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