02/10/1998 01:04 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 10, 1998
1:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Joe Green
Representative William K.(Bill) Williams
Representative Irene Nicholia
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ramona Barnes
OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Cowdery
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SUBSISTENCE WORK SESSION: OVERVIEW OF SUBSISTENCE PROPOSALS
PAST AND PRESENT
CS FOR SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 2(RES)
Relating to management of Alaska's wildlife resources.
- MOVED CSSCR 2(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: CSSCR 2(RES)
SHORT TITLE: MANAGEMENT OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/17/97 81 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/17/97 81 (S) RESOURCES
03/07/97 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/07/97 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/10/97 651 (S) RES RPT CS 4DP 1AM
03/10/97 651 (S) DP: GREEN, TORGERSON, LEMAN, SHARP
03/10/97 651 (S) AM: LINCOLN
03/10/97 651 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S.RES)
03/11/97 689 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR & OTHER RECS
3/12/97
03/12/97 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/12/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/12/97 700 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/12/97 700 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/12/97 700 (S) PASSED Y19 N1 CSSCR 2(RES)
03/12/97 702 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/14/97 659 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/14/97 659 (H) RESOURCES
02/05/98 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/05/98 (H) MINUTE(RES)
WITNESS REGISTER
McKIE CAMPBELL
P.O. Box 20231
Juneau, Alaska 99892
Telephone: (907) 463-3171
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on former Governor
Hickel's subsistence advisory council.
MEL KROGSENG, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Senator Robin Taylor
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 30
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3873
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for Senator Robin
Taylor.
ROD ARNO, President
Alaska Outdoor Council
211 4th Street, Suite 302 A
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-3830
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony support of Senate CSSCR
2(RES).
WILLIAM MILLER
P.O. Box 131
Tok, Alaska 99780
Telephone: (907) 883-5138
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on Senate CSSCR 2(RES).
DON SHERWOOD, Legislative Officer
Alaska Boating Association
P.O. Box 210430
Anchorage, Alaska 99521
Telephone: (907) 333-6268
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of Senate CSSCR
2(RES).
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-8, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIRMAN SCOTT OGAN called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:04 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Ogan an Dyson. Co-Chairman
Hudson arrived at 1:11 p.m. Representatives Masek, Green, Joule,
Nicholia and Williams arrived at 1:05 p.m., 1:10 p.m., 1:12 p.m.,
1:13 p.m and 1:38 p.m., respectively.
Number 0061
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced that Representative Barnes is excused
from today's meeting.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained before the presentation and until there
is a quorum he will go over the issue of public trust.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated the fish and game resources are held in
trust for the people of the state. Legislators have a fiduciary
duty and obligation to manage those assets in the best interest of
the public. An example is the permanent fund dividend. It is
based on earnings from oil and gas resources held in the public's
trust. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the state
can not discriminate against distributions of assets based on
length of residency. Similarly, the public trust obligation does
not allow discrimination of other assets - fish and game. The
public trust doctrine is an overview of all case law taken as a
whole. The federal government's claim to manage fish and game,
especially fish, in the state is based on navigational servitude.
However, states hold title to public trusts, lands and water, that
are vested with sovereignty. Thus, states have both ownership and
regulatory power over these resources. The federal navigational
servitude confers only to regulatory power, not ownership. The
property clause does not apply to navigational servitude. The
federal government is allowed to condemn land and land under
navigable waters to further navigational purposes only.
Subsistence does not impede any navigation, therefore, the federal
government does not have the right to condemn land or take over
management. According to a book titled Putting the Public Trust
Doctrine to Work - Second Edition, neither the Ninth or Tenth
Amendments that together limit the powers of the federal government
to those enumerated in the United States Constitution and are
reserved for the people, affect the property clause power. When it
comes to public trusts, lands and waters, however, the property
clause does not delegate exclusive federal control. As the United
States Supreme Court said in the 1845 case of Pollard's Lesse v.
Hagen et al, the shores of navigable waters and the soils under
them are not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but
are reserved to the states respectively. Secondly, new states have
the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over the subject as
the original states. Thus, public trust lands are outside the
scope of the property clause power, except when the United States
acts as a trustee prior to statehood. The lack of exclusive
property clause power over public trust lands has generally been
distinguished from the exclusive power of the federal government to
dispose of (indis.). As a result, the beds and shores of navigable
waters are not subject to survey and disposition of the United
States. Lands under navigable waters are not exclusively addressed
but covered by the admission of the state on an equal footing.
After a state is admitted to a union, the federal government can
acquire land through two constitutional powers. One is the power
to purchase places with a consent of the legislature of the state
where the place is located. This is commonly known as the enclave
clause and is a kin to when a willing buyer and seller make a
transaction.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated this is in direct contradiction to what the
attorney general has been saying. In 1953 the federal government
gave title to all submerged lands to the states. However, when
states are incorporated into the union they are admitted under the
equal footing doctrine; they are admitted with the same rights,
responsibilities, and obligations as all other states.
SUBSISTENCE WORK SESSION: OVERVIEW OF SUBSISTENCE PROPOSALS PAST
AND PRESENT
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the first order of business was an
overview on former Governor Hickel's subsistence advisory council
presented by McKie Campbell.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained Mr. Campbell served as Senate staff from
1981 to 1990, primarily for former Senator Arliss Sturgulewski. He
was staff to the Senate Resources Standing Committee in 1986 when
the legislature wrote the first subsistence statute in response to
the Madison case. He has been involved in every legislative action
on subsistence since 1986. In 1991 and 1992 he served as staff to
former Governor Hickel's subsistence advisory council and was the
principle point person for the special session. After the special
session, he worked with subsistence issues as a deputy chief of
staff in the governor's office and as deputy commissioner of the
Department of Fish and Game. Currently, he is the owner of a
natural resources consulting firm. He also continues to follow the
subsistence issue closely.
Number 0639
McKIE CAMPBELL explained in 1991 he was asked to come to the
governor's office for a temporary assignment as staff to the
subsistence advisory council. It was an attempt to deal with the
ongoing problem between state and federal management. It consisted
of the following nine members:
Governor Jay Hammond - Port Alsworth; Dick Bishop -
Fairbanks; John Burns - Fairbanks; Mitch Demientieff -
Nenana; Eric Forrer - Juneau; Matthew Iya - Nome; Byron
Mallott - Juneau; Theo Matthews - Kenai; and Gene Paltola
- Bethel.
MR. CAMPBELL stated it was an extremely diverse group. The council
held meetings throughout the state for over a year. At the time,
Governor Hickel felt that a constitutional amendment would not pass
the legislature so the council worked to try to solve the problem
without a constitutional amendment. The council produced a
proposal that was introduced to the legislature at the start of the
session in 1992.
MR. CAMPBELL explained there were two main components to the
statutory provision put forth by the council. One was aimed at
trying to resolve the state-federal management conflict. In
addition, there were a serious of functional improvements to the
statutes to improve the responsiveness of the ongoing management of
the fish and game and to deal with a series of court cases that
were lost by the state from 1986 to 1991.
MR. CAMPBELL explained the council adopted an identification system
of qualified subsistence users and a flexible point system while
applying three levels of presumptions. The first presumption was
that anybody who lived in a community of less than 2,500 and where
dependence upon subsistence was a principal characteristic of the
economy, culture, and way of life, was presumed to be a subsistence
user. The second presumption was that anybody who lived in a
community of 2,500 to 7,000 where dependence upon subsistence was
a principal characteristic of the economy, culture, and way of
life, was rebuttaly presumed to be a subsistence user. The third
presumption was that anybody who lived in a community of over 7,000
and where dependence upon subsistence was a principal
characteristic of the economy, culture, and way of life, could
qualify as a subsistence user through an application process with
the Department of Fish and Game. The series of presumptions would
have worked well, but they were based on who was and was not a
qualified subsistence user. The problem with any mechanism of
sorting folks out using a point system was the fighting of poles.
On the one hand there was administrative convenience, while on the
other hand accuracy was necessary or faith in the system would be
lost. The qualifications were weighted on a 7-point criteria that
the boards would award points for. The criteria consisted of the
following:
"1. the quantity of fish and game consumed by a person
in the preceding twelve months, with a mandatory minimum
of 125 pounds;"
MR. CAMPBELL explained criterion number one was the single most
unpopular of all the criteria.
"2. the number of species and groups of species of fish
and game from the subsistence use area consumed by the
person in the preceding twelve months, with a mandatory
minimum set by the boards by region;"
MR. CAMPBELL explained the theory behind criterion number two was
that a subsistence user uses a broad spectrum of resources, not
just moose, for example.
"3. the number of days in the preceding twelve months
that the person engaged in taking fish and game in the
subsistence use area or spent processing that fish or
game, with a mandatory minimum of 30 days;
"4. the number of months in the preceding twelve months
in which the applicant engaged in taking fish or game in
the subsistence use area, with a mandatory minimum of
four months;
"5. the number of weeks, in the preceding twelve months,
during which the taking or processing of fish and game
was the applicant's principal work effort, to a maximum
of 26 weeks;
"6. the number of households, other than the person's
household, with which the person shared or received fish
and game in the preceding twelve months, with a maximum
of 10 households; and
"7. whether the person's taking of fish and game
occurred solely in the subsistence use area for which
they are qualifying."
MR. CAMPBELL stated the criteria would have sorted out a
subsistence user, but there could have been a backlash against
going through them.
Number 1298
MR. CAMPBELL explained when the proposal was introduced to the
legislature, the portion that dealt with compliance without a
constitutional amendment was stripped out of the bill - the
presumptions and qualifications. What remained in the bill were a
number of improvements in terms of function to the state statute -
Section 16.05.258(a),(b), and (c). He said, "No matter what else
you may or may not do, please be careful about not losing those
parts that actually are working well."
MR. CAMPBELL explained in 1986 the law was written so that the
Board of Game and Fisheries would go through an allocation process.
But, it did not match with the reality of how boards worked causing
lots of overturned hunting and fishing cases. Therefore, to deal
with the issue, it became clear that not every fish or animal in
Alaska was subject to subsistence. There were fish stocks and game
populations that were simply not used for subsistence, such as,
bison and other transplanted species. There were some catch and
release areas and some areas that were so remote that there had
never been a subsistence use of that particular fish stock. He
cited mountain goats, some populations of brown bears, and some
populations of Dall sheep as other examples. The approach created
Section 16.05.258(a).
MR. CAMPBELL explained Section 16.05.258(b) allowed the boards to
go through a series of allocated steps depending on the relative
abundance of the fish stock or game population. The board would
determine whether they could be harvested consistent with the
sustained yield principle. If a portion could be harvested, the
board would determine the amount that would be reasonably necessary
for subsistence uses - the first introduction of "reasonably
necessary." Prior to reasonably necessary, subsistence allocations
were considered an absolute guarantee. It was not a commonly held
belief, but there were some court cases that required a guarantee
of taking as opposed to a reasonable opportunity. If there was a
harvestable portion sufficient for all consumptive uses, the boards
would adopt regulations to provide a reasonable opportunity for
subsistence use. Then, the boards would adopt regulations to
provide for other consumptive uses and "may" adopt regulations to
differentiate amongst the uses. The next level was if a
harvestable portion was sufficient to provide for subsistence uses
and some, but not all, other consumptive uses. The next level was
if a harvestable portion was sufficient to provide for subsistence
uses, but no other consumptive uses, the boards would then be
required to provide for subsistence uses only. The fourth level
was if a harvestable portion was not sufficient to provide a
reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses, the boards would then
be required to differentiate amongst the qualified subsistence
users through the customary and direct dependence on the fish
stocks or game populations by the subsistence user for human
consumption as a mainstay of livelihood; the proximity of the
domicile of the subsistence user to the stock or population; and
the ability of the subsistence user to obtain food if subsistence
use was restricted or eliminated.
MR. CAMPBELL explained the second was the most useful in terms of
administration. But, the court held in the Kenaitze case that
proximity to domicile was in direct violation of the state
constitution - Section 15, Article VIII and the common use clause.
The state still uses the first and third. The changes together
with a set of definitions - "customary and traditional" and
"customary trade" - helped stop the court cases, however. He said,
"Whatever you're going to do, please be very, very careful of
unintended consequences and not losing the good parts that do work
in an attempt to fix the rest. The rest does need fixing." He
urged the committee members to read the sectional analysis of the
bill proposed in 1992.
MR. CAMPBELL concluded by stating in working on subsistence, he has
learned that there is no single answer, and that people of
diametrically opposed views can work together. For example, the
findings from SB 443 in 1992 were almost more difficult to agree on
than the technical details. He read the following first three
findings to illustrate his point:
"The legislature finds that
"(1) there are Alaskans, both Native and non-Natives, who
have a traditional, social, or cultural relationship to
and dependence upon the wild renewable resources produced
by Alaska's land and water; the harvest and use of fish
and game for personal and group consumption is an
integral part of those relationships;
"(2) although customs, traditions, and beliefs vary,
these Alaskans share ideals of respect for nature, the
importance of using resources wisely, and the value and
dignity of a way of life in which they use Alaska's fish
and game for a substantial portion of their sustenance;
this way of life is recognized as 'subsistence';
"(3) customary and traditional uses of Alaska's fish and
game originated with Alaska Natives, and have been
adopted and supplemented by many non-Native Alaskans as
well; these uses, among others, are culturally, socially,
spiritually, and nutritionally important and provide a
sense of identity for many subsistence users;"
MR. CAMPBELL stated those are still good words.
Number 1863
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN agreed that the words are still relevant today.
It is very important that the committee members do not demonize
each other. There can be differing views and still have the
highest amount of respect for each other.
Number 1890
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON asked Mr. Campbell what is the principal
thing required by the constitution that is giving the state such
difficulty in developing a management scheme here in Alaska. He
wondered whether it is the residency situation, for example.
Number 1926
MR. CAMPBELL replied the main issue is the proximity of domicile -
the Kenaitze case. The decision explicitly prohibited proximity of
domicile based on Section 15, Article VIII, and implicitly
prohibited it based on the common use and equal access clauses of
the state constitution. The heart of the local residency issue is
proximity of domicile. He cautioned against dealing with anything
else in the constitution, if the local residency route is taken.
Number 2025
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN referred to the Alaska Federation of
Natives (AFN) summit held on subsistence and asked Mr. Campbell
whether a cooperative effort could be reached between rural and
urban, Native and non-Native.
Number 2077
MR. CAMPBELL replied there are representatives of all Alaskans in
the legislature. As part of the process, it is important to
continue to consult with every group. In addition, given the stage
of the issue, a new task force is not needed.
Number 2128
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated Mr. Campbell has no doubt read the most
recent task force outcome, and has seen the statutory language and
the proposal to modify the constitution to conform with the Alaska
National Interest Conservation Act (ANILCA), and asked him whether
he sees the application of rural as impossible without changing the
constitution because of the Kenaitze case.
Number 2158
MR. CAMPBELL replied he sees the application of rural as impossible
because of the McDowell and Kenaitze cases.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Campbell, in terms of providing for
the low-harvest needs for many of the people in Alaska, whether he
has thought of a least-intrusive modification to the constitution
or of a way to word smith the statutes to take care of the people
of rural Alaska, without saying rural, while at the same time,
provide an opportunity for those living in non-subsistence regions.
Number 2205
MR. CAMPBELL replied, in my opinion, a constitutional amendment is
needed, but it has to be narrow and targeted to take care of
unintended consequences. Some versions put a preference for
subsistence in the constitutional amendment which is not necessary
because there is a preference for subsistence in state law. The
constitutional problem is the inability to use proximity of
domicile, the heart of local residency. However, if local
residency is chosen then make sure the harvestable portion of the
fish stocks and game populations are identified for subsistence
uses. It would only be needed when there is not an abundance of
resources to provide for all consumptive uses. An amendment could
read "subsistence uses by local residents." The identification of
use for local residents would have fewer objectionable qualities
than a simple rural-urban split. Under a rural-urban split, a
person from Anchorage might not qualify for the Nelchina moose
hunt, while a person from Kotzebue or Angoon might. It does not
make any sense. Under local residency, a proximity of domicile to
the resource could be used along with other criteria. He
reiterated a very narrow use of local residency could fix the
problem and comply with ANILCA, and most importantly, it would have
a minimal adverse impact on anything else.
Number 2358
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated there can be discriminate as long as it is
rational. There are different ways to discriminate without being
arbitrary or irrational. "I don't think anyone can argue that
rural priority is a total rational discrimination, especially with
some of the examples."
Number 2401
MR. CAMPBELL stated the Alaska Supreme Court ruled out a rural-
urban split in the McDowell case. Following the McDowell case, the
state continued to use the tier 2 criteria - allocation amongst
subsistence uses based on customary and direct dependence on the
resources for human consumption, proximity of domocile to the
resources, and ability to obtain alternate sources of food.
Everybody thought it was rational in the circumstances, until the
Kenaitze case. The state has used many ways over the years to
provide for subsistence uses other than a rural-urban split. The
difficulty comes....
TAPE 98-8, SIDE B
Number 0000
MR. CAMPBELL continued. The difficulty comes with certain
population of species such as, moose, sometimes caribou, coho, and
kings, near urban areas.
Number 0018
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked Mr. Campbell whether he is
implying the use of a local residency priority instead of a rural
priority.
Number 0027
MR. CAMPBELL replied, "Yes." The Alaska Supreme Court has said
there are some gaps in the logic of a straight rural-urban split.
There are three places in Section 16.05.258(b) that by inserting
"local resident" would comply with ANILCA. "And, I say that
because subsistence uses do not occur in urban areas, they're
described in statute in 16.05.258(c) as non-subsistence areas.
And, I have to say it is a good and appropriate thing...I want to
be careful folks don't misinterpret this, but that subsistence uses
don't happen in urban areas because what happens if you do, if you
have subsistence, and because it has a priority over every other
use, if you allow subsistence use in an urban area you immediately
wipe out all these other uses. Instead in urban areas what we do
is we give the board the use of personal use (indis.) and personal
use is exactly the same means and methods and everything else. It
just--it doesn't have a preference over say sports fishing or
sports hunting. So the board is able to continue to have this mix
of things. But, because in 16.05.258(c) it says the boards may not
permit subsistence hunting or fishing in a non-subsistence area,
subsistence uses only occur in a rural area and if you talk about
uses by local residents those folks are going to be rural residents
and they can participate. However, the big distinction of what I'm
talking about and what will happen prior to McDowell is, I
certainly would allow and I see no conflict in ANILCA whatsoever,
in allowing urban residents to go out to participate in subsistence
activities in those areas where there are plenty of resources,
where there is not a shortage. And that's a lot of the state.
There's a lot of resources. Some areas there's not, but anyway
that's what I'm suggesting."
Number 0118
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS referred to proximity of domicile and
asked Mr. Campbell, what is the difference between someone from
Southeast Alaska going to the Interior to hunt for moose when there
is a shortage, and the decision from the McDowell case.
Number 0149
MR. CAMPBELL replied the court said in the McDowell case that a
rural-urban split is against the state constitution. Prior to
McDowell, a person who lived in a subsistence area qualified for
subsistence use throughout the state as long as there was not a
restriction between subsistence users. Therefore, a person could
live in Kake and participate in a subsistence harvest in Kotzebue
when a resident of Anchorage could not. There is a rational basis
for a person's particular proximity to a resource.
Number 0192
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS replied it sounds like the same thing. A
person's proximity to a resource would also require a
constitutional amendment. Otherwise, "You're going to hold me from
going to the Interior or Kodiak or wherever I want to go. And
you're going to discriminate against me."
Number 0209
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated it would depend on whether you are totally
eliminated or not. Clearly, it would be within the realm of the
constitution and standard state practice to give advantages, not
preferences, to people in an area. Maybe, there is something that
could be devised to give an advantage to local residents as long as
others are not excluded. For example, if there are seven moose,
four would go to the local guys, while three would go to people
from other areas. There is no discrimination as long as there is
not a total exclusion.
Number 0247
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Campbell whether Governor Hickel's
proposal would be held unconstitutional given the findings of the
Kenaitze case.
Number 0266
MR. CAMPBELL replied it would be a close call. At the time, the
Department of Law felt the proposal would not require a
constitutional amendment. And, there were a number of attorneys,
not from the Department of Law, that thought it would take an
amendment to the constitution. The Kenaitze case has tipped it
more towards those who said it would require an amendment to the
constitution.
Number 0296
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted in the Kenaitze case there are three
sections of the constitution that would have to be amended and in
the proposal by the task force there is only one section of the
constitution that would have to be amended. He stated he is not a
lawyer, but there appears to be five areas that would have to be
amended.
Number 0317
MR. CAMPBELL stated it is a very important point. There are
definitely three areas that have a problem with proximity to
domicile or local residency. However, it would not be necessary to
reference or amend each section. The adoption of a new section
that said something like "the legislature can provide for the use
of proximity to domicile to distinguish amongst subsistence users
when the harvestable portion is not enough to provide for all
consumptive uses" would take care of it.
Number 0373
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Campbell whether there was any
concern of the council when trying to determine how far a local
resident was extended.
Number 0383
MR. CAMPBELL replied the council advocated for using game sub-
management units and their contiguous units. For example, if there
was a hunt in Unit 19C, the residents of 19C along with the
residents of the contiguous units would also be included.
Number 0440
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to the issue of reducing the federal
court oversight or intervention and asked Mr. Campbell whether the
council considered any way to curtail it. The current task force
proposal considered using arbitrary and capricious, and due
deference.
Number 0472
MR. CAMPBELL replied the council talked about it a lot, but the
political climate was different. There was no attempt for a
constitutional amendment and it was generally believed that there
would not be any changes to ANILCA, where the expedited federal
review resides. However, in 1993 and 1994, after the law was
passed, there was work and discussions within the administration on
how to resolve the issue. There were discussions of linkage
between changes to ANILCA and a constitutional amendment. Some
felt that along with the linkeage good definitions were needed in
the federal law as well. There were also discussions on requiring
a person with a grievance to exhaust the state chain of remedies
before going to the federal courts thereby getting rid of the
expedited portion of the federal court review.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN thanked Mr. Campbell for his input today. He
encouraged the committee members to contact him if they have
further questions.
Number 0570
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced that there will be meetings three days
a week now - Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, unless another day
is determined.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated he would like to draft legislation as a
vehicle to work on at the table even if it is just a shell. The
leadership has established a timetable for the end of February to
allow time to facilitate a bill over to the Senate. He would like
to continue to meet with the committee members once a week
nonetheless.
Number 0648
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE asked Co-Chairman Ogan whether it is
his intent to put together a subcommittee to allow for a public
process.
Number 0681
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied a subcommittee would depend on the draft
legislation. A vehicle is needed at the table for discussion. At
this time, there is no plan for a subcommittee.
Number 0728
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON agreed that something out there is needed. He
suggested to Co-Chairman Ogan to put some of his ideas in print
then circulate it amongst the committee members to examine. He
also suggested soliciting other conceptual ideas from the committee
members. Senate Bill 443 from the days of Governor Hickel has some
good definitions. If it looks like there needs to be a change in
the constitution, a working document could be drafted along with
the input of an attorney general or whoever. "But, to simply sit
back and rely upon the fact that there is no way you're going to
modify the constitution period, I think, is tying our hands in
finding a solution. Because what we're going to end up doing is
we're going to listen to an awful lot of people and ultimately and
probably nobody is going to tell us unequivocally that you can do
this within the framework of the constitution and still take care
of all of the people that we heard in the summer with their needs
in this issue." A concept needs to be put out there; it will sink
or fall on its own merit, but it needs to be put out there so that
it can be drafted into a bill. He reiterated SB 443 from the days
of Governor Hickel is good stuff with some minor changes. It is
not necessary to reinvent the wheel.
Number 0966
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN agreed there has been a lot of work already done
and it should be used as a genesis of where to go. He wants it to
be a consensus of the committee members.
Number 0991
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated it would be very difficult for nine
members to conceptualize on a bill. It would be a lot more
productive to start with a bill.
Number 1067
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE wondered as the hearings evolve who will be
heard from. During the interim the subsistence task force and the
House Resources Standing Committee held some hearings; and, the
Alaska Federal of Natives, RurAL CAP, and the Alaska Inter-Tribal
Council (AITC) held a joint summit where 900 people came from
around the state to dedicate time to the issue of subsistence -
more participation than all of the other efforts combined. He
wondered whether that population of people would have an
opportunity to bring forward their positions.
Number 1135
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated he has the reports from the AFN subsistence
summit in his hands at the moment and he is going to speak with
them today at 3:30 p.m., at which time, he will convey a message of
working together to craft a solution. There is not a lot of time,
luxury, or money to take the show on the road to rural Alaska.
But, there are four members on the House Resources Standing
Committee of aboriginal descent. He would take into consideration
the work done at the summit. "I think that if we sit down as
reasonable people and work this out as Alaskans so that we can
possibly come up with a solution. So, I'll certainly give
deference and consideration to those concerns."
Number 1191
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA stated she really like what Representative
Hudson said in terms of putting the issue to the public. "I just
don't think that we should have individual meetings. But, I think
that we should have it like with a committee, subcommittee,
whatever it is just so that there's a group of people together so
that they won't be able to say that this was done behind closed
doors. Because that is something that we always hear from the
public is that they don't like legislation done behind closed
doors. I would suggest that we would just keep this in a committee
forum whether it's a subcommittee or a full committee."
Number 1232
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied when a legislator drafts legislation there
are a series of people to consult with which is at times one-on-
one. He reiterated an invitation has been extended to every
committee member to discuss the issue.
Number 1252
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA replied subsistence is a statewide type of
legislation, not an individual type of legislation. Therefore, it
should go through the committee and public process.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied, absolutely, but something is needed at
the table to talk about which is why he has been asking for input.
It has not been as fruitful as he would have liked, however.
Number 1293
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON explained in his district he schedules
meetings on Saturdays with a one-month advance notice. It would be
helpful to preempt a Saturday meeting with a notice. He would also
be glad to meet at night or early mornings.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated his committee aide, Kathleen Graves-Moore,
would work with the committee members to determine the best day to
meet. Saturday is on the schedule, unless an alternative is
determined.
CSSCR 2(RES) - MANAGEMENT OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the next order of business was CS for
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 2(RES), Relating to management of
Alaska's wildlife resources.
Number 1370
MEL KROGSENG, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Robin
Taylor, Alaska State Legislature, explained Senator Taylor could
not be here this afternoon due to a scheduling conflict. She read
the following statement into the record:
"Senate Concurrent Resolution 2 is a simple resolution that sends
a message to the Administration that this legislature believes that
fish and wildlife resources should be managed for abundance.
"The state of Alaska will go a long way towards solving the
subsistence dilemma which we have just been talking about, if the
department implements a policy of managing for abundance - managing
wildlife rather than trying to manage people.
"A shortage of wildlife will not be solved by determining who may
have a preference regarding harvest. Our state constitution is
very explicit on this issue. Article VIII, Section 3 states
'Wherever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife and
waters are reserved to the people for common use'. I am sure over
the last several weeks, months and years, you have heard that
statement a lot.
"Our constitution also mandates that fish and game resources be
managed on the principle of sustained yield. The current
Administration has failed to implement an intensive management
program that will ensure an abundance of wildlife. Attempting to
manage complex wildlife populations by only addressing human use
will not work. Alaskans currently harvest less than 3 percent of
the harvestable surplus, an amount so small that it is
statistically insignificant.
"An abundance of fish and wildlife for all Alaskans is the only
practical solution to the subsistence impasse. Present policies
only perpetuate shortages. An abundance of wildlife is what the
people of Alaska need, want and demand. Plentiful populations are
good for consumptive users, wildlife viewers, photographers,
tourists and any other users.
"Senate Concurrent Resolution 2 calls on the Administration to do
everything possible to implement management based on abundance."
MS. KROGSENG stated she would be available to answer any questions
of the committee members.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Ms. Krogseng whether the resolution is
talking about both fish and wildlife.
MS. KROGSENG replied, "Yes."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Ms. Krogseng whether this issue had been
taken care of three or four years ago by Senator Bert Sharp.
Number 1518
MS. KROGSENG replied she does not recall. She has been gone for
the last three and a half years.
MS. KROGSENG shared with the committee members a statement prepared
by a retired fish and game biologist, Bud Burris (ph). He said the
moose populations were estimated to be ten times higher in the
1960s and early 1970s than current populations. In addition, moose
populations in Game Management Units 12, 19C, 19D, 20C, 20D, 20E,
20F, 21, 24, 25, and 26 have been severely reduced to the extent
that the welfare of local residents and the economic health of the
region has been impacted. The Steese-forty-mile caribou heard, was
over 60,000 at statehood and provided a sustained harvest of
thousands each year. It presently numbers about 22,000 and has a
maximum subsistence harvest quota of 150 caribou a year. There are
other examples that could be cited, but the Department of Fish and
Game has concentrated on trying to manage people than actually
managing the animals and fish.
Number 1666
ROD ARNO, President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), stated the AOC
supports the resolution. Managing wildlife resources on a
biological basis for abundance in accordance with the sustained
yield principle is in the best interest of most Alaskans. We
believe that our state constitution mandates managing for
abundance. Biological sustained development of natural resources
should be a priority for all lawmakers all over the world. And, as
we go through the subsistence debate and try to come to a solution,
we see that the largest problem is when there is not enough
resources to meet the needs - an issue that the AOC has been
involved in since the passage of SB 77. Had we been able to manage
the prized species for abundance, we may have relieved a lot of
those concerns in the areas that are road accessible - the areas of
the most conflict. And, by working towards that now both urban,
rural, Native and non-Native can look at it and see the advantages
of coming together.
Number 1782
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Arno whether the difference of what
the state is doing and managing for abundance is minimizing the
impact of natural predators on game.
Number 1799
MR. ARNO replied predator reduction is one thing that managers can
use in terms of environmental restrains that would cause a smaller
population of game.
Number 1918
ANGIE MORGAN testified via teleconference in Aniak. We are having
our moose hunting season right now. She kind of agreed with the
resolution in terms of managing people versus managing moose
populations. Her 80-year-old father-in-law said the moose started
coming back to this area in the 1940s and 1950s. In Units 19C and
19D the moose population is really low so that local people are
getting worried about Units 19A and 19B. Last year, there was over
1,300 moose, but there were only 89 successful local people in
getting a moose. All the rest were from out of town or the state.
Number 2020
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Ms. Morgan whether there is a problem with
wolf predation.
Number 2028
MS. MORGAN replied there are a lot of wolves in the area. People
have been seeing more this year than previous years. The wolves
are showing themselves more in the rivers than ever before.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Ms. Morgan whether there were locals that
went same-day-airborne hunting before it was outlawed last year.
MS. MORGAN replied she does not know.
Number 2095
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked Ms. Morgan what were the Unit numbers
she mentioned again.
MS. MORGAN replied Units 19A, 19B, 19C and 19D.
Number 2138
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Ms. Morgan whether she or her father-in-law
were aware of an increase in wolf trapping in the 1950s and 1960s
that would have helped increase the moose population.
MS. MORGAN replied she does not know.
Number 2366
WILLIAM MILLER testified via teleconference in Tok. He is from the
Native village of Dot Lake. In reference to the management of game
as opposed to hunting, both have to work together. In reference to
predator control, every time we have tried in Unit 20D to solve
predator control we run across opposition from the conservationist
that love wolves. They say that all the wolves eat are the sick
and lazy, but we have documented moose kills by wolves of bulls,
calves and cows. A few years ago over a 45 day period kills were
documented every three to four days.
TAPE 98-9, SIDE A
Number 0000
MR. MILLER continued. When you do talk to organizations in the
state the AITC represents the interests of a lot tribes in the
state. It would be a very good contact.
Number 0043
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Miller who documented the wolf kills.
MR. MILLER replied the residents of the Native village of Dot Lake.
At the time, there were approximately 14 to 18 wolves called the
Billy Creek pack. The pack migrated back-and-forth between Billy
Creek and Sand Lake in Unit 20D. The wolves increased to where
they drove the moose down so low that they finally left the area
and started preying on a caribou herd. We now have the same pack
at the head waters of the Robertson River. Something has to be
done with the wolves.
Number 0125
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated wildlife is managed by initiative in this
state which is how the same-day-airborne law came into effect.
Number 0163
DON SHERWOOD, Legislative Officer, Alaska Boating Association
(ABA), testified via teleconference in Anchorage. The ABA, a group
of over 1,000 hunters and fishers, stands behind and supports the
resolution. As elected representatives, you have sworn to uphold
our constitution, it behooves you to take this resolution and pass
it on to the Senate for final passage. Our constitution states
that wildlife and fish resources should be managed on a sustained
yield basis. Shortages do currently exist and continue to abate
in some areas. Wildlife resources must be sustained on a
biological basis for abundance. The Board of Game, the Board of
Fisheries and the Department of Fish and Game must restore the
abundance of the resources with every means available to accomplish
this goal. We believe that this resolution can and will give these
agencies the power they need. He thanked Senator Taylor for his
foresight and for the much needed legislation.
Number 0296
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced it was time to take action on the
resolution.
Number 0308
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON made a motion to move CSSCR 2(RES), version 0-
LS0369\E, from the committee with individual recommendations and
the attached zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSSCR
2(RES) moved from the House Resources Standing Committee.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced next Thursday, February 19, 1998, the
House Resources Standing Committee will hear HB 28 and HB 285.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0365
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 2:43 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|