04/01/2009 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB70 | |
| Big Game Commercial Services Board | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 70 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 1, 2009
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Craig Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Chris Tuck
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 70
"An Act establishing the farm-to-school program in the
Department of Natural Resources, the Alaska grown fresh fruit
and vegetable grant program in the Department of Education and
Early Development, the farmers' market technology improvement
pilot program in the Department of Environmental Conservation,
and the farmers to food banks pilot program in the Department of
Commerce, Community, and Economic Development."
- MOVED CSHB 70(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Big Game Commercial Services Board
Paul Johnson - Elfin Cove
Dirk Nickisch - Coldfoot
Betty Jo "BJ" Schmitz - North Pole
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 70
SHORT TITLE: ALASKA GROWN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GATTO
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/16/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) RES, FIN
03/18/09 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/18/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/09 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/23/09 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/23/09 (H) Moved CSHB 70(RES) Out of Committee
03/23/09 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/01/09 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REX SHATTUCK, Staff
Representative Mark Neuman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 70, explained why the
previously reported version of the bill needed to be replaced.
SANDRA WILSON, Staff
Representative Carl Gatto
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 70, answered
questions.
PAUL JOHNSON, Appointee
to the Big Game Commercial Services Board
Elfin Cove, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Big Game
Commercial Services Board.
DIRK NICKISCH, Appointee
to the Big Game Commercial Services Board
Coldfoot, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Big Game
Commercial Services Board.
BETTY JO "BJ" SCHMITZ, Appointee
to the Big Game Commercial Services Board
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Big Game
Commercial Services Board.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:05:10 PM
CO-CHAIR MARK NEUMAN called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Representatives Neuman,
Edgmon, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Tuck, Wilson, and Olson were
present at the call to order. Representatives Johnson and
Seaton arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 70-ALASKA GROWN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
1:05:48 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN announced that the first order of business would
be reconsideration of HOUSE BILL NO. 70, "An Act establishing
the farm-to-school program in the Department of Natural
Resources, the Alaska grown fresh fruit and vegetable grant
program in the Department of Education and Early Development,
the farmers' market technology improvement pilot program in the
Department of Environmental Conservation, and the farmers to
food banks pilot program in the Department of Commerce,
Community, and Economic Development." [CSHB 70(RES), Version E,
was previously reported from the committee.]
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN explained that HB 70 was again before the
committee in order to take care of a technicality.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved that the committee rescind its
action on HB 70 labeled 26-LS0284\E, Bannister, 3/24/09. There
being no objection, passage of -Version E was rescinded.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 70, Version 26-LS0284\S, Bannister,
3/25/09, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version S
was before the committee.
1:07:06 PM
REX SHATTUCK, Staff, Representative Mark Neuman, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that during the final drafting process of
Version E, Legislative Legal and Research Services pointed out
that the language on page 6, lines 23-24, "if the money from the
sale is used to support the operation of a school garden,
greenhouse, or farm under this section", violates the state's
constitutional prohibition against dedicated funds. This
concern was raised because a school district might be considered
a political subdivision of the state or an agency of the
municipality and a municipality is a subdivision of the state.
He said this language has been deleted from Version S.
1:09:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI noted that Version E states that the
vegetables may be sold if the money is used to support the
operation of the school gardens and Version S simply states that
the vegetables may be sold. He asked how the problem is solved
by leaving it open as to where the money can be spent.
MR. SHATTUCK replied that the intent of the committee through
its previous discussions seemed to not want to send the money
any place else, but to allow it to be a local decision. He
related that Legislative Legal and Research Services said this
is the minimum that could be done to still allow local decision
without directing funds and running afoul of the constitutional
prohibition.
SANDRA WILSON, Staff, Representative Carl Gatto, understood that
it is legal as long as it is provided that the vegetables can be
sold and there is no directive for how the funds must be used.
1:12:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired how this is different from bake
sales and other events that raise money for school sports teams
and bands.
MR. SHATTUCK said that kind of fund raising is through the
general public and not from the state general fund, and
therefore he thinks it is a different issue.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he had assumed money from fundraisers
for bands was going directly to the activity.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN pointed out that the sponsor's intent and the
legislative intent do matter, and the intent in HB 70 is to help
make the school garden program as self-sustaining as possible
through proceeds received from the produce.
MS. WILSON agreed that this is the sponsor's intent.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG stated that he thinks members agree on
the intent, but he does not see how deleting the aforementioned
language changes anything. He assumed the money will go into
the school district's account and that there is no intent by the
committee that the money be returned to the state. He asked
whether there is a way to make this work that is cleaner.
1:15:27 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN inquired whether the bill drafter, Mr.
Bannister, knew the committee's intent and drafted language that
would cover this intent.
MR. SHATTUCK understood from his conversations with Legislative
Legal and Research Services that the language was crafted to
adopt the will of the committee while staying within the
constraints allowed. He said Legislative Legal and Research
Services also pointed out that it is a financial issue and HB 70
has a referral to the House Finance Committee where the language
can be further crafted.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated that he does not see where the
money from any of these types of sales is directed to go to
schools, but he doubted that any of the approximately 80 funds
currently in state statute have such language because of the
constitutional prohibition. He said he is therefore satisfied
that this does what is needed and if it needs to be revisited
the House Finance Committee can do so.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved to report HB 70, Version 26-LS0284\S,
Bannister, 3/25/09, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 70(RES), Version S, was reported from the
House Resources Standing Committee.
^CONFIRMATION HEARINGS(S):
^Big Game Commercial Services Board
1:18:27 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN announced that the next order of business would
be confirmation hearing on the appointments of Paul E. Johnson,
Dirk Nickisch, and Betty Jo "BJ" Schmitz to the Big Game
Commercial Services Board. He requested Mr. Johnson to
introduce himself.
PAUL JOHNSON, Appointee to the Big Game Commercial Services
Board, stated that he was born in Juneau and has spent his life
in this area. He said he was first appointed to the Big Game
Commercial Services Board by Governor Steve Cowper and that this
would be his last stint on the board.
1:20:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Mr. Johnson to outline his general
philosophy as a professional guide.
MR. JOHNSON said he believes that Alaska's big game resources
are one of the state's most valuable renewable resources and
they need to be nurtured and taken care of. Alaska's guiding
and transporter industry is a $250 million industry that needs
to be regulated with reason and ethical standards. Alaska is
competing with other states and countries and the state must
keep its standards up so that people will be willing to pay the
amount of money that the state needs to receive from these
resources. He said he hopes that after a few more years, Alaska
will have an industry that it can be very proud of. He added
that he is thankful for the life he has had in this industry and
he is participating in this program to help the younger people
who are getting into this industry and to ensure that this
industry will be here long after he is gone.
1:22:54 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON noted that Mr. Johnson's application is not
included in the committee packet. He asked a series of
questions as to whether Mr. Johnson: has been convicted of a
misdemeanor within the past five years or a felony within the
past ten years, is prepared to make any financial disclosures,
and whether he or a family member could be affected financially
by decisions made by the Big Game Commercial Services Board.
MR. JOHNSON replied that he has not been convicted of anything.
He said he has made financial disclosures many times and turned
in his paperwork in February [2009]. He noted that he did not
realize the application was not done because he was simply
notified that he was re-appointed and did not fill out anything
new. In regard to whether he or a family member could be
affected financially by decisions made by the Big Game
Commercial Services Board, Mr. Johnson said no.
1:24:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG requested an explanation of what the
Big Game Commercial Services Board does and what Mr. Johnson's
role on the board has been.
MR. JOHNSON said the board was originally established in 1988 or
1989 and replaced the "guide board". "It put hats on the
different users on the commercial side of big game,
transporters, and big game guides," he explained. The nine-
member board has two private land holders, two public members, a
Board of Game member, two transporters, and two guides, of which
he is one of the two guides. The board administers the testing
and applications of guides and the applications of transporters.
The board also set up the regulations under the statutes passed
by the legislature to drive ethics and standards for the
industry. The board was sunsetted in 1995, then re-established
in 2005. He said he thinks the board has accomplished a lot and
it was re-authorized in 2008.
1:26:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked Mr. Johnson to name someone who
could be contacted as a reference.
MR. JOHNSON listed the following people as references: Bobby
Fithian, Executive Director of the Alaska Professional Hunters
Association; Joe Klutsch; Senator Donny Olson; and Senator Bert
Stedman.
1:27:42 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN inquired about exclusive guide areas and whether
there is a change underway.
MR. JOHNSON recounted that Alaska had restrictive guide areas
until 1988 or 1989 when the [Alaska Supreme Court] ruled in the
Osachuk (ph) decision that under the common use clause the guide
is equal to the hunter and therefore falls under the common use
clause. The court provided four different categories in a
restrictive guide area, but implementation by the state led to
quite a bit of confusion and heartache and in 1995 the Big Game
Commercial Services Board was sunsetted. During that time
period, the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and National Park Service stepped in and created exclusive guide
areas on the federal lands within the state. A prospectus bid
process was established for federal lands, limited in duration
to 10 years with a renewal clause. Over time this has switched
the remaining folks onto state and private lands, he continued,
which is why there are two private land holders on the Big Game
Commercial Services Board. The Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), at the Board of Game's request, has spent the last three
years developing a system for state lands. At the last Board of
Game meeting, 36 proposals were submitted by the public and
various advisory committees to eliminate nonresident hunting in
Alaska unless something is done and DNR is looking at this
further. The Board of Game's toolbox is pretty limited, he
said, and unless DNR is able to proceed nonresident hunting will
end in major portions of Alaska, which was done after the
Osachuk decision and which will only get worse.
1:32:14 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN asked whether Mr. Johnson supports exclusive
guide areas.
MR. JOHNSON replied yes. He said he has a joint use in a
federal exclusive guide area. He explained that he does not
want to use the word exclusive because they are concession areas
and his concession area has three other guides. His concession
permit is with the U.S. Forest Service and he is allotted a
certain number of bears. He pointed out that the Board of Game
can eliminate, and has eliminated, nonresident hunting without
the legislature's approval. He stated that going into a permit
basis is the death throw of guiding in an area. He said he
supports exclusive guide areas because Alaska is competing on a
worldwide basis and hunters will choose to go to a place where
they know there is an opportunity, rather than a place where
there are lots of other hunters in the same area. This is how
it is done throughout the world, he continued, and it is a very
convoluted and complex issue. He offered to fly to Juneau to
speak with legislators in detail about the issue.
1:34:20 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN said it seems to him that if Mr. Johnson is
already a registered guide, it would be a conflict if he were to
get exclusive rights to guide in an area in Alaska.
MR. JOHNSON responded no, he is on federal land.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN inquired whether Mr. Johnson supports
establishing exclusive guide areas on state lands.
MR. JOHNSON answered that DNR will be making the decision
because it owns the land. However, if DNR were to ask him
whether he supports doing this, he said he would.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN commented that he and Co-Chair Johnson would be
very interested in looking at this issue and it appears from the
expressions of the other committee members that they are too.
MR. JOHNSON again offered to come to Juneau.
1:36:01 PM
[Committee members discussed the procedure for advancing the
names of state board appointees.]
1:50:07 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN requested the next appointee, Mr. Nickisch, to
state why he would like to be on the Big Game Commercial
Services Board.
DIRK NICKISCH, Appointee to the Big Game Commercial Services
Board, stated that he operates a small, family-owned air taxi
business in the Brooks Range of Alaska and that he is a
transporter of hunters. He said he is interested in being on
the board because there are a lot of issues his industry is
involved in that need to be looked at and he wants to represent
his industry in this regard.
1:51:17 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN recounted a recent discussion in which he was
told that the Board of Game and the guides are not the problem
and that the problem is the transporters and the lack of
regulation for controlling the movement of transporters.
MR. NICKISCH agreed that this is an accurate statement. How to
control transporters is a large issue, he said, and the line
between what is a transporter and what is an air taxi is very
vague. He pointed out that right now if someone is a guide and
things do not work out, the person can quit being a guide and be
a transporter. Likewise, a person running an air taxi that
serves a lot of hunters, but who does not want to play by the
existing rules of the transporter, can just quit being a
transporter and simply be a "135 air taxi" because the
regulations can be gotten around by being careful about how the
business is advertised. He is the last person to want more
regulation given that regulation is very difficult for a small
business, he opined, but without regulation there will not be an
industry. He stated that his wife, a commercial fisher, points
out that no one likes it when the Alaska Department of Fish &
Game shows up, but if the department had not shown up quite
awhile ago there would be no fishery left in the state, and this
is how he feels about the transporters. Transporters need to be
regulated more and in order to do that there needs to be a
better definition of what is transporting a hunter. However, he
said this needs to be done in a manner that does not chase
everybody away from being a transporter and having them play the
game under a different license.
1:54:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether a transporter and an air
taxi are the same thing.
MR. NICKISCH replied no, both have their own set of regulation
by different bodies. In order to be an air taxi a business must
fall under all the rules of being a "135 operator" and this
includes drug, maintenance, and pilot training programs as well
as high levels of inspection and scrutiny by the Federal
Aviation Administration. Under current state regulations, the
differentiation between a transporter and an air taxi is that an
air taxi does not charge a higher fee for hunters and does not
advertise for hunting, he said. A person could be a transporter
for a long time, then quit and go back to being an air taxi and
rely on his or her customer list rather than advertising. There
is more reporting and more ability to potentially regulate a
transporter, but right now it is hard to regulate a transporter
without all the transporters just disappearing.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON surmised that an air taxi takes someone to
a certain location by air and then turns around and leaves,
whereas a transporter could take someone by boat, horseback, or
other means.
MR. NICKISCH responded correct. He said he is aware that there
are a lot of issues in Southeast Alaska with water transporters,
but his experience is limited to the aviation end of the
industry.
1:57:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON understood that in order not to be
considered a guide, a water transporter cannot let hunters shoot
from the boat and must drop the hunters off on land to hunt on
their own.
MR. NICKISCH agreed that there are regulations along that line
and those regulations are similar to same-day airborne
regulations where a hunter cannot get out of the airplane and
shoot the same day. However, some people feel that water
transporters act like guides because they travel along the
beaches looking for an animal, at which point the transporter
skiffs the hunter to shore where the animal is shot. He said
this is creating some issues with the ability to regulate
because there is no state or federal agency jurisdiction on the
water or at the point of water and shore.
MR. NICKISCH, in response to Co-Chair Neuman, explained that as
an air taxi he can haul a hunter and his equipment into the
field and if the hunter shoots something he can pick the hunter
back up, but he cannot recommend a place for the hunter to go,
cannot charge the hunter a higher amount than what is his normal
fare, and cannot advertise for hauling hunters. Many people who
are not licensed transporters haul game in Alaska, he added.
2:00:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired whether Mr. Nickisch is aware
of how much time this board will take.
MR. NICKISCH said yes, he has spoken to board members and others
about the time requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG commented that serving on any of the
various boards is very time consuming.
MR. NICKISCH stated that he and his family fly the Brooks Range
because they truly love it there. He said he would like to be
on the Big Game Commercial Services Board because he thinks his
industry needs some changes and he wants the industry to be here
for the long run. He would like for his children to have this
same opportunity should they choose to fly and live the
lifestyle that he and his wife have chosen.
2:02:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that Mr. Nickisch answered yes on
his application in regard to whether he or his family could be
affected financially by actions taken by the board. He noted
that the board is comprised of participants in the industry as
well as members of the public. He asked whether Mr. Nickisch
would be taking one of the licensed guide seats.
MR. NICKISCH replied that he is not a guide and does not have a
guide license. He said he is an air taxi and a transporter and
since the Big Game Commercial Services Board creates regulations
for his industry and makes policy recommendations to agencies
such as DNR, decisions by the board will affect his entire
industry. So, this is why he answered yes to the question.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he does not have problems with this
because that is how the board is set up. He asked whether Mr.
Nickisch is applying for a transporter or an air taxi seat.
MR. NICKISCH said the seat is designated for a transporter.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN inquired whether any other names were forwarded
for the air transporter position.
MR. NICKISCH answered that he does not know, but that he had
heard there was discussion of filling the seat with a water
transporter.
2:04:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK understood that Mr. Nickisch is licensed for
a 135 air taxi. He asked whether Mr. Nickisch has ever been a
transporter.
MR. NICKISCH stated that he was a transporter a number of years
ago and then chose not to be as involved. He reiterated that it
is a fine line between a taxi and a transporter, and he found
that he did not fall under the regulatory needs of being a
transporter. However, he said he feels his industry needs some
additional regulation and some oversight, and the best way of
doing that is to tighten up and consider as transporters those
people who transport hunters into the field. This would then
encompass him as a transporter, he added.
2:05:14 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN requested the next appointee to introduce
herself.
BETTY JO "BJ" SCHMITZ, Appointee to the Big Game Commercial
Services Board, said she has been sitting as a public member on
the board for the past four years and would like to serve
another four years. She and her husband own a small farm
between North Pole and Salcha where they raise sheep, and in the
past she has worked as a biological technician with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. She said she is a hunter and that as
a public member she has tried to represent the interests of
local people, while understanding the industry of hunting,
guiding, and transporting. Because she is not involved in
guiding in any way, she said she has been on a learning curve
over the past four years and would like to continue her
involvement.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired how much time it takes to be on
the board.
MS. SCHMITZ responded that over the past couple of years the
board has met twice a year in December and March for three to
five days per meeting. The scheduling is done around the
seasons for the guides and transporters, she said. Tests for
the guides are scheduled at the end of the time and a lot of the
people involved in the boards help administer the tests. There
are additional hours here and there depending upon which
committees a board member is on.
2:07:43 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN asked what the largest controversies before the
board have been and how did Ms. Schmitz deal with them.
MS. SCHMITZ answered that one main controversy is problems with
transporters in northwestern Alaska. Guides in this area are
well regulated, she said, but transporters fly into certain
areas and dump hunters on top of each other. There is a working
group dealing especially with Unit 23, she added. The board is
just in the beginnings of trying to decide what is necessary
because, the board does not want to put a bunch of regulations
on people, but something must be done. There is a lot of ill
will amongst the local people in that area, as well as some
Interior areas, toward transporters who are putting in way too
many hunters.
MS. SCHMITZ said the other thorny issue is exclusive guide
areas. There is a lot of fear amongst the newer guides about
being regulated out of the business by not having areas to hunt,
she related, but there are also issues where there are too many
guides in particular choice areas. Over the past few years
there have been discussions with DNR about how to help the
industry, the local people, and the resource. One of the
suggestions DNR has brought forward is concession use areas.
These are not exclusive areas, but the number of people will be
limited in an area, and they will probably have to fill out a
prospectus to qualify or compete for that area. It is a way of
separating hunters and local people and spreading out the
pressure instead of concentrating it in certain areas.
2:10:29 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN stated that the House Resources Standing
Committee does not feel too highly about exclusive guide areas
and will be asking DNR to address the issue.
MS. SCHMITZ said there are many things involved in this issue
and it is very hard to understand the details, plus every part
of the state has different issues that need to be considered.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired whether the problem is that
multiple transporters are dropping off hunters in the same place
or one transporter is dropping off multiple parties of hunters
in the same place.
MS. SCHMITZ replied that both of these happen. She pointed out
that transporters are not limited on where they can put hunters
unless they are using federal lands which require a permit,
whereas a guide is limited on where he or she can conduct
hunting because of the regulations that are already in place. A
transporter can put a hunter anywhere and does not have to
account for it, and some transporters will hunt out an area
knowing that they can then move to another area. In further
response, Ms. Schmitz said there are ethical transporters as
well as unethical transporters and that different people have
different perceptions as to what constitutes an acceptable
distance between hunting parties in an area.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood there are guides, transporters,
and air taxis, and an air taxi does not need to have either a
transporter or a guide license.
MS. SCHMITZ responded correct.
2:14:37 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN remarked that the Big Game Commercial Services
Board is one of the tougher boards to be on. He asked whether
Ms. Schmitz would support exclusive guide areas if they are
recommended for state lands.
MS. SCHMITZ explained that DNR is not considering an exclusive
guide area system. She advised members to talk to DNR as the
system being proposed is completely different than that of the
1970s. She said she would support the system currently being
proposed by DNR, which is a competitive system - not exclusive -
and it is not transferable and must come up for another bid in
so many years. She related that DNR has talked to numerous
guides to determine how many guides should be in each area and
that most of the guides she has talked to realize something
needs to be done and would support this type of system.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN contended that the guides supporting the
proposed system have been there for a long time and are the ones
who would get the permits and the problem is how someone new can
get into the system. He said the committee will ask DNR to come
explain the difference between transporters, guides, and
exclusive hunting areas.
2:16:34 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked whether Ms. Schmitz hunts.
MS. SCHMITZ replied that she hunts quite a bit, usually taking a
moose each year along with bird hunting. She said she is not
involved in guiding or transporting.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON stated that he wants to make sure the committee
is not putting someone on the board who is anti-hunting.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON commented "tongue in cheek" that it is too
bad Representative Austerman is not before the committee with
his resolution on the western Gulf of Alaska in terms of limited
licenses because maybe the same model could be applied here.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN said it is a large policy call and he thinks it
is up to the legislature to weigh in on policy calls like this;
therefore, he will be asking DNR to speak to the committee.
2:18:32 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON pointed out that there is nothing preventing a
private Alaska citizen from going into an exclusive guide area
and hunting there on his or her own, and that the discussion is
related only to guided hunts.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said Alaska used to have exclusive guide
areas but they were thrown out by the court. He understood that
the Big Game Commercial Services Board does not establish policy
like the Board of Fisheries or Board of Game; rather, the policy
setting is up to DNR. He said he therefore does not understand
where the conversation is going by asking the appointees whether
or not they support exclusive guide areas.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN acknowledged this, but said it is still a
question to be asked of appointees.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON interjected that there is a move afoot to make
exclusive guide areas legal through legislation, so it is
important to know where the appointees stand on this issue.
2:21:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that he was only pointing out
that the Big Game Commercial Services Board cannot institute
this policy, given that it would have to be done legislatively.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON agreed, but noted that the recommendation of a
member of the Big Game Commercial Services Board would carry
weight with some legislators, and this is the purpose for asking
the appointees where they stand.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN concurred. He announced that it is the
committee's will to move ahead and allow each member to
determine whether or not to sign the green sheet for advancing
each individual appointee.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved to forward the names of Paul E. Johnson,
[Dirk] Nickisch, and Betty Jo "BJ" [Schmitz] to the joint
session of the House and Senate for confirmation. There being
no objection, the confirmations of Paul E. Johnson, Dirk
Nickisch, and Betty Jo "BJ" Schmitz were advanced from the House
Resources Standing Committee.
2:23:28 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:23 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|