Legislature(1995 - 1996)

05/02/1996 01:10 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                          May 2, 1996                                          
                           1:10 p.m.                                           
                                                                               
                                                                               
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
                                                                               
 Representative Brian Porter, Chairman                                         
 Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman                                       
 Representative Con Bunde                                                      
 Representative Bettye Davis                                                   
 Representative Al Vezey                                                       
 Representative Cynthia Toohey                                                 
 Representative David Finkelstein                                              
                                                                               
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
                                                                               
 All Members Present                                                           
                                                                               
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
                                                                               
 CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 262(RES)(ct rule fld)                                  
 "An Act relating to management of game populations for maximum                
 sustained yield for human harvest and providing for the replacement           
 of areas closed to consumptive uses of game; relating to management           
 of fish and game areas."                                                      
                                                                               
      - HEARD AND HELD                                                         
                                                                               
 CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 43(L&C)                                                
 "An Act relating to registration by the Board of Registration for             
 Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors; clarifying the meaning             
 of practicing or offering to practice architecture, engineering, or           
 land surveying; and amending the definition of `practice of land              
 surveying.'"                                                                  
                                                                               
      - PASSED CSSB 43(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                   
                                                                               
 SENATE BILL NO. 257 am                                                        
 "An Act relating to the taking of game or fish for public safety              
 purposes."                                                                    
                                                                               
      - PASSED SB 257 AM OUT OF COMMITTEE                                      
                                                                               
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
                                                                               
 BILL:  SB 262                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: MANAGEMENT OF FISH/GAME POPULATION & AREA                        
 SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) MILLER, Sharp, Pearce, Halford, Green,                 
             Frank, Taylor                                                     
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 02/02/96      2286    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/02/96      2286    (S)   RES, JUD                                          
 02/05/96      2309    (S)   COSPONSOR(S): TAYLOR                              
 02/12/96              (S)   RES AT  3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 02/12/96              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 03/08/96              (S)   RES AT  3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 03/08/96              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 03/11/96              (S)   RES AT  3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 03/11/96              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 03/12/96      2709    (S)   RES RPT  CS  5DP 1NR   SAME TITLE                 
 03/12/96      2709    (S)   FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (F&G)                      
 03/18/96      2785    (S)   FIN REFERRAL ADDED                                
 03/26/96      2910    (S)   JUD REFERRAL WAIVED   Y12 N8                      
 04/03/96              (S)   FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 04/03/96              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                       
 04/04/96      3065    (S)   FIN RPT  2DP 2NR  (RES)CS                         
 04/04/96      3065    (S)   PREVIOUS FN (F&G)                                 
 04/09/96              (S)   RLS AT 12:20 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 04/09/96              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 04/10/96      3112    (S)   RULES TO CAL & 1 NR  4/10/96                      
 04/10/96      3116    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 04/10/96      3116    (S)   RES  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                      
 04/10/96      3116    (S)   ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD Y12 N8               
 04/10/96      3116    (S)   THIRD READING 4/11 CALENDAR                       
 04/11/96      3168    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 262(RES)                
 04/11/96      3168    (S)   PASSED Y12 N8                                     
 04/11/96      3169    (S)   COURT RULE CHANGES FAILED  Y13 N7                 
 04/11/96      3176    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 04/12/96      3690    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 04/12/96      3690    (H)   RESOURCES, JUDICIARY                              
 04/26/96              (H)   RES AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 04/26/96              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 04/29/96              (H)   RES AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 04/29/96              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 05/01/96              (H)   RES AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 05/02/96      4228    (H)   RES RPT HCS(RES) 2DP 2DNP 5NR                     
 05/02/96      4228    (H)   DP: OGAN, BARNES                                  
 05/02/96      4228    (H)   DNP: DAVIES, LONG                                 
 05/02/96      4228    (H)   NR: KOTT, NICHOLIA, WILLIAMS, GREEN               
 05/02/96      4228    (H)   NR: AUSTERMAN                                     
 05/02/96      4228    (H)   SENATE ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G) 3/12/96             
 05/02/96      4228    (H)   REFERRED TO JUDICIARY                             
 05/02/96              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
                                                                               
 BILL:  SB 43                                                                
 SHORT TITLE: ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS                            
 SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) LEMAN                                                  
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 01/23/95        71    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/23/95        71    (S)   L&C, FIN                                          
 03/07/95              (S)   L&C AT  1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 03/07/95              (S)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 02/20/96              (S)   L&C AT  1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 02/20/96              (S)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 02/27/96              (S)   L&C AT  1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 02/29/96              (S)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 03/12/96      2706    (S)   L&C RPT  CS  3DP 1NR      NEW TITLE               
 03/12/96      2706    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (DCED)                
 04/22/96      3433    (S)   FIN REFERRAL WAIVED                               
 04/24/96              (S)   RLS AT 10:30 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 04/24/96              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 04/24/96      3490    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR  4/24/96                        
 04/24/96      3520    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 04/24/96      3520    (S)   L&C  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                      
 04/24/96      3521    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                    
                             CONSENT                                           
 04/24/96      3521    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 43(L&C)                 
 04/24/96      3521    (S)   PASSED Y17 N3                                     
 04/24/96      3521    (S)   DUNCAN  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                 
 04/25/96      3578    (S)   RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP                      
 04/25/96      3580    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 04/26/96      4033    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 04/26/96      4033    (H)   LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY                       
 04/30/96              (H)   L&C AT  3:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 04/30/96              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 04/30/96      4166    (H)   L&C RPT  2DP 3NR                                  
 04/30/96      4167    (H)   DP: ROKEBERG, KOTT                                
 04/30/96      4167    (H)   NR: ELTON, KUBINA, MASEK                          
 04/30/96      4167    (H)   SENATE ZERO FISCAL NOTE                           
                             (DCED) 3/12/96                                    
 05/01/96              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 05/01/96              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 05/02/96              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
                                                                               
 BILL:  SB 257                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: TAKING FISH OR GAME FOR PUBLIC SAFETY                            
 SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) ZHAROFF                                                
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 02/02/96      2282    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/02/96      2282    (S)   RES, JUD                                          
 02/19/96              (S)   RES AT  3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 02/19/96              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 02/21/96      2488    (S)   RES RPT  5DP                                      
 02/21/96      2488    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G)                            
 03/22/96              (S)   JUD AT  9:00 AM BELTZ ROOM 211                    
 03/22/96              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 03/25/96              (S)   RLS AT  7:00 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 03/25/96              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 03/25/96      2862    (S)   JUD RPT  4DP                                      
 03/25/96      2862    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DPS-2)                         
 03/25/96      2862    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FN (F&G)                            
 04/03/96      3045    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR  4/3/96                         
 04/03/96      3045    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 04/03/96      3046    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                    
                             CONSENT                                           
 04/03/96      3046    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME   SB 257                      
 04/03/96      3046    (S)   PASSED Y12 N7 E1                                  
 04/03/96      3046    (S)   MILLER  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                 
 04/04/96      3070    (S)   HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO                        
                             4/9 CALENDAR                                      
 04/09/96      3097    (S)   HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO 4/10                   
                             CALENDAR                                          
 04/10/96      3129    (S)   PLACED AT BOTTOM OF CALENDAR                      
 04/10/96      3134    (S)   RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING                 
 04/10/96      3134    (S)   RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1                         
                             UNAN CONSENT                                      
 04/10/96      3134    (S)   AM NO  1  ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                    
 04/10/96      3134    (S)   AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                    
 04/10/96      3134    (S)   PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y20 N-                  
 04/10/96      3136    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 04/12/96      3690    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 04/12/96      3690    (H)   RESOURCES, JUDICIARY                              
 04/26/96              (H)   RES AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 04/26/96              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 04/29/96              (H)   RES AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 05/01/96              (H)   RES AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 05/01/96      4186    (H)   RES RPT  9DP                                      
 05/01/96      4186    (H)   DP: DAVIES, NICHOLIA, WILLIAMS, OGAN              
 05/01/96      4186    (H)   DP: BARNES, KOTT, LONG, GREEN,                    
                             AUSTERMAN                                         
 05/01/96      4186    (H)   SENATE ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G) 2/21/96             
 05/01/96      4186    (H)   2 SEN ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DPS) 3/25/96             
 05/02/96              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
                                                                               
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
                                                                               
 SARA HANNAN, Executive Director                                               
 Alaska Environmental Lobby                                                    
 P.O. Box 22151                                                                
 Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 463-3366                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against CSSB 262(RES)(ct rule fld).            
                                                                               
 KEVIN SAXBY, Assistant Attorney General                                       
 Natural Resources Section                                                     
 Civil Division (Anchorage)                                                    
 Department of Law                                                             
 1031 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 200                                            
 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1994                                                  
 Telephone:  (907) 269-5100                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on CSSB 262(RES)(ct rule fld).                 
                                                                               
 STEVEN DAUGHERTY, Assistant Attorney General                                  
 Natural Resources Section                                                     
 Civil Division                                                                
 Department of Law                                                             
 P.O. Box 110300                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3600                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on CSSB 262(RES)(ct rule fld).                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
 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:  Testified against CSSB 262(RES)(ct rule fld)             
                      and answered questions.                                  
                                                                               
 HUGH DOOGAN                                                                   
 359 Slater                                                                    
 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701                                                       
 Telephone:  (907) 456-1869                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on CSSB 262(RES)(ct rule fld).                 
                                                                               
 LYNN LEVENGOOD                                                                
 1008 Sixth Avenue                                                             
 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701                                                       
 Telephone:  (907) 452-5196                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on CSSB 262(RES)(ct rule fld).                 
                                                                               
 SENATOR LOREN LEMAN                                                           
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 115                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 465-2095                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of CSSB 43(L&C).                                 
                                                                               
 COLIN MAYNARD                                                                 
 510 "L" Street, Suite 200                                                     
 Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                       
 Telephone:  (907) 274-2236                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of CSSB 43(L&C).                    
                                                                               
 CRAIG SAVAGE                                                                  
 723 West Sixth Avenue                                                         
 Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                       
 Telephone:  (907) 272-5451                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of CSSB 43(L&C).                    
                                                                               
 PAT KALEN, Chairman                                                           
 American Congress on Surveying                                                
   and Mapping, Alaska Section                                                 
 1041 Chena Ridge Road                                                         
 Fairbanks, Alaska 99709                                                       
 Telephone:  (907) 479-2628                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on CSSB 43(L&C).                               
                                                                               
 WILLIAM MENDENHALL                                                            
 1907 Yankovich                                                                
 Fairbanks, Alaska 997                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 479-2786                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on CSSB 43(L&C).                               
                                                                               
 BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS                                                         
 Teamsters Local 959                                                           
 4300 Boniface Parkway                                                         
 Anchorage, Alaska                                                             
 Telephone:  (907) 586-3907                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of CSSB 43(L&C)                     
                                                                               
 GORDON WILLIAMS, Legislative Assistant                                        
   to Senator Fred Zharoff                                                     
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 121                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3473                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Gave sponsor statement for SB 257 am.                    
                                                                               
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
                                                                               
 TAPE 96-61, SIDE A                                                            
                                                                               
 The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order by                 
 Chairman Brian Porter at 1:10 p.m.  Members present at the call to            
 order were Representatives B. Davis, Porter, Bunde and Green.                 
                                                                               
 CSSB 262(RES)(CT RULE FLD)                                                  
                                                                               
 Number 070                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER announced the first order of business would             
 be CSSB 262(RES)(ct rule fld), "An Act relating to management of              
 game populations for maximum sustained yield for human harvest and            
 providing for the replacement of areas closed to consumptive uses             
 of game; relating to management of fish and game areas," sponsored            
 by Senator Mike Miller.  Chairman Porter informed the committee               
 that Senator Miller was on the Senate floor so he read the                    
 following sponsor statement into the record:                                  
                                                                               
 "Since statehood, Alaskans whose sustenance and livelihood relies             
 upon our wildlife resources, have lost over 100 million acres to              
 consumptive uses in one form or another.  This land mass is larger            
 than the state of Wyoming.  Additionally, Alaskan hunters have lost           
 effective utilization of some of the most productive areas in the             
 state through ever increasing restrictions on access.  These                  
 restrictions are being adopted in lands which sportsmen themselves            
 have helped set aside and whom exclusively pay for the maintenance,           
 management and administration of these lands.                                 
                                                                               
 "Because of increasing restrictions and the loss of available areas           
 to hunt, Alaskans are currently taking less than 2 percent of the             
 annual harvestable surplus of moose, caribou and sheep--compared to           
 other states who routinely harvest 30 to 60 percent of their big              
 game each year.  Additionally, Alaskan hunters harvest of moose,              
 caribou and sheep has declined over 30 percent between 1989 and               
 1993.                                                                         
                                                                               
 "The Department of Fish and Game is funded 100 percent by                     
 sportsmen's dollars generated through license fees and self imposed           
 taxes.  This legislation recognizes that public trust and would               
 allow for no net loss of land for Alaska's consumptive users.                 
 Additionally, it requires remediation of five acres for every acre            
 lost in the future.                                                           
                                                                               
 "The legislation will also eliminate the spending of Fish and Game            
 fund monies paid by consumptive users for any activity on lands               
 where consumptive uses have been eliminated or restricted.  By                
 passing this legislation, the legislature will recognize the                  
 special public trust created by the use of license monies and will            
 reverse the trend of restrictions on consumptive uses throughout              
 the state."                                                                   
                                                                               
 Number 294                                                                    
                                                                               
 SARA HANNAN, Executive Director, Alaska Environmental Lobby, was              
 first to address the bill.  She said the bill, at face value and              
 first reading, may sound like a good idea because, of course, user            
 fees imply that you have some discretion over what you're paying              
 for.  The reality of what those user fees are isn't so straight               
 forward.  Ms. Hannan said a Alaskan hunting, sport fishing and                
 trapping license costs $50.  If you get a king salmon tag, it costs           
 another $10.  She said the amount the Alaska Department of Fish and           
 Game (ADF&G) spends per hunter is much more than that and the                 
 amount it receives from the fish and game fund is much more than              
 that because most of the money is actually a federal tax on all               
 ammunition sold.  Much of the ammunition and gun tax in the United            
 States is not paid for by hunters, it is paid for by other users of           
 ammunition - skeet shooters, people buying hand guns for self                 
 protection.  All of those uses are taxed and all that tax goes into           
 the federal pool of money which is then distributed to states for             
 distribution for fish and wildlife management.  She said because              
 that federal formula is distributed on an acreage basis, Alaska               
 benefits.  Alaska has a very low percentage of federal tax money              
 going into it, but because of our geographic area we receive nine             
 to one for every dollar we're putting out for our hunting, fishing,           
 sport fishing licenses.  So with the monetary formula, it is not              
 really a direct user fee.  The costs that ADF&G has to manage fish            
 and game with are really costs incurred to manage that activity.              
 It is not a user fee, it is part of the cost of doing business and            
 is a partial right to use, but it is not the right to control.  Ms.           
 Hannan said if we truly wanted to institute user fees for our sport           
 fishing and hunting management, we would have to quadruple the cost           
 of those licenses and we would probably need to institute some                
 taxes on other users - people who are buying binoculars and go out            
 to watch birds.                                                               
                                                                               
 MS. HANNAN said, "What I'd like to talk to you about is the                   
 elements of the public trust and invitation to sue.  This bill                
 asserts that if the Department of Fish and Game closes an area to             
 hunting or fishing, an equal acreage should be opened.  But the               
 fist misconception there is `the department closes areas.'  The               
 department doesn't close areas, the Board of Game and the Board of            
 Fish make closures and they make those allocated decisions about              
 when the sport fishing - sport hunting season opens and closes and            
 what the harvest and bag limits are, and that is an extensive                 
 public process with advisory committees, across the state,                    
 culminating in a year long process and those decisions are changed            
 annually.  On an annual basis, a harvest bag limit on any species             
 in any game area could be changed and those should be changed                 
 depending on what the biology says and how the last hunt went.  So            
 saying the Department of Fish and Game is going to have a game                
 manager sued because of a closure is an erroneous legal proceeding            
 because you're going to sue someone who has no right to change the            
 outcome.  The Board of Game is exempted from suit and probably                
 rightfully so because we'd never get people to serve in this public           
 body if they knew any decision they were going to make would hold             
 them personally liable and that they would end up personally in               
 litigation over it.  So we exempted the Board of Game from suit,              
 but instead we've put in place the managers who carry out the                 
 decisions but don't have the authority to make those decisions.               
 And as much as some people would say that they don't like biologist           
 `X' or biologist `Y,' they take their orders from a board and a               
 commissioner and they, in good faith, carry out their public                  
 service duty.  And when those management decision exclude someone,            
 the response would be `I'm going to sue you.'  And this bill                  
 provides for the fact that the state, because that litigant would             
 be a public interest (indisc.), the state of Alaska would pay for             
 the suit.  In this bill we create a mechanism that puts a sign that           
 says `sue me' around the neck of a public official and gives the              
 checkbook to the attorney general's office and say `pay for those             
 closures.'"                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. HANNAN said, "Now the closures were talking about, and the bill           
 references a huge amount of acreage that has been closed since                
 statehood to hunting, are federal lands.  Most of state land that's           
 available for hunting is open to hunting.  And I believe the                  
 Department of Fish and Game will speak to one specific instance               
 where near McNeil River the Paint River was closed a year ago - or            
 in this last year to hunting.  That decision has created much                 
 controversy.  It was much a controversial decision at the board               
 level when the Board of Game made that closure and the Board of               
 Game may choose to change that decision in the near future - in the           
 next year.  Those are decisions that they change within the                   
 statutes as they have them now.  But the kinds of closures that               
 could be affected in this because this is any restriction on method           
 of access, if an area is closed to rifle hunting but open to bow              
 hunting, a hunter who is excluded has the right to sue and say,               
 `You have cut off my access and methodology and I'm going to sue              
 you.'  Much of those decisions, those kind of allocative closures,            
 aren't made on strictly biology.  They are frequently made on                 
 decisions such as `We would like to promote sport hunting area X as           
 a trophy sheep hunting area and to do that, we're gunna restrict              
 bag limits severely and we're gunna restrict the size of the sheep.           
 We're going to restrict it a full curl sheep.  You can't go in and            
 just get a mature ram, you need a full curl trophy winner because             
 that's something that hunter's policies has asked the Board of Game           
 to do.'  But the reality of this bill is that if the Board of Game            
 continues with those kinds of closures, hunters who are excluded              
 could sue and would have, under the legal interpretation you'll               
 hopefully hear from the Department of Law, will say they've got a             
 right to sue."                                                                
                                                                               
 MS. HANNAN said, "In the fisheries area we close some areas to                
 fishing because of habitat degradation.  We've recently closed -              
 the Board of Fish closed some areas along the Kenai River to stream           
 side fishing.  That has clearly an access issue that when this bill           
 goes into place, the Board of Fish will not be able to do because             
 it's not on the biology of fish that that closure is strictly being           
 made.  It's on habitat protection which impacts the biology of the            
 fish, but it is not a direct line and this bill requires a direct             
 biological implication at the time the closure is made.  We close             
 rivers sometimes to taking of fish and say, `This is a catch and              
 release fishery,' again because we're trying to promote a trophy              
 fish - trophy trout specimens being harvested.  `It's only a fly              
 fishing area,' we do that with some steelhead streams."                       
                                                                               
 MS. HANNAN said, "There are many sport hunters and fishers in                 
 Alaska and there are complicated decisions that are made in an                
 extensive public process that this bill distorts, convolutes and              
 puts in litigation, and I don't think it benefits the hunters - the           
 fishers of Alaska.  It doesn't open up federal lands that are                 
 closed.  It restricts our managers and our policy makers from                 
 making sound decisions and it's gunna cost the state of Alaska                
 because we're asking for suit, we're paying for suit and we will              
 see litigation as a result.  I'm gunna leave you with a longer                
 narrative talking about some of those issues and I'm gunna urge you           
 to keep this bill in committee as it is a really bad policy that is           
 only going to serve people who want to sue the state of Alaska, not           
 people who want to hunt and fish in the state of Alaska.                      
                                                                               
 Number 885                                                                    
                                                                               
 KEVIN SAXBY, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources Section,           
 Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, testified via                  
 teleconference from Anchorage.  He indicated he has submitted to              
 the committee a written summation that was given to the House                 
 Resources Committee the previous day where he identified three                
 major legal issues.  He indicated that there are probably others.             
                                                                               
                                                                               
 MR. SAXBY referred to the application of the public trust language            
 to specific areas of uplands to critical habitat areas and special            
 management areas is a first and it is an important first.  When you           
 use the words "public trust," you're using a term that has a large            
 (indisc.) of legal interpretations for many many decades.  He said            
 it is a very important decision to make if you decide to apply that           
 to the uplands and it will probably be that state discretion will             
 be limited in disposing of resources on those specific areas of the           
 land.                                                                         
                                                                               
 MR. SAXBY explained the second issue is that definitions that are             
 contained in several sections of this bill are definitions that               
 greatly limit what has been thought to be acceptable sustained                
 yield management practices under the Alaska Constitution.  Those              
 definitions, if they are eventually deemed to be the legislative              
 implementation of our constitutional sustained yield mandate will,            
 in the future, greatly limit Alaska's game managers, will greatly             
 complicate management decisions and probably will require that most           
 management decisions will eventually be completely reworked.                  
                                                                               
 MR. SAXBY referred to the third issue and said the citizen's suit             
 provisions, as it was previously pointed out, do reportedly send              
 their (indisc.) to authorize to (indisc.) against officials who               
 really wouldn't have the authority to make the changes that the               
 suit is presumably brought to implement.  He said there is a                  
 problem there.                                                                
                                                                               
 MR. SAXBY said in the Department of Law's view a real invitation is           
 (indisc.).  He noted he does agree with the assessment that one of            
 the primary groups that will benefit from this bill will be people            
 who think they're public interest litigants and who want to either            
 delay or change state actions by running to the courts rather than            
 going through the legislative process or any other process.  He               
 said those are the three main issues the Department of Law sees so            
 far.                                                                          
                                                                               
 Number 1087                                                                   
                                                                               
 STEVEN DAUGHERTY, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources               
 Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, came forward to give              
 his testimony.  He stated most of his concerns are the same as the            
 concerns expressed by Mr. Saxby.  Mr. Daugherty noted he is the               
 lead attorney for the Alaska Board of Fisheries.  He said he has a            
 few additional concerns because the Board of Fisheries is not                 
 exempted as the Board of Game is from suit under this.  The Board             
 of Fisheries has closed a number of areas.  The Board of Fisheries            
 traditionally restricts the methods and means quite frequently -              
 fly fishing only, catch and release only and also manages for                 
 trophy fishing.  Mr. Daugherty pointed out trophy fishing is not              
 something that could be done in one of these areas given the                  
 language of the bill because it wouldn't be for maximum sustained             
 yield as defined in the bill.  When you allow a fish to reach its             
 trophy size you're going to have to restrict fishing on the lower             
 to smaller size fish.  You're going to take a lower poundage of               
 fish that's necessary in order to develop trophy fish.                        
                                                                               
 MR. DAUGHERTY said he also wanted to point out it will frequently             
 not be either the Board of Fish or the Board of Game that is                  
 closing an area.  They may be closed as a result of an action by              
 Parks or the Department of Transportation and the access may be               
 restricted in that way.  It may not actually be closed to hunting             
 or fishing, but the access may be restricted by one of those                  
 agencies and it would be something that the Board of Fish, the                
 Board of Game, the Department of Fish and Game may not have really            
 any authority to deal with.  They do not control access to a lot of           
 public lands.  They only control methods and means of hunting and             
 fishing.  Mr. Daugherty said those are the issues he wanted to                
 present to the committee.                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 1210                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER referred to the definition of "maximum sustained              
 yield," and questioned that if you were trying to maintain a trophy           
 fish area, wouldn't the additional regulation of smaller sized fish           
 fit within that definition towards trying to get the maximum amount           
 of sustained yield for trophy.                                                
                                                                               
 MR. DAUGHERTY said if this were to be interpreted to allow you to             
 do that, he thinks it is something that would have to be                      
 interpreted by a court to find out whether or not they would be               
 allowed to develop trophy animals and fish.  He said he thinks                
 there is a strong likelihood that they would not be able to develop           
 trophy animals and fish.  The bill focuses on consumptive uses and            
 when you're talking trophy hunting and fishing, it is more of a               
 sport rather than a consumptive use.  You are greatly reducing the            
 amount of meat that can be consumed when you manage for trophy fish           
 or game.                                                                      
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER pointed out you get more meals out of a bigger                
 fish.                                                                         
                                                                               
 MR. DAUGHERTY pointed out that you'd also take a lot fewer fish.              
                                                                               
 Number 1285                                                                   
                                                                               
 WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation                    
 Department of Fish and Game, came forward to give his testimony.              
 He said he thinks the goal of the bill is to have a no net loss of            
 hunting opportunity or "acre/breaker basis" in Alaska.  The Board             
 of Game already has this policy and is trying to do it.  He said he           
 thinks this all goes back to the closure of the McNeil River Refuge           
 that was done by the board for reasons that were not biological,              
 but were more social because of the public demand that those bears            
 that are somewhat habituated to the people not be hunted in the               
 refuge part.  That's created a lot of hard feelings by some people            
 who feel it was unwise to do that.  The bill is trying to correct             
 that, but it goes a long ways past there in many ways.  Mr. Regelin           
 explained it starts out by saying in areas where hunting is                   
 important for consumer consumption that you have to manage for                
 maximum sustained yield.  He pointed out in many parts of Alaska we           
 manage for other reasons.  There are trophy areas like the Tok                
 sheep area.  In Unit 9, they manage primarily for brown bears and             
 don't manage for maximum sustained yield of moose or caribou.  Mr.            
 Regelin said the way the bill is structured, they don't think they            
 would be allowed to continued to have those other kinds of                    
 beneficial things for hunting.  He said he doesn't think we should            
 lose those, they were put in at the request of hunters for trophy             
 areas.  It would also make it very difficult to take some tools               
 away from the Board of Game on control use areas that they use.               
 Mr. Regelin explained the bill would prohibit the department to               
 restrict access except for protection of habitat.  He said in many            
 of our refuges, critical habitat areas and national wildlife                  
 refuges there are permit hunts or different kinds of access                   
 restrictions that the board has put in over the years for a variety           
 of reasons.  The best example would be that the McNeil Refuge would           
 be reopened, but they couldn't limit the number of people who went            
 there to hunt.  In the past, there were six permits every other               
 year or three per year.  The way the bill is structured they                  
 wouldn't be able to do that because another part of the bill                  
 requires the Board of Game to guarantee access to hunting.  Mr.               
 Regelin said we have never had such a thing and he isn't sure how             
 legally the Board of Game can guarantee access.  The Board of Game            
 sets seasons and bag limit restrictions, but he isn't sure how they           
 can guarantee.  The way the department sees it is if they are                 
 required to guarantee access, they wouldn't be able to limit                  
 (indisc.) holders or on a drawing permit.                                     
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN informed the committee that a change made to the bill             
 the previous day took out one of the department's major concerns in           
 that if the board closed an area for any reason other than a                  
 biological emergency, they would have to open another area of equal           
 size.  That was changed to a biological basis and that took away a            
 lot of concern the department had.  It still might be very                    
 difficult to open a area if the board, for policy reasons, decides            
 to close an area.  Most areas in Alaska are open to hunting.  There           
 are lots of areas that are closed to hunting by the federal                   
 government in national parks.  There are very few areas outside the           
 sanctuaries that are closed to hunting and there are some zoned               
 areas around campgrounds within state parks.                                  
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN explained the bill has definitions that mandate                   
 sustained yield, then it defines the sustained yield in that it               
 mandates us to harvest one-third of all animals in a population               
 born minus those that die from natural causes except for predation.           
 He stated that they would like to be able to achieve that goal in             
 a few places.  He noted they get close where there aren't any                 
 predators.  It would require them to stride to have extremely low             
 levels of wolves and bears so there would be a higher harvest                 
 level.  Even then, over time they wouldn't be able to sustain those           
 levels because of the severe weather conditions that exist in                 
 Alaska.                                                                       
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN said he thinks the Board of Game has a policy for no              
 net loss.  The department works hard to maintain access and to have           
 maximum hunter opportunity.  He said the department understands               
 what they want, but doesn't think SB 262 is a very wise way to get            
 there.                                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 1585                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN asked what the department's                  
 position is on the bill.                                                      
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN said the department strongly opposes the bill as they             
 believe it is bad wildlife policy.                                            
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said in trying to meet these demands so            
 that they aren't sued, and to achieve the various demands laid out            
 in the definitions, Mr. Regelin's testimony was that it would be              
 hard to reach.  He asked if it would be easier to reach if every              
 single predator was killed in an area.  For example, if every wolf            
 was wiped out in a region, would it not be easier to reach that               
 goal?  He said it may not be reachable, but wouldn't the chance be            
 better if every wolf was dead?                                                
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN said, "Yes it would."                                             
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if that couldn't be the basis if             
 somebody was suing for failing to try to achieve that goal, because           
 that is what the stand is.  He asked if they couldn't be sued for             
 failing to do that.                                                           
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN indicated it is a possibility.                                    
                                                                               
 Number 1640                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said, "What about an agency that closes            
 an area along a trail or a campground or something.  Would the                
 provisions of the civil suit allow someone to sue that agency - not           
 the Department of Fish and Game, but the Division of Parks or                 
 someone who has closed an area.  Wouldn't they be able to be sued             
 if they're considered in violation of this particular section in              
 achieving these goals?"                                                       
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN suggested checking with the Department of Law.  He                
 pointed out people can already sue the department, but the bill               
 allows them to be sued as individuals.                                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN referred to the Paint River, which is              
 apparently part of what has upset people, and asked what the                  
 harvest was.                                                                  
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN said it averaged about two bears per year.                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked Mr. Regelin how many bears are               
 harvested in a year in Alaska.                                                
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN informed the committee 1,200 to 1,400 brown bears are             
 harvested per year.                                                           
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN referred to all the state lands that are           
 open to hunting by statute and asked Mr. Regelin how much is                  
 actually closed at any one time.  He noted he is talking about                
 complete closures.                                                            
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN said there are very few complete closures for hunting.            
 He said he didn't have a percentage amount with him.  He said there           
 are sanctuaries, the McNeil River, Pack Creek and a couple of other           
 small ones.  In Southeast Alaska it is a quarter of a mile along              
 the highways.  Those are the areas that are totally closed to                 
 hunting.  There are other restrictions where it might be closed for           
 one species or it might be quite limited.  He said he is probably             
 missing some.                                                                 
                                                                               
 Number 1778                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN referred to the Chugach State Park and             
 said he is certain it isn't closed by statue, so it doesn't fit               
 into the section that says the exemption for land that's closed by            
 statute.  It is open as he has seen people up there hunting.  He              
 said if he remembers correctly, there are very detailed standards.            
 There is a variety of patterns as to which area is open to which              
 particular activities.  He said, "I guess there is two questions.             
 First of all, isn't a lot of that based on nonbiological                      
 considerations, but more recreation access of the high volumes of             
 people - the sheep (indisc.) along Turnagain Arm, the intensity of            
 trail use in various areas.  Aren't those nonbiological                       
 considerations one of the major factors and wouldn't you precluded            
 from using those same factors?"                                               
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN said there are the parks that are heavily used by                 
 recreational people along trails or (indisc.).  They have worked on           
 the plan with the state parks and kept the areas open that they               
 wouldn't have conflicts with people.  He said that is why the Board           
 of Game has taken these actions - it was not biological, but was              
 more social in what the people of Anchorage desired.  In this case,           
 that wouldn't preclude continuing this in a state park because he             
 doesn't believe that applies to that section.  It is the Title 16             
 things in refuges, sanctuaries, critical habitat areas and that               
 type of thing.                                                                
                                                                               
 Number 1850                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN referred to the last sentence in the               
 first section, "This section does not apply on land designated as             
 a park or a state game sanctuary where consumptive use of game is             
 prohibited," and asked if that is the effective section.                      
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN explained the affect of that is the sanctuaries of Pack           
 Creek and McNeil River.  He said he doesn't believe the bill                  
 addresses state parks.                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 1870                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY referred to the McHugh Creek tragedy            
 last year and asked if it was closed to moose and bear hunting.               
 She said obviously there were too many moose, bears and people.               
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN informed the committee members that is an area that is            
 closed for both bear and moose.                                               
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if there is a possibility that it could           
 be opened for three days at a time, per month, so that the chances            
 of being mauled would be brought down.                                        
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN indicated the department is currently working with a              
 lot of people in Anchorage to try to figure out how to work with              
 that problem.  He said they will have public meetings and                     
 Representative Bunde has hosted one large public meeting.  He said            
 hunting might be a part of the problem of hillside moose and bears.           
 It may be a piece of the solution, but it is not the whole                    
 solution.  People want the wildlife around but it gets dangerous in           
 that area.                                                                    
                                                                               
 Number 1927                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE referred to there being a question earlier               
 about eliminating all the wolves in a particular area and asked if            
 there has ever been a total elimination of wolves in any part of              
 Alaska.                                                                       
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN answered in the negative.                                         
                                                                               
 Number 1956                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY said based on that testimony, he would like           
 to comment that Alaska used to pay an ounce and a half of gold for            
 every wolf hide that was brought in for a bounty.                             
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said the legislative record is replete with                   
 reference to wolf problems back to the territorial days.                      
                                                                               
 Number 1995                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN said, "This bill was heard yesterday in              
 Resources and we did spade up several concerns and that's one of              
 the reasons we shifted to this committee because most of the things           
 we were talking about did have legal consequences from concerns               
 about what might happen if you open up an area that Wayne was just            
 talking about and then closed it.  Does that closure require                  
 opening another area?  What if you were on a river bank and you               
 closed an area for habitat protection in the river bank.  The rest            
 of the river is already open to fishing.  Where do you find another           
 river bank to comply with this.  I mean these kinds of potential              
 where you cannot do what the bill requires, what happens then?  Is            
 there automatic litigation?  If there is litigation and you sue               
 somebody who hasn't got the right to amend or change what they're             
 suing for, does that person then fall into some other kind of                 
 possible -- I mean would there be any monetary damages associated             
 with it?  It says that you can only sue for -- it says it effects             
 specific performance, but maybe as we were talking about earlier,             
 the person being sued doesn't have the authority to do what is                
 being requested by the bill, but it might be a subject to sue.  And           
 those were just a few of the questions.  There were probably six or           
 seven sightings of potential legal problems."                                 
                                                                               
 Number 2055                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said one of the first things mentioned by Mr. Saxby           
 was the term "public trust," which is used throughout the bill, and           
 has other meanings in law.  Specifically, it addresses more of a              
 definition of navigable waterways than it does on land.  He                   
 referred to his reading of the bill, notwithstanding the policy               
 issues or the agreement or disagreement of the bill, and asked Mr.            
 Saxby if his take on what the language of public trust, page 2,               
 Section 2, is getting at is a perception that there is a public               
 obligation or duty.                                                           
                                                                               
 MR. SAXBY said it seems clear to him that is the intent of the                
 bill.  He said he would illustrate a concern he has by giving the             
 committee a specific example.  Mr. Saxby informed the committee               
 that he is the assistant attorney general that defends the timber             
 sale invitations that the Division of Forestry comes up with as               
 well as the Board of Game and also defends Fish and Game                      
 litigation.  He indicated there are some cases from the Kenai                 
 Peninsula brought by a coalition of environmental groups to halt              
 the established sales that have been going on there.  Specifically,           
 one of those sales was at Kalgin and a number of the other sales              
 are in the vicinity of the Ninilchick/Homer areas and further east            
 of there in the river drainages.  In each case, there is a critical           
 habitat area.  There is one at Kalgin Island and Fish Creek habitat           
 area.  Mr. Saxby explained his opponents would have been very happy           
 to have the words "public trust" specifically applied to those                
 critical habitat areas because regardless of what the legislature's           
 intent may be, those words have independent legal meaning.  In the            
 past, groups who want to halt timer sales, prevent mineral leasing            
 from occurring or some other commodity use, have frequent argued              
 that the public trust doctrine requires that a much higher standard           
 of care be given in the decision making process and that the                  
 standard of care hasn't been met by the relevant agency, usually              
 Department of Natural Resources (DNR).  He said so far we've won on           
 that argument by pointing out that the public trust doctrine does             
 not specifically apply on land, it only applies in the water.  Mr.            
 Saxby said regardless of the intent, when those words are used it             
 weakens their ability to make that argument in the future.                    
                                                                               
 Number 2185                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said given that and the fact that we do not want to           
 have the term "public trust" in the bill, would these kinds of                
 problems or any other problems remain if "public trust" is changed            
 to "public duty" or "public obligation."                                      
                                                                               
 MR. SAXBY said he thinks that would help a lot.                               
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said his review of the bill is the areas concerning           
 the ability to sue to try to compensate for the takings, he doesn't           
 think the legislation is the appropriate place for that kind of               
 response.  He said he wouldn't be offended if a member of the                 
 committee wanted to remove those two sections, page 2, lines 8                
 through 12 and on page 3, lines 18 through 22.                                
                                                                               
 Number 2238                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE moved the above mentioned lines be removed.              
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was an objection.  Hearing none, it            
 was so ordered.  He stated he was just informed there were two more           
 people to testify.                                                            
                                                                               
 Number 2296                                                                   
                                                                               
 HUGH DOOGAN testified via teleconference from Fairbanks.  He stated           
 he is highly in favor of game management.  Mr. Doogan said a year             
 or two ago Senator Sharp introduced SB 77 which was passed.  Mr.              
 Doogan referred to the phrase "providing for the replacement of               
 areas closed to consumptive uses of game; relating to the                     
 management of fish and game areas," and said he assumes this                  
 relates to federal land.  He said we have a governor and lieutenant           
 governor who are very (indisc.) as far as the subsistence is                  
 concerned.  He stated there needs to be a way for Alaska to get               
 control of our fish and game back from the federal government and             
 get rid of Title 8 in the Alaska land claims bill which gives rural           
 preference.  Mr. Doogan stated he isn't against Native people at              
 all, but he believes that in order for the state to have good                 
 management, they have to have complete control and the only way to            
 do that is to get rid of Title 8.                                             
                                                                               
 MR. DOOGAN informed the committee he has just read the audit report           
 from the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs on the Kobuk             
 flood response and recovery.  He said he thinks very strongly that            
 the Senate should call for a public hearing on this matter as there           
 was gross mismanagement of money and material.  He said, "Let's put           
 the blame where it really belongs."                                           
                                                                               
 Number 2374                                                                   
                                                                               
 LYNN LEVENGOOD testified via teleconference from Fairbanks.  He               
 stated he is wholeheartedly in favor of CSSB 262(RES)(ct rule fld).           
 Mr. Levengood told the committee is disagrees with former testimony           
 concerning the public trust doctrine.  He referred to the words               
 "regardless of intent" and said those words shouldn't be used                 
 because they could be misconstrued.  One of the reasons the public            
 trust doctrine was included was to create a lock on the lands that            
 are set aside so they can absolutely not be changed at a later                
 point in time.  He said there is what is historically referred to             
 as a "bait and fish package," and this is where license revenues of           
 consumptive users provide funding to purchase land or have set                
 aside land where hunting is allowed and five to ten years later               
 that land, though it is managed by hunters and the consumptive                
 user's dollar bills, is then placed off limits to consumptive uses.           
 That is the intent of the legislation and he believes the language            
 is just fine.                                                                 
                                                                               
 MR. LEVENGOOD said, "The language that has been proposed being                
 deleted regarding civil suit is also necessary.  First of all, the            
 redress for the suit would be equitable (indisc.) and that means it           
 would only require that to be done if the statute required.  In               
 other words, there would not be any punitive damage claims, et                
 cetera, but why it is needed is to prevent intentional wrong doing.           
 For example, we now have an intensive management statute on the               
 books for intensive management to occur of fish and game                      
 populations when certain conditions occur.  Those conditions occur,           
 the Board of Game has findings that occur yet that there has been             
 an intentional nonresponsiveness, even though the statute requires            
 for action (indisc.).  In this legislation, to allow for redress,             
 and it's limited (indisc.), so redress would only for remedial                
 action to occur, is absolutely necessary and I'd ask that you would           
 allow that to continue.  [END OF TAPE]                                        
                                                                               
 TAPE 96-61, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. LEVENGOOD continued giving his testimony, "...and that could              
 not be redress because there is not enough land, et cetera, et                
 cetera.  Well, on page 2, either on line 6 or 7, it says that this            
 subsection does not apply to a temporary closure based on a                   
 biological emergency, which is absolutely contemplated in the bill.           
 Temporary biological problems do not trigger this statute and so,             
 I just wanted emphasize that point.  I appreciate being able to               
 respond and if there is any questions, I'd be happy to address                
 them."                                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 034                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was anyone else wishing to give                
 testimony.  Hearing none, he closed the public hearing.                       
                                                                               
 Number 044                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN referred to the sentence at the end of             
 the first paragraph of the bill, "This section does not apply on              
 land designated as a park or state game sanctuary where consumptive           
 use of game is prohibited," and asked Mr. Saxby if that doesn't               
 mean that this section still applies to Chugach State Park.                   
                                                                               
 MR. SAXBY said Representative Finkelstein is right in that there              
 certainly would be an argument that it doesn't apply at least to              
 portions of the state park where consumptive use hasn't been                  
 prohibited.  He said what Representative Finkelstein is                       
 highlighting is that there are issues that are going to have to be            
 thrashed out in the courts.  Mr. Saxby said he wouldn't say at this           
 point whether they would lose that case, but it would certainly               
 raise the issue.                                                              
                                                                               
 Number 079                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted there is hunting within the park,            
 but it is very very carefully managed for recreational reasons                
 which is not allowed under the bill.  He referred to page 2, line             
 22, and said the definition of "maximum sustained yield" precludes            
 achievement and management for mammal predators.  He asked Mr.                
 Saxby if the end result of this provision (indisc.) predators means           
 that you couldn't go and manage an area with the goal of maximizing           
 brown bears.                                                                  
                                                                               
 MR. SAXBY said, "Perhaps, Representative Finkelstein, that would              
 have to be qualified by the language elsewhere in the bill."  He              
 noted he doesn't remember where that language is, but it says in              
 area where it has been determined that human use is an important              
 consumptive use.  He noted this is similar to language that the               
 board currently has to deal with as a result of the first version             
 of SB 77, the intensive management law.  Mr. Saxby said it                    
 certainly complicates the management of the maximum sustained yield           
 of predators.                                                                 
                                                                               
 Number 160                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER referred to the issue of public trust and said he             
 thinks he is convinced that the committee should look for another             
 term such as "public duty" or "obligation."                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said there is a whole bunch of things in           
 the bill he would like to have a chance to look at.  He asked if              
 the bill could be brought up the following day so he could have a             
 chance to draft some amendments.                                              
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said if that is the wish of the committee, he                 
 doesn't have an objection.  He said before the meeting is                     
 adjourned, he would like the committee to identify the areas of the           
 bill that has problems.   The first is the term "public trust" as             
 opposed to "duty, obligation" or whatever.  Chairman Porter said              
 another issue was the guaranteed access requirement as it might               
 relate to limits of the number of hunters, number of fishermen or             
 bag limits.  He asked Mr. Regelin if that presents a problem to               
 him.                                                                          
                                                                               
 Number 230                                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN said he isn't sure about bag limits, but the number of            
 people that could go into an area by permit, if you're guaranteed             
 access, is a concern.                                                         
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked how "guaranteed access" would work with                 
 regard to restricting the number of hunters.                                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE referred to the question about opening a                 
 similar area and said the North Slope is a good example.  Another             
 is a chunk of stream bank.  He asked what the practical aspects are           
 of opening new areas equal to the size of the area that is closed.            
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said he thinks that is the policy of the bill,                
 except for temporary closures, the bill says you will try to find             
 an area that is equal in biological composition and open it.                  
                                                                               
 Number 280                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN pointed out the bill doesn't say                   
 anything about equal and biological composition.  It says, "Equal             
 in acreage."  He referred to page 2, line 6, "equal in size" and              
 said so you could close one area that is low productivity and force           
 them to open all the areas that are stream banks for high                     
 productivity.  He said the question is, "Is it solvable?"  He                 
 referred to the question, "Is impact required to be considered on             
 the areas you're opening?"  He said this may be extremely                     
 problematic because testimony shows there is only a tiny portion of           
 the state that is actually closed.                                            
                                                                               
 Number 325                                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN said, "Yesterday, in the House Resources, they amended            
 that section where it does not apply to a closure.  It used to say,           
 `Not apply to a temporary closure based upon a biological                     
 emergency...'  And that -- it was the word `emergency' that caused            
 me a lot of concern because the board doesn't manage by emergency             
 and that's got a very strict interpretation.  So they changed that            
 to `biological basis.'  So I think that most places that's not                
 going to be a problem.  In the 14 years I've worked with the Board            
 of Game, they've closed one area rather than biological purposes              
 and that was the McNeil River area.  At the same time, at the next            
 board meeting or at the next one we increase opportunity to harvest           
 bears in Unit 13 tremendously.  So we were well aware of that and             
 then following the board's policy, we search for areas that we                
 could reopen that had been closed and we opened the Delta closed              
 area that had been closed for quite some time - opened most of that           
 back up to hunting.  So I think that I'm not too concerned about              
 being able to accomplish that part now that the word `emergency' is           
 out of there."                                                                
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he finds it very disconcerting that           
 Mr. Regelin would state that the board has never had an area closed           
 for other than biological considerations except for McNeil River.             
 He asked about the earlier discussion regarding Chugach State Park            
 and the closures that exist there.                                            
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN said he had said "in his time on the board" and those             
 areas have been closed longer than that.  He noted they are closed            
 for social purposes.                                                          
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he thinks there are a variety of              
 areas closed.  He said the Chugach State Park closures are not a              
 static closure.  They reconsider them and move them around.  If you           
 want to hunt, you have to read this year's changes because it is              
 different than last year's.  He urged Mr. Regelin to look again at            
 the question as to where you have to consider recreation impacts              
 and closures.  He said there are probably quite a few.                        
                                                                               
 Number 424                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER referred to earlier discussion on the limitation on           
 an area that would be based on specialized management to promote              
 trophy hunting and asked Mr. Regelin if he has thought that through           
 to the point of some exception that would still fit within the                
 concept.                                                                      
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN indicated he hasn't and said he doesn't know how to fix           
 that.                                                                         
                                                                               
 Number 444                                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. DAUGHERTY said, "Other than a provision of some type of                   
 explicit exception to allow for trophy management, it would just              
 exempt it from all of this harvestable surplus maximum sustained              
 yield highest levels of human harvest - all of that would be                  
 impossible to do for trophy management without some type of                   
 exception to all of those provisions."                                        
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Daugherty to look at that problem and see           
 if he could come up with wording for reasonable exception language            
 to be fitted into the right place.                                            
                                                                               
 MR. DAUGHERTY said he would work on language.                                 
                                                                               
 Number 474                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "Along those lines comes to mind the               
 spike fork 50 inch regulation on moose.  Now you're going to                  
 maximize harvest, you've got to remove those regulations, yet you             
 put regulations like that in place so that we have more of a                  
 quality harvest.  Now would you be able to continue with the spike            
 fork 50 inch regulation under this bill?  And I don't expect an               
 answer today."                                                                
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN said, "I think that we probably could because a big               
 part of that is to maximize harvest.  It's to change sex ratios,              
 but again, it's all in who wants to sue ya."                                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he recalls conversations from both                  
 hunting and nonhunting entities that said they want to see bigger             
 bulls.  So it's not just maximized harvest, it maximized harvest of           
 a particular kind.                                                            
                                                                               
 Number 518                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN indicated concern about the testimony.             
 He said highest levels is not the same concept as smaller levels              
 for a particular quality - trophy qualities or whatever.  He said             
 it seems to be an incomplete contradiction.  He said he doesn't see           
 how you could possibly work around that.  Representative                      
 Finkelstein referred to whether someone sues or not and said we               
 actually didn't solve the problem, but just said you can't sue the            
 personnel, you can still sue the Board of Game, you just can't sue            
 individuals anymore.                                                          
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said there are four areas of concern and a general            
 area as expressed by Representative Finkelstein.                              
                                                                               
 At this point on the tape was indiscernible due to noise in the               
 microphone.                                                                   
                                                                               
 Number 623                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a motion to table the bill.                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY objected.                                               
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER called for a roll call vote on the motion to table            
 CSSB 262(RES)(ct rule fld).  Representatives Bunde, Davis, and                
 Finkelstein voted in favor of tabling the bill.  Representatives              
 Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted against tabling the bill.  So           
 the bill was not tabled.  Chairman Porter announced the bill would            
 be heard again the following day.                                             
                                                                               
 CSSB 43(L&C) - ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS                        
                                                                               
 Number 780                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER brought CSSB 43(L&C), "An Act relating to                     
 registration by the Board of Registration for Architects,                     
 Engineers, and Land Surveyors; clarifying the meaning of practicing           
 or offering to practice architecture, engineering, or land                    
 surveying; and amending the definition of `practice of land                   
 surveying,'" before the committee.                                            
                                                                               
 SENATOR LOREN LEMAN, sponsor of the measure, came before the                  
 committee.  He said he had believed that the controversial sections           
 of the bill had been removed from the bill until the previous day.            
 Senator Leman explained the legislation was proposed by the Board             
 of Registration for Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors.  He             
 said the first section is the revisors section and that entity no             
 long exists, so there is no need to have a reference to it.  He               
 said the second section was actually advanced by Senator Duncan.              
 Senator Leman explained that he has had several retired engineers             
 who have come to him and said they'd like to be able to still have            
 something that says they are an engineer even though it doesn't               
 enable them to practice.  He said without paying the full fees                
 every year, the board recognized that, and in honor of those                  
 professionals who have invested their lives, they said they would             
 be willing to do that if they had the authority.  Senator Leman               
 said the third section, under evidence of practice, the board has             
 had trouble enforcing its statutes and regulations regarding the              
 practice of architecture, engineering and land surveying.  The                
 Department of Law suggested inserting the word "or" after the ";".            
 He said unless the word "or" is specifically inserted, they would             
 be reluctant to pursue some of the cases where people violate the             
 intent of the law.  By inserting the word "or" it makes it clear              
 that if you do any one of the three things, you are either                    
 practicing those things or are offering to practice those things.             
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE questioned where in the bill he is speaking              
 to.                                                                           
                                                                               
 SENATOR LEMAN referred to page 2, line 22 and then referred to the            
 fourth section and said this is what is left of the change in the             
 definition of the practice of land surveying that was requested by            
 the surveying profession and their surveyor on the board, through             
 the board of registration.  He urged the committee to move the                
 bill.                                                                         
                                                                               
 Number 835                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY noted that the Nursing Association has the              
 retirement status and has had it for many years.                              
                                                                               
 Number 859                                                                    
                                                                               
 COLIN MAYNARD testified via teleconference from Anchorage.  He said           
 a lot of work has been done on the bill and there are a lot of                
 different parties who are interested in this.  He said what the               
 committee has before them solves most of their problems.  He urged            
 passage of the bill.                                                          
                                                                               
 Number 882                                                                    
                                                                               
 CRAIG SAVAGE was next to testify via teleconference from Anchorage.           
 He indicated he concurs with Colin Maynard's testimony.  He said he           
 is currently the president of Alaska Professional Design Council              
 and is a practicing land surveyor.  He said he is testifying with             
 the understanding that there had been additional amendments made to           
 the bill; however until additional amendments are made (indisc.)              
                                                                               
 Number 904                                                                    
                                                                               
 PAT KALEN, Chairman, American Congress on Surveying and Mapping,              
 Alaska Section, said there has been a lot of work put into the bill           
 and they just recently became aware that there is a proposed                  
 revision to Section 4 that would change the language his                      
 organization wanted and would also remove some of the existing                
 statute.  He said he isn't sure what the problem is as the bill has           
 been endorsed by several organizations.  Mr. Kalen said his                   
 organization doesn't think there is anything left in the bill that            
 has any relationship to construction.  He said if the proposed                
 amendments are made, he would ask that the bill be held.                      
                                                                               
 Number 938                                                                    
                                                                               
 WILLIAM MENDENHALL testified via teleconference from Fairbanks.  He           
 informed the committee members he is the land surveyor member on              
 the Board of Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors.  Mr.                   
 Mendenhall said he concurs with what Mr. Kalen has said.  He stated           
 they did a lot of work on the bill and had thought everything was             
 in line.  He said he would like to see the bill passed the way it             
 currently is.  Mr. Mendenhall said he understands there are a                 
 couple of proposed changes.  As he understands it, somebody feels             
 this might affect people who are actually doing highway or dirt               
 work.  That is not the intent of anything in the bill that he can             
 see.  He referred to there always being a question in that if you             
 put out a plan for a subdivision and you lay it out and put                   
 (indisc.) on there, and questioned if this is engineering or                  
 surveying.  He said it is probably a little bit of both.  This                
 reference to land surveying, AS 08.48.341, would state that the               
 surveyors can work on topography, alignment and grates for streets.           
 It would in no way stop somebody from doing construction work.  He            
 said he would urge the committee to support the bill as fully                 
 written.                                                                      
                                                                               
 Number 1092                                                                   
                                                                               
 BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, representing Teamsters Local 959, came                 
 before the committee to testify.  She explained her organization              
 worked very closely with the industry folks and with respect to               
 CSSB 43(L&C), she urged the committee to support that version.  She           
 referred to Teamsters Local 959 and said they represent land                  
 surveyors in the industry and they also have a land surveyor school           
 in which they send various individuals from around the state to               
 participate in this four year program.  She urged support for the             
 bill.                                                                         
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was further people wishing to                  
 testify.  There being none, he closed the public hearing.                     
                                                                               
 Number 1162                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he had prepared a committee substitute in           
 which the intent was to eliminate the changes in the definitions of           
 "land surveying."  He said the statements made clearly indicates              
 that this definition is not intended to include construction                  
 surveying.  Representative Vezey said he will not offer his                   
 proposed amendment, but would like someone to verify that is what             
 the bill says.  He said he does believe that the wording in the               
 bill could easily be construed to mean that it includes                       
 construction surveying, but he also concurs if the entire paragraph           
 is taken in context, it could be mean to be limited strictly to the           
 planning and the monumentation of boundaries and routes.                      
                                                                               
 Number 1244                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE explained he had a conversation with an                  
 acquaintance regarding this bill and the conversation led him to              
 believe that it does not include construction surveying.                      
 Representative Bunde then made a motion to move CSSB 43(L&C) out of           
 committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying           
 fiscal notes.                                                                 
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was an objection.  Hearing none,               
 CSSB 43(L&C) was moved out of the House Judiciary Committee.                  
                                                                               
 SB 257 AM - TAKING FISH OR GAME FOR PUBLIC SAFETY                           
                                                                               
 Number 1275                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER announced the committee would hear SB 257 am,                 
 "An Act relating to the taking of game or fish for public safety              
 purposes."                                                                    
                                                                               
 GORDON WILLIAMS, Legislative Assistant to Senator Fred Zharoff,               
 came forward to give the sponsor statement.  He explained SB 257              
 was a result of a lot of problems, primarily throughout Senator               
 Zharoff's district, with habituated bears in a lot of communities             
 which was leaving people with the feeling that they were very                 
 unsafe.  The current defense of life and property regulations                 
 didn't properly address those concerns with truly habituated                  
 animals in that if you waited for a real defense of life and                  
 property situation there was a chance that someone would be hurt.             
 It would be a bad situation and the bear might not be taken in the            
 best place.  If you had these type of animals that could clearly be           
 identified as habituated animals that there was a better process              
 that should be arrived at for the taking of a bear or, in some                
 areas, other animals.  Mr. Williams indicated Senator Zharoff met             
 with the department and the Board of Game.  He first met with the             
 department and they suggested that he talk to the Board of Game.              
 Senator Zharoff went to the Board of Game meeting and discussed the           
 issue.  He said somebody from the Attorney General's Office was at            
 that meeting to inform the board that they currently didn't have              
 the clear powers to adopt any regulations for public safety                   
 reasons, and that defense of life and property, taking of birds               
 around airports, etc., were in doubt without clearing some things             
 up in statute.                                                                
                                                                               
 MR. WILLIAMS explained the bill has two sections.  Section 1 gives            
 the commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game the authority             
 to authorize the taking of fish and game for public safety reasons.           
 Section 2 gives the Board of Game the authority to adopt                      
 regulations on the taking of those animals.  Mr. Williams said the            
 way he understands the bill would work is that the Board of Game              
 would work with the department or the department would work with              
 the Board of Game to establish criteria through the public process            
 on how this would be implemented and what criteria would be                   
 followed if a community notified the commissioner that there was an           
 animal they thought was a clear public safety problem.  He said               
 with the cutbacks in budgets, it is very hard for the department to           
 get personnel out in the field.  The larger communities seem to               
 have a way to deal with these problems with the local police                  
 forces.  These problems are often taken care of in Anchorage or               
 Juneau, but the small communities feel they don't have the same               
 ability to handle their own problems.  He said, "There hasn't been            
 any particular opposition to the bill as it goes through.  There              
 has been concerns expressed that persons don't want communities or            
 others removed from the responsibility of not attracting these                
 animals in the first place or causing problems and with bears,                
 that's usually a habituated bear and it often revolves around a               
 landfill problem or something similar, and the senator recognizes             
 that and we've been working with DEC (Department of Environmental             
 Conservation) and others on ways to make sure that landfills and              
 attractions for the bears are part of the equation too.  So it just           
 doesn't give, you know, authority to not live up to those                     
 responsibilities and just take the animals.  The best scenario is             
 that you don't have to do it - don't attract em in the first                  
 place."                                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 1510                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said she is a little curious as to how it can           
 be done in Anchorage.  She asked if that is within the city                   
 municipality as they often shoot bears within the Anchorage area.             
                                                                               
 WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,                   
 Department of Fish and Game, explained that in the larger cities              
 such as Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau, the Department of Public             
 Safety or Fish and Wildlife Protection are already there and they             
 shoot the animals.  He referred to the small areas that don't have            
 a public safety officer, etc., and said they will probably set it             
 up so that they will be able to authorize someone in the community            
 to do it without the worry of the repercussions of taking a bear              
 out of season.                                                                
                                                                               
 Number 1603                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE explained that a couple of weeks ago a black             
 bear was shot in the Eagle River area by a police officer and there           
 was some conversation in the newspaper about whether the officer              
 really had the authority to do it as it wasn't a threat to life and           
 property, the bear was wondering the neighborhood and there                   
 possible kids in the area, but it wasn't chewing on anyone.  He               
 said the police officer had questions as to whether he was                    
 authorized.  He wasn't charged for anything.  Representative Bunde            
 asked if the bill would help clarify that situation.                          
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN said he doesn't think it would, but that is something             
 that they need to work with on some policy issues with the                    
 different police department because they don't want to second guess           
 them.  It would make the police officer's jobs easier if there were           
 some guidelines.  He said he believes what will come out of this              
 are some guidelines for him as to when he can issue a permit, and             
 also some standard guidelines that they can send to the police                
 departments around the state.                                                 
                                                                               
 Number 1668                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said he would think that the regulations adopted              
 for the process where there aren't any law enforcement officers               
 would have the criteria in it that the Anchorage Police Department            
 or somebody else could use.  He said he is sure it would not be               
 imminent threat of two inches separation.                                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said it was his interpretation that the police           
 officer was looking for that kind of clarity.  He stated he would             
 encourage that.  Representative Bunde said there is an increasing             
 volume of life and safety bear kills that are questionable.  He               
 said once this is developed, will there be an overall educational             
 intent that not just someone around a village, but somebody walking           
 a stream will have a little more clarity as to when they can take             
 a bear in the defense of life.                                                
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN explained it is an area that certainly needs some                 
 attention.  He said they had a CIP in to do that.  He said they               
 will do their best to come up with some guidelines to help, but               
 there needs to be some programs put together on how to deliver them           
 to the people that need them.  It is not an easy solution.                    
                                                                               
 Number 1760                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move SB 257 with individual             
 recommendation and with the attached zero fiscal note.                        
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was an objection, hearing none SB              
 257 am was moved out of the House Judiciary Committee.                        
                                                                               
 ADJOURNMENT                                                                   
                                                                               
 Number 1796                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the House Judiciary Committee meeting at            
 2:35 p.m.                                                                     
                                                                               

Document Name Date/Time Subjects