Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/28/2000 01:17 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 28, 2000 1:17 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chair Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair Representative John Cowdery, Vice Chair Representative John Harris Representative Carl Morgan Representative Ramona Barnes Representative Jim Whitaker Representative Reggie Joule Representative Mary Kapsner MEMBERS ABSENT All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 349 "An Act relating to powers of the Board of Game, means of access for hunting, trapping, and fishing, the definition of 'means' and 'methods,' and hunting safety education and game conservation education programs; relating to the purposes of game refuges, fish and game critical habitat areas, and public use areas." - HEARD AND HELD HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 53 Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to a preference for taking wildlife for human consumption. - MOVED CSHJR 53(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 56 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska prohibiting certain initiatives relating to wildlife. - BILL HEARING POSTPONED PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 349 SHORT TITLE: FISH AND GAME/REFUGES/HABITAT & USE AREAS Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 2/07/00 2119 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 2/07/00 2119 (H) RES, FIN 2/07/00 2119 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES 2/09/00 2156 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON 2/21/00 2259 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HARRIS 2/28/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 BILL: HJR 53 SHORT TITLE: CONST AM: WILD FOOD RESOURCES Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 2/07/00 2114 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 2/07/00 2115 (H) RES, JUD, FIN 2/07/00 2115 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES 2/09/00 2155 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON 2/21/00 2259 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HARRIS 2/28/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 WITNESS REGISTER EDDIE GRASSER, Legislative Aide for Representative Beverly Masek Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 128 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 349 and HJR 53. RICK THOMPSON, Regional Manager Division of Mining, Land and Water Department of Natural Resources 3601 C Street, Suite 1080 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5937 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 349. ROD ARNO P.O. Box 87-1440 Wasilla, Alaska 99687 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 349 and HJR 53. WAYNE REGELIN, Director Division of Wildlife Conservation Alaska Department of Fish & Game P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526 POSITION STATEMENT: Voiced the department's concerns regarding HB 349 and HJR 53. DICK BISHOP, Vice President Alaska Outdoor Council 211 Fourth Street, Number 302A Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 349 and HJR 53. NANCY HILLSTRAND P.O. Box 170 Homer, Alaska 99603 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 349 and HJR 53. SUSAN SCHRADER, Conservation Advocate Alaska Conservation Voters P.O. Box 22151 Juneau, Alaska 99802 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 349 and HJR 53. BILL HAGAR Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association 431 Gaffney Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 53. CARL ROSIER Territorial Sportsman Incorporated 8298 Garnet Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 53. TED POPELY, Majority Counsel House Majority Office Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 116 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HJR 53. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 00-15, SIDE A Number 0001 CO-CHAIR MASEK called the House Resources Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:17 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Hudson, Masek, Cowdery, Morgan, Whitaker and Kapsner. Representatives Barnes, Harris and Joule arrived as the meeting was in progress. HB 349 - FISH AND GAME/REFUGES/HABITAT & USE AREAS CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 349, "An Act relating to powers of the Board of Game, means of access for hunting, trapping, and fishing, the definition of 'means' and 'methods,' and hunting safety education and game conservation education programs; relating to the purposes of game refuges, fish and game critical habitat areas, and public use areas." Number 0108 EDDIE GRASSER, Legislative Aide for Representative Beverly Masek, Alaska State Legislature, indicated Representative Masek had introduced HB 349 in response to the continuing problems with wildlife management and the legitimate human uses of wildlife resources. He explained that American culture has changed over the past century from being predominantly rural. The urban culture that now exists has moved away from the ties to the natural resources that more rural people have. He pointed out that several groups have arisen in the last half of the century that are either less than understanding of rural values or are outright against them. These groups have pursued agendas to close down trapping, and hunting and, in some instances, fishing; or they have tried to use strategies that limit human consumptive uses through the curtailment of management strategies, such as predator-prey relationship management. MR. GRASSER indicated that, for the most part, "environmental extremist groups" really do not care about conservation of wildlife. The history of their finances shows that the predominant share of their financial resources has gone into activities such as limiting or curtailing trapping, hunting and fishing or other resource uses. He pointed out that in direct contrast to that, trappers, hunters and fisherman have pushed for legislation on the national scene to promote responsible conservation of wildlife and the continued uses of wildlife; they have also contributed billions of dollars out of their own pockets to groups like Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep and other groups. Mr. Grasser stated that the changing dynamic between rural versus urban culture in America has also begun to affect the philosophy of some personnel of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), where biologists support the anti-hunting movement. MR. GRASSER noted that HB 349 has several sections dealing with issues of importance to the hunting and trapping public. Section 1 attempts to direct ADF&G and the Board of Game to adhere to management philosophies which clearly support wildlife programs that include actual efforts by ADF&G to maintain and enhance game populations for human consumption. The current language in Section 1 and 2 directs ADF&G to develop wildlife resources. MR. GRASSER noted that a few years ago the Alaska State Legislature had strengthened Section 2 by including amendments that set forth rules for active management to take place. He said that regardless of actions by the Board of Game and other pleas by rural Alaskans, thus far ADF&G has been unable to act upon recommendations by the Board of Game. He explained that the change from "development" to "enhancement" is intended to add more strength to the intensive management rules that were put in place. MR. GRASSER turned attention to Section 3. It requires the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game to follow certain rules whenever contemplating further restrictions on access. In recent years, he noted, ADF&G and the boards have proposed increasing restrictions on access, but little evidence has demonstrated need in relation to biological concerns. He surmised that ADF&G will express opposition to Section 3 because of the need for flexibility to restrict access in order to better manage user groups; the department also may argue that biological concerns will arise if HB 349 passes. He noted that millions of acres in Alaska already are off-limits to motorized access. He further suggested that ADF&G would argue that there is little need, outside of biological reasons, to limit access further. As for the second concern, the language in Section 3 clearly allows for Board of Fisheries and Board of Game [to take] action where they find it necessary for sustained yield management that is needed for enhancement or protection of habitat, or that is necessary to protect the values within legislatively approved areas, such as wildlife refuges. MR. GRASSER explained that Section 4 defines "means" and "methods." The intent is to come up with some reasonable statutory parameters for the Board of Game to follow, rather than leaving a loophole. Section 5 amends the language creating refuges, so that it is clear that trapping, hunting and fishing are legitimate uses of those areas. Refuges were originally suggested and supported by hunters for a variety of reasons, Mr. Grasser asserted; however, the agenda of the environmentalist community has recently included action to eliminate hunting in these areas. He noted that Congress recently passed similar legislation protecting trapping, hunting and fishing on national refuges. MR. GRASSER noted that Sections 7, 8 and 9 relate to hunter education and wildlife conservation education. He surmised that ADF&G likely will have a problem with the mandatory language in Section 7, but he indicated that is something that should be able to be worked out. Sections 8 and 9 are permissive and do not require any grants to be made, nor do they allow any grants unless approved by the legislature; however, they restrict any grants to groups organized to support and protect trapping, hunting and fishing. Sections 8 and 9 are in direct response to materials put out by ADF&G that cast hunting and trapping in a bad light. MR. GRASSER explained that those educational materials have been amended and reissued; however, [ADF&G] is still weak on supporting human consumptive uses as legitimate. He said this is of great concern because many teachers in public education are less than supportive of hunting and trapping. He indicated it is also of great concern that ADF&G will not lend its very credible support of hunting and trapping when ballot initiatives dealing with wildlife uses arise. Sections 10 through 19 deal with public use areas; again, the new language is intended to protect human consumptive uses as legitimate in those areas. Mr. Grasser concluded that it is clear that anti-hunting groups, by their very nature, cannot work constructively with consumptive users. Number 0933 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY requested clarification as to whether Mr. Grasser was indicating that ADF&G has made false statements. MR. GRASSER clarified that he had said anti-hunting groups put false information on television. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY wondered if ADF&G has always given straight answers. MR. GRASSER indicated that it would be a difficult question to answer. He stated that he believes, in his relationship with the department, that he has received good answers from the biologists. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE requested clarification on the reference Mr. Grasser had made to ballot initiatives with regard to aerial wolf hunting. MR. GRASSER said ADF&G was supposed to weigh in on the side of legitimate hunting and trapping with regard to the value of land- and-shoot methods that give some protection to the ungulate population, which [the department] refused to do, contending that it was a public matter that the voters needed to decide upon. Number 1136 RICK THOMPSON, Regional Manager, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He indicated that his testimony was primarily in reference to Sections 10 through 19, the public use areas. He informed members that the public use areas currently are under complete management of DNR, which is not shared with ADF&G. He expressed concern with the language in the bill; he suggested the changes regarding the purposes of the public use areas give more of a flavor of a refuge, as opposed to a public use area. He mentioned that DNR does not manage motorized access on general public-domain state land for fish and game purposes. Rather, [DNR] limits its scope and purpose to public access and the effect on the resources. MR. THOMPSON informed members that as the land manager for the Nelchina Public Use Area, he is unaware of any situation where DNR has considered or implemented any restrictions on motorized access. He mentioned that DNR has been contemplating resort development for many years, a part of which is in the Hatcher Pass Public Use Area, and he is not sure how the language in the bill will affect that. He noted that in general the department's main concern is the changing of the flavor of the purpose of the public use areas and what the management intent is there. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES recalled there being considerable public debate relating to the use of off-road vehicles in the Nelchina Public Use Area, specifically, to closing the area to motorized use. MR. THOMPSON confirmed that the debate did take place, but indicated that, as far as he knows, that [closing] has not taken place. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to Mr. Thompson's testimony that DNR has not considered closing any areas to off-road use. She asked whether she had heard him correctly. MR. THOMPSON replied that he did say that. He indicated that [DNR] would consider anything that came up in the matter of public process. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she does not want committee members to be misled into believing something that is a falsehood. Number 1412 MR. GRASSER explained that the intent of HB 349 was to protect the traditional uses: hunting, fishing and trapping. He said it may create some tension with DNR, but he believes that ADF&G still retains the management authority over the wildlife on those lands. Number 1466 ROD ARNO testified via teleconference from Wasilla. He stated that he is in favor of HB 349, particularly when the number of Alaskans purchasing hunting licenses is approximately 15 percent of the total population. He said he understands the need to protect the minority. Number 1538 WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, agreed with many of the goals Mr. Grasser had pointed out for HB 349. However, he expressed concern with some of the specific language changes and the effect they might have on the management of wildlife in Alaska. He stated: Section 1 of the bill changes the reason for creating the Board of Game from conservation and development of Alaska's game resources to the conservation and enhancement of these resources - sounds like a simple change, to change something from development to enhancement, but this could have some ... serious unintended consequences. The supreme court has defined development of our natural resources to make them available for human use. Enhancement, however, relates to improving or increasing the size or the health of a wildlife population without regard to human utilization. And traditionally the Board of Game has adopted regulations providing for an allocation of wildlife resources for human use. This language change would change the emphasis in our management from the size of a population rather than its use. It could result in the curtailment of hunting opportunities in order to increase wildlife populations. The language we have now I don't see a problem with. At the least, I would say that you would want to have both enhancement and development, but certainly we should keep the [word] "development" in this section. Section 2 does the same thing, just in a different part of the statutes. Number 1670 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE wondered how Section 1 would apply to a situation where there is predator control, for instance, in the McGrath area. He asked whether it would change how ADF&G would manage the moose resource. MR. REGELIN responded that he does not believe so. If it did anything, it would make it more difficult to do wolf control, because it would put the emphasis on the size of the population rather than on the use of the population. CO-CHAIR HUDSON wondered about the court decisions, which Mr. had Regelin referred to, that speak to development as it relates to the use of the game. He asked whether enhancement may conflict with those court decisions. MR REGELIN replied that he believes so. He indicated he has discussed it with the Department of Law at length, and there is a very specific ruling by the Alaska Supreme Court on what development means in relation to fish and wildlife resources. It means "to make them available for human use." MR. REGELIN noted that Section 3 would limit the boards' authority to restrict the methods of access for purposes of taking fish or game. The Board of Fisheries and Board of Game would only be able to limit access in a hunt, in an area that the legislature had designated, or if a majority of the local fish and game advisory committees from the area agreed to the restriction. For example, the Board of Game would no longer be able to use access restrictions to reduce conflicts among user groups unless the local advisory committees agreed. MR. REGELIN noted that there are many control use areas, to reduce conflicts among different user groups. Therefore, HB 349 would create a cumbersome and probably unworkable requirement that local fish and game advisory committees approve restrictions on traditional access, because most of these committees meet infrequently; achieving a consensus among the different groups could take years. Mr. Regelin indicated that he has always felt strongly that the advisory committee [system] is an excellent one, but it should be advisory and should not have veto authority over decisions made by the Board of Game. Number 1917 CO-CHAIR MASEK interjected that with regard to Section 3, the Board of Game had passed a measure asking the Administration to help out in the McGrath area, and apparently there is nothing happening with that. The Governor is not listening to the Board of Game's wishes, she maintained, which are to have ADF&G come in and help with the moose and wolf problem. She asked Mr. Regelin to continue with his testimony. MR. REGELIN said he understands the issue in McGrath, but he doesn't think access to the area is at issue there. He noted that Section 4 would define "method" and "means" in statute and restrict them to "tools, implements, devices or vehicles employed to take fish and game." He explained that although methods and means are not currently defined in statute or regulation, an entire section of the codified regulations deals with method and means. He pointed out that the method and means - or the rules in the regulations that are not specific to tools, implements, devices or vehicles - would go away, the way the bill is currently structured, or would have to be restructured somehow into another part of the regulation. He suggested that if that is not the intent, the [sponsor] needs to figure out a way to restructure Section 4 so that it doesn't have some of the rules go away that are essential for wildlife management. MR. REGELIN turned attention to Section 5. He noted that it expands the purposes of state game refuges to include enhancement of fish and game, fish and game habitat and traditional public uses of fish and game. It makes the perpetuation and enhancement of public recreation in a refuge or critical habitat area equal in value to the conservation, protection and enhancement of fish and game. The addition of the language "perpetuate and enhance general public recreation in a quality environment" is going to make it very difficult and probably more expensive to manage the ten state wildlife refuges. MR. REGELIN reiterated that what the bill is putting traditional access and recreation on the same level as protection of habitat, which could create some real problems. For instance, [ADF&G] needs to restrict certain types of access such as kayaks in Potter's Marsh so that they don't disturb the nesting waterfowl. He said that he is very proud of [the state's] ability to keep refuges open to all the traditional uses and to hunting. He does not see any reason to change that at this point, and he believes that it would be more detrimental than helpful. MR. REGELIN pointed out that Section 7 would eliminate ADF&G's authority to develop its hunter safety education program, and would only authorize the department to assist private nonprofit organizations in developing a hunter safety education program. He emphasized that ADF&G has an excellent hunter safety education program; it provides a coordinated delivery system that is consistent all across the state. If the bill were to pass, he would be concerned with the consistency in the course and whether it would be delivered statewide. Furthermore, losing the direct link from the department to the hunters could be detrimental. Number 2244 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked how long it has taken to develop the hunter safety education program. He also asked what kind of resources have been put into it, up to this point. MR. REGELIN explained that [ADF&G] has had a hunter safety education program since the mid-1960s. It is available mainly in the urban areas, but in the last year [the department] has worked on remote delivery systems through the Internet and videos so that they can deliver the course statewide. Five years ago, the budget was about $200,000 a year; however, that has increased in the last five years to $450,000 a year. He believes that the increased funding is an investment in the future of hunting. He referred to a comment made by Mr. Grasser about hunting being under attack; he said one way to respond to that is through a hunter safety education program, making sure that hunters are responsible users of the wildlife resources. CO-CHAIR HUDSON referred to the subsistence issue. He asked whether Mr. Regelin foresees any conflict with regard to access for hunting, trapping and fishing with the new regimen that is coming down in federal regulations. MR. REGELIN answered that he does not see any direct link right now. The state management system utilizes controlled-use areas in a variety of ways, which the federal agencies will probably never do because they have the mandate to provide an opportunity for subsistence hunting only to subsistence users based on where they live. CO-CHAIR HUDSON asked Mr. Regelin if he would look into that a little more. Number 2549 MR. REGELIN said he would. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked whether the bill, in its entirety, would help or hinder predator control. MR. REGELIN indicated that the bill would take the emphasis away from uses of a wildlife resource and place it on the size of a wildlife resource. He does not believe that action would be wise, because it could harm the efforts to provide opportunities for human uses of wildlife resources. He believes that enhancement and development are very different things, he said, and if the bill moves forward, he recommends that [the legislature] consider using both words. Number 2621 DICK BISHOP, Vice President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), indicated that the AOC is very interested in some of the concepts expressed in HB 349, such as the protection of traditional access for fishing, hunting and trapping; improving habitat maintenance in public use areas; and expanding support for hunter education and game conservation education. However, there is language in the bill that needs additional work. He said the AOC would be willing to work with the committee. CO-CHAIR MASEK responded that it is encouraging to know, because part of the process is making a good bill even better. NANCY HILLSTRAND testified via teleconference from Homer in opposition to HB 349. She said she agrees with what the testifiers from ADF&G and DNR had stated. She believes they have a good democratic process presently, which allows them to battle controversies, and it is a bad idea to have any knee-jerk reactions at this time. She pointed out that society is gaining recognition of what multiple-use means, and the need is to reduce conflict, not create conflict. She also noted the need to allow the Board of Game and the Board of Fisheries to work without a stranglehold. Number 2847 SUSAN SCHRADER, Conservation Advocate, Alaska Conservation Voters (ACV), stated that the ACV is a nonprofit entity that currently represents over 40 Alaskan organizations, as well as some business members. Altogether, ACV represents more than 22,000 registered Alaskan voters; members can be found in all user groups of Alaska wildlife, including subsistence users, recreational hunters, wildlife viewers and photographers. The ACV respects and appreciates the long, rich tradition held by Alaskans, Native and non-Native alike, regarding the state's wildlife resources. The ACV also acknowledges that the opportunity to view and use the wildlife resources extends to all Americans and, indeed, to visitors from other countries. MS. SCHRADER indicated ACV supports wildlife management actions that are based on unbiased scientific studies which reflect the values of most Alaskans. Therefore, members have been greatly concerned about the continuing position taken by the Alaska State Legislature that fails to recognize the legislature's responsibilities under the Constitution of the State of Alaska and the Public Trust Doctrine to care of the wildlife for the benefit of all Alaskans. MS. SCHRADER explained that the first concern with the bill relates to the substitution of the word "enhancement" for "development." The ACV has great concern that "enhancement" clearly mandates principles that are single-mindedly aimed at increasing a population, whereas "development" embodies a full range of policies that address the long-term benefits of wildlife resources for all user groups. The ACV has always maintained that the Board of Game and ADF&G should not have any more restrictions placed on them as far as their ability to regulate access, particularly motorized access. TAPE 00-15, SIDE B Number 2952 MS. SCHRADER further stated that Section 5 is particularly disconcerting because it expands the management mandate of ADF&G over all of refuges in the state. Many of those refuges - such as Creamer's Field, McNeil River, "Anchorage Coastal" and the Mendenhall Wetlands - are highly prized by Alaskans and visitors to the state. To statutorily mandate that activities such as hunting, trapping and motorized recreation be permitted in all refuges clearly fails to recognize that some areas must be managed to avoid conflicting uses. MS. SCHRADER pointed out that in Section 9 the ACV's concern is with requiring that ADF&G restrict its grants to organizations that promote and advocate hunting and trapping. The ACV would suggest authorizing grants only to organizations that do educational work, not advocacy work. Members ACV join with other Alaskans who are calling for balanced, fair and farsighted wildlife management decisions based upon the best, most comprehensive, unbiased scientific data available. The ACV cannot support HB 349 in its current form, because so many provisions run counter to that approach. CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that testimony on HB 349 was concluded. She indicated that she intended to work on the bill with ADF&G and other parties who have concerns, and to take it up again as soon as possible. [HB 349 was held over.] HJR 53 - CONST AM: WILD FOOD RESOURCES CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 53, proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to a preference for taking wildlife for human consumption. Number 2776 EDDIE GRASSER, Legislative Aide for Representative Beverly Masek, Alaska State Legislature, explained that HJR 53 is companion legislation of sorts to HB 349. [See testimony on HB 349 for this same date.] He indicated that several states have introduced legislation or have amended their constitutions to protect hunting, fishing and trapping. The intent of HJR 53 is to make hunting, fishing and trapping a preferred use of wildlife. He pointed out that some of the same arguments made in HB 349 are made in HJR 53. For instance, there is an increasing and growing attack on legitimate uses by consumptive users of wildlife resources. MR. GRASSER commented on letters to the editor with regard to the McGrath wolf situation; he pointed out that there are letters from radical environmentalists and members of animal rights groups that openly state that [the writers] have one goal in mind: to completely eliminate those uses. He explained that Representative Masek felt that if a state like Alabama can pass a constitutional amendment that says its citizens have a right to hunt, then Alaska should probably be able to do the same. He added that it is clear that hunting, which [is only done by] a minority of the citizens of the state, is a protected right, [and people who exercise that right should be] free from persecution by those who would like to place their values on other people. Number 2637 WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, stated that he has the same concern that he expressed in his testimony on HB 349. [See testimony on HB 349 for this same date.] He explained that it is with regard to using the term "enhanced" rather than "developed." Number 2602 DICK BISHOP, Vice President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), stated that the AOC does strongly support the concepts expressed in HJR 53. Section 2 makes clear what the original intent was of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, where it states that wildlife as well as other replenishable resources "shall be utilized, developed and maintained on the sustained yield principle." He explained that the sustained yield principle refers to consumptive use, and a review of constitutional language makes that clear. Unfortunately, Mr. Bishop said, in the general language of the constitution it is susceptible to different interpretations. MR. BISHOP recommended amending line 11 to read "the taking of fish and wildlife" rather than just "the taking the wildlife." He also recommended on line 12 changing the "a" to "the," so that it would read "the taking of fish and wildlife for human consumption is the preferred use." He referred to Gordon Harrison's book Alaska's Constitution: A Citizens Guide, where it reads: The principle of sustained yield management is a basic tenet of conservation. It is the simple, yet fundamental, idea that the annual harvest of a biological resource should not exceed the annual regeneration of that resource. Maximum sustained yield is the largest harvest that can be maintained year after year. MR. BISHOP emphasized that fundamental to the sustained yield principle is the idea of annual harvest, and that annual harvest of a biological resource is by people. That central element is often overlooked or even disputed as more people's lives become more urban-oriented. He indicated that the AOC believes that it is essential for the continuation of traditional Alaskan lifestyles that the connection to the land and waters through the harvest of fish and wildlife be recognized. He noted that [AOC] has the same concerns expressed by Mr. Regelin with regard to substituting the term "enhanced" for "developed." He concluded that the AOC supports HJR 53 with the inclusion of the offered amendments. Number 2256 BILL HAGAR, Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association (AWCA), testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in support of HJR 53. He believes the resolution to be constitutionally sound, and he pointed out that the sponsor has done a lot of research on it. He encouraged the committee to pass HJR 53. Number 2210 NANCY HILLSTRAND testified via teleconference from Homer. She stated: I really don't think what we're seeing is primarily an anti-hunting agenda. I'd call it recognition that we are in the twenty-first century with a society which understands that the preferred use of wildlife includes other preferential uses. The present management, coupled with the high human population, is not fine- grained enough to perceive the complexities of species interactions, reproductive strategies and life-stage histories. For instance, the tiny jackscrew was the deciding factor of Alaska's huge jetliner going down. As in wildlife management, these tiny, obscure relationships are unseen by our present management. The precautionary principle must enter into this or we have crisis management. I sent you a copy of a summary from the 1996 national survey of fishing, hunting and wildlife-associated recreation for Alaska. And if you are concerned with budgets, you might want to look at this table and just realize that there is actually a very large constituency which has a different viewpoint on what a preferential use is. The total expenditure on wildlife viewing was actually $780 million; that's getting up to close to a billion dollars, whereas "huntingwise" the total expenditure was $198 million. It's important to look at this and see what you think and maybe set up your own survey, so [that] we can truly find out what is the preferential use. Right now, we have no mechanism set up to allow anyone, except the people that can enter into the Dingell- Johnson Act or Pittman-Robertson Act, who put money into the funds of fish and wildlife conservation -- and I think that maybe it would help if we did that also, because then we'd have a more rounded, better democratic process in our society to pay the fair share; so we could all put our money where our mouth is. I really appreciate your work on this, but I really feel that it's not what we need right now, because I don't think it is true that indeed human consumption is the preferred use. Number 2097 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Ms. Hillstrand if she agrees that the wildlife resources are managed by the ADF&G through laws that have been handed down by the legislature and the constitution on a sustained yield principle, and that are managed through the department through bag limits and conservation of the resources. MS. HILLSTRAND replied, "Yes, I do." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated that she has never heard anyone testify before asserting that the feeding of one's family is less preferential than the viewing of wildlife. MS. HILLSTRAND explained that some people feed their families by creating a business for wildlife viewing, which might be allowing them to feed their families. She pointed out that the reason she had brought up expenditures is because money can be made by the wildlife just being there and being viewed. She added that it is good to err on the side of conservation. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she believes HJR 53 is self- explanatory. She explained that they are not talking about the people selling fish and wildlife, but instead that they are securing the fish and wildlife for human consumption. She said human consumption is entirely different from someone using it for a business purpose, because they are talking about people going out and harvesting the fish and wildlife to get food on the table. Number 1937 CARL ROSIER, Territorial Sportsman Incorporated (TSI), stated that TSI is an outdoor recreation group with a membership of slightly under 2,000 individuals, most of whom live in the Juneau and Douglas area. The organization was formed in 1945 and has been continuously involved in fish and game and other outdoor issues since that time. He indicated TSI does not take lightly the importance of making changes to the Constitution of the State of Alaska, but realizes that on occasion it is necessary. In view of recent actions by the Governor, apparently due to political ties with extremist animal rights groups, ecotourism interests and federal park interests, TSI is in support of HJR 53, he said. MR. ROSIER referred to a letter written on February 24, 2000, to the Board of Game outlining the Governor's plan for how game populations are to be managed in the state; Mr. Rosier said that should be of concern to every citizen. The policy direction issued by the Governor completely ignores the significance of ADF&G's funding sources for its game management program. He added that under the Governor's direction, wildlife viewing is to be considered on the same priority plane as the lifestyle and recreational hunting which are so important to most Alaskans. He pointed out that the Governor has assigned the highest priority to subsistence and then takes the tools and the decision process away from the Board of Game, placing it with a unknown adaptive- management workgroup appointed by the commissioner; it is a total subversion of the public process Alaskans have participated in since statehood. MR. ROSIER said TSI believes it must be the legislature that decides the policy that supports the constitutional mandate of sustained yield. He stressed that lacking the legislature's involvement and oversight, the public and the resources are destined to lose. The Governor's letter and recent action on Board of Game appointments sends a chilling message to all fish and game users in this state, he asserted. MR. ROSIER noted TSI's recommendations: to change "a" to "the" following "human consumption is", and to have the change from "developed" to "enhanced" because there is a connotation of use associated with "developed" that is not there with "enhanced." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Rosier whether, when he was the commissioner of ADF&G, he had looked upon the legislature, the Board of Game or the administration as the policy-making body of the state. MR. ROSIER replied that it takes all three working together, but he thinks that the legislature itself is where the basic policy for the utilization of the resources actually emanates from. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES recognized that it takes all three to assure the sustained yield. She stated that the Constitution of the State of Alaska establishes the legislature as the policy- making body of the state. The administration and the professionals are there to carry out the policies made by the legislature. MR. ROSIER pointed out that they are saying the same thing. He said the Board of Fisheries and Board of Game [use] a public process that he believes needs to be protected. He pointed out that when they begin to see the politics taking place with the Board of Game in terms of reappointments and giving them the absolute direction of how things are going to go, it is in total violation of the policy direction. He indicated that if they are going to begin to see that kind of political meddling, then it is time to include some of the rights that protect hunting and fishing and the enjoyment of those resources. He said there is nothing wrong with the viewing of wildlife, and there is nothing wrong with those activities being carried out in the same areas that hunting is taking place. He suggested that they can be carried out at different times of the year and everyone can be satisfied. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to a bill passed by Don Bennett, back when he was a legislator, having to do with the Nelchina area, that forbade the closure of those areas to motorized vehicles. She wondered if Mr. Rosier knew of that bill and if the law was ever repealed. MR. ROSIER replied that he was not sure. Number 1367 CO-CHAIR HUDSON asked Mr. Rosier: If this provision were in the Constitution of the State of Alaska presently, would the Governor be forced to conduct aggressive wolf-control measures in the McGrath area and other areas where there is pressure on the moose and caribou populations? MR. ROSIER replied that the Governor would have to take a very hard look at making that decision. He said it seems to him that they have gone through quite a process on wolf control in the state; the Governor spent thousands of dollars on a predator-prey relationship study, and there has been a lengthy public process. He pointed out that in the headlines the Governor said "No." So there has to be something that changes that attitude, and if the constitution is modified to accommodate that, then he believes the Governor would be forced to move in that direction. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES indicated that Mr. Rosier may have received the answer to her previous question. MR. ROSIER stated that the note that was put before him indicated Don Bennett's bill forbade state parks from closing areas to hunting. Number 1209 SUSAN SCHRADER, Conservation Advocate, Alaska Conservation Voters (ACV), informed the committee that one of ACV's main concerns centers around the substitution of the term "enhanced" for "developed." She indicated ACV's concern with Section 2 really goes to the heart of some of the changes that others have recommended, for instance, changing "a" to "the." In actuality, since there are not any other preferred uses outlined, it is safe to say that human consumption, whether there is "a" or "the" before it, would be the preferred use. She believes none of the members of the ACV have any wish to limit the ability of other Alaskans, including themselves, to harvest wildlife. However, they do realize that as the society is changing, other uses are becoming apparent. MS. SCHRADER explained that the issue in Alaska has always been how to resolve the conflicts between users and make the fairest decisions with all users. She said ACV has a concern with saying that human consumption is the preferred use, because it may be at the total exclusion of other uses. She concluded that the members of the ACV do not feel that HJR 53 and the potential amendment to the constitution that may come out of it are going to help to solve these problems. Number 0964 ROD ARNO testified via teleconference from Wasilla. He stated that he is in support of HJR 53. He indicated he has been the president of the Alaska Outdoor Council for the last eight years and is on the board of directors for the Alaska Professional Hunters Association. He pointed out that at the time that the framers of the Constitution of the State of Alaska were writing the constitution, in particular the section on sustained yield, they were not aware that there would be the anti-hunting advocates that there are today. CO-CHAIR MASEK indicated there was no more public testimony on HJR 53. Number 0780 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to adopt a conceptual amendment [Amendment 1], on line 6 after "shall be utilized", to add "developed, enhanced". Therefore, it would read "shall be utilized, developed, enhanced and maintained." [There was some deliberation and an attorney was asked to come forward.] TAPE 00-16, SIDE A Number 0182 TED POPELY, Majority Counsel, House Majority Office, Alaska State Legislature, indicated that it would appear that the maker of the amendment is trying to strengthen the role, so that the resources in question are actively managed. He explained that if "enhanced" and "developed" are going to be added as a matter of constitutional interpretation, it is one additional requirement. He pointed out that to "develop" or "enhance" means to increase, by the basic meaning of the language. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES wondered why they would want "developed" to come before "enhanced." MR. POPELY indicated that he is not sure it would make any difference. He pointed out that a concern could be with the priority of listing, and may be used to interpret that the first word will have more priority than the latter. He said that he is not sure whether that is true. CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if there was any objection to the conceptual amendment, Amendment 1. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 0705 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to adopt a conceptual amendment, Amendment 2, on lines 2, 11 and 12, to add "fish and" before the word "wildlife," so that it would read, "fish and wildlife." CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if there was any objection. There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 0897 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to move HJR 53 [as amended] from committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE objected. He indicated that there are still some unanswered questions with regard to the fiscal note. He wondered if adding the term "enhanced" changes the fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES interjected that the only cost for a constitutional amendment is putting it on the ballot; then, if the people choose to adopt it, it is put into statute. REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER wondered if on line 12 "a" was changed to "the." CO-CHAIR MASEK replied no. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked that the motion to move the resolution from committee be withdrawn, because she agrees that the word "the" should be inserted instead of "a." She explained that feeding one's family should be the primary use of the fish and wildlife resource. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked if someone could define human consumption. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES replied that she believes human consumption means that if someone takes a moose, it is to feed his or her family; it includes the taking of fish by any means, as long as it is for human consumption. She indicated that she does not feel that commercial fishing is necessarily for human consumption. She asked Mr. Popely if he would comment on changing "a" to "the." Number 1260 MR. POPELY stated that the way he would interpret it is if they left it as "a preferred use" it would allow, in statute, for broader flexibility. Changing it to "the preferred use" would establish an absolute priority that the taking for human consumption would be the only preferred use. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said the heart of HJR 53 goes to feeding one's family. She explained that if they leave "a" and do not put in "the", then they really are not going to feed anyone's family. If they are allowing other things to take place right alongside the preferential use for human consumption, there is a tier system. MR. POPELY agreed with Representative Barnes. CO-CHAIR MASEK asked Representative Kapsner if she was satisfied with the definition of human consumption. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER said she does not feel that there is a very clear definition of what human consumption is. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES indicated definitions are not put in the constitution. Number 1656 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE stated that the House Judiciary Standing Committee is the next committee of referral for HJR 56, and there are a lot of legal questions; therefore, he removed his objection. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to adopt a conceptual amendment, Amendment 3, on line 12, to change "a" to "the"; she asked for unanimous consent. There being no objection, Amendment 3 was adopted. CO-CHAIR HUDSON expressed concern with Amendment 2, adding "fish," because he believes it may put commercial fishing at risk and may adversely affect fishing in Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES restated the motion to move HJR 53 [as amended] out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note and asked unanimous consent. CO-CHAIR HUDSON objected for the purpose of revisiting the addition of "fish" [Amendment 2]. MR. POPELY said Representative Hudson is correct: it does call into question whether or not commercial fishing takes a backseat to human consumptive uses. He explained that it is likely that the state statutory scheme enabling the legislation, should it pass, would include a specific definition of human consumption in order to be implemented; he doubted that commercial fishing would be included in that definition. He indicated that human consumption would be the preferred use, and in his opinion commercial fishing would probably not rise to the same level of statutory preference under the sustained yield principle. Number 1928 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES indicated that there is a small amount of fish and wildlife taken for human consumption, whereas there are huge amounts taken for commercial use. She asked Representative Hudson if he thought commercial use should come before feeding one's family. CO-CHAIR HUDSON replied no. He explained that he is concerned with the same thing that is happening with the federal subsistence issue, where they can stop all commercial fishing downstream until they have all the abundance upstream in order to take for subsistence, but in this case it would be for consumptive uses. If that were the case, then there would be two demands upstream for fish. He said he would prefer analyzing it further. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Morgan, Barnes, Whitaker, Cowdery and Masek voted in favor of moving the resolution from committee. Representatives Harris, Joule, Kapsner and Hudson voted against it. Therefore, CSHJR 53(RES) moved from the House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 5- 4. CO-CHAIR MASEK called an at-ease at 3:23 p.m. and called that meeting back to order at 3:24 p.m. She announced that HJR 56 would be heard at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT CO-CHAIR MASEK adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee meeting at 3:25 p.m.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|