03/07/2001 02:10 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 7, 2001
2:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Drew Scalzi, Co-Chair
Representative Hugh Fate, Vice Chair
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Joe Green
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 12
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to hunting, trapping, and fishing.
- MOVED CSHJR 12(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7(RES)
Supporting reinstatement of the United States Department of the
Interior directive exempting the United States Bureau of Land
Management in Alaska from the mandatory wilderness review
process.
- MOVED CSSJR 7(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 72(FIN)
"An Act relating to 'take-a-child-hunting' seasons for big
game."
- BILL HEARING RESCHEDULED TO 3/12/01
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 12
SHORT TITLE:CONST. AM: HUNTING, TRAPPING, FISHING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)DYSON
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/02/01 0224 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/02/01 0224 (H) RES, JUD, FIN
03/07/01 (H) RES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SJR 7
SHORT TITLE:REINSTATE WILDERNESS STUDY PROHIBITION
SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/24/01 0159 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/24/01 0159 (S) RES
02/12/01 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/12/01 (S) Moved CS(RES) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(RES)
02/13/01 0354 (S) RES RPT CS 4DP 2NR NEW TITLE
02/13/01 0355 (S) DP: TORGERSON, PEARCE,
TAYLOR, KELLY;
02/13/01 0355 (S) NR: LINCOLN, ELTON
02/13/01 0355 (S) FN1: ZERO(S.RES)
02/15/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
02/15/01 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/15/01 0386 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 1OR 2/15/01
02/15/01 0388 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/15/01 0388 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
02/15/01 0388 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
02/15/01 0388 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSJR
7(RES)
02/15/01 0389 (S) PASSED Y16 N3 E1
02/15/01 0389 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
02/16/01 0412 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD
READING
02/16/01 0413 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y14
N1 E5
02/16/01 0413 (S) CSSJR 7(RES) TRANSMITTED TO
(H)
02/19/01 0362 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/01 0362 (H) RES
03/07/01 (H) RES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 104
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as sponsor of HJR 12.
WAYNE REGELIN, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
PO Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 12.
STEPHEN WHITE, Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 12.
JESSE VANDERZANDEN, Executive Director
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
PO Box 73902
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707-3902
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HJR 12.
WAYNE WOODS
PO Box 3037
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 12.
JEAN WOODS
PO Box 827
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 12.
NOEL WOODS
PO Box 827
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 12.
ROD ARNO
(No address provided)
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 12.
CLIFF JUDKINS
(No address provided)
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 12.
KEN BARBER
(No address provided)
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 12.
DARWIN PETERSON, Staff
to Senator Torgerson
State Capital, Room 427
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke on behalf of the sponsor of SJR 7.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-18, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR DREW SCALZI called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 2:10 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Scalzi, Fate, McGuire,
Chenault, Stevens, and Kapsner. Representative Kerttula arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HJR 12-CONST. AM: HUNTING, TRAPPING, FISHING
CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 12, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to hunting,
trapping, and fishing.
Number 0135
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
the bill, clarified that the version before the House Resources
Standing Committee was the "C version" [the original version of
HJR 12, version 22-LS0250\C]. He specified that the only
changes [proposed to the constitution] are found on lines 10,
11, and 12. The resolution would put into the constitution the
"widespread assumption" that hunting, trapping, and fishing are
part of our heritage, making it clear that [that heritage] is a
priority for [Alaskans]. Representative Dyson stated that
changing a constitutional law is "one way that we, as a culture
and a people, come together to state our values." He surmised
that HJR 12 expresses the opinion of the vast majority of
Alaskans, and presenting it as a constitutional amendment would
keep it secure from the ever-changing popular opinions of the
future.
Number 0386
[There was a motion to adopt HJR 12 for discussion purposes, but
it was already before the committee.]
WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), testified on HJR 12.
Mr. Regelin stated that ADF&G recognizes the importance of
hunting, trapping, and fishing to Alaska's residents, and a
substantial amount of his time is spent ensuring that heritage
is preserved. Furthermore, ADF&G believes that it is a "big
deal" to change the constitution; it is not done easily or
frequently, "for good reason." Mr. Regelin said that the
current constitution has served ADF&G well, and its concerns
with the [proposed] constitutional amendment lie with "the
unknown." He cautioned about making the bill about the "right
to hunt," explaining that although that specific language is not
in the resolution, lawyers might be able to interpret the
resolution's use of the word "heritage" as giving people "some
new right." Furthermore, Mr. Regelin outlined a possible
scenario in which people might say, "It's my ... constitutional
right to hunt, you can't close the season," or, "It's my
constitutional right to fish, and I'm going to fish when I want
to, and sell [the fish]." If those examples were to happen, the
burden of proof would fall on the state, because it is a matter
of interpreting the state's constitution.
MR. REGELIN expressed concern that the resolution might
potentially impact subsistence hunting and Tier II hunts - both
of which he said are unique to Alaska - as well as the
commercial fishing industry. He suggested that Steve White
could address the issue from the standpoint of law. He
mentioned having recently spoken to Paul Lenzini, the attorney
for the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,
who has worked with "all of the other states that have passed
this recently." Paul recommended closely examining the bill,
putting it in context with other parts of the constitution, and
making sure that it is not in conflict with "our sustained yield
mandates."
MR. REGELIN indicated that ADF&G hasn't taken a position on the
resolution, because it wants to "make sure that we don't have
unintended consequences and do something that's going to hurt
us, rather than help us."
Number 0804
REPRESENTATIVE FATE stated that the resolution looked "clean."
He asked Mr. Regelin if he was prepared "to look into the future
and tell me what any of those unintended consequences might be."
Representative Fate said that the resolution preserves something
already in existence; therefore, he asked Mr. Regelin to explain
how he could consider its impact to be detrimental.
MR. REGELIN replied that before he talked to the Department of
Law and Paul Lenzini, he believed the resolution to be free of
problems. However, Mr. Lenzini had cautioned him to beware of
using the words "public good" in the constitution, because that
would conflict with the sustained yield mandate. Mr. Lenzini
also recommended that the phrase "by law" should be "by law and
regulation." Mr. Regelin noted that Mr. Lenzini is a reputable
lawyer, whose representation in "supreme court" has been sought
after by legislators. He mentioned an analysis by the attorney
general of Tennessee that outlines why Tennessee did not adopt
similar language into its constitution. Tennessee's attorney
general wrote that the language of the resolution gave the
antihunting groups "a forum to attack us." Mr. Regelin admitted
that he didn't know how that would manifest itself, but pointed
out that it was enough of a concern for Tennessee's attorney
general that he decided not to adopt that resolution. Mr.
Regelin stated his concern that "good lawyers can read anything
they want to into things."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE posed the following question:
If the unintended consequences for it were to abolish
hunting, trapping, and fishing, ... would that,
therefore, be under the aegis of your department?
Would you condone that, so that all you had to do is
just manage the game and not have to worry about any
of these other things?
MR. REGELIN answered that he hadn't thought that through. He
surmised that ADF&G could be challenged by someone's
"constitutional right to hunt" if ADF&G were to close a season.
Subsequently, ADF&G may experience repercussions in development
planning because it may impact people's hunting opportunities,
which may be perceived as their constitutional right. He said,
"I certainly don't ... know how you would manage wildlife in
Alaska without hunting as part of the tool. [It's] the basic,
fundamental part of wildlife management."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE indicated that there are just as many groups
that are antihunting - and that number is growing - as there are
hunting groups. He said concern for both groups must be shown.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI said that he thought Mr. Regelin had made it
apparent that he supports the concept of the resolution, but
wants to defer it to the legal experts to interpret.
MR. REGELIN concurred, adding that ADF&G has been able to meet
the challenges of the antihunters thus far.
Number 1239
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked Mr. Regelin if he thought that
Article VIII in the constitution provided "adequate protection
and guarantee for hunting, trapping, and fishing."
MR. REGELIN replied that he was not that familiar with that part
of the constitution, and was unable to recall the wording,
partly due to the fact that he was not feeling well.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER suggested that Steve White could be asked
the same question.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Regelin:
If our constitution put hunting rights above sustained
yield rights - which [would be] essentially what, I
think, an [unintended] consequence of [the] bill would
do - what would the logical problem be with
management, then? Wouldn't you have to put the
hunting rights above all others, and couldn't you then
run into a problem with sustained yield?
MR. REGELIN answered that he thinks "that's a possibility that
that may be the way that you could get challenged by people that
just want to stop things."
Number 1303
STEPHEN WHITE, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, testified
on HJR 12. He said he was not present to testify against the
[resolution], because the purpose and concept of it is
"laudable." Currently, seven states have [a] "constitutional
right-to-hunt provision." He mentioned that recently, several
states have had similar propositions before them, which has
spurred a lot of discussion between attorneys general
nationwide. Mr. White said he belongs to a network of attorneys
general who discuss current legislative issues. He began a
collection of comments a few months ago, anticipating the
proposal of a constitutional right to hunt in Alaska.
MR. WHITE stated that the proposal is very similar to ones
adopted by North Dakota and Minnesota. He said that it is very
beneficial that the resolution does not use the words "right" or
"privilege." Conversely, he concurred with Mr. Regelin that the
resolution "does raise some implications, some possible
unforeseen consequences."
MR. WHITE indicated a letter from Paul Lenzini, dated March
[26], 1996, "in which he discusses the then-proposed Minnesota
constitutional provision," and raises two legal concerns, which
are highlighted on the second page of a handout from Mr. White,
included in the committee packet. He outlined the difference
between changing a statute versus changing the constitution,
saying that there's more finality when a constitution is
changed. As Mr. Lenzini wrote, it transfers the "decision-
making authority from the legislature to the courts." If this
resolution were to become a constitutional amendment, and if it
were challenged, the burden of proof would be shifted to the
State of Alaska to prove that the "public good" was met.
MR. WHITE explained that unless there is a clear picture of what
the "public good" means when the legislation creates this
resolution, then it is left to attorneys and litigants to
present their interpretation to the court. He offered an
example: "'Public good' is my right to hunt, my right to fish,
without ... the state either limiting it or ... allocating some
of those resources to some other purpose."
MR. WHITE referred to his other handout, also included in the
committee packet, which is a report compiled by the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Administrators'
legal committee. He directed the House Resources Standing
Committee's attention to page five, which lists potential
problems of revising the constitution, including implications if
the constitutional amendment fails and implications for state
fish and game management if it passes. Mr. White said these
problems are listed as "general terminology," and may or may not
be relevant to Alaska. [The Department of Law] has not been
able to think of all the various ways that people could take the
language and interpret it to serve their purposes.
MR. WHITE read the conclusion on page seven of the same handout:
"From the perspective of both the resource management agency as
well as the hunter, making hunting a constitutional right may
fundamentally alter and drastically interfere with wildlife
management as currently practiced." He stated that [Alaska's]
constitution already provides for sustained yield, "that is, it
provides for conservation of the ... fish and game resources as
a paramount management philosophy." Mr. White continued:
I don't know whether ... the purpose of the first part
of this resolution is to reinforce that, where it
says, ... "shall forever be preserved", whether it's
talking about conservation in terms of the resource or
whether it's talking about ... these particular
activities.
Our constitution also allows us to allocate resources
between different uses. The boards can allocate
hunting and fishing opportunities between commercial
and sport and recreational. And within various user
groups our constitution already provides the two basic
mechanisms - conservation and allocation - upon which
our system is based.
Whenever you put something else in the constitution,
the courts usually think, "Well, there must be a
purpose for this. If the constitution already
provides for this, why did the legislature and voters
of Alaska decide to add something to it?" So they
always look for a new ... purpose. In other words,
it's not there just for redundancy; there must be some
reason for it. So they will seek to find out what the
purpose of these new terms are, and that's where they
will begin to, perhaps, find purposes or reasons or
implications that might not have been intended.
Number 1830
CO-CHAIR SCALZI stated that after being heard in the House
Resources Standing Committee, the resolution would be referred
to the House Judiciary Standing Committee and to the House
Finance Standing Committee. He suggested that the House
Resources Standing Committee focus on "the aspects of resource
itself, and whether or not it's consistent with our
constitution," and consider leaving some of the legal questions
to the House Judiciary Standing Committee. Co-Chair Scalzi
asked Mr. Regelin if he thought that there was a conflict
between the intent of this resolution and the subject of
sustained yield that is presently in the [Alaska State]
Constitution.
MR. WHITE replied that he doesn't think this [resolution]
"negates or directly contradicts the concept of sustained
yield," explaining that the courts look at the constitution as a
whole and attempt to reconcile any conflict. His concern is
with the definition of "public good." Mr. White stated, "One
person's 'public good' might be another person's 'public ill.'"
Number 1927
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked Mr. White if he agreed with Mr.
Regelin's suggested use of the words, "by law and regulation."
MR. WHITE answered yes.
Number 1963
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA posed the following question:
If we're amending the statement of policy in Article
VIII, and we get into a situation where we've got a
depleted resource, ... don't we just ask for problems
with how we're going to deal with the right to hunt,
versus the sustained yield? ... Isn't that part of
the problem?
MR. WHITE replied that the sustained yield is clearly a "mandate
for management." He stated that it would be difficult to argue
"public good" would be something that would override sustained
yield, and that "public good" is to be interpreted in some way
to require the state to deplete its resources. He admitted that
it could be a difficult argument.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA responded by asking Mr. White about the
language that reads "forever preserved". She suggested there
might be a conflict with "forever preserved", if [ADF&G] ever
had to close a [hunting, trapping, or fishing] season, for
instance.
MR. WHITE responded that it would be difficult to interpret
whether "forever preserved" referred to preserving the uses of
resource, even to the point where there is no resource, or
preserving the "vitality of the resource itself." Strong
legislative history is needed, in order to counter the many
possible interpretations. In response to a question by Co-Chair
Scalzi, Mr. White said that the statement on behalf of sustained
yield is comprehensible and the courts would not "take something
that's less certain and say that it ... would trump sustained
yield." The courts look at all provisions equally, and try to
harmonize them.
Number 2104
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER indicated a red-flag situation concerning
migratory fish and game, where areas may have to be closed down
to fishing or hunting, but someone claims a right to fish
because of the new amendment.
MR. WHITE indicated that Mr. Regelin had addressed that
question, and he restated that when a person has a
constitutional right to fish, then the state will have to
produce evidence that that person's "public good" is subordinate
to a greater "public good." It shifts the burden on how that
management position would be defended, and is a difficult
concept.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE stated that the House Resources Standing
Committee had gone off on a "red herring" by discussing
management issues, rather than adhering to the focus of the
resolution, which was about preserving heritage. He suggested
that the committee first make sure that there was no conflict
between the wording of the resolution and the sustained-yield
clause already in the constitution. Then it could go back and -
with the concurrence of the resolution's sponsor - make an
amendment to clarify any terms dealing with management issues.
Number 2265
MR. WHITE concluded by offering an alternative for the sponsor
of the resolution. He suggested that the sponsor consider
creating legislation to adopt this resolution in statute, rather
than as a constitutional amendment, much like an existing
statute that established a priority for subsistence uses.
Although a statute can more easily be changed by other
legislation, "it doesn't carry as many implications as in the
constitution."
Number 2302
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA disagreed with Representative Fate's
estimation of management discussion as a "red herring." She
mentioned the idea of "referring back to Section 4" as a good
one, and asked for affirmation from the witness that [ADF&G]
already manages hunting, trapping, and fishing.
MR. WHITE concurred.
Number 2340
JESSE VANDERZANDEN, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council
(AOC), testified via teleconference in support of HJR 12. He
noted that the AOC had sent a letter to Representative Dyson in
support of HJR 12, because the resolution embodies the
protections of hunting, trapping, and fishing. He pointed to
historical evidence that consumptive uses have been limited over
the past 30 years, citing examples such as Sheep Mountain,
Cooper Lake, and Paint River. Mr. VanderZanden made note of a
current lawsuit against the state that "seeks to mandate
appointment of board [of] game members that solely represent
nonconsumptive uses." On behalf of AOC, he thanked the House
Resources Standing Committee for hearing this resolution, and
offered any assistance necessary to help the resolution to pass.
Number 2494
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. VanderZanden to specify which
nonconsumptive uses concerned him and the AOC.
MR. VANDERZANDEN replied that he had been referring to a lawsuit
currently against the state to require the Board of Game to
appoint some members who represent nonconsumptive uses. He
stated that AOC believes that consumptive and nonconsumptive
uses are not incompatible. He offered popular definitions of
nonconsumptive uses such as "viewing" and hiking. Mr.
VanderZanden talked about HJR 12 "adding an extra layer of
protection to what's commonly termed ... 'consumptive uses,'
whether it be hunting, fishing, and trapping, [as it is] in this
case." AOC has seen a constant threat to those particular uses.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. VanderZanden if he thought
that nonconsumptive use had a place in the balancing of our
constitution.
MR. VANDERZANDEN explained that his intention in his previous
testimony was not to delineate between consumptive and
nonconsumptive. He stated that he did not want to put
limitations on what those words [mean]. He reiterated that the
AOC supports the added layer of protection that HJR 12 offers to
the consumptive-use activities of hunting, trapping, and
fishing.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA referred to people who go out just to
take photographs or just to view [the outdoors], and inquired
whether Mr. VanderZanden thought that those people should be
mentioned in the resolution to avoid making delineations.
MR. VANDERZANDEN responded that although many people who hunt,
trap, and fish also go out sometimes just to view nature or take
pictures, many of AOC's members feel that there is a "grave
threat" to hunting, trapping, and fishing, specifically.
Number 2727
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER commented that she hoped she hadn't
previously given Mr. VanderZanden the impression that she was
opposed to HJR 12; she mentioned the area of Western Alaska that
she represents, and said, "We're all for preserving that
heritage, as well." She listed the priorities of the state's
management of resources: first, sustained yield; second,
subsistence use; third, commercial use; and fourth, sport use.
Representative Kapsner stated her concern that when resources
become limited and the state cuts back on sport use of
resources, sport users might say, "Well, my rights are being
infringed upon."
MR. VANDERZANDEN answered, "Alaska's not the first out of the
gate in trying to afford some additional protections to these
types of uses." He said the AOC is encouraged by some of the
discussion that is going on, and the fact that other states are
attempting to pass similar legislation. Furthermore, Mr.
VanderZanden stated that he did not have the legal expertise to
give an opinion regarding Representative Kapsner's last
statement.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER specified that although other states are
developing similar legislation, Alaska is the only state that is
giving up navigable waterways. Alaska's constitution is unique
because of its protection of subsistence users, who use 3 or 4
percent of the resource. Subsequently, Representative Kapsner
is "wary of copying other states, just for the sake of copying
them, because we are so unique."
Number 2888
WAYNE WOODS, third-generation Alaskan outdoorsman, testified via
teleconference in support of HJR 12. He stated that 90 percent
of his family's income is derived from his activities as a
"master guide." He expressed dismay over the lack of
stewardship of our fish and wildlife resources by "the present
administration," noting that it is "a real disservice to both
the resource and current and future generations of Alaskans who
depend on it." Mr. Woods said, "I consider myself a
nonconsumptive user until I see a particular animal that I wish
to harvest, as law, opportunity, and inclination allows."
Number 2977
JEAN WOODS, long-time resident of the Matanuska-Susitna area,
testified via teleconference in support of HJR 12. She stated
that she is a consumptive user who eats fish and game. Ms.
Woods said HJR 12 would reinforce Article VIII, Sections 3 and
4, [regarding] common use and sustained yield. As a nonattorney
layperson, she considered the language of HJR 12 to be "clear
and straightforward."
TAPE 01-18, SIDE B
Number 2992
NOEL WOODS, testifying via teleconference, requested that the
House Resources Standing Committee send a copy of the legal
advice that it has been given to the Matanuska-Susitna
legislative information office. Mr. Woods spoke on behalf of
the Matanuska Valley Sportsmen (MVS), a group of approximately
800 members from Eagle River, Anchorage, Palmer, Wasilla,
Willow, and Talkeetna. The MVS is concerned about the condition
of [Article] VIII in the Alaska State Constitution, regarding
sustained yield. He referred to previous testimony about the
burden of proof falling on the state. Mr. Woods requested "that
the [House Resources Standing] Committee demand the
justification of the lack of predator control at this time, in
light of the constitutional requirement of sustained yield."
CO-CHAIR SCALZI requested that Mr. Woods remain on the subject
of HJR 12.
MR. WOODS stated that [MVS] is very much in support of HJR 12
and doesn't see a difference between consumptive and
nonconsumptive users. Furthermore, MVS believes that HJR 12 is
not meant as a divisive issue; people who want to look at
animals and those who want to shoot them will both be
shortchanged without this legislation.
Number 2788
ROD ARNO, a long-time hunter from Palmer, testified via
teleconference in support of HJR 12. He thanked Representative
Dyson for sponsoring HJR 12, and urged its passage out of the
House Resources Standing Committee. He mentioned the Alaska
Wildlife Alliance as a group who is "advocating for our demise"
and is suing the Board of Game. He said that there is a need
for a layer of protection from those people opposed to hunting,
trapping, and fishing, stating that those same people influence
people who are non-hunters.
MR. ARNO said:
Obviously, because of the harvestable surplus as a
limited supply, ... we, as hunters, trappers, and
fishermen, will never be able to (indisc.) 51 percent
of the growing population to feed the hunters,
trappers, and fishermen, and we need the support and
protection that other minorities are afforded.
Number 2704
CLIFF JUDKINS, hunter and fisherman for 45 years, testified via
teleconference in support of HJR 12. He thanked Representative
Dyson for introducing the resolution. He mentioned that he was
presently "attending the game board meetings" in Anchorage, and
commented that there are issues being brought up "that could use
the lesson of this legislation that has been adopted in the
past."
Number 2666
KEN BARBER, a hunter and trapper, testified via teleconference
in support of HJR 12. He commented on his observation of the
disappearance of trapping in Arizona, Washington, and Colorado,
and stated that it is only a matter of time before the same
thing happens in Alaska with hunting and fishing rights. In
regard to Mr. Regelin's previous comment about the possible cost
to the state, Mr. Barber said, "Personally, I don't care about
cost to the state. I think the animals in this state - and the
people - deserve a lot more than the cost."
Number 2617
SUE ASPLUND, Cordova District Fisherman United (CDFU),
testifying via teleconference, asked Representative Dyson to
clarify how commercial uses of hunting, trapping, and fisheries
resources would be addressed under the semantics of HJR 12.
Number 2582
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied that although he was not sure of
the answer, he thought that HJR 12 would add another layer of
protection for commercial fishermen, as well. The Board of
Fisheries is in control of the allocation of resources, and that
will continue if the resolution is passed. He pointed out that
if the forces that are opposed to consumptive use of Alaska's
renewable resources gain power, then [hunters, trappers, and
fishermen] will "be amongst the first to lose on that."
Representative Dyson restated another witness's remark that
hunter, trappers, and commercial and noncommercial fishermen are
a minority, and are "in jeopardy of losing our right to utilize
renewable resources, at the will of the majority, unless we act
decisively to put those protections at the highest level of law
that we can, which is the constitution."
Number 2488
MS. ASPLUND clarified that she was trying to ascertain whether
or not HJR 12 would, "in some way or another, change the prior
uses, above and beyond the subsistence priority, between
(indisc.) commercial users of the resource."
CO-CHAIR SCALZI surmised that the word "fishing," as written in
HJR 12, would include all the common uses of fishing in the
state.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON concurred.
Number 2459
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked Representative Dyson if HJR 12
would indeed make all users equal.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON answered that HJR 12 "protects the heritage
of all users." He hoped that the resolution would give the
people of rural Alaska - who statistically may be more involved
in hunting, trapping, and fishing - some comfort, knowing that
an attempt was being made to change the state's constitution, in
order to assure every Alaskans' right to preserve his or her
heritage.
Number 2415
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked Representative Dyson how similar
his resolution was to those of North Dakota, Virginia, and
Minnesota, and what were the results of any legal challenges
those states might have faced.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON responded that, to his knowledge, HJR 12
differs from and surpasses the other states' legislation,
because it "avoids the language of making it an unalienable
right" and includes the complete list of hunting, trapping, and
fishing.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS inquired of Representative Dyson whether
Mr. Regelin's suggestion of inserting the words "law and
regulations" was a point of concern or a solution to a problem.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied that he did not think, at that
point in time, that the addition of those words would cause him
"any consternation," although further testimony may reveal that
it would be prudent to remove those words. He commented on the
great respect he had for Mr. Regelin, and made a commitment to
the House Resources Standing Committee to get the best input
possible on the issues, stating that he will not let this
resolution go beyond the House Judiciary Standing Committee
without asking the types of questions that will prevent lawsuits
or problems in the future.
Number 2240
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE stated for the record that she is
uncomfortable with the idea of adding language about "regulatory
power" to the resolution, stating that the effects of adding it
are unknown. She urged the sponsor of the [resolution] to
explore that language at the [House] Judiciary [Standing
Committee] level.
Number 2213
REPRESENTATIVE FATE concurred with Representative McGuire's
remark. He referred to a document with the heading, "Right to
Hunt." He emphasized that there is a difference between
protecting the right to hunt and protecting the heritage of the
state. In regard to earlier comments, Representative Fate said,
"And I didn't mean to infer that a red herring was something
that we're trying to deviate, or trying to pull the attention
away." Representative Fate related his belief that HJR 12
"doesn't give an absolute right for that person to hunt." He
asked Representative Dyson if that interpretation was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON answered that although he did not fully
understand constitutional law, he thought Representative Fate's
interpretation was correct. He said:
All rights in our constitution are subject to
reasonable regulation, and there's nothing here that
... says that bag limits and seasons ... can't be
[set] ... to control and manage the resource, just as
it doesn't say that anyone has an absolute right ...
to hunt or fish at any given particular time [or] ...
to be successful at hunting and fishing. What the law
has - in several "cascading" opinions - is a right to
a reasonable opportunity.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that HJR 12 was not in contradiction
with sustained yield, because "there's no heritage left if
there's no game left." He emphasized that sustained yield
"trumps" all other resource uses.
Number 2041
REPRESENTATIVE FATE made a motion to move HJR 12 out of the
House Resources Standing Committee, with individual
recommendations and an attached zero fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA requested a brief at-ease.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI called an at-ease. He called the meeting back
to order at 3:29 p.m.
Number 2005
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA offered a conceptual amendment:
On line 11, after the words "shall be managed", I'd
like to, along the same lines as Representative Fate's
suggestion ... [add] "in accordance with the sustained
yield principle in Article VIII, Section ... 4."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON indicated that the proposed amendment was
fine with him [as sponsor].
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA remarked that she thought this amendment
would make it clear that there was no intent to override the
sustained yield mandate already in the constitution.
Number 1887
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report HJR 12, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR 12(RES) was
reported out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
SJR 7-REINSTATE WILDERNESS STUDY PROHIBITION
Number 1795
CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced the next order of business was CS FOR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7(RES), Supporting reinstatement of
the United States Department of the Interior directive exempting
the United States Bureau of Land Management in Alaska from the
mandatory wilderness review process.
DARWIN PETERSON, Staff to Senator Torgerson, Alaska State
Legislature, spoke on behalf of the sponsor of CSSJR 7(RES).
Mr. Peterson described the resolution for the House Resources
Standing Committee and read excerpts from the sponsor statement
as follows:
In 1981, the Secretary of the Interior under President
Reagan issued a directive stating that BLM [Bureau of
Land Management] land in Alaska may not be considered
for wilderness review as required by Section 603 of
the Federal Land Planning and Management Act of 1976.
The Secretary issued this directive in order to comply
with congressional mandates found in ANILCA [the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act].
More specifically, those congressional mandates are
Sections 1320 and 1326 of ANILCA, often referred to as
the "no more clauses," which exempt Alaska from future
federal [wilderness designations and] withdrawals
exceeding 5,000 acres. ANILCA Section 1326(b) states
that no further studies of federal land in Alaska
shall be conducted for the purpose of establishing
conservation areas, such as wilderness designations.
SJR 7 was introduced in response to a last-minute
rescission of this directive by Interior Secretary
Bruce Babbitt, as he was leaving office with the
Clinton Administration. Secretary Babbitt's
rescission is contrary to an Interior Department
policy that has been an important tool for management
and development in the state of Alaska for almost
twenty years. The rescission was done without public
comment or consideration of the state of Alaska. And
the most disturbing aspect of this rescission is that
BLM will be able to manage its roadless land in Alaska
as de facto wilderness areas in the expectation that
Congress will eventually enact approving legislation.
Number 1690
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked if there were any questions. Hearing
none, he stated that the language of the resolution was
straightforward and the chair was in support of it.
Number 1650
[There was a motion to adopt CSSJR 7(RES), version 22-LS0415\L,
for discussion purposes, but it was already before the
committee.]
REPRESENTATIVE FATE suggested to Mr. Peterson that the title be
changed. He explained, "The average person's going to see [the
title] and he's going to say, 'What you're doing here is
exempting the Bureau of Land Management from the provisions of
the Wilderness Act,' which means that they might construe this
as meaning that they're really exempt from being under the
mandatory regulation as embodied in ANILCA."
MR. PETERSON replied that that had been a concern of the Senate
Resources Committee when SJR 7 was originally drafted. He noted
that one of the changes in the committee substitute was made in
an effort to clarify the title. He stated that the words "in
Alaska", on page 1, line 2 [in the title of CSSJR 7(RES)], would
perhaps alleviate concerns that this [resolution] might exempt
BLM nationwide from the Wilderness Act.
Number 1545
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to report CSSJR 7(RES), version 22-
LS0415\L, with the attached zero fiscal note and individual
recommendations, out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
There being no objections, CSSJR 7(RES) was reported from the
House Resources Standing Committee.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI referred to his draft letter regarding the
request for enforcement against poaching in Southeast Alaska's
fishing waters and asked the committee if members had any
objections to moving the letter on to the House Special
Committee on Fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA mentioned that she was still
"synthesizing" comments from some fishing communities, but had
no objection to addressing those comments at the House Special
Committee on Fisheries meetings.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1388
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|