Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/15/1999 01:35 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 15, 1999
1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chair
Representative Jerry Sanders, Co-Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Reggie Joule
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 114
"An Act repealing the prohibition against the taking of antlerless
moose."
- MOVED HB 114 OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 25
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to a petition for an initiative or referendum regarding
fish or wildlife.
- MOVED HJR 25 OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 114
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL PROHIBITION ANTLERLESS MOOSE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) MASEK
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/24/99 301 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/24/99 301 (H) RESOURCES
3/15/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HJR 25
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: FISH & WILDLIFE INITIATIVES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) OGAN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/08/99 389 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/08/99 390 (H) RES, JUD, FINANCE
3/15/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
EDDIE GRASSER, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Beverly Masek
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 432
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3306
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained HB 114 on behalf of sponsor.
WAYNE REGELIN, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-4190
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 114.
DAVID KELLEYHOUSE
Alaska Outdoor Council
P.O. Box 81452
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 114; testified
in support of concepts in HJR 25 but
recommended alternative.
HOLLY CARROLL
Alaska Conservation Voice
1985 Coppet Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 114 on own behalf, requesting
study of long-term effects before repealing
statute; expressed concerns about HJR 25 on
behalf of Alaska Conservation Voice.
LORALI MEIER, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Representative Scott Ogan
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 128
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3715
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 25 on behalf of sponsor.
ROSS COEN, Volunteer
Alaska Conservation Voice
P.O. Box 82718
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 479-6946
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 25; expressed concerns.
JAY STANGE
1026 West 4th Avenue, Suite 210
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 278-2542
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 25; expressed concerns.
MICHELE KECK
524 East 12th
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 277-1646
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 25; expressed concerns.
STEPHEN WHITE, Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Had no comments on HJR 25 on behalf of
department but offered suggestion.
MICHELLE WILSON
Alaska Conservation Voice
809 West 20th
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 279-0777
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 25; expressed concerns.
AARON BRAKEL, Volunteer
Alaska Conservation Voice
420 East Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1504
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 25; expressed concerns.
SOREN WUERTH
1026 West 4th Avenue, Suite 210
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 278-2542
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 25; expressed concerns.
JULIE KOHLER
P.O. Box 21106
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 586-6070
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 25; expressed concerns.
BRAD VAN APPEL
Alaska Conservation Voice
P.O. Box 2276
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-1243
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 25; expressed concerns.
KATY COELHO
Alaska Conservation Voice
7322 Huntsmen Circle, D
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
Telephone: (907) 274-3689
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 25; expressed concerns.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-14, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR SCOTT OGAN called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Ogan, Sanders, Masek, Harris and Whitaker.
Representatives Morgan, Kapsner and Barnes arrived at 1:38 p.m.,
1:39 p.m. and 1:44 p.m., respectively.
HB 114 - REPEAL PROHIBITION ANTLERLESS MOOSE
Number 0080
CO-CHAIR OGAN announced the first order of business would be House
Bill No. 114, "An Act repealing the prohibition against the taking
of antlerless moose."
Number 0120
EDDIE GRASSER, Legislative Assistant to Representative Beverly
Masek, Alaska State Legislature, came forward at the sponsor's
request. He explained that HB 114 would repeal the statute
relating to antlerless moose hunts. In effect since 1975, with
rare exceptions the statute is nonfunctional; there have only been
a few instances in which advisory committees stopped an antlerless
moose hunt that had been presented to the Board of Game.
MR. GRASSER described the current process. The Alaska Department
of Fish and Game (ADF&G) goes to areas where it is proposing
antlerless hunts, or where there are ongoing antlerless hunts;
rounds up the advisory committees for a vote; then brings that
before the Board of Game, which determines whether it will allow
the hunt to continue. This bill would repeal that process,
returning regulation of antlerless hunts to the same format as for
all other proposed regulations that come before the board: the
advisory committee would be just that, advisory, on each and every
regulation. Noting that he had served on the Board of Game for a
few years, Mr. Grasser expressed belief that HB 114 will save a
lot of time, because the board rubber-stamps these hunts yearly; it
will also save the state some money.
Number 0299
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether approval of the advisory committees now
must be unanimous.
MR. GRASSER said it must be a majority of the advisory committees
in the affected area.
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether, to Mr. Grasser's knowledge, a request
by the board to get a majority of the advisory committees has ever
been denied.
MR. GRASSER said yes, there have been a couple of antlerless hunts
where they did not get a full majority of the advisory committees,
but those have been rare occasions.
Number 0374
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether Mr. Grasser recalls what the problem
was with those particular hunts.
MR. GRASSER responded that part of the problem is that many
Alaskans, for personal rather than biological reasons, oppose
antlerless moose hunts. In addition, many "old-timers" believe
these hunts are a bad idea. It took a huge educational process by
the ADF&G to initiate them in the first place.
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked why Mr. Grasser believes antlerless moose hunts
are a good idea.
MR. GRASSER suggested the ADF&G could answer better, because he is
not a biologist, then stated, "In any population of wildlife, and
what they've found in deer populations is that once you reach a
certain population level, there's always going to be a few extra
animals around. And the older cows, especially - unfortunately,
probably most people can't identify those - but if you take so many
cows out of that population, you can maintain a stable population,
because the younger moose will have a chance at browse. And the
whole goal is to maintain a certain ratio of bulls-to-cows in a
population. Sometimes the bull-cow ratio gets out of kilter and
you have too many cows for bulls. ... Again, I think the department
can answer this better than I, but if you have too many
cows-per-bulls, not all the cows are going to have calves the next
spring."
Number 0571
WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, told members the ADF&G supports HB
114, which would repeal the statute requiring annual approval of
the local advisory committees before cow moose hunts can be
authorized by the Board of Game. This law, enacted in 1975 to
prevent overharvest of cow moose, followed some rather big cow
moose hunts and subsequent severe winters; populations in areas had
dropped, causing many people to adamantly oppose cow moose hunts,
and some of that attitude continues today.
MR. REGELIN said the ADF&G has had over 20 years' experience with
practical management and research since then; they have a much
better understanding of moose biology and how to manage the
populations, with real advances in the ability to inventory and
census the moose populations. There is little chance of
overharvest now, and advisory committee approval before taking cow
moose is no longer necessary for sound management. Rather than
annually reauthorizing these hunts throughout the state, it would
be much more efficient to make changes to a cow moose hunt if the
situation warrants. "And we would certainly bring that to the
attention of the board, if need be, and the local advisory
committee," Mr. Regelin stated. "We'd work with them closely, but
they could also bring this to the board, and we could make changes
that are necessary." He said it would certainly remove a burden
from the ADF&G, the Board of Game and the advisory committees of
having to go through this year after year.
MR. REGELIN pointed out that the board is on a two-year cycle,
moving from Southeast to Southcentral, to the Interior, and then to
Northwest Alaska; although the ADF&G is not considering regulations
throughout the state, they still must reauthorize all the cow moose
hunts. He said HB 114 would also prevent occurrences where
advisory committees, for one reason or another, are unable to meet
and therefore cannot take action; in those situations, the Board of
Game is unable to allow a cow moose hunt that year. He concluded
that HB 114 is a step forward in management of Alaska's moose
populations. The ADF&G estimates it would save about $9,000 and a
lot of time on the board that could be put into other efforts.
Number 0861
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked about the reference in committee packets to
Bobby v. Alaska.
MR. REGELIN said he hadn't seen that.
Number 0926
DAVID KELLEYHOUSE, Alaska Outdoor Council, came forward to testify,
noting that he had previously served as director of the Division of
Wildlife Conservation for four years and as a field biologist for
sixteen years. He agreed that the statute was unnecessary in the
first place, a misreading of severe winters of the early 1970s that
caused dramatic declines in moose populations statewide; many
people erroneously believed that it was the result of hunting cow
moose. In his area, the Forty Mile area, only 150 cow moose have
been taken, yet the population has declined from about 10,000 to
about 2,500 animals. He said although that wasn't a
cause-and-effect relationship, the state has labored under AS
16.05.780 ever since.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE said at one time he figured AS 16.05.780 probably
cost the departments about $50,000 per year, which could be better
applied to active wildlife management programs and some real
problems. While he was director, the Galena and Middle Yukon
advisory committees had failed to meet in order to vote on whether
to continue a cow moose hunt; it had taken a great deal of
telephoning of Board of Game members to get that hunt restored.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE pointed out that in Alaska one can hunt female
black bears, brown bears, mountain goats, sheep and caribou,
without this kind of requirement of public involvement. He said
moose are physiologically more productive than any of those,
capable of having twin calves every year. Consequently, he
believes this statute was never needed in the first place, and it
certainly isn't needed now that the state is facing some fiscal
problems.
Number 1168
HOLLY CARROLL came forward, specifying that she lives in Fairbanks;
a zoologist and animal ecologist, she was testifying on her own
behalf as a resident of the Interior. Ms. Carroll agreed that it
is hard to tell the difference between an old female moose and a
young one. When antlerless moose walk through her neighborhood,
she sometimes can't tell whether they are yearlings, males or
females. If shooting of antlerless moose is opened up, hunters
could kill either females or two-year-old moose, for example, but
any long-term damage from killing perhaps 150 to 200 more females
per year may not be clear for a few years. If population effects
do happen, a study will likely be necessary; Ms. Carroll requested
that such a study be completed before repealing the statute, to
determine how many females or two-year-old calves we can afford to
lose. She pointed out that not every female moose has twins, and
the survival rate isn't superb. She closed by again requesting
that the legislature investigate before repealing this statute,
which was put there for a reason.
Number 1284
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether Mr. Regelin wanted to comment,
suggesting that the ADF&G wouldn't have made a recommendation
unless it had scientific data to support it. He said he is
comfortable personally with the job the ADF&G does managing moose.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES agreed that before a season is opened up,
there is biological data available in the ADF&G for the board to
base its decisions upon.
Number 1361
MS. CARROLL expressed concern that although there may be biological
data for one year, she hasn't seen five-year or six-year
projections that say the population could sustain that kind of
hunting every season; she would like to see something like that.
She noted that her father is a hunter and she is for hunting. Ms.
Carroll added that she also wants to ensure that road kills are
being considered.
MR. REGELIN responded that the ADF&G doesn't make five-year or
six-year projections about the harvest. They collect data annually
or biannually on moose populations, and they do surveys each year,
or every other year, depending on the status of the population.
They therefore have current data that they review, and if changes
are necessary, they take those to the Board of Game. Those data
are also made available to advisory committees, if they want to
take proposals to the Board of Game. The regulations are reviewed
on a two-year cycle throughout the state.
Number 1490
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked Mr. Regelin, "You're confident that
your science is valid to withstand the question raised by the young
woman?"
MR. REGELIN replied, "Absolutely."
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether there were other testifiers; none came
forward.
Number 1513
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move HB 114 from the
committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal
note; she asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, HB
114 moved from the House Resources Standing Committee.
CO-CHAIR OGAN called an at-ease at 1:55 p.m. He called the meeting
back to order at 1:56 p.m.
HJR 25 - CONST. AM: FISH & WILDLIFE INITIATIVES
Number 1541
CO-CHAIR OGAN announced the next item would be House Joint
Resolution No. 25, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of
the State of Alaska relating to a petition for an initiative or
referendum regarding fish or wildlife. As sponsor, he called on
Lorali Meier to present the resolution.
Number 1573
LORALI MEIER, Legislative Administrative Assistant to
Representative Scott Ogan, Alaska State Legislature, came forward.
She advised members that HJR 25 modifies the initiative process by
requiring at least 10 percent of the voters in each house district
to vote on ballot measures relating to fish or wildlife. Current
law requires at least one signature from two-thirds of the election
districts, and total signatures equal to 10 percent of the total
number of votes cast in the previous election; that is for any
subject of initiative, not just those pertaining to fish or
wildlife.
MS. MEIER pointed out that committee packets contain information on
the types of initiatives allowed in various states, as well as
restrictions on their use. In addition, there are listings of
signature requirements for both statutory and constitutional
initiatives. She explained that the purpose of HJR 25 is to
strengthen the legislature's constitutional authority to manage
fish or wildlife; she believes the sponsor's intent is to move it
forward to the House Judiciary Standing Committee, where they can
determine the legal aspects of the various resolutions dealing with
the initiative process currently before the legislature.
Number 1660
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked whether the sponsor intends to have
HJR 25 stand alone or somehow relate to the other two resolutions.
CO-CHAIR OGAN suggested it would be up to the House Judiciary
Standing Committee to act on the various versions. However, he
believes HJR 25 is the most efficient way to do it. He stated, "I
just am trying to back our constitutional rights as a legislature
to be the oversight authority to manage fish and game, and I feel
that wildlife management by referendum is poor public policy."
MS. MEIER added, "And it's not that this resolution, in the form of
a constitutional amendment, would limit the public process, because
the legislature can delegate that authority to a board, which has
public members."
CO-CHAIR OGAN took note of the large number of participants in the
audience, many from out of town; he further noted that nobody had
requested that the meeting be teleconferenced.
Number 1806
ROSS COEN, Volunteer, Alaska Conservation Voice, came forward,
specifying that he is from Fairbanks. He said he has serious
concerns regarding HJR 25. The initiative process is one of the
common citizen's most effective tools - if not the most effective
- at managing the laws that govern the people, as well as the fish
and wildlife resources. He stated, "Speaking as one who has a
great deal of experience in the initiative process, I can tell you
it is a long and laborious process to obtain the signatures and to
get an initiative on the ballot. It is not an easy process, not
one, certainly, that we take very lightly."
MR. COEN expressed concern that HJR 25 would not merely raise the
bar a few feet but would eliminate the public from this process.
Obtaining 10 percent of the signatures from each district would be
prohibitively expensive, making an effort of this magnitude very
difficult. He does not want this initiative process to become the
tool of special interest groups, or of groups from outside of
Alaska. However, initiative campaigns are very expense as is, and
raising the bar to this magnitude would, he believes, benefit only
special interest groups that have the money to afford getting an
initiative on the ballot. He concluded, "I know how important a
process this is to the common citizen; I am one, and I don't feel
that this is in the best interests of the citizens." In response
to a question, he said his signature gathering has been entirely as
a volunteer.
Number 1997
JAY STANGE came forward on his own behalf, noting that he has lived
for many years in Anchorage, although he was born in Whitehorse and
grew up in Juneau. In recent years, he has worked as both a
volunteer and a paid consultant on a number of citizen ballot
initiatives. He agreed that the initiative process is long and
laborious, and he pointed out that few initiatives have passed over
the course of history in the state.
MR. STANGE told members it appears there is an intent in HJR 25 to
provide a check for rural residents, who may be perceived as unable
to exercise their rights because of their being away from the main
urban areas of Alaska. Most of the signatures he has witnessed as
part of the process have been gathered in Juneau, Fairbanks and
Anchorage. However, throughout the year many rural Alaskans travel
through those cities, and they therefore have an opportunity to
participate in this process. Mr. Stange suggested that HJR 25
would make it more difficult for urban residents to push forward
citizen legislation, and it would make it a little more difficult
for a sponsor of an initiative who is from a rural community, as
well. If the goal is to provide a check on new citizen legislation
for rural Alaska, other options may more fully meet that intent.
Number 2183
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER commented that as a rural resident who must
go to urban centers for supplies, she has only been approached for
a signature on two ballot initiatives, both of which she
characterized as "anti-rural". She isn't sure they would have
obtained all the needed signatures if they had solicited for 10
percent of the signatures in her neighborhood. She said she was a
little skeptical of Mr. Stange's testimony.
MR. STANGE replied that from his experience, he believes it is
feasible for 10 percent of the signatures to be gathered in
Anchorage; he wants that right to continue for both urban and rural
Alaskans. He is strongly opposed to anti-rural measures, but
changing Alaska's constitution changes the playing field for
everybody, which he doesn't want to see happen. In response to a
question by Representative Harris, he said with regard to what he
perceives as part of the intent - to provide a check for rural
Alaska in statewide initiatives - he believes that already exists.
Number 2284
CO-CHAIR OGAN read from Alaska's constitution, Article VIII,
Section 2, which states, "The legislature shall provide for the
utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources
belonging to the State, including land and waters, for the maximum
benefit of the people." He suggested that most of the wildlife
initiatives have been anti-rural, affecting rural Alaskans
directly. He also indicated that many people had believed that the
same-day airborne hunting initiative was about shooting wolves from
airplanes.
MR. STANGE suggested that is a danger with any citizen initiative.
The requirement of 24,000 certified signatures results in a lot of
people out making contact. He agreed that there have been problems
with the accuracy of information for some initiatives, and he would
support anything they can do to ensure that good information is
presented to people who are offered a chance to sign these
initiatives. If HJR 25 could speak to something like that, that
would be great. However, he believes it speaks to limiting citizen
participation statewide, which is a little disrespectful of the
intent of the original constitutional convention.
Number 2435
MICHELE KECK came forward on her own behalf. From Anchorage, she
told members that she coordinated the signature gathering for the
recent billboard initiative and has a lot of experience
coordinating volunteer and professional signature campaigns. Ms.
Keck expressed concern that HJR 25 attacks the entire public
process; she feels that a lot of different bills are limiting
Alaskans' rights to do initiatives. She stated, "I feel like it's
pretty much an insult to the Alaska public to say they don't have
the ability to make good decisions on fish and wildlife issues.
And I know there's a lot of concern about 'ballot box biology,' but
... the public's not stupid, and I don't feel like the public is an
emotional reactionary." Ms. Keck pointed out that in spite of the
many graphic commercials on the wolf snare initiative, the public
made a good decision and the initiative failed. She emphasized
that there is a good public process and that people can identify
bad initiatives.
MS. KECK cautioned that raising the signature requirements will put
initiatives in the hands of outside groups even more, because of
the added expense, leaving the process open only to "the animal
rights groups that we don't want to have here in Alaska." In
addition, changing the requirement on wildlife initiatives sets a
bad precedent. She clarified that she is more concerned about
keeping the public process open than about the fish and wildlife
issue itself. She noted that there is another check and balance
because the legislature can change the law after two years if an
initiative wasn't positive for Alaska. In her view, the initiative
process is working; in the spirit of democracy and public
involvement, she does not want to change it.
Number 2558
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked what can be done about misinformation in the
initiative process.
MS. KECK in turn asked how that is answered for candidate
campaigns. She pointed out that the signature gathering process is
just to get an issue on the ballot, so that people can debate it
and vote on it; in gathering signatures, they don't debate the
issue with each person. It is up to individuals to research and
make sure they know what they are voting on, which applies across
the board, to all issues and candidates.
Number 2647
CO-CHAIR SANDERS asked for an example of "wildlife groups that we
don't want here in Alaska."
MS. KECK said she feels that Alaskans aren't supportive of animal
rights groups coming in and running campaigns here, as shown by the
wolf snare initiative; she indicated she personally feels that way,
as well. However, the airborne wolf hunting initiative was more of
an in-state effort.
CO-CHAIR SANDERS asked whether Ms. Keck had specific groups in
mind.
MS. KECK restated that the general sense in Alaska is that many
people don't support outside groups running initiatives in Alaska.
She believes that raising the signature requirement also raises the
expense, making it necessary to go to those outside groups to
obtain enough money to do in-state initiatives.
Number 2706
CO-CHAIR OGAN noted that it is possible to get 99 percent of the
required signatures from one house district in Anchorage. He
referred to wolves and declines in moose or caribou at McGrath, at
Forty Mile and in Unit 13. He asked if Ms. Keck believes the
current system is fair to people whose lives are directly affected.
MS. KECK replied that it is already so hard to put an initiative on
the ballot; the 10 percent is really high, which is why there have
only been 29 initiatives on the ballot in the history of Alaska.
She restated that the debate doesn't happen until the campaign.
She expressed concern that rural Alaska will be hurt because of the
difficulty of getting 10 percent of the signatures from each
district. Even now, there are very limited places to gather
signatures; before, the most common places were post offices, but
nationally there is now a policy prohibiting that, leaving the
malls and large department stores. However, those private owners
are also refusing to have petitioners in front of their stores.
Even in Anchorage, there are no public places to gather signatures.
Number 2817
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES suggested that if signature gatherers were
serious, they would go door-to-door, as campaigners must.
MS. KECK said she would love to go door-to-door and talk about the
issue and gather signatures, but so many signatures are required
that it would take too long, and it is statewide. If the
requirement were lower than 10 percent, she would be much more
supportive of having a broader base and more individual contact.
Number 2889
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER said as one of the few rural members of the
committee, and as a real "Bush person," she feels that the 10
percent requirement would get more participation statewide, at
least from her community, as people at the top of the initiative
process might call and let rural residents know what is going on.
She said in a rural community, people don't advocate for something
unless they really believe in it. Perhaps rural residents could
become more involved, and the networking for the state initiative
process would become a little bit better." She asked how Ms. Keck
feels about that.
MS. KECK replied that she is definitely interested in figuring out
how to make the rural areas more involved. However, equally she
believes that it would hurt the rural areas to make the requirement
harder. She invited anyone to come out and gather signatures, as
it is difficult to explain; people don't want to stop or talk about
the issue, and they really don't debate the issue at that point.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER stated, "I don't think we've ever had an
initiative."
MS. KECK asked: Why take away that opportunity?
TAPE 99-14, SIDE B
Number 2966 [Numbers on Side B run backwards because of machine]
MS. KECK noted that she has done a lot of door-to-door campaigns,
as well.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK pointed out that she is also a "Bush person,"
having been born and raised in a small village of 80 people that
she still visits. Although she lives on the outskirts of a more
populous area, she lives in a Bush-type area, with 40 sled dogs and
five neighbors. In addition, Representative Morgan is from the
Bush.
Number 2891
STEPHEN WHITE, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, advised
members that the department had no comments on HJR 25. He pointed
out, however, that it is always helpful, when legislation separates
one type of activity from another, that the reason be stated on the
record. The sponsor had mentioned that the constitution gives the
legislature the ability to manage wildlife; if there are further
reasons why the state should do this for fish and game initiatives
only, Mr. White encouraged putting that on the record, as well, to
better the chances of defending a legal challenge in court.
Number 2833
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated her belief that based on Article VIII
of the constitution, only the legislature has the power to manage
Alaska's fish and wildlife, some of which power the legislature
delegates to the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game. She
further said that even though the initiative process is also
allowed, only until there was one court case did anyone believe
there was a right to manage the public resource through the
initiative process.
Number 2765
MICHELLE WILSON, Alaska Conservation Voice, came forward. From
Anchorage, she is a volunteer and a professional signature gather,
and she does a variety of other jobs. Ms. Wilson said she loves
engaging with Alaskans about these issues, noting that she goes
door-to-door. She believes the initiative process is being
attacked by the legislature, which she takes as a personal attack.
She emphasized the need to continue to engage public discussion,
especially when most Alaskans can't afford to come to Juneau to
speak with legislators one-on-one. Ms. Wilson said the initiative
process allows that dialogue. She emphasized that if an initiative
requires each district to get 10 percent of the voters' signatures
under HJR 25, it would be only fair to have a similar requirement
when the legislature puts any initiative on the ballot, so that 10
percent of the residents of each district must pass that
constitutional amendment.
CO-CHAIR OGAN pointed out that each district is already represented
in the legislature.
Number 2582
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked what Ms. Wilson meant when she said she
is a professional signature gatherer for initiatives.
MS. WILSON replied that she works with groups and organizations
that fund initiative projects. She stated, "To some degree, we pay
certain activists to do it, and to some degree, we get volunteers."
In response to a question about who pays her, Ms. Wilson said it
depends; they receive resources from lots of different people,
varying from initiative to initiative. She does a variety of jobs,
works with nonprofit organizations, and works on a consultant
basis. She does grassroots organizing.
Number 2540
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES pointed out that Alaska is one of the few
states that has a statewide teleconferencing ability, which allows
legislators one-on-one relationships with their constituents. She
also pointed out that it requires a two-thirds' vote by the
legislature to put an issue on the ballot, which is extremely
difficult to get.
MS. WILSON replied that it is also extremely difficult for people
to get an initiative on the ballot. She then asked where the
voice is from the rural communities at that meeting, further asking
what attempt had been made to get people in rural Alaska on a
teleconference call. She indicated people want to know when these
hearings are being held.
CO-CHAIR OGAN pointed out that two or three committee members who
represent rural Alaska were at the meeting. He then explained that
five days' notice is required for hearings on legislation, and
notices must be provided by Thursday afternoon for hearings the
following week. Therefore, people can call the nearest legislative
information office (LIO) on Friday morning to determine which bills
will be heard, and the LIO can provide that information verbally or
by fax.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES commented that in places like Talkeetna and
Willow, residents consider themselves rural.
Number 2370
AARON BRAKEL, Volunteer, Alaska Conservation Voice, came forward.
A Juneau resident, Mr. Brakel said he finds himself in a fairly
conservative position regarding Alaska's constitution. He asked
where the source of the legislature's power is that is set out in
Article VIII, Section 2, then pointed out that Article I, Section
2, says, "All political power is inherent in the people. All
government originates with the people, is founded upon their will
only, and is instituted solely for the good of the people as a
whole." Mr. Brakel expressed concern about messing with the
balance of power in the constitution, noting the deliberate check
on the legislature's power - the initiative process - set forth in
it. He cautioned that HJR 25 will seriously diminish the ability
of ordinary people to get a petition on the ballot, and it may
abridge their freedom of speech rights, as only those with a lot of
money could afford to get initiatives on the ballot.
Number 2193
SOREN WUERTH came forward to testify on his own behalf. He told
members he has collected thousands of signatures from Alaskans who
live all across the state; much of that was done in Anchorage and
Fairbanks, although he has traveled elsewhere. For example, he has
obtained signatures at the Alaska Federation of Natives convention,
or at the Anchorage airport. Mr. Wuerth said he believes some of
the points raised are excellent. In the initiative process, people
have a long time to think about these issues. People at the
original constitutional convention probably had a lot of the same
debate, and the result was Alaska's constitution. Trying to change
this legislatively, by changing the constitution, undermines the
public process. In America, everyone has a right to an opinion; if
people don't like an initiative, they can choose not to sign it or
vote for it. He believes the initiative process is good the way it
is, and it should be kept that way.
CO-CHAIR OGAN commented that he had read the minutes of the
constitutional convention on this issue, and there was a lot of
discussion about the need for the initiative process and the
required percentages. However, Alaska is different now, with
better transportation and communications. Although the original
process was good at the time, times have changed.
MR. WUERTH said that works both ways; the transportation system can
bring people to Anchorage, where they will be able to participate
in the initiative process. He agreed with previous testimony that
this will give special interest groups more power, as they will be
the only ones with enough money to go to all the districts to
obtain signatures.
CO-CHAIR OGAN called upon Dave Lacey from Fairbanks, but there was
no response.
Number 1878
DAVID KELLEYHOUSE, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), came forward,
pointing out that the AOC is a coalition of 45 outdoor
organizations with 12,000 affiliate members and 1,600 sustaining
members. He told members that after a summer of high emotions and
disagreements among different outdoor user groups, the one thing
that united them was the last ballot initiative, which they saw as
a threat. The framers of Alaska's constitution had no way of
foreseeing a movement where animals had rights, or that powerful
outside groups would come to Alaska to try to diminish the
opportunity for all Alaskans to use resources. Article VIII stands
alone as bestowing upon the legislature the public trust
responsibility for managing. He said the AOC applauds the efforts
of the sponsors of all the joint resolutions they have seen thus
far to address this problem. He stated, "We've spent over a
quarter of a million dollars, and a good portion of the year,
trying to just maintain what we had in the way of outdoor use
opportunities."
MR. KELLEYHOUSE distributed a handout, telling members the AOC
recommends a more straightforward amendment to the constitution, to
add language to the end of Article XI [Initiative, Referendum, and
Recall], Section 7 [Restrictions]. The first sentence of Section
7 now reads: "The initiative shall not be used to dedicate
revenues, make or repeal appropriations, create courts, define the
jurisdiction of courts or prescribe their rules, or enact local or
special legislation." Mr. Kelleyhouse's proposed written amendment
would add the language, "or to enact legislation affecting the uses
or management of fish and wildlife resources. He suggested it gets
to the heart of the matter and eliminates many problems discussed
in testimony that day.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE expressed his understanding that the state of
Colorado had enacted changes on its initiative process, but the
U.S. Supreme Court had ruled within the last few weeks that those
kinds of obstacles are unconstitutional under the federal
constitution. However, Article VIII of Alaska's constitution gives
authority to the legislature to manage fish and wildlife, which the
legislature may delegate to the Board of Fisheries and the Board of
Game; he believes there is ample opportunity for people to have
input, not only at the legislative level but also through the
boards and 80 local advisory committees. He concluded, "We support
efforts to fix this problem, but ... even the Native organizations
and I would kind of prefer to have it go straight to the heart of
the issue."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES agreed that Mr. Kelleyhouse's proposal would
work.
Number 1649
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked whether Mr. Kelleyhouse is in favor of
HJR 25 or not.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE answered that he is in favor of the concept of not
having fish and game uses and management susceptible to the ballot
initiative process; he would like that to be the prerogative of the
legislature, the Boards of Fisheries and Game, and the local fish
and game advisory committees; however, he recommends a more direct
approach.
Number 1582
JULIE KOHLER came forward on her own behalf, noting that she has a
degree in fish and wildlife management, and that she came to Alaska
because she loves to hunt and fish. She expressed dismay because
HJR 25 singles out fish and wildlife management issues; if the
problem is the initiative process, perhaps it should apply to all.
She pointed out that the legislature is elected by the public;
because of the overwhelming amount of work required, initiatives
seldom happen unless the legislature doesn't seem to be responding
to the public. She said she hadn't thought about it from a
rural-versus-urban perspective until that day; if the desire is to
have everyone be able to speak, perhaps they should reduce the 10
percent or take another approach that would make it fair for all
initiatives, in all areas. She concluded, "Remember when you
muzzle the public that someday, when you retire from the
legislature, your voice will be muzzled as much as mine, as far as
opportunities to have a different way of voicing my opinion."
Number 1436
HOLLY CARROLL, Alaska Conservation Voice, pointed out that if
someone from Bethel, for example, needs 30,000 signatures to
protect resources, it would require flying all over the state;
rural residents wouldn't have that kind of money. However, if they
could obtain 15,000 signatures in Anchorage and then perhaps go to
Fairbanks, it would be much easier. She asked that they don't
retain the 10 percent quota, which would make it harder not only
for rural areas but also for nonprofit organizations to get
initiatives on the ballot. Ms. Carroll also pointed out the
enormous time and cost of having to go door-to-door in every single
district. She emphasized that if a rural community doesn't have a
voice in the signature-gathering phase, those residents still get
a chance at the ballot box; nothing stops them from voting. She
concluded by agreeing that lies should be kept out of the
commercials, cautioning that it goes both ways.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER responded that if she were to do an
initiative, she wouldn't fly; rather, she would use the telephone
and fax to try to solicit someone's help.
MS. CARROLL said it still takes a lot of money to call 30,000
people.
Number 1242
BRAD VAN APPEL, Alaska Conservation Voice, came forward, telling
members that although he lives in Homer without running water or
reliable heat, he doesn't consider it living in the Bush, out of
respect for people who actually live in communities off the road
system. He said he hears this issue being represented as the power
of the legislature versus the rights of Alaskan people to take part
in the political process. He said, "I think it's a mistake on your
part to allow it to be represented that way, because the Alaskan
people are a strong and independent people who are going to be
included in the process, one way or another." He reiterated Ms.
Carroll's point about the cost of going door-to-door statewide,
asking how much money any organization of Alaskan citizens would
have to put together to try to put an initiative on the ballot. He
further asked what organization of Alaskan citizens has that money.
He stated, "We're clearly making this a real exclusive game that
can only be afforded by people from outside the state, and they
will come in with the money."
MR. VAN APPEL suggested a better solution would be requiring a
higher percentage of rural representation in the districts; rather
than saying 10 percent across the board, for example, it could be
written as "'x' percent of two-thirds of the districts and that a
certain number of those must be designated as rural districts."
While he is in favor of better rural representation, he believes
there are other ways to do that.
CO-CHAIR OGAN expressed his understanding that that would be
unconstitutional, adding, "We have to treat everybody pretty much
equally in those processes."
Number 1091
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said it doesn't cost much to go door-to-door.
She restated Representative Kapsner's point that if she were to
contact rural residents about initiatives, she would call someone
in that area to do it.
CO-CHAIR OGAN called upon Megan Brinson to testify, but there was
no response.
Number 1006
KATY COELHO, Alaska Conservation Voice (ACV), came forward, telling
members she was representing not only the ACV but also the hundreds
or perhaps thousands of people she had talked to during the
billboard campaign, which she had organized. One of the most
important things she continually heard during the campaign was
"thank you," not necessarily for the specific initiative but for
giving the public an opportunity to vote on this issue. She echoed
earlier testimony that the debate is not when they gather the
signatures, but during the campaign and at the ballot box. Ms.
Coelho said she doesn't understand the reason for suppressing the
public's opportunity, raising the bar or making it more difficult,
because the battle is not then but on election day. "We should
have the opportunity to make that decision," she concluded.
Number 0906
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move HJR 25 out of committee
with the attached fiscal note(s); she asked unanimous consent.
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether there was any objection; hearing none,
he announced that HJR 25 was moved from the committee by unanimous
consent.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER spoke up, "Not unanimous consent; I'm
sorry."
CO-CHAIR OGAN pointed out that she could sign the individual
recommendation as she chose; Representative Kapsner concurred.
Co-Chair Ogan then restated that HJR 25 was moved from the House
Resources Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0880
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|