02/25/2004 01:07 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 25, 2004
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Co-Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Cheryll Heinze, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Nick Stepovich
Representative Kelly Wolf
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 188
"An Act relating to the authority of the Department of Natural
Resources to issue citations for certain skiing violations;
relating to establishing a bail schedule for certain skiing
violations and to procedures for issuing a citation for a skiing
violation."
- MOVED HB 188 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 35
Relating to mad cow disease and country-of-origin labeling for
meat products.
- MOVED CSHJR 35(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 344
"An Act relating to annual rental fees for mining claims, and
providing for reduced royalties during the first three years of
production."
- MOVED CSHB 344(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 341
"An Act relating to the dive fishery management assessment."
- MOVED HB 341 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 188
SHORT TITLE: BAIL SCHEDULE FOR SKIING VIOLATION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HAWKER
03/12/03 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/12/03 (H) RES, STA
02/25/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HJR 35
SHORT TITLE: MAD COW DISEASE/COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KERTTULA
02/05/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/05/04 (H) L&C, RES
02/16/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/16/04 (H) Moved CSHJR 35(L&C) Out of Committee
02/16/04 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/18/04 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) NT 5DP 1NR
02/18/04 (H) DP: CRAWFORD, LYNN, GATTO, DAHLSTROM,
02/18/04 (H) GUTTENBERG; NR: ANDERSON
02/25/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 344
SHORT TITLE: MINING FEES, RENTALS, & ROYALTIES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FATE
01/12/04 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/2/04
01/12/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/12/04 (H) RES, FIN
02/04/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/04/04 (H) Heard & Held
02/04/04 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/23/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/23/04 (H) Heard & Held
02/23/04 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/25/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 341
SHORT TITLE: DIVE FISHERY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WILLIAMS
01/12/04 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/2/04
01/12/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/12/04 (H) FSH, RES
02/04/04 (H) FSH RPT 6DP 1NR
02/04/04 (H) DP: GARA, OGG, HEINZE, WILSON,
02/04/04 (H) SAMUELS, SEATON; NR: GUTTENBERG
02/04/04 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
02/04/04 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/04/04 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/16/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/16/04 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/25/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 188 as sponsor.
PAUL SWANSON, Area Manager
Eaglecrest Ski Area
City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 188.
LARRY DANIELS
Alyeska Ski Resort
(no address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 188.
RICK THOMPSON, Regional Land Manager
Southcentral Region Office
Division of Mining Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 188, answered
questions.
AURORA HAUKE, Staff
to Representative Beth Kerttula
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented CSHJR 35(L&C) on behalf of
Representative Kerttula, sponsor.
PHIL KASPARI, Agricultural Agent
Cooperative Extension Service (CES)
Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on CSHJR 35(L&C), he
encouraged letting sound science rule decision-making rather
than politics, and urged the committee to support specific
research on animals with bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
PAUL KNOPP, Dairy Producer
Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns relating to CSHJR
35(L&C).
JIM POUND, Staff
to Representative Hugh Fate
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on CSHB 344(RES), provided
information and answered questions on behalf of Representative
Fate, sponsor.
BOB LOEFFLER, Director
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on CSHB 344(RES), provided
information and answered questions.
TIM BARRY, Staff
to Representative Bill Williams
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 341 on behalf of
Representative Williams, sponsor.
JULIE DECKER, Executive Director
Southeast Alaska Regional Dive Fisheries Association (SARDFA)
Wrangell, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 341, provided
information and answered questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-8, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR NANCY DAHLSTROM called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. Representatives Masek,
Dahlstrom, Heinze, Wolf, Guttenberg, and Kerttula were present
at the call to order. Representatives Gatto, Lynn, and
Stepovich arrived as the meeting was in progress.
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM passed the gavel over to Co-Chair Masek.
HB 188-BAIL SCHEDULE FOR SKIING VIOLATION
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 188, "An Act relating to the authority of the
Department of Natural Resources to issue citations for certain
skiing violations; relating to establishing a bail schedule for
certain skiing violations and to procedures for issuing a
citation for a skiing violation."
Number 0135
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as sponsor, explained that HB 188 was brought forth on behalf of
Alaska's skiing industry. He said former Senator [Jay] Kerttula
was instrumental in sponsoring and moving a bill called the
[Alaska] Ski Safety Act, which defined responsibilities and
guidance for the management and operation of ski areas that were
developing in the state. He said that particular legislation
created some obligations on the part of skiing participants to
be safe and prudent, but it didn't compromise the ability to
enjoy an aggressive and adventurous sport. However, he said it
did provide some "does and don'ts," which are fairly consistent
with some prudent practices. Representative Hawker indicated
that under the Alaska Ski Safety Act, a skier involved in a
collision with another skier, that results in an injury, may not
leave the scene [of the accident] except to secure aid. He said
it was anticipated that the Alaska Supreme Court would establish
a bail schedule - a schedule of fines - for non-felony, non-
misdemeanor, and "traffic-ticket type of violations."
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said the Alaska Supreme Court [determined]
that the language wasn't clear enough and a letter in the bill
packet from the National Ski Patrol offers a particularly good
analysis of the Alaska Supreme Court's view and an explanation
of its problem with the creation of the bail schedule. He
paraphrased from the letter, which read in part [original
punctuation provided]:
The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the language in
the original legislation was not specific enough to
give them the authority to establish a bail schedule.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER continued paraphrasing from the last
paragraph on page 1 of the letter, which read in part [original
punctuation provided]:
Administrative Rule 43(a) states: "The Supreme Court
will consider adopting a bail forfeiture schedule only
when so authorized by statute ...". The Court decided
the language in AS 05.45.100(h) is not an adequate
authorization.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER indicated that the intention of the bill
is to further fix a piece of excellent legislation and make it
work as it was originally intended to. He said part of the
original concern was that the authority to have bail schedules
only applied to ski operations on land that the state had
jurisdiction. He said it wasn't clear that this was to apply to
both privately operated facilities and those operated by the
state, which Section 1(h) addresses.
Number 0710
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER noted that Section 2 was added
to [order the Alaska Supreme Court] to establish a
bail schedule, and he explained that the language is
consistent with existing statute in which similar bail
schedules are authorized in the state for boating
violations, fish and game fines, and motor vehicles
fines and schedules.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER noted that it doesn't make a lot of sense
in reading the bill, and he remarked, "You've got to go in the
context of the law in which it was intended to operate." He
concluded that the bill authorizes the Alaska Supreme Court to
set up a bail schedule, a schedule of fines for violations of
specific provisions of the Alaska Ski Safety Act, and clarifies
that the Alaska Ski Safety Act was intended to apply to ski
resorts operating on private land throughout the state as well
as land owned by the state.
Number 0858
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked about money collected from fines.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER explained that the Alaska Ski Safety Act
does not establish a specific fund to get around the dedication
prohibitions, so it ultimately becomes "general fund
appropriateable money."
Number 0914
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked if all ski resorts in Alaska have
liquor licenses.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER deferred the question to ski industry
members.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked about the fiscal note in relation to a
peace officer issuing citations.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER asked which provision involving a peace
officer is of concern.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked if it would be an expense to the state
for peace officers to issue citations.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said he thought Representative Wolf was
referring to AS 41.21.960.
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM clarified that the statute in question is
listed on page 1, line 10 of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF said the statute is also listed on page 2,
[line 13].
Number 1010
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said it is contextual and that a reference
to peace officers is not involved in this citation. He said
that section is intended strictly to authorize a bail schedule.
He explained that the issue would be regarding whether it is
applicable under the existing Alaska Ski Safety Act if a DNR
employee or an Alaska State Trooper is enforcing violations on
state lands. Representative Hawker said in that case, DNR is
authorized to empower people who meet its qualifications to
issue citations on nonpublic lands. He explained that the
violations are not authorized to involve attorneys or additional
court time, which is why there is a bail schedule, because
[these types of cases] get dispensed very rapidly without the
need for legal costs to the state.
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM said she also had some of these same
questions and believes the next committee of referral, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee, is the appropriate place for
that discussion to take place.
Number 1129
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out that the packet contains three
or four pages that deal with AS 05.45.100, "Duties and
responsibilities of skiers." He asked a question relating to
subsection (c), paragraph (2), regarding the requirement for the
ski to be "equipped with a strap or other device capable of
stopping the ski should the ski become unattached from the
skier".
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM said she thought it was a valid issue, but it
should be addressed in House State Affairs Standing Committee
rather than in the House Resources Standing Committee.
Number 1242
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH asked if the liabilities already take
into consideration what Representative Hawker is trying to
[address with this bill].
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER explained that this bill does not attempt
to rewrite or reconsider the statutory authority that was
created in the Alaska Ski Safety Act itself; instead this bill
was drafted to deal with a specific problem with implementing
the Alaska Ski Safety Act.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH said he is under the impression that
[ski areas are already enforcing the issues being addressed]
with this bill. He asked if the ski patrol could issue
[citations under the authority of DNR].
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER remarked:
That would be a decision ... made by the commissioner
of natural resources [DNR] who ... in self is
constrained by the regulations ... that would need to
be promulgated to quantify - ... essentially, ...
investing that authority within the commissioner ...
either to comply with existing regulation or to
develop the regulation necessary to (indisc.) ...
authorize persons to provide for citations.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH asked if [the bill would allow
citations] to be written on the ski hill for certain violations.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER replied no. He explained that this bill
specifically authorizes the Alaska Supreme Court to create a
bail schedule for citations that would be issued under the
authority that was provided in the original Alaska Ski Safety
Act.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH said it seems like the [Alaska Ski
Safety Act] addressed these [issues].
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER offered to provide Representative
Stepovich with a letter from the Alaska Supreme Court. He said
the Alaska Supreme Court has asked [the legislature] to grant it
specific authority and it would develop the bail schedule, which
was contemplated in the original Act.
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked Representative Hawker to provide the
committee with a copy of the letter and to include it in the
House State Affairs Standing Committee's bill packets. She said
she was positive these concerns will and do need to be
addressed.
CO-CHAIR MASEK explained that the purpose of the bill is to
address technical issues that were not addressed in the [Alaska
Ski Safety Act]. She said she thought the intent of the bill is
to clarify the statutes in order for the [Alaska Ski Safety Act]
to work. She said the courts can't really implement the [Alaska
Ski Safety Act] or enforce it unless it is authorized in
statute, because the Alaska Supreme Court has determined that
there is no clear authorization in statute for such a schedule.
Co-Chair Masek called the bill "clean cut," and she said DNR had
worked on implementing a bail schedule, which is included in the
bill packet.
Number 1571
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH remarked:
In respect to people that bring bills before this
committee; they want them all to go through. ... I
don't know where to address this. ... I am on the
resource committee; I'm not on state affairs. ... I
just have trouble with the qualifications of those who
are going to be able to get these out. I just want it
stated for the record. Qualifications for those who
are going to give these tickets out on the ski hill
and their abilities to assess the skills of the skiers
that they're going to give the tickets to.
Number 1619
PAUL SWANSON, Area Manager, Eaglecrest Ski Area, City and
Borough of Juneau testified. Mr. Swanson paraphrased from the
following written testimony, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
Thank you Madame Chair and Members of the Committee
for the opportunity to testify this afternoon in
support of HB 188.
For the record, my name is Paul Swanson. I am Area
Manager of Eaglecrest Ski Area which is owned and
operated by the City and Borough of Juneau.
When the Alaska Ski Safety Act was enacted in 1994 it
clearly identified duties and responsibilities of both
the ski area and the skier.
However, currently we are unable to fully enforce all
provisions due to the fact that the bail schedule as
called for in the Act has not been established by the
courts.
I feel that passage of this bill is needed to support
the intent of the Ski Safety Act and reinforce current
area operations and safety policies as approved by the
Department of Natural Resources.
The establishment of the bail schedule will allow us
to deal more effectively with violators, such as
skiers who enter a closed area and those under the
influence of alcohol and controlled substances.
It is important to note that the Act does not prohibit
skiers from going out of the ski area boundaries - at
their own risk.
I appreciate your support and am willing to answer any
questions you might have.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH inquired about the number of violations
that have occurred at Eaglecrest Ski Area.
MR. SWANSON said there were less than 10 instances of people
going into closed areas this year.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH asked if the Eaglecrest Ski Area deals
with violations itself.
MR. SWANSON said it does at the present time. He explained that
the ski area deals with it by revoking skiing privileges or
taking the skier's pass for 30 days, which might occur at the
end of the day. However, he said there is really no way to keep
that person away for 30 days.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH noted that he would rather pay the fine
than have his privileges revoked. He asked if there are a lot
of collisions or civil suits against [Eaglecrest Ski Area].
MR. SWANSON remarked, "Not in our case." He said many people
would not want to pay the fine, and he felt the [bill] is a
better avenue for [the ski industry] to take. Mr. Swanson said
he doesn't consider there to be a lot of offenders, but if
[violators] had to pay for his or her mistakes, he thought it
would be looked at better than the way it is currently being
dealt with.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH said some might argue that it is very
expensive to go skiing, but he knows Eaglecrest Ski Area has
good prices.
MR. SWANSON replied, "We're not making any money."
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH related his belief that $50 is the most
someone in Alaska would pay to go skiing, which is a lot for one
day. He offered his belief that $50 citations can still be
issued under current statute, and said he would like to see [how
many citations have been issued thus far].
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked Representative Hawker to provide the
committee with that information.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said existing circumstance allows an
operator to issue a $50 maximum fine. He said the bill packet
contains an additional letter offered by the Eaglecrest Ski Area
that identified the original DNR proposed bail schedule, which
identified the priorities where DNR wishes to increment the
individual fines beyond the $50 maximum. He explained that the
Alaska Supreme Court was asked to authorize a bail schedule to
put $150 for skiing on a closed slope or trail, $100 for riding
lifts or skiing under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and
$150 for a skier having a hit and run accident. Representative
Hawker said the point of the bail schedule is to increase a few
of these violation charges.
Number 2047
LARRY DANIELS, Alyeska Ski Resort, testified. Mr. Daniels
stated his support for HB 188 as proposed. He explained that he
was involved in the original legislation and in promoting it
through the legislature. Mr. Daniels said this bill just
perfects the original Alaska Ski Safety Act of 1994, and to
finish the intent of the original legislation, which did not
provide that specific authorization to the Alaska Supreme Court
to establish a bail schedule. He explained that on occasion
there are problems with skiers colliding with each other and in
some cases it can result in a fairly serious injury. Currently,
he said there is no deterrent from that person running away from
the accident. He said even if that person is identified and
caught, the process that would have to be gone through to
involve the Alaska State Troopers and using assault-type
processes have, to this point in time, been essentially non-
effective because it takes so much investigative time and a
large degree of effort on behalf of the district attorney to
process. He said Alyeska Ski Resort has only had one situation
like that, but currently there is no deterrent.
MR. DANIELS said another example is of people skiing in an area
that is exposed to avalanche conditions, and not only do those
people expose themselves to danger but they potentially expose
other skiers and the ski patrol, if a rescue is needed. He
compared it to having speed limits on a highway and not having
the ability to issue citations for driving violations. He said
he didn't think that enacting HB 188 would increase the number
of tickets being written. He remarked, "Once the deterrent is
there, and a few were written - in only the most egregious of
cases - then I think that we could expect to see some
significant reduction in those kinds of issues."
Number 2231
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG turned attention to page 1, line 11,
and he asked about the jurisdictional change and the larger
affect of the change.
Number 2293
RICK THOMPSON, Regional Land Manager, Southcentral Region
Office, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Department of
Natural Resources, testified. Mr. Thompson said his belief is
[the bill] changes the jurisdiction from ski areas on state
owned land to any ski area operator in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER noted that the bill packet contains a
letter from the commissioner of DNR. He explained that the
first paragraph of the letter does address that the purpose of
this is to provide "the authority to establish bail schedules
for ski safety act violations and that all ski areas - those on
state land and those on other lands - be treated equally in
regards to enforcement of these violations." He said it is a
clarifying point.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH asked [Mr. Thompson] how he envisioned
this bill working and who would be [issuing the citations].
MR. THOMPSON said DNR is looking forward to the passage of this
bill. He explained that the ski patrol would investigate the
incident, write a report, and pass on the report to DNR. He
said DNR employees appointed to work on that project would be
issuing any [citations]. He said typically, DNR may only be
issuing about three [citations] per year. Mr. Thompson noted
that there was a high of nine [citations] issued one year, but
there are zero [citations] issued many years. He said the
violations are typically pretty serious when they do occur.
Number 2433
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO thanked Mr. Swanson for accommodating his
13 year-old son last year during a one-day visit snowboarding at
Eaglecrest Ski Area.
Number 2455
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE moved to report HB 188 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 188 was reported from the
House Resources Standing Committee.
HJR 35-MAD COW DISEASE/COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELS
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 35, Relating to mad cow disease
and country-of-origin labeling for meat products.
CO-CHAIR MASEK noted that CSHJR 35(L&C) was before the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA, speaking as sponsor, noted that her
staff would be presenting the resolution, and she remarked, "The
ex-director of agriculture, who was also the ex-Senator we just
heard about, was evidently a better farmer than he was lawyer,
so I can tell you that he's worked very hard on this particular
piece of legislation, and it's basically a labeling piece of
legislation ... supporting that."
CO-CHAIR MASEK inquired about the changes made in the committee
substitute (CS) and asked that Representative Kerttula's staff
speak to those changes.
Number 2553
AURORA HAUKE, Staff to Representative Beth Kerttula, presented
CSHJR 35(L&C) on behalf of Representative Kerttula, sponsor.
Ms. Hauke explained that bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE),
"mad cow disease," and the disease humans can get from it, the
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), are very scary. The diseases
are invariably fatal and there is no cure, but they can be
prevented, she said. This resolution supports efforts of the
USDA [United States Department of Agriculture] to prevent the
disease and also encourages earlier implementation of country-
of-origin labeling (COOL) for beef, she said. Turning attention
changes made in the CS, she directed attention to page 2, lines
1-2, and she said the language in the [original resolution was
changed to reflect the actions of the USDA]. Language found on
page 1, line 16, through page 2, lines 1 and 2, of the original
resolution read:
WHEREAS the United States Department of Agriculture
has taken steps to identify and destroy cattle that
are from the same herd as the infected cow and other
animals that may have been exposed to that cow; and
MS. HAUKE explained that the USDA stopped searching for more
cows from that herd, so the language was changed to read:
WHEREAS the United States Department of Agriculture
has taken steps to control bovine spongiform
encephalopathy; and
MS. HAUKE said another change made to the CS was the addition of
"bovine spongiform encephalopathy" into the title.
Number 2628
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM, noting that she appreciated the changes,
asked what other states are doing to implement regulations or
anything pertaining to the same subject.
MS. HAUKE explained that eight other states have legislation
pending. One state has passed a resolution encouraging the
opening of international beef markets. Four states already
require the labeling of imported beef. The other eight states
have various legislation that mostly have to do with tracking
and identification, and there are a couple of bills that deal
with meat processing and rendering regulations, she explained.
There is a bill that would make it a crime not to test animal
feed or not to ensure animal feed is safe, and there is an
appropriation for an identification system. She said Iowa has a
resolution to support the implementation of [COOL] labeling by
2004, and last year, it had a resolution to support postponing
that, but after the discovery of the "mad cow" [in the state of
Washington] "they changed their minds, I guess." Ms. Hauke
remarked, "New York has had legislation since 2002, so that's
not new."
Number 2710
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked what Congress is doing with regard to this
issue. She turned attention to page 2, lines 17-19, which read:
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature
supports any efforts by the Alaska congressional
delegation to implement country-of-origin labeling for
meat products sooner than the current implementation
date.
MS. HAUKE said in the omnibus appropriations bill, the country
of origin labeling, which was supposed to take effect in
September 2004, was pushed back to September 2006. She said
there were several reasons for that and there was also a lot of
opposition. She said there has been talk about moving the
implementation date back up. Ms. Hauke said a member of United
States Senator Ted Stevens' staff said Senator Stevens was
involved in discussions.
Number 2764
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked Ms. Hauke if the Canadian government
is cooperating with the United States and to what extent.
MS. HAUKE said the [the Canadian government] implemented the
feed ban at the same time as the United States. She stated her
belief that the [Canadian government] is being very cooperative
with the United States, and said it had shut down some borders
from [allowing in] beef shipments from the United States, even
those going through.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE pointed out that last spring, [Canadian
customs] were stopping [vehicles] at the border for having items
such as beef broth. She asked if [the resolution] will affect
this in any way.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she had heard that [Canadian
customs] had even taken dog food. She said she didn't know the
current situation at the border, but this [resolution] doesn't
impact that except in terms of recognizing that issue. She said
this [resolution] is "going more toward" the labeling of the
animal product. Representative Kerttula, noting it is a good
question, offered to check to see [what products are being
stopped at the Canadian border].
Number 2764
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, directing attention to page 2, lines 11
and 13, noted previous discussion in the [House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee] about the language "deserve", and
he said he didn't remember [what outcome of that discussion].
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA clarified that there had been discussion
in the previous committee about whether the word "deserve"
should stay in the legislation. She said she didn't have any
particular belief on it, but the previous committee really felt
that it was something that Americans did deserve to know and it
wanted to keep the stronger language in the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO noted that he was uneasy with the word, and
said he didn't think it properly described what "we were after."
He suggested [it read] "Americans have the right to know" or
"Americans should be advised" because he said the word "deserve"
is so compelling and so focused that "there isn't any way out of
it." He remarked, "Everybody deserves to know, and I thought, I
know that's not going to change the effect of the bill." He
said he still likes the alternative terminology because he
didn't think "deserve" was the right word. Representative Gatto
said he felt he had to bring that up, and he was not going to
object to it.
Number 2933
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said he thought what happened in the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee is it couldn't find
something that better fit what was felt or a substitute that
actually met that. Addressing a previous question from
Representative Heinze, he said he had dog food confiscated at
the border and he knew of a staff member that had also had dog
food confiscated at the border but the manufacturer compensated
her for that.
Number 2961
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH noted that he liked the word "need."
TAPE 04-8, SIDE B
Number 2978
PHIL KASPARI, Agricultural Agent, Cooperative Extension Service
(CES), testified. He said in general he agreed with the
resolution but he was concerned by one item in particular. Mr.
Kaspari directed attention to page 2, [line 4], the language
"nonambulatory disabled cattle", and he said the USDA has a made
the decision to ban those animals from slaughter. He said he
was not an expert but he felt like that was a reactionary
maneuver on the part of the USDA to calm the public's concerns
regarding the safety of the meat being purchased. Mr. Kaspari
suggested that the [USDA] was not necessarily using sound
science. He said there are so many questions regarding BSE that
scientists and researches have not yet been able to answer that
he felt like things might have to be slowed down just a little
bit to let sound science rule the decision making rather than
politics.
MR. KASPARI said the number of "downer animals" that do come
into a slaughter generally have very obvious problems such as a
broken leg or what is referred to as "hip lock," which occurs
when the animal experiences problems during the calving process.
Generally, he said producers look upon downer animals in an
ethical manner, rather than wasting that commodity, producers
would just as soon use it in an ethical manner and have the
animal utilized. He said if the use of downer animals is
banned, then a couple of things happen. For example, he said
there is a certain amount of economic hardship imposed upon
producers, and it also [causes] a certain amount of paranoia in
producers. He said he knows that this whole issue is being
discussed on a national basis and is evolving, and he thought
user groups are talking to USDA representatives.
MR. KASPARI said he hoped the committee would add a line that
would mention supporting specific research on BSE animals,
because scientists are currently allowed to research chronic
wasting disease (CWD), which is basically the same disease that
occurs in the deer family such as Elk. He mentioned [CWD
occurrences in] white tailed deer in Michigan, Wisconsin, and
parts of Minnesota, and he said wild herds are suffering with
this disease.
Number 2774
PAUL KNOPP, Dairy producer, began by saying he has some real
concerns with this resolution. He said he wonders where these
statements come from because they haven't all necessarily been
proven by science. Mr. Knopp asked if the state veterinarian
has been contacted about this statement. He said he really
thought this should be taken further, which he thought is why
the USDA has initiated a two-year moratorium, to look at it and
get some scientific evidence "of where they're trying to go."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA thanked both Mr. Kaspari and Mr. Knopp
for testifying and she told them she was really open to talking
more with them about their concerns after the meeting. She said
the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) was
contacted, and that she had thought about introducing
legislation to "require inspection" coming into Alaska but she
felt satisfied after speaking to DEC that it wasn't really
necessary, and she decided instead to go with the "resolution
route." She said a lot of the information in the resolution is
taken directly from the Federal Register, the USDA, and also
from information and research that was put out at the time that
BSE was found in the cow in [Washington], and in articles from
The New York Times. She said Mr. Kaspari made a good point
about a cow that breaks its leg, but the idea is when there is a
nonambulatory disabled cow, which is defined in the Federal
Register as dead, dying, disabled, and diseased. Representative
Kerttula said Mr. Kaspari is talking about a cow that she didn't
think any farmer "in their right mind" is going to put into a
food strain. She said maybe that language could be a little
more specific but generally she thought that was the idea.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she didn't disagree that care
should be taken with regard to factual information, but all of
the things in the resolution have been researched back to fact,
which is the reason for the nonambulatory disease cattle phrase
that was taken directly from the Federal Register. She said
this is not [intended] to do something radical or that may hurt
the industry and is really much more about protecting the
industry and ensuring "we know what we're getting."
Number 2585
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM moved to report CSHJR 35(L&C) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR 35(L&C) was
reported out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
CO-CHAIR MASEK passed the gavel back to Co-Chair Dahlstrom.
HB 344-MINING FEES, RENTALS, & ROYALTIES
CHAIR DAHLSTROM announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 344, "An Act relating to annual rental fees
for mining claims, and providing for reduced royalties during
the first three years of production."
CO-CHAIR MASEK clarified that [Version I] was before the
committee.
Number 2517
JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Hugh Fate, Alaska State
Legislature, came forward to explain CSHB 344(RES) on behalf of
Representative Fate, sponsor. Mr. Fate said the language in the
CS more so meets the requirements of what the intent of the
original bill was, which was to help the small miner "get back
out in the field and stay back out in the field" in order to
bring [the small mining] economy back to Alaska. He said the CS
allows that if the small miner is late on filing the required
paperwork, that person is not automatically deemed to have
abandoned the site, and it gives [the small miner] a "cure" in
order to prevent that from happening, although the cure doesn't
come without penalty. If the paperwork is filed even one day
late, the small miner will ultimately have to pay one year's
rent on his or her claims. He said the sponsor worked with the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Alaska Miner's
Association very closely and it was mutually agreed that this is
the direction that will have the most positive impact on the
mining industry.
Number 2449
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked how much money this bill will save
the average placer miner.
MR. POUND said it is not so much a case of saving money. He
said currently, if a miner files his or her paperwork one day
late, the state deems that mine as abandoned, and that person
will ultimately lose his or her claims. He said the amount of
money a particular miner might lose is dependant on how much
that person has in his or her claims.
Number 2414
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked about extensions for filing late
paperwork. He asked how much time a small miner would have
under the bill before the mine is considered abandoned.
BOB LOEFFLER, Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water,
Department of Natural Resources, replied that the way the system
has worked since the 1872 mining law, is that the mining year
ends on September 30, and the miner has until November 30 to
either pay or record his or her annual labor and pay rent [on
the mining claim]. If for some reason the miner is late, he
said those claims are abandoned by operation of law and there is
nothing he can do about it. Mr. Loeffler said it is the miner's
responsibility and has been since 1872 to ensure that he or she
files the [required paperwork] on time. Every year, he said
there are about a dozen people that don't have a good excuse and
some of those people come in begging [him] to do [something for
them], although there is nothing he can do under the current
law. He said this bill would give a miner who pays late the
opportunity to cure. Under current law, the mines are abandoned
and may not be staked for a year. During that year period
someone else may stake that claim and it would become that
person's claim. He said the [late paying] miner can cure by
paying a penalty. Mr. Loeffler said it's typically the small
miners - through error, incompetence, or old age - that "blow
it" occasionally, and it averages about a dozen or two dozen a
year. He said this [bill] gives those miners an opportunity to
keep working.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked what the remedy would be with
the passage of this bill.
MR. LOEFFLER said it would allow the miner to pay a penalty and
the abandonment is cured.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked what the penalty is.
MR. LOEFFLER said the miner would have to pay for what is
already owed and an additional penalty equal to the annual rent
for that mining claim.
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTOM offered her understanding that the year's
annual rent will be a different number for each individual
claim.
MR. LOEFFLER said the annual rent depends on how long the claim
has been in existence, so there could be a couple of different
numbers.
Number 2163
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH asked what the time limit is on the
penalty.
MR. LOEFFLER said there is no time limit, but there would be no
real reason to do it after a year because that miner could just
re-stake his or her claim.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH asked if anyone could stake the claim.
MR. LOEFFLER said the law is really consistent with history and
tradition since 1872, and the it works if someone else hasn't
asserted contrary rights. If someone else stakes the claim,
that person gets the claim. He indicated that a miner could not
lose his or her claim if over-staked by another miner as long as
the paperwork is current.
Number 2105
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked how long a person could be late on
filing his or her paperwork.
MR. LOEFFLER said as long as no one stakes a claim to the
contrary and the miner wants to pay all of the penalties, it is
fine with him.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH asked if a slow pay is better than no
pay.
MR. LOEFFLER replied yes.
Number 2039
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE moved to report CSHB 344(RES), Version 23-
LS1298\I, Bullock, 2/20/04 out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 344(RES) was reported from the House
Resources Standing Committee.
HB 341-DIVE FISHERY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 341, "An Act relating to the dive
fishery management assessment."
Number 1988
TIM BARRY, Staff to Representative Bill Williams, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking on behalf of Representative Williams,
sponsor, told the committee HB 341 is a "housekeeping measure"
requested by the Southeast Alaska Regional Dive Fisheries
Association (SARDFA) to provide more flexibility in its
operations. He turned attention to a fact sheet provided by
SARDFA, and explained that SARDFA members pay a tax that is
based on the percentage of the value of their catch. He said
the revenue from this tax is spent on managing the various dive
fisheries that members are involved with. Mr. Barry said under
current state law, association members elect to tax themselves
by species at a rate of 1, 3, 5, or 7 percent of the value of
the landings in a given dive fishery.
Number 1857
JULIE DECKER, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Regional Dive
Fisheries Association, testified. She stated that this bill is
mainly a housekeeping measure. Members are currently allowed to
assess themselves at either 1,3,5, or 7 percent and would also
like to be given the ability to assess themselves at 2, 4, or 6
percent, which is what this bill would do, she said. Currently,
she said the sea cucumber and the geoduck fisheries assess
themselves at 5 percent, and the sea urchin fishery is at 7
percent. Ms. Decker said she believes the original reason why
the bill had to specify the 1, 3, 5, or 7 percentages is because
the legislature is the only body that has the authority to tax
and it couldn't give that authority in a broad sense to SARDFA.
However, she said the legislature could give SARDFA the
authority to vote and tax itself at a [specific percentage
amount].
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked Ms. Decker if $66,695 is
SARDFA's administrative budget.
MS. DECKER said correct but she thought that amount was from a
previous year. She said the [administrative budget] is in the
$50,000 range each year.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked Ms. Decker if SARDFA is only
trying to raise the amount of money needed for its
administrative budget.
MS. DECKER said SARDFA is not looking to change anything with
this legislation aside from the ability in the future to
possibly change the rate that SARDFA assesses itself at. She
said the rate at which SARDFA assesses itself equates to the
[total value of assessments for each fiscal year] and the total
amounts are generated by the percents, which are currently 1, 3,
5, and 7. Ms. Decker said SARDFA would like the ability to do
2,4, or 6 percent if it needs to. She said currently, in the
sea cucumber fishery, in particular, SARDFA has a little bit of
an excess at 5 percent, but if it lowers the assessment down to
3 percent it would be a 40 percent reduction and SARDFA would be
a little bit short. Ms. Decker said SARDFA is trying to foresee
that it may be able to reduce it down to 4 percent and be just
right.
Number 1665
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked Ms. Decker if SARDFA currently
assesses itself at 1, 3, 5, or 7 percent.
MS. DECKER said SARDFA has the ability to vote to tax itself at
those percentages.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked Ms. Decker how the percentages would
be adjusted with the passage of the bill.
MS. DECKER said there was talk among divers in the sea cucumber
industry that they may look at reducing the assessment to 4
percent, if they had that ability. She remarked, "We don't have
that ability, so we're trying to look forward and ... see that
coming." She said the geoduck fishery is also talking about
increasing its assessment but if the assessment needs to be
changed, it has to come from a petition from within membership
or within the permit holders, and they always have that ability
to change the assessment if they would like.
Number 1584
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE directed attention to page 1, line 8, and
she asked who determines the election.
MS. DECKER explained that the association would hold an election
and all of the permit holders within each fishery who have
legitimate permits would be able to vote.
Number 1539
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said it looked as though the executive
director's salary is half of SARDFA's budget, and he asked how
that salary is determined.
MS. DECKER said every year SARDFA's board of directors signs a
contract with the current executive director and every year that
is up for change. She said the budget within the administration
is just the "nuts and bolts," and SARDFA has a budget outside of
that for having contracts with people to do (indisc.) work and
PSD [prevention of significant deterioration] sampling, water
sampling, and other projects.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he was curious to see how much money
SARDFA is spending. He asked how much money SARDFA actually
spends.
MS. DECKER turned attention to the SARDFA handout entitled "Dive
Fisheries Fact Sheet - Corrected," and she said number six is
the assessment that SARDFA collects each year.
Number 1426
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH moved to report HB 341 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 341 was reported from the
House Resources Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|