Legislature(1993 - 1994)

03/07/1994 08:15 AM RES

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
               HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                          March 7, 1994                                        
                            8:15 a.m.                                          
  MEMBERS PRESENT                                                              
  Representative Bill Williams, Chairman                                       
  Representative Bill Hudson, Vice Chairman                                    
  Representative Con Bunde                                                     
  Representative Pat Carney                                                    
  Representative John Davies                                                   
  Representative David Finkelstein                                             
  Representative Jeannette James                                               
  Representative Eldon Mulder                                                  
  MEMBERS ABSENT                                                               
  Representative Joe Green                                                     
  OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT                                                    
  Representative Mike Navarre                                                  
  Senator Bert Sharp                                                           
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
  HJR 17:   Relating to reauthorization of the Magnuson                        
            Fishery Conservation and Management Act.                           
            ADOPTED AND MOVED CS HJR 17(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE                  
            WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS                                    
  HB 404:   "An Act relating to the authority of the                           
            commissioner of natural resources to reconvey, or                  
            relinquish an interest in, land to the United                      
            States if that land or interest being reconveyed                   
            or relinquished is identified in an amended                        
            application for a land allotment under federal law                 
            and the original claim for an allotment described                  
            land that is now within, or managed as a unit of,                  
            the state park system."                                            
            HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER                            
  HB 448:   "An Act relating to waste and use of salmon and                    
            parts of salmon; relating to permits for and                       
            operation of a salmon hatchery; and providing for                  
            an effective date."                                                
            ADOPTED AND MOVED CSHB 448(RES) OUT OF                             
            COMMITTEE WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS                          
  SB 77:    "An Act relating to the powers of the Board of                     
            Game and to intensive management of big game to                    
            achieve higher sustained yield for human harvest."                 
            MOVED HCS CSSB 77(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH                       
            INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS                                         
  (*First public hearing)                                                      
  WITNESS REGISTER                                                             
  REPRESENTATIVE MIKE NAVARRE                                                  
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  State Capitol, Room 521                                                      
  Juneau, Alaska   99801-1182                                                  
  Phone:  465-3779                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Prime sponsor HJR 17                                    
  GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison                                             
  Alaska Department of Fish and Game                                           
  P.O. Box 25526                                                               
  Juneau, Alaska   99802                                                       
  Phone:  465-6143                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HJR 17                                        
  ROGER MCKOWAN, Aide                                                          
  Representative Lyman Hoffman                                                 
  State Capitol, Room 503                                                      
  Juneau, Alaska   99801-1182                                                  
  Phone:  465-4453                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided sponsor statement on HB 404                    
  PETE PANARESE, Chief                                                         
  Field Operations                                                             
  Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation                                     
  Department of Natural Resources                                              
  P.O. Box 107001                                                              
  Anchorage, Alaska   99510                                                    
  Phone:  762-2603                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HB 404                                        
  DAN HOURIHAN, Area Ranger                                                    
  Wood-Tikchik State Park                                                      
  P.O. BOX 107001                                                              
  Anchorage, Alaska   99510                                                    
  Phone:  762-2603                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HB 404                                        
  PERRY AHSOGEAK, Realty Director                                              
  Tanana Chiefs Conference                                                     
  122 1st Avenue                                                               
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99701                                                    
  Phone:  452-8251                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HB 404                                        
  DUGAN NIELSEN, Realty Officer                                                
  Bristol Bay Native Association                                               
  P.O. Box 103                                                                 
  Dillingham, Alaska   99576                                                   
  Phone:  842-2743                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HB 404                                        
  DONALD TAYLOR                                                                
  P.O. Box 3118                                                                
  Valdez, Alaska   99686                                                       
  Phone:  835-4358                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Raised questions regarding HB 404                       
                       Supported HB 448                                        
  LAWRENCE MCCUBBINS                                                           
  P.O. Box 1656                                                                
  Homer, Alaska   99603                                                        
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Raised questions regarding HB 404                       
                       Supported HB 448                                        
  RAY GILLESPIE, Representative                                                
  Association of Aquaculture Associations                                      
  9478 Riverbend Court                                                         
  Juneau, Alaska   99801                                                       
  Phone:  789-3946                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HB 448                                        
  DON AMEND, Representative                                                    
  Southern Southeast Regional                                                  
    Aquaculture Association                                                    
  2721 Tongass Avenue                                                          
  Ketchikan, Alaska   99901                                                    
  Phone:  225-9605                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HB 448                                        
  TOM MEARS, Executive Director                                                
  Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association                                           
  HC 2, Box 849                                                                
  Soldotna, Alaska   99669                                                     
  Phone:  283-5761                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HB 448                                        
  PETE ESQUIRO, Representative                                                 
  Northern Southeast Regional                                                  
    Aquaculture Association                                                    
  1308 Sawmill Creek Road                                                      
  Sitka, Alaska   99835                                                        
  Phone:  747-6850                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HB 448                                        
  SENATOR BERT SHARP                                                           
  State Capitol, Room 514                                                      
  Juneau, Alaska   99801-1182                                                  
  Phone:  465-3004                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Prime sponsor SB 77                                     
  DAVE KELLEYHOUSE, Director                                                   
  Division of Wildlife Conservation                                            
  Alaska Department of Fish and Game                                           
  P.O. Box 25526                                                               
  Juneau, Alaska   99802-5526                                                  
  Phone:  465-4191                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported SB 77, version W                              
  LEE PUTNAM, Representative                                                   
  Ketchikan Sports and Wildlife Club                                           
  6005 Roosevelt Drive                                                         
  Ketchikan, Alaska   99901                                                    
  Phone:  225-7694                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported SB 77                                         
  DICK BISHOP, Representative                                                  
  Alaska Outdoor Council                                                       
  1555 Gus's Grind                                                             
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99709                                                    
  Phone:  455-6151                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported SB 77                                         
  GEORGE YASKA, Director of Wildlife                                           
  Tanana Chiefs Conference                                                     
  122 1st Avenue                                                               
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99701                                                    
  Phone:  479-2362                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 77, present version                          
  ROD ARNO                                                                     
  P.O. Box 2790                                                                
  Palmer, Alaska   99645                                                       
  Phone:  376-2913                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported SB 77                                         
  RANDY FRANKLIN                                                               
  P.O. Box 1924                                                                
  Homer, Alaska   99603                                                        
  Phone:  235-7104                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported SB 77 concept                                 
  SANDRA ARNOLD, Representative                                                
  Alaska Wildlife Alliance                                                     
  P.O. Box 200606                                                              
  Anchorage, Alaska   99520                                                    
  Phone:  276-3670                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 77                                           
  CHRIS MAACH, President                                                       
  Anchorage Audubon Society                                                    
  P.O. Box 101161                                                              
  Anchorage, Alaska   99510                                                    
  Phone:  278-4265                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 77                                           
  TRACY ABELL, Representative                                                  
  Alaska Chapter Sierra Club                                                   
  13030 Bates Circle                                                           
  Anchorage, Alaska   99515                                                    
  Phone:  345-0132                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 77                                           
  GEORGE MATZ                                                                  
  14345 Cody                                                                   
  Anchorage, Alaska   99516                                                    
  Phone:  345-3135                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 77                                           
  PREVIOUS ACTION                                                              
  BILL:  HJR 17                                                                
  SHORT TITLE: MAGNUSON FISHERY CONSRV & MGT ACT                               
  SPONSOR(S):REPRESENTATIVE(S) NAVARRE,Ulmer,Grussendorf,                      
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  01/20/93       113    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/20/93       113    (H)   FISHERIES, RESOURCES                             
  02/09/94      2311    (H)   FSH RPT  CS(FSH) 4DP                             
  02/09/94      2311    (H)   DP: NICHOLIA, DAVIDSON, OLBERG,                  
  02/09/94      2311    (H)   -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (H.FSH)2/9/94                  
  02/09/94      2327    (H)   COSPONSOR(S):  DAVIDSON                          
  02/09/94              (H)   FSH AT 08:30 AM CAPITOL 17                       
  02/09/94              (H)   MINUTE(FSH)                                      
  03/07/94              (H)   RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124                      
  BILL:  HB 404                                                                
  SHORT TITLE: NATIVE ALLOTMENTS IN STATE PARKS                                
  SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HOFFMAN,Foster,Williams                        
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  01/26/94      2155    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/26/94      2155    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, RESOURCES                         
  03/01/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  03/01/94              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  03/01/94              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  03/02/94      2574    (H)   STA RPT  3DP 1NR                                 
  03/02/94      2574    (H)   DP:  KOTT, VEZEY, G.DAVIS                        
  03/02/94      2574    (H)   NR:  OLBERG                                      
  03/02/94      2574    (H)   -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR) 3/2/94                   
  03/02/94      2574    (H)   REFERRED TO RESOURCES                            
  03/07/94              (H)   RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124                      
  BILL:  HB 448                                                                
  SHORT TITLE: WASTE & USE OF SALMON; HATCHERIES                               
  SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                 
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  02/04/94      2268    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  02/04/94      2269    (H)   FSH, RESOURCES, JUDICIARY                        
  02/04/94      2269    (H)   -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G) 2/4/94                   
  02/04/94      2269    (H)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                    
  02/18/94              (H)   FSH AT 08:30 AM CAPITOL 17                       
  02/18/94              (H)   MINUTE(FSH)                                      
  02/22/94      2475    (H)   FSH RPT  CS(FSH) 2DP 1NR                         
  02/22/94      2475    (H)   DP:  MOSES, OLBERG                               
  02/22/94      2475    (H)   NR:  NICHOLIA                                    
  02/22/94      2476    (H)   -PREVIOUS ZERO FISCAL NOTE                       
                              (F&G) 2/4/94                                     
  03/07/94              (H)   RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124                      
  BILL:  SB  77                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SHARP,Frank,Taylor,Miller;                            
  REPRESENTATIVE(S) Therriault,James                                           
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  01/29/93       188    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/29/93       188    (S)   RESOURCES                                        
  02/03/93       227    (S)   COSPONSOR:  MILLER                               
  02/10/93              (S)   RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205                  
  02/10/93              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                      
  02/19/93              (S)   RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205                  
  02/24/93              (S)   RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205                  
  02/24/93              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                      
  02/26/93       500    (S)   RES RPT CS 2DP 3DNP 1NR NEW                      
  02/26/93       500    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB &                         
                              CS (F&G)                                         
  02/26/93              (S)   RLS AT 01:15 PM FAHRENKAMP                       
                              ROOM 203                                         
  03/09/93              (S)   RLS AT 12:15 PM FAHRENKAMP                       
                              ROOM 203                                         
  03/09/93              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                      
  03/10/93       710    (S)   RULES RPT  3 CAL 1NR 3/10/93                     
  03/10/93       719    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                             
  03/10/93       719    (S)   RES  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                     
  03/10/93       719    (S)   AM NO  1   FAILED Y9 N10 E1                      
  03/10/93       721    (S)   ADVANCE TO 3RD RDG FAILED                        
                              Y11 N8 E1                                        
  03/10/93       721    (S)   THIRD READING 3/11 CALENDAR                      
  03/11/93       756    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME                              
                              CSSB 77(RES)                                     
  03/11/93       756    (S)   PASSED Y11 N8 E1                                 
  03/11/93       756    (S)   DONLEY NOTICE OF                                 
  03/12/93       783    (S)   RECON TAKEN UP-IN THIRD READING                  
  03/12/93       784    (S)   PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION                        
                              Y11 N8 E1                                        
  03/12/93       786    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                               
  03/15/93       643    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/15/93       643    (H)   RESOURCES                                        
  03/15/93       658    (H)   CROSS SPONSOR(S): THERRIAULT                     
  04/17/93              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  04/19/93              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                      
  04/21/93              (H)   RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124                      
  01/13/94      2056    (H)   CROSS SPONSOR(S):  JAMES                         
  02/16/94              (H)   RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124                      
  02/16/94              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                      
  03/07/94              (H)   RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124                      
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
  TAPE 94-26, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  The House Resources Committee was called to order by                         
  Chairman Bill Williams at 8:23 a.m.  Members present at the                  
  call to order were Representatives Williams, Hudson, Bunde,                  
  Carney, Davies, and Finkelstein.  Members absent were                        
  Representatives Green, James, and Mulder.                                    
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced there is a quorum present.  He                   
  said the meeting is on teleconference with Anchorage,                        
  Barrow, Cordova, Delta Junction, Dillingham, Fairbanks,                      
  Glennallen, Homer, Kodiak, Kotzebue, Ketchikan, Mat-Su,                      
  Seward, Sitka, Kenai/Soldotna, Tok, Valdez and McGrath.                      
  HJR 17 - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act                    
  MIKE NAVARRE, PRIME SPONSOR, stated HJR 17 is a general                      
  statement in support of the Magnuson Fishery Act, which is                   
  up for reauthorization in the U.S. Congress and it is a                      
  specific statement in support of keeping the current                         
  geographic composition of the North Pacific Fishery                          
  Management Council.  Alaska currently has the majority of                    
  seats on the council.  He said there are other issues which                  
  the Magnuson Fishery Act will address and the Act has been a                 
  benefit to the state since its inception in 1976.  He urged                  
  committee members to pass the resolution out of committee.                   
  He noted there has been a suggestion to add Senator Hollings                 
  to the resolution because of his chairmanship of the Senate                  
  Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.                          
  REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON MOVED to AMEND HJR 17 to add the                  
  name Senator Ernest Hollings.                                                
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.                        
  Hearing none, the AMENDMENT was ADOPTED.                                     
  AND GAME (ADF&G), expressed support of HJR 17.                               
  REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a MOTION to MOVE CSHJR 17(RES)                    
  with a zero fiscal note out of committee with INDIVIDUAL                     
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.                        
  Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.                                             
  Number 058                                                                   
  HB 404 - Native Allotments In State Parks                                    
  404 is a technical correction to a statute under Title 38.                   
  He said there is a substantial number of people in                           
  Representative Hoffman's district who have Native allotments                 
  within what is now a state park, which the state holds                       
  title.  There are alternative lands outside the state park                   
  which the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) agrees the                   
  landowners should have.  However, the state is not in a                      
  position statutorily to relinquish the alternative land to                   
  relocate the landholder out of the state park.  HB 404                       
  allows the commissioner of DNR to reconvey the land back to                  
  the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) which is the entity able                 
  to make the exchange.                                                        
  AND OUTDOOR RECREATION, DNR, testified via teleconference                    
  and expressed support for HB 404.  He said the bill will                     
  allow the state to reconvey land to the federal government                   
  if that land was identified in an amended application for                    
  Native allotment under federal law and the original land                     
  claimed is within the state park.  Allowing the applicants                   
  to relocate to state land outside state parks will reduce                    
  public impact and speed up finalization of the applications,                 
  some of which have been pending for over thirty years.                       
  Number 095                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES requested a brief overview of                     
  what the problem is and how HB 404 solves the problem.                       
  MR. PANARESE replied Alaska received title to the land in                    
  Wood-Tikchik State Park in 1970.  It became a state park in                  
  1978.  After the land had received title, allotment                          
  applications were filed on the premise that the land was                     
  used before it became a state park.  The dilemma is the                      
  state owns the land and the allottees are claiming that                      
  prior use and occupancy.  He stressed it will take the                       
  federal government many decades to adjudicate all of these                   
  lands.  The state is attempting to create options for the                    
  allottees to relocate outside of the state park and HB 404                   
  provides one of those options.  It will provide the DNR                      
  commissioner a tool to provide other state land for the                      
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked what process is involved for the                 
  allottees to get the other land.                                             
  MR. PANARESE responded the allottees need to amend their                     
  application from one location to the other.                                  
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if it was then up to the                         
  commissioner to make the decision through normal Title 38                    
  MR. PANARESE said that was correct.                                          
  REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked how much land is involved.                       
  MR. PANARESE replied there are 159 total allotments                          
  throughout the state park system and this is just an option                  
  for the allottees.  Allottees may wish to stay within the                    
  park.  He added the acreage involved is approximately 10,000                 
  Number 124                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE asked what limitations are                          
  currently in place for owners of the land claimed within the                 
  state park other than not being able to sell the land.                       
  MR. PANARESE stated for those who own the allotment and                      
  received a patent, there are no restrictions on how they use                 
  the land.  He said the department has numerous applications                  
  which HB 404 will provide a tool to finalize.  Those                         
  applications are affected in that they have to use the land                  
  in a very simple manner such as putting up a cabin.                          
  Number 140                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked where the additional lands are                    
  located which the allottees will receive in exchange for the                 
  park land.                                                                   
  MR. PANARESE responded the commissioner is going to allow                    
  the exchange to take place on all unappropriated lands which                 
  the state owns that have no third party interest on them.                    
  REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER asked if land received in the                    
  exchange will be of similar size and value.                                  
  MR. PANARESE replied the land will be of like size and                       
  Number 155                                                                   
  testified via teleconference and reiterated Mr. Panarese's                   
  remarks.  He said the state selected land within Wood-                       
  Tikchik State Park in 1961 as part of its statehood                          
  entitlement, which at that time was unappropriated federal                   
  land.  The state then began receiving tentative approval                     
  (TA) of patent to that land in 1963.  The process was                        
  completed by 1964.  He stated in 1971, the 1906 Native                       
  Allotment Act, which entitled an individual Native allotment                 
  to select up to 160 acres of unappropriated federal land                     
  based upon certain use and occupancy criteria, was sunsetted                 
  with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).                        
  Therefore, a number of people with applications who thought                  
  they had a valid claim were tendered in 1971 as a part of                    
  the sunset.                                                                  
  MR. HOURIHAN said in Wood-Tikchik State Park, the                            
  applications amounted to 121 parcels of land with an average                 
  size of 88 acres.  At this date, the vast majority of those                  
  applications have not been adjudicated by BLM, which is the                  
  agency responsible for adjudicating the validity of those                    
  applications based upon use and occupancy criteria.  He said                 
  the department would like to help expedite the process of                    
  transferring lands to Native allotment applicants.  That                     
  process is complicated for BLM because the land is now owned                 
  by the state, and in an attempt to resolve those                             
  applications, DNR has worked closely with Native                             
  organizations, individual allottees, and state government to                 
  identify certain negotiable options which can be made                        
  available to allotment applicants.                                           
  MR. HOURIHAN remarked the idea of relocation is one of the                   
  options.  In 1992, the U.S. Congress passed a bill,                          
  sponsored by Representative Young, which allows an                           
  individual allottee to amend his/her original application by                 
  identifying different lands in instances where an agreement                  
  with the state has been reached on substitute lands.  He                     
  stressed that bill is in effect and that mechanism is                        
  available to allotment applicants.  This change in Title 38                  
  will allow those changes to take place and allow the                         
  commissioner of DNR to reconvey substitute lands to the                      
  federal government.  The department feels HB 404 is a                        
  valuable option and may be a lucrative option to                             
  (indiscernible) allotment applicants.                                        
  Number 208                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked how many acres there are in the                  
  entire Wood-Tikchik State Park and how many acres the 104                    
  applications represent.                                                      
  MR. HOURIHAN replied there are approximately 1.5 million                     
  acres in the state park and there are 104 applications for                   
  allotment parcels within the park with an average size of 80                 
  acres.  He said what is unique about the acreage applied for                 
  is that in many cases, the acreage is in areas with a large                  
  amount of public use.  In many instances, allotment                          
  applicants may elect to remain (indiscernible) they have                     
  applied to that land and DNR will work closely with those                    
  individuals to ensure that in those instances where                          
  applications are valid, the allottees receive title to that                  
  land as quickly as possible.  DNR will work closely with the                 
  allottees in order to reach agreement on certain types of                    
  land uses which will protect their interests on a long-term                  
  basis in terms of subsistence uses and current traditional                   
  uses, as well as protect public interest in the park.  He                    
  added that relocation provides an alternative for those who                  
  are interested.                                                              
  Number 232                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked when the original applications                   
  were made, were applicants able to apply for more than their                 
  allotted share.                                                              
  MR. HOURIHAN responded they were not.                                        
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked in the land which the allottees                  
  will receive in the exchange, will the state's interest in                   
  mineral rights apply.                                                        
  MR. HOURIHAN replied yes.  There is no change in the                         
  substitute land.                                                             
  (CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE                  
  JAMES joined the committee at 8:30 a.m.)                                     
  REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated it appears that many of the                      
  allotments are in access points and asked if applicants                      
  could control access points, charge trespass fees, develop                   
  the land privately, etc.                                                     
  MR. HOURIHAN stated in the instance of an individual                         
  receiving a (indiscernible) allotment to a piece of land,                    
  they still maintain a trust relationship with the federal                    
  government but on a long-term basis, it is private property                  
  and any uses of the land are unrestricted.  He cannot                        
  speculate on what an individual might do with their private                  
  property in the park.                                                        
  REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE clarified there is nothing preventing                   
  the proliferation of commercial enterprises in the park if                   
  people receiving the property wish to do so.  In addition,                   
  he said the land was claimed by the state in 1961 and asked                  
  if the applications were existing at that time or were they                  
  filed after the park was established.                                        
  MR. HOURIHAN said the state selected the land in 1961 and                    
  the majority of the applications for the land were received                  
  in 1971.                                                                     
  REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY asked when the land is reconveyed                  
  to the federal government, is the state compensated in the                   
  state's land selection.                                                      
  MR. HOURIHAN replied yes.                                                    
  REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES wondered if there are                         
  additional unknown situations of people anxious to take more                 
  state land.                                                                  
  Number 300                                                                   
  MR. HOURIHAN said there is a mechanism existing in Title 38                  
  which allows the DNR commissioner to reconvey lands to the                   
  federal government.  (Indiscernible) instances where there                   
  may have been an existing valid use at the time of state                     
  selection and received a title.  He stated that continues to                 
  be true in HB 404.  Any (indiscernible) of state lands would                 
  be predicated upon the state agreeing that an individual had                 
  a valid Native allotment application and that although an                    
  application had not been filed, the use and occupancy                        
  required in the 1906 Native Allotment Act was ongoing.                       
  MR. HOURIHAN stressed HB 404 simply follows up on valid                      
  applications for allotments.  He said HB 404 is not an                       
  attempt by individuals to secure state land outside of a                     
  program.  He felt HB 404 addresses the state's need to                       
  recognize that Native allotments did exist at the time the                   
  state selected the land and in those instances where people                  
  had a valid use, to follow through and ensure those                          
  individuals receive the land they are entitled to, while                     
  doing their best to protect existing public interests.                       
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if 500,000 acres are going to be                  
  taken off the table, will there be enough land in the areas                  
  sought by the people affected.                                               
  MR. HOURIHAN responded he did not believe the people will be                 
  deprived.  Although the commissioner of DNR has identified                   
  all appropriated general state lands for relocation, Mr.                     
  Hourihan expects the majority of the allottees interested in                 
  relocating, particularly in the Wood-Tikchik area, will                      
  relocate to general state lands.                                             
  Number 369                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked what happens if HB 404 does not                  
  pass.  How long will it take to get the applications                         
  MR. HOURIHAN stated it is difficult to put a time period on                  
  the BLM adjudicative process.  He said a big delay in the                    
  process will be the survey of the lands, which needs to be                   
  completed by the federal government.  He noted it has been                   
  23 years since the last application came in.                                 
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked if surveying will be required                    
  for the state land being exchanged.                                          
  MR. HOURIHAN replied surveying will be required, but because                 
  the individual is simply relocating their allotment lands,                   
  BLM will follow through with the same process just as they                   
  would have in the original application.                                      
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked if it is settled and the system                  
  is in place, what is the possible outcome.                                   
  MR. HOURIHAN stated the department has identified other                      
  options available to individuals to resolve applications                     
  which as of yet have not been adjudicated by the federal                     
  government.  Not exploring other options will                                
  (indiscernible) win/win situations and expedite the                          
  adjudication by BLM.  He expected individual applications                    
  will be handled on a case-by-case basis, as determined by                    
  the use and occupancy time period, and the process will                      
  probably take about 10-15 years.                                             
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked if it is almost certain that the                 
  people will eventually get title to the land they have                       
  overfiled on.                                                                
  MR. HOURIHAN replied possibly not.  It depends on the merits                 
  of the particular application and because the BLM                            
  adjudicative process is in an early stage, he cannot                         
  Number 418                                                                   
  (TCC), testified via teleconference and stated TCC provides                  
  land measurement services under contract to the Bureau of                    
  Indian Affairs for Native allotments located within the TCC                  
  region.  In working on Native allotment applications, he has                 
  had the experience of working on land conflicts with the                     
  state.  Resolving land conflicts requires an extensive                       
  amount of time due to the conflicts nature of the lands                      
  MR. AHSOGEAK stressed HB 404 will easily resolve the problem                 
  by allowing allottees in the state to negotiate on the                       
  location of their allotments.  With the opportunity to                       
  negotiate, the state receives the benefit of spending less                   
  staff time in resolving the conflict, and there will be                      
  fewer litigation issues.  In addition, the allottee receives                 
  the benefit of obtaining title within their lapse time to                    
  the lands they are entitled to under the Native law.  He                     
  stated TCC urges the committee to pass HB 404.                               
  Number 453                                                                   
  ASSOCIATION, testified via teleconference and stated he has                  
  been involved in the Native allotment program for a long                     
  time.  He said the remaining pending Native allotment                        
  applications are in situations where there are conflicts                     
  with state land selections.  Often times the ability to                      
  resolve the problems is limited to going before the Interior                 
  Board of Land Appeals.  In those cases, there is a winner                    
  and a loser but regardless, there is great expense to both                   
  Number 475                                                                   
  MR. NIELSEN stated HB 404 provides an opportunity for a                      
  win/win solution to land conveyances for both Native                         
  allottees and the state of Alaska.  He said HB 404 will help                 
  avoid years of litigation and tens, if not hundreds of                       
  thousands of dollars.  He remarked HB 404 is a good bill in                  
  that it provides a mechanism for a resolution in those                       
  uncertain land ownership situations.                                         
  Number 486                                                                   
  DONALD TAYLOR, VALDEZ, testified via teleconference and                      
  raised questions regarding the reasoning behind HB 404.  He                  
  wondered whether HB 404 ensures allottees get the same value                 
  of land.  He felt there will be problems in regard to                        
  financial interests, access, etc., if federal, state, and                    
  private lands are mixed.  He thought it might be better if                   
  those three entities are separated, so each agency and                       
  private party will benefit in regard to the development of                   
  the land.  If the land is left to the parks to develop,                      
  there may be access problems, water problems, sewer                          
  problems, etc.  He said the right-of-way access to the                       
  private lands may become a real issue and if it gets to the                  
  point where the problem cannot be resolved, perhaps the                      
  boundaries of the state park can be changed to exclude the                   
  allotted lands.                                                              
  Number 540                                                                   
  LAWRENCE MCCUBBINS, HOMER, testified via teleconference and                  
  referred the committee to page 2, line 28 of HB 404 which                    
  states "management as a unit of the state park system:".  He                 
  said there is land which the state has not received patent                   
  to but has TA.   He stated there is an individual he knows                   
  who went to a homestead instead of an allotment, got                         
  shafted, and the land is now managed by the state park.  He                  
  asked if a person who has gone through the system of                         
  homestead is included in HB 404.                                             
  MR. PANARESE felt the comparison being made is different                     
  than what is being addressed in Wood-Tikchik State Park.                     
  The allotment applications are made under federal law and he                 
  did not believe homesteading is the same type of issue.                      
  MR. MCCUBBINS asked why the language in HB 404 says "managed                 
  as a unit" which is land that can be referred to as land                     
  which has not been patented.                                                 
  MR. PANARESE explained a TA status of state land gives DNR                   
  the management authority over the allotments within the                      
  state park unit.  He stated he did not understand the                        
  MR. MCCUBBINS said BLM gave the state the right to manage                    
  land which has been selected, whether it be under a TA or                    
  not a TA status.  When a TA is issued, it cannot be                          
  MR. PANARESE replied the department considers TA to be a                     
  working patent; the state is managing the land as if it owns                 
  it.  HB 404 will provide a tool to change state land                         
  locations for the allottees.                                                 
  MR. MCCUBBINS asked once a TA is issued, can it be reversed,                 
  eliminated, reassumed by the federal government or issued                    
  under any other application.                                                 
  MR. PANARESE said no.                                                        
  MR. MCCUBBINS asked how that can be proved since it has                      
  MR. PANARESE replied he did not know.                                        
  Number 654                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN commented it is possible to                 
  reconvey land back to the federal government regardless of                   
  what stage it is in.  He said he would not be surprised if                   
  it had been done in the past, since the state has not filled                 
  its allocation.  He stated he was not certain how that might                 
  relate to HB 404.  He thought perhaps Mr. McCubbin's point                   
  was if Native allotments are going to be included in HB 404,                 
  why not cover homestead act applications as well.                            
  MR. MCCUBBINS said that was correct.                                         
  REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt it is a good question.                       
  MR. PANARESE said the question is beyond him.  Homesteading                  
  has not been considered.                                                     
  REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked for an overview of the timetable                 
  of the land being discussed.                                                 
  TAPE 94-26, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  MR. PANARESE replied the land was selected in 1961.  In                      
  1963, TA was received for a working patent to the land and                   
  in 1971, most of the applications were filed for land.  In                   
  1978, the state land was designated as Wood-Tikchik State                    
  REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked what the date was for the Alaska                 
  Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) which triggered the                     
  allotment applications.                                                      
  MR. PANARESE replied it was in 1972.                                         
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said it was December 18, 1971.                             
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked in the normal process used for                   
  the applications, is there a portion of the process which                    
  determines whether or not the application is valid.                          
  MR. PANARESE said there is a process contained in the 1906                   
  Native Allotment Act which outlines how the project will                     
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked in that process, is there a                      
  portion which addresses whether or not an application is                     
  MR. PANARESE said yes.                                                       
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES wondered if HB 404 is passed, does the                 
  state take over that process.                                                
  MR. PANARESE responded no.  The state continues to work with                 
  BLM and added this is just an option to try and move the                     
  applications in a much more realistic time frame.                            
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if the state proceeds only after                 
  BLM has determined the application is valid.                                 
  Number 050                                                                   
  MR. PANARESE said the state is negotiating with the                          
  allottees while the process is taking place.                                 
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if it is conceivable if HB 404                   
  passes that an applicant with an invalid claim could be                      
  granted state land.                                                          
  MR. PANARESE stated it is highly unlikely.                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES expressed concern that if the process                  
  is ongoing on in parallel and BLM has not yet determined                     
  whether or not an application is valid, the state would not                  
  MR. PANARESE said the state will make the best interest                      
  determination under the guidelines established in Title 38                   
  and move forward on that basis.                                              
  REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented that in the mid-1970s he flew                 
  for BLM when they were surveying for Native allotments and                   
  stated it was a long, daunting challenge.  He added even if                  
  HB 404 is passed, the state lands being exchanged will still                 
  have to be surveyed by BLM.  Therefore, there really is no                   
  time advantage.                                                              
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked if there is any reason not to                    
  include individuals who filed under the Federal Homestead                    
  Act and were not granted their homestead.                                    
  MR. PANARESE stated the department's actions are in direct                   
  response to amendments to federal legislation under ANCSA.                   
  He said he is not prepared to address the homesteading                       
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES thought it would be difficult to put                    
  homesteads in the same category with allotments because                      
  homesteads by their nature require improvements, while                       
  allotments do not.                                                           
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY recalled there are situations where                    
  people filed for homesteads and lost their filing because of                 
  the various acts passed.                                                     
  Number 092                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he heard someone say that                    
  federal law allows movement of a claim.  Normally, a claim                   
  cannot be moved, either for an allotment or a homestead,                     
  because the validity of the claim is based on the particular                 
  use and activity in that location.  Allotments are required                  
  to show history of use at a specific location.  He noted the                 
  reason HB 404 can apply to allotments is there is a new                      
  treatment of allotments in federal law which allows                          
  movement.  He felt the committee should get a copy of that                   
  federal law.                                                                 
  MR. PANARESE agreed with Representative Finkelstein.                         
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY stated he is not satisfied with the                    
  answers provided.  He felt a determination should be made if                 
  there are homestead applicants existing who could be covered                 
  by HB 404.                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Panarese how long it will take                   
  him to make that determination.                                              
  MR. PANARESE said he can look into it.  He stated he is not                  
  certain there are any homesteads affected, but he will do                    
  land status research and get back to the committee within 2-                 
  3 days.                                                                      
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY noted he is not particularly concerned                 
  whether homesteaders are directly affected by HB 404, but                    
  rather he is concerned whether or not people who have                        
  homestead land from the federal government have in some way                  
  lost that homestead right in a federal process.                              
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS requested Representative Hoffman's office                  
  to work with Representative Carney and DNR on the issue.                     
  REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON felt it is important that the sponsor                  
  of the bill be present at future meetings on HB 404 to                       
  answer questions.                                                            
  HB 448 - Waste & Use Of Salmon; Hatcheries                                   
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS advised there is a draft committee                         
  substitute in committee members folders which adds two words                 
  that were unintentionally omitted from the Fisheries                         
  Committee CS when it was amended in that committee.                          
  AND GAME (ADF&G), said on page 3, line 12, the words "from                   
  wild stock" were left out of the Fisheries Committee                         
  version.  This language is to carry forward the original                     
  intent of this section of the statute, which was to ensure                   
  that when hatcheries are being established and eggs are                      
  being taken from wild stock, there is some balance between                   
  the sustained yield needs of the wild stock, the hatchery                    
  egg takes, and the opportunities of the common property                      
  users to continue to harvest those resources.  Once the eggs                 
  are in the hatcheries, the hatchery has established its own                  
  brood stock and is operating off of its own brood stock, it                  
  is a different situation.  This language was to clarify the                  
  original intent.                                                             
  MR. BRUCE stated HB 448 provides for an exemption to the                     
  statutory requirement that the carcass of a salmon be                        
  utilized when it is harvested.  He explained the hatchery                    
  program begins with the most important decision made in                      
  hatchery development, which is the siting of the hatchery.                   
  When a hatchery is given a permit by ADF&G, two things are                   
  looked at when siting the facility.  First, the hatchery is                  
  sited in a location where it will contribute significantly                   
  to the common property fisheries.  These are fisheries which                 
  are mixed in nature and are composed of a number of wild                     
  stocks.  Once the hatchery is on-line, the hatchery stocks                   
  will also be present in that fishery.  The second                            
  consideration is that the hatchery has a terminal harvest                    
  area relatively free of wild stock so the hatchery operator                  
  or fishermen operating in the area can go in and harvest the                 
  hatchery's run completely without jeopardizing the sustained                 
  yield of any wild stock.                                                     
  Number 240                                                                   
  MR. BRUCE said in managing the harvests of hatchery stocks                   
  as they pass through the mixed wild stock/common property                    
  fisheries, the hatchery harvests have to be restricted to                    
  the level at which the wild stocks will support.  A certain                  
  percentage of the hatchery run has to get back to the                        
  hatchery to provide brood stock for subsequent returns and                   
  also to provide cost recovery to the hatchery operator.  He                  
  stressed in the private nonprofit hatchery programs, the                     
  major premise of the program is that a significant portion                   
  of the costs of the program will be covered by the harvest                   
  of returning fish produced by the hatchery.                                  
  MR. BRUCE pointed out that in most situations, approximately                 
  60 percent of the hatchery returns statewide are harvested                   
  in common property fisheries by commercial, sport, and                       
  personal use fishermen.  In many cases, a high percentage of                 
  the fish returning to the terminal harvest area are suitable                 
  for utilization in some manner.  However, at a certain point                 
  in the run, the salmon deteriorate to the point they are not                 
  suitable for value-added products.  He said it is important                  
  to consider the biology of salmon.                                           
  MR. BRUCE stated as salmon return to fresh water and get                     
  ready to spawn, they stop feeding and begin consuming their                  
  stored body fats and proteins for their own survival and for                 
  conversion into roe.  The animal is headed for death, it is                  
  consuming its own energy sources for other purposes and                      
  consequently reduces the value of the flesh.  He stressed at                 
  some point the fish becomes unsuitable.  It is not                           
  unwholesome.  A person could eat it, but very few people do                  
  because it is very mushy, has no color, etc.                                 
  MR. BRUCE explained in order to more fully utilize the                       
  returns coming back to the hatcheries, both for the seafood                  
  industry and the hatchery operators, and in trying to                        
  recover all of the revenue which can be received from the                    
  returns, HB 448 will provide an exemption for the tail end                   
  of the run when the fish are not suitable for any other                      
  purpose, but still contain a valuable product.  He noted                     
  that salmon roe is an extremely valuable product.  In 1993,                  
  the value of frozen red salmon exported from Alaska was                      
  $627.5 million and the value of salmon roe was $177 million.                 
  He added that roe has steadily been increasing in value over                 
  the last five years.                                                         
  REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked if that was value of the salmon                  
  roe exported or just the value of salmon roe to the                          
  MR. BRUCE replied the figure is for the salmon roe exported                  
  as a finished product.                                                       
  Number 311                                                                   
  MR. BRUCE continued that the exemption in HB 448 is                          
  permissive and has to be applied for, it is not                              
  automatically granted.  In order to receive the permit,                      
  three criteria will need to be met:  1) the fish will have                   
  to be demonstrated to be from a hatchery program; 2) the                     
  fish will have to have returned to a terminal area; and 3)                   
  they will have to be determined by the commissioner of ADF&G                 
  to be unsuitable for human consumption.  Once the three                      
  criteria are satisfied, the commissioner can issue a permit                  
  allowing the taking of salmon in a specific area for the                     
  harvest of roe and the carcasses will be discarded in                        
  accordance with the Department of Environmental                              
  Conservation's (DEC) requirements.                                           
  MR. BRUCE said many people ask the question, how does this                   
  fit with other state policies regarding the harvest of roe                   
  and the discard of carcasses.  He stated most people are                     
  aware of the controversy on pollack roe stripping which                      
  occurred in the North Pacific by factory trawlers.  He said                  
  there are several differences which are a basis for                          
  distinguishing between the two issues.  Salmon returning to                  
  hatcheries are not part of the biological basis for                          
  sustained yield.  They are not needed for spawning, they are                 
  supplemental production, and they are intended by the                        
  producers and the state to be totally utilized for either                    
  common property harvest, brood stock, or cost recovery.                      
  MR. BRUCE explained salmon are within a week or two of                       
  dying.  If HB 448 is not in place to allow salmon to be                      
  harvested for their roe, they will die with the roe still in                 
  them, they will not spawn successfully, they will not                        
  contribute at all to a sustained yield and a very valuable                   
  byproduct will go unutilized.  He said another difference is                 
  that pollack are not going to die upon spawning, pollack are                 
  not nearing death, and pollack flesh does not deteriorate to                 
  the point that the quality is such that people would not                     
  want to eat it.  In the case of pollack, it is an economic                   
  decision.  The market value of the flesh is low enough that                  
  factory trawlers chose not to process it because the cost of                 
  producing the product exceeded the price they could get in                   
  the market for it.  That is not the case with salmon.  He                    
  stressed the salmon being discussed have zero value in the                   
  marketplace and are not desirable.                                           
  MR. BRUCE stated the public and private players in the                       
  private nonprofit salmon program have significant                            
  investments in salmon.  In many cases, the hatcheries are                    
  operating under loans from the state, the fishermen are                      
  paying a salmon enhancement tax in many areas of the state                   
  to support the hatcheries, there are significant private and                 
  public investments which have been made to produce these                     
  fish and its wise management to try to recover all possible                  
  revenue from returning fish, especially if there is no                       
  reason not to.                                                               
  MR. BRUCE gave an example of a situation which could have                    
  been bettered if HB 448 had been in place.  Runs come in, a                  
  significant percentage is harvested in the common property                   
  fishery and the remainder in the terminal area are cleaned                   
  up without getting below the threshold.  He noted there are                  
  circumstances in which either the runs behave unusually or                   
  in the case of a very large run, the process or capacity                     
  gets plugged and the process is not able to get to the fish,                 
  so the fish sit in the water in the terminal area and                        
  deteriorate.  He stressed in that case, a matter of a few                    
  days makes a significant difference.                                         
  Number 385                                                                   
  MR. BRUCE described the situation which occurred in Prince                   
  William Sound in 1991.  The Prince William Sound Aquaculture                 
  Association had to get a permit from ADF&G to dump three                     
  million pounds of pink salmon out in the open Sound because                  
  those fish came into the terminal harvest area, deteriorated                 
  in quality, there was no market for them, the processors                     
  were unable to get to them, and therefore the fish were                      
  dumped.  He stressed no value was recovered from the fish                    
  whatsoever, and pointed out that if HB 448 had been in                       
  place, the Aquaculture Association would have been able to                   
  recover the value of the roe which would have paid the costs                 
  for dumping them with money probably left over.  As it was,                  
  the state paid the costs of dumping the fish.  The                           
  circumstances which led to the dumping of the fish were that                 
  in 1991, for some reason the pink salmon held off very late                  
  in entering the Sound and when they did enter, it was a very                 
  large run, there were low wild stocks, there was limited                     
  opportunity to fish in the mixed common property areas, and                  
  a very large number of fish returned to the terminal area                    
  and swamped everything.                                                      
  Number 415                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked why was it more of a crime to                    
  take the roe before the fish were dumped than it was just to                 
  dump the fish.                                                               
  MR. BRUCE replied it would have been the most desirable                      
  circumstance to have harvested the fish and utilized the                     
  carcass and the roe.  In this instance, that was not                         
  possible because of the circumstances surrounding that                       
  year's return.  It would have been less of a crime in the                    
  sense, that at least some value could have been extracted                    
  from the fish.                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY said Mr. Bruce was still not answering                 
  his question.  He asked if it was legal to dump fish.                        
  MR. BRUCE replied a permit is required.  He said the fish                    
  were taken out to the Sound to dump because in a shallow                     
  bay, if all of those fish would have been allowed to die,                    
  they would have caused significant environmental problems.                   
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked why were the roe not taken                       
  before the fish were dumped.                                                 
  MR. BRUCE replied it would have been illegal.  There is no                   
  provision in statute to allow for the removal of the roe if                  
  the carcass was not utilized.  In current law, the carcass                   
  has to be utilized in some way.                                              
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY said a permit was issued from the                      
  commissioner to dump the fish and asked if the commissioner                  
  could have also given permission to take the roe.                            
  MR. BRUCE said not without the law being proposed.                           
  Number 471                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated it would seem like the                          
  commissioner would have the authority under emergency                        
  regulation to be able to issue that kind of permit.                          
  MR. BRUCE replied the commissioner might have been able to                   
  stretch his discretionary authority in the law, but it would                 
  have been an unusual call and one which would have not been                  
  subject to policy approval through the legislative body.                     
  REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked if ADF&G has explored options to                 
  try and limit bycatch or incidental catch.                                   
  MR. BRUCE responded yes in specific fisheries, the                           
  department has made efforts to do that.  He noted the                        
  fisheries having the most excessive discard are not managed                  
  by the department.  Therefore, the role of the department is                 
  to try and influence the federal managers to take action.                    
  REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked what is the value to be derived                  
  from extracting roe from salmon.                                             
  MR. BRUCE stated he did not know because there is nothing to                 
  base the figure on, except what egg sales have taken place                   
  in hatcheries as a result of and ancillary to the                            
  utilization of a portion of the brood stock they do not                      
  need.  In 1993, the sales were less than $500,000 statewide.                 
  He said the roe market is very large and healthy and he                      
  guessed the figure would probably be in the tens of millions                 
  of dollars.  He added that a hatchery might have a one                       
  million dollar budget and if it can recover an extra                         
  $200,000, it is a very significant percentage of its total                   
  Number 547                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt HB 448 is a good bill.  He                   
  said there has been use of carcasses and mentioned a                         
  nonprofit agency which has received funding to distribute                    
  excess carcasses to get them into the hands of poor people.                  
  He asked if there is any way to require hatcheries, without                  
  cost to them, to make the carcasses available.                               
  MR. BRUCE stated there is a market incentive to do that                      
  already, because there is a cost associated with disposing                   
  of the carcasses.  Hatcheries have to conform with DEC                       
  requirements which require carcasses to be either ground and                 
  disposed of or transported out to deep water.  He pointed                    
  out that if someone is willing to come to the hatchery door                  
  and take the carcasses, the hatchery avoids a cost.                          
  REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN commented there is also some                      
  disincentive because the hatcheries might not want to put                    
  inferior salmon out into the market for fear of hurting                      
  their reputation.                                                            
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked what the original purpose in the                 
  law was in preventing the taking of eggs.  He wondered if it                 
  was to eliminate the situation where people destroy fish                     
  just for the roe.                                                            
  MR. BRUCE said he cannot answer the question.  He stated the                 
  roe market is a recent development and he did not know what                  
  date the statute originates.  He said he would research the                  
  answer and get back to the committee.                                        
  REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said hatcheries in Unalakeet just break                 
  even on processing the flesh and make their money on the                     
  eggs.  He noted there are unsubstantiated rumors that people                 
  along the Yukon catch fish, throw the fish away, keep the                    
  eggs and make $125 a pound.  He asked if there is any danger                 
  that the rumored egg take could be legitimized through HB
  MR. BRUCE replied there is an existing roe fishery on the                    
  Yukon River which is in a specific drainage.  Under current                  
  law, people are required to utilize the carcass in some way                  
  and it is usually dried.  He said ADF&G's best information                   
  is that compliance with the law is good there and no                         
  significant abuse is occurring.  He explained there is an                    
  authorized roe fishery and it is operated under a guideline                  
  harvest by the department.  There are so many pounds of roe                  
  which are allowed to be harvested under that fishery and it                  
  is managed on a sustained yield basis.  He stressed that is                  
  a different situation than what HB 448 will authorize                        
  because HB 448 involves hatchery fish and the utilization of                 
  the carcass is not required.                                                 
  MR. BRUCE said there have also been reports of salmon being                  
  harvested by subsistence users and the roe being sold.  He                   
  stated there have been arrests and convictions.                              
  TAPE 94-27, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  ASSOCIATIONS, expressed all four organizations he represents                 
  support HB 448 and the proposed amendment.                                   
  AQUACULTURE ASSOCIATION (SSRAA), testified via                               
  teleconference and stated SSRAA supports HB 448.  He noted                   
  there have been instances where fish have had to be dumped                   
  without being able to recover some of the value in the form                  
  of eggs.                                                                     
  Number 039                                                                   
  ASSOCIATION (CIAA), testified via teleconference and stated                  
  CIAA supports HB 448.  Extracting some value from otherwise                  
  low grade fish is a good idea.  In answer to a question                      
  asked earlier regarding CIAA's current position of refusing                  
  to provide fish for the free salmon giveaways, CIAA chooses                  
  not to participate based on the advice of legal counsel.  He                 
  stated CIAA has letters in their files from state and                        
  federal regulatory agencies telling them that brood stock                    
  taken in remote hatcheries are unfit for human consumption.                  
  He explained CIAA's lawyers worry about the legal liability                  
  of giving away something which is unfit for human                            
  consumption even though there is a law in place which might                  
  protect or exempt them when giving fish to a food bank.                      
  REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if there is a law in place                  
  which addresses a hatchery's liability in giving away fish.                  
  MR. MEARS responded there is a current law which allows for                  
  a general exemption from liability for people who give food                  
  to a food bank.  However, he is not sure how the Association                 
  would defend themselves when they knowingly gave away fish                   
  which were deemed to be unfit for human consumption.                         
  REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he would do some research to                 
  determine if there is any way to resolve that issue.  If the                 
  legislature is going to allow the taking of the valuable                     
  part of the fish, he felt the carcasses should also be made                  
  available to serve a public interest.                                        
  MR. MEARS said CIAA would be happy to make fish available if                 
  they could be assured there will be no legal repercussions                   
  to them.                                                                     
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said earlier testimony indicated there                 
  is a difference in the quality of fish as the run                            
  progresses.  He asked Mr. Mears to comment on that                           
  MR. MEARS replied that at most facilities, fish early in the                 
  run are in excellent condition and can be marketed on the                    
  value of their flesh quality.  As time passes, particularly                  
  in the last ten percent of fish coming in, the flesh has                     
  little or no value, but eggs may provide an opportunity to                   
  still get value.                                                             
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES clarified the only concern of CIAA for                 
  giving fish away is the legal circumstance that somehow fish                 
  are defined as unfit, whereas it may be that some of the                     
  fish are fit for human consumption.                                          
  MR. MEARS stated fish harvested in the round and taken off                   
  to a processor are always deemed fit for human consumption.                  
  He said the specific incidence he is referring to is fish                    
  which are in a normal course of events at a hatchery,                        
  collected for brood stock, and eggs are collected for the                    
  spawning process.  Those fish, because they are cut open in                  
  conditions not approved by DEC nor can be approved, are by                   
  definition adulterated and by definition are unfit for human                 
  Number 116                                                                   
  AQUACULTURE ASSOCIATION (NSRAA), testified via                               
  teleconference and expressed support of HB 448.  He stated                   
  NSRAA still sees its mission as trying to harvest the                        
  highest quality fish possible and the committee should note                  
  that fish being discussed in HB 448 are fish NSRAA cannot                    
  make fit into the high quality category.  He felt as HB 448                  
  is approved and implemented, it is important for the                         
  commissioner to meet with representatives of the industry                    
  who can help in defining unsuitable for human consumption.                   
  He thought that definition is a critical element.                            
  REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Mr. Esquiro what the approximate                 
  value of what is being wasted in his region by not being                     
  able to harvest the eggs.                                                    
  MR. ESQUIRO replied last year, NSRAA marketed $160,000 worth                 
  of surplus eggs.  He said the eggs resulted primarily from                   
  overestimates made in the available brood stock.                             
  REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if there is an assumption being                   
  made that there is an unlimited market for eggs, because                     
  eggs taken at the hatchery level compete with eggs available                 
  from privately caught fish.                                                  
  MR. ESQUIRO stated over the next few years, a better                         
  estimate of the egg market will be determined.  He said many                 
  of the eggs NSRAA sold this past year were used to produce                   
  trout bait.                                                                  
  REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted there are different qualities of                  
  eggs taken at different times and stated his concern is the                  
  possibility of over supplying the market and destroying the                  
  already low price of salmon.                                                 
  REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON felt the market has not been saturated                 
  and the market capacity is there.                                            
  DONALD TAYLOR, VALDEZ, testified via teleconference and                      
  stated he is working with hatcheries in his area to develop                  
  byproducts utilizing carcasses.  He stressed timing and                      
  correct handling in the taking of eggs is very critical.  He                 
  expressed support of HB 448.                                                 
  LAWRENCE MCCUBBINS, HOMER, testified via teleconference and                  
  expressed support for HB 448.  He referred to lines 16 and                   
  17 on page 4, "rearing and sale of ornamental finfish for                    
  aquariums or ornamental ponds provided that the fish are not                 
  reared in or released..."  and asked if fish are not to be                   
  reared in state waters, what kind of waters will the fish be                 
  reared in.                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said that is a section of                         
  existing law and is not affected by HB 448.                                  
  MR. MCCUBBINS asked if fish can be reared or cannot be                       
  REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN responded it is not a part of HB
  448 and the reason it is stated because the part which is                    
  amended is in the same section.  He said ornamental fish can                 
  be reared in ponds or aquariums.                                             
  MR. MCCUBBINS stated it reads "not reared in".  He commented                 
  on the issue of permit and asked if that permit is issued by                 
  the area biologist or does it go to the commissioner.  If it                 
  goes to the commissioner, he wondered what the timetable is.                 
  MR. BRUCE responded the power can be delegated by the                        
  commissioner.  ADF&G anticipates that if HB 448 passes, a                    
  group representing hatchery operators, processors,                           
  fishermen, etc., will be formed for the purpose of                           
  developing procedures for the implementation of HB 448.  He                  
  stressed ADF&G does recognize there is a time factor and                     
  there will be a need for a balance between controlling the                   
  situation and being able to react quickly to circumstances                   
  as they develop.                                                             
  MR. MCCUBBINS noted the word "identify" was mentioned and                    
  asked how fish will be identified.                                           
  MR. BRUCE replied fish in a terminal harvest area will be                    
  identified by their location and the trigger at which point                  
  the fish are deemed unsuitable.  He said the Alaska Seafood                  
  Marketing Institute has developed a color chart showing the                  
  stages which salmon go through as they go from ocean to a                    
  fully water marked fish and at some location in that chain,                  
  a certain point can be selected to be the trigger.                           
  MR. MCCUBBINS said his specific question is will the                         
  deviation between wild stock and hatchery stock be                           
  MR. BRUCE stated HB 448 only applies to hatchery stock and                   
  those fish are identified by the fact they have returned to                  
  a terminal hatchery area.  HB 448 will not necessarily                       
  require all hatchery fish be marked although it is the                       
  department's preference that there is some method of                         
  identifying hatchery fish.                                                   
  Number 320                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE MULDER made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 448(RES).                  
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.                        
  Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.                                             
  REPRESENTATIVE MULDER made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 448(RES)                    
  with zero fiscal notes out of committee with INDIVIDUAL                      
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.                        
  Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.                                             
  Number 334                                                                   
  SB 77 - Intensive Management Of Game Resource                                
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated Senator Sharp provided two new                      
  draft versions of the bill.  The first of those, draft                       
  version B was sent out to teleconference sites and to others                 
  who requested it.  Since then, Senator Sharp provided a                      
  newer version, draft version W, which will be considered                     
  SENATOR BERT SHARP, PRIME SPONSOR, stated the new draft                      
  version W is a result of ongoing discussions with ADF&G.                     
  Version W addresses additional concerns the department had,                  
  it organizes the bill, and it does not amend the A section                   
  of AS 16.05.255.  He said the intensive game management                      
  concept was addressed by adding new sections (e), (f), and                   
  (g), the legislative intent section has been added, and                      
  noted that subsection (e) is the former item 11.  He                         
  explained subsection (f) is the former (e) and the                           
  subsection says the Board of Game shall not significantly                    
  reduce the taking of identified big game populations by                      
  doing standard passive things unless they also adopt                         
  intensive management which manages 100 percent of the                        
  resource.  Subsection (f) does not apply in areas where the                  
  department has concerns on ineffective management based on                   
  scientific information or if intensive management will be                    
  inappropriate due to land ownership patterns.  Subsection                    
  (f), (2) recognizes emergency closures and the department's                  
  ability to make that determination at any time based on                      
  their information and recommendation.  Subsection (g) is the                 
  definitions subsection of intensive management and                           
  identified big game prey population.                                         
  Number 417                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Senator Sharp to point out the                   
  change in version W which addresses the issue concerning                     
  SENATOR SHARP said the legislative findings section is a                     
  very strong legislative statement supporting human harvest                   
  for consumptive purposes and states it is the highest and                    
  best use in most areas of the state.                                         
  CONSERVATION, ADF&G, stated ADF&G supports the House CS for                  
  CSSB 77 version W.  He said all previous concerns have been                  
  addressed.  The House CS preserves the discretion of the                     
  Board of Game to adopt regulations necessary for the                         
  management of game and it maintains the distinction between                  
  the powers of the Board and the powers of the commissioner.                  
  He stressed the CS recognizes the importance of certain big                  
  game prey populations in meeting the needs of many Alaskans                  
  and the need to manage such identified populations                           
  appropriately.  The proposed legislation now provides clear                  
  direction to the Board of Game and ADF&G by explicitly                       
  stating legislative intent which contains sufficient                         
  safeguards, ensuring that intensive management will not be                   
  applied under circumstances which are not feasible and                       
  prudent, where it will not be effective or which such                        
  management will be inappropriate due to land ownership                       
  patterns and land management philosophies.  He urged the                     
  committee to adopt HCS CSSB 77.                                              
  Number 488                                                                   
  LEE PUTNAM, KETCHIKAN SPORTS AND WILDLIFE CLUB, testified                    
  via teleconference and stated the club supports SB 77.  He                   
  said with more and more of Alaska's land being closed by the                 
  federal government to consumptive users, the remaining land                  
  needs to be intensively managed to allow the maximum harvest                 
  for consumptive users.  With intensive management, food                      
  resources in Alaska can be increased to the point                            
  (indiscernible) subsistence, personal use, and sport hunters                 
  will be drastically reduced or completely eliminated.                        
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.                        
  Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.                                             
  REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated he is very interested in                   
  the bill, but he along with Representatives Carney and                       
  Davies are supposed to be in caucus.                                         
  REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE pointed out for Representative                          
  Finkelstein's benefit that ADF&G now supports HCS CSSB
  Number 551                                                                   
  testified via teleconference and stated the council has                      
  supported the concepts of SB 77 since its original                           
  introduction.  The council also supports version W.  He said                 
  although the legislative findings necessary to the                           
  importance of harvest of big game prey for human consumptive                 
  uses in most areas of the state is self-evident to those                     
  familiar with Alaska's history and lifestyles, it has not                    
  been adequately emphasized in statute.  He noted the council                 
  agrees with providing for regulations enabling intensive                     
  management in the new subsection (e) and added that the new                  
  subsection reduces the confusion over the federal                            
  responsibilities and authorities of the Board of Game.                       
  MR. BISHOP stated subsection (e) emphasizes intensive                        
  management will be used where the Board of Game has                          
  established goals for human consumptive use as a preferred                   
  use and low big game prey populations interfere with these                   
  goals and population enhancement is feasible.  He stressed                   
  the provisions make several points clear that opportunities                  
  for human consumptive use are very valuable to Alaskans;                     
  enhancement will occur where the Board has established                       
  harvest goals; low big game prey populations disadvantage                    
  Alaskans; enhancement is feasible; and the Board is not                      
  required to implement intensive management everywhere, all                   
  the time or in areas where other uses have been given a                      
  higher priority.                                                             
  MR. BISHOP continued that subsection (f) emphasizes the                      
  importance of addressing intensive management to meet                        
  harvest goals and it makes it clear that the Board is not                    
  obligated to undertake a futile exercise or allow a                          
  population to be further depressed by harvest by people.                     
  Subsection (g) makes it clear that the intensive management                  
  provisions only apply to populations which the Board has                     
  determined are important for harvest by people.  Subsection                  
  (g)(2) makes it clear that the purpose of the provision is                   
  to provide for harvest by people which is consistent with                    
  constitutional language and history and that there are                       
  various recognized wildlife management techniques which can                  
  be used depending on the circumstances.                                      
  MR. BISHOP stated the Alaska Outdoor Council believes the                    
  bill addresses the longstanding statutory need to emphasize                  
  the importance of managing wildlife for food for Alaskans,                   
  which is environmentally correct and ecologically sound,                     
  using recognized management tools to do so.  Draft W                         
  resolves several difficulties relating to earlier language,                  
  while retaining the direction and emphasis of the original                   
  bill.  He urged passage of HCS CSSB 77.                                      
  Number 640                                                                   
  CONFERENCE, testified via teleconference and stated although                 
  the conference supports consumptive use of wildlife,                         
  particularly big game, the Tanana Chiefs cannot support SB
  77 in its present version.  The primary concern is the                       
  amount of research needed to begin to artificially                           
  manipulate big game species and their populations.  He said                  
  TCC does not believe current information is adequate and the                 
  data base is not available to begin to artificially modulate                 
  the species and their populations.  The secondary concern is                 
  the cost of intensive game management and its use by the                     
  Board of Game for maximum sustained yield.  He stressed                      
  maximum sustained yield or predator control is costly and                    
  there is a concern with prescribed or controlled use burns.                  
  He pointed out that providing for maximum sustained yield                    
  for big game will favor sportsmen over trappers.                             
  Number 697                                                                   
  ROD ARNO, PALMER, testified via teleconference and expressed                 
  support of SB 77.  He said there is a well-documented demand                 
  for the harvest of big game prey populations for human                       
  consumption in Alaska.  According to ADF&G's survey on                       
  wildlife and hunting attitudes, over 85 percent of Alaskans                  
  surveyed have hunted big game in Alaska at least once and                    
  the majority surveyed approved a (indiscernible) big game                    
  for personal consumption.  Fifteen percent of resident                       
  Alaskans purchased hunting licenses in 1992 and in the last                  
  census in 1990, there were 110,000 subsistence users of big                  
  game in rural Alaska.  By passage of SB 77, the legislature                  
  will empower the Board of Game to adopt regulations                          
  advantageous to all Alaskans who choose to be active                         
  participants in Alaska's ecosystem.                                          
  MR. ARNO stated there are two options which will increase                    
  the availability of big game prey populations for human                      
  consumption.  One is an enhancement of the prey populations                  
  in areas readily accessible and the other option is be to                    
  increase access into areas where the prey populations are in                 
  large numbers.                                                               
  TAPE 94-27, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  MR. ARNO (cont.) to take the areas which have already been                   
  accessed and have a history of human use, and manage the                     
  resources there intensively for human consumption.                           
  Number 015                                                                   
  RANDY FRANKLIN, HOMER, testified via teleconference and                      
  stated he agrees 100 percent with the concept of SB 77.  He                  
  felt subsection (f) ties the hands of the Board of Game.  He                 
  also expressed concern about the costs of research and                       
  implementation of an intensive management program such as                    
  burns, collaring, etc.                                                       
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE stated the Board of Game will first have to                  
  identify populations, because SB 77 only applies to                          
  identified populations where the need is high.  He said                      
  there is language in subsection (f) which allows the Board                   
  to use a dimmer switch--they can make changes in regulations                 
  as long as the change does not significantly reduce the                      
  taking.  In regard to the budget concern, he explained the                   
  Division of Wildlife Conservation already has the                            
  responsibility of managing wildlife and the cost of                          
  intensive management is quite low, adding that less than                     
  $200,000 will be spent this year to restore the Delta                        
  caribou herd out of a total agency budget of $15 million.                    
  Number 042                                                                   
  testified via teleconference and recalled that Mr.                           
  Kelleyhouse said the department supports the bill now                        
  because it retains the powers of the Board and the                           
  department, but he failed to state it retains the powers of                  
  the public, which she feels should be the priority in any                    
  bill.  She asked in regard to Senator Sharp's legislative                    
  findings, how (indiscernible) it seems to be accepted as                     
  fact that intensive game management is the highest and best                  
  use when it seems to her it is someone's opinion.  She                       
  stressed intensive game management is not the highest and                    
  best use of the state's wildlife, but rather only one of                     
  several options which should be considered on a case-by-case                 
  MS. ARNOLD stated SB 77 mandates that one interest group                     
  will always win when it comes to game management and that is                 
  unfair.  She said surveys have shown that 65-70 percent of                   
  Alaskans oppose predator control which she feels SB 77                       
  mandates.  Economically, SB 77 does commit most of the                       
  state's scarce state wildlife personnel and money to manage                  
  a few favored species and serve small interest groups.  She                  
  pointed out that intensive management and predator control                   
  is expensive and the state cannot afford it.  She felt that                  
  is why no fiscal note is attached to the proposed                            
  legislation.  She urged committee members to reject SB 77                    
  Number 070                                                                   
  via teleconference and expressed opposition to SB 77.  She                   
  said this bill will produce the opposite of what it seems to                 
  be promoting, a continuous high human harvest of game                        
  resources.  If state game managers are tendered in their                     
  ability to alter bag limits and hunting seasons in order to                  
  protect some game resources, predator control will be too                    
  little and too late.  She stressed SB 77 benefits a limited                  
  number of game resource users, mainly hunters and trappers                   
  and will ultimately deprive tourists, photographers and                      
  others who are attracted to the state by its wildlife and                    
  wilderness.  The society feels that nonconsumptive uses of                   
  wildlife are just as beneficial to the people of Alaska in                   
  the long run, both economically and aesthetically, and                       
  (indiscernible) management practices do not deprive hunters                  
  and trappers of their way of appreciating wildlife.                          
  MS. MAACH said the recent heated controversy over wolf                       
  control is no doubt a factor in the drafting of SB 77.  This                 
  legislation, if passed, will not resolve that controversy                    
  and will probably exaggerate it.  She does not remember ever                 
  seeing a policy based on fear and spite that did not produce                 
  more of the same.  She urged the committee to not pass SB
  Number 098                                                                   
  CLUB, testified via teleconference and stated the club is                    
  opposed to SB 77.  The club is against a policy which will                   
  artificially boost so-called game species population at the                  
  expense of other animals.  She said it is particularly                       
  disturbing that no attempt is being made to reduce hunting                   
  pressure or study other alternatives before predators will                   
  be systematically killed.  She felt it is bad public policy                  
  to mandate the killing of a species as the first and only                    
  wildlife management tool.  Alaska's wildlife should not be                   
  managed for the sole benefit of hunters and trappers.                        
  Predator control programs are shortsighted and can only                      
  result in a damaged ecosystem.  She urged committee members                  
  to oppose SB 77.                                                             
  Number 110                                                                   
  GEORGE MATZ, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and                     
  stated SB 77 limits the ability of Board of Game to manage                   
  for biological reasons.  He felt despite all the conditions                  
  listed in the bill, it is well known that the Board of Game                  
  (indiscernible) are very prone to lawsuits and it is                         
  inconceivable to him that the Board can do anything without                  
  a whole series of lawsuits.  Meanwhile, if there are severe                  
  weather conditions, etc., impacting the game populations,                    
  the Board is not going to be able to use (indiscernible)                     
  because of a number of things.  He stated the emphasis                       
  should be on managing people.  In terms of increasing the                    
  abundance of moose, it is much better to look at where the                   
  real mortality is.  He said the number of moose being killed                 
  on the highway is increasing.                                                
  Number 161                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said if the Board wants to reduce                 
  the harvest level on a prey population and is not an                         
  emergency but is clearly a situation where the take needs to                 
  be lowered, subsection (f) says they cannot do that unless                   
  at the same time or previously, a regulation has been                        
  adopted providing for intensive management applicable to the                 
  area.  He added that seems to say that what could be a                       
  relatively simple action to lower a take all of a sudden                     
  cannot be done without the complexities of dealing with                      
  intensive management.  He asked if that will slow down the                   
  ability of the Board to be able to respond to nonemergency                   
  situations requiring an adjustment in harvest levels.                        
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied he did not believe so, because of                    
  the amendment which adds in the words "significantly                         
  reduced".  He said the department discussed situations where                 
  there may be a bad winter or an extraordinary situation                      
  during the hunting season and their feeling is that                          
  subsection (f) will provide the Board of Game sufficient                     
  latitude to use a dimmer switch without having to consider a                 
  full blown intensive management effort prior to taking that                  
  step.  He referred Representative Finkelstein to page 1,                     
  subsection (e)(2) which says the depletion of the big game                   
  prey population or the reduction of the productivity of the                  
  big game prey population has occurred and may result in a                    
  significant reduction in the allowable human harvest of the                  
  population.  He thought (f) would be predicated upon the                     
  Board's determinations under (e).                                            
  Number 196                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said there could be disagreements                 
  on what "significantly" means.  He stated if there is an                     
  area where 20 moose are allowed to be taken and there is a                   
  desire to reduce that to 15, one could say that is a                         
  reduction of five moose and is not significant, but someone                  
  else could argue that is a reduction of 25 percent which is                  
  significant.  He stated the (f) subsection assumes there is                  
  already regulations applicable to that situation under                       
  subsection (e).  If there is not, the Board is going to be                   
  hamstrung in their ability to significantly reduce the                       
  taking of prey.  He felt the Board will not be able to make                  
  the normal decisions they have been making over the years,                   
  unless the Board has adopted regulations prior to intensive                  
  management to increase the take, etc.  He thought there will                 
  be situations where the Board is not going to be able to do                  
  what they believe is the biologically correct thing to do                    
  for lack of a procedural step.  If the Board has to wait, it                 
  may be damaging to the resource to have a higher level in                    
  place, while the intensive management regulations have not                   
  been adopted.                                                                
  Number 220                                                                   
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded that the Board of Game and ADF&G                   
  are mandated to manage on a sustained yield basis.  A delay                  
  of one year would not be possible if it would be                             
  unacceptable biologically and would jeopardize the sustained                 
  yield management.  He pointed out that under subsection (e),                 
  human consumptive use goals identified by the Board is                       
  discussed and he envisioned that those consumptive use goals                 
  to be expressed as a range, rather than an absolute, so the                  
  Board can build in the flexibility they need.  He said the                   
  purpose of this type of legislation is to address the                        
  situation ADF&G has had in the Delta caribou herd where the                  
  harvest has gone from several hundred caribou out of a                       
  population of almost 11,000 to having no open season for a                   
  prolonged period with the population still declining.  He                    
  hoped that the Board will promulgate regulations addressing                  
  those types of situations where action is clearly needed.                    
  77 on page 2, line 21 adding a new section:  (g) The Board                   
  of Game may not adopt regulations requiring the department                   
  to conduct intensive management programs, notwithstanding                    
  (a)(11) of this section, unless the board has taken all                      
  reasonable measures under (a)(1)-(10) of this section to                     
  reduce the take of the identified big game population.                       
  Subsection (g) will then become subsection (h).                              
  REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said one of the keys of this                      
  proposed legislation is the link to current law.  He noted                   
  that subsection (a)(1) - (10) is not contained in the                        
  present version but was in previous version V.  It is                        
  basically all of the tools which the department has.  He                     
  stated other steps being taken are all important to the                      
  process, but the Board should not resort to intensive                        
  management unless they have used the normal measures to try                  
  and avoid the problem situations.  He pointed out the                        
  amendment does not add anything new, it only says the                        
  intensive management steps shall wait until the normal                       
  wildlife management steps have occurred.                                     
  Number 265                                                                   
  SENATOR SHARP stated that is the problem with the entire                     
  situation presently; five percent of the harvest is being                    
  managed and 80 percent of the harvest is not being managed.                  
  This amendment will still allow management of the human                      
  element which is five percent of the take and not the other                  
  80 percent which destroys the intent of intensive game                       
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE agreed and stated that in most cases in the                  
  state, human harvest is limited to less than five percent.                   
  Consequently, normal changes in seasons and bag limits will                  
  preclude human use opportunities but may not have a                          
  population level impact.  He pointed out the proposed                        
  legislation allows manipulation of the other 85 percent of                   
  natural mortality so the human harvest opportunity for long                  
  periods is not lost.                                                         
  REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated his amendment addresses                    
  when the Board can get into intensive management and whether                 
  or not they are required to use the normal tools laid out in                 
  (a)(1) - (10) first to solve the problems.  He felt the                      
  amendment reflects the intention that ADF&G has stated and                   
  that is, the Board will try and use the normal tools first                   
  to solve problems and only when the normal tools fail will                   
  the Board go into higher levels.                                             
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE felt Representative Finkelstein had                          
  misinterpreted what he had said.  While ADF&G wants to                       
  maintain the Board's flexibility, the department supports                    
  the intent and the house committee substitute which says                     
  that in certain situations and certain big game populations,                 
  more intensive management tools will be applied in order to                  
  preserve hunting opportunities.  He said the amendment would                 
  basically close those off before any action will be taken                    
  and that turns the intent of the bill around.  He stressed                   
  ADF&G is not opposed to using intensive management in                        
  certain circumstances to maintain human harvest                              
  Number 318                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated if the entire subsection (f) is                 
  reviewed, it refers back up to (e)(1) - (3).  He said (e)(3)                 
  says enhancement or productivity is feasibly achievable                      
  utilizing recognized and prudent active management                           
  techniques.  He felt that says the Board cannot reduce                       
  hunting unless it has adopted regulations in accordance with                 
  having a methodology of feasibly achieving.  He said the                     
  bill has been modified enough where there is a policy on the                 
  first page.  He stated he did not support the amendment                      
  because he did not feel it fits and the issue is already                     
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections to the                  
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected.                                               
  Number 330                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote.  Voting in                     
  favor of the amendment was Representative Finkelstein.                       
  Voting against the amendment were Representatives James,                     
  Mulder, Bunde, Hudson, and Williams.  The MOTION was                         
  DEFEATED 5-1.                                                                
  77 on page 1, line 9, deleting the word "shall" and                          
  inserting the word "may".                                                    
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.                        
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected.                                               
  Number 355                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated currently the department                   
  has the power to perform some of the steps outlined                          
  including goals and means to achieve the goals, but he felt                  
  it did not make sense the way the law is structured forcing                  
  the department in all situations to do this.  He said the                    
  proposed legislation is an interpretation of what is best at                 
  this point and it may not work forever.  He felt the best                    
  way to write ADF&G laws is to give the Board of Fisheries                    
  and the Board of Game the power to intensively manage, but                   
  give them the discretion to apply the law where they believe                 
  it is appropriate.  He thought the word may represents that                  
  approach much better.                                                        
  SENATOR SHARP replied the reason the proposed legislation                    
  was restructured in the committee substitute was to leave                    
  flexibility in items 1-10 in section A and the word "shall"                  
  applies to intensive management under conditions which have                  
  many open windows.  He felt using the word "may" will                        
  convolute the process even more and not provide any                          
  corrective action.                                                           
  REPRESENTATIVE MULDER opposed the amendment.  He felt the                    
  amendment is perhaps the whole thrust of the bill in that it                 
  is a policy call - does the committee agree with intensive                   
  game management under the limited format proposed or not.                    
  He stated the amendment will diminish the provisions being                   
  REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the amendment will only                      
  diminish the bill if the Board of Game disagrees with the                    
  approach of the bill.  If the Board of Game agrees, which                    
  they probably will, the amendment will have no effect.  He                   
  felt the Board of Game should be given that discretion.                      
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote.  Voting in                     
  favor of the amendment were Representatives Bunde and                        
  Finkelstein.  Voting against the amendment were                              
  Representatives Mulder, James, Williams, and Hudson.  The                    
  MOTION was DEFEATED 4-2.                                                     
  REPRESENTATIVE MULDER made a MOTION to pass HCS CSSB 77(RES)                 
  with a zero fiscal note out of committee with INDIVIDUAL                     
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.                        
  REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN OBJECTED.                                         
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote.  Voting in                     
  favor of the motion were Representatives Williams, Hudson,                   
  Bunde, James, and Mulder.  Voting against the motion was                     
  Representative Finkelstein.  The MOTION PASSED 5-1.                          
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee will meet on                       
  Wednesday, March 9 at 8:15 a.m. to hear SB 46 and HB 238.                    
  He said also on Wednesday, March 9 at 8:30 a.m. the House                    
  Committee on Fisheries has a presentation by community                       
  development groups and Representative Moses has extended an                  
  invitation to the House Resources Committee.  Chairman                       
  Williams asked committee members to send staff members to                    
  the meeting.                                                                 
  There being no further business to come before the House                     
  Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting                 
  at 11:10 a.m.                                                                

Document Name Date/Time Subjects