HB 315-CONFIDENTIALITY OF ANIMAL & CROP RECORDS  3:31:41 PM CHAIR GIESSEL announced consideration of HB 315. [CSHB 315 (RES), version 30-GH2584\D was before the committee.] She said the committee first heard this as SB 164 on February 19. There have been some changes to it and she invited Ms. Carpenter, Director of the Division of Environmental Health, to explain them. CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director, Division of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Anchorage, Alaska, said that the House Resources Committee introduced two amendments at the request of the administration. 3:33:55 PM SENATOR VON IMHOF joined the committee. MS. CARPENTER said the first amendment added language that explicitly allows DEC to share animal importation records with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to support the Division of Agriculture's efforts to enforce the Alaska-grown program for Alaska meat producers. The second amendment struck the language that was specific to business and proprietary information and expanded language in section (b) (1) to clearly outline that in the event of a public health threat, the department would release information from records in its possession and not the records themselves. SENATOR VON IMHOF asked about the definition of "varietal." 3:34:36 PM BOB GERLACH, State Veterinarian, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Anchorage, Alaska, answered that the definition of "varietal" specifically addresses different varieties of seeds for vegetable production. 3:35:29 PM SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee. 3:35:40 PM At ease 3:37:00 PM CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony on HB 315. THOR STACEY, lobbyist, Alaska Wild Sheep Foundation, Juneau, Alaska, said he would reference an economic report that was commissioned by Safari Club International and the Alaska Professional Hunters Association. He said the Alaska Wild Sheep Foundation is the Alaska chapter of a national conservation organization whose mission involves conservation of Alaska's wild sheep, mountain goats and muskox. MR. STACEY said his comments were narrowly confined to this measure and HB 315 is broader than their specific concern. Their concerns focus specifically on domestic sheep and goat information but recognize that the agriculture community is much larger than that. There are about 1,500 of those animals in the state. Their stake in the discussion equals approximately $27,000 of economic value to the private sector that comes from one guided sheep hunt. That's about 400 annual hunts for a $10.7 million value. He said the state take is high; state non-resident hunting license and tags with federal match just for sheep opportunities bring in $1.75 million. These non-residents share 13,000 pounds of wild sheep with Alaskans. About 67,000 pounds of wild sheep meat is harvested in Alaska annually. These numbers are significant because they relate to the food value of these animals. From the foundation's perspective, if they were to try to ensure Alaska's wild sheep, because ultimately, they bear the cost of a disease outbreak to wild animals, they asked Lloyds of London what it would cost to buy a policy on Alaska's wild sheep insuring them against disease transmission. The relevant factors are: -The state at this time allows the importation of Micoplasma Ovipneumoniae-positive (M.Ovi) animals to the state. -It's legal to own M.Ovi-positive animals in any location in the state regardless of their proximity to wild animals. -There are no testing requirements for M.Ovi in Alaska at this time. -There is no disease-free certification or any certification similar to "Alaska Grown" or other types of organic certifications. -There are no laws for domestic owners to indemnify the public at large if there is negligence from a disease outbreak. So, if you are negligent and proven to be so, there is no law that says that you have some kind of skin in the game that you should work towards in paying that cost back. MR. STACEY Lloyds of London would address other factors like the remote nature of Alaska and the costs associated with fixing the problem. On the positive side, the Division of Wildlife is well- funded, the science is very well understood, their testing is highly reliable, and they understand how to identify, find, and quantify what M.Ovi is or the specific strain in question. Another positive is that there are only 1,500 domestic sheep in the state and only about 75-100 of them are positive for M.Ovi. Lloyds of London would look at all those factors. But state policy at this time is very wide open. MR. STACEY said language on page 2, lines 8-12, deals with disclosure. So, if disease tests have identified animals, there is a need to disclose this information. It says that DEC "may" disclose information and "based on the identified threat" of that information to the public or other animals. From prior comments from DEC's veterinarian, it appears that he does not view domestic animals infected M.Ovi to be a threat; therefore, no disclosure would occur. Not taking the broader agriculture community into this, but very specific to domestic sheep and goats, he posited what if HB 315 would result in a lower policy premium or a higher premium by Lloyds of London. He would argue that non-disclosure and the fact that these tests would no longer be accessible by the broader public would raise the premium and the cost to insure the animal, especially given lack of other policies the state has at this time. 3:44:26 PM In summary, Mr. Stacey said the foundation isn't interested in upsetting the discussion on HB 315, because they recognize there are more interests involved in the agricultural community than just domestic sheep and goat owners. With that in mind, it is irresponsible to come in to a sweeping piece of legislation and work to upset the apple cart. However, these questions and the concerns are real. A working group had been convened to work on this very issue, but this concept was not brought to it even though the state veterinarian knew that there were ongoing discussions between wild sheep advocates and domestic sheep and goat owners. How this bill relates to the issue of disease transmission and the risk posed to wild animals was not part of that discussion. MR. STACEY said from his narrow perspective, there is a concern about how this works and they think that it raises perils and closes down access to information related to disease transmission. He summarized that the foundation is obliged to support the concept, because the idea is to provide confidentiality to encourage testing, but if that is the ultimate goal, why not include confidentiality of testing in statute? 3:46:23 PM SENATOR BISHOP asked for an example of a comfortable level of testing confidentiality. MR. STACEY answered that while he has not performed these tests, he has heard second hand that up-to-date testing consists of a nasal swab procedure to identify live bacteria (M.Ovi) is a pathogen) and a blood serology test that identifies antibodies. In other words, one identifies live bacteria in the nasal cavity and the other identifies the presence of anti-bodies or past exposure or infection. 3:47:38 PM CHAIR GIESSEL, finding nor further questions, closed public testimony and held HB 315 in committee.