Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
04/02/2012 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): Board of Game | |
| HJR40 | |
| HB356 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 356 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | HJR 40 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 2, 2012
1:08 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Alan Dick
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Board of Game
Teresa Sager-Albaugh - Tok
Robert (Bob) Mumford - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 40
Commending the governor and the administration for aggressively
working to enforce the rights of the state in R.S. 2477 rights-
of-way; urging the governor and the attorney general to develop
a working alliance with other western states to protect and
enforce appropriation request to fund an aggressive effort by
the state to resolve issues relating to R.S. 2477 rights-of-way,
including possible litigation, and to continue to work to
preserve the rights of the state in regard to R.S. 2477 rights-
of-way.
- MOVED CSHJR 40(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 356
"An Act relating to land management by the Board of Game and
Department of Natural Resources for trapping and sport and
subsistence hunting."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 40
SHORT TITLE: RS 2477 RIGHTS-OF-WAY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KELLER
02/22/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/12 (H) RES, JUD
03/26/12 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/26/12 (H) Heard & Held
03/26/12 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/30/12 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/30/12 (H) Heard & Held
03/30/12 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/02/12 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 356
SHORT TITLE: LAND MANAGEMENT:HUNTING/FISHING/TRAPPING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) PRUITT
02/22/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/12 (H) RES
04/02/12 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
TERESA SAGER-ALBAUGH, Appointee
Board of Game
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Tok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee for reappointment to
the Board of Game.
ROD ARNO, President
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the reappointment of Teresa
Sager-Albaugh to the Board of Game.
MIKE CRAWFORD, President
Safari Club International - Kenai Chapter (SCI)
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the confirmation of Teresa Sager-
Albaugh's reappointment to the Board of Game.
AL BARRETTE, Chair
Subcommittee on Trapping
Fairbanks Fish & Game Advisory Committee
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the confirmation of Teresa Sager
Albaugh's reappointment to the Board of Game.
ROBERT (Bob) MUMFORD, Appointee
Board of Game
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Game.
AL BARRETT, Member
Fairbanks Fish & Game Advisory Committee (FFGAC)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Robert Mumford's
appointment to the Board of Game.
JIM POUND, Staff
Representative Wes Keller
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the proposed committee substitute
(CS), Version B, for HJR 40 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Wes Keller.
KENT SULLIVAN, Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information regarding HJR 40.
MALCOLM ROBERTS, Consultant
Malcolm Roberts & Associates
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 40.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE PRUITT
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor introduced HB 356.
DIRK CRAFT, Staff
Representative Lance Pruitt
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a sectional analysis of HB 356 on
behalf of the prime sponsor, Representative Pruitt.
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Acting Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation (DWC)
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 356.
WYN MENAFEE, Chief of Operations
Division of Mining, Land, and Water (DML&W)
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 356.
GEORGE PIERCE
Kasilof, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 356.
PRESTON WILLIAMS
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 356.
MIKE CRAWFORD, President
Safari Club International (SCI-Alaska)
Kenai Peninsula Chapter
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 356.
EDDIE GRASSER, Lobbyist;
Regional Representative
Safari Club International (SCI-Alaska)
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 356.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:08:31 PM
CO-CHAIR ERIC FEIGE called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:08 p.m. Representatives Foster,
Dick, Kawasaki, P. Wilson, Seaton, and Feige were present at the
call to order. Representatives Munoz, Gardner, and Herron
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S): Board of Game
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S): Board of Game
1:09:36 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the first order of business would
be the confirmation hearings of Teresa Sager-Albaugh and Robert
Mumford to the Board of Game.
1:10:48 PM
TERESA SAGER-ALBAUGH, Appointee, Board of Game, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), provided a brief personal
history, including that she grew up hunting with her family in
Fairbanks and moved to Tok in 1984 and has lived there since
then. She currently works for Summit Consulting Services, which
is an engineering and construction management firm that manages
water and sewer projects in rural Alaska. She said that while
she does not have an education in biology, she is an avid
hunter/fisher and does run a trapline with her husband when her
schedule allows. She emphasized that she has a very deep
appreciation for wildlife in Alaska. She indicated she has a
strong desire to continue to participate in sound fish and game
management through regulation development on the Board of Game.
She concluded that she would be pleased to serve another term if
the legislature confirmed her appointment.
1:12:13 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked for her viewpoint on predator control in
game management.
1:12:30 PM
MS. SAGER-ALBAUGH replied that she supports predator control as
a management tool. She emphasized that she bases her decisions
on the statutes and regulations that offer fairly strict control
and direction on the use of predator control as a management
tool.
1:13:12 PM
ROD ARNO, President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), stated he is
the executive director of the AOC, representing 10,000 outdoor
Alaskans. He said in his experience with the Board of Game and
Ms. Sager-Albaugh's participation that she comes closest of all
the board members to try to comply with the current regulations
and statutes. The AOC supports compliance and supports her
reappointment to the Board of Game.
1:14:01 PM
MIKE CRAWFORD, President, Safari Club International - Kenai
Chapter (SCI), stated he has also been the chairman of the local
fish and game advisory committee. He has attended many Board of
Fish and Board of Game meetings. He has found Ms. Sager-Albaugh
a competent member of the Board of Game. Her knowledge
certainly helps her make the appropriate decisions. He enjoys
talking to someone who hunts, traps and participates in outdoor
activities since the person will be making decisions on those
types of activities. He concluded by offering the SCI-Kenai's
support for her confirmation to the Board of Game.
1:14:58 PM
AL BARRETTE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Trapping, Fairbanks Fish
& Game Advisory Committee, stated he has worked with the Board
of Game for the past 12-15 years. He has enjoyed working with
Ms. Sager-Albaugh during the past three years. He found her to
be well prepared for each meeting and that she had reviewed the
Fairbanks Fish & Game Advisory Committee's comments. She was
also interactive with committee members, including informal
discussions during breaks, which allowed for further explanation
of any proposals. He offered his belief that she is one of the
most knowledgeable members of the Board of Game, who understands
subsistence law and intensive management. Furthermore, the
Fairbanks committee appreciated her votes on predator control in
the Region 3 area and have benefited from several programs that
have resulted in increases in caribou and moose populations. He
concluded with his support for Ms. Sager-Albaugh.
1:16:11 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE closed public testimony on the confirmation of
Ms. Sager-Albaugh and moved to the hearing on the next
appointee, Mr. Robert Mumford.
1:16:38 PM
ROBERT (Bob) MUMFORD, Appointee, Board of Game, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), stated he was passionate
about wildlife issues and has been involved in wildlife somewhat
during his time with the Alaska State Troopers. He related that
he spent 18 of his 20 years in the Fish & Wildlife Protection
(FWP) Division. He is a hunter and fisherman, although not a
trapper. He offered his belief that he could bring a
perspective to the Board of Game with his FWP experience. He
also is an avid berry picker with his family and enjoys being in
the outdoors as much as possible. He served five years on the
Big Game Commercial Services Board as a public member. He has
flown as a wildlife surveyor on the North Slope and for a Tok
transporter - Leif Wilson. He concluded that he is concerned
about wildlife.
1:18:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK asked for his position on predator control.
MR. MUMFORD answered that he is supportive of it as an effective
tool available in the tool box for use in certain areas at
certain times. He did not think it should always be the first
tool chosen, but he can see the benefit of it at times since it
has proven to be effective.
1:19:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether his law enforcement
experience will help with his service on the Board of Game.
MR. MUMFORD said it will. He enforced laws promulgated for the
Board of Game. He retired 10 years ago, but what would help him
on the Board of Game is that he has been a wildlife trooper in
many areas of the state. He was stationed as a FWP in Sand
Point, Kodiak, Fairbanks, Coldfoot, the Kenai Peninsula, and
Anchorage. He has observed the issues and talked with a lot of
people about issues such as subsistence, hunting, and trapping.
He offered his belief that he has had good exposure to a wide-
ranging of the area of the state.
1:20:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK commented that predator control has been
used for bears and wolves. He asked him to describe tools that
would be available to use if the bear population is damaging
moose and caribou populations. He further asked for his views
on whether wolf predator control methods would be different.
MR. MUMFORD answered they might be somewhat different, but would
need to be looked at individually. One tool would be to
lengthen the seasons [on bears or wolves], bag limits, and to
advertise abundance of bears and wolves to hunters residing in
the Lower 48 to encourage hunting, instead of arbitrarily
killing a lot of the animals. He understood the management
aspect, to remove them to propagate other species. He
highlighted other tools are also available.
1:22:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI appreciated Mr. Mumford's answer to the
last question. He asked for his view of F&G Advisory Committees
and how he would view proposals forwarded by the committees.
MR. MUMFORD stated that as a board member he would have to give
it quite a bit of weight because the person presenting it to the
Board of Game would be representing an entire advisory
committee, not the individual's opinion. He said he admires the
work done by advisory committees and he has attended some
meetings. He stated the advisory committees must come to a
consensus so it is helpful to the board to have their opinion.
It would be one tool he would use for determining his vote,
along with listening to other members of the public, and the
ADF&G.
1:24:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked how much his opinion would be
based on public input versus the science and background the
department would provide.
MR. MUMFORD would weigh it all, but he cannot provide a
numerical value on each. Some witnesses make a passionate plea
rather than giving a scientific reasoning, which he would not
give as much weight to; however, he believes in the public
opinion process. He pointed out that the public gives the
perspective of what they have seen and observed in the local
area. He said it is very important to him.
1:25:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK commented that in the past Alaska has tended
to manage wildlife with the media and emotion. He offered his
belief that there is a time to listen, but then step back and
make an objective decision. He offered his belief that managing
wildlife with media and emotion has led to the wrong path. He
encouraged him to weigh science and sustained-yield principles
when making decisions.
MR. MUMFORD agreed Alaska has constitutional mandates.
Furthermore, he agreed with Representative Dick that it is not
possible to manage by one's heart. The resources don't
recognize cute, such as the little baby animals. He did not
think that "cute" should be factored in, but rather that good,
sound science has to be the main issue.
1:27:47 PM
AL BARRETT, Fairbanks Fish & Game Advisory Committee (FF&GAC),
offered support for Mr. Mumford's appointment. However, he
stated the FF&GAC was only notified six hours ago of Mr.
Mumford's appointment, so the committee feels somewhat
disenfranchised in the public process since it did not have
adequate time to perform vetting of the appointee.
1:28:41 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE closed public testimony on the confirmation
hearing of Mr. Mumford.
1:28:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to advance the confirmations for
appointees Teresa Sager-Albaugh and Robert Mumford, referred to
the House Resources Standing Committee for consideration, to the
joint session of the House and Senate for consideration after
having reviewed their qualifications. He noted that each
member's signature on the committee's report in no way reflects
the member's vote during the joint floor session. There being
no objection, the confirmations were advanced.
1:29:46 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:29 p.m. to 1:32 p.m.
HJR 40-RS 2477 RIGHTS-OF-WAY
1:32:32 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 40, Commending the governor and
the administration for aggressively working to enforce the
rights of the state in R.S. 2477 rights-of-way; urging the
governor and the attorney general to develop a working alliance
with other western states to protect and enforce the states'
interests in ensuring access using rights-of-way authorized by
R.S. 2477; urging the governor and the attorney general to
support the State of Utah and the southern counties of Utah in a
lawsuit against the federal government concerning R.S. 2477
rights-of-way, including filing an amicus brief in support of
Utah; urging the governor to dedicate state resources to
establish, protect, and enforce the state's interests in R.S.
2477 rights-of-way and to preserve state rights-of-way against
encroachment by the federal government; urging the governor to
reestablish a federalism section in the Department of Law and
sections in the Department of Natural Resources and the
Department of Fish and Game to support the preservation of the
state's rights and powers in compact cases; and urging the
governor to prepare an appropriation request to fund an
aggressive effort by the state to resolve issues relating to
R.S. 2477 rights-of-way, including possible litigation, and to
continue to work to preserve the rights of the state in regard
to R.S. 2477 rights-of-way. [Before the committee was the
proposed committee substitute (CS), Version M, labeled 27-
LS1407\M, Bullock, 3/29/12, adopted as the working document on
3/30/12.]
1:32:49 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HJR 40, Version 27-LS1407\B, Bullock, 3/30/12 as the
working document.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested an explanation on the changes
between this version and the prior version.
1:33:18 PM
JIM POUND, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State
Legislature, stated that Version B of HJR 40 addresses some
concerns that the Department of Law (DOL) had with the prior
committee substitute (CS). He referred to Version M, page 1,
line 6, which read "the attorney general to support the State of
Utah" Version B changes it to the "interests of the State of
Utah" and on page 1, line 7, of Version M, deletes "lawsuit to
enforce." On page 3, line 20 of Version M, add "interests of."
On page 3, lines 20-21 delete "in a lawsuit to enforce Utah's
interest" and add on line 22, "litigation in the state." On
page 4, adds a paragraph to indicate the parties who will
receive copies of the resolution.
1:34:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 1, line 8, and asked
whether "in the state" was added.
MR. POUND answered yes.
1:35:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI referred to the first "further resolved"
[page 3, line 19] and said he still has a concern regarding the
clause. He wondered what "supporting the interests of the State
of Utah" actually would represent.
MR. POUND related his understanding that Utah is on point for
R.S. 2477 in the West. Utah has won one case in the courts and
is in the same situation - greatly exaggerated - since Utah
currently has 18,000 specific R.S. 2477 cases the state is
asserting. However, Utah's interests are very similar to
Alaska's in terms of asserting a right for access through land
that previously belonged to the Territory of Alaska that in 1969
was removed, in part. Since then, Alaska has been attempting to
assert its right in what was supposed to be an orderly fashion
in 1976, but the "orderly fashion" has been restricted by
various federal agencies and departments. Currently, Utah is
moving forward in the court system, which gives Alaska a chance
to learn from that state's mistakes and victories.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI withdrew his objection. There being no
further objection, Version B was before the committee.
1:37:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI observed that the first "further
resolved" speaks to the fact the legislature would urge the
governor and the attorney general's office to support the
interests of the State of Utah. He asked how he would view this
request.
1:38:19 PM
KENT SULLIVAN, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Department of Law, stated Utah is very similarly
aligned with Alaska on R.S. 2477, but is ahead of Alaska with
respect to getting R.S. 2477 recognized. Alaska wants to
support Utah, to the extent that Alaska can join Utah in moving
R.S. 2477 forward and having federal officials recognize the
rights-of-way, and create policies to recognize those rights-of-
way without having to resort to litigation to assert those
rights.
MR. SULLIVAN related his understanding, from meeting with
attorney generals from Utah as well as county officials, that
Utah would like Alaska to support their efforts by asserting
litigation, identifying rights-of-way, and attempting to get
federal managers to recognize that through a change in policy,
without filing litigation, or by initiating litigation in
Alaska.
1:39:54 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON referred to the language on page 3, line 20,
which seems confusing since it says, "urging to support the
interests of the State of Utah; however, he asked whether that
is limited because after the counties of Utah, it reads, "in
R.S. 2477 rights-of-way" so that is the only interest Alaska is
asking for in HJR 40.
MR. SULLIVAN confirmed that this is correct. He said, "It's
simply R.S. 2477 rights-of-way since Alaska and Utah are facing
the exact same issues. He clarified that Alaska is basically
promoting Alaska's interest vis-à-vis supporting Utah's
interests with respect to R.S. 2477."
1:41:00 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE opened public testimony on HJR 40.
1:41:15 PM
MALCOLM ROBERTS, Consultant, Malcolm Roberts & Associates,
stated he is also a senior fellow at the Institute of the North;
however today he is representing himself. He stated two
critical issues are addressed in this resolution with
significant ramifications for Alaska's resources until the end
of this century and beyond. First, the resolution addresses the
valid existing rights of access across federal properties in
Alaska, which make up two-thirds of our state. Second, the need
to demand that the federal government lives up to the promises
made to the Alaska people in 1958 in Alaska's statehood compact.
He related his understanding in the reference to the federalism
division of the Department of Law that was discussed last
Friday.
1:42:19 PM
MR. ROBERTS related that U.S. Senator Ted Stevens once commented
that Alaska has more disputes with the federal government daily
than most states have annually and these disputes are primarily
over access. This illustrates how powerful and important this
question is to the state. He stated that having vast resources
means nothing if Alaska cannot get to them. He said he was not
referring only to resources on federal land, but on state land
that is unreachable, Native corporate land, Native allotments,
and what is left of other private inholdings. He highlighted
the good news is that Alaska has legal rights of access that
belong to the state and thereby its citizens.
MR. ROBERTS indicated Alaska's rights are based on proven
historic trails and were authorized by federal law revised
statute 2477 (R.S. 2477), as part of the Mining Act of 1866. He
stated these rights should be asserted by the state and it
should support Utah and urge other states to do the same. Last
Friday it appeared the DOL suggests [the bill sponsor] should
back off from the second recommendation with respect to the
defense of Alaska's rights agreed to in Alaska's statehood
compact.
1:43:26 PM
MR. ROBERTS said he strongly disagrees with that change if it
was made in Version B. He respectfully recommends this
committee call for a reestablishment of a division in the DOL
for this purpose. Former Governor Walter Hickel set up such a
division in the 1990s. This division should be a permanent arm
of the state's DOL and should be staffed by the best and
brightest attorneys Alaska can attract. He recalled in his 42
year career in Alaska that he has studied, debated, and written
reports on both of the issue addressed in this resolution:
access and the compact.
1:44:13 PM
MR. ROBERTS related that he was recruited in 1995 to head a task
force to research existing R.S. 2477 rights-of-way throughout
Alaska by former Senator Jack Coghill, who was at that time,
Chair of the Senate Transportation Standing Committee. Former
Senator Coghill was determined to preserve the state's rights of
access and he achieved a great deal in that regard.
MR. ROBERTS highlighted that R.S. 2477 has been utilized by
western states to provide public use ranging from walking trails
to remote fishing streams and lakes, to access to the banks of
state-owned navigable waters, to highway construction on public
lands now called Roads to Resources. He stated that the
statutory definition of highway as a unique transportation
system in Alaska includes roads, trails, streets, and bridges.
1:45:09 PM
MR. ROBERTS explained that his first assignment was to provide
the National Park Service with the information collected
indicating the state's valid, existing rights of access so it
could be included in the federal planning documents. He noted
these were plans that needed to be done after the passage of
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) in
1980. The task force's mission was later expanded to provide
similar data for the refuge plans by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USF&W), scenic rivers, and conservation areas managed
by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest
Service. He reported that the task force's final report on
January 15, 1987 identified over 600 R.S. 2477 rights-of-way on
federal lands in Alaska. However, in the ensuing years the
federal government insisted that Alaska must litigate when it
wants to assert an R.S. 2477 right-of-way. He emphasized that
it is patently absurd to require the state must sue to use
something that already belongs to the state. He said, "It's
like saying that in spite of the Bill of Rights American
citizens have to sue the federal government to get permission to
speak." He highlighted that this is one of the rights granted
to the state in federal law and it has always been preserved in
federal law. The rights belong to the state. The fears that
motivated the federal establishment in Alaska were partly the
result of a gaffe by the opponents of state access in the
federal government, who published a report and put a map on the
cover that included all of the possible or proposed roads,
trails, and rail lines throughout Alaska. It became known as
the spaghetti map and made the State of Alaska look like
downtown Los Angeles. The backlash was strong, even from many
Alaskans who support access and resource development since it
paralyzed the process. As a result, Alaska has retained its
standing as having fewer miles of roads than the smallest state
in the nation, which is Rhode Island.
1:47:05 PM
MR. ROBERTS concluded that as a result, Alaska has retained its
standing as having fewer miles of roads than the smallest state
in the Union - Rhode Island. When the task force wrote its
final report in the 1980s, it recommended that the state focus
on only eight vital transportation corridors to be asserted and
set aside for future use. He highlighted that the
recommendation is still valid and should be pursued. He
suggested that if he were to read the names of these corridors,
most people would understand the reasons for their importance
since they would connect key resource areas and communities that
are currently isolated due to the lack of access.
MR. ROBERTS said he has been very involved in the Statehood
Compact, beginning in the 1980s, with a study by the
organization, Commonwealth North, whose members included
publisher Bob Atwood, Governor Wally Hickel, Judge James
Singleton, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) commissioner
Irene Ryan, and environmental planner, Dave Hicka. The report
was published as a small book by APU Press called Going up in
Flames: The Promises of Alaska's Statehood Under Attack. He
offered his belief that this book should be required reading for
all those elected or appointed to public office prior to asking
them to swear to uphold the Alaska Constitution.
1:48:30 PM
MR. ROBERTS related he worked closely with Governor Hickel and
his legal team to launch four major lawsuits against the federal
government that addressed egregious violations of Alaska's
Statehood Compact. Unfortunately, these cases were filed late n
Governor Hickel's second term - too late to follow through - and
those who followed were lukewarm in their support.
MR. ROBERTS stated in 2002, U.S. Senators Ted Stevens and Frank
Murkowski through the U.S. Department of the Interior,
commissioned the Institute of the North to prepare a detailed
180 page ANILCA training curriculum for land managers, staff,
inholders, and all interested Alaskans. Since then the
institute has used that curriculum to conduct executive training
sessions on ANILCA.
MR. ROBERTS highlighted that page 60 of the curriculum quotes
Section 1109 of ANILCA, "Nothing in this title [the
transportation title of ANILCA] shall be construed to adversely
affect any valid, existing right of access." Section 1110 (b),
which read," ... assure adequate and feasible access ... " to
inholdings is guaranteed. Yet these valid, existing rights of
access have been ignore or violated - nearly daily - since the
passage of ANILCA.
1:50:12 PM
MR. ROBERTS said it is up to the State of Alaska to force the
federal government to obey the law. This will only happen if
the state creates a team of top attorneys who are committed to
defend Alaska's rights and a governor and attorney general who
will back them up. He offered his support for passage of HJR 40
and urged the committee not to leave it at that since there is
much to be done.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HJR 40.
1:51:08 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HJR 40, Version 27-LS1407\B, Bullock,
3/30/12 out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection the
CSHJR 40(RES) was reported from the House Resources Standing
Committee.
1:51:27 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:51 p.m. to 1:53 p.m.
HB 356-LAND MANAGEMENT:HUNTING/FISHING/TRAPPING
1:53:32 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 356, "An Act relating to land management by
the Board of Game and Department of Natural Resources for
trapping and sport and subsistence hunting."
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE PRUITT, Alaska State Legislature, stated
this bill would prevent net loss of hunting grounds or lands.
He said he introduced HB 356 with the goal and intent of
creating a baseline number of public hunting areas to ensure
people have the same hunting areas tomorrow as they have today.
He highlighted that with greater access to the outdoors and
natural resources comes a greater appreciation for conservation.
License and tag fees are matched by federal dollars and help
protect the conservation of wildlife statewide habitat. Making
access more difficult to the average hunter actually results in
less revenue for these conservation efforts. He said when
opportunities are stripped from the average hunter, people may
stop hunting completely and the state will lose valuable outdoor
advocates, conservation revenue, and an important part of the
state's economy.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT reported that many states have already
enacted similar legislation; however, applying this concept to
Alaska is more difficult than in most states. He emphasized
that this is an extremely important issue to himself and many
Alaskans.
1:55:39 PM
DIRK CRAFT, Staff, Representative Lance Pruitt, Alaska State
Legislature, stated that Section 1 would add a new section to AS
16.05 requiring the Board of Game to prevent to the greatest
practicable extent the loss of acreage available for trapping
and hunting when the board establishes open and closed seasons
under AS 16.05.255. It would also require the commissioner to
report back to the legislature each year.
MR. CRAFT related that Section 2 would add a new subsection to
AS 38.04.065, which would require the commissioner of the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to keep certain land
managed by DNR available for trapping, sport, and subsistence
hunting, unless the land must be closed for certain reasons.
This section also requires the commissioner to report back to
the legislature each year.
1:56:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 1, Section 1, which
requires the Board of Game to manage no net loss of acreage when
open and closed seasons and areas are established and the
department has reporting requirements. He related a scenario in
which in game management unit (GMU) 15 is closed due to
conservation reasons it appears that it would need to be
reported as a net loss, even though the acreage hasn't been
closed. He asked for further clarification on acreage, open and
closed seasons, and how that relates to different species within
that same area.
1:57:50 PM
MR. CRAFT said that is a concern of the prime sponsor and
additional research is needed. He highlighted that the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) manages resources much
differently than in most other states. He deferred to the ADF&G
for more details on resource management.
1:58:29 PM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Acting Director, Division of Wildlife
Conservation (DWC), Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G),
acknowledged he also has questions, for example, if an area is
open to one species, but closed to another, whether the
department would consider it to be closed or open under this
bill. He said that in general the department supports the
principal of trying to keep as much land open to hunting across
the state. He questioned if the department closed an area for
conservation purposes and not for access purposes, whether the
department would need to open another area of the state, which
could be difficult due to limited options. Additionally, the
area might only be temporarily closed for conservation purposes.
He suggested there needs to be a bit more clarity in the
language in terms of closures, including closures for single
species, access, or conservation purposes. However, the
department is supportive of the concept of trying to keep as
much land open for hunting as possible.
1:59:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked how the department currently
manages areas when closures occur.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered the department tries to keep as much
land open to hunting as possible within the biological
constraints. The department's goal is to get species recovered
to the extent they can provide hunting opportunities. He
clarified that in a few cases the Board of Game will adopt
special use areas that largely pertain to local access
considerations and in those instances they may close certain
areas to certain types of access. However, the goal is to keep
those areas open to other types of access; again, to try to have
as much opportunity on the land mass to provide for hunting and
fishing statewide. The department's basic premise is to manage
within the biological constraints and allocation guidelines by
the Board of Game.
2:01:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI related a scenario in which a management
unit was closed for certain reasons, whether it would be the
policy of the sponsor or the ADF&G to have a similar area within
the same region open. For example, if a unit is closed in GMU
20 A, just north of Fairbanks, whether the goal would be to open
up another area near Fairbanks or if an area in South Anchorage
would be considered.
MR. CRAFT answered that it is complicated in Alaska and much
simpler in other states. He related that sometimes the area is
closed for certain species or for conservation, noting Alaska is
a resource development state so land is sometimes closed for
other reasons. He said, "It is not always as cut and dry as
we'd like it to be with this legislation, but we understand
there's going to be a lot more work that needs to be done to get
to where we want to go with this bill."
2:02:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT acknowledged that ideally the goal would
be to open it up within the same area, but that is not always
feasible. He agreed it would be nice to see something available
to those hunters and some hunters would like South Anchorage
opened up.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK said he really likes the concept. He
related a scenario in which there is a pool of land that is
currently closed to hunting - for example, if the department
closed Section A - whether the department could partially open
some other portion within the area that would be shut down.
2:03:28 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG explained that the department tries to maintain
as many areas as possible open to hunting and fishing within the
biological constraints. He was not aware of any large tracts of
land currently closed to hunting. He acknowledged some areas
may be closed to hunting for certain species or during certain
seasons for conservation concerns for a wide variety of reasons.
He reiterated that the department tries to maintain a maximum
amount of land open for purposes. He surmised one could argue
that a few areas are closed, for example, around McNeil River
because they are viewing areas, which theoretically could be
opened up. However, he emphasized that would take a whole range
of actions to open the area beyond what the department could do.
2:04:36 PM
WYN MENAFEE, Chief of Operations, Division of Mining, Land, and
Water (DML&W), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), in
response to Representative Dick's question, explained that ADF&G
manages the open and closure of wildlife hunting, fishing, and
trapping in areas through their regulations, which is different
from opening and closing of land that the division manages. The
DML&W may end up restricting use that would prevent hunting in a
certain area, but the division doesn't actually make a closure
to hunting. He related a scenario in which in which there is an
oil and gas operation or a mining operation in which blasting
may occur. The division would give site control to the company
via the lease to be able to restrict access to the area, which
in fact, restricts hunting. The department does not currently
make a "no net loss" decision in management practices. The
department would not require some other land since a limited
amount of land in state ownership so a pool is not available to
draw from for replacement.
MR. MENAFEE said it is different than managing wildlife in terms
of where people can and cannot hunt by regulation like ADF&G
does. The DML&W discusses whether access is available to hunt
or not.
2:07:06 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked, for example, if a mine operator or oil and
gas company would be able to control hunting and fishing access
via a lease.
MR. MENAFEE answered that is correct. When someone has
exclusive lease of land, which is a provision in many DNR
leases, then the operator can control access inclusive of
someone hunting. Having said that, the division currently has
nearly 100 million acres and in that acreage the propensity for
hunting, trapping, and fishing occurs since the division doesn't
place restrictions on the activity. Thus the activity would
generally be allowed. He clarified it is only in the little,
small pieces of land in which special uses have been authorized
that restrictions can occur.
2:08:14 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON inquired with respect to ADF&G's constitutional
mandate, related his understanding the department must manage
for utilization under the sustained use principle. He asked
whether the department does not following the sustained use
principle in any areas of the state.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered that it is relative, since one could
argue that hunting opportunity around McNeil River; however, the
decision has been made the sustained use best use is for viewing
rather than hunting opportunities. He reiterated that the ADF&G
manages for the biological resource and the use of the resources
within decisions made by either the legislature or the Board of
Game as to how to best use those resources. He was unaware of
chunks of land that the ADF&G has set aside where there is
opportunity for harvestable surplus or viewing opportunities
that were closed or set aside that could be made available to
the public. It is the department's goal to make as much of that
area available as possible to the public to hunt or view.
2:10:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated, with respect to areas such as the
Dalton Highway, that there is restricted access for off-road
vehicles within a certain distance within the corridor. He
asked whether the provision on page 2, line 8, which read, "(2)
manage land under the authority of the Department of Natural
Resources to support, promote, and enhance trapping and sport
and subsistence hunting to the extent authorized by law" would
restrict the state's ability to have non-motorized vehicle use
off the corridor. More specifically, the state has been trying
to extend roads to resources. He asked whether this provision
would conflict with the restrictions the state has along the new
roads.
MR. MENAFEE answered the way it currently reads under [proposed
AS 34.04.065] (j)(2), the fact that it says the DNR would need
to manage land to support, promote, or enhance trapping and
sport and subsistence hunting to the extent authorized by state
law sets up a mandatory obligation to enhance those activities.
Further, issuing any authorization that would restrict use would
not enhance those uses so it sets up an inherent conflict with
authorizing development that would in any way restrict that use.
He offered his belief challenges exist to wrestle with the other
aspects of responsibilities in other parts of the law.
2:12:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised that "authorized by state law"
means the legislature could legislate a restriction; however,
oil and gas leases by regulation seems as though it would run
afoul of the language the way it is currently written even
though that may not have been the intent.
MR. MENAFEE agreed, that while it may not be the intent, it does
appear to put specific uses over other uses. Additionally, he
agreed the language "the full extent authorized by state law"
does cause a conflict.
2:13:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT, as prime sponsor of HB 356, responded
that discussions with DNR have not yet succeeded in modifying
the language; however, the goal is not to hamper oil and gas
development or mining. He emphasized work continues on the
conflicting language.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated that he did not think it was
the intent of the bill to create the conflict, but rather that
the bill identifies issues that need further clarification.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE opened public testimony on HB 356.
2:14:26 PM
GEORGE PIERCE stated he is representing Alaskans. He said, "No
on HB 356." He stated that a major problem exists. He
suggested that the Board of Game needs examination, noting he
listened to testimony on the Board of Game nominees. He took
issue with the people the governor nominates to serve on the
Board of Game. He offered his belief that people are not
nominated to the Board of Game unless they are for predator
control and the decisions for fish and game should be based on
science and not politics. He reiterated he belief the boards
are controlling the fish and game resources based on politics.
He highlighted that the Kasilof area has been fighting with the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for the past two and a
half years about a special use area at the mouth of the Kasilof
River that is under consideration. The majority of the
residents told them they did not want the special use area. The
residents appealed the proposal, but the [board] is still
continuing to take public testimony and treats it like nothing
happened. The resources belong to the people and the game
permits should not be given away to people in the Lower 48, he
stated. He emphasized his desire for the legislature to
investigate the Board of Game. He further requested that
performance audits be conducted to see what the board is doing
for Alaskans.
2:16:48 PM
PRESTON WILLIAMS stated that lands in the Lower 48 have been
closed, particularly on the federal level, but it still affects
states. Sometimes states mirror the federal action to
acquiesce. He offered his belief this bill is fine. He
recalled access to mines being mentioned, and noted that mining
roads often enhance hunting ability if hunters are allowed
access during the season. He related his understanding the oil
companies sometimes do coordinate access to hunting during the
hunting season. He offered his belief the issues can be worked
through and he would rather have a bill to close the gap on
politics on other levels - not the politics of the legislature
or the Board of Game.
2:18:05 PM
MIKE CRAWFORD, President, Safari Club International (SCI-
Alaska), Kenai Peninsula Chapter, stated that hunting and
trapping is an Alaskan way of life and is part of our culture.
Too many states have reduced opportunities not for conservation,
but since non-consumptive users want an area that hunting is not
allowed. He offered his belief that is what this bill will
address. Further, if it is open to hunting it is open to all
other activities generally and for that reason the bill should
not be opposed by anyone. He suggested that if an area is
closed and a new area is not available to open up, this needs to
be compensated for by improving access to areas that are too
difficult to reach.
2:19:20 PM
EDDIE GRASSER, Lobbyist; Regional Representative, Safari Club
International (SCI-Alaska), stated that he is also the former
National Rifle Association representative for Alaska. He said
he grew up in Alaska. He offered his belief significant land
has been closed equal to some states' area and size, but this
bill does not address whether an area can be opened to offset a
closed area. He stated the intent of the bill is not to have
any more areas closed to hunting. He recalled that he used to
hunt in the Wrangell Mountains, the Paint River, and certain
areas of Chugach State Park, but hunting is no longer allowed in
those areas.
MR. GRASSER said the list of closures for hunting and trapping
goes on and on. He has been working with the bill sponsor and
his goal is not to stop legitimate development in Alaska, such
as mining, oil and gas, and other legitimate uses. The SCI-
Alaska's commitment to conservation is such that the
organization understands some seasons will need to be closed at
times.
2:21:03 PM
MR. GRASSER recalled when he was staff to the [House] Resources
Committee years ago, that a constituent called after the
director of the State Parks had closed the area on Byers Creek
for reasons of public safety. He understood the reasoning the
division used to avoid human and bear conflicts; however,
hunters might also want to have access to the bears that would
congregate there. That type of decision - to close bear hunting
in an area with lots of bears - for reasons of public safety did
not make any sense to his organization. He encouraged members
to consider potential future closures of millions of acres to
hunting, noting tens of millions of acres have been closed since
he was a boy.
2:22:02 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked what the reasons are for closure.
MR. GRASSER said that primarily the closed areas are federal and
related to Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA). Additionally, if a facility is built on state lands
in a matter of time a proposal will come before the Board of
Game to close the area for public safety reasons. He offered
his belief that hunters may need to oppose some development
projects for this reason.
2:23:07 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked for clarification on facilities.
MR. GRASSER answered the type of facility he was speaking to
include boardwalks and viewing stations.
2:23:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked whether he was recommending a
committee substitute that would relate to preventing closures
rather than to trade for no net loss of hunting.
MR. GRASSER acknowledged there might be a way to do so. He
explained that this bill was crafted from boilerplate
legislation that has been passed by other states, as previously
mentioned by the bill sponsor. He suggested that the bill's
genesis was the result of leading sportsmen's groups such as the
NRA, SCI, and National Shooting Sports Foundation, and Boone and
Crockett. He said the National Shooting Sports Foundation and
the NRA actually took the lead in crafting the boilerplate
language that is the genesis of this bill. It seemed to the
SCI-Alaska like a good way to stop closures. He recalled the
debate on Paint River, related to a fish ladder, which raised
the issue of attracting more bears to the Paint River. Some
people wanted the area closed to prevent bears that normally
habit the McNeil River from wandering to and being taken on the
Paint River. He stated that the fish ladder was never built,
but the Paint River was never reopened to hunting.
MR. GRASSER said he would support Paint River closure if the
department opened the south side of Chugach State Park from
Anchorage to Girdwood open for sheep hunting; however, that
effort did not gain traction. He said, "More people are locked
out from hunting because of closures than there are people being
locked out for viewing or whatever." He concluded the SCI-
Alaska's interest is to stop more lands from being closed to
hunting, which the NRA supports, too.
2:25:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI observed, regarding the issue of public
safety, that page 2 of the bill provides DNR with the authority
to close an area for public safety reasons. He said he thinks
that is still part of this bill, which would allow for a
determination by DNR to close certain areas to hunting and
restrict hunting and fishing access. He said he wanted to place
this on the record.
MR. GRASSER agreed.
2:26:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI, regarding the federal lands that have
been shut down or restricted. He said he has drafted an
amendment that would address the ability of the department to
work cooperatively with the federal agencies and federal lands
to allow for further access. He asked whether that is something
that his group would support.
MR. GRASSER offered his belief that they probably would do so
since access is a huge issue throughout the nation. He related
that as a national board member of the SCI, he has attended lots
of meetings during the last four years. He has worked with
Responsive Resource Management, and one of the leading experts
in the nation on hunting and fishing issues. He highlighted
that access and getting youth out of doors represent two of the
main issues revolving around the future of hunting heritage, not
just in Alaska, but nationwide.
2:28:00 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 356.
[HB 356 was held over.]
2:28:46 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:29 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHJR 40 Version B 3.30.12.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Robert Mumford.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB356 Hearing Request.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 356 |
| HB356.PDF |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 356 |
| Teresa Sager Albaugh.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB356-DFG-CO-03-31-12.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 356 |
| HB356-DNR-MLW-04-02-12.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 356 |
| HB356 Supporting Map.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 356 |
| HB356 SCI Letter of Support.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 356 |
| HB356 Support Comments.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 356 |
| HB356 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 356 |