issue. He
posed an example where an initiative says "we're not going allow
you to control predation, that we do want to go on the natural
cycle." A herd like the Fortymile [caribou] herd, he said,
migrates across the international line; he mentioned that the
Canadians had decided to "sterilize the alpha male and female to
help reduce rather than to actually kill the predators," which was
somewhat successful. He stated:
My question though is, if we had some initiative like
this that we were going to mess with the predator side of
it and it was my understanding that Fortymile herd was
kind of going over the limits would that preclude you
then. Would you, as a biologist, say that well gosh we
can't do anything about that. We're just gonna have to
live with that and maybe say "sayonara" to the Fortymile
herd.
MR. BRUCE answered that the ADF&G is conducting a sterilization
program with wolves in the Fortymile area, and they are seeing some
recovery. It is experimental, however, and they are trying to
learn from it. It looks promising at this point, but it is too
early to tell how successful it might be and how wide it might be
applied. In response to Representative Green's broader question,
it would be hard to tell whether an initiative involving a natural
cycle would get past the Alaskan people.
Number 0838
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN rephrased his scenario:
The initiative petition hasn't passed, but it's up now;
it's got the required number of signatures .... Let's
assume it's the Fortymile herd that we're concerned about
or something else like that. Would the Department of
Fish & Game then go on any kind of an educational program
to say, "Well, now, wait a minute; we may not want to do
this from a scientific standpoint"?
MR. BRUCE answered that it is the department's job to provide
information on the likely outcome, which can be done without
lobbying for one side or the other.
Number 0911
SUSAN SCHRADER, Conservation Advocate, Alaska Conservation Voters
(ACV), stated that ACV is a non-profit organization dedicated to
protecting Alaska's environment through public education and
advocacy. She said that they have 40 organizations that represent
about 22,000 registered Alaskan voters. They have consistently
opposed efforts by the legislature to limit Alaskan's
constitutional right to participate in the initiative process and
unfortunately HJR 56 is yet another attack on that right that they
oppose. She explained that none of their reasons are new; they
have been echoed by other folks that have testified on HJR 56.
MS. SCHRADER stated that although HJR 56 addresses just wildlife
initiatives to many of their members it represents an erosion of
public access to government, in general. When one group of
Alaskans is denied an opportunity to address an issue that they
strongly believe in, through the initiative process, the freedom of
all Alaskans is being threatened. She pointed out that public
policy issues that are addressed through the initiative process are
very likely a lot more public discussion than many of the bills
that make their way through committees in the legislative process.
Supporters of the resolution speak to wanting to put the wildlife
management issue back into the hands of the biologists and the
policies back into the hands of the legislators.
MS. SCHRADER continued. The legislature directs policy to the
ADF&G, and, through its confirmation process, essentially chooses
the members of the Board of Game. Thus the initiative process is
one of the few ways left to the citizens to perform an important
check on the powers of the legislature. She pointed out that when
they are being asked to relinquish their right to vote on wildlife
management issues, through the initiative process, they feel they
are being told that they are not competent enough to do so and that
they should trust the decisions resulting from an unbalanced
process that currently promotes the principles of intensive game
management and the values of consumptive users to the near-
exclusion of other users.
MS. SCHRADER indicated that the constitution's sustained yield and
multiple-use provisions have served Alaskans and their wildlife
very well. Those same framers of our constitution who were wise
enough to put Article VIII into it also included the initiative
process. They had faith in the ability of Alaskans to make
informed decisions through the initiative process and obviously
that faith that our framers had is not being shared by the
legislature. The legislature has ways to reverse the initiative
process if they see fit. SB 74, that passed into law last year,
was a fine example. It is within the legislature's power to
correct any legitimate problems that might result from the
initiative process. Clearly, the system is not broken and clearly
the wildlife of Alaska are not going to be safer if this tool of
democracy is taken away from the citizens of Alaska.
Number 1153
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA wondered whether there are other states
that ban wildlife initiatives like this.
MS. SCHRADER replied that the one state she is aware of is Utah,
which passed an amendment to their constitution in 1998. She
indicated that is does not directly ban the use of the initiative
process on wildlife issues, but rather it requires a two-thirds
vote by the general public to pass an initiative instead of a
majority. She noted that the supporters of the amendment on the
ballot out spent the opponents 12-1; they spent over a half-million
dollars and the National Rifle Association (NRA) figured most
prominently in the money coming in.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that she appreciates Ms. Schrader's
testimony and in a lot of ways is in agreement, but expressed
concern with the fact that Alaska is like five states within
itself, with Anchorage having the largest concentration of people
that make the decisions and many of those people really have no
understanding of the rural issues. She pointed out that HJR 56 is
a constitutional amendment and the public will have an opportunity
to vote on it, for it is not an advisory vote like last September.
If the legislature was to pass HJR 56, which would take a two-
thirds vote from the House and Senate, the public will still have
the opportunity to say, "No." She added that she believes having
a two-thirds vote required for a constitutional amendment is a good
one. She wondered whether Ms. Schrader was opposed to the ideas
she just suggested.
Number 1357
MS. SCHRADER said that obviously Representative James is right that
if HJR 56 gets its two-thirds vote in the House and Senate then it
will go to the public and once again the concern is that it will
once again pull in outside money and a lot of time, money and
effort will be spent on both sides. She disagreed with
Representative James's comment about so many folks being
concentrated in an urban setting, like Anchorage, and not having an
appreciation for rural issues. She pointed out that it does not
take long to be in Alaska and gain a respect for people who live in
rural areas.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to Ms. Schrader's comment about huge
sums of money coming in from both sides. She pointed out that in
their campaign finance reform issue they have made a limit on the
amount of money that candidates can get and where they can get the
money from, but they have not made any restrictions on the
initiative process. She said that she disagrees with outside money
coming in. She indicated that if Alaskans could make their own
decisions without influence from people outside of the state then
she believes they would not be so concerned with issues like the
one before them.
MS. SCHRADER agreed with Representative James and said that the
money issue is so troubling with all aspects of the democratic
process.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that it would also help if there
was truth in advertising.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI expressed concern with Ms. Schrader's
comment that the legislature does not have faith in the Alaskan
people on wildlife management issues. She pointed out that their
concern is not with what the Alaskan people know and understand,
but rather the influence by the outside dollars. She said that to
say that the legislature does not have faith in Alaskans is a
pretty condemning and broad statement. She explained that Alaska
is a very cheap state to buy on an issue with only 650,000 people
living here.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that she believes every single
legislator is concerned with what the public wants and they want to
be sure that the public has all the information they need to make
an informed decision. She added that the legislature needs to do
a better job in communicating. She asked Ms. Schrader if the
legislature worked harder to let the public know the details of
what they deal with everyday would it help them to have a better
relationship with the public.
MS. SCHRADER replied that she is not sure what the public would end
up hearing along the lines of communication; there is a lot of
opportunity for a disconnect.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed that the disconnect is there, but she
stressed that she does not want it to be said that she does not
trust the public.
MS. SCHRADER indicated that it has to do with the legislature not
having faith in the values of many Alaskans. She pointed out that
there are many Alaskans who have values that differ from many of
the more vocal hunters and trappers in the communities. She said
that those values may be influenced by outside money, but that
really their value system is something held more deeply. She
pointed out that the whole reason they are having initiatives is
because many Alaskans feel that their values are being discounted
by the Board of Game and some of the actions by the legislature,
such as the intensive game management statutes.
Number 1929
DICK BISHOP, Vice President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), stated
it's astounding that the legislature is being blamed for wanting to
restrict the opportunities of the general public, when in fact it
was a segment of the public that requested that this type of
resolution be introduced. The AOC strongly supports HJR 56 and is
part of that segment of the public who has supported the
introduction of this resolution. The reason is simple, he said:
"ballot box biology" is not the way to manage natural resources.
He pointed out that 26 states do not have an initiative process for
any subject matter, and as far as he can tell those states continue
to function.
MR. BISHOP continued. He referred to a letter from The Wildlife
Society, date March 3, 2000, which indicates that the initiative
process is not a very good way to manage wildlife. He's glad to
see the association taking such a position because it represents
approximately 300 wildlife biologists in the state who work for
state or federal agencies and are unable to take a position for
fear of risking their job. He noted that the society doesn't take
a direct position on this resolution, but it is clear that in
general they believe the initiative process for wildlife management
is a "loose canon."
MR. BISHOP continued. In reference to an earlier question about
the number of outside hunters in the McGrath area, he pointed out
that in Unit 19D-East there were 3 successful non-resident moose
hunters from 1995 to 1997, and 16 in 1998. The numbers indicate
that the level of human harvest by non-residents is quite low and
not significant in terms of the moose population levels in the
area. The take for residents is not very high either. He cited
that there were 55 successful resident moose hunters in 1995, 54 in
1996, 58 in 1997, and 38 in 1998. The information, he noted, is
from the Department of Fish & Game. Having been an area biologist
for that area, he said, most of the non-resident takes were in the
foothills and not in the controlled areas.
Number 2417
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Bishop whether she heard him say
that non-resident moose hunters went from 3 in 1996 to 16 in 1998.
MR. BISHOP replied, "That's correct." He read the following
asterisk from the statistics:
There is an error in the reported non-resident harvest
that occurred in that portion of Unit 19, referenced as
19D-East. This error was most obvious in the 1998
harvest data. That portion of Unit 19D is closed to non-
residents for moose hunting and has been closed since 1995. At
this time, it's unknown what might have caused this error. It
could have been that non-resident hunters incorrectly reported
their hunt location... [TAPE CHANGE]
TAPE 00-31, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. BISHOP continued. The AOC is concerned that the initiative
process is being abused; that it invites and even promotes the
casual, misinformed or uninformed reaction by people on complex
issues. He said, "It has become a battle of 30-second sound bytes
and there are no requirements for truth in advertising. And the
big bucks usually win." Initiatives, he said, are usually promoted
with emotions and simplistic reactions to complicated questions,
and quite often the issue is misrepresented as a failure of the
system. The system being the Board of Game, advisory committees,
and the perspectives of the members thereof. History has shown,
however, that initiative proponents generally fail to make their
case with the boards. He cited that at a debate in 1996, when the
same-day-airborne initiative was being advertized as a prohibition
on aerial shooting, which in itself was a misrepresentation, a
representative of Green Peace indicated that they had been going to
the Board of Game with their arguments for 10 years and had not
been able to make any headway. Mr. Bishop asked the representative
whether it ever occurred to them that they didn't have a credible
position. The representative was not forthcoming with an answer.
He further pointed out that, although people who promote
restrictions on hunting or trapping are displeased or uncomfortable
with their proposal not being accepted by the Board of Game, there
are lots of pro-hunting and pro-trapping proposals that are turned
down every year because they are "lousy." It's not just a question
of the board reviewing anti-hunting proposals with skepticism; it's
a question of all proposals being reviewed.
MR. BISHOP continued. He is familiar with the background of the
constitutional convention, but he believes this wasn't an issue at
the time. This wasn't even an issue at the national level until
about 10 years ago, when initiatives became popular as a means to
raise concerns that were not being successfully raised through the
regulatory and legislative processes. Mr. Bishop said "ballot box
biology" is mass marketing. He elaborated:
It's a great way to sell soap. If it looks, smells,
feels good and you can buy it, and you can read the list
of ingredients later and see whether you think it's all
right. If you do that though with our management of
wildlife reading the ingredients later can be very
unfortunate.
MR. BISHOP continued, saying "ballot box biology" is an end-run
around a representative government. He agrees that the loss of a
democratic privilege should not be taken lightly, but the system is
not set up for decisions of public policies to be made by "mob
rule" or by the majority-of-the-moment; it's set up to be decided
through a systematic process.
Number 0505
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA indicated that same-day-airborne hunting is
not really a sport but rather a type of predator control. She
further mentioned that this issue was discussed today on the floor
of the House of Representatives, and asked Mr. Bishop whether it's
more logical to use a helicopter rather than a small plane.
MR. BISHOP replied he didn't hear the debate on the floor, so he's
not sure of the exact context. He can say, however, that the use
of an aircraft is an issue of predator control, not sport hunting.
Moreover, there is a relative advantage to using a helicopter in
that it is more mobile, but it is also more expensive. He
reiterated that there are regulations against the use of
helicopters for hunting or trapping, so the only option is for a
government program, which can be an efficient means to control
predators.
Number 0654
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she was told that the only way to
control wolves is to take the pack or a major part of the pack, not
the occasional wolf. She asked Mr. Bishop whether that is a reason
why any type of predator control has to be done from the air.
MR. BISHOP replied there is no significant effect on lowering the
population of wolves, unless more than 40 percent are removed on an
annual basis. Wolf populations are capable of recovering 40
percent of their population within one year. He further stated
that in order to affect an actual reduction that is going to
provide a lasting opportunity for moose or caribou populations to
recover, 70 percent to 80 percent of the wolf population needs to
be removed for several consecutive years. That assumes, however,
that wolves are the problem. There are situations where bears are
a substantial or principal part of the problem. However, in Unit
19D-East wolves are clearly the problem.
Number 0781
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she is trying to understand the fear
associated with this issue. She asked Mr. Bishop whether it's a
fear of the Alaskan voters or a fear of outside influence. In
other words: Is the AOC's concern a true reflection of what
Alaskan themselves want to do?
MR. BISHOP replied it's a combination of both. He believes that
the ideological leadership is promoted by outside organizations.
He cited People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Friends of
the Animals, and Defenders of Wildlife as examples of outside
influence. Those organizations are in business to focus on an
issue, and they are very successful in raising a considerable
degree of concern. Yet a substantial part of the information
presented is untrue. He cited that Friends of the Animals raised
concerns nationwide when they indicated that wolf control in Alaska
would affect wolves in the Lower 48. He also cited that in 1996,
when the same-day-airborne hunting imitative was on the ballot, the
television advertisements indicated that the initiative intended to
ban aerial hunting.
Number 0971
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated is seems that the problem is with
truth in advertising and the influences therein, not Alaskans
themselves. She believes that the people of Alaska should have
their fundamental democratic right to speak up when they feel that
something is too far "out of wack."
MR. BISHOP replied the AOC recognizes that the initiative process
is something the people prize highly, but he can say with
confidence that the opportunity for public input on management
policies and actions is underutilized because it is so extensive.
The people simply don't use the current system, a system that has
been remarked as the most democratic for setting regulations in the
nation, if not the world.
MR. BISHOP continued. He commented it is a myth that those who sit
on the Board of Game who have a hunting license are incapable of
representing those who value non-consumptive uses. He knows that
a number of the members were appointed because they were considered
moderates or advocates of non-consumptive uses, and Governor
Knowles appointed them for those purposes. They have taken their
responsibilities very seriously and have done a very good job in
addressing all interests, and their position on wolf control
reflects that quite well.
Number 1129
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated that the big increase in Unit 19D
was for non-resident hunters, which went from 19 to 31 from 1995 to
1998, respectively. Resident hunters went from 92 to 56. He said,
... If the moose that had been taken by non-residents had
been taken by residents instead, they'd have the same
historic levels they always had. Or, playing with the
numbers, in [19]95 it was an 82-percent resident take.
By [19]98 it had dropped to 66. Taking the numbers one
more way. The success rate has stayed about the same for
resident hunters in that area. About 42 percent of the
hunts result in success. But the non-resident success
rate had skyrocketed by [19]98. Seventy-five, twenty-
five. So, isn't for [Unit] 19D the problem that you have extremely
successful and more numerous non-resident hunters in the 19D
McGrath area.
MR. BISHOP replied that he can't say for sure, but Unit 19D-East is
an area that cannot be legally hunted by non-residents. Even when
it was legal, he said, the area was rarely hunted by non-residents
because of competition with locals. He further pointed out that
the area isn't susceptible to guides because of the terrain, which
consists mostly of bottom lands and river lands, compared to
highlands and ridges favored by non-resident hunters. As a result,
the influence of non-resident hunting in the uplands probably
doesn't have much to do with the population levels of moose in the
lowlands.
Number 1299
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT wondered whether taking a lot of moose in the
highlands isn't going to affect the moose in the lowlands
eventually.
MR. BISHOP answered that it's not uncommon to have altitude
segregation for moose.
Number 1320
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said the data for Unit 19D indicates that
there is an error for 19D-East, not necessarily 19D itself; in that
way, the numbers reflect a decrease for residents and an increase
for non-residents.
MR. BISHOP replied that an increase from 19 to 31 is pretty slow.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied 12 is not a big number, but a 50-
percent increase is a big number.
MR. BISHOP indicated that he is just suggesting there are a number
of different ways to look at velocities.
Number 1403
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said,
Having been a hunter, there's an awful lot of ... If you
go hunting the same place every year, as we always did,
sometimes they were there and sometimes they were down
the road, so to speak. So, it happened to be that where
they went hunting there was more moose there that year.
It doesn't necessarily mean that it was a lot more people
or anything coming, I don't believe. And, you know, how
far these moose go is also an issue.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES continued. According to individuals in her
district and others, a reason why they want this legislation is
because they are afraid that if a new issue comes up they will not
have the ability to put up a fight. She noted that last year's
snare legislation just about took all the "breath" and money out of
them.
Number 1500
MR. BISHOP stated, according to his retired yet professional
opinion, neither the harvest by residents nor non-residents nor
even the combined harvest is a significant factor in the level of
moose populations. Most likely, the significant factor is the
level of predators because, in general, 85 percent to 90 percent of
the annual mortality of big game prey is due to predators, and only
2 percent to 7 percent is attributable to harvest by humans across
the state. A single wolf, he cited, requires about 12 moose a
year, the same number that non-residents took in 1998 compared to
the previous year. People incorrectly believe that hunting is a
huge factor in the population levels of big game prey, although it
can be the case in some circumstances. In general, however,
throughout most of Alaska, predation accounts for about 85 percent
of the mortality for big game prey. Accidents and diseases also
contribute.
Number 1608
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN called an at-ease at 4:09 p.m. and reconvened
the meeting at 4:12 p.m. He announced that all the public
testimony had be heard, and therefore he closed the public
testimony and asked if there was any committee discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commented, "On the one hand, ... the
discussion about what's happening in the state with the wolves is
somewhat of a detractor because we get focused on that and we've
got to recognize that what this bill does is amend the constitution
to allow for a restriction on the initiative process regarding
wildlife." She turned to Representative James' comment regarding
the constitutional obligation to manage for sustained yield and the
Wildlife Society's position paper which mentions the public trust
doctrine and how it applies to wildlife management. Representative
Murkowski expressed concern that there must be a good reason in
order to place wildlife within the restriction. She believes there
is probably a far better reason to place wildlife in a list of
restrictions than there is to make restrictions on initiatives that
relate to marriage or marijuana. However, "you don't want this to
... be the slippery slope for making this restriction to the
initiative process and kind of whittling away the people's ability
to participate in the process." Representative Murkowski said that
she believes wildlife is different than marriage or marijuana.
Therefore, she announced that she would support moving this [HJR
56] out of committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to Mr. Bishop's testimony that about
2-3 percent is human harvest while over 80-85 percent is [taken
from] predators. Therefore, he believes there will be times when
those things have to be taken into consideration. Representative
Green was concerned with the state becoming more populated, in
particular with individuals who did not grow up in Alaska and do
not "know the wildlife way," and sooner or later finding itself in
a bind.
Number 1818
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that he has a problem with any limit on
the initiative and referendum process, which he believes is in
place as a check on the legislature. "Given that this is the
people's check on us, we should almost never do it and I don't
think we should do it in this case." He commented that in these
discussions it tends to be condescending to the public, as though
they cannot understand an issue the way the legislature can. He
said, "We run two dangerous paths. One that when we take away
their [the public's] constitutional check on us and two when we
start to tell them what they meant and question whether they meant
anything at all or were informed enough to do it."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT commented that the initiative process is a
very modern process of the Western states primarily. Alaska, the
most westernmost state, should be the last place to limit the
initiative process. "The legislature has the potential to be
inherently anti-initiative because it is the major threat to our
power." Representative Croft said:
I find an irony in the idea that we were struggling to
vote on a constitutional amendment for a rural
preference. I assume if we had voted on that rural
preference and they'd voted yes and given us the
constitutional authority that we would be saying that was
a good reason to implement and yet we can't trust them,
apparently, in any other area of fish and game
management. I have not yet, and I hope I can survive my
tenure without voting to restrict the people's power in
initiative and I'll continue that by voting against this
[HJR 56].
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that he believes that the court system
is a threat to the legislature not the initiative process because
the legislature, through the initiative process, can take
corrective action within two years. The check is the ballot box
and the voter's ability to make those decisions. In this instance,
bringing this before the people is justifiable because of what has
occurred with the two issues that resulted in "biology by the
ballot box." He noted the inordinate amount of outside money and
influence that came in during those issues. This [HJR 56] is an
endeavor to stop that and maintain the state's sovereignty.
Representative Rokeberg said that he supported HJR 56.
Number 2039
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with Representative Croft in that she
did not want to take away any of the public's rights. However,
historically public opinion, although the strongest political
power, has not always been correct. She pointed out that this
country has a republic not a democracy, which is a check and
balance on this issue. She noted her belief that when people are
given all of the information, they will make the right decision.
The problem is that people do not always have all the information.
Still, there is another constitutional check and balance in this
issue as this constitutional amendment requires a two-third vote of
both houses in order to even place it on the ballot and those same
people have the opportunity to vote on the issue. Therefore, the
people's rights are not be taken away. In regards to the rural
amendment to the constitution, Representative James pointed out
that two-thirds of the districts in the state must agree to it.
Representative James concluded by saying that she is very much in
support of HJR 56.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA commented that if [the legislature] left
the Board of Game and the ADF&G alone to make decisions based on
science, she might be able to go for this. However, that is not
the case as exemplified last session when the legislature set
harvest levels high for human consumption. Representative Kerttula
believes this is a pendulum. She agreed that she did not like the
outside influences either, but it is condescending to Alaskan
voters to say that they cannot make a reasonable decision on this.
She noted that she has felt bad because her belief that the
legislature is behaving in a noninclusive manner. Therefore, she
said that she could not support this [HJR 56].
Number 2231
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved that the committee report HJR 56 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA objected.
Upon a roll call vote, Representatives Rokeberg, James, Murkowski
and Green voted in favor of reporting HJR 56 out of committee and
Representatives Croft and Kerttula voted against reporting HJR 56
out of committee. Therefore, HJR 56 was reported from the House
Judiciary Standing Committee committee by a 4-2 vote.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:27 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|