Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/02/1996 01:10 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
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 |
|---|