Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/31/2003 01:38 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 31, 2003
1:38 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Ralph Seekins, Chair
Senator Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Senator Gene Therriault
Senator Johnny Ellis
Senator Hollis French
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 155
"An Act relating to hunting on the same day airborne; and
providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 89
"An Act amending the definition of 'lobbyist' in the Regulation
of Lobbying Act, and as it applies in the act setting standards
of conduct for legislators and legislative employees, to define
'regular' and 'substantial' as those terms describe activities
for which a person receives consideration for the purpose of
influencing legislative or administrative action."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 9
"An Act relating to the evaluation and cleanup of sites where
certain controlled substances may have been manufactured or
stored; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 59(FIN) am
"An Act relating to the evaluation and cleanup of sites where
certain controlled substances may have been manufactured or
stored; and providing for an effective date."
MOVED CSHB 59(FIN) am OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
SB 155 - No previous action to record.
SB 89 - See Judiciary minutes dated 3/26/03.
SB - 9 See State Affairs minutes dated 2/11/03 and Judiciary
minutes dated 3/19/03
HB 59 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Mr. Brian Hove
Aide to the Senate Judiciary Committee
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 155
Mr. Joel Bennett
Defenders of Wildlife
15255 Pt. Louisa Rd.
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to public participation in predator
control programs
Mr. Carl Rosier
Alaska Outdoor Council
8298 Garnet St.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 155 and suggested changes
Mr. Matt Robus
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5226
POSITION STATEMENT: ADF&G views SB 155 as a clarification of
current statute rather than a wholesale policy change
Mr. Steve Cleary
Alaska Public Interest Research Group
P.O. Box 101093
Anchorage, AK 99510
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 89
Mr. Graham Storey
Nome Chamber of Commerce
PO Box 250
Nome, AK 99762
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 89
Ms. Tammy Kempton
Alaska Public Offices Commission
PO Box 110222
Juneau, AK 99811-0222
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about SB 89
Senator Gretchen Guess
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 9, companion legislation to
HB 59.
Mr. Jos Govaars
Staff to Representative Holm
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified for the sponsor of HB 59.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-13, SIDE A
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:38 p.m. Senators Therriault,
French and Seekins were present. The committee took up SB 155.
SB 155-PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAMS
MR. BRIAN HOVE, aide to the Senate Judiciary Committee, gave the
following explanation of SB 155.
SB 155 alters language within section 16.05.783 of the
Alaska statutes relating to the regulation of fish and
game. These alterations provide the fish and game
board and commissioner with the necessary tools in the
management of game populations throughout the state.
The first alteration clarifies legislative intent with
respect to airborne predator control programs. The
second alteration provides for game population
objectives to be taken into consideration in
determining whether or not a predator control program
should be implemented.
As an example, if the minimum game population
objective is met, but the harvest level is not, a
management decision - under current law - cannot be
made even if it is determined that predators are
limiting the game population. The second alteration
allows the board to use prey and game population
objectives when making a determination with respect to
the use of a predator control program.
Senate Bill 155 makes changes that will allow the fish
and game board as well as the commissioner to better
manage wildlife by balancing predator and game
populations based on the best science available.
SENATOR FRENCH referred to the third paragraph of the sponsor
statement, and asked, "Now wouldn't predators always limit a
game population?"
MR. HOVE said the intent is to not only allow the board and
commissioner to consider predator populations, but to also
consider game populations. He understands current law to read
that only predator populations are taken into consideration.
CHAIR SEEKINS described the process as follows: The Board of
Game meets and takes testimony on objectives and populations.
The board gets information primarily from the professional staff
of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). The board
then decides whether or not it wants a predator control program
in the game management plan. If it decides affirmatively, the
board sends a written request to the commissioner for
certification of the testimony given by ADF&G biologists. The
certification can only be based on prey populations, not
predator populations or objectives. He explained that SB 155
would allow the board to use all of its objectives rather than
just one.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked whether the board would be precluded
from establishing a predator control program under the current
statute if a game population maintains itself at the minimum
level.
CHAIR SEEKINS said the board could put a program in place, but
the program cannot be activated without the letter from the
commissioner, which must be based strictly on the prey
populations and objectives.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if that would be precluded if the prey
populations were down, but not below the objectives.
CHAIR SEEKINS said it would, as he understands the current
statute.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if anything could be done before an
actual population crash if a caribou population was found to be
very low.
CHAIR SEEKINS replied:
Until they come back, it's brought up for
consideration for that particular district - until
they come back and say yes, there is a problem, and
it's based strictly on the prey population, they can't
do anything. If you saw an imbalance - let's say that
you had a population that exceeded the objective -
let's say you had 25,000 moose and your objective was
20,000, and you all of a sudden saw growth in the wolf
population, and you could see it starting to decline
but you still had not gone below the objective for
moose population, you could not take - instigate that
predator control program until it did. And that's
basically how I look at the current statute.... So, it
gives them the ability to be able to see trends, to
look at them scientifically, and to be able to make
management decisions based on those trends from that
scientific information.
CHAIR SEEKINS noted that Senator Ogan arrived.
SENATOR FRENCH said this issue has been the source of a
wrestling match between the people and the Legislature over the
past four years. In 1996, a citizen initiative banned same-day
land and shoot wolf hunting. In 2000, the voters did it again
because the Legislature overrode the initiative. He asked Chair
Seekins where this legislation fits into the struggle.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he believes this is a totally different
subject. SB 155 enables the board to make a management decision
based on all of the scientific information about all of the
populations. He asked where that conflicts with the initiative.
He maintained that the actions being contemplated are already
allowed by law. SB 155 will only allow the state to make the
decision based on predator populations as well as prey
populations.
SENATOR FRENCH asked whether the board it could authorize same-
day hunting of wolves based on the large wolf population if it
saw large populations of wolves and caribou simultaneously.
[SENATOR ELLIS arrived.]
CHAIR SEEKINS said that is conceivable if they had full
knowledge that a spiked wolf population would affect the caribou
population. He said it depends on objectives. If the wolf
population does not exceed the objective that the Board of Game
has set for that district, it would not have a predator control
program.
SENATOR OGAN pointed out the Legislature has the constitutional
authority and the responsibility to manage public trust assets,
which are fish and game. With regard to Senator French's comment
about a wrestling match between the people and the Legislature
over this issue, he said the people keep electing a Legislature
that understands its responsibility to manage the state's
resources. While hunting in Unit 13 ten years ago, he saw a herd
of about 25 moose without one calf and knew that moose
population was in trouble. SB 155 would allow the board to be
proactive rather than reactive and would allow cultural
continuity for those people who have depended on hunting for
generations.
CHAIR SEEKINS took public testimony.
MR. JOEL BENNETT, representing Defenders of Wildlife, told
members SB 155 creates a fundamental change in the issue of
whether or not the public can be involved in same-day airborne
wolf hunting as part of a predator control program. The present
statute originated in 1996 in an initiative. In 1999, Senator
Pete Kelly's SB 74 amended the original statute and removed a
fundamental aspect, which was that a biological emergency had to
take place before a program could be initiated. Senator Kelly
didn't want to counter the fundamental sense of the initiative
and didn't want to reauthorize land and shoot wolf hunting. He
wanted to preserve the fact that this was something more
properly done by ADF&G professional staff. However, in 2000, he
introduced SB 267, which provided for same-day airborne hunting
of wolves by individuals or by agents and in 2000, a referendum
effort was waged.
MR. BENNETT read the first sentence from the referendum booklet:
"This referendum was referred to the voters for approval or
rejection of a law that allows hunters to fly into an area where
the Alaska Game Board has established a wolf control program and
on the same day land and shoot a wolf."
MR. BENNETT commented:
This is what the voters in 2000 took away again. So
now, I'm hearing that this was legal all along, but we
don't think so. We think it clearly wasn't. We think
that the legislative record is plain, that the plain
language of the statute prohibits it. We think that
this bill specifically reauthorizes it. In the past
three years, there has been absolute rhetoric from the
Board of Game, the Department of Fish and Game or any
other people that would suggest that we had this tool
or that the state had this tool in its toolbox all
along. This tool is being reauthorized by SB 155 and
HB 208.
Why did the voters reject the very thing that SB 155
is trying to reinstitute? Because land and shoot in
the hands of the public has had a tainted history and
has had many abuses in the past. A large and
substantial majority of the public feels that it is
not properly part of a game management program to
reauthorize. It is inefficient to use your own
aircraft to land or to shoot from the air. It results
in wounding and an inability to retrieve the animals.
There are accountability problems that have long been
recognized.
But mainly I think...the reason that the public voted
against this was that the department already had the
tool - the authority to do this - to conduct the
predator control program using aerial means. That is
plainly authorized under this statute, 16.05.783. The
department can engage in a predator control program
using helicopters, using their own employees, with or
without [indisc.]. They can use fixed wing. I don't
think the Alaska public would object to that if the
program was justified. But what they do object to is
bringing the public back into it, and for that reason
we strongly urge rejection of this bill insofar as the
same-day land and shoot by agents or by the public has
been reauthorized.
As to the second part of the bill, which would change
the ground rules in a transfer, conducting a program
in an intensive management area, we believe that the
underpinning of the whole predator control system is
that you address a lower declining prey population -
or another way to say that is you have to address a
problem before a controversial - and I don't think
anyone would disagree about that - predator control
program is instituted. Basically, if there's a
population of prey animals that's relatively healthy,
why would you institute a predator control program
that would take state resources out of the hands of
trappers, hunters and other wildlife users. The state
would be taking animals away from those public
interest groups, those user groups.
I think as long as the system stays with the ground
rule that it's a lower declining prey population that
has to be in effect, and there's justification that
can be made, but to do it on the basis that there may
be a problem in the future seems to be misguided.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Mr. Bennett if he is unopposed to a
predator control program as long as ADF&G personnel take the
predators.
MR. BENNETT said that is correct. Since 1996 it's been plain
that the public doesn't want to prohibit an ADF&G predator
control program as long as it is justified.
SENATOR THERRIAULT referred to Section 1(a) of the existing
statute that says, "involving shooting from the air," and said
it doesn't specifically address same-day airborne land and
shoot. He asked if the Defenders of Wildlife believes ADF&G has
the latitude to do same-day airborne hunting and to land and
shoot with its own personnel.
MR. BENNETT said the problem is this statute has been rewritten
with some of the legislation he referenced earlier and it
contains some terms that could be clarified. If the intent were
to clarify that ADF&G personnel may shoot from the air or use
same-day airborne land and shoot then the Defenders of Wildlife
would have no objection. However, it is clear that the first
sentence addresses the public. The second sentence starts to
address what the department can do. Adding same-day airborne to
the second sentence, providing it had a clear reference to ADF&G
employees, would not be a problem.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if Mr. Bennett believes it is a correct
statement to say that the department's ability to shoot from the
air or land and shoot was not taken away by the initiatives.
MR. BENNETT said he agrees that the department's ability to
shoot from the air was never taken away. He said he would argue
that if shooting from the air were allowed, why would land and
shoot not be allowed. He said he can't imagine many cases in
which the department would want to land and shoot and create the
additional risk if it had the authority to shoot from the air.
He said it would clarify the statute to say the department could
do both things.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Mr. Bennett to reread the sentence from
the cover of the initiative.
MR. BENNETT said he read it earlier because there seems to be a
lapse of memory about what the actual referendum did. He said
the suggestion seems to be that the referendum was unnecessary
because the department had the authority anyway. He read:
This referendum would refer to the voters for approval
or rejection a law that allows hunters to fly into an
area where the Alaska Game Board has established a
wolf control program and, on the same day, land and
shoot a wolf.
He said nothing could be clearer and that is what the voters
rejected. The voters also rejected a clear reference to agents.
He questioned how anyone could interpret the existing law as
permitting the public to land and shoot if the voters rejected
shooting by agents.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked what year that initiative was voted on.
MR. BENNETT said 2000.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said at that time he questioned the man that
was involved in the ad campaign on the vote. There was an ad
with airplane engine noise and at the end, the screen turned
black and a gunshot sounded. The plane never landed in the ad
so it implied the wolf was being shot from the air. The man said
he was involved in the making of the commercial and would supply
Senator Therriault with a copy, but when he followed up, the man
refused to give him a copy. He said he believes the reason the
man refused was because the commercial was so misleading. He
said he thinks most people rejected that proposal because they
thought it would allow unfettered shooting from an airborne
plane.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said that legislators are constitutionally
mandated to manage the resource. He asked Mr. Bennett if he
believes the state should be precluded from trying to manage a
caribou or moose population that is very low but maintaining,
when it can be scientifically proven that a very high predator
population is the cause.
MR. BENNETT replied:
Well, I think it goes back to the fact that we all
recognize the limited resources of the state, that
these programs are expensive to administer and monitor
and [are] controversial. It seems to many people that
they should be used only in circumstances where
there's a clear problem. Again, back to the first
initiative, the language is a biological emergency and
that gave people heartache because some people felt it
wasn't defined adequately enough. But the sense of it
was that there had to be something more than just a
perceived problem that could come about or a
borderline situation.
I honestly think that we have enough places in the
state where there really are problems that to go and
try to expand the whole system to allow for predator
control way beyond that is just unnecessary and not a
good public policy. I think it has to be tied to a
problem. If there's a problem then take some steps to
correct the problem. But there are lots of factors
that can influence prey and predator populations,
weather and other things that happen all year long and
just because you have a relatively high number of
bears in an area doesn't necessarily mean a year later
it's going to mean a serious decline for a moose
population that goes below that line you were talking
about. Other factors could switch it in a matter of
two or three months so that the population might start
increasing.
And plus, I just don't think - predator control, many
people have said, has to have a [indisc.] of public
acceptability. It's hard enough to get the public to
accept a predator control program where there are
serious problems. To try to do it where there are not
serious problems I can't imagine getting that level of
public acceptability.
SENATOR OGAN pointed out that according to the initiative
sections of the Constitution, the people can put an issue on the
ballot by initiative, it can be amended at any time and it can
be repealed by the Legislature within two years of the effective
date. He asked Mr. Bennett why that was included in the
Constitution.
MR. BENNETT said it was included as a check and balance. It was
to guard against an imbalance of laws passed by the people that
could never be modified or repealed. He said it was part of the
mix to provide a give and take. He pointed out that a referendum
has different rules than an initiative. Some people say the
referendum that passed in 2000 had a two-year life when it did
not, because a law could have been passed a month after the
referendum passed to change it back.
2:10 p.m.
SENATOR OGAN said, according to the Constitution, a law could
have been passed that amended it, but the amendment could not be
a repealer. He said he believes that provision was added during
the Constitutional Convention because of the recognition that
the population should be able to bring an issue to the voters,
but that the Legislature might have different or better
information. He said initiatives are driven by popular and often
emotional sentiment. He believes the constitutional framers
recognized that the Legislature had the ultimate authority to
manage the resources and other issues in the state. He believes
the Legislature is well within its bounds to reconsider a
repealer and legislators will have to answer to their
constituents at the next election.
CHAIR SEEKINS called Mr. Rosier to testify.
MR. CARL ROSIER, testifying on behalf of the Alaska Outdoor
Council (AOC), told members he was the commissioner of ADF&G
under the Hickel Administration and he worked for ADF&G for
nearly 30 years. He made the following statement:
The Outdoor Council is a statewide association of
about 40 outdoor recreation groups with a total
membership that exceeds 10,000 Alaskans. The
organization promotes good conservation of our fish
and wildlife resources and their habitat, protection
of the public access, and fair allocation of resources
among Alaskan users of those resources. The council
supports the provisions of SB 155, and its companion
bill, HB 208. These bills deal with clarification of
airborne or same-day airborne as a tool for predator
control in problem areas identified by the Board of
Game that require controlled measures for recovery of
low or declining prey populations.
You as a Legislature have the benefit of supporting
one of the finest boards of game that I've personally
observed in many years. The newly appointed members
are solid, long term Alaskans that have been managers
of the resource, carried out businesses dependent on
the resource, and know and appreciate the benefits to
all Alaskans from well-managed game herds. It's
unfortunate that this new board has been somewhat
hamstrung by direction that helicopter control will
not be approved by the third floor. Helicopters are,
by far, the most efficient, humane and economic method
for conduct of a controlled program. I would say also
that we are focusing here on a controlled program, not
a hunting action in which fair chase becomes a
consideration.
The areas the current board has identified for control
efforts for game management are Unit 13, 16B, and 19D.
All three areas have experienced tremendous drops of
over 70 percent in moose densities during the last ten
years. Units 13 and 19D have had board plans gathering
dust on the shelf for several years. These plans were
never permitted to be implemented by the previous
administration with the resultant continued decline in
the moose population. Action at this time is critical
to just maintain the populations at current levels.
There will be many years before the moose herds in
these areas will even come close to producing a level
that will meet even minimal human use of the herds.
MR. ROSIER gave the following three suggestions to strengthen
the legislation and better protect the individuals that may
choose to participate in a board approved control program.
· on line 8, page 1, insert "in identified game management
units" following the word "shooting"
· on page 1, line 10, insert "harvest management objectives
adopted" following "based on"
· create a new section (a)(3) that reads, "Prior to taking a
wolf, wolverine, fox or lynx, either airborne or same-day
airborne, a person must obtain a permit issued by the
commissioner."
MR. ROSIER said that a policy of intensive management over a
broad area of the state is necessary. Passage of SB 155 and
ensuing actions will get the state back on that path. It is a
small step in the right direction, but this is not a short-term
program. Predator control as a tool of game management must be a
long-term policy to maintain the healthy populations that
existed in the past.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Rosier what happened to the game
management and predator management plans that he said have been
in effect in some districts for quite some time.
MR. ROSIER said it is his understanding that the governor's
office stepped in and precluded the department from going ahead
with the implementation of the plan.
CHAIR SEEKINS said the current statute says the game board must
go through the process and then ask for a letter from the
commissioner. He asked whether the commissioner didn't answer
the board's request, which made them consider that to be a
pocket veto or whether the problem was funding.
MR. ROSIER said his feeling is that the lack of response was
considered to be a pocket veto by the commissioner's office,
which was directed by the third floor.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if the current commissioner could pocket
veto a predator control program by not writing that letter.
MR. ROSIER said that is correct.
SENATOR FRENCH asked when anyone authorized airborne hunting of
wolves in Alaska last.
MR. ROSIER said he did not know, but ADF&G felt strongly that it
had that authority in the early 1990s when he was commissioner.
However, it didn't happen then and it hasn't happened since. He
surmised that the last time a program was authorized was in the
1980s.
SENATOR THERRIAULT referred to Section 1(a) and asked Mr. Rosier
if the existing language "a predator control program involving
shooting from the air" would have covered same-day airborne as
well as taking from the air.
MR. ROSIER said it would.
SENATOR ELLIS asked Mr. Rosier when the Governor precluded the
use of helicopters for predator control.
MR. ROSIER said it happened since the new board met in Anchorage
this month.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if the Governor did that by executive order.
MR. ROSIER said his understanding is that the helicopters were
taken off of the table before the board took action.
SENATOR ELLIS noted that Mr. Rosier stated that helicopters are
the most efficient means and asked why the Governor would do
such a thing and whether it was for public relations reasons.
MR. ROSIER said he didn't know what would motivate the Governor
to do that in view of the promises he made during his campaign,
but it bothers him.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if ADF&G currently uses helicopters for
darting, tagging, and scientific research.
MR. ROSIER said it does.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if that is a humane process.
MR. ROSIER replied, "Absolutely."
CHAIR SEEKINS asked, "So, it wouldn't be any more harassment to
a wolf or a predator that you were using a helicopter to shoot
it from the air than it would be to dart it?"
MR. ROSIER replied:
I don't believe so, not from a helicopter, Mr.
Chairman. I think that - again, it's the efficiency
factor there in terms of making sure that you kill the
animal, there's no suffering on the part of the animal
and so forth. And once you get in there with a
helicopter you've got a stable platform that you can
in fact really do controlled work with.
I think that's the key to this whole thing, Mr.
Chairman, is that we're not talking about recreational
taking. We're talking about a job that needs to be
done in terms of game management in which the
predator-prey relationship is in fact modified to, in
fact, produce additional prey animals. Ultimately out
of that action you in fact end up with a better
program for all users of the state, not just a
handful, but all of the users because you've got the
increased populations in most cases, and we're not
talking about maximizing. But, if you've got more game
populations out there the viewers are going to be a
lot happier, the camera people are going to be a lot
happier, and so is the hunter, so...."
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Rosier if airborne hunting is the most
humane way to euthanize a predator.
MR. ROSIER said it is.
CHAIR SEEKINS called Matt Robus to testify.
MR. MATT ROBUS, Acting Director of the Division of Wildlife
Conservation, ADF&G, told members that AS 16.05.783 is a statute
that prohibits same-day airborne hunting or trapping that
involves shooting during the same-day airborne. At the same
time, the first part of that statute allows a predator control
program to be set up. That's a distinction that is often lost.
The first is a recreational pursuit by a hunter or a trapper.
The second is a state program meant to reduce the predator
population. The statute contains two basic pathways: the first
is under paragraph (a), covered by SB 155. This bill makes two
specific changes to the first part of the statute, which
controls the same-day airborne taking of wolves, wolverine, fox,
or lynx. Both of these changes would address ambiguities that
are present in the current language describing a predator
control program authorized under this law. ADF&G sees this as
more of a clarification of the existing statute than a wholesale
change in its effect.
MR. ROBUS said the first change, on lines 7 and 8 on page 1,
would make the language in paragraph (a) the same as that which
occurs in subparagraph (a)(2) on lines 8 and 9 on page 2.
Paragraph (a) allows for airborne shooting as part of a predator
control program; subparagraph (a)(2) implies that a broader
array of methods is contemplated by the statute, that is, both
aerial shooting and other forms of same-day airborne take, such
as land and shoot hunting. ADF&G believes that conforming the
language in both places in the bill will clarify that predator
control programs can employ any of these methods.
MR. ROBUS explained that the second change in the bill would
modify the phrase, "prey population objectives" on line 10 to a
more general statement. For each prey population defined under
the intensive management law - moose, caribou, or deer -
populations considered important for high levels of human
consumption, the Board of Game and ADF&G have been tasked with
establishing both a population and harvest objective for each
population.
TAPE 03-13, SIDE B
MR. ROBUS said for each population the objectives are linked,
but differ in their relationship to each other depending on
factors of each herd's particular situation, such as
productivity. The Board of Game would normally request the
commissioner to make a finding under paragraph (a) when an
identified intensive management population falls below its
population objective, and predation is implicated as a primary
cause of decline or of limiting recovery. However, in some
cases, a prey population could meet its population objective but
not its harvest objective. In those cases, predation control
measures may be an appropriate tool to change the situation to
allow a herd to meet its harvest objective. Under AS 16.05.783,
a strict reading of the existing phrase, "prey population
objectives" could be interpreted to prevent the commissioner
from making a finding as outlined in paragraph (a) in a case
where a herd met the population objective but failed to meet the
harvest objective. Adopting the proposed language would clarify
that the commissioner could make a finding based on either or
both of those objectives established in regulation.
MR. ROBUS said this statute is complicated and confusing because
of its history. However, ADF&G's understanding is that however
the existing language came about, the present law does allow
non-department people to participate in predator control
programs established by the state. The second pathway in the
law, paragraph (b), exempts ADF&G personnel from the procedures
contained in paragraph (a). If ADF&G personnel are exempt from
the procedures in the second part of the law, it raises the
question of the need for the first part of the law. ADF&G worked
with the Department of Law and their understanding is that if a
predation control program would benefit from the use of non-
department staff, then the first part of the law that contains
the complicated procedures would have to be followed to get
there. The referendum removed agents in two places, but only
from the second pathway, which had the effect of making the
second pathway pertain only to ADF&G personnel in conducting
predator control actions. He opined the changes in SB 155 are
more of a "tweak" than a wholesale change.
He referenced the pocket veto discussion and pointed out that
under the second part of this statute, there is no finding
required by the ADF&G commissioner. He said that ADF&G works for
the executive branch and there are times when the Legislature
makes a strong request but the department carries out the
instructions from the executive branch. In the area of predator
control, it repeatedly puts ADF&G in a difficult spot.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Mr. Robus if he was referring to
Section 1(a)(1) and Section 1(a)(2) of SB 155.
MR. ROBUS replied, "...I'm saying that paragraph (a) under
16.05.783 would be the first pathway and down below that there
is a ...."
CHAIR SEEKINS clarified that in the statute itself, paragraph
(b) says "This section does not apply to an employee of the
department who, as part of a game management program, is
authorized to shoot or assist...."
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if all involved agree that the original
statutory language in paragraph (a) that read, "... involving
shooting..." meant land and shoot or taking from the air and
that is the vague language that needs clarification.
MR. ROBUS said that is correct.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Robus if his assertion is that, as far
as ADF&G is concerned, no predator control programs were
implemented because of political reasons, not biological
reasons.
MR. ROBUS said there was no one consistent reason. Sometimes the
decision was political, in others ADF&G did not have the
biological evidence deemed necessary. In the early 1990s, ADF&G
conducted a ground based predator control program in Fairbanks
Unit 20A that had all of the disadvantages of a ground based
predator control system.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Robus if he is aware of any situation in
which ADF&G provided biological facts to the Board of Game that
were incorrect.
MR. ROBUS said ADF&G always does the best it can to give good
information to the Board of Game. One problem with wildlife
management is that ADF&G often has just partial data because
data collection is expensive. He noted there was one survey
conducted in Unit 19D East in the late 1990s that happened to
come in with a very low moose population result. When ADF&G flew
a more expensive and extensive survey the following year, it
found the previous estimate was incorrect.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if one could assume the information
transmitted to the board is the best available scientific
information.
MR. ROBUS said it is the best that ADF&G has.
SENATOR ELLIS asked Mr. Robus for his professional opinion
regarding Governor Murkowski's decision to preclude the use of
helicopters in any kind of future control program and whether
the decision is based on politics or biology.
MR. ROBUS said he has not been told that is the policy for all
future programs. He was told that in the existing situation in
Unit 19D East near McGrath, where a management experiment is
underway to reduce bear and wolf predation on moose calves, the
Governor's Office passed the word that helicopters were not to
be a method employed at this time. He said he believes the board
was told the same thing. The board presented a finding to the
commissioner during that meeting that provided a menu of
technical approaches and criteria by which they should be
judged. It is now up to ADF&G to determine whether it can find a
combination of techniques that would meet the criteria for
humaneness, effectiveness, efficiency and affordability.
2:35 p.m.
SENATOR FRENCH said he is hearing two things. First, that this
bill is a "tweak" to clear up a gray area. The other is that
this bill will allow a preemptive strike against predators and
will broaden the number of conditions under which predator
control programs are allowed. He asked Mr. Robus if, in his
opinion, this would make it easier to hunt wolves from the air
or to land and shoot.
MR. ROBUS said no action has ever been taken under this law
since it took effect. ADF&G regards SB 155 as conforming the
language in two different parts of the bill to reduce confusion.
He heard the Board of Game discuss the second change at its
March meeting. That is to take out the phrase "prey population"
because it ran up against the situation where a moose herd was
barely meeting the population objective and not meeting the
harvest objective. The board asked the commissioner to make a
finding to move forward with a predator control program. ADF&G
responded that because it was meeting the population objective,
it felt it could not move forward with a finding. The board then
discussed the idea of using two objectives for management of the
herd. Under existing law only one is measured as the basis for a
finding.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if it would make it more likely that same-
day airborne hunting would be allowed if the prey population
number were raised.
MR. ROBUS said that is one result, but the commissioner has the
discretion to make or not make that finding. ADF&G's history
shows that the department is not careless in asking for predator
control programs. It can't afford to do many and with the
controversy involved, it will make sure there is a real problem.
CHAIR SEEKINS called a three-minute at-ease.
Upon reconvening the meeting, Chair Seekins said that the
committee would take up SB 155 at its next meeting.
SB 89-LOBBYING/ LEGISLATIVE ETHICS
CHAIR SEEKINS reminded members that the committee would continue
taking public testimony on SB 89 today.
MR. STEVE CLEARY, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest
Research Group (AkPIRG), expressed opposition to SB 89. They
believe it would gut the lobbying regulations and don't feel
there are any problems with the current lobbying act. The
extensive discussion on a similar House bill shows confusion
about what lobbying is. It's erroneous to say that registration
limits on free speech he said.
AkPIRG's biggest concern with SB 89 is that it will exempt many
people who are lobbyists from having to register as lobbyists.
This will allow lobbyists to host fundraisers and donate to
political candidates who are outside of their legislative
districts.
MR. CLEARY said he reviewed the 2003 lobbyist directory and
found 3 volunteer lobbyists, 16 representational lobbyists, 65
professional lobbyists, and 96 employee lobbyists. It is the
employee lobbyists that will be exempted from regulation as
lobbyists, which will encourage more companies to employ in-
house lobbyists than to hire professional lobbyists. He said he
understands that small businesses need to be represented, but he
doesn't think the current regulations prohibit them from doing
that.
He repeated that AkPIRG's main concern is that SB 89 will allow
employee lobbyists to back up their lobbying with cash and
fundraisers.
SENATOR THERRIAULT commented that Mr. Cleary said SB 89 guts the
lobbyist statutes, yet he acknowledged that the paid
professional lobbyists are still covered by another section of
the bill and will not be impacted. In addition, Mr. Cleary
indicated the real problem is that a lobbyist, even one employed
by a company who lobbies more than four hours, would be able to
contribute to a campaign. He noted that contributions would have
to be fully disclosed and capped at $500. He asked Mr. Cleary
how it would harm the process if a mom and pop gift shop owner
spent more than four hours testifying on a piece of legislation
and talking to legislators and then wanted to contribute to a
Senate campaign and disclosed that. He said he spoke with APOC
staff last week that said it was always a bit nonsensical that
such a person is precluded from donating to a campaign since
disclosure would be required.
MR. CLEARY said he believes the four hour limit is a good one
and eliminating the ban on donating outside of one's election
district is of concern because they believe that influences the
process. That is the reason that bit of campaign finance reform
was instituted and has been upheld by the courts. Donations are
capped at $500 and must be disclosed, but whether a person
donates outside of his or her district is of importance because
it gives that lobbyist too much power.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said to be a lobbyist requires four hours and
one minute and the lobbyist then loses the right to participate
in the political process, even if the person is a small mom and
pop operator because the language in this bill does not impact
contract lobbyists. He again asked where the real danger is of a
small business owner wielding tremendous influence in the
legislative process, especially if that small business owner
must disclose his or her contributions.
MR. CLEARY replied the danger is not from small businesses
wielding more power. To talk to your own legislator is
participating in the political process, but to talk to
legislators in an attempt to change something for your business
is lobbying so AkPIRG is going to try to keep them separate. In
1996 the vote was to put a limit on fundraising and donations.
He said his greater concern with SB 89 is the employee lobbyist.
A company with enough financial resources to pay an employee to
go to Juneau will have an advantage because smaller businesses
in the same field will not have the same access to their
legislators. If that lobbyist can fundraise and donate, that
company will get more of an ear from legislators.
SENATOR THERRIAULT noted that last week APOC said that four
hours is unreasonable and suggested 16 hours. In addition, he
told members that if a business hires an employee to engage in
lobbying, there is a good chance that employee will have to
register.
MR. CLEARY said his concern is that a company might hire two or
three lobbyists to split up the work so they could sidestep the
intent. He said he doesn't see any problem with the law right
now because it provides full disclosure of who is trying to
influence lawmakers. To raise the bar will not inspire more
small businesses to lobby. Their time is more valuable than the
$100 registration fee. This bill would open it up for medium and
larger businesses to be able to back up their lobbying with cash
and AkPIRG believes that is very harmful.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Cleary if AkPIRG wants to take away the
average person's ability to talk to their legislator and any
legislator they thought was friendly toward their cause.
MR. CLEARY said it depends. Talking to your legislator is a
civic duty, but if a person is talking to 60 legislators about a
business matter, that is lobbying. If a person is going to
lobby, that person should register and should not be able to
back up lobbying efforts with fundraising and donations.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Cleary if he limits his conversation on
topics of interest to AkPIRG to his own legislator.
MR. CLEARY said he does not.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if he is a registered lobbyist.
MR. CLEARY said he is not because he hasn't reached the number
of hours for which he would be required to register.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked what the number is.
MR. CLEARY said currently that number is four hours of any
direct lobbying.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if he limits his lobbying activities to
appearances before public sessions of the legislature.
MR. CLEARY said he does, but he has also spent about 30 minutes
making phone calls to legislators.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Cleary how close he is to spending four
hours.
MR. CLEARY said he would have to look at his records and respond
at a later date.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked who funds AkPIRG.
MR. CLEARY said they are funded from individual donations and
grant money from foundations.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Cleary if he is lobbying while giving
testimony.
MR. CLEARY said that is his understanding.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he wants to hear from anyone that wants to
talk to him on an issue. He doesn't believe he is just supposed
to represent one district. As a legislator, he should be able to
listen to people from all areas of the state. His intent is to
make sure that the real lobbyists are not let out of the net,
but that other people who want to influence legislators aren't
made into lawbreakers.
SENATOR FRENCH said he believes the current exemption on the
lobbying law excludes Mr. Cleary's activities here today.
CHAIR SEEKINS agreed with Senator French. He said the problem is
confusion and his intent is to not make criminals out of people.
He then called Graham Storey to testify.
MR. GRAHAM STOREY, Nome Chamber of Commerce, stated support for
SB 89 for several reasons. First, Alaska has the most
restrictive time requirements of any state. California uses one
third of the time spent in direct communications as its
yardstick. The Nome area has one Representative and one Senator
and, although they are very capable individuals, they do not sit
on every committee and do not have time to closely examine every
bill that might affect Nome. For example, the Senate Labor and
Commerce Committee is considering a bill that will have a
substantial impact on the Nome Chamber of Commerce, but the
Senator for Nome is not on that committee. Therefore, he would
like to be able to talk to the Labor and Commerce Committee
members without having to count that time toward making him a
professional lobbyist.
He advised that during testimony in the House it came out that
direct testimony before a committee is indeed a lobbying
activity and APOC was present and agreed that that is the case.
During a previous Senate hearing, it was conjectured that
testifying before a committee might not be lobbying. This alone
shows there is confusion at APOC about what is and is not
lobbying and needs to be clarified in law. Mr. Storey said the
opponents of this bill seem to be in favor of punishing the
smaller and medium sized businesses such as those that make up
the Nome Chamber of Commerce in favor of large businesses that
can afford to have professional lobbyists.
MS. TAMMY KEMPTON, the Juneau branch administrator of the Alaska
Public Offices Commission (APOC) and the regulator of lobbyists,
told members that the question of whether testifying before a
committee is considered to be lobbying depends. AS 24.45.161
says this chapter does not apply:
...to an individual who lobbies without payment of
compensation or other consideration ... and who limits
lobbying activities to appearances before public
sessions of the legislature, its committees or
subcommittees or to public hearings or other public
proceedings of state agencies.
Therefore, if a person is not getting paid to sit before a
committee and testify, that person is not subject to the law. If
that person is an employee who is testifying, once that person
hits four hours, that person needs to register.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if Mr. Cleary's time spent testifying before
the committee would count if he spent time lobbying his own
legislator.
MS. KEMPTON said it depends on whom else he talked to, if he
talks to his own legislator that is specifically exempt.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked where that is located in statute.
MS. KEMPTON said it is in the same section, paragraph (b). It
reads:
Nor does anything in this chapter prevent members of
the legislature from discussing with constituents the
advisability of passing legislation then pending
before or to be presented to the legislature.
That has always been interpreted to mean a constituent talking
to his or her legislator is not subject to the lobbying law.
SENATOR OGAN said the Key Campaign gives a presentation to the
Legislature every year. He suspects someone pays his or her
expenses, but he hasn't confirmed that. Other groups, such as
school districts, do the same thing and their students spend
more than four hours in the Capitol. He asked if they are
considered to be lobbyists if they get reimbursed for reasonable
travel and living expenses.
MS. KEMPTON said yes, someone whose travel and living expenses
are reimbursed is supposed to register as a representational
lobbyist. There is no fee and all of the other prohibitions,
such as contributions, don't apply.
SENATOR OGAN asked if APOC issues cards for representational
lobbyists.
MS. KEMPTON said APOC doesn't issue cards, but they do list
those names on their website. For the most part, APOC has never
gone out and tracked down representational lobbyists. Groups,
such as the Key Campaign, are not being compensated. They are
only reimbursed for expenses.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if a company employee that testifies
before a committee on legislation would have to count that time
as lobbying hours.
MS. KEMPTON replied the employee would have to count that time
and that's why APOC believes the four hour limit should be
raised to 16 hours.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if Mr. Cleary's testimony on behalf of
AkPIRG would count toward lobbying hours.
MS. KEMPTON said it should and Mr. Cleary called APOC with that
question.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if APOC still contends the word
"regular" should be struck from the statute.
MS. KEMPTON replied:
I have a copy of what the commission marked up and I
believe they provided you with a copy. I believe they
decided 'regular' should be left in the statute, but
that in the explanation where you have it divided out
between small [i] regular, small [ii] substantial,
that should be changed so that you're only defining -
and defining together - substantial or regular. The
reason for this, one thing, is because when you're
defining regular in that lower case i, it's only
relating it to legislative action but lobbying is also
executive branch. And, so, if you just do this, now
you have a regulation that's in effect that would
remain in effect. It would be four hours now for
administrative action and it would be 60 hours for
legislative action and I think that's probably a real
problem. So what the commissioner proposed is that
substantial and regular receive the same definition,
which would be 16 hours in a 30-day period for direct
communication with a public official or legislative
employee.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if APOC believes those two words need
further refinement in the statute and that the existing four
hour limitation in regulation is too restrictive.
MS. KEMPTON said APOC prefers 16 hours because they believe that
four hours is too restrictive. APOC would be happy to change the
number in regulation if that is easier than placing it in
statute.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if APOC would portray those changes as
gutting the law. He wanted to make it clear that a watchdog
group is aware of the issue. Although part can be changed
through regulation and the other through statutory changes,
making those changes will not strip the oversight of lobbyists.
MS. KEMPTON asked members to note the other change proposed by
APOC.
CHAIR SEEKINS interjected to say he had not yet distributed that
change to the members. He said he would copy the written
suggestions he received from Mr. Wood and distribute them to
members and then the committee would take them up as possible
amendments at the next meeting. SB 89 was held in committee.
At-ease taken from 3:16 to 3:21 p.m.
TAPE 03-14, SIDE A
SB 9-CLEANUP OF ILLEGAL DRUG SITES
CSHB 59(FIN)am-CLEANUP OF ILLEGAL DRUG SITES
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS, sponsor of SB 9, told members that SB 9
was heard and held in the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.
The committee substitute (CS) to SB 9, with the exception of one
change proposed by Senator Cowdery in the Senate State Affairs
Committee, is identical to CSHB 59(FIN)am that passed the House.
CHAIR SEEKINS noted that Senator Guess and Representative Holm
have done a tremendous amount of work on both SB 9 and HB 59 and
he is impressed with the measure.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked how draperies and furnishings that have
soaked up chemicals would be certified as clean or whether the
contents of the dwelling would have to be disposed of.
MR. JOS GOVAARS, staff to Representative Holm, said that would
depend upon the size of the methamphetamine lab. If the size of
the lab was significant and chemicals were spilled on the
furnishings, they would have to be disposed of properly.
SENATOR GUESS said she expects the regulations for clean up
would address the furnishings.
SENATOR THERRIAULT noted that the walls would have to be
stripped of paint because of the fumes from the operation so he
would assume the fumes would permeate the furnishings also.
MR. GOVAARS agreed.
SENATOR FRENCH moved CSHB 59(FIN)am from committee with
individual recommendations.
SENATOR OGAN objected and stated the bill is extensive and no
one has testified.
CHAIR SEEKINS noted that public testimony on the bill was closed
earlier.
SENATOR ELLIS said his understanding is that Senator Guess
answered all of the questions about her bill as well as those
that pertain to Representative Holm's bill and that testimony
was given.
CHAIR SEEKINS said if there are additional questions on the
bill, he would put it on the top of the "bills previously heard"
list of bills to be heard on Wednesday.
SENATOR OGAN thanked Chair Seekins.
SENATOR GUESS stated that public testimony was taken on SB 9 and
that no one else contacted her office with a desire to testify.
SENATOR OGAN removed his objection.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Senator French to repeat his motion.
SENATOR FRENCH made a motion to move CSHB 59(FIN)am from
committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIR SEEKINS noted that without objection, the motion carried.
With no further business to come before the committee, Chair
Seekins adjourned the meeting at 3:27 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|