Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/10/1995 08:10 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 10, 1995
8:10 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative John Davies
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Irene Nicholia
Representative Eileen MacLean
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 170: "An Act relating to intensive management of identified
big game prey populations."
PASSED CSHB 170(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 513
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-2327
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HB 170
WAYNE REGELIN, Acting Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802
Phone: 465-4190
POSITION STATEMENT: Made comments on proposed amendments and
answered questions regarding HB 170
SARA HANNAN, Representative
Alaska Environmental Lobby
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 463-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 170
RICHARD BURLEY
1165 Coppet Street
Fairbanks, AK 99789
Phone: 474-0188
POSITION STATEMENT: Made comments on proposed amendments to
HB 170
GEORGE UTERMOHLE, Legislative Counsel
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward Street, Ste. 409
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-2450
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 170
LYNN LEVENGOOD, Member
Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association
931 Vide Way
Fairbanks, AK 99712
POSITION STATEMENT: Made comments on proposed amendments to
HB 170
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 170
SHORT TITLE: INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OF GAME
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY,Toohey
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/10/95 301 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/10/95 301 (H) RESOURCES
02/20/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/20/95 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/27/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/27/95 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/06/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/06/95 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/08/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/08/95 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/10/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-31, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by Co-Chairman
Green at 8:10 a.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Green, Ogan, Austerman and Davies. Members absent
were Representatives Williams, Barnes, Kott, MacLean and Nicholia.
HRES - 03/10/95
HB 170 - INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OF GAME
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, PRIME SPONSOR, stated he would address
the amendments before the committee and answer any questions.
Number 040
WAYNE REGELIN, ACTING DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION,
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (ADF&G), stated the issue on
inserting the language about the duties and functions of the
commissioner was settled at the last hearing on HB 170. He
stressed the department still feels the change to the duties and
powers and functions of the commissioner is not appropriate. He
said the change has the potential to create problems for the
working relationship between the Board of Game and the
commissioner. He added that relationship has worked for a long
time. He noted the system cannot work if there is not a good
working relationship between the commissioner and the Board of
Game. He did not feel changing the statute is the solution if a
problem arises in the future.
MR. REGELIN recalled at the end of Wednesday's meeting on HB 170,
the committee had just voted on an amendment which Representative
Williams had asked for a reconsideration. He said that amendment
removed the language regarding one of the duties of the
commissioner--to assist the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) in
the enforcement of fish and game laws. He stated if the
legislature makes an overt change in the legislation, it could then
be used as a defense later on by someone who says state fish and
wildlife agents cannot enforce federal law. He told committee
members the department feels it is important to be able to continue
cooperating with federal fish and wildlife law enforcement agents.
He noted that cooperation has worked well for 35 years and the
department sees nothing broken in that area.
MR. REGELIN stated HB 170 clarifies what the regulations of the
Board of Game do and that they are consistent with the sustained
yield principle. He said HB 170 also states intensive management
will be undertaken when the depletion of the big game prey
population from historic high levels has occurred. The department
still has concerns regarding that issue. He noted the department
could leave the words "historic high level" but in many instances
around the state, the department has worked hard with the public,
the local fish and game advisory committees, and the board to
develop management plans. He explained in these management plans,
the department has set population and harvest goals. The
department feels these efforts should take precedence over historic
high levels.
MR. REGELIN said the department recommends on page 2, line 5 after
"high levels", add the words "or for population objectives set by
management plans and accepted by the Board of Game". He stated in
the areas where game management is a hot issue, the department
already has management plans, where population goals have been
established through a public process and have been accepted by the
Board of Game. He thought it would be useful to continue to use
those management plans when available. He noted that
Representative Ogan has an amendment which would delete the words
"from historic high levels". He said that amendment is
satisfactory because then the department would automatically manage
according to the management plans.
Number 184
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY expressed confusion about the words which Mr.
Regelin suggested for inserting. He wondered if Mr. Regelin wanted
historic high levels in the bill plus those words or if he meant if
the words "historic high levels" are taken out, the words "or set
by management plans and accepted by the Board of Game" are not
necessary.
MR. REGELIN responded in working with the committee, he was willing
to leave that because he felt the places where intensive management
would be used, there is not a place where the department would not
have a management plan already in place. He said if the committee
accepts Representative Ogan's amendment to delete the words "from
historic high levels", there would be no need to add the words "or
set by management plans..." because the department would
automatically manage it that way.
MR. REGELIN said another change HB 170 would produce is to amend
the definition of intensive management. He noted there is wording
contained in CSHB 170, version G, which excludes changes of
regulation as a form of intensive management to change the
regulation of human uses. He suggested on page 2, lines 16-18, the
new language underlined be deleted and replaced with the words "and
regulation of harvest by humans." He explained in many cases, the
best method of increasing a population is through regulation
changes. An example is Unit 13, where the biggest effect possible
is to change the regulations relating to the grizzly bear
population.
MR. REGELIN said the purpose of having a higher population and more
production for human use can be achieved by changing regulations.
An example is the Mulchatna caribou herd, which has gone from a
small herd to 180,000 today, simply by limiting the harvest to one
bull for a period of time. Today, there is a five caribou season
for eight and one-half months. He stated often the cheapest and
best tool of management is to change regulations. He stressed it
would not be very wise to preclude changing regulations as a tool
for the department to use to accomplish intensive management goals.
He noted that in some cases, changing regulations will not be all
that is necessary but felt in this case, as what he sees as a
concern that the Board of Game could take action by changing
regulations will fix the problem but it might take a couple of
years. This would allow someone to sue the department and force
the department to spend money because the department is not killing
wolves or managing habitat.
Number 262
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES commented there are a series of proposed
amendments. He felt it would be very confusing to go through all
of the amendments and then come back and deal with them one at a
time. He thought it would make more sense to take the amendments
one at a time, deal with them, and dispose of them. He stressed he
is frustrated by the fact a quorum is not present.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN said another member would be joining the
committee meeting shortly. He concurred with Representative
Davies' desire. He stated since a quorum is not present, perhaps
an overview is in order and then the committee can go back and
review each individual amendment.
Number 307
MR. REGELIN said the department worked with Representative Kelly
and his staff last week on the definition of harvestable surplus
and the definition has been modified to make it clear that these
are estimates of productivity and mortality. Based on that
modification, the department will accept those changes and try to
work with meeting those objectives. He stated the definition of
high level of human harvest is then based on the definition of
harvestable surplus. He felt it is a measurable harvest goal and
in some places, the goal is probably possible to achieve.
MR. REGELIN told committee members the department has some concerns
that in many places it would require very low levels of predators
in the system and in many cases, it would make predator populations
unusable because they would be so scarce at periods of time. He
thought, however, it is something that is possible to do. He noted
the requirement by the law would be to manage so that one-third of
the harvestable surplus could be taken by humans. He said in some
cases that will be achievable but in others it may not. He felt
that is really pushing the biology in northern systems, where there
are many other mortality factors. He stated these are goals the
department can work toward but added the legislature and the public
has to realize that in many instances, that effort is going to push
the wolf and bear populations to some very low levels.
Number 344
MR. REGELIN stated the department still has a concern that the way
the bill reads, the definition of high level of harvest and
harvestable surplus does not provide for restrictions on harvest,
so the department can accommodate growth of herds. He said in
talking with staff members, they felt that is something which is
implied and is obvious. He stressed the bill does not read that
way and when someone gets in a court of law, it does not matter if
it is obvious--if it is not there, it often does not make any
difference. He felt it was important to allow for populations to
grow because many of them are below levels desired. He said he has
looked at the bill many times and has talked to many people trying
to figure out how to accommodate the concern and the recommendation
is at the end of the definition of harvestable surplus, say that
growth would be allowed.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES clarified the change would be on page 2,
section 5, line 23: replace "or" with a comma, and add after
harvest "or for herd growth".
Number 360
MR. REGELIN responded that was his suggestion and he felt that
language would make it more clear. The third concern the
department has is the definition of sustained yield. He said the
words "sustained yield principle" is used in CSHB 170, version G,
and is also used in the Constitution but is not used in the context
where it is required to be defined in the bill. The department
sees no reason for the term to be defined in the bill. He stated
sustained yield is a principle and is not conducive to a strict
definition. He checked with five wildlife management textbooks and
not a single text defined the sustained yield principle. They all
discussed it at length, talked about the principle and gave
examples of it, but none of them defined it.
MR. REGELIN said the department does not believe a definition in
CSHB 170, version G would accomplish anything and could create some
legal problems for the department in the future. The department
prefers that sustained yield not be defined in the bill but if it
is, the definition needs to be changed to accommodate herd growth
and the possibility of the need for herd reduction. He explained
the current definition would set the standard for sustained yield
as one-third of its harvestable surplus and in many cases that will
not be achievable. He noted that earlier he provided
Representative Kelly's staff with some changes for the definition.
He said based on what he knows and his long discussions with the
Department of Law, the department urges the committee not to
include the definition of sustained yield in the bill.
Number 403
MR. REGELIN said subsection (h) of the bill directs the Board of
Game to manage the game populations to provide at least one-half of
the harvestable surplus for human harvest. Earlier, that was
defined as one-third and then it was changed to one-half later. He
felt the intent is for that level to be the goal and if that is
true, that fact should be stated in the bill, so the department
cannot get sued for trying to accomplish that goal.
MR. REGELIN told committee members the last suggestion he has is in
the last section of the bill where it talks about delegation of
authority from the Boards of Game and Fisheries to the
commissioner. He said these are the same words which have been
added to the powers and functions of the commissioner. He stated
a slight change is needed on page 3, line 9. Currently it reads
proposed regulations. He felt if there is a conflict, the conflict
would be in the implementation of the regulations. He noted just
because regulations are proposed does not mean there is a conflict.
MR. REGELIN stated this bill was just passed about eight months
ago. The Board of Game has worked very diligently to implement
this bill into law. When the board met in November, the first time
following passage of this bill, the department presented a lengthy
report to them and recommended at that time, the board pass some
definitions, including the definition of high level of harvest. He
stressed the Board of Game discussed the subject for several hours
and disagreed with the department. After the discussions, the
board felt that each population of game needs to be managed
separately and they did not want to be tied into statewide
definitions on how they would manage each individual situation.
The board did not want to lose that flexibility, so the board chose
not to pass any definitions. Now the definitions are coming back
to be put in statute. The department's position is that until the
bill is implemented and it is determined how it works, it is not
necessary to change it. He said the Board of Game will meet again
in March and will move forward again with implementation of what
was passed eight months ago.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted for the record that Representatives
NICHOLIA and BARNES had joined the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN made a MOTION to AMEND CSHB 170, version
G, on page 2, line 5: delete "from historic high levels".
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated he has no objections to the amendment.
Number 481
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said the phrasing concerns him because he does
not feel it would work for all cases. For example, the Mulchatna
herd currently is at a historic high level. He expressed concern
about the effect of this verbiage--as soon as a big game population
drops off from historic high levels, intensive management would
automatically kick in, which is not always the best case scenario.
For example, they do not want that many caribou in the Mulchatna
herd and would like to bring the herd down to the management plan
level rather than the historic high level. He stressed historic
high level is not always the best level to have game animals.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said it is important to note that intensive
management is not an overall management plan for fish and game but
rather is for specific instances.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES recalled that Mr. Regelin had referred to
levels set by management plans and accepted by the Board of Game.
He said he understood the concern about setting a reference level
so high that it might be counter productive. He asked Mr. Regelin
if that level is set high, would he have a concern if the phrase
"depletion of the big game prey population" is undefined. He
wondered with this amendment if it would then be necessary to go in
and put some reference to levels set by management plans.
MR. REGELIN responded that would not be necessary. He said there
are other regulations involved when the department gets into
predation management. The department has to have implementation
plans in place, which require the department to set population and
harvest goals through a public process. Those then have to be
accepted by the Board of Game.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections to the motion.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
Number 550
SARA HANNAN, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY, gave her
credentials as an Alaskan and a hunter to assure the committee
members she was not present to argue that caribou, moose, or wolves
should not be killed. She stressed she is not opposed to killing
animals. She stated HB 170 is a very bad precedent, unnecessary,
and is something which will put the legislature into a tangle of
bureaucratic detailed decisions. At statehood, the state of Alaska
assumed management of fish and game and at that time, established
the most extensive public process in any incident of government
agency to carry out and that is to manage fish and game.
MS. HANNAN noted the state has 80 advisory game units, consisting
of over 900 Alaskans participating in the regulatory process that
comes to the Board of Game for decision making. The Board of Game
consists of seven people. She stated most of the board members are
hunters, active users of game, and are not there to stymie the
growth of hunting in the state of Alaska but are there to make
sound management decisions. She stressed the board needs some
flexibility in carrying those decisions out.
MS. HANNAN felt 90 percent of the discussion surrounding HB 170 is
to intervene in game management decisions in two game units. She
said there are 26 game units, so she would conclude that in 24 game
units, game management is being carried out in a successful way.
She would not assert there is not room for improvement in game
management. She reminded committee members that eight months ago
the statute was changed. She stressed because of the extensive
public process established by the legislature for game management
and for the Board of Game to make decisions, the board could not
carry out intensive game management any sooner than March 18.
MS. HANNAN stated the board has several intensive game management
proposals to institute in game units 13 and 20. She noted the
soonest those regulations could go into effect would be this fall
and the soonest some feedback could be received as to whether or
not those are successful changes is a season away from this fall.
She said if real science is being looked for, a couple of years of
implementation is needed before a decision can be made as to
whether or not the intent and interest of the legislature is being
carried out.
Number 594
MS. HANNAN said if the concerns are really about the game
management decisions made in two game management units, which 90
percent of the discussion has been about, she felt the legislature
is setting themselves up for a disastrous precedent. She reminded
committee members there are 24 other game units and many fish units
where there are discussions about how the Boards of Fisheries and
Game has carried out the proposals. If the precedent is set that
the legislature will intervene when there is public concern about
a decision, even though on an annual basis those decisions can be
changed, she believed the legislature will find themselves making
district by district allocation decisions on Boards of Game and
Fisheries issues. She noted that intensive game management
discussions have gone on for a number of years and fish decisions
will be ongoing forever.
MS. HANNAN stated a historic perspective is important in finding
leadership but if the problem involves the working relationship
between the department and the Board of Game not working to the
legislatures satisfaction, she did not feel a statutory change
resolves that issue. She said a working relationship is
established over trust and respect. She stressed the Board of Game
is trying to carry out the will of the legislature. She urged
committee members to kill HB 170, to work with the Board of Game to
carry out their wishes and wait for the implementation of last
year's intensive game management law before other decisions are
made which control the Board of Game's flexibility in making those
decisions.
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked which game units are 13 and 20.
MS. HANNAN responded she did not have a map with her but felt Mr.
Regelin could point out those two game management units.
MR. REGELIN pointed out those areas on a map hanging on the wall of
the committee room. He said game management unit 13 is the
Nelchina basin and goes to the top of the Alaska range, starts at
Palmer, is bordered by the Parks Highway on the west, on the east
it runs into game management unit 20 and the Alaska Highway is the
dividing line in most cases. He stated game management unit 20 is
a very large unit and is subdivided into six game management units.
He explained unit 20 is north of game management unit 13 and goes
all the way to the Canadian border and includes Tok. Each sub-unit
is managed separately.
Number 636
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY pointed out that HB 170 does not intend to tie
the hands of the Board of Game. He said intensive management is a
tool to give the board for use when they decide it is needed.
MR. REGELIN said he does not disagree with what the intent is. He
stated the Board of Game has had those tools before. He reminded
committee members that the department had conducted wolf control in
previous years.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said a committee member had requested his vote be
reconsidered on amendment G.2, offered by Representative Barnes on
Wednesday that failed. However, that committee member is not
present.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES said she would hold the amendment for
the floor.
Number 659
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT made a MOTION to AMEND CSHB 170, version
G, as follows. Page 1, line 14: Delete "intensive", insert
"active [INTENSIVE]"; page 2, after line 11: Insert a new bill
section to read: "*Sec. 4. AS 16.05.255(f) is amended to read:
(f) The Board of Game may not significantly reduce the taking of
an identified big game prey population by adopting regulations
relating to restrictions on harvest or access to the population, or
to management of the population by customary adjustments in
seasons, bag limits, open and closed areas, methods and means, or
by other customary means authorized under (a) of this section,
unless the board has adopted regulations, or has scheduled for
adoption at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the board
regulations, that provide for active [INTENSIVE] management to
increase the take of the population for human harvest consistent
with (e) of this section. This subsection does not apply if the
board (1) determines that active [INTENSIVE] management would be
(A) ineffective, based on scientific information; (B) inappropriate
due to land ownership patterns; or (C) against the best interest of
subsistence uses; or (2) declares that a biological emergency
exists and takes immediate action to protect or maintain the big
game prey population in conjunction with the scheduling for
adoption of those regulations that are necessary to implement (e)
of this section." Renumber the following bill sections
accordingly.; page 2, line 13: Delete "intensive", insert "active
[INTENSIVE]"; page 3, line 7: Delete "intensive", insert "active"
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said this amendment was suggested by a former
biologist in Fairbanks. He stated the amendment basically changes
the word "intensive" to "active" which he feels is less offensive.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion and
asked for a brief at ease to enable committee members to review the
amendment.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN called a brief at ease.
TAPE 95-31, SIDE B
Number 000
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN called the meeting back to order at 8:56 a.m.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated it appears the amendment changes the
terminology from intensive to active and seems to have the
concurrence of the department.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered if the Chairman of the Board of Game
could give some input on the amendments.
RICHARD BURLEY, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF GAME, testified via
teleconference and stated he has no objection to the amendment.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections to the motion.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
Number 123
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a MOTION to RESCIND the committee's
ACTION in failing to adopt amendment G.2 on CSHB 170, version G, at
Wednesday's hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES OBJECTED.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated rescinding the action taken would put
the amendment back before the committee and then she could once
again comment on what the amendment does.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of
the motion were Representatives Austerman, Ogan, Barnes, Kott, and
Green. Voting against the motion were Representatives Nicholia and
Davies. The MOTION PASSED 5-2.
Number 151
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated this amendment would repeal the
provisions in state law requiring the ADF&G commissioner to enforce
federal laws and regulations. The federal government and the ADF&G
can still develop memorandums of understanding, cooperative
agreements and other joint programs. This amendment protects the
commissioner from lawsuits in state court if state regulations
conflict with federal regulations. This part of the code is
Alaska's voluntary assumption of federal regulations with or
without funding.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said Section AS 16.05.050, powers and duties of
the commissioner, says "the commissioner has, but not by way of
limitation, the following powers and duties". He clarified the
amendment proposes to delete one of the items specifically
addressed. He wondered if the commissioner would still have the
power to work with the USFWS.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said his interpretation is that would be the
case. He stated the intention is to remove that power as the prime
thing the commissioner should do. He noted the powers are listed
in descending order and that power is listed first.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND the AMENDMENT by not
repealing AS 16.05.050(1) but to change its number from one to last
on the list.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES OBJECTED.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote on the motion to amend
the amendment. Voting in favor of the amendment to the amendment
were Representatives Davies, MacLean, and Nicholia. Voting against
the motion were Representatives Kott, Austerman, Barnes, Ogan, and
Green. The MOTION FAILED 5-3.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said the committee would now consider the
original amendment, page 3, after line 13: Insert a new bill
section to read: "*Sec. 8. AS 16.05.050(1) is repealed."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES OBJECTED.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated the preamble says these are things the
commissioner may do but does not necessarily have to do. He said
testimony from the department had been heard indicating their
concern that taking the overt action to remove this power or duty
might actually cause the state more legal trouble than leaving it
as is. He wondered what the real purpose of this amendment is. He
pointed out the state has federal management of fish and game in
any part of the state plus state management, since game populations
move from one area to the other and do not recognize the
boundaries, it would be a benefit for everyone to have some
coordination between federal and state managers. He did not
understand why anyone would object to that coordination as that
kind of coordination is desirable. He thought the amendment would
only provide risks.
Number 277
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES disagreed. She said she has not heard any
legal opinions saying this amendment would cause risks. She
believed the amendment would help the commissioner carry out state
law and where there is a conflict between state and federal law, it
would keep the commissioner from being sued.
GEORGE UTERMOHLE, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS,
recalled many statements about potential problems which might arise
by either keeping this provision or repealing it. He said all are
valid concerns which may or may not cause problems for the
department at some later date.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if removing this power and duty, more than
the fact it is not there, could prejudice the court in the future.
MR. UTERMOHLE responded it could because explicitly repealing the
commissioner's authority to assist or cooperate with the USFWS
could be interpreted as saying the legislature intends for the
commissioner to not cooperate with the USFWS.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if that were to come up, would the court
then look to the reason--that instead of repealing this, the
legislature just eliminated it as one item on the check list of
things to do, such as other duties or other things which may come
up. He thought the preamble takes care of that. He wondered if
the court, by this removal, also might look at the dialogue and say
that was not the intent--the legislature did not want that power
and duty to be number one on the list, wanted to ensure that the
commissioner looks at state issues and if there is a conflict, go
beyond that. He stated it just is not enumerated.
MR. UTERMOHLE replied the court would certainly try to look at the
legislative history as to why that power and duty was deleted. He
said the problem is that often legislative history is very
ambiguous and sometimes difficult to ascertain.
Number 321
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES felt the legislative history now is much
easier to obtain.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said with that in mind, he asked what the
intent of the amendment is. He asked if the intent is for the
commissioner to not perform this duty or is it the intent that the
legislature just does not want to list it.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied there is a concern that the
commissioner, by statute, is being put in a situation of conflict.
If this power and duty is removed, it does not remove the
commissioner's authority to deal with the federal government.
However, in a situation of conflict and legal problems, the state
has said the commissioner has to assist the federal government.
This amendment takes pressure off the commissioner in these areas
of conflict.
REPRESENTATIVE EILEEN MACLEAN requested Mr. Utermohle to be more
specific on what exactly this amendment would do.
MR. UTERMOHLE replied the legal effect of the amendment would be to
delete a power or duty of the commissioner to assist or cooperate
with the USFWS. The amendment would be deleting an explicit
mandate that the commissioner do so. He explained what is left
behind is an implication that the commissioner may do so. He said
the USFWS is the only agency mentioned in this provision setting up
the powers and duties of the commissioner. He noted the USFWS is
only one of the federal agencies with which the department deals
with and with which it cooperates in the enforcement of fish and
wildlife laws or regulations. He stated the department also
cooperates with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Bureau
of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, etc., without an
expressed mandate to do so.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if this provision is removed, so it is not
an expressed duty, would there be the same kind of conflict that
Representative Kelly indicated--by leaving the provision in because
it is explicit. He wondered if that would create a conflict.
MR. UTERMOHLE responded by leaving the provision in, it is a state
duty or power of the commissioner to assist or cooperate with the
USFWS. He said as an expressed duty or power, it is potentially
enforceable in court.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN questioned if there are differences with the
federal government, where does the commissioner's position lie if
it is explicitly stated as one of his duties. He asked if the
commissioner has to go with the federal government against his own
state.
MR. UTERMOHLE said he would be hard pressed to answer that question
as to how a court might come down on that issue. He stated the
commissioner's obligation is to the state because he is a state
officer and is bound by the state Constitution.
Number 379
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled Mr. Utermohle had indicated that leaving
the provision in is a problem. He asked if the provision is taken
out, does that remove the problem.
MR. UTERMOHLE stated removing the provision deletes the
commissioner's duty or power to expressly cooperate or assist the
USFWS in enforcing their regulations.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified by removing the provision, the
commissioner's expressed power has been removed but his implied
power has not been removed.
MR. UTERMOHLE responded to the extent it is the intent of the
committee not to give the commissioner the discretion to enter into
agreements with the USFWS at some later date, that is true.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he was just referring to the phrase, "but
not by way of limitation".
MR. UTERMOHLE stated by expressly deleting the language the
committee may essentially be amending the language "but not by way
of limitation" to say but not by way of limitation except for
cooperating with the USFWS.
Number 393
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered if the committee did that and the court
interpreted that, would that be the commissioner's duty? He stated
by the fact the commissioner is employed by the state, his prime
objective would be for the state and if that includes cooperation
with the federal government, great. If there is a conflict, the
commissioner's first allegiance should be with the state. He asked
if this amendment would counteract that in any way.
MR. UTERMOHLE stated the amendment would remove the argument that
one of the commissioner's duties is to cooperate with the federal
government.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN said in listening to the discussion, she
feels the amendment is good because the commissioner does not have
any responsibility at all when it comes to issues with federal
intervention to the state. She stated the commissioner would have
to go to the board to have decisions made.
Number 415
LYNN LEVENGOOD, MEMBER, ALASKA WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION,
testified via teleconference and stated in Title 41, the Department
of Public Safety, the commissioner of Public Safety does not have
similar wording indicating he has to cooperate with the federal
government. The only duties and powers mentioned for public safety
is the department may enter into an agreement with federal and
local agencies with respect to computerized record sharing. He
said by removing this onerous provision, the ADF&G commissioner is
given more authority and leverage to negotiate with the federal
government on memorandums of understanding and cooperative
agreements. He pointed out the federal government knows this duty
is in the state's statute. He added it is arguable the
commissioner has to enforce federal regulations. He noted if this
provision is taken out, the commissioner can still do it but has
more leverage to negotiate memorandums of understanding and
cooperative agreements.
MR. LEVENGOOD stated there are conflicts between state and federal
regulations and gave examples. He said removing this provision
will still allow the commissioner to have the same powers, as other
commissioners have, to cooperate with the federal government. He
urged committee members to pass this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Utermohle how he reads the
construction of Sec. 16.05.050. He reread the first sentence from
that section: "Powers and duties of commissioner. The
commissioner has, but not by way of limitation, the following
powers and duties:" He noted there is a list following. He asked
if that language implies that each and every one of the items
listed is both a power and a duty or are some powers and some are
duties.
Number 477
MR. UTERMOHLE said as this section is drafted, it is impossible to
separate the powers from the duties. In current drafting style, a
duty is denoted by the verb "shall" (a discretion) and a power of
the commissioner is established by the word "may." He noted this
section establishes both powers and duties, so the commissioner has
a duty to do each of the items listed, while at the same time
having the discretion to do them. He stated it is a matter of
construction. He pointed out it is difficult to determine how a
court would come down on a particular issue.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said it seems one could read that to say some
of these things listed could be viewed by a court as merely a
power, not a duty and therefore not required to carry them out.
MR. UTERMOHLE stated that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES gave number 3 in the list as an example to
illustrate. He said (3) says "under the provisions of AS 36.30, to
design and construct hatcheries, pipelines, rearing ponds,
fishways, and other projects beneficial for the fish and game
resources of the state." He stated the argument being advanced
with respect to item number 1 is in the example of number 3--if the
commissioner decided not to construct a pipeline and someone could
read this as a duty to construct a pipeline, he could be dragged
into court for not constructing pipelines. He said that is absurd.
He stated this has to be read as a power, to do that when he deems
it appropriate. He would apply the same argument to item number 1-
-that is a power the commissioner has, not a duty. He stressed
since the word "shall" does not appear but the word "assist" does,
suggests something the commissioner may do and hence would be a
power, not necessarily a duty.
Number 506
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she understood what Representative
Davies was saying but she believed anyone could drag the
commissioner to court under the duties section, just as easily they
could assume it is a powers section. She stressed if the provision
is gone, there is no problem.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN stated she likes the amendment because she
would rather have federal intervention than state intervention.
She felt the amendment would lessen the power of the commissioner.
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN said he voted no on this amendment
previously and had questions for ADF&G at that time. However,
there was not time to get those questions addressed so he voted no
on the amendment. He stated since then, he has had those questions
answered and would support the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked if there were any specific examples
where problems may have occurred between USFWS and the state on
game issues.
MR. UTERMOHLE responded he is not aware of any problems but he is
not that familiar with the implementation of this section since
1959.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said caribou and moose do not recognize
boundaries on maps but neither does the federal government. He
stated the federal government seems to be getting more and more
into the state, wherever they want to go. He stressed because of
this rapid expansion of the federal government into the state,
perhaps when this provision was written in 1959 and how it applies
today are two different things. He did not believe people in that
era ever imagined a federal government which would take over land
and restrict the state's access such as what is happening now.
This amendment goes directly to that, saying the chances are there
are going to be more and more conflicts and there is a need to
better protect the commissioner, so that by statute, he is not put
on the other side.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA questioned if the population of caribou is
low on state and federal lands and it is desired to have the state
and federal government working together on that low population,
would removing this section have an impact on whether or not the
state is obligated to work with the federal government.
MR. UTERMOHLE responded the deletion of this language will not
interfere with the ability of the commissioner or the boards to
cooperate with federal agencies.
Number 557
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN clarified if this provision is deleted, the
commissioner will have the ability to work with or intervene with
the USFWS in enforcing federal regulations, if he chooses.
MR. UTERMOHLE stated the commissioner's authority, with regard to
the USFWS, would be similar to his authority as to other federal
agencies with which he is currently cooperating.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote on amendment G.2.
Voting in favor of the amendment were Representatives MacLean,
Ogan, Barnes, Austerman, Kott, and Green. Voting against the
amendment were Representatives Nicholia and Davies. The AMENDMENT
PASSED 6-2.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND CSHB 170, version G,
page 2, line 16: Delete ", but not including restrictions on
methods or means of taking game, access to game, or human harvest
of game.", insert "and regulations of harvest by humans".
TAPE 95-32, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES OBJECTED.
MR. REGELIN said the department feels there are times when
regulation of the harvest by humans is the necessary action, and
often the most appropriate and cheapest action, rather than a
predator control program or a habitat improvement program, which
are very expensive.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN told Mr. Burley on teleconference that there had
been a request made if he has any input on any of the amendments to
please let the committee know.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked what the language "but not including
restrictions on methods or means of taking game, access to game, or
human harvest of game." would do if incorporated into law for
intensive management.
MR. REGELIN said the present language in the bill says intensive
management includes only predator control or habitat improvement.
Intensive management could not be accomplished by restrictions on
methods and means of hunters, access to game, or the level of
seasons, etc.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked Mr. Regelin to be more specific.
MR. REGELIN used an example of game management unit 13, where part
of the problem is a high level of grizzly bears in the area who are
eating many of the moose calves. He said the appropriate action,
which the board has already taken, is to change the seasons on
grizzly bears so more will be harvested, which will probably solve
a great deal of the problem. He explained according to the
language in CSHB 170, version G, that action would not count toward
intensive management. The department is concerned that someone
could say the department is not doing predator control or habitat
management and therefore is violating the statute and could sue the
department.
Number 093
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY clarified Mr. Regelin based his argument on
the amendment on the fact that the harvest of a predator could not
be increased if necessary.
MR. REGELIN stated the board could take actions to change the
regulations on hunting seasons, bag limits, etc. However, if the
Board of Game identifies unit 13 as an area where intensive
management is needed and outlines a program which does not include
wolf control or habitat management, they are in violation of the
statute, even though they have taken the appropriate action or one
that will probably solve the problem.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said the way the department has read this is
mistaken. He stated the word "restriction" is what is important.
It is saying that intensive game management is not about
restricting the ability to do that but there is an opportunity to
expand it if desired. He pointed out the department has all the
means and methods necessary, outside the definition of intensive
game management, to handle all of the issues Mr. Regelin just
addressed. He recalled that Mr. Regelin's fear was he could not
expand it. Representative Kelly agreed the department should be
able to expand it, but added that intensive game management is not
about restricting it.
MR. REGELIN used the example of the Mulchatna caribou herd. He
said years ago, the appropriate action there was to restrict the
amount of harvest to allow the herd to build. He pointed out that
restriction worked. The herd has grown from 30,000 to 180,000. He
stressed if that is the appropriate action for intensive management
in an area, then it should be allowed. He noted one of the
cornerstones of good wildlife management, whether it is intensive,
active or whatever, is good regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN clarified that the intensive management
being discussed is for state lands only.
MR. REGELIN stated the regulations adopted by the Board of Game
apply to all lands.
Number 164
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked if the regulations would include
federal lands.
MR. REGELIN responded the regulations do apply to federal lands.
The exception is where the federal government has the authority to
close their lands when it is necessary for local subsistence users.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked if the regulations would include
corporate lands.
MR. REGELIN replied no. At the present time, the federal
government does not have any authority over private lands.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN clarified that corporate and federal lands
are not under state jurisdiction, so intensive management would be
only on state lands that have been warranted within the state
government by the federal government.
MR. REGELIN stated that is not correct. He said in most cases,
there are federal subsistence laws and state subsistence laws which
are very similar. He pointed out there are very few cases in
Alaska where the federal government has closed federal lands to
everyone except federal subsistence users.
MR. UTERMOHLE said the state's fish and wildlife jurisdiction
extends throughout the state on state and federal lands except
those federal lands where the federal government has its sole
authority over fish and game management.
Number 192
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked when all of these amendments were offered
and wondered if there was a 24-hour rule.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN responded there is, but stressed these amendments
follow almost to the letter those which were issued by ADF&G at
Wednesday's hearing. He stated the committee has had these
amendments for two days.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote on the motion to
amend. Voting in favor of the amendment were Representatives
MacLean, Davies, and Nicholia. Voting against the amendment were
Representatives Austerman, Barnes, Ogan, and Green. The MOTION
FAILED 4-3.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND CSHB 170, version G,
page 2, line 23, following "predation": delete "or" and insert
","; following "harvest", insert "or for herd growth".
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES OBJECTED.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated this amendment would simply add in the
definition of harvestable surplus the allowance for herd growth.
He felt there is a need to make a provision in the calculation that
sometimes the appropriate goal is also to grow the herd, not just
maintain it.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted he specifically requested that Mr. Burley
be allowed to comment on the amendments before the committee voted.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said Mr. Burley has the right to voice his
opinion at any time.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN requested he does comment.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN stressed Mr. Burley is not a committee
member but is the Chairman of the Board of Game. She stated there
is a need to recognize that Mr. Burley is also a member of the
Alaska Outdoor Council.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated HB 170 is all about herd growth. He
explained the problem with inserting herd growth in this language
is if there is a department that does not want to carry out
intensive management, which is the fear and why these definitions
have been inserted, the excuse could always be made that the
harvestable surplus is for herd growth and the department would not
have to enact intensive management the way the legislature or the
board wishes. He felt there is too much wiggle room for the
department--they need a firm policy. He strongly objected to
inserting "or for herd growth".
MR. BURLEY stated he does not have a problem with inserting this
language. He said there may be times when it is appropriate to
consider that, although he felt the Board of Game would consider
that whether it was in the bill or not.
Number 285
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Burley if he had reviewed all the
amendments that ADF&G had suggested.
MR. BURLEY replied he has looked at the amendments submitted by
ADF&G, since they were available on Wednesday.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Burley if he has a problem with the
way CSHB 170, version G is written and wondered if he would like to
see any of the ADF&G proposed amendments implemented.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN ruled Representative Ogan out of order. He
stated the committee is speaking to a specific amendment.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote on the motion to
amend. Voting in favor of the amendment were Representatives
Nicholia, Davies, and MacLean. Voting against the amendment were
Representatives Ogan, Barnes, Austerman, and Green. The MOTION
FAILED 4-3.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND CSHB 170, version G,
page 2, line 26-27: delete all material.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES OBJECTED. She said in testimony before the
committee, the department did not have a definition for sustained
yield. Therefore, she would not want a definition to come out
since they do not understand it.
Number 327
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated he did not believe that is a fair
characterization of the department's testimony. He said the
department testified they have several books containing extensive
discussions of sustained yield. The point the department made was
that in no cases did any of the textbooks offer a specific
definition of sustained yield. Rather, the textbooks said
sustained yield, in the biological world, is a principle and is not
subject to this level of specificity. Further, the department said
if the committee wanted to have a definition in the bill, they then
could offer a specific definition but it was their recommendation
to not include a definition in this part of the statute.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stressed she heard Mr. Regelin say that he
did not understand the definition of sustained yield and she had
offered to give him a book which explained it. She expressed
opposition to taking the definition out of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN expressed opposition to having the language
in the bill because it is a back door approach to deal with
subsistence and the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act
(ANILCA). She expressed support for the amendment.
MR. REGELIN said he was not sure if he mis-spoke earlier. He
stressed he certainly understands the principle of sustained yield,
as he went to school for 12 years and studied the principle. He
stated he tries to follow the principle and so does the Board of
Game. He resented the fact that people say he does not understand
the principle.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated the next time Mr. Regelin testifies
before the committee, he should get his phrases correct before he
speaks. She recalled that at an earlier hearing she had read from
the Constitution and from the book on the sustained yield
principle.
Number 369
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked Mr. Utermohle if the committee was to
delete the definition of sustained yield, how it would affect the
bill.
MR. UTERMOHLE responded the deletion would leave the determination
of sustained yield up to the board and commissioner under
principles set up in the Constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked if the definition would include all
game and fisheries.
MR. REGELIN said the way the bill is structured, the definition of
sustained yield would apply only to this section of intensive
management. He stated in talking with the Department of Law, they
are very concerned because sustained yield is not defined in most
places. He added sustained yield is discussed in the Constitution
as a principle. Because of that, he pointed out a judge could see
that sustained yield is defined in this bill and could apply that
definition to other places, which is the concern. Mr. Regelin said
in intensive management, the definition of sustained yield will tie
the department to one-third of the harvestable surplus and a judge
could take that and use it elsewhere.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated the sustained yield principle is a
constitutional mandate. He pointed out if the department was
observing the sustained yield principle, it would not have to be
further defined. He said he is simply putting into statute and
applying to a department something that is already in the state's
Constitution.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote on the motion to
amend. Voting in favor of the amendment were Representatives
Davies, Nicholia, and MacLean. Voting against the amendment were
Representatives Barnes, Ogan, Austerman, and Green. The MOTION
FAILED 4-3.
Number 420
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND CSHB 170, version G,
page 2, line 29: following "shall": insert "adopt goals to".
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES OBJECTED.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated this amendment is what the Board of
Game does. The amendment says the board shall adopt goals to
manage game populations for which human use is an important use so
as to provide at least one-half of the harvestable surplus for
human harvest. He said the committee has heard testimony that even
achieving one-third in some cases may be a very difficult and
perhaps biologically impossible situation. Therefore, he stressed
to specify that the board shall achieve one-half is even more
questionable as a requirement. He said to have that as a goal and
a desired end is reasonable.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN agreed with Representative Davies. He did not
feel the Board of Game should be locked in to provide one-half
because that is unrealistic. He felt the one-half should be a
goal, rather than a requirement because fish and game management is
not always locked into shalls and wills.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated this issue is not necessarily about the
harvestable surplus. He said the issue is about who is responsible
for management and he reminded committee members the board is
responsible. He noted the amendment says the board shall adopt
goals to manage game populations and they are just stating the
board itself is the management entity of the whole system, not the
department. He felt it would not be clear enough.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said if that were the case, why not just put
a period after "important use". He stated the issue he is
concerned about is the standard of management that is being
required in law with the word "shall", which is one-half of the
harvestable surplus.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN offered a FRIENDLY AMENDMENT to the AMENDMENT:
instead of using the words "adopt goals" put the word "attempt".
He stated the phrase would then read, "The board shall attempt to
manage game populations..."
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY felt in the definition of managing, goal
setting is implicit in that definition and the board has that
ability under the authority the legislature has already given them.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said the sentence is very clear and
straightforward. It says the board shall manage game populations.
He stated if the board does not take every action required to
achieve that goal--the level specified--they could be taken to
court. He stated the level stated is so unreasonable, it almost
guarantees the department will be in court. He felt the sentence,
as written, is very ill-advised as a mandate.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN reminded committee members of the False Pass
situation. It is not possible to do one-half of the harvestable
surplus. Therefore, there is a problem in the Aleutian and Bethel
areas. She agreed with Representative Davies that perhaps the
committee should just put a period after "important use".
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN reiterated he would like to change "adopt goals"
to the word "attempt".
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he would consider that a friendly
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any further objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
Number 493
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND CSHB 170, version G,
page 3, line 9: following "on": delete "proposed", insert
"implementation of".
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES OBJECTED.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated this is an issue of there is no
conflict on proposed regulations because there is no issue yet.
The issue is on the implementation of the regulations or the lack
of implementation. He said if regulations have been adopted but
not implemented, then there would be a conflict. He pointed out
when someone is in the discussion stage and only proposing
regulations there is no conflict to be resolved. He felt this is
a technical amendment to accomplish what is intended by this
section.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said of all the amendments offered by
Representative Davies, this amendment may be the worst in terms of
what the intent of the legislation is. He stated if the amendment
is adopted, it will allow the department to enter into endless
conflict over regulations which have already been finalized and
approved by the Governor. He noted the department has an appeals
process they are already able to go through. He stressed this
amendment is saying even after a regulation has been finalized, the
department has the ability to continue to enter into problems with
it. He said the issue has to be over the implementation of
proposed regulations during the process of making the regulations
and all that entails. Once the regulations are done, the
department still has a regular appeals process they can go through.
He expressed opposition to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN said she did not understand Representative
Kelly's reasoning. She stated he did not clarify exactly what the
problem is.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated implementation of regulations means a
regulation has been finalized. He said if the word "proposed" is
taken out and "implementation of" is inserted, then what is being
said is the department has the ability to enter into an endless
conflict over regulations which have gone through the process and
have been finalized by the Governor.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN pointed out the regulations have to be
implemented because the board has agreed. She did not see any
conflict.
Number 536
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he also was quite puzzled by the
comments and logic expressed by Representative Kelly. He cannot
see how there can be a conflict on a proposal. He noted a conflict
has to do with whether a regulation is implemented or not. He
pointed out there are people who feel there are regulations for
intensive management which are not being implemented. He added
that is where the conflicts and discussions are in this issue.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote on the amendment.
Voting in favor of the amendment were Representatives Nicholia,
MacLean, and Davies. Voting against the amendment were
Representatives Ogan, Barnes, Austerman, and Green. The MOTION
FAILED 4-3.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 170, version G, as
amended, with attached fiscal note, out of committee with
individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVES DAVIES and MACLEAN OBJECTED.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked Mr. Burley if he was speaking
personally or on behalf of the Board of Game.
MR. BURLEY said he was speaking on behalf of himself and added he
takes great exception to being insulted about his membership in the
Alaska Outdoor Council.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN said she was the one making the comments
about Mr. Burley's membership.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN expressed opposition to this legislation
because it is a back door approach to address subsistence and
ANILCA.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated he did not have objection to a number
of things CSHB 170 does, but he does have concern that this bill
comes so shortly after having passed a fairly major piece of
legislation last year. He said he objects to this bill to the
extent that this bill is expressing no confidence in the board or
the department in implementing last year's bill. He said to the
extent this bill is offering the Board of Game and the department
tools, that is appropriate. He added the fact the legislature is
moving rather quickly before seeing the effect of last year's
legislation is not well taken. He stated for that reason he has a
problem with the action being taken today.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he has an unsettling feeling about the
bill. He stated the biggest problem he has that because of his
busy schedule, he has not had the time he would have liked to
devote to studying the issue. He requested the committee hold the
legislation and vote on it next week.
Number 600
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said there is a motion to move the bill out
of committee on the floor. She stressed this is the fourth hearing
on HB 170 and she could not understand how anyone could say at this
point they do not know what is in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated he knows what is in the bill, but there
are a couple of things he is not comfortable with.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN stated what this bill does is address fish
and game--it can be commercial fishing, sport fishing, sport
hunting, subsistence--the bill deals with all of those things. She
said the bill is intensive game management of fish and game.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said the bill is about giving the board tools
to use, when they deem it necessary, when a particular population
is in need of some extra measures. He stressed the bill does not
bind the board's hands, it does not take power away from them--it
just gives them tools. He pointed out HB 170 is about having more
animals and increasing the population of animals in the state of
Alaska. He stated the amount of population decline seen,
particularly around the urban areas, is in no way related to the
number of people there. The decline is because proper management
tools have not been implemented. He told committee members HB 170
is another tool to give to the board to bring those herd levels up.
The bill is not about killing animals but is about increasing herd
size, which is a resource of the state for the use of all people,
including people to view them, people to hunt them or people to use
them for subsistence. He pointed out if there are more animals,
there will less of a problem with the issues of subsistence,
tourism, resource management, etc.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN said when the bill is reviewed, it is
consistent with the sustained yield principle which she feels is
the whole point of the bill. She stated sustained yield to her
means that fishing, hunting, etc., has to be curbed.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted his children have trouble getting to
the school bus some mornings because there are moose in his
backyard and when he drives into Fairbanks, it is unusual not to
see a moose. He did not feel there is a crisis which needs to be
responded to.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA stated the Board of Game is meeting this
month to address intensive game management. She cannot understand
why HB 170 is on a fast track since the board plans to deal with
the issue. She stressed it is important that game management not
be undertaken by legislation because it is the function of the
department and the Board of Game.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of
the motion were Representatives Austerman, Barnes, Ogan, Kott, and
Green. Voting against the motion were Representatives MacLean,
Davies and Nicholia. The MOTION PASSED 5-3.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House Resources
Committee, Co-Chairman Green adjourned the meeting at 10:18 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|