Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/07/1997 03:38 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
April 7, 1997
3:38 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Rick Halford, Chairman
Senator Lyda Green, Vice Chairman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Bert Sharp
Senator Robin Taylor
Senator John Torgerson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 25(RES)
"An Act relating to the issuance of hunting, trapping, and
noncommercial fishing licenses, tags, and permits and to residency
for fish and game purposes; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 25(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 16
"An Act restricting the use of certain funds deposited in the fish
and game fund; and relating to the powers and duties of the
commissioner of fish and game."
- MOVED SB 16 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
HB 25 - No previous action to consider.
SB 16 - No previous action to consider.
WITNESS REGISTER
Representative Scott Ogan
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 25.
Mr. Wayne Regelin, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Ak 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 16.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-24, SIDE A
HB 25 FISH & GAME:LICENSES & RESIDENCY
Number 001
CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:38 p.m. and announced HB 25 to be up for consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN, sponsor, said he was inspired to
introduce this legislation because of a situation regarding a
neighbor of his who had never established residency in the State,
but every year came up and hunted on a resident hunting and fishing
license. He maintained what was called the current place of abode,
a cabin and a post office box. After several discussions with Fish
and Wildlife Protection he found he couldn't do anything about it.
So HB 25 tries to fix that by changing the word "abode" to
"domicile" as defined in Black's Law Dictionary. It also
distinguishes that having an interest in a partnership or
association of companies does not qualify a person as a resident.
It prohibits persons who are claiming residency in another state,
country or territory as qualifying as a resident. The bill adds
members of the Coast Guard to the other military services, in terms
of resident fishing licenses, because in the past they were
considered sort of military, but this makes it clear.
Number 72
SENATOR SHARP asked if we weren't giving the military as liberal
benefits as in the Permanent Fund. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied no
and they are only codifying what was current practice with the
Coast Guard. They aren't touching the other military services at
all.
SENATOR TAYLOR said last year they adopted an amendment which
precluded those people who are claiming residency status in another
State for purposes of an economic benefit from receiving a
residency hunting privilege and asked if that was in this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied no.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked why. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN explained that
provision was problematic on the House floor last year.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he thought that concept was included in the
section on claiming residence in another state, territory or
country on page 2, lines 4 and 31. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN pointed out
that section had to do with remuneration for moving expenses and
the concern on the House floor was that it could include oil
executives whose houses are often bought if they move out-of-State.
He said he had a legal opinion that said it was somewhat
questionable whether or not it was constitutional. SENATOR TAYLOR
said he thought there was a need to have different language and he
thought the problem fell within the term of residency. He said
there are all kinds of loopholes. He used the example of a federal
employee who moves from Wisconsin to Alaska which is still treated
like a territory by the federal government. The person is given a
round trip air fare back to their "home" every two years. He said
residency for voting is 30 days; residency for a hunting license is
one year. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he was sympathetic to what Senator
Taylor was trying to do, and he had the language he was looking
for, but he thought the way its drafted it's arguable as to whether
it's already in there.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he had a legal opinion from Tam Cook that
suggested that amendment was unconstitutional. CHAIRMAN HALFORD
said he thought the question should be heard out. He thought the
bill before them was a significant step in the right direction and
he didn't want to bog it down with anything restrictive.
SENATOR TAYLOR said sooner or later we were going to have to figure
out what it is to be an Alaskan resident. There was a definition
set up for the Permanent Fund that was very specific and now they
are trying to be specific here and the two don't match.
SENATOR GREEN said she didn't understand what they are trying to
do. CHAIRMAN HALFORD explained that they way the bill works, if
you're claiming a benefit from a government outside of the State
for residency within that government's jurisdiction, you can't get
a benefit in this State. He thinks what Senator Taylor is saying
is that if you're receiving a benefit for being a non-resident from
any other entity (government or not), you can't turn around and
claim residence and get the lower price license inside the State of
Alaska. SENATOR TAYLOR said that is what he is saying.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said the new section of the bill says that you
have to be physically present in the State with the intent to
remain indefinitely and make a home in the State. You have to
maintain a domicile which means your main residence.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD commented that the other bottom line is if you are
on a two year rotation in Alaska, it's pretty hard to sign a
statement that says you intend to remain here indefinitely.
SENATOR TAYLOR added that you can never enforce that because it's
prospective and they may intend, the day they sign it, to stay here
for ever.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked what other changes there were from last year's
bill other than deleting that amendment. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN
replied that the only changes they made was from "maintaining the
person's domicile in the State for the preceding consecutive
months" to "the twelve consecutive months immediately preceding" on
the recommendation of the drafter. It also makes it clear that the
definition of residency being established is solely for qualifying
for hunting, fishing and trapping licenses, and adds territory to
include such places as Guam and Puerto Rico. He noted that the
Coast Guard was in last year's bill.
SENATOR GREEN moved to pass CSHB 25(RES) from committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying $0 fiscal notes.
There were no objections and it was so ordered.
Number 340
SB 16 USE OF F&G FUND/COMMISSIONER'S POWERS
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SB 16 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR TAYLOR, sponsor, read his sponsor statement. He said the
ADF&G has adopted a philosophy which is now opposed to managing
Alaska's wildlife for a return to abundance. Unlike all other
state agencies however, the Division of Sport-fish and Game are
funded solely by license sales, user fees ad self imposed taxes
paid by consumptive users. This legislation would recognize the
public trust for the use of these funds and prohibit the use of
these funds for any activity other than projects which directly
increase wildlife and sport fish populations or directly benefit
license purchasers.
He said there is documented misuse of these funds and the actual
misappropriation of funds provided by the legislature during
previous years. The department has violated the public trust by
shifting $900,000 earmarked specifically for increasing wildlife
populations under intensive management projects and improperly
redirecting those funds for payment of employee salaries.
Alaska license holders are further outraged by the department's
adoption of a preservationist philosophy which opposes consumptive
uses. At the fall 1995 Board of Game meeting, the department urged
the board to close 236 square miles to Alaska's hunters. The
department's biologists testified that there was no biological
problem, nor justification nor actual conflict among user groups in
the area. The department's director admitted that the only issue
was one based solely on a misperception resulting from purposeful
misinformation and disinformation promulgated by animal rights
extremists.
He concluded that this legislation would require that all money
deposited in the Fish and Game Fund would be prohibited from any
use other than reintroduction, restocking, transplantation, habitat
manipulation, intensive management, predator removal, public access
and the restoration of sport fish and game resources or other
projects that directly benefit Alaska's consumptive users.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that they had a statement from Dave
Kellyhouse, former director of the Division of Wildlife
Conservation, pointing out the difficulties in the bill.
MR. WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
said this bill would have a profound negative affect on his
division and would cause a lot of harm to the citizens of Alaska,
especially to the hunters and trappers.
Section 1 adds language requiring them to cooperate with
sportsmen's organizations in efforts to increase game populations
and they already do this. To add this section wouldn't have any
impact, but to add it suggests that they aren't doing that now, and
that's just not accurate. He said they work with numerous groups
across Alaska to benefit wildlife and to increase hunting
opportunities. They have cooperative projects with the Rough
Grouse Society, The Foundation of North American Wild Sheep, Tanana
Valley Sportsmen's Association, the Tok Shooters Association, the
Safari Club, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. They also have
an excellent working relationship with the Alaska Outdoor Council
and all the different trapping organizations in Alaska.
The only conflict that they have between the division and some
minority interests in sportsmen's groups is related to their policy
against the introduction of exotic species. He explained in Alaska
we have suitable habitat for numerous species of birds and mammals
that occur in other parts of North America or Europe or Asia and a
lot of them would survive here, but would compete with our native
species and they don't think it's wise to introduce them. So they
don't. They do have a policy that allows transplantation of native
species in the new areas of the State if they find that they don't
harm anything and they have done so with transplants of rough
grouse to Kenai and Palmer. They have transplanted caribou across
the State. They have put musk ox on the North Slope and put goats
on an island in Southeast. He said he thought they have a good
record and their policy against introducing exotics is very
reasonable.
Section 2 would require separate appropriations for each project
that the division would undertake including the Division of Sport-
fish. Currently, in his division they have one BRU component, four
components, and 17 very general projects. These 17 projects are
very general administration and then each species of caribou or
moose, but the intent of the bill is to have separate allocations
(BRUs) for each individual project within each of these categories.
They have 151 projects in the Division of Wildlife and 170 in the
Division of Sport fish that they appropriate money to. These
projects cost from $10,000 to $300,000. It would very difficult
for them to track 151 budgets in their division. Their
administrative managers said it would take two more full time
administrative assistants to do this. They think this money would
be better spent on biologists and technicians working in the field.
Section 2 would restrict use of the Fish and Game funds to very
specific activities, but provides for spending money on intensive
management for maximum sustained yield for human harvest and a few
other things. He said all funds must result in a direct benefit to
hunters of fishermen that increase sport fish or game populations
and increase human harvest or decrease predation. This bill
expressly prohibits the expenditure of funds on projects other than
those listed.
Section 4 puts most of the same restrictions with a couple of minor
changes, on the federal aid budget that is half of their funding.
He explained that there are a lot of things they have done for a
long time and are important for and popular with the public and
necessary for the division that they wouldn't be able to do any
longer. They would be unable to spend any money on hunting
programs where they don't manage for maximum sustained yield such
as their trophy areas for sheep in the Delta, Tok, and Anchorage
areas, for trophy moose management they have in the Soldotna area
and for brown bear management throughout the State. He explained
they do not manage them for maximum sustained yield because it's
not practical to do that in most of the State because it's too
remote for hunters and trappers to harvest at that rate.
Sport fisheries would be unable to have any trophy fish areas and
catch and release programs because that wouldn't be maximum
sustained yield. They would be unable to continue their wildlife
education programs such as project wild and all the work they are
doing with the different school districts in the State to promote
hunting. They would not be able to issue predation permits to
airports or other agencies that promote public safety. They would
be unable to build new office buildings, like in Fairbanks, or
maintain their other office buildings, unless they wanted to
provide general funds for those purposes. He continued saying that
they wouldn't be able to continue their planning effort in the
Anchorage Bowl where they are working to solve the problems of too
many moose, bears, and geese.
His position and that of several of his staff people are funded
from the general fund and he would be unable to respond to most
legislative and public requests because he's not sure they would
have any direct benefit to increasing the game population.
Continuation of some of these programs would depend on how a judge,
most likely, would interpret the intent of the words, "to provide
a direct benefit to hunters by increasing game populations,
increasing harvest or decreasing predation." They could probably
interpret that to mean that their routine surveys and inventory
work couldn't be done because that's more of a monitoring function
than a direct benefit. He thought it would be left up to a judge
to decide because section (g) of this bill would allow officials of
the department to be sued in civil court if they didn't follow this
bill. He said he didn't include the cost to the Department of Law
to defend him, but it would be pretty high.
MR. REGELIN said that Section 2 also repeals the language that
prohibits diversion of hunting and fishing license fees for
purposes other than fish and wildlife management. By taking that
out of the statute, future legislatures could divert those funds
and they could lose up to $17 million in federal dollars in the
hunting and fishing area.
Section (h) defines harvestable surplus, the high levels of human
harvest, intensive management and maximum sustained yield and these
definitions all tie back to section 2 that mandates funds shall
only be used for projects that provide for intensive management and
for maximum sustained yield. The harvest levels mandated by this
wording is not possible to achieve for most species in Alaska over
the long term. It would be unnecessary and cost prohibitive to do
so.
He said he doesn't support the bill, but he understands the
frustration that some people have. He said we are never going to go
back to the way it was in the 60s. Our human population is three
times higher, demand for game is greater, and land ownership has
changed. Most of it is off bounds for hunting and the federal
government is right in the middle of management. In spite of these
problems, most hunters are still pretty pleased with their efforts
and support the Division. He thought this bill would make it
impossible for them to do their job. He said he just attended a
sportsman's show in Anchorage with 50,000 people. Those people are
supportive of them.
Number 480
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that it repealed the Board of Game's
authority to exempt water fowl tags from some areas and he asked if
the Board ever used that authority. MR. REGELIN replied no.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he thought the bill was drafted in
frustration to some of the things the department has done with fish
and game fund money and it might be more direct to list
prohibitions instead of trying to list all the things that need to
be done. He didn't think the legislature wanted to prohibit
sex/age composition counts, etc.
SENATOR TAYLOR explained that the reason the drafters went at it
from the affirmative side instead of the negative is because it's
difficult to draft in the negative tone and because primarily a
good portion of the funds we receive in this State come from the
federal government and they specifically listed those areas that
monies could be spent upon. This legislation basically parallels
that. He thought that an audit of federal funds would show that
those funds are not being spent correctly. CHAIRMAN HALFORD
commented that he thought the Department over the years has worked
with the feds to get the regulatory definitions of their list broad
enough to get the things they are talking about to still occur.
He's sure the Department has regulatory authority to do their
sex/age composition, management, stream surveys, with State/federal
funds and he's sure those things would survive.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he has difficulty with the testimony and the
statement from Mr. Kellyhouse because they are testifying as though
merely holding them to some standard from the people who are paying
for all of their efforts will immediately cause them to cease doing
all sorts of activities. That's baloney. He asked why they
wouldn't do them, because they are necessary to manage the wildlife
population that is their jurisdiction. He wanted to know what the
fiscal note is on general funds they are going to need to replace
these funds, should these funds be restricted.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that statement is strongly supported by the
constituency and that's what they should be going after. SENATOR
TAYLOR said he didn't know how to go about that - stating there is
a trust relationship on these monies.
SENATOR SHARP said he shares some of Senator Taylor's frustration
and he gave the example of the Department using $300,000 of the
$900,000 earmarked for intensive management to pay for a National
Academy of Science Study, authorized by Tony Knowles. He said the
methodology used to siphon money from ADF&G is highly suspect to
benefit the users of the resource.
MR. REGELIN said that they undergo an annual audit by federal
agents and he also thought a number of years ago when they had a
new administration some funds were moved around that shouldn't have
been, but they haven't done that since. There have been no
problems since then and they have worked with Senator Sharp on the
budget. He said they would not stop doing the things they have to
do, but the way the bill is drafted, it says they can only do those
things for maximum sustained yield which is a very specific way of
managing. It's a mathematical definition of managing at a certain
level of carrying capacity of wildlife. He said he has been more
than willing to work with them on this and he has worked with
Senator Taylor and he is still willing to work with them on it.
SENATOR TAYLOR said it seemed to him they should have a portion of
general fund dollars if they wish to use them for general fund
purposes.
TAPE 97-24, SIDE B
SENATOR TAYLOR said he thought if the Department has general
concerns, they should bring them in and there ought to be a general
fund portion of the budget for them. The last thing in the world
they should do is expect people to pay for it out of the back
pocket as a hunting license when they're going to use that money to
prevent them from going hunting and prevent them from maintaining
the game species that they'd like to hunt.
To say that intensive management to the maximum sustained yield
possible is somehow in opposition to trophy areas is an incredible
statement. If you've decided the area is a trophy area, then the
maximum sustained yield is the maximum number of trophy animals
that can be taken from that area.
MR. REGELIN explained that they have defined maximum sustained
yield as being able to take one third of the reproduction each
year. SENATOR TAYLOR retorted that the reproduction each year in
those areas would be one third of the trophy bulls in that area.
It wouldn't be one third of the total population and he thought
they could do that by regulation very easily.
Number 557
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass SB 16 from committee with individual
recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|