Legislature(1995 - 1996)
1996-10-16 Senate Journal
Full Journal pdf1996-10-16 Senate Journal Page 4421 SB 230 Message of June 27 was received, stating: Dear President Pearce: Under the authority of art. II, sec. 15 of the Alaska Constitution, I have vetoed the following bill: CONFERENCE CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 230 An Act relating to management of state land, water, and land and water as part of a state park, recreational or special management area, or preserve; relating to reports to the legislature concerning prohibitions or restrictions of traditional means of access for traditional recreational uses within a park, recreational or special management area, or preserve; relating to Chilkat State Park; and relating to Denali State Park. This bill represents a sharp and unwarranted departure from longstanding public policy governing the management of state parks and recreation areas. The changes made by the bill would impose serious limitations on the ability of the state to effectively manage such land, which includes some of the states most important public resources. As use increases in our state parks it is imperative that we have the means to protect the values for which these special areas have been established. In some cases this means restricting some uses to protect park resources and to ensure enjoyment by a wide range of users. The states ability to respond to rapidly changing public use patterns and resources in such popular areas as Chugach State Park and the Kenai River Special Management Area would be compromised under this legislation. Under the bill, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) would be prohibited from managing as a park, recreation area, or special management area land it has lawfully acquired under existing law for just such a purpose. The bill also would create onerous new paperwork demands, under which DNR would be required annually 1996-10-16 Senate Journal Page 4422 SB 230 to report to the legislature virtually every administrative action in the preceding year that might be viewed as restricting traditional means of access. The bill is sufficiently ambiguous, both in its definition of traditional means of access and in its management intent for administratively acquired land, that it could needlessly expose the state to litigation. It is not in the best interests of the state to restrict management as park land to only that land directly designated by the legislature. This would call into question the applicability of regulations currently governing the use of numerous public campsites, scenic overlooks, trail heads, and other recreation areas that are not within the boundaries of legislatively designated parks. I am convinced that the access concerns underlying this bill can be addressed through current law, under which the state has broad latitude to determine compatible uses of our public resources. I support exploring new solutions to resolve conflicts between users of state parks and recreation areas. I do not believe, however, that this bill offers a constructive step toward that end. Sincerely, /s/ Tony Knowles Governor