02/20/2008 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB359 | |
| HB256 | |
| HB359 | |
| HB237 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 359 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 256 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 237 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 20, 2008
1:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 359
"An Act relating to probation and the offense of minor consuming
or in possession or control of alcohol."
- MOVED CSHB 359(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 256
"An Act relating to active game management and to the airborne
or same day airborne taking of certain game animals; making
conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 256(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 237
"An Act authorizing the governor to remove or suspend a member
of the Board of Regents of the University of Alaska for good
cause; establishing a procedure for the removal or suspension of
a regent; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 359
SHORT TITLE: PROBATION AND MINOR CONSUMING
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
02/08/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/08/08 (H) JUD, FIN
02/20/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 256
SHORT TITLE: ACTIVE GAME MANAGEMENT/AIRBORNE SHOOTING
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
05/11/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/11/07 (H) RES, JUD
01/30/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
01/30/08 (H) Heard & Held
01/30/08 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/04/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/04/08 (H) Heard & Held
02/04/08 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/08/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/08/08 (H) Moved CSHB 256(RES) Out of Committee
02/08/08 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/13/08 (H) RES RPT CS(RES) 2DP 1DNP 3NR 3AM
02/13/08 (H) DP: EDGMON, GATTO
02/13/08 (H) DNP: GUTTENBERG
02/13/08 (H) NR: SEATON, ROSES, JOHNSON
02/13/08 (H) AM: FAIRCLOUGH, KAWASAKI, WILSON
02/20/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 237
SHORT TITLE: REMOVING A REGENT
SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS
04/13/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/13/07 (H) STA, JUD
05/01/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
05/01/07 (H) Moved CSHB 237(STA) Out of Committee
05/01/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/01/07 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 4DP 3NR
05/01/07 (H) DP: JOHNSON, ROSES, GRUENBERG, LYNN
05/01/07 (H) NR: JOHANSEN, COGHILL, DOLL
05/03/07 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
05/03/07 (H) Failed To Move Out Of Committee
05/03/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/01/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/01/08 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
02/08/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/08/08 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
02/20/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
EMILY BEATLEY, Staff
to Representative Jay Ramras
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 359 on behalf of
Representative Ramras, chair of the House Judiciary Standing
Committee, sponsor.
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney
Administrative Staff
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System (ACS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 359.
JOSHUA FINK, Director
Anchorage Office
Office of Public Advocacy (OPA)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 359.
BRIGADIER GENERAL THOMAS H. KATKUS, Commander, Army Director
Alaska Army National Guard (AK ARNG)
Fort Richardson, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 359.
KEVIN SAXBY, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 256 on behalf of the
administration.
DOUG LARSEN, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a comment during discussion of
HB 256.
JOEL BENNETT
Alaskans for Wildlife
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 256.
JOE KLUTSCH, President
Alaska Professional Hunters Association, Inc. (APHA)
Copper Center, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 256, and urged passage of the bill.
JOHN TOPPENBERG, Director
Alaska Wildlife Alliance
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 256.
REUBEN HANKE
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 256.
MARTIN WADE WILLIS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 256.
ROD ARNO, Executive Director
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 256, and asked that the bill be passed from committee.
JERRY McCUTCHEON
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 256.
VICTOR VAN BALLENBERGHE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 256, provided
comments and suggested a change to Section 8 of Version E.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:04:51 PM. Representatives Dahlstrom,
Coghill, Samuels, Lynn, and Ramras were present at the call to
order. Representatives Holmes and Gruenberg arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 359 - PROBATION AND MINOR CONSUMING
1:05:18 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 359, "An Act relating to probation and the
offense of minor consuming or in possession or control of
alcohol."
1:05:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 359, Version 25-LS1377\M, Luckhaupt,
2/20/08, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version M
was before the committee.
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that HB 359 was sponsored by the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
1:06:47 PM
EMILY BEATLEY, Staff to Representative Jay Ramras, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Ramras, chair of the
House Judiciary Standing Committee, sponsor, presented HB 359.
She explained that under the current statute pertaining to minor
consuming, the court is required to automatically place a
convicted person on probation for one year from the date of
conviction or until the person reaches the age of 21, whichever
is later. House Bill 359 proposes to add a new [subsection] to
AS 04.16.50, giving the courts the authority to terminate the
probation of someone convicted of minor consuming - unless
he/she is a habitual repeat offender - if he/she meets the
conditions of probation set forth by the court and continuance
of probation would interfere with the person's rehabilitation
and growth.
MS. BEATLEY said that HB 359 was specifically drafted as a
"betterment" bill, and is not specific to those applying for the
military, although research indicates that this is a large
issue. Others who might also benefit from HB 359 are those
seeking entrance into certain colleges, and university students
traveling into or through Canada for sporting events. Under the
bill, all who are convicted and serving probation for minor
consuming - except for habitual repeat offenders - would be
eligible for probation termination via petition to the court.
The belief is, she relayed, that the bill will provide
additional incentive to those convicted of minor consuming to
succeed while on probation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he strongly supports HB 359. He
asked whether the term "growth" as used on page 2, line 3, would
cause the courts difficulty.
MS. BEATLEY offered her belief that it would be up to the courts
to interpret that term.
1:10:15 PM
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Administrative Staff,
Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System
(ACS), said he doesn't know what "growth" means, but surmised
that it was included in the bill to give judges discretion
beyond just rehabilitative goals, and that how judges interpret
that term will vary and be closely tied to the specifics of the
defendant.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would hope that the courts
would be able to apply common sense and thus alleviate the need
for the legislature to define the term.
MR. WOOLIVER agreed. In response to a question, he offered his
recollection that historically, there have been about 4,000
minor consuming charges filed each year, but he doesn't know how
many end in convictions or how many of those charged are on
probation at any given time, though he estimated that the number
of the latter is probably in the thousands. He noted that
Version M somewhat narrows the category of who could petition
the court to have his/her probation terminated - the procedure
would be much like a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS)
procedure - but he is unable to estimate at this time how many
might petition the court.
CHAIR RAMRAS offered that the impetus behind [the bill] is that
as long as the State of Alaska "has its thumb on one of these
minors, the U.S. government can't own them"; as such, "the best
vocational rehab program available across the country" is not
available to some of the youth who might most benefit from it.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS questioned Ms. Beatley's use of the term,
"habitual," and whether the bill would apply only to first time
offenders.
MS. BEATLEY explained that AS 04.16.050(d) currently says in
part, "A person is guilty of habitual minor consuming or in
possession or control if the person was placed on probation
under (c) of this section, or has been previously convicted
twice", and that a reference to subsection (d) was specifically
left out of the bill so as to exclude those who fit in that
category. In response to a question, she offered her
understanding that the procedure provided by the bill could be
used by someone who only had one prior conviction for minor
consuming but not by someone who had two prior convictions.
1:14:42 PM
JOSHUA FINK, Director, Anchorage Office, Office of Public
Advocacy (OPA), Department of Administration (DOA), opined that
while the State should never condone underage drinking, the
punishment should be proportionate to the crime, and offered his
belief that the legislature did not intend for kids who are
cited for underage drinking to be precluded from being able to
join the military. He relayed that when he was a public
defender, he saw kids who got cited for underage drinking
because they were at a party and who then found out later that
they couldn't enlist in the military, and he characterized this
as an unintended consequence of the current minor consuming law
that will be fixed by HB 359.
1:16:10 PM
BRIGADIER GENERAL THOMAS H. KATKUS, Commander, Army Director,
Alaska Army National Guard (AK ARNG), said that the AK ARNG
abides by all the [enlistment] standards of the U.S. Army for
age, citizenship, education, trainability, physical fitness, and
moral standards. If the courts had the ability to terminate
probation for those youths who've been convicted of utilizing
alcohol but who don't have any other criminal charges, it would
give those youths the opportunity to join the military, which
could provide them with better mentors and more options for
getting out of a bad situation. Any time a person has more
options available, the better his/her chances of success, he
concluded.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG observed that there are no accompanying
fiscal notes for HB 359.
MR. WOOLIVER explained that if the ACS were to submit a fiscal
note, it would be based on an anticipated increase in the number
of hearings the court would have. For example, if there are
8,000 people currently on probation for minor consuming, the
court might anticipate a significant number of probationers
requesting a hearing. However, he added, he is not sure what
percentage of those convicted might qualify for the procedure
proposed by the bill, and so he will be researching that issue
further to see if a fiscal note is warranted.
1:20:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the language of proposed AS
04.16.050(l)(2) and (3), and said he is having an amendment
drafted to address his concern that the person will continue to
make payments for the court-ordered programs and the fines that
the court imposes; for example, any unpaid amount could be
entered as a judgment against the person. He asked whether the
ACS would be amenable to such an amendment.
MR. WOOLIVER indicated that he is not sure that [such an
amendment] would be an issue for the ACS.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed concern that the language of
proposed AS 04.16.050(l)(4) isn't written correctly.
MS. BEATLEY explained that the Department of Law (DOL) had
wanted the bill to also stipulate that the person has to have
substantially complied with other conditions of probation, and
it appears that the drafter simply added that stipulation to the
stipulation that the continuance of probation would interfere
with the rehabilitation and growth of the person. She suggested
that perhaps the two aspects of proposed AS 04.16.050(l)(4)
could instead be separated into two different paragraphs.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that he felt something still
needed to be done to clarify those stipulations.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said he is reading proposed AS
04.16.050(l)(4) to say that a person need not completely comply
with the conditions of probation before being allowed to join
the service if doing so would interfere with his/her
rehabilitation.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he understands that concept, but
opined that the language doesn't currently say that.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG posited that the language means that
before the court can grant the motion [to terminate probation],
the court must find that the defendant has complied with any
other conditions of probation - in other words, that he/she
hasn't been committing any other crimes - and must find that if
probation continues and the motion is not granted, that would
interfere with the defendant's rehabilitation and growth. He
opined that the courts would interpret the language of proposed
AS 04.16.050(l)(4) in that fashion.
MR. WOOLIVER concurred with Representative Gruenberg's summation
of the language, but cautioned that he can't say how judges will
actually interpret the language.
CHAIR RAMRAS closed public testimony and set HB 359, Version M,
aside until later in the meeting.
HB 256 - ACTIVE GAME MANAGEMENT/AIRBORNE SHOOTING
1:28:26 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 256, "An Act relating to active game management
and to the airborne or same day airborne taking of certain game
animals; making conforming amendments; and providing for an
effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 256(RES).]
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 256, Version 25-GH1076\E, Kane, 2/15/08,
as the work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected, and asked whether the only
change between Version E and CSHB 256(RES) is that the effective
date has been changed from July 1, 2007, to July 1, 2008.
CHAIR RAMRAS offered his understanding that that is the only
change.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that Version E was before the committee.
1:32:11 PM
KEVIN SAXBY, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Natural
Resources Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law
(DOL), after relaying that he is assigned to the Board of Game
and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) and that work
on the bill began during the Murkowski Administration when
interested legislators requested that the DOL and the ADF&G come
up with language that would improve and make more workable both
the "intensive management law and the same-day airborne law,"
said that work on the bill began before the current litigation
challenging Alaska's predator control programs and before "the
current initiative that's on the ballot for the next election."
He then offered his understanding that Sections 1 and 2 don't
make any substantive changes but instead merely adopt conforming
language necessitated by changes proposed elsewhere in the bill.
MR. SAXBY explained that [in drafting the bill], the underlying
assumption of the DOL and the ADF&G was that the legislative
intent was to maintain both the "intensive management law on the
books" and the "same-day airborne law on the books" while making
them more workable. The departments had no intention,
therefore, to significantly alter what they believed were the
underlying core principles of both laws. Section 3, he relayed,
rewrites the "intensive management law," which resulted from
Governor Hickel's 1992 shutdown of predator control in the face
of a tourism boycott. That original law was written to force
the Board of Game, in certain instances, to adopt predator
control programs. The departments are assuming, he remarked,
that the legislature continues to want to require the Board of
Game to have a duty to act intensively, to manage intensively,
in certain instances. He went on to say:
We believe the core principles of that law have always
been, first of all, that the Board [of Game] is to
identify populations of game [for which] ... it's
important to manage intensively ... [because they] are
important for high levels of human consumption;
second, that once those populations are identified,
that the Board [of Game] set objectives for the size
of the population and for the harvest level ... that's
to come out of that population; and, third, that ...
the Board [of Game] is then to adopt regulations that
... implement this duty to manage intensively, and, if
objectives aren't being met, that the Board [of Game]
... take what measures ..., within reason, are
necessary in order to attempt to reach those
objectives. And that's what Section 3 begins;
Section 3 ... restates the duty - ... in a much
clearer fashion than ... stated under the existing law
- for the Board [of Game] to identify [game]
populations that are important to manage for high
levels of human use, and then to ... set ...
population and harvest objectives for those
populations.
MR. SAXBY explained that [one provision of] Section 4 requires
the Board of Game to manage moose, caribou, and deer populations
so as to meet its set objectives. He characterized this as a
broader requirement than under current law because currently the
Board of Game only has to adopt intensive management regulations
when a population is depleted or when the Board of Game is
[otherwise] forced to reduce the taking of that population,
whereas under HB 256, the Board of Game will always have that
duty, since once a population is identified as important to
manage for high levels of harvest by humans, it is always
important to do so. [Game] populations sometimes need to be
reduced, for example, because they are over populating their
range, and so the Board of Game needs to have a duty to take
action to maintain the population's productivity in those
instances as well.
MR. SAXBY said that another provision of Section 4 stipulates
that if objectives are not being met, then the Board of Game is
to adopt regulations to restore productivity and increase
harvest, including instituting active management measures and
programs. The final provision of Section 4 was added by the
House Resources Standing Committee to ensure that this duty to
identify populations to be managed for high levels of harvest by
humans doesn't mean that the Board of Game can't identify other
uses for populations or can't identify other populations that
are to be managed differently. The departments did not envision
this provision as causing any problems, because they felt it was
already part of current law, but it was added to alleviate
concerns that the duty outlined in Section 3 appears to only
consider high levels of harvest by humans as an important use.
1:39:19 PM
MR. SAXBY pointed out that the term, "intensive management" has
been changed to the term, "active management", which is now
defined in Section 5 as including predator control." Section 5,
furthermore, eliminates a number of what he characterized as
very problematic definitions that have provided a lot of fodder
for litigation; a lot of these terms, he added, are not
necessary to enable the Board of Game to reach the goals the
legislature intended via adoption of the "intensive management
law." He offered his belief that the term, "active management"
is being defined the same way via HB 256 that the term,
"intensive management" is currently defined in statute. Within
the management community, he relayed, the term, "active
management" in general carries a broader connotation in Alaska
than the term, "intensive management" because the latter term is
now being equated with just predator control. He added:
Our intent with this term, here, is to encourage
innovative thinking. ... There's a number of
situations where predator control may not be the
answer but there's still a need to do something beyond
just regulating [harvest by humans] ... and bag limits
and seasons, and do something affirmative, and so
we're introducing this term, "active management" to
encourage that kind of thinking and to let the public
know that is our intent.
1:40:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked how the term, "intensive management"
is currently defined.
MR. SAXBY offered that existing AS 16.05.255(j)(4) reads:
(4) "intensive management" means management of an
identified big game prey population consistent with
sustained yield through active management measures to
enhance, extend, and develop the population to
maintain high levels or provide for higher levels of
human harvest, including control of predation and
prescribed or planned use of fire and other habitat
improvement techniques.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES noted that [proposed AS 16.05.255(j)(1)]
simply says, "(1) 'active management' includes predator
control;". She asked whether there is a broader definition of
"active management" elsewhere in statute.
MR. SAXBY said there certainly could be one already, but noted
that the ADF&G and the DOL have created a broader definition in
case the legislature decides it would prefer to broaden the
definition of that term beyond what the bill currently provides
for. The departments intentionally left the definition provided
for in proposed AS 16.05.255(j)(1) open. He explained that the
word, "includes" is defined in Title 1 to mean "including but
not limited to". The departments don't mean to limit "active
management" to predator control, he relayed, but do want to
ensure that predator control is included in the statute in order
to clarify, both to the public and to the departments, that the
legislature still intends to "ratify the use of" predator
control.
1:43:07 PM
MR. SAXBY said that that broader definition retains, almost word
for word, the current definition of "providing for a high level
of human harvest", because it's the departments' view that that
is the very core of the "intensive management" principle and the
duty that the legislature sought to impose, but makes one small
change to clarify that the issue pertains to the current
biological capabilities rather than some future harvestable
surplus. He then offered his understanding that Sections 6 and
7 do not make substantive changes but instead merely adopt
conforming language necessitated by changes proposed elsewhere
in the bill.
MR. SAXBY, in response to a question, relayed that existing AS
16.05.255(j)(2) reads in part, "(2) 'high level of human
harvest' means the allocation of a sufficient portion of the
harvestable surplus ...", whereas proposed AS 16.05.255(j)(2)
reads in part, "(2) 'providing for a high level of human
harvest' means allowing allocation of a sufficient portion of
the harvestable surplus ...". He opined that although this
seems to be a small change, it bears on an argument made in
court that the current statutory wording requires that the Board
of Game must base its objectives in setting high levels of
harvest by humans on whatever the current harvestable surplus is
even if that's a depleted harvestable surplus; the opposing
argument made by [the departments] is that the purpose of the
"intensive management law" is to restore game populations to
abundance. Addition of the word, "allowing", therefore, is
meant to indicate that the language refers to a future action
rather than a current action.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether use of the term,
"allowing" might be interpreted to allow the Board of Game to do
things other than what Mr. Saxby is suggesting. From a legal
point of view, he proffered, the use of the term, "allowing"
means that the Board of Game "may, but need not" allocate a
sufficient portion of the sustainable harvest to achieve a high
probability of success, thus giving the board more discretion to
do things other than what the departments intend.
MR. SAXBY pointed out, though, that in court, the argument being
made regarding the existing definition of "high level of human
harvest" is that the allocation must be made now based on
whatever the current harvestable surplus is. Changing the
definition via proposed AS 16.05.255(j)(2) will clarify that
"this isn't a current allocation - it's something that will
happen in the future," he remarked. The departments did not
want to change the overall definition very much, he added,
because it's held in very high regard among proponents of
intensive management and it's the very core of what the
legislature intended to require the Board of Game to do.
1:48:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG again argued, however, that the
proposed definition might give the Board of Game more discretion
than intended.
MR. SAXBY said that he doesn't have a suggestion for different
language, and doesn't know how the Board of Game would be able
to twist the proposed definition around into allowing it to
manage for some other purpose - the underlying principle would
still be that the Board of Game is obligated to manage game for
high levels of harvest by humans.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the proposed definition says
that the Board of Game shall consider "all hunter demand",
whereas the current definition says that the Board of Game shall
consider "hunter demand". He asked why the word, "all" was
added.
MR. SAXBY indicated that the addition of the word "all" is meant
to clarify that the legislature intends for the Board of Game to
manage for all consumptive uses of a population, not just the
local subsistence use. One of the arguments repeatedly raised
in court is that the purpose of the "intensive management law"
must have been only to provide for the often fairly low-level
local subsistence use and it wasn't intended to require
management for abundance in order to provide for, say, urban
sport hunters, for example. Addition of the word "all" should
preclude that argument, he posited.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that the
proposed language would limit consideration to all hunter uses,
and not other uses as well.
MR. SAXBY concurred that the consideration would be limited to
all "consumptive" uses, and again offered his understanding that
that's the core of the "intensive management law" and what the
legislature intended to require in adopting that law in 1994;
the changes proposed by Version E would just make that law more
workable.
1:51:52 PM
MR. SAXBY went on to explain that Section 8, in part, adds
"brown bear" to the "same-day airborne law" - both in the
prohibition provision and in the exception provision - though
this doesn't change the status quo because brown bears are
already included in the regulations pertaining to this law; it
was felt that if there is a need to have statutory language in
place for wolves and wolverines, there is also a need to have
statutory language in place for brown bears because they too are
a high-level "keystone" predator and as slow breeding as
wolverines, for example. The "same-day airborne law," he
offered, has two core principals: one, that the animals that
are covered should not routinely be shot on the same day that a
person has been airborne, and, two, that there should be an
exception for when doing so is necessary for some biological
purpose. The departments are trying to preserve both principles
in proposing the changes in Section 8.
MR. SAXBY said that another of the changes proposed by Section 8
alters the existing exception for when it's necessary "to mesh
it with the intensive management law." This is the first time
that the "same-day airborne law" will actually "mesh" with the
"intensive management law"; as currently worded, and as
sometimes worded in the past, those two laws have been pretty
contradictory. Section 8 also proposes to eliminate some of the
language that the departments feel is not necessary to achieve
the underlying goals of "this law." Section 9 adds language
that would make it legal for an authorized person to fly into a
remote area and take a wolf or a brown bear, for example, for
public safety purposes. Under the current language of the
"same-day airborne law," such would be a misdemeanor crime, even
if done by a State employee. Section 10 defines the word,
"shooting" to clarify that one can dart animals [with
tranquilizers or other nonlethal drugs]. Sections 11-14, he
offered, are merely transitional provisions and effective date
provisions.
1:56:00 PM
DOUG LARSEN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), concurred with Mr. Saxby's
explanation of HB 256.
1:56:42 PM
JOEL BENNETT, Alaskans for Wildlife, indicated that his
organization is sponsoring and promoting "the initiative that
will be voted on by Alaskans in August" regarding same-day
airborne hunting - 05HUNT - and that that initiative is
substantially the same as the initiative that the voters
approved in 1996 but which was largely repealed by legislative
action three years afterwards. Subsequent to "that," in the
year 2000, his organization brought forth a referendum dealing
with "one of the main aspects of the previous initiative, that
is to say, whether or not the public or department personnel
would be [the] people who would undertake airborne predator
control," and that [referendum was approved] as well.
Unfortunately, he remarked, that [referendum] was also repealed
after two years via legislative action. The initiative yet to
be voted on - 05HUNT - deals entirely with the statutory
language that Section 8 of Version E is proposing to change:
AS 16.05.783(a).
MR. BENNETT noted that he'd served on the Board of Game for over
12 years, and that he's testified in the House Resources
Standing Committee against HB 256 in general because he feels
that it doesn't meet "any of the threshold standards" that are
contained in either of the aforementioned initiatives. Given
that an initiative can be taken off the ballot when the
legislature enacts substantially similar legislation, it will be
up to the attorney general to determine whether Section 8 of the
bill is substantially the same as the aforementioned [upcoming]
initiative. However, Mr. Bennett pointed out, during Senate
Resources Standing Committee hearings on the Senate companion
bill, the DOL representative declined to answer the question of
whether that bill's Section 8 is substantially similar to the
initiative and instead posited that the bill should stand or
fall on its own merits.
MR. BENNETT said that that has lead his organization to assume
that the departments are being evasive with the legislature and
with the public, and that the departments want to avoid saying
whether Section 8 is substantially similar to the initiative
because "they know that it will cause a serious reaction from
the 57,000 people who signed this initiative over the past
year." Once [HB 256 or its companion bill] passes the
legislature, he predicted, then the DOL will advise the
lieutenant governor that the bill is substantially similar to
the initiative and ask that it be removed from the ballot. As a
sponsor of the upcoming initiative, he said he doesn't think
that Section 8 is substantially similar to the initiative; "any
common sense and plain reading of [the] two documents, I think,
would reach that conclusion."
MR. BENNETT explained that the goal of the upcoming initiative
is to revise the current law so that it is nearly the same as
what [it became when] the 1996 initiative was approved by the
voters, and the key part of that law was a reference to
"biological emergency". Section 8 of HB 256, however, makes no
reference to "biological emergency". He went on to say:
To demonstrate how dissimilar it is, all you have to
do is look at what's happened this year and last year
and the previous two years: the Board [of Game]
adopted five predator control programs for killing
large numbers of wolves on tens of thousands of acres
of state and federal lands, [but] not a single one of
these programs would satisfy the initiative's
standard. Every single one ..., however, would
satisfy the vague standards in Section 8.
MR. BENNETT asked that the DOL be required to provide the
legislature with its best advice on the question of whether the
initiative and the bill are similar and regarding what the DOL
will advise the lieutenant governor should Section 8 of the bill
pass. He added:
We don't want to be tricked, and neither should you -
and certainly the public deserves a fair and open
discussion of this point - I think the only way that
you can [ensure] ... that doesn't happen is to debate
the "substantially similar" question openly, with the
best advice you can get from the [DOL] on this issue.
It's not about predator control, it's not about
airborne hunting; it's about democracy. Without a
critical analysis, by passing this bill out with
Section 8 as written, you could be denying the people
of Alaska their right to vote.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Mr. Bennett whether he is involved
in litigation pertaining to the initiatives.
MR. BENNETT said he is not.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked why the bill was referred to the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he didn't know.
CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that he didn't know either.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is just wondering whether there
is something in HB 256 that the House Judiciary Standing
Committee should be specifically looking at. In response to a
comment, he added that he hopes it is not setting a precedent to
send bills to the House Judiciary Standing Committee just
because there might be a conflict between an initiative and a
previous legislature, regardless that the bill raises an issue
that has garnered a lot of interest.
2:06:19 PM
JOE KLUTSCH, President, Alaska Professional Hunters Association,
Inc. (APHA), relayed that he would be speaking on behalf of the
APHA's hunting-guide members and himself. He said that there is
a great hunting tradition in Alaska, and offered the following
quote from the ADF&G publication "Understanding Predator
Management in Alaska": "It is integral to lifestyles,
traditional cultures, the economy, and basic food needs for many
Alaska families." He added that a lot of those families are
guiding families that share substantial amounts of meat with
people who would otherwise not have access to wild game. The
issue at hand, he opined, is the dwindling number of moose,
caribou, and, in some areas, deer, and other ungulate species
that's occurred over the last 15 years. Again referring to the
aforementioned publication, he said it offers historical data
from territorial and early statehood days, and suggested that
members read it.
MR. KLUTSCH posited that most declines [in prey populations] can
be directly attributable to ever-increasing predator
populations, particularly wolf populations, especially in
Western and Southcentral Alaska. Historically, active predator
management resulted in high numbers of game species, allowing
for sustainable, long-term use by hunters. Since the 1980s,
efforts to manage predator populations have been curtailed, with
the result being a continual loss of opportunity [for hunting
prey populations]. Those opposed to HB 256, he opined, would
like people to believe that no predator control efforts should
be undertaken until a threshold of biological emergency [has
been attained]; however, it's just not acceptable to allow
[prey] populations to be depleted, by predation or overhunting
or any other activity, to a level of biological emergency.
MR. KLUTSCH said that doing so intentionally ignores the fact
that at that point in the allocation equation, nonresident and
general resident seasons [would be] closed, and, in most cases,
subsistence seasons [would be] curtailed to Tier I or Tier II
[because there wouldn't be] enough animals to allow for a
sustainable harvest. Also, if such is allowed to occur,
recovery of many game species could take decades. There is a
constitutional and even a moral obligation to prevent such from
happening. He mentioned that he's sat on a "fish and game
advisory committee" for 28 years, and has watched many seasons
for caribou and moose be closed systematically as a result of
increases in predator populations, particularly wolf
populations.
MR. KLUTSCH opined that nothing in the bill spells doom for
predators. To the contrary, it gives the ADF&G and the Board of
Game - with thorough public input from all affected parties -
the ability to authorize and undertake properly-justified and
measured predator management programs; it allows the ADF&G and
the Board of Game to act before the state finds itself in a
management crises. Acting only in the case of a biological
emergency is acting too late. Failure to actively manage
predator species, particularly wolves, is now having and will
continue to have a devastating effect on all Alaskans who rely
on prey species, and that includes those who watch wildlife and
those who don't have an opportunity to get out into the
wilderness but take comfort from knowing that wildlife is
abundant in Alaska. Everybody can benefit from including
predators in a management equation, he concluded, and urged
passage of HB 256.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his understanding that the vast
majority of deaths in prey populations result from predators.
He asked Mr. Klutsch what percentage of prey populations he
takes for human consumption compared to what predators take.
MR. KLUTSCH said it varies from prey population to prey
population. With regard to moose populations in Game Management
Unit 17 (GMU 17) and GMU 9, for example, harvest by humans can
account for approximately 2-3 percent of those prey populations'
reduction, whereas reduction from predation can be as high as
60-80 percent, particularly since cows and cows with calves are
especially vulnerable to both bears and, primarily, wolves. It
is the duty of the Board of Game and the ADF&G - with good
public input - to sort this issue out on a case-by-case, unit-
by-unit, proposed-regulation-by-regulation basis, he opined,
adding that he doesn't see anything in the bill that provides
wholesale authorization to eliminate predators - that's not the
intent of the bill.
2:12:48 PM
JOHN TOPPENBERG, Director, Alaska Wildlife Alliance, said he
would like to address one aspect of HB 256, that being what he
characterized as "the abdication" of any requirement that
available biological science be a part of the decision-making
process. Mr. Toppenberg said his organization disagrees with
Mr. Saxby's interpretation of much of HB 256 as it applies to
that specific [point]. The Board of Game, he remarked, only
sometimes gives minimal consideration to available science; the
Board of Game has implemented predator control programs that
cause mainstream scientists serious concern - note that research
data compiled by the ADF&G is available to any interested
scientist. Scientific organizations opposed to the current,
extreme predator control programs include the National Research
Council (NRC), the American Society of Mammalogists (ASM) -
which comprise 500 scientists that "signed off" on two different
letters to the governor - as well as 172 individual scientists,
both inside and outside of Alaska, who signed a letter he
delivered to the governor, making it clear that they see little
scientific justification for the extreme predator control
programs now in place.
MR. TOPPENBERG offered his belief that HB 256 eliminates both
the requirement to consider the minimal scientific information
normally brought to the Board of Game, and the requirement that
predators be the proximate cause of possible lowered numbers of
prey. This legislation should be opposed by anyone who supports
modern concepts of wildlife management, which recognize that
healthy populations of both predator and prey are necessary for
healthy ecosystems in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Mr. Toppenberg, "In your science
review, did you do it with regard to just the management of the
population, or management for human consumption of these
[populations]."
MR. TOPPENBERG said that the assessments, according to his
interpretation and understanding, "would be a notation" that the
Board of Game has given inadequate justification for the extreme
nature of the predator control programs now in place regardless
of whether they are structured for consumptive or non-
consumptive use - it's simply an acknowledgment that modern
scientific concepts are not a part of the decision-making
process but should be.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he does not accept that answer
because it is not scientific. He attempted to clarify his
question: "Was it with regard to human consumption or just the
ecosystem?"
MR. TOPPENBERG indicated that his interpretation is that the
scientists to whom he is referring believe that it is in the
best interest of both predator and prey to have healthy
ecosystems; that predators are a necessary part of healthy,
intact, functioning ecosystems; and that severe, extreme
depletion of predator numbers - by as much as 80 percent, which
is now the stated goal for wolf reduction in five areas of the
state - doesn't meet any currently-accepted scientific
standards.
2:17:02 PM
REUBEN HANKE, after mentioning that he holds a current, aerial
wolf-control gunner's permit, said he would be speaking in favor
of HB 256. He relayed that since "we" started the aerial wolf
control project in GMU 16B, he has personally noticed an
increase in the numbers of moose that are present in a small
area in which he hunts and traps. Prior to 2005, he said, he
would typically count between 20-40 moose - generally just in
one spot and rarely were any of them calves - whereas since
2005, he has seen moose in several different location in that
area and the number of calves has increased dramatically.
Acknowledging that GMU 16 still has problems with overall moose
numbers, he offered his belief that moving forward with existing
[predator control] programs will result in an increase [in moose
populations] throughout the GMU, and that HB 256 will help as
well.
2:19:04 PM
MARTIN WADE WILLIS noted that he has a degree in biology, has in
the past served as a biologist for the ADF&G, now owns "an
outfitter business, and is an avid moose hunter. He said he is
continually amazed at the biased testimony the legislature is
receiving from the DOR and the ADF&G; the departments
intentionally omit [speaking about] the serious consequences of
the bill, and don't want the legislature to know that they are
removing any requirements to use science to document whether or
not predator control is necessary. The departments are giving a
carte blanche open ticket to the Board of Game to just use its
opinion to institute "one of the most contentious issues that
face wildlife management" in Alaska. Three "initiatives" have
been before the public, and the people have voted, giving a
clear indication of how they feel about aerial predator control
- that being that they definitely want science involved. House
Bill 256 allows the Board of Game to use its opinion only and
not justify whether that opinion reflects reality.
MR. WILLIS offered his understanding that the Board of Game is
mandated to manage Alaska's wildlife for the benefit of all
Alaska residents, and that the House Judiciary Standing
Committee is responsible for making sure that the bills that
come before it [align with] that mandate. How is it, then, that
the committee can justify giving the Board of Game [the
authority to base its decision regarding such a contentious
practice on the wishes of] only 15 percent Alaska's residents -
the hunters; HB 256 removes the ability of the remaining 85
percent of Alaska's residents to have a say in how Alaska's
wildlife is managed. The existing statute is not improved by
replacing science with opinion, or by legislating the public out
of the process.
MR. WILLIS, noting that the bill would also authorize the aerial
shooting of bears, surmised that since the public has been so
vocal with regard to "predator wolf control," it will be just as
vocal with regard to bear control. He opined that the
legislature shouldn't hand such a contentious issue over to the
Board of Game, which he characterized as a special interest
group because it doesn't represent all Alaskans. Again, he
remarked, HB 256 is attempting to legislate the public out of
the process, and he requested that the committee ask the DOL why
science needs to be removed from the equation in order to
improve the statute. In response to a question, he offered his
understanding that the DOL has "removed the specific words that
say, 'need to base predator management on' ... 'the best science
available' ... and replaced it with the opinion of the Board of
Game." He offered his belief that this will result in the
public being denied the ability to interact with the Board of
Game. What resource does the public have when the only mandate
the Board of Game has is to have an opinion regarding such a
contentious issue?
2:24:56 PM
ROD ARNO, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC),
after relaying that the AOC has a membership of 3,000
individuals and 47 clubs, offered that in watching HB 256 move
through the legislative process, and in watching the Board of
Game implement the bill's provisions after it was introduced, he
can say that state government is doing something right and doing
it for the right reasons. He elaborated:
What they're doing is successfully managing our
predator/prey relationships - on a limited area of the
state, less than 10 percent - and the reason they're
doing it is to allow for the continuation of our
traditional, cultural, wild-food harvest. Since the
law was passed in '94 - [the law] that empowered our
professional wildlife managers to implement predator
control management programs - there's been a number of
legal challenges by outside, or outside-funded, animal
rights groups. The State has prevailed in every
single case so far. While [the State's] ... record is
commendable, it has taken a considerable amount of
State time, money, and brainpower. So now, our State
employees have done what has been reasonably expected
[of] them ...; they've taken a look back, they've seen
what could be done to tighten up the law as it was
amended throughout the years, and have offered those
improvements to you in the form of HB 256.
MR. ARNO pointed out that when the ADF&G appears to stray from
its mission, the AOC is quick to call the department into
account. He suggested, therefore, that when the ADF&G is doing
something right, it should be supported and given the tools it
needs to do the job it's been asked to do. He concluded by
asking the committee to pass HB 256 in order to clean up the
law.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether removing the requirement
that the department use good science is of concern to the AOC.
MR. ARNO said it is not, and offered his belief that the ADF&G's
mission will remain the same, that being to protect, maintain,
and improve the fish and game and aquatic-plant resources of the
state, and to manage their use and development in the best
interest of the economy and [for] the wellbeing of the people of
the state consistent with the sustained yield principle.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether the ADF&G has been
collecting data and making decisions based on good science.
MR. ARNO offered his belief that it has, and suggested that the
ADF&G publication "Predator Management in Alaska" includes over
60 references to such data. Alaska currently has the most
knowledgeable predator/prey management scientists in the world,
and legislative funding has allowed the necessary information to
be gathered.
2:29:41 PM
JERRY McCUTCHEON opined that "biological science" is an art
rather than a science, an art like medicine. Gone are the days,
he remarked, when great herds of caribou and bands of sheep
roamed the foothills of Mount McKinley, bands of sheep so
numerous and thick that they would not move out of the way of
the oncoming dog teams of the miners, trappers, and post-office-
mail dog-team drivers; the sheep immediately in front of the
dogs would just jump up on the backs of other sheep and then
fall back in as the dog teams passed through. The park service
took hunting and trapping out of the equation, and the wolves
slowly destroyed those big herds of caribou and bands of sheep
to the point where the wolves resorted to killing and eating
each other before finally relocating. The parts of the park
that still held game resulted from the territorial government,
and then the state government, practicing aerial wolf hunting.
There were more wolves and more game years ago when aerial wolf
hunting was allowed. In conclusion he said he is a firm
believer in aerial wolf hunts. None of this land-and-shoot
[controversy], he added - it's not about fair chase - it's about
predator control. No wolf hunting or bear hunting by the ADF&G,
or relocating animals by the ADF&G, he suggested; just raise the
bounty until the state has an active community of aerial wolf
hunters.
2:33:59 PM
VICTOR VAN BALLENBERGHE relayed that he is a professional
wildlife biologist, has been doing that type of work in Alaska
since 1974, and has served on the Board of Game three different
times since 1985. He suggested that in order to determine
exactly what changes HB 256 is proposing to the current statutes
regarding intensive management and same-day airborne hunting,
the bill and those two existing laws need to be looked at side
by side. If one does that, he relayed, one will find that
Section 3, for example, proposes to delete from existing AS
16.05.255(e) several guidelines that the Board of Game now uses
when adopting intensive management regulations, one of those
guidelines being that intensive management be applied only to
depleted moose and caribou populations or to those experiencing
reduced productivity. Those [existing guidelines] were adopted
for a reason, he opined, and yet the bill proposes to allow
intensive management to be applied to any populations, even
those that aren't depleted or experiencing reduced productivity.
That's a significant change.
MR. VAN BALLENBERGHE relayed that another of the guidelines
Section 3 is proposing to delete is that intensive management
programs must be feasibly achievable using recognized and
prudent active management techniques. "Why would we want to
delete that," he queried. Referring to Section 4, which
proposes to alter AS 16.05.255(f), he also asked, "Why would we
want to delete the provision that intensive management programs
do not apply if they are ineffective, inappropriate, or against
the best interest of subsistence users"; this provision will be
deleted by Section 4. And the most serious provisions of the
existing, same-day airborne hunting law that are being deleted
can be found in Section 8, which proposes to alter AS
16.05.783(a). Those provisions are guidelines for the Board of
Game, that based on information from the ADF&G, the Board of
Game must find that predation is the cause for the problems and,
if so, that predator control is a likely solution.
MR. VAN BALLENBERGHE asked, "Isn't it just common sense that
before we launch a wolf control program we'd want to establish
that predation is the problem and reducing it is the ...
solution?" If so, why should the bill delete that guideline?
Regardless that Mr. Saxby says it is unnecessary language, Mr.
Van Ballenberghe argued, it is instead an important guideline
for the Board of Game and is language the removal of which would
be objected to by every competent biologist he knows. So
although members have been told that HB 256 would improve and
simplify existing statutes and would make things more workable,
he remarked, he is of the belief that it will instead remove
virtually every guideline the Board of Game uses when adopting
intensive management programs and replace them with the simple
requirement that what the Board of Game institutes must be
"conducive" to achieving the intensive management objectives.
"Conducive" is a standard so weak as to be meaningless, he
opined.
MR. VAN BALLENBERGHE, in conclusion, urged the committee to
amend the bill such that Section 8 no longer proposes to delete
the language of AS 16.05.783(a)(1)-(2) that currently reads:
has determined based on information provided by the
department
(1) in regard to an identified big game prey
population under AS 16.05.255(g) that objectives set
by the board for the population have not been achieved
and that predation is an important cause for the
failure to achieve the objectives set by the board,
and that a reduction of predation can reasonably be
expected to aid in the achievement of the objectives;
or
(2) that a disease or parasite of a predator
population
(A) is threatening the normal biological
condition of the predator population; or
(B) if left untreated, would spread to other
populations.
2:39:47 PM
MR. VAN BALLENBERGHE, in response to a question, posited that
that language is critical to guiding the Board of Game when it's
making some important determinations regarding whether to
institute a predator control program. Again, those
determinations are whether predation is the problem and, if so,
whether reducing predation is the solution; it is only common
sense that the Board of Game would want to make those
determinations based on information from the ADF&G - the entity
that gathers the biological information. That language is
critical to having a regulation related to predator control that
will work in the long run. Deleting that language and depriving
the Board of Game of that guideline, he opined, is a major
mistake.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Van Ballenberghe whether he
would be in favor of also deleting the new language being
proposed via Section 8 that currently reads:
determines that the program would be conducive to
achieving the objectives established for human harvest
or population size of a moose, caribou, or deer
population identified under AS 16.05.255(e) or would
be conducive to the health of a predator population,
and if the program is limited to the area necessary
for that purpose
MR. VAN BALLENBERGHE indicated that he would be in favor of
deleting that language.
2:42:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Van Ballenberghe whether he
has problems with Section 8's proposal to add brown bears to AS
16.05.783(a).
MR. VAN BALLENBERGHE indicated that he does have problems with
that addition. He elaborated:
Brown bears, in the state of Alaska, have been
considered a ... big-game trophy species since
statehood - since the legislature set up the basic
authorities and ... functions of the [ADF&G]. In
recent years they have become predators, and the ...
existing intensive management statute fully allows the
[Board of Game] to have predator control programs that
are designed to reduce ... [predation by bears] and
bear populations when that is the problem.
MR. VAN BALLENBERGHE, in response to another question, said that
research started illustrating in the late 1970s that brown bears
were a significant predator of moose and caribou calves. His
point, however, is that the Board of Game already has all the
authority it needs under the existing intensive management law
to reduce brown bears when they are in fact documented to be a
[problem], so there is no need to consider the drastic measure
of shooting them from the air. The Board of Game had, in 1982,
"adopted a regulation" to just that effect, but there was such
immediate public resistance to that that the Board of Game
rescinded it under huge amounts of public pressure; the concept
of shooting brown bears from the air is just so repulsive to
most people that it should not be instituted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Van Ballenberghe whether he
would also be in favor of altering Section 8 such that it no
longer proposes to delete from AS 16.05.783(a) the language that
currently reads: "as part of a game management plan".
MR. VAN BALLENBERGHE said he would be in favor of such an
alteration. He added:
Why should we object to having the provision, the
guideline for the [Board of Game] when it adopts
predator control programs, that they be part of a game
management plan? Again ..., most biologists and
managers would applaud that. ... There must be
overriding considerations that guide these actions,
and what better way than to put them in a ... game
management plan of which predator control is a part.
It's a puzzle to me why that would be taken from the
existing statute, other than, as has been suggested,
it is one of the issues on which the litigation has
been based.
MR. VAN BALLENBERGHE suggested that instead of removing the
aforementioned guideline, to the detriment of the Board of Game,
the committee should just ensure that the Board of Game follows
existing statute. It's not that complex, he opined;
furthermore, when the existing statutory language has been
challenged, the State has prevailed.
2:46:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Van Ballenberghe what he
thinks about Section 8's proposal to change the phrase "the same
day that a person has been airborne" in AS 16.05.783(a) to, "the
same day that the person has been airborne".
MR. VAN BALLENBERGHE said he doesn't see any problem with that
proposed language change.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 256.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Saxby why HB 256 was referred
to the House Judiciary Standing Committee, and whether the bill
has any legal issues that the committee ought to address.
MR. SAXBY said he doesn't know why the bill was referred to the
House Judiciary Standing Committee, and indicated that it
contains no legal issues that need to be addressed by the
committee.
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that Article VIII, Section 4, of the Alaska
State Constitution says in part: "Fish, forests, wildlife,
grasslands, and all other replenishable resources belonging to
the State shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the
sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among
beneficial uses.
2:49:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1 such that the only change Section 8 would continue
to propose to AS 16.05.783(a) would be that of changing the
phrase, "the same day that a person has been airborne" to the
phrase, "the same day that the person has been airborne".
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS objected.
MR. SAXBY, in response to a question, said that the proposal to
change "a" to "the" is intended to clarify that that provision
applies to the person who has been airborne, rather than to just
any person.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS surmised that Conceptual Amendment 1
would eliminate all the other changes proposed by Section 8
except for that one.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred with that summation, and said
he supports that change, but not the others that Section 8
currently proposes.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS suggested that they instead move an
amendment to delete Section 8 and, if that amendment is adopted,
that they then move another amendment to add back the proposed
change of "a" to "the" in AS 16.05.783(a).
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said: "I was just thinking I could do
it in one amendment rather than two." He surmised that
Conceptual Amendment 1 would make Section 8 simpler in that it
would no longer contain any of its other currently-proposed
changes.
2:53:32 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Gruenberg voted in
favor of Conceptual Amendment 1. Representatives Dahlstrom,
Coghill, Samuels, and Ramras voted against it. Therefore,
Conceptual Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 1-4.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report the proposed CS for
HB 256, Version 25-GH1076\E, Kane, 2/15/08, out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, CSHB 256(JUD) was reported
from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 359 - PROBATION AND MINOR CONSUMING
2:54:47 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the committee would next return to
the hearing on HOUSE BILL NO. 359, "An Act relating to probation
and the offense of minor consuming or in possession or control
of alcohol." [The proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB
359, Version 25-LS1377\M, Luckhaupt, 2/20/08, which had been
adopted as the work draft earlier in the meeting, was before the
committee.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
labeled 25-LS1377\M.1, Luckhaupt, 2/20/08, which read:
Page 1, lines 12 - 13:
Delete "has either paid for the programs or has
made a good faith effort to pay for the programs"
Insert "has either
(A) paid for the programs; or
(B) made a good faith effort to pay for the
programs, agreed to have the debt reduced to a civil
judgment, entered into a repayment plan with the
provider or the state, and agreed that the civil
judgment may be enforced in the manner provided for
restitution and fines in AS 12.55.051"
Page 1, line 14, through page 2, line 1:
Delete "has paid the fine for the offense or has
made a good faith effort to pay the fine"
Insert "has either
(A) paid the fine; or
(B) made a good faith effort to pay the
fine, agreed to have the remaining fine amount reduced
to a civil judgment, entered into a plan with the
state, and agreed that the civil judgment may be
enforced in the manner provided for restitution and
fines in AS 12.55.051"
CHAIR RAMRAS objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Amendment 1 would
require that a person, in addition to making a good faith effort
to pay for the programs, must also agree to have the debt
reduced to a civil judgment, enter into a repayment plan, and
agree that the civil judgment may be enforced in the manner
provided for in statute for restitutions and fines. He offered
his understanding that Mr. Wooliver from the Alaska Court System
(ACS) doesn't, at this time, see a problem with Amendment 1.
CHAIR RAMRAS removed his objection to Amendment 1. [Amendment 1
was treated as adopted.]
2:57:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 2,
labeled 25-LS1377\M.2, Luckhaupt, 2/20/08, which read:
Page 1, lines 1 - 2:
Delete "probation and the offense of minor
consuming or in possession or control of alcohol"
Insert "termination of probation for certain persons
convicted of minor consuming or in possession or
control of alcohol or repeat minor consuming or in
possession or control of alcohol"
CHAIR RAMRAS objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Amendment 2 would
tighten the title so as to limit what may be added to HB 359.
CHAIR RAMRAS removed his objection. [Amendment 2 was treated as
adopted.]
2:58:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 359, Version 25-LS1377\M, Luckhaupt,
2/20/08, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 359(JUD) was reported from the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 237 - REMOVING A REGENT
2:58:59 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 237, "An Act authorizing the governor to remove
or suspend a member of the Board of Regents of the University of
Alaska for good cause; establishing a procedure for the removal
or suspension of a regent; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee was CSHB 237(STA), which had failed to be
reported from committee on 5/3/07 by a vote of 3-3.]
3:00:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reminded members that HB 237 provides a
due-process procedure by which the governor, for [good] cause,
can suspend or remove a member of the University of Alaska Board
of Regents.
CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that at a future hearing the committee
might consider the question of whether to rescind its action in
failing to report CSHB 237(STA) from committee.
[CSHB 237(STA) was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|