HB 201-MUNICIPAL REGULATION OF TRAPPING  1:04:24 PM CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 201, "An Act relating to municipal regulation of trapping; and providing for an effective date. [Before the committee was CSHB 201(CRA).] 1:04:35 PM CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON opened public testimony. 1:04:58 PM NICK STEEN testified in opposition to HB 201. He said the bill would give the borough control over trapping regulations on state and/or federal lands. He stated that this would add a third level of potential law or regulations on trapping in a given area state, federal, and borough and would do nothing to correct a perceived problem. Mr. Steen further maintained that trap identification is a worthless bit of information because all a trapper has to do is claim that a trap has been stolen at the beginning of the season, and the trapper is "home free" for the rest of the season. He clarified he isn't saying trappers are illegal, but rather it is an unenforceable regulation. All the bill would do is add more paperwork to the already existing problem of too many regulations on hunting and fishing in the state. For example, when he came to Alaska over 50 years ago the regulations were pocketbook sized, but not any longer. He recognized that things are becoming more and more involved because there are more people, but said more laws don't make it better. 1:06:22 PM KNEELAND TAYLOR testified in strong support of CSHB 201 (CRA). He said it is an excellent bill because it provides clarification on what a municipal government can and cannot do. He offered his belief that municipalities should have their authority clearly outlined on regulating the placing of traps that can cause injury and, in particular, injury to dogs. The idea that the Board of Game and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) can handle this is somewhat far-fetched, he continued. It is a mind-boggling task on a statewide basis to identify literally hundreds of trails, hundreds of small public parks, and densely populated subdivisions where everyone agrees that traps shouldn't be placed. It is the local governments that have the expertise and knowledge as to whether traps should be placed at the end of a particular street, in a particular subdivision inside that municipality. In the case of federal lands, he said, a clear delineation of what a local government can do in terms of setbacks or placing of traps on trails on federal lands gives those municipal governments a chance to fight back if the federal government tries to impose its view. It is an excellent bill because it would provide for local control. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON, sponsor of HB 201, referenced a letter of opposition that the committee received from Al Barrette in which Mr. Barrette states that the Board of Game can handle this. He asked whether Mr. Taylor is personally aware of residents of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough who have drafted proposals to deal with the problem of dogs getting caught in traps. MR. TAYLOR replied he is not personally aware of whether they have or have not. However, he continued, he was on a Board of Game subcommittee that addressed this issue in 2002 and, after many meetings with trappers, board chairman Ted Spraker said the board did not think this issue was a problem. Four years ago, local residents of Cooper Landing submitted a proposal to the Board of Game that would have designated several trails, trailheads, and beach along Kenai Lake as places where traps could not be placed, but that proposal was rejected. In talking with board members about the rejection of that proposal, he related, it really boiled down to a people issue. Basically, one member of the board, Ted Spraker, viewed it as the local residents asking for too much and therefore they got nothing. It is a far-fetched idea, he reiterated, that the Board of Game will be able to do this or would be inclined to assist local communities in handling this problem. 1:11:07 PM AL BARRETTE testified in opposition to HB 201. If enacted, he said, it would be a competing statute with Alaska Statute (AS) 16.05.255, Regulations of the Board of Game, under which the Board of Game is granted the regulation of wildlife, even for public safety. Further, he continued, he has a problem with two competing authorities creating regulations or ordinances because this would hinder trappers in finding restriction information. The current trapping regulation handbook distinguishes what trapping restrictions exist. He said municipalities such as Fairbanks, Anchorage, Valdez, Skagway, and Prince of Wales have come before the Board of Game concerning trapping issues and have received favorable action by the board. Not every proposal before the Board of Game gets passed. Proposals must meet some merits and input is taken from regulation specialists within the Department of Law and other state agencies. MR. BARRETTE stated he specifically has an issue on page 1, line 13, which states, "trap identification requirements". He said this provision is unclear and it could be argued what that actually means. Terminology is everything in a court of law or in regulations or statute. He then drew attention to the bill on page 2, line 1, which states, "restrictions on the use of types of traps likely to cause injury or damage to persons or property." He said he doesn't know of any trap made that doesn't cause injury, so he wonders what trap is out there that would fit this definition if the bill were enacted. MR. BARRETTE pointed out that the bill doesn't mention the use of snares and said there is a difference in definition in regulation between a steel trap and a snare. He suggested this be clarified. He further pointed out that the bill uses what trapping means by the statutory definition and maintained that this definition only relates to furbearers. Other animals are classified as small game, unclassified game, and fur animals, he continued, and these animals are allowed to be trapped with a trapping license or a hunting license. This bill has many complications, he said, including having two governing bodies, one which has been appointed and confirmed based on knowledge of wildlife resources, and the other that is basically elected by their political views. 1:14:45 PM CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON surmised Mr. Barrette wants the bill to be more expansive because one of Mr. Barrette's positions is that municipalities should not have any authority, but when it comes to what municipalities have authority over Mr. Barrette wants to expand the definition to even more mammals. MR. BARRETTE replied that he is pointing out he is not for the bill as written and that he is further pointing out the errors and complications in the bill should it be passed as written. 1:15:33 PM CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON recalled Mr. Barrette's statement that the Board of Game responds to municipal interests in this regard, but stated that he thinks there is evidence the board does not respond to municipal interests. He inquired why there is a problem with the bill if the Board of Game does respond to municipalities. He posed a scenario in which a local government is concerned for public safety, which is within the local purview, and wants to regulate around a schoolyard. He said Mr. Barrette's position is that the board will accommodate that and therefore he doesn't understand the concern. MR. BARRETTE responded that his main issue is with state lands. He offered his belief that Co-Chair Josephson is correct that boroughs and municipalities have ownership of their lands; however, there have been times when state land was an issue. He recalled that Juneau brought a [proposal] to the Board of Game that was passed. Municipalities can write a proposal and bring it to the board, he continued. It will be vetted through the deliberation and public comment processes but there is a chance it might not pass, which happened in Cooper Landing's case. Justification was put on record as to why the board didn't pass it, he said, not all proposals get passed. 1:17:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE noted the committee has been working on making this back into a local control issue. He said he sees where Mr. Barrette is coming from and that Mr. Barrette is talking about state regulations versus municipal regulations. Representative Westlake offered his understanding that if, for example, his village wanted to opt in and create its own laws and ordinances for trapping within the city limits, it could do that, and the state would have no real say, but beyond the city or borough limits it would go back over to the state. He asked Mr. Barrette whether he is misunderstanding something. MR. BARRETTE answered that he thinks Representative Westlake has it perfectly. The Board of Game controls state land and private property and the boroughs control their property. 1:18:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said he shares Mr. Barrett's concerns. He related that the Matanuska-Susitna Borough has implemented some sort of local control on trapping, as has Anchorage. He offered his appreciation for Mr. Barrette's concerns and said local control works well from his experience. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked legal counsel Alpheus Bullard whether snares would be something a local government could regulate under HB 201. 1:19:36 PM ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, acknowledged it's possible that the [regulation of snares] is an inadequacy in this legislation. But if it is, he continued, it's also a problem in the state's fish and game statutes because the definition of trapping that's provided for all of Title 16 is referenced in this legislation and that definition of trapping is what controls what can be taken with a trapping license. So, he added, if snares are allowed under Title 16, then a local municipality could regulate them under this legislation. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON noted the committee has an opinion from the Matanuska-Susitna Borough attorney. He requested Mr. Bullard's opinion on whether municipalities have the power within their purview to regulate trapping within their borders. MR. BULLARD responded that to the extent it is a legitimate ordinance and it protects human life and property within the municipality's boundaries, it is a legitimate local concern and well within the municipality's purview. 1:21:11 PM CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON closed public testimony after ascertaining no one else wished to testify. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired whether he is correct that the bill does not reference private lands. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON answered that the bill doesn't speak to private lands except by implication. It would be a heavy lift, he said, for a member of a city council or assembly to offer an ordinance to regulate trapping on someone's private land; but there would be nothing prohibiting it in this bill. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER understood there is nothing prohibiting that and asked whether that means it is inclusive. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON replied it is inclusive per page 1, line 10. He said bills that list everything become very long. REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated he does not support the bill because it is unnecessary. As said by Mr. Bullard, he continued, local communities can take care of themselves and can implement trapping regulations as was done by the Matanuska-Susitna [Borough]. He said his preference is that it be left up to the local communities to manage their own affairs. 1:24:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO remarked that it is clear as mud as to where this will fit in the actual charter code of ordinances for particular municipalities and ordinances that they have adopted. [The committee] could probably get a legal opinion to say it will be land use regulation because theoretically it could be said that an ordinance has been written that traps cannot be put on the ground in particular spots. However, he continued, the issue is that most of the codes for land use regulation that he is familiar with deal with boundaries and lines and community plans and that type of structure, not restrictions on these other things. The other avenue, he said, would probably be the adoption of public safety powers. However, whether real or imagined, a fear in smaller municipalities is that if they adopt public safety powers they are not far away from losing their state trooper when the state then steps in saying that because the municipality has public safety powers it must now take responsibility. REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO said his biggest issue has to do with previous experience in that he is very defensive of Title 29 in its current form and the way it is written. Before any changes are made, he continued, he would have to hear from an enormous number of municipalities saying they need this particular change in Title 29. He argued that a municipality choosing a trapping ordinance would not have enforcement provided by the Alaska Wildlife Troopers because these troopers do state regulatory issues. He said he opposes the bill, but appreciates the idea of trying to figure out a way to resolve this issue, but the bill does not resolve it for him. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON responded he takes the aforementioned point, but said that if a municipality passes an ordinance and doesn't wish to enforce it, it just will not be enforced very well. 1:27:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE inquired whether HB 201, as proposed, would grant more power to municipalities or boroughs. For example, he said, whether it would move it over to the local level where the local level can use these powers and enforce these powers on their own. MR. BULLARD answered that if the legislation is passed and enacted, it would be in the general powers in AS 29.35 and it would provide that both for general law and home rule municipalities, this is the power that municipalities have and in that way, it would clear up what power these municipalities have to enact an ordinance like this. 1:29:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE asked whether it would then be up to the municipality or borough to enforce these powers. MR. BULLARD replied yes, correct, it would be completely up to whatever municipality that passed it to enforce it. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON added that a local government would have to make a legitimate claim that the restriction was necessary to prevent injury or damage to persons or property and that it was in an area or location where that injury or damage could occur. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said he appreciates that "may" was used so many times in the bill and appreciates that the sponsor was working with municipalities and their abilities to choose by using the word "may". However, he continued, what the legislature does with people's private property and how the legislature regulates it is of worry to him. He said he had an amendment that he didn't offer because he didn't think it would have passed. He stated he is not in favor of the bill, although he appreciates that the sponsor is trying to work on a problem. REPRESENTATIVE PARISH noted that the bill explicitly expands the authority of municipalities/local governments into an area where it would be thought that they already have the authority to say, for example, no traps near the local school regardless of whether that school is on state or private property. He recalled a tragic story told by Representative Westlake about a child who came too close to a cyanide trap and the child's dog died but the child was able to rinse his own eyes. He said he thinks it appropriate to explicitly give the power to municipalities to be able to say that there are some areas where they do not want traps that could harm people or property. The sort of trap that doesn't harm persons or property would be live traps, and these types of traps are used frequently for nuisance animals. He said it is a useful bill that he supports. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON noted that HB 40 [a bill he sponsored] was clearly a much more ambitious bill in regard to 200-foot buffers near public trails. He said the feedback on HB 40 was that it should be handled by the local governments and so that is the bill now before the committee. The criticism of HB 40 was vast, he continued, while the criticism of HB 201, to his knowledge, has been restricted to a couple letters. 1:34:39 PM CO-CHAIR TARR moved to report CSHB 201(CRA) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO objected. 1:35:44 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Westlake, Drummond, Parish, Tarr, and Josephson voted in favor of CSHB 201(CRA). Representatives Rauscher, Talerico, and Birch voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 201 (CRA) was reported from the House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 5-3.