04/02/2001 01:10 PM House RES

Audio	Topic

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled

Schedule
Detailed Minutes
Documents
Doc

pdf txt

ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE April 2, 2001 1:10 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Drew Scalzi, Co-Chair Representative Hugh Fate, Vice Chair Representative Joe Green Representative Mike Chenault Representative Lesil McGuire Representative Gary Stevens Representative Mary Kapsner Representative Beth Kerttula MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 165 "An Act relating to the Kenai River Special Management Area; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED CSHB 165(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 93 "An Act establishing the permit fee for the personal use dip net fisheries for the Kenai River and the Kasilof River; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED CSHB 93(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 216 "An Act relating to the emergency order authority of the commissioner of fish and game and to meetings of the Board of Fisheries." - HEARD AND HELD HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 13 Relating to the nonresident fee differential for commercial fishing permits and licenses. - MOVED HCR 13 OUT OF COMMITTEE PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 165 SHORT TITLE:KENAI RIVER SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)LANCASTER Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 03/09/01 0516 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 03/09/01 0516 (H) RES 03/09/01 0516 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES 03/26/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 03/26/01 (H) Heard & Held MINUTE(RES) 04/02/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 BILL: HB 93 SHORT TITLE:KENAI DIP NET FISHERY PERMIT FEE SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)LANCASTER Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 01/26/01 0171 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS

01/26/01 0171 (H) Committee MINUTE(FSH) 1NR KERTTULA, WILSON, DYSON MINUTE(RES) BILL: HB SHORT TITLE:BD OF FISHERIES MEETINGS/EMERGENCY ORDERS SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action REFERRALS BILL: HCR SHORT TITLE:NONRES. COMMERCIAL FISHING FEES SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action REFERRALS WITNESS REGISTER REPRESENTATIVE KEN LANCASTER Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 421 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of 93. JIM STRATTON, Director Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation Department of Natural Resources Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3561 POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed the history of Mayor Bagley's concerns regarding HB KEVIN BROOKS, Director Division of Administrative Services Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) PO Box 25526 Juneau, Alaska 99811-5526 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB CHRIS GARCIA Cook Inlet Fisherman's Fund (CIFF) PO Box 203 Kenai, Alaska 99611 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB DREW SPARLIN Kenai, Alaska 99611 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of 165]; FRANK RUE, Commissioner Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) PO Box 25526 Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 01-28, SIDE A Number 0001 CO-CHAIR DREW SCALZI called the House Resources Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Representatives Fate, McGuire, Green, Chenault, Stevens, Kerttula, and Scalzi were present at the call to order. Representative Kapsner arrived as the meeting was in progress. HB CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 165, "An Act relating to the Kenai River Special Management Area; and providing for an effective date." [There was a motion to adopt HB 165, the bill were made by the department; he indicated those corrections are encompassed [in HB REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to an e-mail from Dale Bagley, Mayor, Kenai Peninsula Borough, which notes the mayor's opposition to HB protected land. Representative Green requested the sponsor's comments on Mr. Bagley's e-mail. Number 0377 REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER characterized the e-mail as "a general negative e-mail in regard to the addition of the KRSMA [Kenai River Special Management Area] land." Representative Lancaster informed the committee that Mr. Bagley did initiate a lawsuit against the state and that issue was resolved. He noted that perhaps [Jim Stratton, Director, Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources] could speak to that issue. CO-CHAIR SCALZI remarked that there is quite a bit of history with the issue [brought forth by Mayor Bagley]. He agreed with Representative Lancaster that the issue had been resolved. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA relayed concern she has heard because it has been some time since the public hearing process on this land. She asked when the last public hearings were held. REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER deferred to Mr. Stratton. Number 0516 JIM STRATTON, Director, Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), testified via teleconference. He informed the committee that there were extensive public hearings on the KRSMA update in 1997 and 1998. [The KRSMA update] made the recommendation for the acreage included in HB public comment period also included these same recommendations. Although Mr. Stratton didn't have the exact number of hearings, he said perhaps Chris Degernes, Superintendent, Kenai Peninsula Area, Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation (DNR), may have that information. REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER pointed out that most of the resolutions have been updated within the last week, since the committee last heard the bill. Representative Lancaster informed the committee that he had individual testimony and letters of support as well as a few letters of opposition to this bill. He offered to provide those to the committee. Number 0785 CO-CHAIR SCALZI, after determining that some teleconference sites had "fallen off," announced that HB CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 93, "An Act establishing the permit fee for the personal use dip net fisheries for the Kenai River and the Kasilof River; and providing for an effective date." Number 0880 REPRESENTATIVE KEN LANCASTER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB at the previous hearing regarding the disposition of the [dip net] fee. He pointed out a letter in the committee packet from Kevin Brooks [which explains that the dip net] fees would go [into the fish and game fund and would remain available pending subsequent appropriation by the legislature.] [There was motion to adopt HB grant to be made directly to the department. MR. ARNO stated that the AOC feels there is genuine concern with the litter; there are other ways to take care of that, as opposed to adding a food tax [by charging] a special fee to these dipnetters. Number 1390 EDWARD MARTIN testified via teleconference in opposition 93. Constitution, which reads: Wherever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use. MR. MARTIN said he recognizes the problem with the management of [the Kenai dip net fishery]. He mentioned the troopers or "brown shirts," saying, "It's getting these agencies get a big sum of money and they aren't accountable for what ... their mission statement is, or at least maybe they feel they're doing the best they can." Mr. Martin suggested that plenty of people in enforcement are not doing much during the winter months and could reroute some hours to cover the two- or three-month personal use fishery period. MR. MARTIN said he looks at this as a constitutional issue and as a management issue "under a mission statement of ... who's responsible to do the management enforcement." Regarding detriment to the [river] banks, he said many people are aware of what's going on right now. He said: If we can't get some control of that, we can't have some volunteers in this system, because, to be honest with you - some of that being ... a constitutional right for subsistence - I believe there's ... good, honest people, good Alaskans that'll go out there and could work within a controlled atmosphere to see that we aren't abusing ... it, whether nonresident or residents. Number 1555 CHRIS GARCIA testified via teleconference in support of telling the members that they were not charging enough. He said he has witnessed some of the atrocious problems [in the Kenai dip net area]. He stated that the mayor of Kenai [Peninsula Borough] had requested funding from the state for this problem and was told there was no money available. He said a lot of nonresidents who are using the fishery shouldn't be. He stated his belief that imposing this fee will help control, patrol, and improve the fishery for the state. Number 1618 DREW SPARLIN, testifying via teleconference, said he supports 93 for previously. A resident within one-quarter mile of the Kenai dip net area, Mr. Sparlin stated that he has witnessed "a very large amount of abuse and disrespect." He added that he did not think anyone would argue [against] there being a sanitation problem in the area. MR. SPARLIN questioned the necessity of using "brown shirts" to monitor the fishery, as was suggested in previous testimony; however, he said monitoring by temporary, seasonal hires - for the purpose of checking licenses and documenting harvest - would be of some value. He agreed with earlier testimony that there is abuse by nonresidents. Mr. Sparlin acknowledged that Representative Lancaster "hung his neck out" on this issue, but said he is right to address it. People who are going to utilize the resources don't want to tap the permanent fund or [pay for the fishery with] taxes, and a way to pay for [the management of the Kenai dip net fishery] must be found. Number 1737 REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked Mr. Brooks if, contrary to previous testimony, other funding sources could adequately be used to take care of the same things for which the proposed fee is intended. MR. BROOKS replied that there are funding sources within [ADF&G] that could legally be used, but it is a matter of the allocation of scarce resources. He said the department has projects within the Division of Sport Fish budget, and it would have to make the call that this is of greater importance than the other management work being done. He suggested that the question might better be addressed to Mr. Hepler. Mr. Brooks said there is no legality issue; general funds could be used, for instance, or fish and game funds currently in the budget. He said, "I think the attempt here was to try [to] identity an additional source of revenue for this specific purpose, and not negatively impact an existing project that might be going on." REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if fees are ordinarily set by statute, or are ever set by the board. MR. BROOKS answered that every sport fishing or hunting license fee is set in statute. The permit fees are more recent; for example, the Chitina dip net fee is set in statute. Number 1855 REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT asked how and why the king salmon stamp, required to fish for king salmon in the Kenai River, was instituted. He asked where that money goes. MR. BROOKS responded that the stamp has existed since the early to mid-1990s. He said it predates his work at the department, but his understanding is that chinook salmon are recognized as trophy fish, and certain management requirements go along with that. Mr. Brooks told the committee that the license revenue goes into the fish and game fund, and is used to fund the Division of Sport Fish's budget; however, there is more funding allocated to king salmon management than is generated by the stamp alone. [A one-minute at-ease was called.] Number 1951 CO-CHAIR SCALZI clarified that before the committee was version 22-LS0431\C, Utermohle, 2/27/01 [as amended]. REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT moved to report HB Number 2040 CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced that the committee would return attention to HOUSE BILL NO. 165, "An Act relating to the Kenai River Special Management Area; and providing for an effective date." REPRESENTATIVE FATE made a motion to adopt the proposed CS for HB 165, draft. Number 2065 RED SMITH testified via teleconference. He referred to 1970 and the Seward National Recreation Area Act. He said "they" asked for 1.4 million acres and "we" defeated the federal proposal in Congress three different times. Finally, "we" thought settled it "under AS 9 referred to a letter from U.S. Senator Stevens, which said it had finally been accomplished; however, today this just refers to about 8,000 acres. It is down to a much smaller acreage, he remarked, but the philosophy remains the same: if "we" lock up and lock out, something will be protected. "We" are not protecting the Alaska Statehood Act, the state constitution, or the idea that development will occur in that area, he added. MR. SMITH said he has concerns about parks. He remarked that the settlement agreement was reached in June 2000, and he doesn't believe there is any evidence that these agreements have been fulfilled. The selection right is still ignored and abused; "we" are going too fast with the proper funding isn't available to manage them. The programs for utilization and Article VIII [of the state constitution] have been totally ignored, with fisheries as the exception. MR. SMITH stated that he was part of a group that requested "public interest intervenor" status on July 10, 2000; he said he would send a copy [of the request] to the committee for consideration prior to taking action. He related his belief that Alaska has gone entirely too far "underground" in these "set-asides," and now management in the Cooper Landing area is critical. MR. SMITH commented that putting a stop sign solved the problem of a bad intersection in front of the Cooper Landing School, but it gets run over because of poor design; he said these are the kinds of solutions [put in place] by the Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation in his community. MR. SMITH commented that [the state] has given the division a lot of authority that it doesn't know how to properly exercise, and land that it can't manage. He said [Alaska] has many federal, state, and local parks, and more attention could be paid to the word "settlement." [A portion of the tape was inaudible.] In 42 years, 3.82 acres of land was made available for community (indisc.). MR. SMITH remarked that he would like to see this bill reviewed in its entirety. Number 2384 EDWARD D. MARTIN, JR., testified via teleconference. He said he has been very vocal on the addition of the Kenai River Special Management Area (KRSMA) and the Kenai Area Plan when it comes into conflict with the borough's selection of lands. The borough signed an agreement that says certain things will be done; however, he is not certain that the legislature would be privy to those. Therefore, he suggested that the legislature review the decision made by the Kenai Peninsula Borough with regard to its selection and the deal made to ensure that the Kenai Area Plan could become a reality. MR. MARTIN clarified that it wasn't really whether or not the borough was getting a selection of land, but rather that the borough was going to get a denial and a relinquishment of borough-selected lands. He directed the committee to the last line in Section 7, which he said makes it very clear. He objected to this; he said after 40 years of statehood, with numerous undermanaged and underfunded parks, people of the state [still] have little land available for settlement. The communities and the state can't be sustained for revenues if money continues [to be allocated] for state parks, rather than placing it on the tax rolls. MR. MARTIN remarked that this situation is affecting whether his children can stay in Alaska and find land or will be taxed out of existence because there isn't enough land in the tax base to support schools. Alaska has a dead national forest and no revenue is coming from it, he said. This is another negative effect on our constitution, Article VIII, Section 1, which reads as follows: "It is the policy of the State to encourage the settlement of its land and the development of its resources by making them available for maximum use consistent with the public interest." MR. MARTIN said he wished [the legislature] would realize that the constitution already has a policy and thus doesn't give [authority] to the departments to create a new ad hoc policy. He urged the legislature to look into this more deeply. He said [former commissioner] John Shively has created a de facto law, and the departments are currently managing [KRSMA] as such. Number 2553 DALE BONDURANT testified via teleconference. He remarked that he is in full support of the addition to KRSMA and the added protection for habitat. He maintained that there is a constitutional mandate that Alaska's fish, wildlife, and water public trust resources be protected for current and future generations. As time goes on, [Alaska] is going to need added protection for public trust resources. Now is the time to move this addition forward, because later will be too late. Number 2615 CHRIS GARCIA testified via teleconference. He stated that he is not in favor of locking up land just for the sake of locking it up; however, when KRSMA was first formed, he attended most of the meetings, and [KRSMA] has done a "pretty fair job." He couldn't say whether he was in favor or opposed to the legislation, he told the committee, because he hasn't done enough research to know what it encompasses. Number 2665 REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI noted that former Representative and Speaker of the House Gail Phillips was present at the meeting. Number 2695 REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report HB Number 2735 CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 216, "An Act relating to the emergency order authority of the commissioner of fish and game and to meetings of the Board of Fisheries." [216. important separation of powers: the Board of Fisheries makes allocation decisions, and the department gives the board information on how many fish are available, tells it what management strategies are possible, and performs in-season management to make sure any surplus resource can be harvested. He added that having the emergency-order authority in the department, particularly for fisheries, is critical to taking advantage of a larger run that comes in, or constraining fisheries if the run comes in smaller. COMMISSIONER RUE pointed out that other states have the director of the department making allocation decisions, but he stressed that that he would not want the job of allocating that the Board of Fisheries presently has. Furthermore, he said, he thinks Alaska's system is a model for success; the Board of Fisheries gives guidance to ADF&G, and ADF&G has the flexibility to be able to take advantage of the run or to "fall back." COMMISSIONER RUE referred to Section 2 of Peninsula Marketing Association v. Rosier case over a previous commissioner's attempt to close down an Area M fishery that the Board of Fisheries had already decided. He said the court ruled that the commissioner could not override a board regulation, however, without new information that the board hadn't considered. COMMISSIONER RUE said many management plans around the state are flexible enough to allow for considerable latitude, so there are few instances of an "opportunity being unavailable" because of a Board [of Fisheries] management plan. As an example, he cited an occurrence last summer [2000] when the board constrained the opportunity for pink salmon fishing in Cook Inlet until it could produce a management plan. COMMISSIONER RUE said the public has the choice to petition for a change if they don't like the manner in which a fishery is currently structured. He noted an instance when that was done in Cook Inlet, but said because the petition took so long to put together and was submitted late, the board decided not to change its management plan. Commissioner Rue recapped the two ways that the public can have an opportunity to request change: through the authority of the commissioner of ADF&G, and by petitioning the Board [of Fisheries] in-season. He mentioned Section 2 of the bill and stated his preference that the current balance be maintained. COMMISSIONER RUE turned attention to Section 3 of the bill, which addresses how the board changes its agenda. He stated his preference that the board have its own rules to change its own agenda and "not have the department have to [assert] itself." Furthermore, he would like the board to listen to ADF&G when the department does not think an issue in question is a conservation one. He noted that the board did amend its agenda criteria to be able to change its agenda when it needs to coordinate with the federal fishery management plan. For example, if the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) makes a change to a cod fishery, the Board [of Fisheries] wants to be able to change its agenda to respond to the actions of the NPFMC. COMMISSIONER RUE reported that in [the board's] amended regulations is a fourth criterion; he recommended that if the House Resources Standing Committee decides to put this in statute, the department should deliver the latest regulations to the committee. [Co-Chair Scalzi passed around a "stack of emergency orders" to show the committee how the language is written.] Number 2320 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Commissioner Rue whether the emergency orders were from his department, and requested clarification as to whether they did not deal with allocation, but instead were a "determination that there are, or are not, enough fish to catch." COMMISSIONER RUE said yes to both, indicating an emergency order is usually to open or close a fishery, "contingent with a management plan." In response to another question from Representative Green, he replied that the bill was not trying to supersede that, but because the bill's language is so broad, he is concerned that it would allow a commissioner, through the emergency orders, to change a management plan through allocation. Number 2270 REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT asked Commissioner Rue if the department has "EO" [emergency order] authority in Cook Inlet. COMMISSIONER RUE replied: Yes, we do. It's constrained by the management plan the Board [of Fisheries] set up. For instance, they have a couple of mandatory closures, ... but within those mandatory parts of the ... management plan we have discretion to open and close fisheries. REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT alluded to previous remarks about not being able to fish for pink salmon because of lack of a management plan. He also mentioned a management plan the board had mandated the department to implement; however, the department did not do so, possibly because of an issue of funds, he surmised. Number 2192 DOUG MECUM, Director, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), in response to questions from Representative Chenault, restated Commissioner Rue's earlier statement regarding the petition to the Board of Fisheries regarding pink salmon in Cook Inlet. He said: The board, in this case, [acted in a way that] was a little bit unusual, in that [it] went ... a step further and said, "Not until such time as we have better information that we can use to build a management plan that ensures the conservation of these various stocks will we allow ... the department to open a directed fishery on pink salmon." MR. MECUM explained that the board justified [that decision] on the basis of what it calls a "precautionary approach," due to a lack of information on coho salmon, and because of the depressed status of the chum salmon stocks. He continued: So, in response to this action that the Board [of Fisheries] took, we set about going to the legislature to seek funding, and this year we put in a million- dollar-increment request from CFEC [Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission] receipt services and non- GF [general fund] program receipts. A quarter million dollars of that, if it goes through - and so far, it has gone through - would be for a Cook Inlet-wide, abundance-based tagging program, which would be the first key step in us getting a better handle in-season of how many fish we're dealing with - how many chums and pinks are there, what's the status of cohos - so we could better refine our management approach. MR. MECUM concluded that this process was a way for the department to report back to the board and the public. Number 2035 REPRESENTATIVE FATE read the following from Section 3, subsection (c)1), lines 15-16: "address a fishery conservation issue if the commissioner concurs". He asked, if the commissioner did not concur, whether the board would not be able to take that matter up. COMMISSIONER RUE concurred. REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if that [language in the bill] would counter the previously-mentioned balance between the responsibilities of the board. COMMISSIONER RUE answered a qualified yes. He said the language inserts the commissioner into the board's own agenda-setting abilities. He added that the board has tried to set a three- year schedule, so that the public knows when things are coming up and so every issue is not brought up every year. Number 1961 CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked for confirmation that, under the "coho plan," the closing date for pinks, chums, or reds was August 5, and asked what the total number of pinks was that showed up in Cook Inlet. He said he had heard an estimate of 20 million from the department. [Commissioner Rue conferred with Mr. Mecum, and between them, the answer given was a closing date of August 7.] COMMISSIONER RUE said the department didn't have an "absolute number" regarding the pink salmon. He added: Again, that's ... one of the reasons why the Board [of Fisheries] did what they did. [Its members] said, "Look, ... there [are] lots of pinks, but what is a lot, and what do we need for escapement, and how many cohos are there?" They wanted more specificity; they wanted more quantitative estimates of what that was. CO-CHAIR SCALZI said he'd heard that the number of pink salmon was estimated at 20 million. He added that the number came from the local area biologists within the department. MR. MECUM said that number was a "wild guess." CO-CHAIR SCALZI inquired whether, when the surplus of pink salmon had shown up, the department had said its hands were tied and that it was unable to manage an EO [emergency order] because of the management plan. COMMISSIONER RUE said that was "basically correct," adding that there were "plenty of pinks around" to have a directed pink salmon fishery. CO-CHAIR SCALZI mentioned the failed petition discussed earlier in the meeting. Number 1819 MR. MECUM responded: There is a petition process in the Board [of Fisheries] regulations that says under certain situations they will hear an issue out of cycle. And the criteria for that has to do with a situation that threatens a fish or game resource - a conservation emergency, or if there is going to be some substantial harm ... to somebody who's not able to access some resource. And, clearly, this situation did come under those criteria. And so the board was willing to consider it under those criteria, but the petition [by the fishermen] ... was submitted very late in the pink salmon run - probably two to three weeks late. Number 1777 CO-CHAIR asked if there were any suggestions the department had to "remedy the problem" and to speed up the petition process. COMMISSIONER RUE mentioned a question he had received previously from Representative Fate, regarding Section 3 of the bill and whether the department would be stepping in to change the balance between itself and the board. He revisited an earlier comment by Mr. Mecum that [under the new provisions of the bill], the board could still accept its own agenda changes. Commissioner Rue added that as he understands it, [the proposed language of the bill] would change how the Board [of Fisheries] deals with public requests to change its agenda. Commissioner Rue said, "So, while I might be able to limit which public requests for agenda changes go to [the] Board [of Fisheries], ... they could still accept their own agenda change requests, from their own members, without my saying anything." He emphasized that there would be a limited change in the balance of powers. Number 1693 REPRESENTATIVE FATE qualified that not only would it be limited, but it would also be restricted solely to the issue of conservation. COMMISSIONER RUE concurred. Number 1618 GERRY MERRIGAN, Petersburg Vessel Owner's Association (PVOA), testified via teleconference in support of HB Number 0833 DREW SPARLIN, United Cook Inlet Drift Association, testified via teleconference in support of HB commissioner and the department, and encouraged committee members to direct any comments to him during the next week. 216 HCR [Contains discussion of HB supreme court ruling that Alaska could not charge nonresident fishermen three times more than resident fishermen were charged. He recapped that HB Alaska faced in that case. Representative Stevens reminded those present that the intent of CSHB 93(FSH) Out of 03/16/01 0624 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) NT 5DP 1DNP 03/16/01 0624 (H) DP: SCALZI, KAPSNER, 03/16/01 0624 (H) STEVENS; DNP: COGHILL; NR: 03/16/01 0624 (H) FN1: (DFG) 03/16/01 0624 (H) FN2: (DFG) 03/16/01 0624 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES 03/26/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 03/26/01 (H) Heard & Held 04/02/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 216 03/26/01 0730 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - 03/26/01 0730 (H) FSH, RES 03/27/01 0746 (H) FSH REFERRAL WAIVED 03/27/01 0746 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES 04/02/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 13 04/02/01 0808 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - 04/02/01 0808 (H) RES, FIN 04/02/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB165'>HB 165 and HB 550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1380 165. href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB93'>HB 93 regarding the href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB93'>HB 93. href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB93'>HB 93; discussed 165. href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB93'>HB 93; testified on 165 and HB 216. 37020 Cannery Road href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB93'>HB 93 and HB 216. href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB165'>HB 165. 31864 Moonshine Drive in HB discussed issues regarding HB 216. ll/Detail/22?Root=HB216'>HB 216. ll/Detail/22?Root=HB216'>HB 216. href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB216'>HB 216. href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB216'>HB 216. is/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB216'>HB 216 would clarify and href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB216'>HB 216. 165-KENAI RIVER SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA etail/22?Root=HB165'>HB 165 for discussion purposes, but informed the committee that technical corrections to /Detail/22?Root=HB165'>CSHB 165, Version C]. 165 [those amendments were discussed]. 165 because he believes there is enough 165. In the Fall of 1999, the Kenai Area Plan href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB165'>HB 165 would be taken up 93-KENAI DIP NET FISHERY PERMIT FEE 93, mentioned a question raised [by Representative Fate] il/22?Root=HB93'>HB 93(FSH), Version 22-LS0431\J, as a HB 93, sp#16.05.110'>AS 16.05.110[(a)(1)], the 61, which allows the habitat and restoration to HB He referred to Article VIII, Section 3, of the Alaska to the point where most of HB 93, HB many reasons, most of which had been mentioned HB 93, href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB93'>HB 93, version 22- il/22?Root=HB93'>CSHB 93(RES) was moved out of the 165-KENAI RIVER SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA Version C, 22-LS0389\C, Luckhaupt, 3/29/01, as a work we'd of the 'D2' settlement." Mr. Smith "set-asides" when href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB165'>CSHB 165, version 22- ?Root=HB165'>CSHB 165(RES) was moved out of the House 216-BD OF FISHERIES MEETINGS/EMERGENCY ORDERS Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB216'>HB 216 was sponsored by the House etail/22?Root=HB216'>HB 216 for discussion purposes, but l/Detail/22?Root=HB216'>HB 216, which he had drafted, 16, is "[if] the commissioner concurs"; the intent is to take 10, page 2], which read: issues with HB He stressed that Alaska's successful system is based on an href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB216'>HB 216, saying the href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB216'>HB 216. He said s/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB216'>HB 216 and saying that he href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB216'>HB 216. He said UCIDA href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB216'>HB 216 would serve to "strictly name='HB216' href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB216'>HB 216. He allowed to do." 216, should it pass. tail/22?Root=HB216'>HB 216. He stated that he has been href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB216'>HB 216 would be held 216. He referred to the concerns of the [HB was held over.] 13-NONRES. COMMERCIAL FISHING FEES 22?Root=HB194'>HB 194] etail/22?Root=HCR13'>HCR 13 for discussion purposes, but 194, a response to the Carlson case and the 194 was a practical response to the problems ill/Detail/22?Root=HB194'>HB 194 was to say that Alaska name='HB194' href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB194'>HB 194 was HCR 13 /Bill/Detail/22?Root=HCR13'>HCR 13 clarifies the House HB 194, and ?Root=HCR13'>HCR 13] move right along with [HB 194]. ill/Detail/22?Root=HCR13'>HCR 13 "goes along with our href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HCR13'>HCR 13 out of committee Bill/Detail/22?Root=HCR13'>HCR 13 was moved out of the s"> id="docLink">Open document in new windowX ght:100%;min-height:600px" id="docFrame"> width="105" height="107" bills, locate ist-whos-who.php">contact information. g.gov/webmaster.php">help

SMS Bill Tracking

Text a bill number (ex: HB1) to 559-245-2529 to enroll in text alerts. You will receive an enrollment confirmation and instructions on how to stop receiving the alerts.

04/02/2001 01:10 PM House RES

SMS Bill Tracking

WHO REPRESENTS ME??

Quick Links

Legislative Links

senate

house