Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/21/1998 01:10 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 21, 1998
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair (via teleconference)
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Joe Green
Representative William K. (Bill) Williams (via teleconference)
Representative Reggie Joule (via teleconference)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Irene Nicholia
OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative Carl Moses
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 406
"An Act relating to subsistence uses of fish and game."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 406
SHORT TITLE: SUBSISTENCE USES OF FISH AND GAME
SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/12/98 2312 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/98 2312 (H) RESOURCES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/17/98 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/17/98 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/21/98 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
GEORGE UTERMOHLE, Attorney
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward Street, Suite 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105
Telephone: (907) 465-2450
POSITION STATEMENT: Drafter of HB 406 and answered questions of
the committee members.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-15, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIRMAN SCOTT OGAN called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Hudson, Ogan, Barnes, Dyson, and
Green.
HB 406 - SUBSISTENCE USES OF FISH AND GAME
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the first order of business was House
Bill No. 406, "An Act relating to subsistence uses of fish and
game."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN called for a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute for discussion.
Number 0082
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute for HB 406, version 0-LS1573\H, Utermohle,
2/21/98, as a work draft. There being no objection, it was so
adopted.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN expressed an apology to the committee members for
getting a bill to them so late. He assured them that there was no
sinister plan behind bringing it out at the last moment.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced there will be no public testimony today.
He wants the public to take a good look at the proposed committee
substitute to allow for constructive comments on Saturday, February
28, 1998.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated, as a sponsor statement, the concept of
proposed committee substitute is best described in Section 2 that
reads as follows:
"The harvest of fish and game for personal and family use
for sustenance by residents is the highest and best use
of fish and game. The Board of Fisheries, the Board of
Game, and the department shall adopt regulations,
policies, and management plans to implement a preference
for consumptive use of fish and game for personal and
family use for sustenance over other uses of fish and
game."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN further stated the key elements of the bill are
embodied in language found in Article VIII, Section 4 of the state
constitution that reads as follows:
"fish, forest, wildlife, grasslands and all other
replenishable resources belonging to the State shall be
utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained
yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial
uses."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN further stated the operative principle is the
preference of the use of fish and game. The proposed committee
substitute spells out that in times of shortage, the appropriate
board may adopt a regional preference of the use of fish and game,
specifically requiring that the flesh or meat of the fish and game
be consumed within the region where the fish and game was taken.
The difference is that the former proposals dealt with the
consensus issue of preference amongst users. There are many,
including myself in this body and across the state, that have
serious problems with differentiating amongst users because of the
conflict with the common use and equal protection clauses in our
constitution.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN further stated the proposed committee substitute
would give greater authority to local advisory boards on a regional
basis. It would set up five regions of the state with nine
advisory committees in each region. The chairs of the advisory
boards would also sit on a regional board. The advisory committees
and regional board recommendations would be given deference by the
main boards. The idea is to take some of the work off the main
boards by letting regional boards have more say, and by retaining
the overall authority of the main boards to avoid regional resource
disputes.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated the boards are already deluged with putting
out fires because they are required by law to consider every
proposal. Therefore, he would like to see the regional boards have
more authority by filtering proposals to the main boards. But, the
regional boards should not be allowed too much authority so the
proposals would still be transmitted to the main boards for
oversight. Most importantly, it would address the issue of a lack
of trust between rural Alaskans and state government.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN further explained the proposed committee
substitute also addresses the question of authority in terms of how
to deal with a shortage within a region. In a shortage, the meat
would have to stay within the region and the proposed committee
substitute identifies basic criteria of who would get the meat.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN welcomed Representative Bill Williams and Reggie
Joule to the meeting. They had been listening via teleconference.
Number 0798
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked Co-Chairman Ogan whether he was
going to do a sectional analysis at some time in the future.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied, "Yes." A sectional analysis will be
forthcoming in the future.
Number 0843
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Co-Chairman Ogan to go through the
proposed committee substitute section-by-section.
Number 0865
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained a number of sections are a clean up of
the language.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained Section 1, "findings and intent," was
before the committee last week. There is no need to review it
again.
Number 0878
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON referred to Section 1 (1), asked Co-
Chairman Ogan where in the state constitution is the ability to
take fish and game for personal and family use for sustenance a
fundamental right.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied it does not specifically address it, but
Article VIII, Section 4, addresses preferences among beneficial
uses. There are also a lot of references in the state constitution
regarding the common use of the fish and game by the people.
Number 0955
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated it might be an implied or inferred right
rather than a fundamental right.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON suggested getting a legal opinion in regards to
the constitutionality and how it would comply with the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
Number 1013
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated Representative Hudson is right. There
is a difference between a fundamental right and a right. The
Resources committee should not get hung up on those types of
things. Let the Judiciary committee handle the legal issues, and
let the Finance committee handle the financial issues. The
Resources committee should stick with with policy issues.
Number 1054
REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES respectfully disagreed with
Representative Green. She does not sit on the Judiciary committee
and she would never support moving a bill out of a committee that
is not constitutionally correct at the time it leaves.
Number 1082
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied he subscribes to that as well. If the
issue is flawed, then it should be straighten up, but a legal
battle over words is improper in the Resources committee.
Number 1099
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated, whatever is sent out of the Resources
committee, the members should be of the opinion that it is
constitutional. It has to be constitutional, otherwise he would
not vote it out either.
Number 1119
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated he agrees with the intent of Co-
Chairman Hudson. However, whatever is voted out of the Resources
committee might require an amendment to the state constitution as
part of a package.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN recognized the presence of Representatives Carl
Moses and Alan Austerman in the audience.
Number 1178
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained the definition of "subsistence" in the
dictionary refers to an endowment of an inalienable right, the
basic right to procure food to live. The right has been recognized
in the state constitution and in statute. There is a portion in
statute that allows one in dire straits to take any fish or game
regardless of the season to sustain life. In addition, the guiding
principles of the Alaska Federation of Natives discuss subsistence
as a human right.
Number 1267
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained the committee substitute would call for
the use of the word "sustenance" rather than "subsistence."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained Section 2 would identify dependent-use
areas by the Board of Fisheries and Board of Game, acting jointly.
The section sets out a criteria for establishing regions for
preference and for people who would apply for such a use. It also
would establish an appeals process for those denied a preference.
It would give the local advisory committees and regional boards
greater weight in their decisions. It would establish limits on
commercial activity and define the terms principal, reasonable
opportunity, shortage, and sustained yield.
Number 1337
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained Section 3 would change the name of the
section in the department from "subsistence hunting and fishing" to
"fish and game dependent use."
Number 1345
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained Section 4 would do the same as Section
3.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred the committee members to page 4, line 5
and read, "In a time of shortage of fish and game resources, the
appropriate board may adopt a regional preference among beneficial
uses of fish and game by requiring that the flesh or meat of fish
and game be consumed within the region where the fish or game was
taken." This is probably one of the key elements of the proposed
committee substitute in order to provide some kind of preference
for people in a time of shortage. Many from the federal government
say the rural priority would only kick in, in a time of shortage,
when it really is a full-time priority. Therefore, he would like
to define what a time of shortage means, and how to deal with it.
As-long-as, all the regions in the state are treated the same and
there is not a preference of people, but a preference of the use of
fish and game in a region, then "you're in good shape."
Number 1447
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE asked Co-Chairman Ogan, whether up
until a time of shortage, the harvestable resources of fish and
game would not have any preference to commercial or sport take.
Number 1480
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied, "No, not necessarily." The proposed
committee substitute spells out a preference on page 2, line 15,
"The harvest of fish and game for personal and family use for
sustenance by residents is the highest and best use of fish and
game." According to the sustained yield principle in the state
constitution, a preference amongst beneficial uses can be
identified.
Number 1500
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said, "You say it's the best use and then you
say in a time of shortage."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied, "Right."
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE wondered about when there is not a time of
shortage.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied, when there is not a time of shortage and
there is an abundance, then there would not be a problem with
people in any region to get fish or game.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Co-Chair Ogan, for clarification, whether
he is referring to Article VIII, Section 4 of the state
constitution in regards to a time of shortage.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied, "Correct."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Co-Chairman Ogan how it relates to the
requiring of the fish and game being consumed within the region
where it is taken.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied it is a preference of the use under the
equal protection clause of the state constitution.
Number 1564
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON replied, a beneficial use then, would be a
regional preference subject to consumption within the region it is
taken.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied, "Correct."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated this is an area that needs to be looked
at carefully to make sure that the constitutionalist agrees there
is a co-relationship.
Number 1616
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated it is a key element because "we are allowed
to discriminate what the uses of fish and game are, and to keep it
in a region in times of shortage, is an appropriate
discrimination."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN called George Utermohle, drafter of the bill, to
the table to answer questions.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Utermohle where there is a
constitutional nexus of the authorization to require in statute
that the fish and game be consumed within the region where it was
taken.
Number 1666
GEORGE UTERMOHLE, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, replied it rises under
Article VIII, Section 2, "general authority". The section says
that the legislature shall provide for the utilization,
development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to
the state. The authority is also subject to other provisions of
the state constitution such as, the common use and sustained yield
provisions. The provision in the proposed committee substitute, to
his mind, does not strike to the issues that have caused problems
in the past such as, a rural based preference. The ability to
grant preferences in the state lies with the legislature to the
extent that it does not violate the common use provisions.
However, the rural subsistence preference was found to violate the
sustained yield provision. Therefore, the provision in the
proposed committee substitute would be balanced against the
interests protected by the common use and sustained yield
provisions. On its face, he does not see the provision as being
directly opposite to the requirements of the common use or
sustained yield provisions. It parallels the language in the
sustained yield provision, "subject to preferences among beneficial
uses."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Utermohle whether the constitutional
nexus then, is Article VIII, Section 2, "general authority".
MR. UTERMOHLE replied, "Yes."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Utermohle whether it would give the
legislature general authority to provide for the use, development,
and conservation of the resources for the maximum benefit of the
people.
MR. UTERMOHLE replied, "Yes."
Number 1810
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to the language "consumed within the
region," and wondered whether he would be breaking the law if he
brought food to Juneau when the legislature was in session.
Number 1848
MR. UTERMOHLE replied he could not say because it would depend on
the regulations adopted by the boards.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE wondered why the clause was in there then.
Number 1863
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated there has been similar language in
bills in the past to stop people, in a time of shortage, from going
into a region and taking food out. The provision in the proposed
committee substitute then, would give the constitutional nexus so
that it would have to be consumed in a particular region.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained that he is trying to provide people who
live in one of the five regions - Southeast, Southcentral,
Southwest, Northwest, and Arctic - a defacto priority in a time of
shortage. It comes close to preserving and protecting the
lifestyle of the people of a region. "In my region of the world,
around the Mat-Su - Anchorage area, there has been a long customary
and traditional use of fish and game for sustenance. My neighbors
and myself and my children have literally been raised on fish and
game. We dip net in the Copper River, we dip net in the Kenai
River."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked everyone to image what the state would be
like if the Alaska Federation of Natives and the legislature could
go to Congress and say the issue has been resolved as a state, as
Alaskans, as people, and ask that ANILCA be amended to change a
rural priority to a regional preference.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said he does not have pride of authorship of the
bill. He just wants to get something out of the Resources
committee that will work. He pleaded to the people of the state to
help him.
Number 2063
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS referred to the promise made by the
Secretary of Interior and the state in ANCSA to take care of the
subsistence needs of the Alaskan Natives. The promise was made to
clear up the land problems in the state in order for a pipeline.
"And we all know what it's like at the end of session to get a bill
out that is very well needed for the good of the state." Granted,
the language in ANCSA was not good and clarified to a certain
extent in ANILCA, but it needs to be fixed some more. The regional
concept is something that could be looked at to broaden the focus
of rural for the long-term. But, a promise was made in 1971, and
it needs to be looked at to come up with an Alaskan solution. In
addition, the dependence on fish and game for personal and family
use should not be made into a welfare program. The intent of ANCSA
was not for a welfare program.
Number 2238
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON complimented Co-Chairman Ogan for the
originality in the proposed committee substitute. A final
solution, however, would have to be endorsed by a variety of
interests. He suggested submitting the proposed committee
substitute as soon as possible to the United Fishermen of Alaska in
order to consider the concerns of commercial fishermen; the Alaska
Federation of Natives in order to consider the concerns of Natives;
Attorney General Bruce M. Botelho for a written legal critique; the
Department of Fish and Game; the Board of Fisheries; the Board of
Game; the federal subsistence boards; United States Secretary of
Interior Bruce Babbitt; and above all, Alaska's congressional
delegation in order to consider the retention of management by the
state.
Number 2410
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated he was concerned about getting feedback
from the above mentioned interests in a timely fashion so that it
is not held up in the committee.
Number 2435
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON agreed that the bill should not be held up in
committee, but it is important to get it out to the effected groups
for their professional opinions. Especially, the congressional
delegation for their opinion on management rights.
Number 2458
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated, in regards to the concerns of commercial
fishing....
TAPE 98-15, SIDE B
Number 0000
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN continued. In regards to the concerns of
commercial fishing, representatives have testified in the Fisheries
committee that they do not have a problem with taking care of
Alaskan residents.
Number 0030
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested that Mr. Utermohle discuss the
proposed committee substitute now, in the interest of time.
Number 0045
MR. UTERMOHLE explained the proposed committee substitute has a lot
of conforming amendments to Title 16 that are technical in nature.
MR. UTERMOHLE explained Section 2 would establish the preference of
fish and game for sustenance.
Number 0073
MR. UTERMOHLE explained Section 5 would establish the procedure for
reviewing regulatory proposals by the Boards of Fisheries and Game,
the advisory committees, and the regional boards.
Number 0085
MR. UTERMOHLE explained Section 12 would establish the local
advisory committees and the regional boards.
Number 0094
MR. UTERMOHLE explained Section 19 would establish a new paragraph
to contain the definition of "fish and game dependent uses."
Number 0105
MR. UTERMOHLE explained Sections 32 to 36 would repeal certain
definitions relating to subsistence, the former subsistence
statute, the sunset provision, and a number of transitional
provisions.
Number 0128
MR. UTERMOHLE stated the nature of the subsistence issue in terms
of the common use clause, equal access to fish and game resources,
the no-exclusive right of fishery clause, and the uniform
application clause, are inherent in the proposed committee
substitute and need to be considered at each step of the process.
More specifically, there are some issues outside of Title VIII that
would also need to be considered - the greater role of the advisory
committees and regional boards in the regulatory process and in
determining a sustenance based preference. It would give these
boards a degree of regulatory authority because their decisions
would bind decisions made by the Board of Game and Fisheries.
Thus, it would raise issues under Article III, Section 26, "boards
and commissions".
Number 0202
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Utermohle whether the state
constitution allows a latitude of delegating authority down to a
local advisory board.
Number 0229
MR. UTERMOHLE replied there are problems of delegating rule-making
down to the present advisory committees. They are established by
the Boards of Fisheries and Game and by giving them regulatory
powers now would seem counter to the provision in the state
constitution that requires regulatory boards to be appointed by the
governor and confirmed by the legislature.
Number 0251
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Utermohle whether the local advisory
committees could make recommendations to something that is already
constitutionally approved such as, the department.
Number 0274
MR. UTERMOHLE replied as-long-as a decision made by a committee or
whatever does not bind something with power, and that it is just
advise, and that the sole power to make a decision lays with the
entity of power.
Number 0331
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Utermohle whether he believed the
proposed committee substitute is satisfactory to the state
constitution in all parts.
Number 0342
MR. UTERMOHLE replied he has not made a determination as to its
constitutionality or whether or not any provision would fail under
the state constitution.
Number 0361
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to the frame of reference to
subsistence in ANILCA as a rural priority, and asked Mr. Utermohle
how the proposed committee substitute would stack up against it.
Number 0400
MR. UTERMOHLE replied ANILCA requires that the state adopt a rural
subsistence preference and the proposed committee substitute does
not contain a preference limited to rural residents. Therefore, it
would not comply with ANILCA.
Number 0414
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON wondered whether there is language in the
proposed committee substitute that would satisfy ANILCA, without
using the term "rural."
Number 0435
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied the proposed committee substitute would
give a regional preference for personal and family use of fish and
game for sustenance, not the people, that is intended to parallel
the intent of ANILCA. He asked Mr. Utermohle whether the provision
would satisfy the spirit of ANILCA.
Number 0499
MR. UTERMOHLE replied there are provisions in the proposed
committee substitute that tie in to provisions in ANILCA. In
particular, the traditional requirement for subsistence is a rural
preference and ANILCA has been amended to tie subsistence to
communities or areas where subsistence is a principal
characteristic. And, there are provisions in the proposed
committee substitute that refer to the characteristics of a
community or area.
Number 0548
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN read from ANILCA, "rural Alaska resident means a
resident or rural community or rural area." And, "a rural
community or area means a community or area substantially dependent
on fish and wildlife for nutritional or other subsistence uses."
It could be argued that there are people substantially dependent on
fish and game who live around the area of Anchorage, not the whole
community. It is broad enough that it could fit somewhat.
Number 0597
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Utermohle whether the definition of a
"rural community area" in ANILCA could be used in the proposed
committee substitute to satisfy federal law.
Number 0622
MR. UTERMOHLE replied the concept is largely contained in the
proposed committee substitute on page 2, Section 16.16.020.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN suggested defining "regional preference" as a
community or area substantially dependent on wildlife for
nutritional or other sustenance needs. "If we get consensus and
try this to see if it works, and make our law look a lot like the
federal law, and in practicality we've got a defacto regional
preference when in reality it achieves what I think a rural
preference is trying to do for most areas in the state. Would it
work, legally?"
Number 0705
MR. UTERMOHLE replied he can not speak for the Secretaries of
Interior and Agriculture. But, if they felt comfortable, in
substance, that the state has enacted an act that provides for a
preference that they felt they had to provide under their law, then
it seems possible they could approve a state act along that line.
Number 0786
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE wondered whether something has been put
together showing the amendments to ANILCA.
Number 0814
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied specific amendments to ANILCA have not
been addressed yet.
Number 0850
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON suggested a side-by-side comparison of the
salient provisions in ANILCA and the proposed committee substitute.
He also wondered what a constitutional amendment, if any, would
have to look like to comply with the proposed committee substitute.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Utermohle to explain the definitions in
the proposed committee substitute.
Number 0959
MR. UTERMOHLE explained there are four definitions added on page 6,
lines 12 to 23 - principal, reasonable opportunity, shortage, and
sustained yield. There are also new definitions and amendments to
existing definitions in Sections 17, 18 and 19 - barter, commercial
fishing, and fish and game dependent uses. There are also
definitions in the repealing sections that are being deleted -
subsistence fishing, subsistence hunting, subsistence uses, and
customary trade.
Number 1104
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON referred to page 17, line 21, and asked Mr.
Utermohle whether fish and game dependent use must be both
noncommercial "and" historical, or either.
Number 1138
MR. UTERMOHLE replied it is the one use of fish and game that is
noncommercial and historical. The terms "noncommercial" and
"historical" both modify the term "uses."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Utermohle whether a new
noncommercial use would not qualify.
MR. UTERMOHLE replied, "Yes."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Utermohle to brief the committee members
on "use" versus "users." Users are people that have constitutional
rights, while animals do not. Therefore, a discrimination against
the use of an animal is not nearly as troublesome in terms of the
state constitution.
MR. UTERMOHLE replied the state constitution protects the rights of
a person, the user of a resource, which is why the term "users" of
fish and game is so important.
Number 1243
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Utermohle whether the new terminology
"personal and family use" is defined in the proposed committee
substitute.
Number 1265
MR. UTERMOHLE replied it is not defined explicitly.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Utermohle whether it is more than
subsistence, under the old definition.
Number 1321
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Utermohle whether the language
"personal and family use for sustenance" defines subsistence. It
replaces it in the proposed committee substitute.
Number 1350
MR. UTERMOHLE replied the common meanings of the terms will define
it. They are generally well understood terms and the proposed
committee substitute would not attach any technical or arcane
meaning to it. Therefore, in the absence of such a meaning, the
general definitions would apply.
Number 1405
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to page 1, line 14, and asked Mr.
Utermohle to explain the implications of interstate commerce.
Number 1460
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied federal authority has been claimed under
the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States. The
intent is to make the proposed committee substitute bullet proof so
that the federal government can not attack it.
Number 1513
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated there has been an assertion that the
commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States applies
because those that consume the resources are able to barter and
trade them as well. There are some that say the subsistence
economy is worth $240 million a year. The purpose of subsistence
should never have been an economic one; it should have been one to
sustain personal life.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN thanked Mr. Utermohle for his time today.
Number 1688
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN called for a brief at east at 2:34 p.m. The
meeting was called back to order at 2:47 p.m.
Number 1689
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced that Representative Masek has joined the
meeting via teleconference.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked Co-Chairman Ogan what will be the
process in regards to the proposed committee substitute after the
meeting today.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied his door is open for suggestions and
input. He plans to schedule a meeting with a lot of people in the
legislature to discuss it. He announced there will be a meeting on
Tuesday, February 24, 1998 to discuss it again; and on Saturday,
February 28, 1998 for public testimony. There will also be a
presentation by Gregory Frank Cook on Tuesday on the public trust
doctrine. He suggested to the committee members to read their
books titled, Putting the Public Trust Doctrine to Work - Second
Edition.
Number 1945
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON suggested giving copies of the proposed
committee substitute to the Department of Fish and Game and to the
members of the Governor's Subsistence Task Force and ask them to
return any general or specific comments on any problems by
Thursday.
Number 1973
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated his committee aide will get it to as many
people as relevant.
Number 1994
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated, for the record, there is no way that
the legislature can amend ANILCA, and there is no way that the
legislature can fix the problems that exist. Thee legislature can
only take care of subsistence through statute as suggested in
McDowell. Therefore, the proposed committee substitute is an
attempt to take care of the McDowell decision and the state
constitution at the same time.
Number 2037
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced he would like to hear from the Native
community. "Let's all work together as Alaskans and resolve this
and hopefully get appropriate changes to ANILCA, if we can come to
a consensus, and get on into the next century as one people
undivided."
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2089
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 2:53 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|