Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/24/1998 08:07 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 24, 1998
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Ivan Ivan, Vice Chairman
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Mark Hodgins
Representative Al Vezey
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 275(STA)
"An Act specifying time periods for making, soliciting, or
accepting campaign contributions to candidates for state office;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 168
"An Act relating to use of traditional means of access to assist in
taking game or fish and to traditional means of access for
traditional outdoor activities on land and water set aside for fish
and game purposes; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 168(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 275
SHORT TITLE: FUND RAISING: GOV; LT. GOV; & CANDIDATES
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) MILLER, Pearce
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/04/98 2393 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/04/98 2393 (S) STATE AFFAIRS
02/10/98 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/10/98 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/17/98 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/18/98 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/18/98 2561 (S) STA RPT CS 3DP NEW TITLE
02/18/98 2561 (S) DP: GREEN, MILLER, WARD
02/18/98 2561 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (ADM)
02/19/98 2575 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2/19/98
02/19/98 2578 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/19/98 2578 (S) STA CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
02/19/98 2579 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
02/19/98 2579 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 275(STA)
02/19/98 2579 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2
02/19/98 2579 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
02/19/98 2579 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
02/20/98 2597 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
02/20/98 2598 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/20/98 2389 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/20/98 2389 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
02/20/98 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/24/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 168
SHORT TITLE: TRADITIONAL ACCESS FOR TRADITIONAL ACTIVI
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) MASEK
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/05/97 543 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/05/97 543 (H) RESOURCES, STATE AFFAIRS
02/05/98 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/05/98 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/06/98 2232 (H) RES RPT CS(RES) 3DP 2DNP 2NR
02/06/98 2232 (H) DP: MASEK, OGAN, DYSON; DNP: JOULE
02/06/98 2232 (H) NICHOLIA; NR: HUDSON, GREEN
02/06/98 2233 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G)
02/06/98 2233 (H) REFERRED TO STA
02/19/98 (H) STA AT 9:05 AM CAPITOL 102
02/19/98 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/24/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
PORTIA PARKER, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Mike Miller
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 107
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4711
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented CSSB 275(STA).
BROOKE MILES, Administrator
Juneau Branch Office
Alaska Public Offices Commission
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110222
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0222
Telephone: (907) 465-4865
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on CSSB 275(STA).
WAYNE ROSS
Ross for Governor
P.O. Box 101522
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Telephone: (907) 276-5307
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against CSSB 275(STA), suggested
change in effective date.
AL J. TURINSKY, JR.
P.O. Box 789
Glennallen, Alaska 99588
Telephone: (907) 822-5060
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against CSSB 275(STA).
WAYNE REGELIN, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-4190
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 168.
ART IVANOFF
Maniilaq Association
Box 256
Kotzebue, Alaska 99752
Telephone: (907) 442-3311
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 168.
LARRY HOLMES, Chairman
Board of Game
P.O. Box 454
Girdwood, Alaska 99587
Telephone: (907) 783-2188
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 168.
JEFF PARKER, Member of
Alaska Sport Fishing Association
Vice President of the State
Council of Trout Unlimited
500 L Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Telephone: (907) 272-6696
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 168.
PATRICK WRIGHT, Chair
Anchorage Fish and Game
Advisory Committee
P.O. Box 90386
Anchorage, Alaska 99509
Telephone: (907) 270-1340
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 168.
EDWARD GRASSER, Legislative Assistant to
Representative Beverly Masek
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 432
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2679
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf or Representative
Masek, sponsor of HB 168.
LARRY HOLMES, Chairman
Board of Game
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 454
Girdwood, Alaska 99587
Telephone: (907) 783-2188
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 168.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-23, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:07 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives James, Dyson, Elton and Hodgins.
Representatives Ivan, Berkowitz and Vezey arrived at 8:08 a.m.,
approximately 8:09 a.m., and 8:12 a.m. respectively.
CSSB 275(STA) - FUND RAISING: GOV; LT. GOV; & CANDIDATES
Number 0021
CHAIR JAMES announced the committee's first order of business was
CSSB 275(STA), "An Act specifying time periods for making,
soliciting, or accepting campaign contributions to candidates for
state office; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0041
PORTIA PARKER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Mike Miller, came
forward to present CSSB 275(STA). She stated, as the committee was
probably aware from the discussions on other legislation pending
before the committee, that the bill would not be new.
MS. PARKER stated CSSB 275(STA) would change AS 15.13.072 and AS
15.13.074 to require the same campaign fund-raising rules for
soliciting contributions and accepting contributions to all those
seeking state office. Everyone seeking state office would be under
the same campaign financing rules. She said under current law that
is not the case; it does not apply to candidates for governor and
lieutenant governor, and does apply to all other candidates for the
legislature as well as incumbent legislators running for state
office. Ms. Parker noted several changes from current law that
would affect candidates as well as incumbents, and she stated
everyone would have the same financing restrictions for regular and
special sessions. Both incumbent office holders, if they filed for
office, and candidates who were not incumbents, would be restricted
from fund-raising during regular and special sessions. Ms. Parker
said that in order to avoid the problem of the summer special
session, or one falling too close to an election, an exemption was
inserted for the 90 days immediately preceding a election for which
that person was a candidate. She mentioned the special election in
April during the middle of the session several years ago, and
indicated this exemption would get rid of any associated problems.
She said candidates for that special election would be able to
fund-raise during the session for the 90 days immediately preceding
the special election.
Number 0248
CHAIR JAMES stated she supports this idea because it is an issue of
fairness, however what she sees "happening is the same thing that
legislative candidates have to do is crunched into a short period
of time," when the focus is going to be on fund-raising instead of
campaigning, noting, to her, they are two different issues. She
suggested opening up the off-election year to avoid this
difficulty, using the analogy of "putting people into a box," and
she asked if this idea had been considered.
MS. PARKER replied the Senate had not addressed it in discussions
or during the floor debate on SB 275. She said she is not sure if
there would be any opposition to that idea, or why that decision
was made during the bill's original passage two years ago, noting
she had not been there during that time.
Number 0347
CHAIR JAMES stated Ms. Parker understood her reasoning was that
they were "closing the box down" almost to an unreasonable amount
of time, and she mentioned incumbent legislators were restricted
from fund-raising during the session.
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked what the impact on the proposed
legislation would be if the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU)
lawsuit to overturn the state's present campaign financing law was
successful.
MS. PARKER stated she was not sure because the changes made here
contained some of the restrictions, referring to the restriction on
legislators and candidates, which were part of that challenge.
CHAIR JAMES stated, "If I might try. If we have a law, it's dated
a certain date and there's a lawsuit to overturn that law, it would
appear to me that that date of that law would be overturned, if
subsequent another law that did the same thing would be happening,
I would think, unless they're specific in language and exactly the
same. Then I think that the second one would prevail, because ...
it's different than the first one." Chair James said that would be
her understanding, noting she was not an attorney.
Number 0483
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he thought if that lawsuit was
successful, it would solve part of the problems this law is trying
to solve. In another question, he referred to Section 3 of the
bill, noting it said the Act would take effect immediately and
asked what that meant.
MS. PARKER answered that it would take effect immediately after,
either the Governor signed the bill or let it become law without
his signature; or if vetoed then overridden, immediately after the
veto was overridden.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated he was a bit persuaded by the letter
the committee had received from Mr. Ross [LATER WITNESS] which said
this somewhat changes "the deal" after he got into it.
Representative Dyson said at least his preliminary opinion is that
he would probably move to amend the bill to make it effective after
the end of the session, so that Mr. Ross could continue to campaign
under the deal which was in place when he signed up.
Representative Dyson noted this seemed fair, although the whole
thing was problematic, stating, "I mean what we have now and what
you all are trying to do."
Number 1127
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON stated he had two questions. First he
wanted to make sure the provision on page 1, line 9, quoting "you
can solicit and accept campaign contributions during the 90 days
immediately preceding an election," essentially meant contributions
could be solicited and accepted if there was a special session
anytime after the end of May.
MS. PARKER stated that was correct, everyone would be able to.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON, in his second question, gave a hypothetical
situation, "Last year we had the mayor's race (in Juneau). Under
the provisions of this bill, or the rewrite of this bill, this now
allows me to solicit campaign contributions during the session if
I'm making a race for mayor, is that correct, because nine months
preceding I can begin raising money for the mayor's race ...."
MS. PARKER responded it would be 90 days.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON replied he thought it was nine months for a
municipal race, and indicated he thought it was state law, not
municipal code, that would allow him to begin raising money nine
months prior to the mayor's race.
MS. PARKER responded, "(Indisc.) be able to answer that question
better than I can."
Number 0712
BROOKE MILES, Administrator, Juneau Branch Office, Alaska Public
Offices Commission, Department of Administration, stated
Representative Elton was correct; a municipal candidate may begin
to raise funds under the current campaign disclosure law nine
months before the date of the election. She stated under current
law, a seated legislator was not permitted to accept campaign
contributions during the legislative or special session, regardless
of the race in which he or she was running. Under the proposed
changes, a seated legislator would be able to accept campaign
contributions for municipal office during the legislature's regular
or special session.
Number 0760
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated, "This opens the door a lot wider." He
noted the Anchorage municipal races now being conducted in April,
and he said this would allow any legislator to file for borough
assembly or mayor in the Municipality of Anchorage, and collect
campaign contributions while serving as a seated legislator.
Representative Elton gave another hypothetical situation: He is
running for mayor of the Municipality of Anchorage and raises money
during that campaign. He's allowed to keep $5,000 in a campaign
account if he's unsuccessful, and he asked if he could then use
that $5,000 in a race for state Senate or state House.
MS. MILES responded she believed the commission staff has tried to
visualize that scenario under current law and it appears unclear.
At this point, her answer would be "probably yes."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON commented he thought this bill started out to
accomplish one thing, and was creating a "bubble" in another area.
He said, "That bubble bothers me because if - if we're operating
under the premise that you shouldn't collect money while you're
seated in session, I mean that should apply not to just (indisc.)
collecting for state office but it should apply to a -- especially
if you're a legislator and I'm soliciting money for a run at mayor,
... somebody is gonna think, 'Well, I give it to him because he's
going to be mayor, or I give it to him because he's still going to
be in the legislature.' And I think that creates a problem that we
... now do not have and that bothers me." He noted he did not have
language and said legal would probably have to consider that issue.
Number 0883
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON gave the scenario of someone running for mayor
who raised a bunch of money and decided to switch. Representative
Dyson asked if money that was raised for a mayoral race could be
applied to a different race if the candidate decided to drop out.
MS. MILES responded $5,000 of that money could be retained to run
for future office.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated, in follow-up to Representative Elton's
question, "The person who wants to make a contribution, and also
wants a favorable vote, you know, I think we're back in the same
sort of thing. We don't want the ... fact or the appearance of
contributions influencing votes -- I suspect is the motivation
we're ..."
CHAIR JAMES stated on that point, she just had to say this whole
issue of campaign finance reform revolted her. She noted the
ethics, the open meetings, and the way they did everything because
they didn't want anybody to think a certain way. She said she felt
the solution was full disclosure. She stated, "Fact is, if the
problem in this bill is for fairness, which I believe that is what
it's striving for is fairness, because certainly the system we have
currently is not fair, then the thing to do would be take away the
unfairness and that is to - to go up instead of going down and
making restrictions. Quite frankly, I could solve the problem very
simply, to say that anyone who is running for governor or
lieutenant governor has no restrictions, and we solve the whole
problem in one (indisc.)." She recommended a regular, weekly
disclosure of all funds and so forth. She said to let people
decide with their vote if they didn't like what someone was doing,
noting that seemed the fair way to do it.
Number 1052
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ stated he agreed completely and had
asked for an amendment to do exactly that, to switch it around so
that it was opened up entirely, but it had not arrived. He
referred to Mr. Ross's concerns and asked for Ms. Parker's
response.
MS. PARKER stated she understood Mr. Ross's concerns, but it was a
policy decision and she did not really have a personal opinion.
She said that Senator Miller has talked with Mr. Ross and
understands Mr. Ross's concerns, but feels it has to be fair for
everyone. She stated she thought the sponsor might have a problem
with opening the bill up for only the governor and lieutenant
governor races. If the legislature wanted to open it up for anyone
running for state office, and have weekly reporting, she would have
to discuss that possibility with Senator Miller.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that there was a difference
between a House or Senate race, which are for relatively confined
areas with relatively limited budgets, in comparison to a statewide
race. He noted that just the logistics were quite different,
mentioning the necessity of flying places and setting up
organizations. He said a candidate would need the access money
could provide.
Number 1173
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON commented Chair James and Representative
Berkowitz would be greatly comforted to know that the "paragon of
Alaskan campaign ethics," Bill McKenkie (ph) agreed with them.
Representative Dyson said Mr. McKenkie's (ph) exact words were,
"The election process in America is so precious, we are to do
almost nothing to mess with it, and the only thing we need to do is
have everything (indisc.) the daylight, as in full disclosure."
Number 1243
WAYNE ROSS testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He stated
he was a "Republican National Committee man" and a candidate for
governor of Alaska. Mr. Ross stated the legislature passed the
"so-called campaign reform laws" a year or two ago and they had
studied those laws very carefully before he decided to run for
governor. He said those laws make it very difficult for a person
who is not a politician, and not rich, to raise sufficient money to
get the message out statewide. Mr. Ross stated, "Nonetheless, as
a result of studying those, I felt that a viable campaign ... could
be made, and we've attempted to play by the rules that were in
effect when we made that decision and we've made commitments after
becoming a candidate. Now if you run for statewide office you have
to set up organizations in many areas of the state. ... We've made
commitments in most of the major areas of the state, we have
established organizations that are in the process of raising funds
that have set up events to raise funds, we have made travel
commitments. I have a finance and campaign chairman to get those
things running, and to keep them running, we, of course, need to
raise funds."
MR. ROSS stated the main purpose of raising funds was to get the
message to the people of the state. He noted they presently have
fund-raising letters out and he commented that the legislature was
entirely within its rights and duties to determine the campaign
laws, but he felt changing the laws mid-campaign was "pretty
outrageous." He noted the sponsor statement said, "This change
will help level the playing field among candidates and will make
the system more fair and equitable for all candidates seeking
public office in Alaska." Mr. Ross stated it is not more fair and
equitable for all candidates if the change takes effect
immediately.
Number 1380
MR. ROSS noted there were four major candidates currently running
for governor: current-Governor Knowles, Mr. Lindauer, Senator
Robin Taylor, and himself. He commented on Governor Knowles'
possession of funds put together before the first campaign reform
laws and the Governor's public exposure. He referred to Mr.
Lindauer who, Mr. Ross said, has indicated he is using personal
funds to run his campaign and is not fund-raising. Mr. Ross
referred to Senator Taylor, who was aware of the rules which did
not allow him to raise funds "till he got out of the legislature"
when he decided to run, but who decided to run while retaining his
Senate seat and who, Mr. Ross said, has made the most of his seat
by getting public exposure. Mr. Ross then referred to himself,
stating he was not a rich man; he said he is out raising funds to
attempt to get his message across and he is the person who would be
adversely affected by the immediate effect of this bill. He would
have to cancel many planned events, and, with fund-raising letters
out, was he supposed to send all the money back which came before
the legislature got out of session? He said he has contributors
who have committed to sending him small amounts each month. Is he
supposed to send those contributions back? He asked how he was
supposed to fulfill the financial commitments he has already made
when, in effect, the legislature shuts them down on fund-raising.
He said he believes this bill was directed principally at his
campaign because "certain people saw it catching fire."
Number 1498
MR. ROSS commented that SB 275 was a "rich man's bill," which only
allowed those candidates who have money themselves and do not have
to fund-raise, to continue to run a campaign. He stated he
believes it is very unfair and that the "good old boy network," or
"good old boy and good old girl network," was at work here. He
strongly urged that, if this bill was passed, the effective date be
changed to next year.
Number 1542
AL J. TURINSKY, JR. testified next via teleconference from
Glennallen. Due to teleconference difficulties, Mr. Turinsky's
full testimony was not received and the portion recorded was almost
inaudible. The Glennallen Legislative Information Office faxed Mr.
Turinsky's written statement to the committee.
Mr. Turinsky's testimony read:
It is my understanding that the stated intention of SB
275 is to level the playing field in races for the
Governor's and Lt. Governor's office and to bring the
APOC rules for these races in line with the current rules
for house and senate races. This bill fails to do that.
A gubernatorial race is not the same ball game as a house
or senate race. In a statewide race there are many times
the number of people a candidate has to reach. The
geographic area to be covered is enormous. When these
factors alone are considered, rules are not being made
comparable with house and senate race rules, they are
reducing statewide races to a highschool student counsel
race. The restrictions placed on candidates for
statewide office under the new APOC rules have already
seriously hampered the ability of candidates to get their
message out.
We live in the real world. And in the real world it
costs more money to run a statewide race than it does to
run a house or senate race. And it takes more time to
raise that money. The legislature recognized this for
one brief moment when it allowed a candidate to make a
personal loan to his or her own campaign. There is one
amount for house candidates, a larger amount for senate
candidates, and an even larger amount for statewide
office candidates. The rule proposed by this bill is not
consistent with the existing personal loan rule.
The people of Alaska have a right to make an INFORMED
decision about who their vote should go to. We can't do
that if candidates can't inform us of their position on
important issues.
This bill says the offices of the Governor and Lt.
Governor aren't very important. This bill says the
voters of Alaska don't need to know very much about the
candidates for Governor and Lt. Governor. And this bill
is nothing more than an economic infringement on the
right to free speech.
SB 275 passed the Senate by a unanimous vote. What is
wrong with this picture? You can't put 20 senators in a
room and get them to agree on the color of sugar. The
only conclusion I can come to is that deals were made for
political expedience. Madame chairman and members of
this committee, I don't like deals being made with my
vote. So I urge each and every one of you to vote
against this bill. Thank you for your time.
CHAIR JAMES concluded the public hearing on CSSB 275(STA) for that
meeting, noting Representative Berkowitz had an amendment.
Number 1667
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved Amendment 1. He said he did it
somewhat apologetically because he had not had a chance to examine
the amendment completely, but his request had been to craft
language which opened up the process rather than constricted it,
limited to the governor and lieutenant governor.
Number 1697
CHAIR JAMES stated the amendment was before the committee. She
said she had been working with the sponsor, and he would like to
have the committee hold the bill until Thursday (February 26,
1998). Chair James stated she would like to hold it over with this
amendment and see what other arrangements they could make.
Number 1705
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made an objection to Amendment 1 for the
purpose of keeping it before the committee.
Number 1717
CHAIR JAMES stated the committee would hold CSSB 275(STA) with the
amendment over until Thursday's calendar.
HB 168 - TRADITIONAL ACCESS FOR TRADITIONAL ACTIVITIES
Number 1721
CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business would be HB 168,
"An Act relating to use of traditional means of access to assist in
taking game or fish and to traditional means of access for
traditional outdoor activities on land and water set aside for fish
and game purposes; and providing for an effective date." She
informed the committee that at the last hearing on the measure she
closed the public hearing on the bill with an exception of Wayne
Regelin from the Department of Fish and Game. She explained that
there are a couple of other people who wish to testify, Larry
Holmes and Jeff Parker, and it is important to hear their
testimony.
Number 1777
WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Department of Fish and Game, came before the committee to testify
on HB 168. He informed the committee that the bill would limit the
ability of the Board of Game to establish control use areas in
order to restrict means of access (indisc.) hunter transportation
for only the purposes of hunting. Control use areas are a valuable
tool of the Board of Game. The board has used this tool for years
to provide a diversity of hunting experiences, to protect wildlife
habitat and to reduce hunter conflicts. Control use areas are used
to segregate hunters by time periods so that hunters walking into
areas don't have to compete with off-road vehicle (ORV) hunters and
hunters using ORVs don't have to compete with hunters using
aircraft for access. Currently in Alaska there are 26 control use
areas. The first was established in 1971, and over half of them
were established before 1979, and only 9 have been established
since the 1990s. Mr. Regelin explained they are used in a variety
of ways. On the Kenai Peninsula there are control use areas where
hunters can only use their ORVs for two days in the middle of the
season so that they can use them to retrieve their game and haul it
out. He pointed out that they can't use ORVs on the other days.
These are things that have been asked for by the hunters and the
Board of Game has provided for them.
MR. REGELIN explained that a lot of the control use areas are used
to restrict aircraft access. Eight of them do that, some for just
moose hunting and some for all hunting. Mr. Regelin said it has
been a tool that the board uses, but not often as there are only 26
of these areas. They have been used at the request of the hunters
in local areas to provide a variety of hunting experiences and to
allow the seasons to stay open longer. He said that the
alternative to control use areas in many places is shorter seasons.
The harvest in most areas are controlled by setting seasons and bag
limits, but in certain areas where there is a tremendous amount of
access, that access has been limited so that all the harvest
doesn't occur the first weekend.
MR. REGELIN stated he realized that the bill doesn't affect
existing control use areas. He said he wanted to explain how they
had been used by the board in the past because he thinks they have
proven to be a very effective method of maximizing hunter
opportunity and providing for this variety of experiences while
reducing hunter conflict. Mr. Regelin said he thinks that HB 168
would really reduce the ability of the board to address hunter
conflicts. One of the big jobs of the board is to make the
difficult allocation decisions between user groups and to try to
provide opportunity for all the different user groups without a lot
of conflict. One of the main tools that they use is the control
use area. Mr. Regelin informed the committee members that the
control use areas apply to all lands in Alaska. They apply to
state, private and federal lands. He said that decision is a
supreme court decision called the Totemoff decision. It says, "All
state fish and game regulations apply on private and federal lands
as well as state lands." The seasons and bag limits on private
lands are the same and so are access limitations for hunting.
Number 1957
MR. REGELIN said that a lot of people testified that HB 168 would
open up a lot of areas for hunting. He said that it won't open up
any because it is not retroactive on the current control use areas,
but it would put a restriction on the use of them in the future
because if they're done for the purposes of helping to resolve
conflicts between different user groups, then the legislature would
have to step in and authorize these unless they were for less that
two and a half months a year. He explained in populated areas near
cities, the seasons are usually less than two and a half months
each year. When you get into rural Alaska, a lot of times they are
longer than that. Mr. Regelin informed the committee that control
use areas are established using a very open public process. He
said he has never known one to be established without the support
of the local advisory committees. They are usually not
controversial at all. Currently there are two that have been
established within the five or six years that have become somewhat
controversial. One of them is the restriction of air boats in
Minto and in that area. He said that was supported by the advisory
committees in Minto, Tanana and those areas. The board reached a
compromise that part of the area is still open to air boats and
part of it is not.
Number 2043
MR. REGELIN informed the committee members that the other area that
has had some controversy is the Noatak control use area near
Kotzebue because it's a large area. The board reviews control use
areas periodically to determine if they are still necessary and if
they are still doing their job.
MR. REGELIN said if the board did make an error, even with their
open public process, the legislature has full authority to correct
that if the board refused to on a case by case basis because a
regulation can't be in conflict with the statute. He said if there
is a problem, he would urge that it be corrected by the legislature
rather than to take away a tool that has been valuable for the last
25 years.
Number 2085
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Regelin to give her an example of where this
law will interfere with the decision of access.
MR. REGELIN said if the board wanted to restrict access along a
river for aircraft in the northern part of the state where the
seasons are long because there is a conflict with local users. He
explained that the local users primarily hunt by boat and the non-
local users fly in. The board may decide that they would like to
restrict the corridor right along the river to use by aircraft and
allow aircraft to go other places. And if the season was more than
two and a half months per year, they would not be able to do that
without coming back to the legislature.
Number 2135
CHAIR JAMES said, "I don't think there's any problem with
restricting users, but we use uses to get to users as far as access
is concerned. It's kind of getting at it from the back door. If
you don't want those outside people coming in there, you just don't
let them fly in. So it's to restrict the aircraft from coming in
even though it's a traditional thing that they've done because you
don't want them there. Is that the issue?"
MR. REGELIN stated that the department doesn't restrict any of
this.
CHAIR JAMES said, "I understand, but as a department I'm expecting
you to speak for the Board of Game. You are part of the
administration for them. They get a lot of their information from
you."
MR. REGELIN said he agrees. He said he has watched the board try
to work with a system that is essentially broken. They don't have
good ways to regulate uses and users and that type of thing anymore
because of the conflicting laws that exists. It is one way that is
still a legal way for them to try to provide various types of
opportunity, to try to provide a greater opportunity for local
residents without cutting out all the residents of the state of
Alaska.
Number 2199
CHAIR JAMES asked if that is in relationship to subsistence or just
local users.
MR. REGELIN said the reason it is currently such a mess is because
of the way the subsistence laws are structured.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if accommodations are made for
handicapped people to be able to use motorized transportation in a
non-motorized area.
MR. REGELIN explained that has not been done, but it has been
requested a few times by handicapped users. There are 26 of these
small areas and handicapped users have the rest of the state. The
board has always felt that they have lots of opportunities.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he was slightly startled to see
ballooning mentioned amongst the traditional uses. He asked Mr.
Regelin if he knows of balloons being used for wilderness
transportation in Alaska.
MR. REGELIN responded that he isn't aware of balloons being used.
He explained control use areas only restrict access in relation to
hunting. During the hunting season people can still go in if
they're not hunting with any means of access that they wish to.
They just can't be in there on a four-wheeler or an airplane if
they're hunting. He said he doesn't know of anyone who uses
balloons for hunting.
Number 2276
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to allowing access for disabled
people and asked how the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
impact the board's decisions to allow disabled people access.
MR. REGELIN explained the department has reviewed the ADA with the
Board of Game on several occasions. There are varieties of methods
of access available for everyone. For almost 95 percent of the
state there are no restrictions on access. The way the ADA law is
written, they have an alternative opportunity in that you don't
have to provide them an opportunity absolutely everywhere.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that the ADA says that you have
to make reasonable accommodations. He said it seems to him that
there are instances where reasonable accommodation would allow
people motorized access in an instance where otherwise they would
have no ability to get there. Representative Berkowitz said what
he heard Mr. Regelin say is that in these restricted areas, they
have never let disabled people have motorized access. He said this
to him doesn't seem to be a reasonable accommodation.
MR. REGELIN stated that the Board of Game has never had or created
a control use area to say that you may not use a four-wheeler or an
airplane in this area and go on to say unless you're handicapped
it's permitted. He said they haven't done that, but have looked at
whether that would be proper. He reiterated that the vast majority
of Alaska is open to any method of access that they would wish to
use, so they are accommodated in other places. He noted most
control use areas are small and are set up for specific purposes,
that's why they haven't done that.
Number 2384
ART IVANOFF, Maniilaq Association, testified against HB 168 via
teleconference from Kotzebue. He stated that HB 168 is bad public
policy in that it prevents the managers from taking pro-active as
opposed to reactive measures in fish and game and management. Mr.
Ivanoff explained the bill totally ignores user conflicts between
sport and subsistence users. Rural Alaska continues to be fatigued
by problems of high unemployment and the high cost of living that
makes fish and game availability more critical than before. To
compound the problem, we are in the midst of welfare reform. Mr.
Ivanoff said the bill curtails the effectiveness of the regional
Fish and Game Advisory Council in resolving local problems. It is
the association's belief that the authority should be localized.
Mr. Ivanoff informed the committee members that he believes that
the Alaska Board of Game is careful and deliberate in making their
decisions. In the past, only 1 out of 15 of the proposals for
controlled use areas were considered and adopted.
MR. IVANOFF said HB 168 only exacerbates an already precarious
issue of fish and game use and management. The focus of the state
legislature should be on building bridges as opposed to building
walls. They should be building trust and understanding.
TAPE 98-23, SIDE B
Number 0011
CHAIR JAMES asked, "Has the Board of Fish and Game used any
controlled use areas, or restrictions of controlled use, that has
inhibited your ability to do subsistence hunting and fishing."
MR. IVANOFF responded in the negative.
Number 0030
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN said Mr. Ivanoff mentioned the proposals
from local areas that are brought together by regional advisory
groups. They're submitted to the Board of Game for consideration.
He said, "Looking back at history, what percentage of those
proposals have been adopted? For example, if you submit three,
four, five proposals in a year, how many would be considered?"
Number 0061
MR. IVANOFF responded that it took a considerable amount of time
for Noatak control use area to be established. He said it was a
timely process and it required the Noatak Fish and Game Advisory
Council and the Kotzebue Fish and Game Advisory Council a long time
to get the controlled use areas established.
Number 0089
LARRY HOLMES, Chairman, Board of Game, testified via teleconference
from Anchorage against HB 168. He said the board has concerns as
HB 168 would significantly limit the Board of Game's ability to set
up control use areas which is a proactive tool that the board uses
to manage wildlife and reduce or eliminate conflicts between
hunters. Control use areas, as they are applied by the Board of
Game, typically affect only hunters and not non-hunters. He said
control use areas can be used as a tool to manage wildlife by
protecting habitat to ensure healthy population of wildlife for
hunters to utilize. It can also distribute the hunter harvest on
a species throughout an area so they are not over harvested or
disproportionate harvested on a population game animal. The Board
of Game also uses control use areas to maximize hunter opportunity
in areas where there's a lot of hunter effort or when access on a
certain population is so easy as to make that population vulnerable
to over harvest which without that tool would contribute to
significantly shortened seasons. Control use areas are also used
to reduce conflict between different hunter groups. He pointed out
that there are conflicts between motorized and non-motorized
hunters, ORV and walk-in hunters, or even between motorized users,
hunters using aircraft and boats, or between boat users themselves.
These conflicts can escalate to the point that they need to be
separated either in time or place. The board also uses control use
areas to allocate between different hunter user groups.
Number 0171
MR. HOLMES said often when the Board of Game adopts a control use
area, it does so to accomplish several management objectives which
he previously outlined. For example, the Ladue controlled use area
was adopted by the Board of Game in 1995 to provide hunters an
opportunity to hunt the moose population that was previously
closed. The board opened the area to moose hunting, but restricted
motorized use to an access corridor from September 1 to September
30, to prevent over harvest and distribute the harvest throughout
the area. Since then, there has been a August 20 to August 28,
hunt for spiked-forked moose developed with no restrictions and the
drawing permit hunt of 25 permits with no restrictions from
November 1 to November 30.
MR. HOLMES mentioned there are minimal restrictions and hunter
opportunity and hunting has been maximized using this controlled
use area concept while ensuring a healthy sustainable moose
population to hunt for the future. Another example is the Nenana
control use area that was adopted also in 1995 to protect waterfowl
habitat and reduce conflicts between air boat moose hunters and
non-motorized boat hunters.
MR. HOLMES pointed out another example is the Noatak controlled use
area was adopted, he believes in 1993, to protect a significantly
declining moose population, distribute the harvest and eliminate
conflicts between local hunters using boats and non-local residents
using aircraft hunting moose. He said that controlled use area is
in effect from August 25 through September 15, and restricts use of
aircraft for that period, however, residents may still use aircraft
from August 1 through August 24, to hunt. In fact, the group
that's most significantly impacted are the non-resident hunters.
Under statutory authority the board is allowed to (indisc. - noise)
them, when in fact there is a nonsufficient resource that provides
for residents.
MR. HOLMES said the Board of Game does not adopt controlled use
areas without the support of local advisory committees and
typically brings the effected hunting interest to the table to work
a compromise. He said an example of that is game management unit
6. He concluded Alaska has the best wildlife management system in
the world, the reason is because we have the best wildlife
scientist and managers working with a public board that brings the
people and these wildlife resources into the process to work with
the board to make good decisions that effect wildlife and the
people that use wildlife. He said the board urges the committee
not to adopt HB 168.
Number 0274
CHAIR JAMES asked if there is a restriction during a hunting
season, could somebody go in that area if they weren't hunting.
MR. HOLMES replied the ones on federal land may be different. He
understands the ones on state land you can use motorized vehicles
but you can't use them in transporting or hunting game.
Number 0308
JEFF PARKER, Member of the Alaska Sport Fishing Association and
Vice President of the State Council of Trout Unlimited, testified
before the committee. He said he agreed with Mr. Regelin with
respect to game and how it also relates to fisheries. These are
issues that you decide case by case with respect to a particular
fish or game situation. What HB 168 does, it is essentially an
atomic bomb to deal with a fly, it is a very broad brush approach
that just goes far beyond what is necessary.
MR. PARKER pointed out, speaking specifically to fish, it is the
authority of the Board of Fisheries that we're talking about, and
that HB 168 would restrict, by which the Board of Fisheries creates
bank only king salmon fishing locations on the Kenai River. He
said those are the only places where you can actually reach king
salmon from the bank instead of having to fish from boats. For
years what the Board of Fisheries has done is prohibited the use of
fishing from boats in those locations on the river, that's
essentially a controlled use area in fisheries.
Number 0371
MR. PARKER mentioned the board prohibits guides from fishing from
their boats in which they are carrying clients. Only the clients
fish, not the guides. That is again a controlled use area in
effect on the fish side. He said this type of authority gets
focused on in a very narrow viewpoint of issues with respect to
game. What needs to be realized is that you are talking about the
Board of Fisheries too. There are positive outcomes that are
produced on the fish side as well as the game side.
MR. PARKER said he would convey to Mr. Regelin that the committee
should also be hearing from the Division of Sport Fish on this bill
and opposing it.
MR. PARKER spoke in respect to the Americans with Disabilities Act,
he thinks the principal of covering their concerns is well
accommodated by the vast majority of this state that is open to all
forms of motorized access.
Number 0423
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated Mr. Parker raised an interesting point.
He asked if it was a Board of Fisheries provision that prohibited
outboard motors greater than 35 horse power from being used on the
Kenai River.
MR. PARKER replied no, it was the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources that prohibited that. It is the Board of Fisheries,
however, that on the Kenai River prohibits guides from fishing from
boats under this authority that is being effected by HB 168. It's
the Board of Fisheries that creates, he believes a half-mile
section and then another mile-long section of bank only fishing for
king salmon on the Kenai River under the authority that would be
effected by this bill.
Number 0475
MR. PARKER said he realizes HB 168 would allow those existing prior
decisions and regulations to stay in place. But the point is, this
authority provides useful flexibilities to both the Board of
Fisheries and the Board of Game. He stressed we should retain that
flexibility to manage, as Mr. Ross said, case by case as the
situation needs in each fish and game situation on the land.
Number 0489
PATRICK WRIGHT, Chair, Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory Committee,
testified via teleconference. He said the Anchorage Fish and Game
Advisory Committee is composed of 15 members with a variety of
backgrounds, these vary from sport fishing guides to lodge owners,
big game guides, hunters, bow-hunters, fly-fishers, and wildlife
photographers. He indicated there are also many users of ORVs and
other types of access to our fish and game resources.
MR. WRIGHT said he was given the authority by the Anchorage Fish
and Game Advisory Committee to oppose HB 168. He explained the
reason they are not in favor of the bill is because these are tools
that are going to limit the Board of Game and limit the Department
of Fish and Game. The way it might limit the Board of Game is not
providing for their flexibility to adjust as conditions change in
different geographic areas around the state. It may limit the
Department of Fish and Game, especially on refuges and some of the
lands that they manage. For instance, there are game refuges where
access is limited during certain seasons to protect the habitat
because over-land access could damage the marsh areas or wetlands.
MR. WRIGHT pointed out the advisory committee is concerned with the
language in HB 168 because it's very vague. He said, "Some of the
terms used, such as 'traditional' - we don't know if the same
criterion was used on that as customary and traditional
requirements or criterion used in determining some other uses of
the fish and game resources specifically having to do with
subsistence."
MR. WRIGHT indicated this would also limit the advisory committees
in their ability as the primary public input into this system, the
advisory committees are the grassroots of this. As an example, the
Board of Game, a few months ago, brought the issue up about ORVs in
Game Management Unit 13. When the Anchorage advisory committee
held its public involvement on that, we found that the entire
public that was present was opposed to limiting the access on the
ORVs in this area. He mentioned this message was transmitted to
the Board of Game. This is where the system can be opened for the
public to work with the department and the Board of Game and we all
end up with a better system. We don't want to have that
flexibility infringed on, and we feel that this type of legislation
would do that very thing.
Number 0670
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked what types of modes of transportation,
use conflicts do you anticipate in the Anchorage bowl area if this
bill were to pass.
MR. WRIGHT replied that the Anchorage advisory committee is not
just looking at areas right around Anchorage. We might have some
conflicts in the Bird Creek area and also just beyond there, there
might be some conflicts if certain roads are opened into other
areas such as Prince William Sound. The board would have to take
a look at how the increased impact on the fish and game resources
might warrant other types of possible controlled use areas because
of opening it to large volumes of users then.
Number 0727
EDWARD GRASSER, Legislative Assistant to Representative Beverly
Masek, came forward to testify on behalf of Representative Masek.
CHAIR JAMES asked him to respond to the comments on the controlled
use areas out there, some are small but there are lots of other
areas that are not controlled as she understood it. She noted
their concern was that this is going to inhibit, even though they
agreed that it would not interfere with any existing controlled use
area. But then what it would do, would be not allow them to have
any additional. What she heard, especially from the last person
who testified, was that we may have to restrict things along the
rivers or because of protecting habitat. Chair James believed that
was already protected, she referred to page 3, line 5:
biologically essential for the protection of a fish or game
resource and a reasonable alternative for the traditional
means of ...
CHAIR JAMES also referenced page 2, line 11:
biologically essential for the protection of a fishery
resource or of fish and game habitat;
CHAIR JAMES reiterated, it seems like the door is still for that
kind of protection. She asked what specifically, kinds of
protections this bill is going to do that it doesn't have without
this bill, and what restriction of fish and game regulations is it
going to be making.
Number 0806
MR. GRASSER replied HB 168 would only take effect if the Board of
Game or the Board of Fisheries was to institute the use of a
controlled use area, basically in lieu of a refuge or something
else. He pointed out that refuges, sanctuaries, and critical
habitat areas can be suggested by the boards, Board of Fisheries
and Board of Game, but they have to have legislative approval.
MR. GRASSER explained that HB 168 would create a situation that, if
they created a controlled use area, which they can do right now any
size area for a long period of time, then that would also have to
have legislative approval. In other words, they could essentially
create a defacto refuge without going through the legislature.
Right now, Title 16 requires, if they propose a refuge - and
they're working on one right now in the Bristol Bay area, that has
to come to the legislature for approval, they can't just create it
on their own.
CHAIR JAMES asked with this bill, or without this bill.
Number 0841
MR. GRASSER replied without this bill. Title 16, right now
requires that all refuges, critical habitat areas, and sanctuaries
be given legislative approval if they're suggested by the boards.
It says subject to legislative approval.
CHAIR JAMES said HB 168 wouldn't let them do a pseudo set-aside
without having legislative approval. In other words, they can't
use a controlled access to set an area aside, which they currently
could by making extending controlled access.
MR. GRASSER said that's correct. Right now this is in AS 16.05.255
regulations of the Board of Game and the Board of Fisheries.
Setting apart game reserve areas, refuges and sanctuaries in
the water or on the land of the state, over which it has
jurisdiction subject to the approval of the legislature.
Number 0894
MR. GRASSER stressed HB 168 would require the same thing for a
controlled use area if they in fact rated it as a facto refuge or
sanctuary by having a long-term restriction. He pointed out that
every single one of the examples that people giving testimony
brought up, the Noatak controlled use area and the Ladue controlled
use area, if this bill were to pass, those particular situations
that are, the restrictions that are intact, within those controlled
use areas could still be implemented by the Board of Fisheries or
the Board of Game without coming to the legislature.
MR. GRASSER said, "If you look at those controlled use areas, and
I was on the board and voted for the Noatak controlled use area
myself at the time, that restriction only takes place for about a
month, this bill would not affect the board's ability to do that."
He said if you understand hunting regulations, and most of the
fishing effort is in the summertime, the boards both still have the
ability to have restrictions placed on controlled use area type
situations that would affect the peak use periods of those uses.
In other words, they still have the flexibility to control major
conflict situations.
MR. GRASSER concluded nothing in HB 168 prevents them from
continuing to do what we've already established in almost every
single one of the controlled use areas that are one the books today
could be created in separate areas of the state tomorrow without
legislative approval. The only time they'd have to come to the
legislature is if they were trying to create a defacto-type refuge
situation where the restriction lasted for more than two and one
half months a year.
Number 0961
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he is confused about the temporary
restriction. He believes the legislature is not accomplishing
anything by passing HB 168 because they are leaving the ability to
enact temporary restrictions. He pointed out the hunting season is
a temporary event, with most species it's not a year-around event.
He asked, if this bill was to become law, why wouldn't the state
close an area for a month, two months, or two and one half months
(as Mr. Grasser said), and then open it back up, and then come back
next year and do the same thing. Representative Vezey asked what
prevents us in HB 168 from doing that.
MR. GRASSER responded nothing in the bill would prevent the boards
from doing that. He pointed out one of the concerns, this comes
from a policy that was put out by the Department of Fish and Game
on ORVs, and the Board of Game also adopted a policy. He believes
Representative Masek's concern, and the concern of many of her
constituents, revolves around this particular statement that's in
the ORV policy which was adopted by the board. He said they have
the policy for off-road vehicle use, and then they have a list of
things that why they could effectively restrict ORV use. Mr.
Grasser said the one that concerns us most is number four:
Chronic conflicts with other user groups leading to a decline
in the quality of an outdoor experience.
MR. GRASSER pointed out who knows what a quality of an outdoor
experience is, that's an indefinite term. He indicated his quality
of outdoor experience may be different from somebody else's quality
of outdoor experience. In that particular case, we're starting to
see proposals come in the packet, and the boards addressing them.
He indicated other people, besides hunters or fishermen, are
putting them in because they think that they have a problem with a
certain type of hunting use or a certain type of fishing use. HB
168 would preclude that type of esthetic reasoning for a
restriction.
MR. GRASSER reiterated the quality of experience is a question that
is intrinsic to each individual. Right now we see several areas in
the state that are closed with these types of restrictions because
we want to protect somebody else's outdoor experience. While there
are no areas in the state that are closed to hiking, photography,
or any of these non-consumptive uses to affect the quality of
experience for hunting, hunters have to put up with a bunch of
people running around in the field. It sounds absurd, but that's
the flip-side of what's going on. This bill would preclude the
board from getting into that arena. He didn't believe that was the
proper arena for the Board of Game or Board of Fisheries, he
believes that would be the proper arena for the legislature or the
Department of Natural Resources on land or water use.
Number 1107
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON mentioned he is really confused now. He said,
"Perhaps a follow-up to Representative Vezey's question, you begin
by arguing in response to some of the testimony that we've heard,
that this really won't stop the Board of Game or the Board of Fish
[Fisheries] for doing this because collectively that eight months,
in a three-year [mistakenly said three-month] period, you're
talking about fishing seasons or you're talking about hunting
seasons. So your response to a lot of the testimony is, 'Well,
this doesn't make any difference.' Now you're testifying that the
quality of a hunting experience can be degraded because of
somebody's objection to ORVs, yet it seemed to me it just said that
hunting seasons are long enough and the department, or the Board of
Game can do that anyway."
Number 1153
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated you can't argue one way against the
testimony and then the other way saying that this stops the board
from doing exactly what you're afraid they might do under the ORV
policy because they can still do it anyway - you've testified
earlier.
MR. GRASSER replied no, they can only do a restriction for a short
period of time. He said there are many hunting seasons, including
the ones around the Anchorage area like the Nelchina Basin where
the caribou season runs until the end of March. So if they were to
create a restriction on an ORV access in the Nelchina Basin, and
they wanted it to last the entire season, they'd have to come to
the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said when Mr. Grasser testified at HB 168's
first hearing in the House State Affairs Committee that in Mr.
Grasser recollection, there had never been a time in which the
Board of Game had done anything that would exceed eight months in
a three-year period.
MR. GRASSER replied, not in his recollection, there maybe a control
use area where it's longer than that.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said HB 168 is addressing a problem that has
never occurred.
MR. GRASSER replied he believed the bill is trying to address a
problem that is starting to rear its head. The pressure on the
boards to start enacting more and more restrictions without regard
to balancing uses on state lands is a major concern here.
MR. GRASSER said the whole ORV question in Unit 13 was an out of
board cycle, it wasn't in the normal board's cycle, the board
decided to take that issue up out of cycle because of so-called
pressure they said they were getting to work on ORV restrictions in
Unit 13, or on ORV restrictions elsewhere. Mr. Grasser said, "We
believe that that's going to continue and that some policy needs to
be put in place that gives the board direction on those situations.
I think you're going to see, from here on out a very significant
increase in requests to the boards to restrict access."
Number 1275
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said this is a follow-up on what
Representative Dyson said, he asked why is there a concern
regarding ballooning, and if it's never occurred why are we
defining it as "traditional."
MR. GRASSER responded that he believes that, and that might be
subject to amendments to the traditional access section, the
drafter of the bill just took the traditional access language out
of the Department of Natural Resource statutes and put them into HB
168.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said the second thing that's more
substantive. We're focusing on the eight months in a three-year
span. He stressed that he is also concerned about limitations to
640 acres. ... That's not too terribly much land.
Number 1328
CHAIR JAMES stated she believes there is a law that says changing
the designation on a piece of property, 640 acres or larger, has to
come to the legislature for a decision of parks or whatever. But
they can do little ones, but not above 640 acres. She asked if she
was correct.
MR. GRASSER replied that's correct on land management decisions,
but in the realm of Fish and Game management, through the board
process, they could still create controlled use areas without
regard to that particular statute. He said we just chose that
because it is in statute and it's been the standard for other
access concerns through the Department of Natural Resources.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he did not know how extensive the
Noatak Reserve is, but he images it is significantly larger than
640 acres.
MR. GRASSER responded that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said if you wanted to affect regulations,
even for two months at a stretch, on the Noatak Reserve, you'd
either have to come to the legislature or make a crazy quilt of
small 640 acre parcels, is that right.
MR. GRASSER replied no that's not correct, it's in conjunction it's
not separate. Six hundred and forty acres (indisc. -noise) is not
just to stand alone, it's in the bill. You either have to have two
and one-half months or (indisc.). He pointed out that if it is
greater than 640 acres, but it doesn't last for more than two and
one-half months, it doesn't have to come before the legislature.
Number 1381
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said this itemization is either temporary
or it's applicable to less than 640 [acres], or it's biologically
essential, or it's expressly authorized. These are not
conjunctive, not and.
MR. GRASSER replied that's correct.
CHAIR JAMES stated she understands why the Board of Fisheries and
the Board of Game people are worried about this. She said there's
one fact that everybody has to understand, and that is the public's
concern about who makes the rules. The whole issue of regulations,
which Fish and Game boards do have extensive authorization to do
these regulations because they are supposed to be the expertise,
that has been challenged with the job of allocation of fish and
game resources.
CHAIR JAMES said without given a better system than we have
currently, she did not know if she would agree with Larry Holmes
that we have a very fine management of our fish and game. She
thought we have a very good one, but did not know that it is the
best it could be but she doesn't have a better solution to make it
better.
Number 1508
CHAIR JAMES said she does understand the conflict with the Board of
Game and the Board of Fisheries with the public, she indicated it's
not necessarily the public that's just the hunting and fishing
people, it's the public with other people. She also understands
the desire by the people to stop hunting and fishing, ... They are
getting larger in number, there's fewer fishermen and fewer hunters
and more and more people who want to utilize the outdoors for other
things.
CHAIR JAMES said, hearing from both sides of the issue, she can
understand where the sponsor is coming from on this legislation.
She recalled when the legislature was passing legislation that
didn't allow the Department of Natural Resources to set aside a
piece of property that is 640 acres or larger because they were
having the same problem with pseudo parks of making designations,
so now they have to get permission from the legislature to do that.
The legislature is the lawmaking body in our government, we then
give authority to other people to write administrative law which is
what HB 168 is relating to.
CHAIR JAMES concluded she agrees with Representative Masek, the
sponsor, that the time to make protections for the future, even
though a situation hasn't currently existed, is before it first
happens because once it first happens then it's too late to change
it. ... For example the previous bill, SB 275, where we want to
make a change, ... but we can't make a change because it affects
some people negatively. And so that's what happens, it seems if
we're going to do this, now 's the time to do it and that it makes
sense because it can protect us from things happening that might
not be fair and then we'll create a constituency that we can't
change it for.
Number 1629
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he didn't disagree with a lot of what
Chair James said, but under the testimony that was heard, it's not
been a situation in which anti-fishermen have challenged fishermen,
or anti-hunters have challenged hunters. It has been a situation
which they're trying to accommodate the needs of different types of
fishermen, or different types of hunters. From his experience in
the fisheries, managing a fishery is not a science, it's more of an
art and what we're doing is taking one of the tools off the
toolbelt and managing those conflicts between fishermen, not
between anti-fishermen and fishermen, but fishermen.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated the best example that the committee
heard, in public testimony part, is the protection of king salmon
fishermen on the banks of a river who are competing with people in
a boat, it's not been anti-fishing against fishing. He thinks what
they are doing, if they pass HB 168 where there is a blanket
prohibition, is we're taking a tool off the toolbelt. This is like
taking a management tool away in a situation. He indicated he has
not received any phone calls from people saying the board shouldn't
be able to do this.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON pointed out that the board process is a
process in which - it's not a super group that is sitting there,
they're receiving information from a lot of the regional advisory
boards. Representative Elton mentioned the committee has not heard
testimony from any regional boards saying we need this. He said
the committee has heard testimony from an urban regional advisory
group that we don't need this and that this is dangerous because it
doesn't allow the Board of Fisheries, for example, to balance the
needs of the bank fishermen versus the skiff fishermen.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he was concerned that they are making
management decisions by the boards much more difficult in
anticipation of a problem that has not arisen.
Number 1780
CHAIR JAMES noted if there's a presumption that there may be a
problem, it's time to fix it before it starts. She said however,
the examples that Representative Elton gave - in this bill are
authorized, we haven't changed any of those things. Chair James
said she understands his concern. She pointed out that the
legislature does give authority and takes it back. She indicated
that she did not know if they ever gave them the authority,
currently to do what is anticipated might happen in HB 168. She
believed this is like a safety net.
CHAIR JAMES mentioned she would take further testimony because it
is very important for everyone to understand what HB 168 does. The
fact that Representative Masek's constituents weren't on
teleconference doesn't necessarily mean that they don't have an
interest in this legislation.
Number 1885
LARRY HOLMES, Chairman, Board of Game, Department of Fish and Game,
testified in opposition to HB 168 via teleconference. He said he
is not aware, as a member of the board, as an officer of the board,
and as a former tenure member of an advisory committee, any
situation in which proposals came to the board from an anti-hunting
group to reduce conflicts between them and users in the field.
Furthermore, the board has no authority to enact regulations that
impact non-consumptive use. It only has the authority under
statute which the legislature has given to the board, to enact
regulations regarding the use of game and hunting in the field.
MR. HOLMES said the other point he was going to make was regarding
the tool, what happens if we lose this tool. In the worst case
scenario, if these conflicts in some of these areas are allowed to
continue, we could end up with a tier two hunt, we could end up
with further divisions between users that are non-local residents
and local residents over a game population that may in fact be in
decline because of overuse or because of an impact to a specific
segment or class of population of game animals being targeted by
the hunting regulations.
MR. HOLMES stressed this is a very versatile tool, the alternative
is to reduce the seasons. A good example is the Delta control use
area for sheep, if we have a regulation up there that provides for
non-motorized access for two weeks, followed by motorized access.
It's a very fair opportunity for different interests that want to
hunt sheep. If the board were to repeal that controlled use area,
and just allowed non-motorized use, he assured the committee
members that they would have to go to a significant shorter period
of time. He suspects, if there were people that were non-motorized
users that wanted to participate in that activity, that we would
probably see conflicts.
Number 2058
MR. HOLMES indicated he was concerned with the term "essential" in
HB 168:
(3) biologically essential for the protection of a game
resource or of fish or game habitat;
MR. HOLMES explained his concern is who defines "essential," at
what point does the productivity of a population have to drop, or
the bull-cow ratio, of an ungulate population have to drop before
we use the framework that's in front of us, as far as this
legislation goes. He believes HB 168 is too loose for the board to
work with at this point. He noted he didn't see any operative
language as it's very very vague in a variety of places, in
particularly that one.
MR. HOLMES concluded, while that does still give the board the
authority to use a controlled use area for biological reasons, he
could see some group or an individual coming to the board and
challenging the board's regulatory decision because in fact they
had a different definition of "essential" than what the board
adopted.
Number 2140
CHAIR JAMES said they heard testimony that HB 168 is broad enough
to not deny any of the controlled use areas, it's not intended to
deny any of them and doesn't even eliminate the possibility of
another controlled use area as long as it falls within these
parameters. She asked Mr. Holmes if he was saying that the
parameters of temporary nature, which is less than eight months in
a three-year period, is not big enough. She asked him if he needed
it bigger than that, or is that, supposedly that fits into the area
that you've done so nothing that you're currently doing would be
disallowed under this bill.
Number 2192
MR. HOLMES pointed out AS 16.05.794, Means of Access, it states:
After January 1, 1998 [mistakenly read 1997], the Board of
Game may not adopt a regulation prohibiting the use of a
traditional means of access to assist in taking game unless
the prohibition is ...
MR. HOLMES said and it goes on to list - and after each item it
listed, it does not say "or," it says "and." For example:
(1) temporary in nature and effective cumulatively less than
eight months in a three-year period:
MR. HOLMES said with existing controlled use areas that he's
familiar with that may not have an impact. He indicated he would
rather refer that to Mr. Regelin because he has a history of the
controlled use areas and past board actions. Mr. Holmes referred
to item two:
(2) applicable to an area of 640 acres or less of land, water,
or land and water;
MR. HOLMES pointed out that in effect would eliminate a number of
controlled use areas that are working very well. The Noatak is
one, Ladue controlled use area is another, the one he just
referenced, the Delta control use area for sheep is another.
Number 2284
MR. HOLMES stressed he had a problem, he suspected the Department
of Fish and Game, and other board members do too with the item
biologically essential because it's not clear to him on how we're
are going to define "essential." (Indisc.) point in the population
do we make a decision.
CHAIR JAMES referenced AAC 92.004, which is a fish and game policy
for off-road vehicle use for hunting and transporting game( which
is a fish and game regulation). She said, "And number four says
... that the Board of Game in its discretion take action to avoid
or minimize the conditions. He said number four has chronic
conflicts with other user groups leading to a decline in the
quality of the outdoor experience." She asked Mr. Holmes to
address that.
MR. HOLMES said it is a relatively broad statement, but the way
it's applied by the board, the Noatak control use area is a good
example. People who live in the Noatak area have a real problem
with people flying over the river in their aircraft, landing and
taking up their camping sites, and competing with them in a much
more efficient manner for the same resource. Another example might
be the Delta controlled use area for sheep, motorized versus non-
motorized. People that hunt on foot oftentimes feel that it does
not enhance the quality of their experience to have someone on an
ATV [all terrain vehicles] go buzzing by.
CHAIR JAMES asked whether they're hunting or not.
MR. HOLMES replied in this case, he said he was referring
specifically to hunting because he is not aware of areas where
there's significant problems of non-hunters affecting hunters in
the field.
TAPE 98-24, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. REGELIN said in context of what the board can regulate, it
should have been written clearer.
Number 0028
CHAIR JAMES referred to Mr. Regelin's comment that most all
advisory boards support this and things have been just kind of
moving right along without any conflict. She said she did not
believe that's true, she believes there's been a lot of conflict,
it hasn't just been air boats. Chair James said she understands
that concern.
CHAIR JAMES noted the conflict of not being able to go up the river
with a 90-horsepower motor, as opposed to a shorter one, which has
to do with what she believes is in trying to protect a group of
people to be able to go up there, and not let people go up with a
higher power, to get a moose is the type of issue where there's a
real conflict. She asked what if a person only has the 90
horsepower motors, then they can't go hunting. She said she
understands that there is always going to be someone (indisc.) of
issues.
CHAIR JAMES concluded, "But I don't necessarily think it's
noncontroversial. And, I understand the sponsor's concern here
about jumping in before something happens. And certainly, we're
all aware of the competition for the use of our outdoors. And
certainly we have laws on the books that says it's to be multiple
use. And therein lies the problem, because does that mean that
everybody needs to use everything, or does that mean that we have
to have some areas set aside for every use so that multiple uses
people can have a place to go. That's been the argument for a long
long time. And so say that there's an area that could be set aside
where the motorized vehicles can never go, that's more than 640
acres, forever without a legislative authority, seems to be part of
the goal of this as opposed to doing it to be a controlled use
area."
Number 0190
MR. REGELIN said he would respond to the controversial part first.
He said he thinks that there are probably a few people that have
always used an area, and then they can't any longer and they don't
like that. Hunting is something that people fight for harder than
their hunting area and access. He said the Holitna River that was
mentioned on limiting the size of the horsepower, was a conflict
between the upriver and downriver users. People from the Bethel
area were going upriver more than 200 miles and hunting in an area
with a lot of villages in it and the board struggled with that. He
indicated it was before the board probably five times over eight
years, and they worked with the local users in both Bethel and in
all his user communities, and that was a solution that they came up
with. He said it seems to have worked, although, it's certainly
the person that has the big engine, it's hard for him to go there.
He still can, but it takes him a lot longer and essentially it
keeps him from going. That doesn't mean they can't go hunting,
they just can't go into that area. The board took into
consideration that traditionally, they'd never gone up there - 250
miles up the river until they had big engines. Mr. Regelin pointed
out once big engines came in, they started going up the river. He
indicated it was a way to solve a conflict, it seemed to have
worked, he didn't think it's very unpopular now.
Number 0326
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he cannot accept Mr. Regelin's comments.
He mentioned his family was aggressive in traveling 300, 400, 500
miles by dog team. (Indisc. - paper rustling), near the Anchorage
area also, near Mount McKinley. His indicated his grandfather and
father were well traveled. He explained that Aniak is close to his
community, if they wanted to hunt, they could do it by dog team.
He mentioned not everybody was restricted, they were in a small
area.
MR. REGELIN noted Chair James asked him to respond to whether or
not the board can still do everything that they had been able to do
in the past. He said he agrees, it looks to the future if there's
a problem, the way he's seen it, they've never had one. He said he
didn't understand why this was necessary.
CHAIR JAMES said it was her understanding also that it doesn't
interfere with anything that the Board of Game or Board of
Fisheries is currently doing, it just kind of closes it down so
they can't broaden what they are doing.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said an interesting point was brought up by
the person who testified on behalf of the board from Anchorage.
Representative Elton asked Mr. Regelin how do you read this bill,
in Section 1 and 2, (it's repeated) it provides that:
may not adopt a regulation prohibiting the use of a
traditional means of access to assist in taking fish unless
the prohibition is
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON explained that the section lists five
prohibitions. He asked Mr. Regelin if he read this as the board
would be prohibited from doing that unless all four, of the first
four, are met. He asked do you read that as if there is as an
"and" after (1) and an "and" after (2) and an "and" after (3), or
do you read that as if there is an "or" after the semicolons?
MR. REGELIN replied he reads that as an "or" - if you go down to
number four, it says "or." If you want to make it more clear, you
can put the "or" behind each one, but the way bills are structured,
it's "or."
Number 0551
MR. GRASSER pointed out the structure on that is the exact same
structure as HB 23, last year, that the Department of Natural
Resources supported and they used those stipulations as being for.
He said that's how it went into effect after the bill passed, and
was signed by the governor.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he appreciated Mr. Regelin's position on
HB 168 and agreed that the mode of transportation isn't always by
a 200-horsepower outboard motor or snowmachine, there are other
means of getting there.
Number 0581
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY made a motion to move CSHB 168 (RES) from the
committee with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal
note.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected.
CHAIR JAMES requested roll call vote. Representatives Hodgins,
Vezey, Dyson and Chair James voted in support of moving CSHB 168
(RES) from the committee. Representatives Ivan, Elton and
Berkowitz voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 168 (RES) moved from
the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0679
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee at
9:50 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|