Legislature(1995 - 1996)

03/10/1995 08:10 AM House RES

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
               HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                         March 10, 1995                                        
                           8:10 a.m.                                           
                                                                               
                                                                               
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
                                                                               
 Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman                                         
 Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chairman                                     
 Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman                                      
 Representative Alan Austerman                                                 
 Representative Ramona Barnes                                                  
 Representative John Davies                                                    
 Representative Pete Kott                                                      
 Representative Irene Nicholia                                                 
 Representative Eileen MacLean                                                 
                                                                               
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
                                                                               
 None                                                                          
                                                                               
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
                                                                               
 HB 170:    "An Act relating to intensive management of identified             
            big game prey populations."                                        
                                                                               
            PASSED CSHB 170(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE                              
                                                                               
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY                                                     
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 513                                                       
 Juneau, AK   99801                                                            
 Phone:  465-2327                                                              
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Prime Sponsor HB 170                                     
                                                                               
 WAYNE REGELIN, Acting Director                                                
 Division of Wildlife Conservation                                             
 Alaska Department of Fish & Game                                              
 P.O. Box 25526                                                                
 Juneau, AK   99802                                                            
 Phone:  465-4190                                                              
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Made comments on proposed amendments and                 
                      answered questions regarding HB 170                      
                                                                               
 SARA HANNAN, Representative                                                   
 Alaska Environmental Lobby                                                    
 P.O. Box 22151                                                                
 Juneau, AK   99801                                                            
 Phone:  463-3366                                                              
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 170                                           
                                                                               
 RICHARD BURLEY                                                                
 1165 Coppet Street                                                            
 Fairbanks, AK   99789                                                         
 Phone:  474-0188                                                              
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Made comments on proposed amendments to                  
                      HB 170                                                   
                                                                               
 GEORGE UTERMOHLE, Legislative Counsel                                         
 Legislative Affairs Agency                                                    
 130 Seward Street, Ste. 409                                                   
 Juneau, AK   99801                                                            
 Phone:  465-2450                                                              
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions regarding HB 170                      
                                                                               
 LYNN LEVENGOOD, Member                                                        
 Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association                                      
 931 Vide Way                                                                  
 Fairbanks, AK   99712                                                         
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Made comments on proposed amendments to                  
                      HB 170                                                   
                                                                               
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
                                                                              
 BILL:  HB 170                                                                
 SHORT TITLE: INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OF GAME                                     
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY,Toohey                                    
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 02/10/95       301    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/10/95       301    (H)   RESOURCES                                         
 02/20/95              (H)   RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 02/20/95              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 02/27/95              (H)   RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 02/27/95              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 03/06/95              (H)   RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 03/06/95              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 03/08/95              (H)   RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 03/08/95              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 03/10/95              (H)   RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
                                                                               
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
                                                                               
 TAPE 95-31, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
                                                                               
 The House Resources Committee was called to order by Co-Chairman              
 Green at 8:10 a.m.  Members present at the call to order were                 
 Representatives Green, Ogan, Austerman and Davies.  Members absent            
 were Representatives Williams, Barnes, Kott, MacLean and Nicholia.            
                                                                               
 HRES - 03/10/95                                                               
 HB 170 - INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OF GAME                                       
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, PRIME SPONSOR, stated he would address             
 the amendments before the committee and answer any questions.                 
                                                                               
 Number 040                                                                    
                                                                               
 WAYNE REGELIN, ACTING DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION,            
 ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (ADF&G), stated the issue on               
 inserting the language about the duties and functions of the                  
 commissioner was settled at the last hearing on HB 170.  He                   
 stressed the department still feels the change to the duties and              
 powers and functions of the commissioner is not appropriate.  He              
 said the change has the potential to create problems for the                  
 working relationship between the Board of Game and the                        
 commissioner.  He added that relationship has worked for a long               
 time.  He noted the system cannot work if there is not a good                 
 working relationship between the commissioner and the Board of                
 Game.  He did not feel changing the statute is the solution if a              
 problem arises in the future.                                                 
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN recalled at the end of Wednesday's meeting on HB 170,             
 the committee had just voted on an amendment which Representative             
 Williams had asked for a reconsideration.  He said that amendment             
 removed the language regarding one of the duties of the                       
 commissioner--to assist the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) in           
 the enforcement of fish and game laws.  He stated if the                      
 legislature makes an overt change in the legislation, it could then           
 be used as a defense later on by someone who says state fish and              
 wildlife agents cannot enforce federal law.  He told committee                
 members the department feels it is important to be able to continue           
 cooperating with federal fish and wildlife law enforcement agents.            
 He noted that cooperation has worked well for 35 years and the                
 department sees nothing broken in that area.                                  
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN stated HB 170 clarifies what the regulations of the               
 Board of Game do and that they are consistent with the sustained              
 yield principle.  He said HB 170 also states intensive management             
 will be undertaken when the depletion of the big game prey                    
 population from historic high levels has occurred.  The department            
 still has concerns regarding that issue.  He noted the department             
 could leave the words "historic high level" but in many instances             
 around the state, the department has worked hard with the public,             
 the local fish and game advisory committees, and the board to                 
 develop management plans.  He explained in these management plans,            
 the department has set population and harvest goals.  The                     
 department feels these efforts should take precedence over historic           
 high levels.                                                                  
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN said the department recommends on page 2, line 5 after            
 "high levels", add the words "or for population objectives set by             
 management plans and accepted by the Board of Game".  He stated in            
 the areas where game management is a hot issue, the department                
 already has management plans, where population goals have been                
 established through a public process and have been accepted by the            
 Board of Game.  He thought it would be useful to continue to use              
 those management plans when available.  He noted that                         
 Representative Ogan has an amendment which would delete the words             
 "from historic high levels".  He said that amendment is                       
 satisfactory because then the department would automatically manage           
 according to the management plans.                                            
                                                                               
 Number 184                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY expressed confusion about the words which Mr.            
 Regelin suggested for inserting.  He wondered if Mr. Regelin wanted           
 historic high levels in the bill plus those words or if he meant if           
 the words "historic high levels" are taken out, the words "or set             
 by management plans and accepted by the Board of Game" are not                
 necessary.                                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN responded in working with the committee, he was willing           
 to leave that because he felt the places where intensive management           
 would be used, there is not a place where the department would not            
 have a management plan already in place.  He said if the committee            
 accepts Representative Ogan's amendment to delete the words "from             
 historic high levels", there would be no need to add the words "or            
 set by management plans..." because the department would                      
 automatically manage it that way.                                             
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN said another change HB 170 would produce is to amend              
 the definition of intensive management.  He noted there is wording            
 contained in CSHB 170, version G, which excludes changes of                   
 regulation as a form of intensive management to change the                    
 regulation of human uses.  He suggested on page 2, lines 16-18, the           
 new language underlined be deleted and replaced with the words "and           
 regulation of harvest by humans."  He explained in many cases, the            
 best method of increasing a population is through regulation                  
 changes.  An example is Unit 13, where the biggest effect possible            
 is to change the regulations relating to the grizzly bear                     
 population.                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN said the purpose of having a higher population and more           
 production for human use can be achieved by changing regulations.             
 An example is the Mulchatna caribou herd, which has gone from a               
 small herd to 180,000 today, simply by limiting the harvest to one            
 bull for a period of time.  Today, there is a five caribou season             
 for eight and one-half months.  He stated often the cheapest and              
 best tool of management is to change regulations.  He stressed it             
 would not be very wise to preclude changing regulations as a tool             
 for the department to use to accomplish intensive management goals.           
 He noted that in some cases, changing regulations will not be all             
 that is necessary but felt in this case, as what he sees as a                 
 concern that the Board of Game could take action by changing                  
 regulations will fix the problem but it might take a couple of                
 years.  This would allow someone to sue the department and force              
 the department to spend money because the department is not killing           
 wolves or managing habitat.                                                   
                                                                               
 Number 262                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES commented there are a series of proposed           
 amendments.  He felt it would be very confusing to go through all             
 of the amendments and then come back and deal with them one at a              
 time.  He thought it would make more sense to take the amendments             
 one at a time, deal with them, and dispose of them.  He stressed he           
 is frustrated by the fact a quorum is not present.                            
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN said another member would be joining the             
 committee meeting shortly.  He concurred with Representative                  
 Davies' desire.  He stated since a quorum is not present, perhaps             
 an overview is in order and then the committee can go back and                
 review each individual amendment.                                             
                                                                               
 Number 307                                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN said the department worked with Representative Kelly              
 and his staff last week on the definition of harvestable surplus              
 and the definition has been modified to make it clear that these              
 are estimates of productivity and mortality.  Based on that                   
 modification, the department will accept those changes and try to             
 work with meeting those objectives.  He stated the definition of              
 high level of human harvest is then based on the definition of                
 harvestable surplus.  He felt it is a measurable harvest goal and             
 in some places, the goal is probably possible to achieve.                     
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN told committee members the department has some concerns           
 that in many places it would require very low levels of predators             
 in the system and in many cases, it would make predator populations           
 unusable because they would be so scarce at periods of time.  He              
 thought, however, it is something that is possible to do.  He noted           
 the requirement by the law would be to manage so that one-third of            
 the harvestable surplus could be taken by humans.  He said in some            
 cases that will be achievable but in others it may not.  He felt              
 that is really pushing the biology in northern systems, where there           
 are many other mortality factors.  He stated these are goals the              
 department can work toward but added the legislature and the public           
 has to realize that in many instances, that effort is going to push           
 the wolf and bear populations to some very low levels.                        
                                                                               
 Number 344                                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN stated the department still has a concern that the way            
 the bill reads, the definition of high level of harvest and                   
 harvestable surplus does not provide for restrictions on harvest,             
 so the department can accommodate growth of herds.  He said in                
 talking with staff members, they felt that is something which is              
 implied and is obvious.  He stressed the bill does not read that              
 way and when someone gets in a court of law, it does not matter if            
 it is obvious--if it is not there, it often does not make any                 
 difference.  He felt it was important to allow for populations to             
 grow because many of them are below levels desired.  He said he has           
 looked at the bill many times and has talked to many people trying            
 to figure out how to accommodate the concern and the recommendation           
 is at the end of the definition of harvestable surplus, say that              
 growth would be allowed.                                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES clarified the change would be on page 2,                
 section 5, line 23:  replace "or" with a comma, and add after                 
 harvest "or for herd growth".                                                 
                                                                               
 Number 360                                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN responded that was his suggestion and he felt that                
 language would make it more clear.  The third concern the                     
 department has is the definition of sustained yield.  He said the             
 words "sustained yield principle" is used in CSHB 170, version G,             
 and is also used in the Constitution but is not used in the context           
 where it is required to be defined in the bill.  The department               
 sees no reason for the term to be defined in the bill.  He stated             
 sustained yield is a principle and is not conducive to a strict               
 definition.  He checked with five wildlife management textbooks and           
 not a single text defined the sustained yield principle.  They all            
 discussed it at length, talked about the principle and gave                   
 examples of it, but none of them defined it.                                  
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN said the department does not believe a definition in              
 CSHB 170, version G would accomplish anything and could create some           
 legal problems for the department in the future.  The department              
 prefers that sustained yield not be defined in the bill but if it             
 is, the definition needs to be changed to accommodate herd growth             
 and the possibility of the need for herd reduction.  He explained             
 the current definition would set the standard for sustained yield             
 as one-third of its harvestable surplus and in many cases that will           
 not be achievable.  He noted that earlier he provided                         
 Representative Kelly's staff with some changes for the definition.            
 He said based on what he knows and his long discussions with the              
 Department of Law, the department urges the committee not to                  
 include the definition of sustained yield in the bill.                        
                                                                               
 Number 403                                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN said subsection (h) of the bill directs the Board of              
 Game to manage the game populations to provide at least one-half of           
 the harvestable surplus for human harvest.  Earlier, that was                 
 defined as one-third and then it was changed to one-half later.  He           
 felt the intent is for that level to be the goal and if that is               
 true, that fact should be stated in the bill, so the department               
 cannot get sued for trying to accomplish that goal.                           
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN told committee members the last suggestion he has is in           
 the last section of the bill where it talks about delegation of               
 authority from the Boards of Game and Fisheries to the                        
 commissioner.  He said these are the same words which have been               
 added to the powers and functions of the commissioner.  He stated             
 a slight change is needed on page 3, line 9.  Currently it reads              
 proposed regulations.  He felt if there is a conflict, the conflict           
 would be in the implementation of the regulations.  He noted just             
 because regulations are proposed does not mean there is a conflict.           
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN stated this bill was just passed about eight months               
 ago.  The Board of Game has worked very diligently to implement               
 this bill into law.  When the board met in November, the first time           
 following passage of this bill, the department presented a lengthy            
 report to them and recommended at that time, the board pass some              
 definitions, including the definition of high level of harvest.  He           
 stressed the Board of Game discussed the subject for several hours            
 and disagreed with the department.  After the discussions, the                
 board felt that each population of game needs to be managed                   
 separately and they did not want to be tied into statewide                    
 definitions on how they would manage each individual situation.               
 The board did not want to lose that flexibility, so the board chose           
 not to pass any definitions.  Now the definitions are coming back             
 to be put in statute.  The department's position is that until the            
 bill is implemented and it is determined how it works, it is not              
 necessary to change it.  He said the Board of Game will meet again            
 in March and will move forward again with implementation of what              
 was passed eight months ago.                                                  
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted for the record that Representatives                   
 NICHOLIA and BARNES had joined the committee.                                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN made a MOTION to AMEND CSHB 170, version            
 G, on page 2, line 5:  delete "from historic high levels".                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated he has no objections to the amendment.            
                                                                               
 Number 481                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said the phrasing concerns him because he does            
 not feel it would work for all cases.  For example, the Mulchatna             
 herd currently is at a historic high level.  He expressed concern             
 about the effect of this verbiage--as soon as a big game population           
 drops off from historic high levels, intensive management would               
 automatically kick in, which is not always the best case scenario.            
 For example, they do not want that many caribou in the Mulchatna              
 herd and would like to bring the herd down to the management plan             
 level rather than the historic high level.  He stressed historic              
 high level is not always the best level to have game animals.                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said it is important to note that intensive              
 management is not an overall management plan for fish and game but            
 rather is for specific instances.                                             
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES recalled that Mr. Regelin had referred to               
 levels set by management plans and accepted by the Board of Game.             
 He said he understood the concern about setting a reference level             
 so high that it might be counter productive.  He asked Mr. Regelin            
 if that level is set high, would he have a concern if the phrase              
 "depletion of the big game prey population" is undefined.  He                 
 wondered with this amendment if it would then be necessary to go in           
 and put some reference to levels set by management plans.                     
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN responded that would not be necessary.  He said there             
 are other regulations involved when the department gets into                  
 predation management.  The department has to have implementation              
 plans in place, which require the department to set population and            
 harvest goals through a public process.  Those then have to be                
 accepted by the Board of Game.                                                
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections to the motion.           
 Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.                                              
                                                                               
 Number 550                                                                    
                                                                               
 SARA HANNAN, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY, gave her             
 credentials as an Alaskan and a hunter to assure the committee                
 members she was not present to argue that caribou, moose, or wolves           
 should not be killed.  She stressed she is not opposed to killing             
 animals.  She stated HB 170 is a very bad precedent, unnecessary,             
 and is something which will put the legislature into a tangle of              
 bureaucratic detailed decisions.  At statehood, the state of Alaska           
 assumed management of fish and game and at that time, established             
 the most extensive public process in any incident of government               
 agency to carry out and that is to manage fish and game.                      
                                                                               
 MS. HANNAN noted the state has 80 advisory game units, consisting             
 of over 900 Alaskans participating in the regulatory process that             
 comes to the Board of Game for decision making.  The Board of Game            
 consists of seven people.  She stated most of the board members are           
 hunters, active users of game, and are not there to stymie the                
 growth of hunting in the state of Alaska but are there to make                
 sound management decisions.  She stressed the board needs some                
 flexibility in carrying those decisions out.                                  
                                                                               
 MS. HANNAN felt 90 percent of the discussion surrounding HB 170 is            
 to intervene in game management decisions in two game units.  She             
 said there are 26 game units, so she would conclude that in 24 game           
 units, game management is being carried out in a successful way.              
 She would not assert there is not room for improvement in game                
 management.  She reminded committee members that eight months ago             
 the statute was changed.  She stressed because of the extensive               
 public process established by the legislature for game management             
 and for the Board of Game to make decisions, the board could not              
 carry out intensive game management any sooner than March 18.                 
                                                                               
 MS. HANNAN stated the board has several intensive game management             
 proposals to institute in game units 13 and 20.  She noted the                
 soonest those regulations could go into effect would be this fall             
 and the soonest some feedback could be received as to whether or              
 not those are successful changes is a season away from this fall.             
 She said if real science is being looked for, a couple of years of            
 implementation is needed before a decision can be made as to                  
 whether or not the intent and interest of the legislature is being            
 carried out.                                                                  
                                                                               
 Number 594                                                                    
                                                                               
 MS. HANNAN said if the concerns are really about the game                     
 management decisions made in two game management units, which 90              
 percent of the discussion has been about, she felt the legislature            
 is setting themselves up for a disastrous precedent.  She reminded            
 committee members there are 24 other game units and many fish units           
 where there are discussions about how the Boards of Fisheries and             
 Game has carried out the proposals.  If the precedent is set that             
 the legislature will intervene when there is public concern about             
 a decision, even though on an annual basis those decisions can be             
 changed, she believed the legislature will find themselves making             
 district by district allocation decisions on Boards of Game and               
 Fisheries issues.  She noted that intensive game management                   
 discussions have gone on for a number of years and fish decisions             
 will be ongoing forever.                                                      
                                                                               
 MS. HANNAN stated a historic perspective is important in finding              
 leadership but if the problem involves the working relationship               
 between the department and the Board of Game not working to the               
 legislatures satisfaction, she did not feel a statutory change                
 resolves that issue.  She said a working relationship is                      
 established over trust and respect.  She stressed the Board of Game           
 is trying to carry out the will of the legislature.  She urged                
 committee members to kill HB 170, to work with the Board of Game to           
 carry out their wishes and wait for the implementation of last                
 year's intensive game management law before other decisions are               
 made which control the Board of Game's flexibility in making those            
 decisions.                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked which game units are 13 and 20.           
                                                                               
 MS. HANNAN responded she did not have a map with her but felt Mr.             
 Regelin could point out those two game management units.                      
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN pointed out those areas on a map hanging on the wall of           
 the committee room.  He said game management unit 13 is the                   
 Nelchina basin and goes to the top of the Alaska range, starts at             
 Palmer, is bordered by the Parks Highway on the west, on the east             
 it runs into game management unit 20 and the Alaska Highway is the            
 dividing line in most cases.  He stated game management unit 20 is            
 a very large unit and is subdivided into six game management units.           
 He explained unit 20 is north of game management unit 13 and goes             
 all the way to the Canadian border and includes Tok.  Each sub-unit           
 is managed separately.                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 636                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY pointed out that HB 170 does not intend to tie           
 the hands of the Board of Game.  He said intensive management is a            
 tool to give the board for use when they decide it is needed.                 
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN said he does not disagree with what the intent is.  He            
 stated the Board of Game has had those tools before.  He reminded             
 committee members that the department had conducted wolf control in           
 previous years.                                                               
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said a committee member had requested his vote be           
 reconsidered on amendment G.2, offered by Representative Barnes on            
 Wednesday that failed.  However, that committee member is not                 
 present.                                                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES said she would hold the amendment for            
 the floor.                                                                    
                                                                               
 Number 659                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT made a MOTION to AMEND CSHB 170, version             
 G, as follows.  Page 1, line 14:  Delete "intensive", insert                  
 "active [INTENSIVE]"; page 2, after line 11:  Insert a new bill             
 section to read:  "*Sec. 4.  AS 16.05.255(f) is amended to read:              
 (f)  The Board of Game may not significantly reduce the taking of             
 an identified big game prey population by adopting regulations                
 relating to restrictions on harvest or access to the population, or           
 to management of the population by customary adjustments in                   
 seasons, bag limits, open and closed areas, methods and means, or             
 by other customary means authorized under (a) of this section,                
 unless the board has adopted regulations, or has scheduled for                
 adoption at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the board                 
 regulations, that provide for active [INTENSIVE] management to              
 increase the take of the population for human harvest consistent              
 with (e) of this section.  This subsection does not apply if the              
 board (1) determines that active [INTENSIVE] management would be            
 (A) ineffective, based on scientific information; (B) inappropriate           
 due to land ownership patterns; or (C) against the best interest of           
 subsistence uses; or (2) declares that a biological emergency                 
 exists and takes immediate action to protect or maintain the big              
 game prey population in conjunction with the scheduling for                   
 adoption of those regulations that are necessary to implement (e)             
 of this section."  Renumber the following bill sections                       
 accordingly.; page 2, line 13:  Delete "intensive", insert "active          
 [INTENSIVE]"; page 3, line 7:  Delete "intensive", insert "active"        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said this amendment was suggested by a former             
 biologist in Fairbanks.  He stated the amendment basically changes            
 the word "intensive" to "active" which he feels is less offensive.            
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion and              
 asked for a brief at ease to enable committee members to review the           
 amendment.                                                                    
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN called a brief at ease.                                     
                                                                               
 TAPE 95-31, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN called the meeting back to order at 8:56 a.m.               
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated it appears the amendment changes the             
 terminology from intensive to active and seems to have the                    
 concurrence of the department.                                                
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES WITHDREW his OBJECTION.                                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered if the Chairman of the Board of Game             
 could give some input on the amendments.                                      
                                                                               
 RICHARD BURLEY, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF GAME, testified via                        
 teleconference and stated he has no objection to the amendment.               
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections to the motion.           
 Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.                                              
                                                                               
 Number 123                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a MOTION to RESCIND the committee's                
 ACTION in failing to adopt amendment G.2 on CSHB 170, version G, at           
 Wednesday's hearing.                                                          
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES OBJECTED.                                               
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated rescinding the action taken would put            
 the amendment back before the committee and then she could once               
 again comment on what the amendment does.                                     
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote.  Voting in favor of             
 the motion were Representatives Austerman, Ogan, Barnes, Kott, and            
 Green.  Voting against the motion were Representatives Nicholia and           
 Davies.  The MOTION PASSED 5-2.                                               
                                                                               
 Number 151                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated this amendment would repeal the                  
 provisions in state law requiring the ADF&G commissioner to enforce           
 federal laws and regulations.  The federal government and the ADF&G           
 can still develop memorandums of understanding, cooperative                   
 agreements and other joint programs.  This amendment protects the             
 commissioner from lawsuits in state court if state regulations                
 conflict with federal regulations.  This part of the code is                  
 Alaska's voluntary assumption of federal regulations with or                  
 without funding.                                                              
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said Section AS 16.05.050, powers and duties of           
 the commissioner, says "the commissioner has, but not by way of               
 limitation, the following powers and duties".  He clarified the               
 amendment proposes to delete one of the items specifically                    
 addressed.  He wondered if the commissioner would still have the              
 power to work with the USFWS.                                                 
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said his interpretation is that would be the                
 case.  He stated the intention is to remove that power as the prime           
 thing the commissioner should do.  He noted the powers are listed             
 in descending order and that power is listed first.                           
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated that is correct.                                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND the AMENDMENT by not             
 repealing AS 16.05.050(1) but to change its number from one to last           
 on the list.                                                                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES OBJECTED.                                               
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote on the motion to amend           
 the amendment.  Voting in favor of the amendment to the amendment             
 were Representatives Davies, MacLean, and Nicholia.  Voting against           
 the motion were Representatives Kott, Austerman, Barnes, Ogan, and            
 Green.  The MOTION FAILED 5-3.                                                
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said the committee would now consider the                   
 original amendment, page 3, after line 13:  Insert a new bill                 
 section to read:  "*Sec. 8.  AS 16.05.050(1) is repealed."                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES OBJECTED.                                               
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated the preamble says these are things the           
 commissioner may do but does not necessarily have to do.  He said             
 testimony from the department had been heard indicating their                 
 concern that taking the overt action to remove this power or duty             
 might actually cause the state more legal trouble than leaving it             
 as is.  He wondered what the real purpose of this amendment is.  He           
 pointed out the state has federal management of fish and game in              
 any part of the state plus state management, since game populations           
 move from one area to the other and do not recognize the                      
 boundaries, it would be a benefit for everyone to have some                   
 coordination between federal and state managers.  He did not                  
 understand why anyone would object to that coordination as that               
 kind of coordination is desirable.  He thought the amendment would            
 only provide risks.                                                           
                                                                               
 Number 277                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES disagreed.  She said she has not heard any              
 legal opinions saying this amendment would cause risks.  She                  
 believed the amendment would help the commissioner carry out state            
 law and where there is a conflict between state and federal law, it           
 would keep the commissioner from being sued.                                  
                                                                               
 GEORGE UTERMOHLE, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS,                   
 recalled many statements about potential problems which might arise           
 by either keeping this provision or repealing it.  He said all are            
 valid concerns which may or may not cause problems for the                    
 department at some later date.                                                
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if removing this power and duty, more than            
 the fact it is not there, could prejudice the court in the future.            
                                                                               
 MR. UTERMOHLE responded it could because explicitly repealing the             
 commissioner's authority to assist or cooperate with the USFWS                
 could be interpreted as saying the legislature intends for the                
 commissioner to not cooperate with the USFWS.                                 
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if that were to come up, would the court              
 then look to the reason--that instead of repealing this, the                  
 legislature just eliminated it as one item on the check list of               
 things to do, such as other duties or other things which may come             
 up.  He thought the preamble takes care of that.  He wondered if              
 the court, by this removal, also might look at the dialogue and say           
 that was not the intent--the legislature did not want that power              
 and duty to be number one on the list, wanted to ensure that the              
 commissioner looks at state issues and if there is a conflict, go             
 beyond that.  He stated it just is not enumerated.                            
                                                                               
 MR. UTERMOHLE replied the court would certainly try to look at the            
 legislative history as to why that power and duty was deleted.  He            
 said the problem is that often legislative history is very                    
 ambiguous and sometimes difficult to ascertain.                               
                                                                               
 Number 321                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES felt the legislative history now is much                
 easier to obtain.                                                             
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said with that in mind, he asked what the               
 intent of the amendment is.  He asked if the intent is for the                
 commissioner to not perform this duty or is it the intent that the            
 legislature just does not want to list it.                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied there is a concern that the                      
 commissioner, by statute, is being put in a situation of conflict.            
 If this power and duty is removed, it does not remove the                     
 commissioner's authority to deal with the federal government.                 
 However, in a situation of conflict and legal problems, the state             
 has said the commissioner has to assist the federal government.               
 This amendment takes pressure off the commissioner in these areas             
 of conflict.                                                                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE EILEEN MACLEAN requested Mr. Utermohle to be more              
 specific on what exactly this amendment would do.                             
                                                                               
 MR. UTERMOHLE replied the legal effect of the amendment would be to           
 delete a power or duty of the commissioner to assist or cooperate             
 with the USFWS.  The amendment would be deleting an explicit                  
 mandate that the commissioner do so.  He explained what is left               
 behind is an implication that the commissioner may do so.  He said            
 the USFWS is the only agency mentioned in this provision setting up           
 the powers and duties of the commissioner.  He noted the USFWS is             
 only one of the federal agencies with which the department deals              
 with and with which it cooperates in the enforcement of fish and              
 wildlife laws or regulations.  He stated the department also                  
 cooperates with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Bureau             
 of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, etc., without an                 
 expressed mandate to do so.                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if this provision is removed, so it is not            
 an expressed duty, would there be the same kind of conflict that              
 Representative Kelly indicated--by leaving the provision in because           
 it is explicit.  He wondered if that would create a conflict.                 
                                                                               
 MR. UTERMOHLE responded by leaving the provision in, it is a state            
 duty or power of the commissioner to assist or cooperate with the             
 USFWS.  He said as an expressed duty or power, it is potentially              
 enforceable in court.                                                         
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN questioned if there are differences with the                
 federal government, where does the commissioner's position lie if             
 it is explicitly stated as one of his duties.  He asked if the                
 commissioner has to go with the federal government against his own            
 state.                                                                        
                                                                               
 MR. UTERMOHLE said he would be hard pressed to answer that question           
 as to how a court might come down on that issue.  He stated the               
 commissioner's obligation is to the state because he is a state               
 officer and is bound by the state Constitution.                               
                                                                               
 Number 379                                                                    
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled Mr. Utermohle had indicated that leaving           
 the provision in is a problem.  He asked if the provision is taken            
 out, does that remove the problem.                                            
                                                                               
 MR. UTERMOHLE stated removing the provision deletes the                       
 commissioner's duty or power to expressly cooperate or assist the             
 USFWS in enforcing their regulations.                                         
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified by removing the provision, the                    
 commissioner's expressed power has been removed but his implied               
 power has not been removed.                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. UTERMOHLE responded to the extent it is the intent of the                 
 committee not to give the commissioner the discretion to enter into           
 agreements with the USFWS at some later date, that is true.                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he was just referring to the phrase, "but              
 not by way of limitation".                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. UTERMOHLE stated by expressly deleting the language the                   
 committee may essentially be amending the language "but not by way            
 of limitation" to say but not by way of limitation except for                 
 cooperating with the USFWS.                                                   
                                                                               
 Number 393                                                                    
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered if the committee did that and the court            
 interpreted that, would that be the commissioner's duty?  He stated           
 by the fact the commissioner is employed by the state, his prime              
 objective would be for the state and if that includes cooperation             
 with the federal government, great.  If there is a conflict, the              
 commissioner's first allegiance should be with the state.  He asked           
 if this amendment would counteract that in any way.                           
                                                                               
 MR. UTERMOHLE stated the amendment would remove the argument that             
 one of the commissioner's duties is to cooperate with the federal             
 government.                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN said in listening to the discussion, she               
 feels the amendment is good because the commissioner does not have            
 any responsibility at all when it comes to issues with federal                
 intervention to the state.  She stated the commissioner would have            
 to go to the board to have decisions made.                                    
                                                                               
 Number 415                                                                    
                                                                               
 LYNN LEVENGOOD, MEMBER, ALASKA WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION,             
 testified via teleconference and stated in Title 41, the Department           
 of Public Safety, the commissioner of Public Safety does not have             
 similar wording indicating he has to cooperate with the federal               
 government.  The only duties and powers mentioned for public safety           
 is the department may enter into an agreement with federal and                
 local agencies with respect to computerized record sharing.  He               
 said by removing this onerous provision, the ADF&G commissioner is            
 given more authority and leverage to negotiate with the federal               
 government on memorandums of understanding and cooperative                    
 agreements.  He pointed out the federal government knows this duty            
 is in the state's statute.  He added it is arguable the                       
 commissioner has to enforce federal regulations.  He noted if this            
 provision is taken out, the commissioner can still do it but has              
 more leverage to negotiate memorandums of understanding and                   
 cooperative agreements.                                                       
                                                                               
 MR. LEVENGOOD stated there are conflicts between state and federal            
 regulations and gave examples.  He said removing this provision               
 will still allow the commissioner to have the same powers, as other           
 commissioners have, to cooperate with the federal government.  He             
 urged committee members to pass this amendment.                               
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Utermohle how he reads the                    
 construction of Sec. 16.05.050.  He reread the first sentence from            
 that section:  "Powers and duties of commissioner.  The                       
 commissioner has, but not by way of limitation, the following                 
 powers and duties:"  He noted there is a list following.  He asked            
 if that language implies that each and every one of the items                 
 listed is both a power and a duty or are some powers and some are             
 duties.                                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 477                                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. UTERMOHLE said as this section is drafted, it is impossible to            
 separate the powers from the duties.  In current drafting style, a            
 duty is denoted by the verb "shall" (a discretion) and a power of             
 the commissioner is established by the word "may."  He noted this             
 section establishes both powers and duties, so the commissioner has           
 a duty to do each of the items listed, while at the same time                 
 having the discretion to do them.  He stated it is a matter of                
 construction.  He pointed out it is difficult to determine how a              
 court would come down on a particular issue.                                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said it seems one could read that to say some           
 of these things listed could be viewed by a court as merely a                 
 power, not a duty and therefore not required to carry them out.               
                                                                               
 MR. UTERMOHLE stated that is correct.                                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES gave number 3 in the list as an example to              
 illustrate.  He said (3) says "under the provisions of AS 36.30, to           
 design and construct hatcheries, pipelines, rearing ponds,                    
 fishways, and other projects beneficial for the fish and game                 
 resources of the state."  He stated the argument being advanced               
 with respect to item number 1 is in the example of number 3--if the           
 commissioner decided not to construct a pipeline and someone could            
 read this as a duty to construct a pipeline, he could be dragged              
 into court for not constructing pipelines.  He said that is absurd.           
 He stated this has to be read as a power, to do that when he deems            
 it appropriate.  He would apply the same argument to item number 1-           
 -that is a power the commissioner has, not a duty.  He stressed               
 since the word "shall" does not appear but the word "assist" does,            
 suggests something the commissioner may do and hence would be a               
 power, not necessarily a duty.                                                
                                                                               
 Number 506                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she understood what Representative                 
 Davies was saying but she believed anyone could drag the                      
 commissioner to court under the duties section, just as easily they           
 could assume it is a powers section.  She stressed if the provision           
 is gone, there is no problem.                                                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN stated she likes the amendment because she             
 would rather have federal intervention than state intervention.               
 She felt the amendment would lessen the power of the commissioner.            
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN said he voted no on this amendment              
 previously and had questions for ADF&G at that time.  However,                
 there was not time to get those questions addressed so he voted no            
 on the amendment.  He stated since then, he has had those questions           
 answered and would support the amendment.                                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked if there were any specific examples             
 where problems may have occurred between USFWS and the state on               
 game issues.                                                                  
                                                                               
 MR. UTERMOHLE responded he is not aware of any problems but he is             
 not that familiar with the implementation of this section since               
 1959.                                                                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said caribou and moose do not recognize                  
 boundaries on maps but neither does the federal government.  He               
 stated the federal government seems to be getting more and more               
 into the state, wherever they want to go.  He stressed because of             
 this rapid expansion of the federal government into the state,                
 perhaps when this provision was written in 1959 and how it applies            
 today are two different things.  He did not believe people in that            
 era ever imagined a federal government which would take over land             
 and restrict the state's access such as what is happening now.                
 This amendment goes directly to that, saying the chances are there            
 are going to be more and more conflicts and there is a need to                
 better protect the commissioner, so that by statute, he is not put            
 on the other side.                                                            
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA questioned if the population of caribou is            
 low on state and federal lands and it is desired to have the state            
 and federal government working together on that low population,               
 would removing this section have an impact on whether or not the              
 state is obligated to work with the federal government.                       
                                                                               
 MR. UTERMOHLE responded the deletion of this language will not                
 interfere with the ability of the commissioner or the boards to               
 cooperate with federal agencies.                                              
                                                                               
 Number 557                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN clarified if this provision is deleted, the               
 commissioner will have the ability to work with or intervene with             
 the USFWS in enforcing federal regulations, if he chooses.                    
                                                                               
 MR. UTERMOHLE stated the commissioner's authority, with regard to             
 the USFWS, would be similar to his authority as to other federal              
 agencies with which he is currently cooperating.                              
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote on amendment G.2.                
 Voting in favor of the amendment were Representatives MacLean,                
 Ogan, Barnes, Austerman, Kott, and Green.  Voting against the                 
 amendment were Representatives Nicholia and Davies.  The AMENDMENT            
 PASSED 6-2.                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND CSHB 170, version G,             
 page 2, line 16:  Delete ", but not including restrictions on                 
 methods or means of taking game, access to game, or human harvest             
 of game.", insert "and regulations of harvest by humans".                     
                                                                               
 TAPE 95-32, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections.                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES OBJECTED.                                               
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN said the department feels there are times when                    
 regulation of the harvest by humans is the necessary action, and              
 often the most appropriate and cheapest action, rather than a                 
 predator control program or a habitat improvement program, which              
 are very expensive.                                                           
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN told Mr. Burley on teleconference that there had            
 been a request made if he has any input on any of the amendments to           
 please let the committee know.                                                
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked what the language "but not including             
 restrictions on methods or means of taking game, access to game, or           
 human harvest of game." would do if incorporated into law for                 
 intensive management.                                                         
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN said the present language in the bill says intensive              
 management includes only predator control or habitat improvement.             
 Intensive management could not be accomplished by restrictions on             
 methods and means of hunters, access to game, or the level of                 
 seasons, etc.                                                                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked Mr. Regelin to be more specific.                 
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN used an example of game management unit 13, where part            
 of the problem is a high level of grizzly bears in the area who are           
 eating many of the moose calves.  He said the appropriate action,             
 which the board has already taken, is to change the seasons on                
 grizzly bears so more will be harvested, which will probably solve            
 a great deal of the problem.  He explained according to the                   
 language in CSHB 170, version G, that action would not count toward           
 intensive management.  The department is concerned that someone               
 could say the department is not doing predator control or habitat             
 management and therefore is violating the statute and could sue the           
 department.                                                                   
                                                                               
 Number 093                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY clarified Mr. Regelin based his argument on              
 the amendment on the fact that the harvest of a predator could not            
 be increased if necessary.                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN stated the board could take actions to change the                 
 regulations on hunting seasons, bag limits, etc.  However, if the             
 Board of Game identifies unit 13 as an area where intensive                   
 management is needed and outlines a program which does not include            
 wolf control or habitat management, they are in violation of the              
 statute, even though they have taken the appropriate action or one            
 that will probably solve the problem.                                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said the way the department has read this is             
 mistaken.  He stated the word "restriction" is what is important.             
 It is saying that intensive game management is not about                      
 restricting the ability to do that but there is an opportunity to             
 expand it if desired.  He pointed out the department has all the              
 means and methods necessary, outside the definition of intensive              
 game management, to handle all of the issues Mr. Regelin just                 
 addressed.  He recalled that Mr. Regelin's fear was he could not              
 expand it.  Representative Kelly agreed the department should be              
 able to expand it, but added that intensive game management is not            
 about restricting it.                                                         
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN used the example of the Mulchatna caribou herd.  He               
 said years ago, the appropriate action there was to restrict the              
 amount of harvest to allow the herd to build.  He pointed out that            
 restriction worked.  The herd has grown from 30,000 to 180,000.  He           
 stressed if that is the appropriate action for intensive management           
 in an area, then it should be allowed.  He noted one of the                   
 cornerstones of good wildlife management, whether it is intensive,            
 active or whatever, is good regulations.                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN clarified that the intensive management                
 being discussed is for state lands only.                                      
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN stated the regulations adopted by the Board of Game               
 apply to all lands.                                                           
                                                                               
 Number 164                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked if the regulations would include                 
 federal lands.                                                                
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN responded the regulations do apply to federal lands.              
 The exception is where the federal government has the authority to            
 close their lands when it is necessary for local subsistence users.           
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked if the regulations would include                 
 corporate lands.                                                              
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN replied no.  At the present time, the federal                     
 government does not have any authority over private lands.                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN clarified that corporate and federal lands             
 are not under state jurisdiction, so intensive management would be            
 only on state lands that have been warranted within the state                 
 government by the federal government.                                         
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN stated that is not correct.  He said in most cases,               
 there are federal subsistence laws and state subsistence laws which           
 are very similar.  He pointed out there are very few cases in                 
 Alaska where the federal government has closed federal lands to               
 everyone except federal subsistence users.                                    
                                                                               
 MR. UTERMOHLE said the state's fish and wildlife jurisdiction                 
 extends throughout the state on state and federal lands except                
 those federal lands where the federal government has its sole                 
 authority over fish and game management.                                      
                                                                               
 Number 192                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked when all of these amendments were offered           
 and wondered if there was a 24-hour rule.                                     
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN responded there is, but stressed these amendments           
 follow almost to the letter those which were issued by ADF&G at               
 Wednesday's hearing.  He stated the committee has had these                   
 amendments for two days.                                                      
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote on the motion to                 
 amend.  Voting in favor of the amendment were Representatives                 
 MacLean, Davies, and Nicholia.  Voting against the amendment were             
 Representatives Austerman, Barnes, Ogan, and Green.  The MOTION               
 FAILED 4-3.                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND CSHB 170, version G,             
 page 2, line 23, following "predation":  delete "or" and insert               
 ","; following "harvest", insert "or for herd growth".                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES OBJECTED.                                               
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated this amendment would simply add in the           
 definition of harvestable surplus the allowance for herd growth.              
 He felt there is a need to make a provision in the calculation that           
 sometimes the appropriate goal is also to grow the herd, not just             
 maintain it.                                                                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted he specifically requested that Mr. Burley           
 be allowed to comment on the amendments before the committee voted.           
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said Mr. Burley has the right to voice his                  
 opinion at any time.                                                          
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN requested he does comment.                                
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN stressed Mr. Burley is not a committee                 
 member but is the Chairman of the Board of Game.  She stated there            
 is a need to recognize that Mr. Burley is also a member of the                
 Alaska Outdoor Council.                                                       
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated HB 170 is all about herd growth.  He              
 explained the problem with inserting herd growth in this language             
 is if there is a department that does not want to carry out                   
 intensive management, which is the fear and why these definitions             
 have been inserted, the excuse could always be made that the                  
 harvestable surplus is for herd growth and the department would not           
 have to enact intensive management the way the legislature or the             
 board wishes.  He felt there is too much wiggle room for the                  
 department--they need a firm policy.  He strongly objected to                 
 inserting "or for herd growth".                                               
                                                                               
 MR. BURLEY stated he does not have a problem with inserting this              
 language.  He said there may be times when it is appropriate to               
 consider that, although he felt the Board of Game would consider              
 that whether it was in the bill or not.                                       
                                                                               
 Number 285                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Burley if he had reviewed all the               
 amendments that ADF&G had suggested.                                          
                                                                               
 MR. BURLEY replied he has looked at the amendments submitted by               
 ADF&G, since they were available on Wednesday.                                
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Burley if he has a problem with the             
 way CSHB 170, version G is written and wondered if he would like to           
 see any of the ADF&G proposed amendments implemented.                         
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN ruled Representative Ogan out of order.  He                 
 stated the committee is speaking to a specific amendment.                     
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote on the motion to                 
 amend.  Voting in favor of the amendment were Representatives                 
 Nicholia, Davies, and MacLean.  Voting against the amendment were             
 Representatives Ogan, Barnes, Austerman, and Green.  The MOTION               
 FAILED 4-3.                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND CSHB 170, version G,             
 page 2, line 26-27:  delete all material.                                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES OBJECTED.  She said in testimony before the             
 committee, the department did not have a definition for sustained             
 yield.  Therefore, she would not want a definition to come out                
 since they do not understand it.                                              
                                                                               
 Number 327                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated he did not believe that is a fair                
 characterization of the department's testimony.  He said the                  
 department testified they have several books containing extensive             
 discussions of sustained yield.  The point the department made was            
 that in no cases did any of the textbooks offer a specific                    
 definition of sustained yield.  Rather, the textbooks said                    
 sustained yield, in the biological world, is a principle and is not           
 subject to this level of specificity.  Further, the department said           
 if the committee wanted to have a definition in the bill, they then           
 could offer a specific definition but it was their recommendation             
 to not include a definition in this part of the statute.                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stressed she heard Mr. Regelin say that he              
 did not understand the definition of sustained yield and she had              
 offered to give him a book which explained it.  She expressed                 
 opposition to taking the definition out of the bill.                          
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN expressed opposition to having the language            
 in the bill because it is a back door approach to deal with                   
 subsistence and the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act            
 (ANILCA).  She expressed support for the amendment.                           
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN said he was not sure if he mis-spoke earlier.  He                 
 stressed he certainly understands the principle of sustained yield,           
 as he went to school for 12 years and studied the principle.  He              
 stated he tries to follow the principle and so does the Board of              
 Game.  He resented the fact that people say he does not understand            
 the principle.                                                                
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated the next time Mr. Regelin testifies              
 before the committee, he should get his phrases correct before he             
 speaks.  She recalled that at an earlier hearing she had read from            
 the Constitution and from the book on the sustained yield                     
 principle.                                                                    
                                                                               
 Number 369                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked Mr. Utermohle if the committee was to            
 delete the definition of sustained yield, how it would affect the             
 bill.                                                                         
                                                                               
 MR. UTERMOHLE responded the deletion would leave the determination            
 of sustained yield up to the board and commissioner under                     
 principles set up in the Constitution.                                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked if the definition would include all              
 game and fisheries.                                                           
                                                                               
 MR. REGELIN said the way the bill is structured, the definition of            
 sustained yield would apply only to this section of intensive                 
 management.  He stated in talking with the Department of Law, they            
 are very concerned because sustained yield is not defined in most             
 places.  He added sustained yield is discussed in the Constitution            
 as a principle.  Because of that, he pointed out a judge could see            
 that sustained yield is defined in this bill and could apply that             
 definition to other places, which is the concern.  Mr. Regelin said           
 in intensive management, the definition of sustained yield will tie           
 the department to one-third of the harvestable surplus and a judge            
 could take that and use it elsewhere.                                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated the sustained yield principle is a                
 constitutional mandate.  He pointed out if the department was                 
 observing the sustained yield principle, it would not have to be              
 further defined.  He said he is simply putting into statute and               
 applying to a department something that is already in the state's             
 Constitution.                                                                 
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote on the motion to                 
 amend.  Voting in favor of the amendment were Representatives                 
 Davies, Nicholia, and MacLean.  Voting against the amendment were             
 Representatives Barnes, Ogan, Austerman, and Green.  The MOTION               
 FAILED 4-3.                                                                   
                                                                               
 Number 420                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND CSHB 170, version G,             
 page 2, line 29:  following "shall":  insert "adopt goals to".                
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES OBJECTED.                                               
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated this amendment is what the Board of              
 Game does.  The amendment says the board shall adopt goals to                 
 manage game populations for which human use is an important use so            
 as to provide at least one-half of the harvestable surplus for                
 human harvest.  He said the committee has heard testimony that even           
 achieving one-third in some cases may be a very difficult and                 
 perhaps biologically impossible situation.  Therefore, he stressed            
 to specify that the board shall achieve one-half is even more                 
 questionable as a requirement.  He said to have that as a goal and            
 a desired end is reasonable.                                                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN agreed with Representative Davies.  He did not            
 feel the Board of Game should be locked in to provide one-half                
 because that is unrealistic.  He felt the one-half should be a                
 goal, rather than a requirement because fish and game management is           
 not always locked into shalls and wills.                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated this issue is not necessarily about the           
 harvestable surplus.  He said the issue is about who is responsible           
 for management and he reminded committee members the board is                 
 responsible.  He noted the amendment says the board shall adopt               
 goals to manage game populations and they are just stating the                
 board itself is the management entity of the whole system, not the            
 department.  He felt it would not be clear enough.                            
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said if that were the case, why not just put            
 a period after "important use".  He stated the issue he is                    
 concerned about is the standard of management that is being                   
 required in law with the word "shall", which is one-half of the               
 harvestable surplus.                                                          
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN offered a FRIENDLY AMENDMENT to the AMENDMENT:              
 instead of using the words "adopt goals" put the word "attempt".              
 He stated the phrase would then read, "The board shall attempt to             
 manage game populations..."                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY felt in the definition of managing, goal                 
 setting is implicit in that definition and the board has that                 
 ability under the authority the legislature has already given them.           
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said the sentence is very clear and                     
 straightforward.  It says the board shall manage game populations.            
 He stated if the board does not take every action required to                 
 achieve that goal--the level specified--they could be taken to                
 court.  He stated the level stated is so unreasonable, it almost              
 guarantees the department will be in court.  He felt the sentence,            
 as written, is very ill-advised as a mandate.                                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN reminded committee members of the False Pass           
 situation.  It is not possible to do one-half of the harvestable              
 surplus.  Therefore, there is a problem in the Aleutian and Bethel            
 areas.  She agreed with Representative Davies that perhaps the                
 committee should just put a period after "important use".                     
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN reiterated he would like to change "adopt goals"            
 to the word "attempt".                                                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he would consider that a friendly                  
 amendment.                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES WITHDREW her OBJECTION.                                 
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any further objections.                 
 Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.                                              
                                                                               
 Number 493                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND CSHB 170, version G,             
 page 3, line 9:  following "on":  delete "proposed", insert                   
 "implementation of".                                                          
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES OBJECTED.                                               
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated this is an issue of there is no                  
 conflict on proposed regulations because there is no issue yet.               
 The issue is on the implementation of the regulations or the lack             
 of implementation.  He said if regulations have been adopted but              
 not implemented, then there would be a conflict.  He pointed out              
 when someone is in the discussion stage and only proposing                    
 regulations there is no conflict to be resolved.  He felt this is             
 a technical amendment to accomplish what is intended by this                  
 section.                                                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said of all the amendments offered by                    
 Representative Davies, this amendment may be the worst in terms of            
 what the intent of the legislation is.  He stated if the amendment            
 is adopted, it will allow the department to enter into endless                
 conflict over regulations which have already been finalized and               
 approved by the Governor.  He noted the department has an appeals             
 process they are already able to go through.  He stressed this                
 amendment is saying even after a regulation has been finalized, the           
 department has the ability to continue to enter into problems with            
 it.  He said the issue has to be over the implementation of                   
 proposed regulations during the process of making the regulations             
 and all that entails.  Once the regulations are done, the                     
 department still has a regular appeals process they can go through.           
 He expressed opposition to the amendment.                                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN said she did not understand Representative             
 Kelly's reasoning.  She stated he did not clarify exactly what the            
 problem is.                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated implementation of regulations means a             
 regulation has been finalized.  He said if the word "proposed" is             
 taken out and "implementation of" is inserted, then what is being             
 said is the department has the ability to enter into an endless               
 conflict over regulations which have gone through the process and             
 have been finalized by the Governor.                                          
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN pointed out the regulations have to be                 
 implemented because the board has agreed.  She did not see any                
 conflict.                                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 536                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he also was quite puzzled by the                   
 comments and logic expressed by Representative Kelly.  He cannot              
 see how there can be a conflict on a proposal.  He noted a conflict           
 has to do with whether a regulation is implemented or not.  He                
 pointed out there are people who feel there are regulations for               
 intensive management which are not being implemented.  He added               
 that is where the conflicts and discussions are in this issue.                
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote on the amendment.                
 Voting in favor of the amendment were Representatives Nicholia,               
 MacLean, and Davies.  Voting against the amendment were                       
 Representatives Ogan, Barnes, Austerman, and Green.  The MOTION               
 FAILED 4-3.                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 170, version G, as           
 amended, with attached fiscal note, out of committee with                     
 individual recommendations.                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVES DAVIES and MACLEAN OBJECTED.                                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked Mr. Burley if he was speaking                   
 personally or on behalf of the Board of Game.                                 
                                                                               
 MR. BURLEY said he was speaking on behalf of himself and added he             
 takes great exception to being insulted about his membership in the           
 Alaska Outdoor Council.                                                       
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN said she was the one making the comments               
 about Mr. Burley's membership.                                                
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN expressed opposition to this legislation               
 because it is a back door approach to address subsistence and                 
 ANILCA.                                                                       
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated he did not have objection to a number            
 of things CSHB 170 does, but he does have concern that this bill              
 comes so shortly after having passed a fairly major piece of                  
 legislation last year.  He said he objects to this bill to the                
 extent that this bill is expressing no confidence in the board or             
 the department in implementing last year's bill.  He said to the              
 extent this bill is offering the Board of Game and the department             
 tools, that is appropriate.  He added the fact the legislature is             
 moving rather quickly before seeing the effect of last year's                 
 legislation is not well taken.  He stated for that reason he has a            
 problem with the action being taken today.                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he has an unsettling feeling about the               
 bill.  He stated the biggest problem he has that because of his               
 busy schedule, he has not had the time he would have liked to                 
 devote to studying the issue.  He requested the committee hold the            
 legislation and vote on it next week.                                         
                                                                               
 Number 600                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said there is a motion to move the bill out             
 of committee on the floor.  She stressed this is the fourth hearing           
 on HB 170 and she could not understand how anyone could say at this           
 point they do not know what is in the bill.                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated he knows what is in the bill, but there            
 are a couple of things he is not comfortable with.                            
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN stated what this bill does is address fish             
 and game--it can be commercial fishing, sport fishing, sport                  
 hunting, subsistence--the bill deals with all of those things.  She           
 said the bill is intensive game management of fish and game.                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said the bill is about giving the board tools            
 to use, when they deem it necessary, when a particular population             
 is in need of some extra measures.  He stressed the bill does not             
 bind the board's hands, it does not take power away from them--it             
 just gives them tools.  He pointed out HB 170 is about having more            
 animals and increasing the population of animals in the state of              
 Alaska.  He stated the amount of population decline seen,                     
 particularly around the urban areas, is in no way related to the              
 number of people there.  The decline is because proper management             
 tools have not been implemented.  He told committee members HB 170            
 is another tool to give to the board to bring those herd levels up.           
 The bill is not about killing animals but is about increasing herd            
 size, which is a resource of the state for the use of all people,             
 including people to view them, people to hunt them or people to use           
 them for subsistence.  He pointed out if there are more animals,              
 there will less of a problem with the issues of subsistence,                  
 tourism, resource management, etc.                                            
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN said when the bill is reviewed, it is                  
 consistent with the sustained yield principle which she feels is              
 the whole point of the bill.  She stated sustained yield to her               
 means that fishing, hunting, etc., has to be curbed.                          
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted his children have trouble getting to              
 the school bus some mornings because there are moose in his                   
 backyard and when he drives into Fairbanks, it is unusual not to              
 see a moose.  He did not feel there is a crisis which needs to be             
 responded to.                                                                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA stated the Board of Game is meeting this              
 month to address intensive game management.  She cannot understand            
 why HB 170 is on a fast track since the board plans to deal with              
 the issue.  She stressed it is important that game management not             
 be undertaken by legislation because it is the function of the                
 department and the Board of Game.                                             
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote.  Voting in favor of             
 the motion were Representatives Austerman, Barnes, Ogan, Kott, and            
 Green.  Voting against the motion were Representatives MacLean,               
 Davies and Nicholia.  The MOTION PASSED 5-3.                                  
 ADJOURNMENT                                                                   
                                                                               
 There being no further business to come before the House Resources            
 Committee, Co-Chairman Green adjourned the meeting at 10:18 a.m.              
                                                                               

Document Name Date/Time Subjects