Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
03/29/2017 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): | |
| HB155 | |
| HB129 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 29, 2017
1:08 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Andy Josephson, Co-Chair
Representative Geran Tarr, Co-Chair
Representative Dean Westlake, Vice Chair
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Justin Parish
Representative Chris Birch
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative George Rauscher
Representative David Talerico
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mike Chenault (alternate)
Representative Chris Tuck (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Board of Fisheries
John Jensen - Petersburg
Reed Morisky - Fairbanks
Frederick ("Fritz") Johnson - Kenai
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 155
"An Act authorizing a land exchange in which certain Alaska
mental health trust land is exchanged for certain national
forest land and relating to the costs of the exchange; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 155(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 129
"An Act relating to sport fishing, hunting, or trapping
licenses, tags, or permits; relating to penalties for certain
sport fishing, hunting, and trapping license violations;
relating to restrictions on the issuance of sport fishing,
hunting, and trapping licenses; creating violations and amending
fines and restitution for certain fish and game offenses;
creating an exemption from payment of restitution for certain
unlawful takings of big game animals; relating to commercial
fishing violations; allowing lost federal matching funds from
the Pittman - Robertson, Dingell - Johnson/Wallop - Breaux
programs to be included in an order of restitution; adding a
definition of 'electronic form'; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 155
SHORT TITLE: AK MENTAL HEALTH TRUST LAND EXCHANGE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) ORTIZ
03/06/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/06/17 (H) RES, FIN
03/27/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/27/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/27/17 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/29/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 129
SHORT TITLE: FISH & GAME: OFFENSES;LICENSES;PENALTIES
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/15/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/15/17 (H) RES, JUD
03/29/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN JENSEN, Appointee
Board of Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Fisheries.
REED MORISKY, Appointee
Board of Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Fisheries.
FREDERICK ("FRITZ") JOHNSON, Appointee
Board of Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Fisheries.
GARY STEVENS
Chugiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Reed Morisky, in
opposition to John Jensen, and in neutrality to Fritz Johnson,
appointees to the Board of Fisheries.
ARNI THOMSON, Spokesperson
Alaska Salmon Alliance (ASA)
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Fritz Johnson, John
Jensen, and Reed Morisky, appointees to the Board of Fisheries.
ROD ARNO, Executive Director
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to John Jensen and
in support of Reed Morisky, appointees to the Board of
Fisheries.
PAUL SHADURA II, Spokesperson
South K-Beach Independent Fishermen's Association
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Fritz Johnson, John
Jensen, and Reed Morisky, appointees to the Board of Fisheries.
JERRY MCCUNE, Staff & President
United Fishermen of Alaska
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of John Jensen and
Fritz Johnson, and in neutrality to Reed Morisky, appointees to
the Board of Fisheries.
SAMANTHA WEINSTEIN, Executive Director
Southeast Alaska Guides Organization (SEAGO)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Reed Morisky, John
Jensen, and Fritz Johnson, appointees to the Board of Fisheries.
MARK RICHARDS
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Reed Morisky,
appointee to the Board of Fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN ORTIZ
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking as the prime sponsor of HB 155,
testified there have been no changes to the bill as presented to
the committee on 3/27/17.
CAROLINE HAMP, Staff
Representative Dan Ortiz
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Ortiz, sponsor,
provided a sectional analysis of the proposed committee
substitute, Version U, for HB 155.
WYN MENEFEE, Deputy Director
Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Office
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 155.
DAVID LANDIS, Mayor
Ketchikan Gateway Borough
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 155.
CHERYL FECKO
Craig, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 155.
DENNIS WATSON, Mayor
City of Craig
Craig, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 155.
REBECCA KNIGHT
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 155.
LARRY EDWARDS
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 155.
MIKE SALLEE
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 155.
EMILY FERRY, Deputy Director
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 155.
VICTORIA MCDONALD
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 155.
BOB WEINSTEIN, Spokesperson
Save Deer Mountain
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 155.
CHARLES WOOD, Spokesperson
Mitkof Highway Homeowners Association (MHHA)
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 155.
CYNTHIA LAGOUDAKIS, Vice-Mayor
Petersburg Borough
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 155.
MAJOR BERNARD CHASTAIN, Deputy Director
Division of Alaska Wildlife Troopers
Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Governor Walker, introduced
and provided a sectional analysis of HB 129.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:08:52 PM
CO-CHAIR GERAN TARR called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:08 p.m. Representatives Tarr,
Josephson, Rauscher, Drummond, Johnson, Birch, Parish, Talerico,
and Westlake were present at the call to order.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Board of Fisheries
1:09:30 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the first order of business would
be confirmation hearings for John Jensen, Reed Morisky, and
Fritz Johnson, appointees to the Board of Fisheries.
1:09:45 PM
JOHN JENSEN, appointee, Board of Fisheries, stated he was born
and raised in Petersburg, Alaska, and a third-generation
commercial fisherman who has participated in most of the
fisheries in the state, including: halibut; black cod; gillnet,
seine, and troll of salmon; seine, gillnet, and impound of
herring; and king and tanner crab fishing in the Bering Sea for
10 years. He said he has fished from Adak to Nome to the lower
end of Southeast. Presently he is semi-retired with a few
individual fishing quotas (IFQ's) left and a king and tanner
crab permit that his oldest son uses in Southeast Alaska.
Currently, he continued, his main income is from renting boats
to visitors to Southeast Alaska. His two sons are both
commercial fishermen. He offered his support for the
appointments of Mr. Reed Morisky and Mr. Fritz Johnson to the
Board of Fisheries.
1:12:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND inquired about the son who uses one of
Mr. Jensen's permits.
MR. JENSEN replied it is his oldest son and explained that when
he is at Board of Fisheries meetings he gets a governmental
transfer for his permit. He would have sold the permit a long
time ago but it's not a sellable permit, it is a permanent,
nontransferable permit. He has been waiting for 35 years for
the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) to make a
decision as to whether it is going to be permanent.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said she is asking because the House of
Representatives just passed HB 87, which would change the
familial relationships of members on the Board of Fisheries.
Assuming HB 87 became law, she explained, a child sharing a
substantial financial interest with Mr. Jensen as a board member
might cause Mr. Jensen to declare a conflict of interest under
certain circumstances. She asked whether Mr. Jensen is aware of
this bill.
MR. JENSEN responded that board members have been doing that
ever since he has been on the board. He said he likes HB 87
because it would help him be able to participate a little bit
more, but he realizes he cannot vote when there is a
"significant financial gain." Since his brother fishes in
several fisheries and both his sons are involved in many
fisheries, as is he, he consequently "sits on the bench" during
a lot of discussion. He stated it is hard for the other board
members when there isn't someone with a certain level of
expertise in Southeast Alaska because it is hard to understand
the little innuendos and all the fine parts of every area of the
state. A month ago, the board came from Cook Inlet and while he
doesn't have any conflicts there it was nice having a board
member who was familiar with the area and able to help the board
through it.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND pointed out that if HB 87 becomes law it
would allow Mr. Jensen to participate in discussions but not
vote whenever he has a conflict.
MR. JENSEN answered that the aforementioned is his understanding
as well, and reiterated that it would be of help.
1:15:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked how Mr. Jensen balances the
decisions he makes as far as relationships and fairness to
various user groups.
MR. JENSEN responded that that is the hard part of being on the
board. He explained that the board process starts out by people
putting in proposals by April 10th [each year] for what will
come up the next year. Members receive these proposals for
review in their board packet sometime in August. The public
also receives the proposals and develops their comments and the
[Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADFG)] advisory committees
(ACs) review the proposals and forward their comments. Up to
two weeks before the meeting, board members can get on-time
public comments. After the meeting the members get what is
called "record copies" for all the way through the meeting.
Once the meeting starts the board takes public testimony and
there is the committee process in which the user groups and the
public have a second chance to go at it with some more comments
and new information. The board uses all that information along
with the policies that it must follow, such as allocation
criteria, sustainable salmon fisheries management policy, mixed
stock fishing policies, as well as federal standards when it
comes to crabs. The board also uses a lot of input from ADFG.
If there is a harvestable surplus of fish, the first user group
is subsistence users, and if there is more harvestable surplus
for public use it goes into personal use, sport fishing, and
commercial fishing, and this is where the board has the job of
making allocations and that is the hardest part of the job.
1:17:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired whether Mr. Jensen sees the
current Board of Fisheries as being balanced.
MR. JENSEN replied yes, it has a fine balance with folks from
coastal communities such as himself and Ms. Jeffrey, who is
stepping down but whom he hopes will be replaced by Mr. Johnson,
and with Interior folks from Fairbanks to the Matanuska-Susitna
Valley to Anchorage. Compliments are being heard on how well
the board is working, he added.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked what the meaning of sustained
yield is to Mr. Jensen personally.
MR. JENSEN responded it means fish for the future that his
children and grandchildren will be able to do the same thing he
is doing.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER posed a scenario in which Mr. Jensen has
a conflict that would mean a large monetary loss and inquired
whether Mr. Jensen would still be able to be balanced if it was
for the better of the group.
MR. JENSEN answered he will conflict himself out of the issue.
For example, at the last board meeting an emergency petition was
put forth by ADFG of Southeast and once the board found out that
it met the criteria for emergency he stepped down from the rest
of the discussion because it was for gillnets and he has a
brother who is a gillnetter.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether, in Mr. Jensen's opinion,
the current number of board members is the right number.
MR. JENSEN replied he is aware there is talk about a nine-member
board, but said he doesn't know whether that would help, whether
it would bring in more coastal people, or how it would change
the balance. Right now, it's a pretty fair balance and is
working pretty well.
1:20:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH noted he represents 17,000 residents in
southcentral Anchorage, which includes commercial and sport
fishermen. He further noted the state sells about 250,000 sport
fishing licenses annually and said he presumes most people with
sport fishing licenses "target salmon." He asked what Mr.
Jensen sees as the Board of Fisheries' role and responsibility
in attempting to maximize the number of fish into Cook Inlet
where the various user groups can target the fish.
MR. JENSEN responded that in this case the board's main goal is
to keep the stocks healthy so that salmon keep coming back. The
[Matanuska-Susitna] Valley has some king salmon and some red
salmon stocks of concern. Fish are still coming up there and
the hope is to improve on things. The board has restricted
commercial fishing to a certain extent by using the corridor
program, he explained. The central corridor is basically the
whole Cook Inlet open and there are two corridors on the side
one that is three miles out and another going up about four
miles past that and which is used for managing fish going north
to the Matanuska-Susitna Valley area, and it seems to be working
really well. Sometimes, Mr. Jensen continued, it is really hard
to get a fish out of a stock of concern, the main reason being
not knowing when to back off. An action plan is involved, and
it is not necessarily getting a whole bunch of fish in there,
but rather getting a healthy bunch of fish in there and having a
healthy outmigration, and outmigrating seems to be some of the
problem and is something that is hard to foresee and manage.
1:23:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH inquired how the board views the advisory
[committees] and ensuring that they are viable and functioning
properly from the board's perspective. He further inquired how
Mr. Jensen sees that interaction working and whether there is
anything the legislature can do to improve that process.
MR. JENSEN answered that the advisory committees are a very
valuable resource to the Board of Fisheries; he participated on
one for 10 years before joining the board. Advisory committees
give the board a closer perspective of what the community is
doing. Of the 83 advisory committees across the state, some are
good, such as the Anchorage AC, and some are not, such as the
Petersburg AC. The AC's cycle up and down, he noted, but they
are very valuable, and he appreciates anything the legislature
can do to keep them going.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH posited that to be effective the advisory
committees would need to be contributing to a solution and an
answer that is agreed to by the board most of the time. He
asked what percentage of time the board follows the advice given
by an advisory committee.
MR. JENSEN replied that at the last board meeting held in
Anchorage regarding the Cook Inlet, the board took two proposals
and modified the language in a manner that was supported by the
AC's. He said he tries to listen to everyone closely and the
board takes seriously any suggestions from the AC level as well
as from the public level.
1:25:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related that she has received letters of
support from both commercial and sport users for the three
appointees to the board. She said she is pleased to have both
sides of the fishing camp in agreement.
MR. JENSEN responded he is happy to see this as well.
1:26:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH questioned what the Board of Fisheries has
done, and will do, to reduce bycatch and the wastage of fish
stocks and fish species.
MR. JENSEN answered that the board does its best to keep release
mortality to a minimum, and the board hears about this issue a
lot. For the catch and release of king salmon and trout, it is
critical the fish be handled correctly to reduce mortality.
Regarding halibut, he said he wishes the board could do more,
but because halibut are federally controlled the board doesn't
have much say about the species.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked what the greatest threats are to
fish for the future.
MR. JENSEN replied that currently it is starting to look like a
lot of environmental effects. Last year, due to [a large mass
of relatively warm water in the Pacific Ocean known as the blob]
the pink salmon run failed statewide. He said he is unsure
exactly what the blob is, but that it either killed the fish
during outmigration or the fish wouldn't come back through it
when returning a year later. The blob has supposedly moved off,
so the board is holding its breath for this year and hoping the
return is as predicted. It wasn't just pink salmon, he added,
all salmon were affected.
1:29:07 PM
REED MORISKY, appointee, Board of Fisheries, stated he has lived
in Fairbanks for over 35 years and for a good portion of that
time he has followed and been involved in fishery issues. He
said he has owned and operated a sport fishing guide business
specializing in Arctic grayling for 33 years, and as a member of
the Sport Fishing Guide Services Board Task Force he has
advocated for a responsible sport fishing industry. Being a
member of Alaska's Board of Fisheries is a special honor and
great responsibility, he noted, and one of his responsibilities
is to reasonably allocate among user groups. According to the
natural resource clause in Alaska's constitution, the state's
commonly-owned fisheries resources are a public trust that must
be managed for the benefit of the people as a whole. However,
he added, applying that concept is where much of the contention
arises. People rely on the board to fairly review proposals for
allocating, changing, modifying, and updating the state's
fisheries regulations.
MR. MORISKY said he believes he has brought an attitude of
respect and fairness to the process and that he has a proven
track record of taking a reasonable and rational approach to his
decision-making process. The public expects to be heard and
have their issues vetted by the board, and he enjoys meeting all
the stakeholders and hearing their concerns. It is possible to
disagree without being disagreeable, he continued, and he would
like to continue to work toward solutions to the state's present
and future fisheries issues.
1:31:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH noted he represents an area in south
Anchorage and previously lived in Fairbanks. Relating that many
of his constituents are concerned about the Cook Inlet fishery,
he asked what role Mr. Morisky sees the board engaging in to
maximize the public use of that fishery, and to recognize the
balance between the commercial and sport fishing communities.
MR. MORISKY responded that to maximize everyone getting their
fish the board reviews the proposals that are brought to it.
These proposals run the full gamut from restricting, severely
restricting sport and personal use, to restricting commercial
aspects. So, he said, that is where board action comes into
play to allocate the existing fisheries resources [which user
group] has more time, less time, larger bag limit, more time in
a fishery opening and to reallocate or allocate.
1:33:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired whether Mr. Morisky believes
there should be seven or nine members on the Board of Fisheries.
MR. MORISKY answered that the aforementioned has been a topic
among board members and other people interested in this process.
Based on his four years as a board member, he said he believes
seven are enough assuming they are good members like now, the
members are placed properly, and the selection is done with due
diligence. There is not supposed to be designated seats by area
per se, he continued, but if two or more seats were added the
question is, "Where would those seats go?" He said he doesn't
know whether Barrow or Tok have ever had a seat and other areas
of the state might advocate for that. There is no guarantee
where those seats would go or to whom. Currently, four votes
are needed to pass something and if the number of members went
to nine then five votes would be needed and therefore it might
be a little harder to get consensus.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked how Mr. Morisky balances decisions
that he makes on the board in relation to fairness amongst all
the user groups.
MR. MORISKY answered that he listens to all the information
regarding the proposal at hand, talks to the stakeholders, and,
if he can, talks to the person who wrote the proposal to get
more clarity and learn what he or she had in mind. The board's
criteria are very important allocation criteria, sustainable
salmon fisheries policy, and mixed stock policy. The allocation
criteria have seven criteria that, depending on the particular
board member and the lens that board member looks through, the
member will make a case for or against those particular
allocation criteria. There are many stakeholders, he continued.
The commercial fishery has been operating in many of these
fisheries for a long time, but there are also the sport, guided
sport, personal use, and subsistence components. Sometimes a
rebalancing will need to occur and that is what the board has
done and will do in the future: allocate those resources using
the allocation criteria and see what needs to be increased or
sometimes decreased for different user groups.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired as to Mr. Morisky's definition
of sustained yield.
MR. MORISKY replied that sustained yield is having enough fish
for escapement and yet have the various user groups be able to
use the resource in a sustained way and still have enough for
spawning on a long-term basis.
1:37:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked what Mr. Morisky sees as the
greatest threat to fisheries in the future.
MR. MORISKY responded that it is unknown weather changes,
habitat, and things happening in the ocean and/or where fish
spawn. The warm water blob was not predicted, and affected fish
runs. There is great concern in Southeast Alaska with the mines
in Canada that could cause problems with habitat. If the board
and ADFG are doing what they should, he posited, overfishing per
se should not occur - that is one of the benefits of Alaska's
management system in the way the constitution was framed, and
the Board of Fisheries set up by the legislature.
1:39:30 PM
FREDERICK ("FRITZ") JOHNSON, appointee, Board of Fisheries,
testified he has been a resident of the Bristol Bay region since
1978 and began commercially fishing in the region in 1979. He
operates a 32-foot drift boat and earns most of his income from
salmon fishing, he said. He has also participated in the near-
shore halibut fishery in the region, he continued, and in the
past, he participated in the herring fishery at Togiak. During
his one term on the Board of Fisheries from 2013-2015 he learned
a lot about Alaska fisheries beyond his own experience. During
that time, he spoke to hundreds of sport, commercial, personal
use, and subsistence harvesters from around the state, and he
listened to Alaska's dedicated team of fisheries biologists and
managers. Having served that apprenticeship, he said he
certainly is more qualified now than he was at the start of his
first term and would be honored to serve again. He expressed
his support for the reappointment of Mr. Jensen and Mr. Morisky
because both are thoughtful, deliberate, and highly qualified
individuals who are well versed in Alaska fish policy and open
to the public.
1:41:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH inquired as to what Mr. Johnson thinks can
be done to minimize bycatch or, having caught and killed a fish,
what should be done with that fish.
MR. JOHNSON replied that once a fish is caught and killed, to do
anything but take it home and consume it in some capacity is
wanton waste and against the law. Regarding bycatch, he advised
that some interesting developments are on the horizon for the
electronic monitoring of some of the bigger boats to ensure they
aren't taking untargeted species. This would give managers and
captains the information they need to relocate or modify their
fishing methods, as that seems to be where the biggest problem
with bycatch exists today. The issues of personal use and
commercial fisheries are different in different areas, he noted.
In Bristol Bay fishing for salmon is done with gillnets.
Several years ago, consideration was given to the banning of
gillnets in different parts of the country, including the
Northwest Coast, because gillnets were perceived as being
indiscriminate in their catch. However, he continued, in
Bristol Bay there are virtually no other species in the water
column, although sometimes in shallow water a few flounder are
taken, but the abundance of flounder is not threatened. Each
individual fishery is different, and the biggest bycatch issue
has to do with offshore fisheries and larger boats, he said.
1:44:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether Mr. Johnson thinks the
right board size is seven or [should be increased to] nine.
MR. JOHNSON responded he shares Mr. Morisky's views on the
board's size. The board is well balanced and fair, he said, and
in his opinion seven is enough and works. Expanding the number
to nine would sometimes make it more difficult to achieve
consensus, plus there would be more expense with adding members.
1:45:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH related that about 20 percent of the fish
caught in Cook Inlet are not the second run of red salmon that
go into the Kasilof and Kenai rivers. He requested Mr. Johnson
to share his thoughts about turning the Cook Inlet commercial
fishery into a terminal fishery and how that might impact the
overall fishery.
MR. JOHNSON answered his personal belief is that there is a
value in terminal fisheries; it used to work well in Bristol
Bay. That said, he continued, the Board of Fisheries is still
guided by both the sustainable salmon policies and allocation
policies. Changing the Cook Inlet fishery to be more of a
terminal fishery than it is now would have to be considered in
terms of historic harvest, use patterns, and methods. Generally
speaking, he added, terminal fisheries are a good idea.
1:46:38 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR opened public testimony on the appointments of Mr.
Jensen, Mr. Morisky, and Mr. Johnson to the Board of Fisheries.
1:46:46 PM
GARY STEVENS offered his strong support for the confirmation of
Reed Morisky. He said Mr. Morisky and the other two appointees
are professional and likeable men with whom he gets along and
likes. He offered his belief that Mr. Morisky has the best
interest for conservation and sustainability of the fisheries.
MR. STEVENS said he cannot support the confirmation of John
Jensen primarily because Mr. Jensen has been on the board for
over 14 years since 1975. No one else has served as much as 10
years on the board, so he would like to see some turnover and
fresh blood. He related that on March 4 [2017] during the last
board meeting in Anchorage, the board did a good job on what was
right for the conservation of the early run of king salmon.
However, he noted, the board allowed more opportunity for the
drift fleet and the setnetters after the end of the season at
the end of July, and many people were concerned about the
fisheries going up to the Northern District, especially cohos.
MR. STEVENS stated he is neutral on the appointment of Fritz
Johnson.
1:48:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE asked whether Mr. Stevens just doesn't
like the idea that someone has served on the board for 14 years
or whether there were specific rulings he disagreed with.
MR. STEVENS opined many of the decisions led by Mr. Jensen in
the last year or so tend to lean toward the advantage of the
commercial fisheries. He said his biggest concern with people
serving on any public board or any public position is that it is
a civic duty, not a career. When someone is on a board for that
type of duration it gets to a point where this person has a
relationship with the newer board members.
1:50:10 PM
ARNI THOMSON, Spokesperson, Alaska Salmon Alliance (ASA), noted
that his nonprofit trade organization primarily represents
seafood processors, but also the interests of fishermen who are
involved in harvesting, processing, and marketing of seafood
that is landed in Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet, Kodiak,
Southeast Alaska, and Bristol Bay communities. He said ASA
members have lengthy experience with Board of Fisheries meetings
dating back more than 25 years.
MR. THOMSON related that several ASA members participated in the
recent 14-day Board of Fisheries meeting in Anchorage and that
throughout the meeting under the leadership of Chairman John
Jensen, a broadly knowledgeable fisherman and seasoned board
member, the participating ASA members experienced a refreshing
spirit of respect, collaboration, thoughtful deliberation, and
an open environment. He said ASA also respects the knowledge
and balance of interests that Reed Morisky brings to the board.
Additionally, he continued, ASA appreciates Fritz Johnson
agreeing to come back and serve on the board because Mr. Johnson
is a man of integrity with extensive fisheries experience and
has already established his collaborative, cooperative, and
respectful nature. All three candidates are firmly supported by
ASA, he added, and ASA thanks the committee for its firm
commitment to sustaining Alaska fisheries and fish resources.
1:52:07 PM
ROD ARNO, executive director, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC),
stated that AOC is made up primarily of individual Alaskan
users. He said AOC opposes the reconfirmation of John Jensen to
the Board of Fisheries. While Mr. Jensen has done excellent
work during his 14 years on the board, his expertise leans
towards the commercial fisheries industry and AOC sees a need
and a desire to have more opportunity for individual fishermen.
For example, he continued, during the recent board meeting for
Cook Inlet, AOC's Proposal 203 would have allowed additional
opportunity for dipnetters at the same time that there were
emergency openings for additional opportunity for sockeye for
the commercial industry. However, the Alaskan dipnetter did not
get the same opportunity as commercial fishermen. Proposal 213
for the upper Cook Inlet is another example, Mr. Arno said. The
board voted down the idea of keeping the nets a mile off the
mouth of the Little Susitna River. When it comes to allocation,
there is an orientation towards commercial fishing and AOC is
opposed to that at this juncture.
MR. ARNO stated that when Fritz Johnson was previously on the
board, he too was oriented towards the commercial fisheries
industry. Therefore, he continued, AOC sees a need statewide
for an opportunity for more individual opportunity.
MR. ARNO offered AOC's support for Reed Morisky's reappointment
to the board. He restated the need for a better balance between
in-river users and the commercial industry, he said.
1:54:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether Mr. Arno thinks seven is a
good number of board members or whether it should be nine.
MR. ARNO responded that from his 35 years of going to Board of
Fisheries meetings, seven good individuals appointed by a fair-
minded governor, and confirmed by the legislature, provides the
opportunity for the majority of Alaskans to participate in the
process.
1:55:21 PM
PAUL SHADURA II, spokesperson, South K-Beach Independent
Fishermen's Association, noted that his community organization
is dedicated to protecting and preserving the Kasilof River
system. He said the association participated in the Board of
Fisheries' recent Cook Inlet regulatory meeting and did not
leave with all of its concerns addressed. However, he added,
the association believes that the issues deliberated upon were
discussed in an open, clear, and transparent process. The board
offered considerable amount of time for public testimony and
additional comments were allowed to clarify issues within the
Committee of the Whole. He further related that advisory
committee representatives were given an opportunity to express
the voice of their communities, although, because of budgeting
constraints, the committee chairs informed the representatives
that they should limit their time. Board members spent a
considerable amount of time discussing and debating several of
the major overriding management plans. Mr. Shadura said his
association believes the Board of Fisheries' decisions are
crafted to balance and to adjust critical management plans with
a goal of high sustained yields. The board is tasked with
conserving and developing opportunities, [maintaining] strong
healthy productive runs, and ensuring reasonable access for all
Alaskans.
MR. SHADURA offered his organization's strong support for the
confirmations of John Jensen, Reed Morisky, and Fritz Johnson
and said the board needs to maintain knowledgeable members in
order to properly function in the field of action. He added
that his organization requests the legislature to continue to
properly fund this viable open meeting process, and the
functions of the advisory committees. The public process must
be maintained so that Board of Fisheries members and ADFG can
properly address the local needs and concerns of the
communities. The people are the real experts and the real
stewards of the resource, he said in conclusion, and they need
to have an open access to regulators, which is one clear
definition of the public trust.
1:58:02 PM
JERRY MCCUNE, staff and president, United Fishermen of Alaska
(UFA), offered UFA's support for the appointments of John Jensen
and Fritz Johnson to the Board of Fisheries, and said UFA is
neutral on the appointment of Reed Morisky. He noted, however,
that he personally knows Mr. Morisky and thinks he has done a
good job. He drew attention to UFA's letter contained in the
committee packet.
1:59:09 PM
SAMANTHA WEINSTEIN, executive director, Southeast Alaska Guides
Organization (SEAGO), testified that her nonprofit organization
advocates for reasonable laws, regulations, and policies
affecting guided sport fishing to protect the sustainability of
member businesses and fishery resources. Southeast guided sport
fishing has quickly grown over the decades to ensure visitors
and residents a positive and safe fishing opportunity, she said.
As the industry has grown, so too has the number of sport-
related issues coming before the Board of Fisheries.
MS. WEINSTEIN expressed SEAGO's appreciation for Reed Morisky's
representation of the guided sport fishing industry on the board
and his facilitation of the other members' understandings of
this industry.
MS. WEINSTEIN also expressed SEAGO's appreciation for John
Jensen's experience, leadership, and extensive knowledge of
various Southeast Alaska fisheries. She noted it can take years
to learn and understand the complicated regulations and policies
affecting the fishery resources, habitat, subsistence fishing,
guided and unguided sport fishing, and commercial fishing, even
with a background as an angler.
MS. WEINSTEIN recognized the time, effort, and responsibility
required to serve on the Board of Fisheries and said Mr.
Morisky, Mr. Jensen, and Mr. Johnson have stepped up to the
plate to understand the concerns of, and work with, all
contributors and user groups. She added she is looking forward
to continuing collaboration in the coming Southeast Alaska
finfish meetings, given that these resources are being borrowed
from future generations. She offered SEAGO's support for moving
the three appointees forward for confirmation.
2:01:16 PM
MARK RICHARDS disclosed he is the executive director of Resident
Hunters of Alaska, but that today he is testifying solely on his
own behalf. Based on his participation in meetings, he said the
Board of Fisheries is 10 times more complicated, and the
decisions much more controversial, than what happens with the
Board of Game. He related that he has come to know Reed Morisky
mostly from attending the Fairbanks advisory committee meetings.
Even when there are no fisheries issues before the advisory
committee, he continued, Mr. Morisky still attends the meetings
to hear opinions and stay informed, which is one reason why he
is testifying in support of Mr. Morisky's reappointment. Mr.
Morisky is knowledgeable, objective, puts the resource first, he
added, and is a great asset to the Board of Fisheries. He urged
that Mr. Morisky's appointment be advanced and confirmed.
2:02:44 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
else wished to testify.
2:02:51 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON moved to advance the confirmations of John
Jensen, Reed Morisky, and Frederick ("Fritz") Johnson,
appointees to the Board of Fisheries, to the joint session for
consideration. The House Resources Standing Committee has
reviewed the qualifications of these appointees, he continued,
and recommends their names be forwarded to joint session as
noted. He noted this does not reflect intent by any of the
committee members to vote for or against any of the three
individuals during any further sessions for the purposes of
their confirmations. There being no objection to the motion,
the three confirmations were advanced.
[Co-Chair Tarr passed the gavel to Co-Chair Josephson.]
2:03:44 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:03 p.m. to 2:06 p.m.
HB 155-AK MENTAL HEALTH TRUST LAND EXCHANGE
2:06:34 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 155, "An Act authorizing a land exchange
in which certain Alaska mental health trust land is exchanged
for certain national forest land and relating to the costs of
the exchange; and providing for an effective date."
2:06:55 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for
HB 155, Version 30-LS0335\U, Bullard, 3/8/17, [as the working
document].
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON objected for discussion purposes.
2:07:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAN ORTIZ, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of HB 155, noted there have been no changes from the
original bill that he presented to the committee on 3/27/17.
2:08:10 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON requested a summary of the changes from the
original bill that are made by Version U.
CAROLINE HAMP, Staff, Representative Dan Ortiz, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Ortiz, sponsor, first
provided a sectional analysis of HB 155, and then an overview of
the changes in Version U. She explained that section 1 in
Version U discusses the purposes of the Act. Section 2 details
that the parties are subject to these provisions and not AS
38.05.801. Section 3 describes the lands included in the
proposed trade, and she said maps depicting those lands
accompany the bill. Section 4 provides a timeline for the
proposed exchange and prioritizes which lands would be exchanged
at what point in time. Section 5 provides the process that will
occur should the final appraisal find the values of the exchange
not to be equal. Section 6 provides circumstances that will
need to occur in order to make the Act effective. Section 7
provides an effective date.
MS. HAMP next discussed the changes between the original bill,
Version 0, and the CS, Version U. She explained the original
bill is dated 2/27/17, and Version U is dated 3/8/17. On
3/3/17, the sponsor received updated maps from the federal
legislation. [To comport with federal legislation], Version U
takes out parcel NB-2, which was a map in the original
legislation, and changes the acreage. Pages 3, 4, and 5 [of
Version U] detail the changes that are made in regard to the
maps and the acreage. In response to Co-Chair Josephson, she
noted that a summary of changes was provided in the committee
packet.
2:10:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked how much was the change in
acreage.
MS. HAMP replied that the total acreage changed from 18,274
acres to 18,313 acres exchanged for federal lands. For the
Alaska Mental Health Trust, the acreage changed from 20,580
[acres] to 20,645 [acres].
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired whether the changes are in the
state's favor.
MS. HAMP responded the changes were made to accommodate the
lands [the state] has so they were accurate to the maps that are
now had. It does not necessarily mean the value the state
incurred is more or less, it will be an equal value exchange.
2:11:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted that committee members don't have
the aforementioned maps before them.
MS. HAMP answered the maps are on the Bill Action Status Inquiry
System (BASIS).
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON offered his understanding that these are the
adjustments to the maps that [were previously] provided to
committee members.
MS. HAMP replied the new and most recent maps that go with
Version U have written at the bottom, "Map Revision Date - 03-
03-2017".
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked Representative Drummond whether she
has the [3/3/17] maps.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND responded that there are no maps in the
supporting documentation for this meeting.
MS. HAMP advised it should be titled "additional documents
maps".
2:13:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH noted the land exchange would be about
20,000 acres and inquired what an acre of forested land would be
worth versus an acre of unforested land.
MS. HAMP deferred to Mr. Wyn Menefee.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH opined it is a shame that there is not a
successful timber industry on the [Tongass National Forest]. He
said he is curious as to what the economic value would be for
the timber resource included within the exchange.
WYN MENEFEE, deputy director, Alaska Mental Health Trust Land
Office, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), responded the value of the timber depends on
whether it is old growth or spruce or cedar - different values
are associated with the different timber types. He offered to
provide the committee with a chart showing these assessments,
saying he doesn't have the chart with him and so cannot provide
the exact amount per acre at this moment.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH restated his question.
MR. MENEFEE answered he doesn't have this information with him
and doesn't want to provide an incorrect answer.
2:15:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER offered his understanding that the
Alaska Mental Health Trust ("the Trust") has many different
types of land. Some has mining on it and some can be developed
with subdivisions. He asked whether any of the land included in
the bill is for anything other than timber.
MR. MENEFEE replied that when the Trust receives lands the lands
do not have any restriction for the type of use. The Trust
could use the lands for subdivisions, mining, or timber harvest.
Trust [managers] maximize the revenue and try to use the highest
and best use to produce the best revenue.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired whether all the aforementioned
aspects are taken into account or just the timber aspect when
trying to figure out the value of what is being traded. He
presumed there are many ways to measure the economic value of
one piece of property versus another piece and said he would
like to know how this particular one is being done.
MR. MENEFEE responded that two different values are in the
federal legislation. The United States Appraisal Standards must
be followed, he said, as well as another national appraisal
standard. It takes into account the highest and best use that
the appraiser feels the land can be used for and then values it
accordingly. So, if the appraiser sees that timber is going to
be the highest and best use, it will be valued for the timber.
If the appraiser sees that subdivision development is the
highest and best use, it will be valued for that. He explained
that the reason Ms. Hamp said the acreage is not critical is
because that is not representing what actually gets traded at
the end. After the appraisals are done it will be seen what
makes the equal value in land exchange and the acreages will be
adjusted accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired whether this is done through an
agency.
MR. MENEFEE answered the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has to
contract, or write the appraisal instructions, and the Alaska
Mental Health Trust Land Office pays for it. [The work] is done
by people who are approved to do federal appraisals.
2:18:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE offered his understanding that there is
HB 155 and a similar federal concurrent resolution [in
Congress], and that moving HB 155 is going to be contingent on
the federal legislation passing. He offered his understanding
that Version U is just topographical, and said that in his
opinion [the change] in acreage is miniscule. He asked whether
he is correct in understanding that passing HB 155 is part of a
synergy that is going on.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ affirmed Representative Westlake's summary.
2:19:38 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON opened public testimony on HB 155.
2:19:53 PM
DAVID LANDIS, mayor, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, testified that
the Ketchikan Gateway Borough has repeatedly and consistently
supported the land exchange legislation referenced in HB 155
because it is a win-win-win proposition. It is a win for the
region's timber industry, he said, because it is important for
Southeast Alaska's economy to provide a consistent supply of
timber for those jobs that are directly involved in the industry
as well as the affiliated businesses that are vendors to the
timber industry.
MAYOR LANDIS stated the exchange is also a win for the citizens
of Ketchikan and the over one million tourists who will visit
Ketchikan each year because there are Trust lands to be
exchanged directly behind Ketchikan on Deer Mountain. There are
also Trust lands to be exchanged on Gravina Island across
Tongass Narrows, he pointed out. These are major viewsheds for
the community and the Deer Mountain parcel also has very popular
trails used by locals and visitors. There is very little
support in Ketchikan to log these areas, he related, and the
swap would protect these lands and provide other lands much more
suitable for timber sales.
MAYOR LANDIS further said the exchange is also a win for the
Alaska Mental Health Trust because Ketchikan, like other
communities, has citizens who suffer from mental illnesses,
substance abuse, and other disorders. The Trust needs revenue
to fund those efforts and this [proposed] land exchange would
provide that revenue. This exchange, he said in conclusion, is
as close as one can get to a win for everyone involved.
2:22:02 PM
CHERYL FECKO testified in opposition to HB 155. She said she
has worked, recreated, and harvested local foods from Prince of
Wales Island and feels strongly about maintaining her quality of
life. While she understands why Ketchikan and Petersburg are
opposed to logging by the Trust in the areas that are important
to them, she said she doesn't understand why people feel there
would be no opposition to exchanging that land for parcels on
Prince of Wales Island near the communities of Naukati, Hollis,
and other places on the island. She said the Trust's recent
[timber] sale in the Control Lake area, a popular recreation
site in central Prince of Wales Island, is a perfect example of
the in-your-face clear-cut logging that would concern the people
of Ketchikan and Petersburg if it were done in their backyard.
MS. FECKO noted that Prince of Wales Island has experienced
extensive logging over the last 50-plus years and now the
challenge is to retain a quality of life and a healthy island
ecosystem as the public land on Prince of Wales Island continues
to be carved into private- and state-owned lots. She is not
opposed to the timber industry or to the needs of the Alaska
Mental Health Trust, she added, and hopes a way can be found to
do things a bit differently. She said she would like the bill's
sponsor, the House Resources Standing Committee, and the people
of Ketchikan and Petersburg to know that she, too, cares about
the place where she lives.
2:24:08 PM
DENNIS WATSON, mayor, City of Craig, testified in support of HB
155. He said it is important for Prince of Wales Island, the
timber industry, and the island's largest sawmill. Many jobs
are tied up with this and this [land] exchange has been on the
table for years. There has been plenty of time for working on
the parcels that were finally selected for the exchange, he
continued, and it is time to move forward with getting this
issue settled.
MAYOR WATSON said Viking Lumber's sawmill in Klawock is huge
because it has a year-round payroll in an area where jobs are
really scarce. Contracts with the sawmill provide millions of
dollars. He noted he has lived in Craig for 42 years and worked
at the sawmill during his first two years. The sawmill is an
important part of the economy, he said, and passing HB 155 is
very important to the mill's existence. Actions by the last
federal administration cut back on the amount of available
federal timber and right now the exchange is a stopgap measure
to keep the sawmill and the island's economy going.
2:26:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated he shares Mayor Watson's interest
and conviction regarding the importance of the timber industry
in Southeast Alaska and the Craig community. He asked whether
there are other avenues or venues in which the legislature can
be supportive of an expanded timber industry in the state.
MAYOR WATSON replied that a state forest is needed and said the
infinite litigation and ridiculousness of trying to get anything
done has been an impediment. He allowed that in the beginning
he thought a state forest concept was foolish, but now he thinks
it is the only way and he hopes the state legislature and
administration will follow up on it because it is unknown what
will happen with federal administrations.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said he supports the [proposed] land trade.
2:27:40 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON offered his understanding that there are
multiple state forests in southern Southeast Alaska. He asked
whether Mayor Watson wants a larger state forest.
MAYOR WATSON responded yes, it is a large selection that is
being talked about so there would be an ample supply of timber.
Most of the people following this issue, he continued, believe
the transition that the last federal administration wanted to do
immediately is about a 20-year process. A miniscule amount of
timber is being taken today as compared to the days when 600
million [board feet] was being cut. It should be spread around
a lot more than it presently is, he said, but the current focus
is on what can happen right now and hopefully this exchange is
the bridge to the future. State forests are available right
now, he said, but they are a small, patchwork quilt.
2:28:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted she has been to the area where
Mayor Watson lives and said it is a spectacular place. Drawing
attention to the maps provided by the sponsor, she observed that
the two [proposed] areas on Prince of Wales Island are the
Naukati and Hollis areas. She inquired whether these two areas
would benefit the sawmill.
MAYOR WATSON replied he doesn't know if anybody from Naukati
works at that, but the answer is yes that both areas are very
important to making this happen. Both areas are very high-value
timber selections, he continued, and both are places that have
had timber harvest off and on through several years. Hollis is
one of the original spots where the long-term [timber] contracts
started some 50 years ago.
2:29:35 PM
REBECCA KNIGHT testified that her opposition to HB 155 is based
on a variety of grounds. A far better alternative, she said, is
a federal buyout of the Alaska Mental Health Trust's lands
included in the proposed exchange. Such a buyout would satisfy
the Trust's mission to improve the lives of beneficiaries as
well as impacts to Petersburg and Ketchikan area landowners, and
a buyout would also avoid long-term and massive landscape level
impacts elsewhere if the exchange is enacted.
MS. KNIGHT pointed out that the Alaska Forest Resources and
Practices Act governs logging on the Trust's lands. This
antiquated law is far weaker than federal regulations, she said.
For instance, it has no limit on the size of clear-cuts. She
related that in August [2016], Paul Slenkamp of the Trust stated
that the Trust was "in final negotiations with Viking Lumber for
all the Prince of Wales land it would get under the exchange
legislation." She urged there be a clarification of just what
these "final negotiations" entail.
MS. KNIGHT posited that changing the action from an exchange to
a federal buyout would lend support on a congressional level and
would greatly improve its chances of passage by reducing or even
eliminating opposition, and would result in no environmental
harm. Given a fair chance of passage, she said, the Trust could
finalize the action much sooner and with less expense for survey
and appraisal since only about half the lands would be involved.
It also makes fiscal sense because it would cost the Trust about
half the $6 million in cost cited by the Trust for the exchange.
A federal buyout of the Trust's problematic lands is a
reasonable solution, she posited, because Congress created the
Trust and endowed it with lands to support itself, leading to
problems due in part to the controversial nature of the lands
selected. She further noted that the Petersburg Borough
Assembly supports the buyout option if the exchange legislation
fails to pass Congress by 1/15/17. In response to Co-Chair
Josephson, she agreed to provide a copy of the borough assembly
resolution.
2:32:22 PM
LARRY EDWARDS testified in opposition to HB 155. He said the
bill is unacceptable as written because it trades one very bad
problem for an equally bad problem. The problem the bill would
create is explained in three of the [written] comments on record
from the [3/27/17] hearing that were submitted by Doug Rhodes,
by Rebecca Knight, and by the Greater Southeast Alaska
Conservation Community (GSACC) [under document named, "HB 155
Public Comments. pdf"]. He urged the committee to amend HB 155
to authorize a federal buyout of the problematic Trust lands
instead of a land exchange. He pointed out that Congress
established the Trust and its land endowment, which has led to
the current dilemma. Buying out these 18,000 acres - 1.8
percent of the original million-acre endowment - is a reasonable
and sellable solution, he posited. The legislature's passage of
a bill amended accordingly would direct Alaska's congressional
delegation to secure a buyout act.
MR. EDWARDS addressed testimony on the bill that was provided by
the Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Office [3/27/17]. He
offered his belief that the Trust's testimony blatantly
misinformed the committee in several ways, the details of which
he has submitted to the committee in writing. For example, he
explained, the "brown" map on page 10 of the Trust's written
testimony either demonstrates utter incompetence on Southeast
Alaska's land management issues, or is an outright lie. The
brown color is labeled, "Natural settings with old-growth
harvest land use designations," and is mostly overlain with
cross-hatching to indicate that this supposed old-growth cannot
be logged because of the Roadless Rule. However, he pointed
out, most of the brown is not old-growth forest, or even forest,
at all. Another example on the same map is the big brown block
near Juneau, which is almost entirely the Juneau Ice Field and
high alpine areas - very, very little of that brown is old-
growth forest. This same thing occurs in the brown area shown
on the Chilkat Peninsula across Lynn Canal, he continued, and
again in the brown area shown for the unforested high mountain
spines of Chichagof and Baranof islands. This deception repeats
itself throughout much of the brown-colored areas on the map, he
said, and also in the tan Wilderness areas. He further noted
that these same errors or deceptions also carry through to the
table on that map page.
2:36:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND recalled Mr. Edwards referring to a
document provided by GSACC that is three pages long with one map
and which can be found on BASIS. She further recalled Mr.
Edwards referring to page 10 of a similar document and asked Mr.
Edwards to provide that document or tell the committee how to
identify it.
MR. EDWARDS replied that the document is in the record for the
committees [3/27/17 hearing of HB 155] and is provided as two
different documents one a PowerPoint and one a PDF file. Both
are Alaska Mental Health Trust documents, he said, and are the
presentation provided on screen by Mr. Wyn Menefee.
2:37:03 PM
MIKE SALLEE testified in opposition to HB 155. He stated that
for three and a half decades he has been a self-employed owner-
operator of a small sawmill, as well as a commercial fisherman
and harvest diver. Today he is representing himself and his
lumber customers in opposition to HB 155, he said. He is a
logger by virtue of needing logs for his sawmill operation. He
does not fell trees; he takes only dead and down trees carried
to tidelands. His brother was a lifelong logger and a mentor to
him.
MR. SALLEE said he has resided on Gravina Island since 1956 when
his mother began a homestead there. Since 1956 he has enjoyed
dozens of hunting expeditions on the island for deer and grouse,
as well as just hiking. Therefore, he has seen a lot of what
went on when the Alaska Mental Health Trust began logging on
Gravina Island and, he noted, it has not been pretty. Way too
much wood is wasted, he reported, and a high percentage of
felled commercially viable timber is left to rot. The sawlogs
that are removed are primarily exported in the round, leaving no
opportunity for local processing. As a local sawmiller, he
continued, he gets numerous calls for yellow cedar lumber, but
yellow cedar lumber does not commonly get carried to tidelands
where he gets most of his logs from blowdowns and landslides.
Furthermore, he recounted, the tops, cull trees, and other
logging slash are neither removed from the woods nor cut up into
smaller pieces so as to more quickly break down.
MR. SALLEE stated that while HB 155 takes some critical
timberlands off the chopping block, for example Deer Mountain
plus other lands near Petersburg and communities, it does little
more than kick the can down the road. It does nothing to clean
up the current logging methods. It does nothing to keep local
timber for processors near Ketchikan. The best option instead
of a land trade, he urged, would be an outright cash payment to
Alaska Mental Health Trust to buy off Trust lands with timber
interest. He offered his understanding that such a buyout could
be accomplished through the U.S. Forest Service.
2:39:29 PM
EMILY FERRY, deputy director, Southeast Alaska Conservation
Council (SEACC), testified that SEACC's concern is less about
the specific content of HB 155 and more about the overall
intent. Specifically, she explained, a handout provided by the
Alaska Mental Health Trust mentions that a main goal is to
promote the timber industry in Southeast Alaska. But, she said,
the bill sets up a "Catch 22". The Trust is mandated to
generate revenue to benefit its beneficiaries. However, she
advised, selling timber locally tends to not produce the most
revenue. This was seen last year when the legislature passed a
bill that allowed the state to offer timber at a reduced cost if
it was sold to instate processors because they couldn't compete
with export markets. So, she continued, if one seeks to
increase the benefits to the Trust, one would export that timber
because in the current market that would generate the most
revenue. To promote the timber industry the Trust would have to
sell the timber at a reduced cost and therefore it's a Catch 22.
MS. FERRY addressed the earlier statement that HB 155 would be a
win-win-win situation. She said it would be a win for some -
the folks who SEACC has worked with for years to ensure that the
hillsides in Ketchikan and Petersburg don't get logged.
However, she continued, it is certainly not a win for the folks
on Prince of Wales Island where whole areas would be logged.
And, it is questionably a win for the Trust's beneficiaries.
She said SEACC believes that other avenues could be looked at
for resolving this issue and maximizing the benefits to the
Trust, whether that is the federal buyout mentioned earlier or
working with conservation buyers.
2:42:13 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON inquired whether SEACC's thesis is that if
the Alaska Mental Health Trust must maximize its assets then it
would need to export [the timber] because that is more valuable.
MS. FERRY replied yes, under the current economics.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON offered his understanding that export is not
the plan.
MS. FERRY concurred that export is not the plan; the bill
doesn't necessarily achieve that win-win-win scenario that is
being looked for.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON surmised that in terms of conservation there
would be some net gain in that existing Trust holdings, such as
Deer Mountain, are vulnerable to harvest now, as are the parcels
to be obtained, although there is the Roadless Rule and a
significant slowdown. [Under HB 155, Deer Mountain and some
places] would be conserved in an easement while other places
would not. He asked whether he is correct in understanding that
there is a net protection of timber, but noted he is saying this
without having walked this land and knowing what it looks like.
MS. FERRY responded that in his testimony, Mr. Edwards spoke to
other areas of land that were going to be exchanged that didn't
have high timber values so weren't likely to be logged. She
agreed there is an element to what Co-Chair Josephson spoke to,
but said it could also be looked at other ways and looking at a
different solution altogether might be the way to go.
2:44:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that the carrots in his garden are
vulnerable to harvest every fall when they finish growing. He
inquired whether Ms. Ferry sees any potential for a sustainable
harvest and management of timber resources in Southeast Alaska
for the benefit of the region's people and economy, recognizing
that there are a number of years between reforestation. He said
the Trust obviously sees it as a significant economic plus.
MS. FERRY answered she does see that, but said it is going to be
much different than was seen 20-30 years ago. It is going to be
small-scale artisan-type work, she said, and old growth logs are
needed for that, which is something Alaska can produce but
Oregon and other states cannot produce. If the old growth
resource is liquidated now, and whether it is sold to Viking
Lumber for a reduced cost or exported for more money, that [old
growth] wood resource is going to be gone; it is not infinite.
The forest will grow back, she continued, but it will take 300
years to get to the state of high-value old growth timber that
can be used for such things as guitar tops and totem poles. She
related that SEACC already sees it much smaller; for example,
the current number of timber jobs in Southeast Alaska represents
about one-half of 1 percent of the region's jobs. People are
still operating from 20 or 30 years ago when it was a much
bigger part of the economy, she said, but the reality is that it
is less than 1 percent of the current economy, and while that
could change a little it would not be significantly.
2:46:21 PM
VICTORIA MCDONALD testified she has hiked Deer Mountain many
times and considers it a memorable landmark and does not want to
see Deer Mountain logged for Alaska Mental Health Trust funding.
Nor, she continued, does she want the land trade to shift the
cutting to Prince of Wales Island, which has already been
heavily impacted, as has Revillagigedo Island. If the focus of
the Trust is to make money, she encourages state and federal
officials to think and act creatively and find another means for
providing money for mental health. She offered her belief that
the men and women who set aside these mental health lands could
not have imagined the massive clearcuts in southern Southeast
Alaska. This issue has been debated for many years and needs to
be solved using collaboration and compromise. As for a viable
timber industry in Southeast Alaska, she said, that is a myth
that is repeated over and over. While there are trees still on
the mountains, the best and viable timber has already been cut
for the pulp mills or shipped overseas. The timber industry
contributes very little to the area's economy; rather, it is
fishing and tourism.
2:48:00 PM
BOB WEINSTEIN, spokesperson, Save Deer Mountain, testified in
support of HB 155. The purpose of the bill, he noted, is to
authorize the Alaska Mental Health Trust to exchange some of its
landholdings with the U.S. Forest Service. The exchange would
involve Deer Mountain, the iconic backdrop of the community of
Ketchikan. He related that last August and thereafter the
Trust's committees and its board of directors voted to log Deer
Mountain as well as a sensitive parcel in Petersburg unless
pending federal legislation to exchange the parcels with U.S.
Forest Service land was passed by the end of 2016. The
Ketchikan public vehemently objected to the board's decision to
harvest the trees on Deer Mountain and the city, borough, and
local tribal governments also all opposed the plan.
MR. WEINSTEIN continued, noting that ultimately the Trust's
board rescinded its action, regrouped, and is now working with
the Alaska congressional delegation on federal exchange
legislation, which was reintroduced in the new Congress. He
offered his understanding that a bill by Senator [Lisa]
Murkowski is scheduled for mark-up [3/30/17] and will be
reported out of committee. For this reason, he said, the House
Resources Standing Committee needs to move state-authorizing
legislation through the committee process and onward to final
consideration by the House of Representatives so that when the
federal legislation passes the exchange can be implemented in an
orderly and timely fashion.
MR. WEINSTEIN addressed the earlier question about the value of
some of the parcels. He reported that the Alaska Mental Health
Trust Land Office has estimated it would get revenues of up to
about $3 million from the Petersburg parcel and about $2 million
from the 898 acres on Deer Mountain. He offered his belief that
if a value-for-value trade was done, the Trust would expect to
get the same kind of revenue from the U.S. Forest Service land
and other parcels that are being considered for exchange.
2:50:56 PM
CHARLES WOOD, spokesperson, Mitkof Highway Homeowners
Association (MHHA), testified in favor of HB 155. He said MHHA
is a group of 95 Petersburg homeowners living below and
commuting along State Highway 7, the Mitkof Highway, which lies
at the foot of the Trust's demonstrably steep unstable hillside
parcels. Soils across a majority of the Trust's parcels are of
concern to MHHA, he reported, because U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
orthophotographic maps show them as being landslide hazard
soils. The majority of these parcels exceed the USFS standards
pertaining to logging. Mr. Wood further pointed out that the
Mitkof Highway corridor below the Trust parcels in question have
also been analyzed and mapped as a landslide hazard zone by the
state's Division of Forestry's Landslide Science and Technical
Committee. He said the Division of Forestry has no criteria for
best management practices specific to logging steep unstable
slopes within inhabited landslide hazard areas. If the Trust
were to log these slopes it would do so under the guidance of
the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act.
MR. WOOD stated that logging within an inhabited landslide
hazard area is unwise as well as inconsistent with the public
interest and the maximum benefit to people. The sole focus of
MHHA over the past 11 years has been entirely on public safety,
he related. Never once has MHHA mentioned viewshed, community
backdrop, local recreation opportunities, wildlife corridor, or
tourism, though each of these issues present reasonable
arguments in favor of the land exchange. Nor, he continued, has
MHHA offered commentary on the Trust lands next to other
communities or the USFS lands involved in the exchange.
MR. WOOD said logging the slopes above the homes of MHHA members
runs the risk of accelerated landslide activity, and the MHHA
has absolutely no confidence that the Division of Forestry's
best management practices and guidelines will provide sufficient
safeguards to protect homes and property from unwise timber
harvest. Conversely, he continued, MHHA does expect that USFS
management of the hillside will entail other criteria, which
will ensure that public safety will not be impacted by logging.
The committee may also wish to consider that the majority of the
population in Southeast Alaska resides in close proximity to the
Trust lands involved with this land exchange, he added. As
such, for any number of reasons the parcels are clearly more
beneficial to be left in their natural state for multiple-use by
the public, which is more likely to occur under USFS guidelines
and standards. He urged the committee to support HB 155.
2:53:53 PM
CYNTHIA LAGOUDAKIS, vice-mayor, Petersburg Borough, testified in
favor of HB 155. She said the bill represents a 10-year effort
by the residents of Petersburg and Ketchikan, the U.S. Forest
Service, and the Alaska Mental Health Trust to affect a land
exchange within the Petersburg Borough and elsewhere in
Southeast Alaska. The Petersburg Borough seeks to protect the
natural resources within the borough's boundaries, she
continued, and especially the lives, property, and peace of mind
of those borough residents who live in close proximity to the
current Trust lands that are under consideration. The borough
has concerns for the downstream and downslope effects of any
potential timber harvest in this area given the credible
scientific information regarding landslides and other hazards.
VICE-MAYOR Lagoudakis noted that especially in this current
fiscal climate the Alaska Mental Health Trust must manage its
resources for financial efficiencies to best achieve its
mission. Expediting the land exchange outlined in HB 155 would
help significantly in realizing those efficiencies, she said.
An exchange of Trust lands for USFS lands identified in HB 155
would meet those objectives to the satisfaction of the
Petersburg Borough and its residents, as well as other parties
affected by this agreement. To that end, she concluded, the
borough concurs with and encourages passage of HB 155.
2:55:26 PM
The committee took a brief at ease.
2:55:54 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON removed his objection to the adoption of the
CS [for HB 155], Version U, as the working document.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON closed public testimony.
There being no further objection, Version U was before the
committee.
2:56:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that as a resource-inclined person
he is thrilled to see this initiative by the Alaska Mental
Health Trust and the federal [agency] working to make this a
reality. He estimated that at $2 million for almost 1,000 acres
[in Ketchikan] and $3 million for 3,000 acres in Petersburg, the
average is between $1,000 and $2,000 per acre in realized
revenues from the harvest. As a sustainable industry, where the
wood product can be harvested and then the regrowth harvested,
this is a great effort, he continued. The mapping is detailed
and helpful, and it sounds like a win-win from the standpoints
of the communities, the public, and the Alaska Mental Health
Trust.
2:57:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH recognized the conflict brought up by Ms.
Ferry and asked what could be done to assure that the citizens
of Southeast Alaska gain the maximum benefit possible through
local processing. He requested Mr. Menefee to respond to this
as well as to the assertion about a high degree of wastage.
MR. MENEFEE replied that there are different standards between
state harvest and federal harvest; the certain number of logs
gotten out of a tree varies from state to federal [regulations].
But, he continued, all state laws are followed. The Trust
believes it does receive fair revenue [from the exchange]. He
acknowledged every single log does not get cut to every
satisfaction. Something could potentially be worked out where
somebody comes in and can cut more in certain situations. In
regard to the issue that the Trust will ship the logs overseas
versus cut locally, he said it is in the best interest of the
Trust to ensure it has customers that will purchase its timber
because the Trust will make revenue off of it. State laws guide
how the Trust can sell the timber, both commercially and
negotiated. The Trust will take into full consideration the
issue that it needs its market purchasers along with the revenue
that the Trust needs. So, he added, it is a balancing thing,
and the Trust will design its timber sales accordingly to take
that into account.
3:00:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER opined that there is a certain amount of
economic value to be gained in keeping jobs local and selling
things local, rather than selling overseas. He said other
things must be taken into account besides the price tag of what
a board is worth, and that has a bearing on how to value the
weight of this as far as an economic value for the local people.
3:01:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO said he has no doubt the sponsor is
doing this in the best interest of his community. He noted the
backup documentation from local government organizations
composed of elected officials, and said these resolutions and
letters are important to him because he is a big believer in
local government and local control. He stated he personally has
an issue with any land sales to the federal government because
over 150 million acres in Alaska are in parks, monuments, and
preserves, plus another 50 million acres are controlled by the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service.
Therefore, he continued, the federal government controls 200
million acres of the 363 million acres available in the state of
Alaska. State ownership and keeping land in [the state's] hands
are important, he opined. The Alaska Mental Health Trust looks
at health overall and that could also be the health of a
community. A reasonable economy in a community provides local
jobs and makes things better and healthier for everyone in the
community.
3:03:14 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR moved to report CS for HB 155, Version 30-
LS0335\U, Bullard, 3/8/17, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being
no objection, CSHB 155(RES) was reported from the House
Resources Standing Committee.
3:03:48 PM
The House Resources Standing Committee meeting was recessed at
3:03 p.m., to be continued at 5:00 p.m.
5:11:34 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting back to order at 5:11 p.m. Present at the call back to
order were Representatives Josephson, Tarr, Parish, Birch,
Talerico, and Westlake.
HB 129-FISH & GAME: OFFENSES;LICENSES;PENALTIES
5:11:44 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON announced that the last order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 129, "An Act relating to sport fishing,
hunting, or trapping licenses, tags, or permits; relating to
penalties for certain sport fishing, hunting, and trapping
license violations; relating to restrictions on the issuance of
sport fishing, hunting, and trapping licenses; creating
violations and amending fines and restitution for certain fish
and game offenses; creating an exemption from payment of
restitution for certain unlawful takings of big game animals;
relating to commercial fishing violations; allowing lost federal
matching funds from the Pittman - Robertson, Dingell -
Johnson/Wallop - Breaux programs to be included in an order of
restitution; adding a definition of 'electronic form'; and
providing for an effective date."
5:12:50 PM
MAJOR BERNARD CHASTAIN, deputy director, Division of Alaska
Wildlife Troopers (AWT), Department of Public Safety, introduced
HB 129 [on behalf of Governor Walker]. Major Chastain said HB
129 accomplishes four primary goals. First, he explained, the
bill would allow for issuing a correctable citation to a person
who does not have the appropriate sport fishing, hunting, or
trapping license in his or her actual possession. This is
similar to [citations issued for] correctable headlights or
correctable vehicle insurance. Second, he said, the bill would
make it unlawful for a person to obtain a sport fishing,
hunting, or trapping license if that person has had his or her
rights to engage in those activities revoked or suspended in any
other state, and including Alaska. Third, he continued, the
bill would increase restitution amounts for unlawfully taking
big game animals and would increase strict liability commercial
fishing fines for first, second, and third offenses. Fourth, he
stated, the majority of the bill would standardize penalties
within Title 16 and would create an option for charging as a
class A misdemeanor, which most are already but this would also
give troopers an option for charging as a violation offense.
5:14:22 PM
MAJOR CHASTAIN explained that section 1 of HB 129 would amend AS
16.05.330(a) to include the word "permit" in addition to
"license" and "tag" for purposes of clarifying the proper types
of documentation a person must have in his or her actual
possession. Thus, a person would have to have a permit,
license, and tag in his or her actual possession. Additionally,
section 1 would renumber [the activities listed in] 1 through 5.
They are renumbered, he said, because 1 and 2 are sport offenses
and 3, 4, and 5 are considered commercial activities.
MAJOR CHASTAIN stated that section 2 would amend AS 16.05.330(d)
to make it unlawful for a person to purchase a sport fishing,
hunting, or trapping license if his or her rights to engage in
those activities have been revoked or suspended in "this or"
another state. Current statute directs that a person who
applies for a sport fishing, hunting, or trapping license or
other permit or tag issued under this section, shall sign a
statement that his or her right to obtain or exercise a
privilege is not revoked or suspended in another state.
Surprisingly, he pointed out, this statute does not include
Alaska; adding the words "this or" makes the statute include
Alaska.
5:15:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE directed attention to the bill on page
2, line 7 which read:
(5) control of nuisance wild birds and nuisance wild
small mammals for compensation.
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE said in villages, and sometimes in
Kotzebue, there are bird strikes with planes and he asked
whether this provision would make it illegal for a person to
scare off nuisance birds when someone else buys the shells for
this purpose, but does not compensate the person for scaring off
the birds.
MAJOR CHASTAIN replied the requirement states that a license or
permit is required in order to do that activity. While troopers
do not encounter this very often, there are folks who do that
around the state for compensation. There are businesses that do
this, he continued, and they must have that permit from the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADFG).
MAJOR CHASTAIN resumed his sectional analysis. He said section
3 would amend AS 16.05.330 by adding three subsections. The
first proposed new subsection would make it a correctable
offense by providing that a person charged with failing to have
the appropriate sport fishing, hunting, or trapping license in
his or her actual possession may not be convicted if no later
than 30 days after the issuance of the citation the person
produces a license previously issued to that individual that was
valid at the time of the offense. The official correctable
citation would be brought in to any office of the Division of
Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety, within the
state, it would be signed off within 30 days, and it would not
go on the record. It would basically be considered a warning to
the person for not having a license [in actual possession], he
said. Licenses are sometimes forgotten at home or in a vehicle
and currently if an individual does not have a license on his or
her person troopers must decide whether the person actually does
have a license since people don't always tell the truth. A
correctable citation would make it much easier for the person
who does have a license and this person doesn't have to pay
anything.
5:18:30 PM
MAJOR CHASTAIN explained that the second proposed new subsection
in section 3 would allow for actual possession to include
electronic form. At some point in the future, he related, ADFG
desires to have a system of electronic licensing and this
provision would allow a hunter, fisher, or trapper to decide
whether to carry his or her license electronically instead of in
paper format.
MAJOR CHASTAIN stated that the third proposed new subsection in
section 3 would hold the peace officer inspecting an electronic
license in the field immune from liability if damage occurs to
the device in the process of inspection. Hunting, fishing, and
trapping licenses are often inspected in adverse conditions
aboard boats in violent seas or while hands are contaminated
with fish or game parts in remote locations. If something
happens to the device in the short time that the peace officer
is inspecting the license, this subsection would hold the agency
immune, he continued. If this subsection is implemented, these
resource users will have the ability to carry their licenses in
either paper or electronic format.
MAJOR CHASTAIN related that section 4 would remove under AS
16.05.430, fish and game penalties, the specific fine of $1,000
and penalties associated with an unclassified misdemeanor, and
would replace it with a class A misdemeanor.
MAJOR CHASTAIN noted that onward from section 4 he is going to
lump together a number of sections because they all follow the
same pattern. Over the years within Title 16, he explained, a
series of penalties have been added by the legislature somewhat
piecemeal. Some of those penalties are less than a class A
misdemeanor, and some are more. The bill would align the
penalties to class A misdemeanors and point to Title 12, which
defines a misdemeanor. For lesser offenses, he said, the bill
would allow troopers to charge a violation offense, which is a
maximum [fine] of $500. In all the regulations created by the
Board of Game and the Board of Fisheries that govern hunting and
fishing, he continued, troopers are allowed to reduce crimes to
a violation offense. Troopers can decide through the district
attorney's office whether the violation is not as serious as a
misdemeanor, and instead charge it as a violation offense, which
is a reduced offense. In fact, a violation is not considered a
criminal offense and does not go on a person's criminal record,
he explained. It is basically a ticket that is paid like a
traffic ticket. Thus, the bill would align penalties as class A
misdemeanors, and create sections for violations to be charged.
5:21:15 PM
MAJOR CHASTAIN noted section 5 relates to section 4. He said
section 5 would [amend AS 16.05.430 by adding two subsections]
and would create the ability to charge some of the offenses as
violations, as well as misdemeanors.
MAJOR CHASTAIN said section 6 [would amend AS 16.05.722(a) in
relation to fines for] strict liability commercial fishing
violations. Strict liability, he explained, means a person is
strictly liable for his or her offense regardless of the
culpable mental state. He posed an example involving a road
traffic situation: If a person is going 75 miles per hour in a
55 mile per hour zone, the police officer does not have to show
that the driver knew the speed limit was 55, and does not have
to show the driver knew his or her speed was 75. The police
officer only needs to show the driver was doing 75 miles per
hour. The driver is strictly liable for that offense and no
culpable mental state is required to prove that. The two types
of violations in commercial fishing, he stated, are strict
liability commercial fishing violations, which are not criminal
offenses, and class A misdemeanors.
MAJOR CHASTAIN said the [increased] fine amounts proposed in
section 6 for first-, second-, and third-time strict liability
commercial fishing offenses within a 10-year period are the
maximum amounts the court could impose if the commercial fisher
is found guilty. The current fine amounts were established in
1988 when the Alaska State Legislature enacted this section, he
pointed out. While the proposed amounts look like the fines
have gone up, it is actually an adjustment for inflation to 2016
dollars. The fines for first- and second-time offenses would go
up by 50 percent and the third-time offense, which was enacted
after 1988, would go up [less than 50 percent].
MAJOR CHASTAIN explained section 7 would amend [AS 16.05.722] by
adding a new subsection that would require the court to transmit
notice of all convictions under this section to the Alaska
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC), which is the
keeper of commercial fishing points. Like with a driver's
license, he continued, a commercial fisher can get points on his
or her commercial licenses and if a certain amount of points are
accumulated on the license over a 10-year period of time, the
CFEC can revoke or suspend that person's commercial fishing
license. The points would be transferred with the conviction
and CFEC would then apply those points.
MAJOR CHASTAIN stated that sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, and 16 are all adjustments to class A misdemeanors and
violations; penalties within each section are adjusted and a
[subsection] for violations to be charged is created with each
section.
5:24:31 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON related that for a couple years he did Title
16 and Title 5 under [Alaska] Administrative Code prosecutions.
He said it seemed like there was frequently an opportunity to
charge something as a Title 5 violation instead of a Title 16
misdemeanor. He asked what the change is for offenses such as
failure to salvage and wanton waste.
MAJOR CHASTAIN requested confirmation that the aforementioned
question is about when [a trooper] decides that a violation is
appropriate or that a misdemeanor is appropriate.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON replied yes, and further asked whether that
discretion hasn't already been available where a trooper could
either charge as a criminal offense or as an infraction.
MAJOR CHASTAIN responded that currently within the [Alaska
Administrative Code (AAC)], within the regulations the Board of
Fisheries and the Board of Game create, [troopers] do have the
ability to reduce to a violation. However, he explained,
[troopers] do not currently have that ability in Title 16 and,
if passed, HB 129 would provide that ability and would give
[troopers] two different charging options in Title 16.
MAJOR CHASTAIN returned to his sectional analysis. He said
section 17 proposes to amend [AS 16.05.925], penalty for
violations, to provide consistency in the penalties as provided
under AS 12.55. Drawing attention to the dollar figures for big
game animals included within this section, he noted that the
court could impose these restitution values when someone is
convicted and the case warrants applying restitution. These
animals belong to the state's citizens collectively, he said, so
when a big game animal is unlawfully taken it defrauds the state
and its citizens of the value of the animal. The values vary
greatly, he continued, depending on the species of the animal,
the location of the take, the social value of the animal, the
economic value of the animal, and the food source value to the
people of the state. In most cases it does not make the state
whole for the loss of the animal, he noted, but it helps repay
the state for the illegal take.
MAJOR CHASTAIN pointed out that the current restitution amounts
were enacted by the legislature in 1984 and have gone untouched
since then. He explained that a previous version of HB 129
submitted to the legislature in 2016 would have increased
restitution amounts by 50 percent from the base amounts in
statute. In that version, some of the restitution amounts were
changed in House and Senate committees and HB 129 reflects those
changes. Because the previous version died in the House last
year, the bill is being resubmitted this year [as HB 129]. Some
of the amounts have gone up more than 50 percent, he continued,
and represent the equivalent to 2016 dollars. [The restitution
amount for] moose, for instance, has gone from $1,000 to $2,500.
These are maximum amounts imposed at the discretion of a judge,
and in addition to any fines or penalties.
5:27:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE asked how the restitution valuations
were derived.
MAJOR CHASTAIN answered that the original determination was just
for inflation, which is about 50 percent more than the 1984
numbers, and those were the numbers originally submitted.
However, he continued, during the committee process in 2016,
amendments [were adopted] that changed those numbers to be
higher than what was originally submitted.
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE observed that the bison restitution
figure in section 17 was inflated more than any of the others.
5:28:34 PM
MAJOR CHASTAIN resumed his sectional analysis. He said section
18 would add a new subsection [to AS 16.05.925] that relates to
[AS 16.05.925(b)]. The new subsection, he explained, would
establish that a defendant may not be ordered to pay restitution
if the defendant takes an animal, realizes the animal is not
legal, and then voluntarily and immediately reports the unlawful
take of the animal to a state law enforcement officer or ADFG
and surrenders all salvaged portions of the animal, including
its horns, antlers, hide, and skull, as applicable. The person
would be charged with a violation of fact, would get a ticket
[costing] a couple hundred dollars, and would not be charged
with a misdemeanor, would not lose his or her hunting rifle, and
would not lose his or her hunting license or the equipment that
was used.
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE observed that the bill on page 5, line
28, uses the word "may" rather than "will". He asked whether
this wording is used because it will be up to the purview of the
judge.
MAJOR CHASTAIN said the word "may" is directive to the court, so
the court may not [order a defendant to pay restitution under
(b) of this section].
5:30:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH posed a scenario in which an out-of-state
hunter unlawfully kills a bear without having bothered to get a
permit. He questioned whether this hunter could only be charged
with violations if he or she surrenders the salvaged portions of
the bear.
MAJOR CHASTAIN responded that that is not entirely true; this is
only in the situation where the hunter has "immediately
notified" and doesn't have to do with permitting or licensing or
any of the rest of that. It is basically that if a person takes
a game animal that is not legal for that scenario. [In
Representative Parish's scenario] there would be additional
violations, such as no locking tag, no permit, no hunting
license, and none of the other things that are associated with
what the hunter must have. Plus, to take a brown bear a
nonresident hunter must also have a guide or be accompanied by
someone with a second degree of kindred [to the hunter].
5:31:46 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON offered his understanding that this proposed
provision is just a way to mitigate the restitution portion.
MAJOR CHASTAIN answered correct and noted that Senator Coghill
added this provision last year. [The Alaska Wildlife Troopers
(AWT)] fully supports this provision, he said, and operates
under it to begin with. However, there is inconsistency within
the court system, he explained. [AWT] seeks to create a
situation where people turn themselves in and AWT doesn't want
to punish people for calling when they've made a mistake. This
section would allow AWT to deal with the situation of people
turning themselves in and then not having to worry about what
other penalties may come down the road from the court with
restitution.
5:32:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked whether calculations have been done
to determine the amount of restitution it would take to make the
state whole for the big game animals [listed in section 17].
MAJOR CHASTAIN replied that each big game animal means something
different to different people. For example, there is a dramatic
difference between what a moose means to someone relying on that
animal for subsistence, compared to what a moose means to
someone paying to come to Alaska to take the animal. Therefore,
he said, he does not have an answer.
5:33:28 PM
MAJOR CHASTAIN returned to his sectional analysis and addressed
section 19, which would [amend AS 16.05.940] by adding a
definition of "electronic form" as it pertains to section 3 of
the bill. Electronic form would mean the display of license
images on an electronic device such as a mobile telephone,
tablet, or computer that will satisfy the display of fishing and
hunting licenses. He reiterated that ADFG is working toward the
idea of being able to display things on a telephone or tablet.
However, he noted, there are still going to be times when the
actual paper form will still be necessary; for example, to
validate an actual tag, to record a king salmon on the back of a
license, and a number of other things that must be recorded.
MAJOR CHASTAIN stated that sections 20-27 would align penalties
for a class A misdemeanor and would provide that AST be able to
charge for violations for these types of offenses.
MAJOR CHASTAIN said section 28 would amend the uncodified law of
Alaska to make it clear that the Act applies to offenses
committed on or after the effective date of the Act.
MAJOR CHASTAIN concluded by relating that section 29 would
provide for an effective date of July 1, 2017.
5:34:59 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR, regarding the penalties provided in [sections 20-
27], asked why the language is more specific in making them
class A misdemeanors. She further asked whether the removal of
language related to imprisonment is because class A misdemeanors
cannot have jailtime associated with them.
MAJOR CHASTAIN recalled Senate Bill 91 [passed in the Twenty-
Ninth Alaska State Legislature] and the alignment of those
penalties. Continuing, he explained that Title 12 is the
definition of a misdemeanor, and therefore the language in the
aforementioned sections points everything to Title 12 as the
definition of a misdemeanor. Under Senate Bill 91, he said, a
class A misdemeanor went up to $25,000 and jailtime is
associated with it possibly. A whole bunch of things could
happen as a misdemeanor, but because these were separated out
and piecemealed, this language points it to Title 12 and says
this is what a misdemeanor is. As well, it allows for AST to
charge for violations.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked whether the previously mentioned
restitution issue that failed in the legislature was House Bill
137.
UNKNOWN SPEAKER replied no.
5:36:06 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR, in regard to the proposed restitution amounts,
inquired as to how frequently these types of infractions are
occurring. She further inquired whether there are other actions
that committee members should consider as a means to try to
limit how frequently these types of infractions occur.
MAJOR CHASTAIN replied that strict liability commercial fishing
violations are "the bread and butter for commercial fishing
violations around the state." The majority of these happen in
Bristol Bay, but they do happen all over the state. This is the
easiest way for the state to deal with a somewhat minor
infraction that happens in commercial fishing; but, if it is
thought to be a more serious offense, AWT has the ability to
charge a class A misdemeanor. Regarding how often, he said a
couple hundred per year occur in Bristol Bay and his guess for
statewide is around 500 commercial fishing violations a year.
About 150-200 self-reported violations are turned in each year
to AWT. A variety of other things are also enforced by AWT.
So, AWT does deal with this fairly frequently.
CO-CHAIR TARR, in regard to self-reporting of violations, asked
whether it is usually a mistaken estimation of the animal's size
that is realized after the animal has been shot.
MAJOR CHASTAIN confirmed the aforementioned is exactly right for
the majority of these violations. For example, the regulation
is 50 inches for moose antlers, but upon shooting the animal it
is found to be 45 inches, or the hunter may think the moose has
a certain number of brow tines or that it is a full-curl sheep,
but it is not. Also, he continued, AWT gets a fair number of
reports from hunters who thought it was a bull moose, but it was
actually a cow. [AWT] tries to handle these consistently, he
explained further, and offers appreciation to the hunters who
self-report because it takes a lot of intestinal fortitude to
call the troopers and say they made a mistake. [AWT] wants to
make sure these people are treated appropriately instead of
letting the meat go to waste in the field.
CO-CHAIR TARR inquired whether the fines associated with the
aforementioned are high enough to discourage that kind of
behavior. She surmised that having to turn over the salvaged
meat would be somewhat of a deterrent. She further inquired
whether any issues are seen in the guided-hunting community.
MAJOR CHASTAIN responded that taking apart a moose is a
substantial process and he thinks that the penalty is pretty
good of having to take the moose apart to salvage the meat,
taking the meat out of the field, keeping it clean, and bringing
it in to turn yourself in. The fines through the court are
typically around $300 for this offense, he said, which he thinks
is appropriate for this type of offense. Over the years AWT has
refined this process and people know they will get a citation,
they cannot keep the meat, the meat will go to a charity, and
that they cannot shoot another moose in the same year.
5:41:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH directed attention to the bill on page 6,
lines 1-2, which read:
(2) surrendered to the department all salvaged
portions of the animal, including its horns, antlers,
hide, and skull, as applicable.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked whether this language suggests that
failing to surrender portions of the animal that were not
salvaged is not a disqualifying characteristic.
MAJOR CHASTAIN understood Representative Parish to be asking
whether failure to bring out all those items would be a
disqualifier.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH surmised that under a very strict and
narrow reading of the aforementioned language, if a person
failed to salvage the meat they wouldn't be in trouble.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON stated that this may need an amendment and
will be looked at in further detail.
5:43:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO offered his understanding that when a
person makes a big mistake under section 18, that person could
still be charged with a violation, and will have to pay a small
penalty; it is just the restitution that the person wouldn't be
charged with. He opined there should be no free pass when an
animal is taken. Representative Talerico stated that he is a
hunter and "when you make that mistake you have to pay for it
because that will make you more careful the next time you put
your finger on the trigger."
MAJOR CHASTAIN confirmed the violation would remain in place and
that it is the restitution from the court that would be
prohibited.
[HB 129 was held over.]
5:44:59 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:44 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 129 02.14.17 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/3/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 129 |
| HB 129 Sectional.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/3/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 129 |
| HB0129 Fiscal Note DFG 2.15.17.PDF |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/3/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 129 |
| HB0129A.PDF |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/3/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 129 |
| Frederick (Fritz) Johnson_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Fish |
| John Jensen 2016_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Fish |
| Reed Morisky 2016_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Fish |
| ASA Support - Jensen Morisky Johnson.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Fish |
| Bristol Bay Borough Support - Johnson.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Fish |
| CDFU Support - Jensen.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Fish |
| Icicle Support - Jensen Johnson.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Fish |
| KRSA Support - Jensen Morisky Johnson.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Fish |
| ATA Support - Jensen.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Fish |
| KPFA Support - Jensen Morisky Johnson.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Fish |
| Unalaska Mayor Support - Jensen Morisky Johnson.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Fish |
| USAG Support - Jensen.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Fish |
| HB0129 Fiscal Note DPS-AWT 3.29.17.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB155 Supporting Document-AFA Response to SEACC.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 155 |
| HB155 Supporting Document - SWood 3.29.17.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 155 |
| HB155 Supporting Document-AFA Response to SEACC 3.29.17.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 155 |
| HB155 Opposing Document Testimony -- Larry Edwards for 29 March hearing on HB155 3.29.17.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 155 |
| HB155 Supporting Document - Comment - CWood 3.29.17.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 155 |
| HB155 Opposition Document - Letter of Comment-SEACC 3.29.17.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 155 |