Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
02/15/2017 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB105 | |
| HB40 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 40 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 40-TRAPPING NEAR PUBLIC TRAILS
2:03:18 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 40, "An Act prohibiting and providing
penalties and civil remedies for trapping within 200 feet of
certain public facilities, areas, and trails; and providing for
an effective date."
[Public testimony on HB 40 was opened at the hearing on 2/8/17.]
2:03:56 PM
JOHN JOHNSON said he traps with his family and HB 40 restricts
the use of trails by trappers who are disabled, elderly, and
overweight. Limiting trapping to 200 feet from a trail would
create another trail, or paths of least resistance, that would
become points of curiosity for canines and might lead them right
to a trap. He described various types of traps that are
outlawed in the bill which could not possibly trap a dog, such
as beaver, weasel, and squirrel traps. Mr. Johnson said the
bill prevents those trappers who cannot get 200 feet from a
public use trail, from using trails on which they have a right
to travel. In the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) valley, trappers
work with dog mushers as trappers do not want to trap a dog. He
stated his opposition to the bill.
CO-CHAIR TARR, in regard to Mr. Johnson's concerns about the
200-foot distance, asked whether he could offer a reasonable
compromise.
MR. JOHNSON explained trap placement allows a trapper to be
species specific. However, if a dog is loose the likelihood is
high that the dog will be caught as winter is breeding season
for canines, and if a fox travels off the main trail, a dog's
natural instinct is to follow the fox.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON noted the number of concerns throughout the
state about this issue. He inquired whether Mr. Johnson held
the opinion that it should be the policy of the state, relative
to dogs getting into traps, to do nothing.
MR. JOHNSON answered absolutely not. He said trappers must
choose an area in which to trap and dog owners should never let
their dogs off leash when in trapping areas. He suggested
people should be notified of set traps in an area, and in urban
environments during certain times of the year dogs may be loose,
but not in the bush.
2:08:20 PM
TEMPLE DILLARD said he is a lifelong resident and Native
Alaskan. Mr. Dillard opined HB 40 is a solution to an urban
problem that inflicts a 200-foot setback onto the rest of the
state. The bill is so vague and openly written that a trapper
thousands of miles from a road would have to set a trap line 200
feet from a trail, which would then establish another trail, and
the same individual would have to set traps another 200 feet
from the newly-formed trail. In regard to trapped dogs, he
noted that there is a leash law in the Fairbanks North Star
Borough that is almost universally ignored. He shared that he
frequently traps within 100 miles of Fairbanks and he has yet to
trap a loose dog. Mr. Dillard provided comments that were not
on topic with the published agenda for the hearing of HB 40.
2:12:01 PM
MARK LUTRELL testified in support of HB 40. He said the bill
will help protect dogs from traps set on popular trails by
careless and clueless trappers, such as the trap that killed a
neighborhood dog in West Anchorage recently. Mr. Lutrell said
in Seward there is support for protecting family pets and there
are many trails in Seward heavily used by mushers, skiers, and
hikers. Dogs and traps are allowed on the trails; however, he
opined that traps should not be allowed on the trails because
traps kill and maim. He stated that trappers will not be
significantly inconvenienced by placing their traps farther into
the woods, and have a responsibility to protect other users.
Mr. Lutrell acknowledged that trappers are self-policing, and
don't intend to trap dogs, but trappers need to be accountable
for careless cruelty.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked whether Mr. Lutrell was aware that
the trap set in West Anchorage was an illegal trap, and
questioned if Seward has any constraints against trapping within
city limits.
MR. LUTRELL said he was aware the trap in West Anchorage was set
illegally. He said traps are not allowed within Seward city
limits.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON related the Matanuska-Susitna Borough
attorney believes the borough has very limited ability to
control this issue.
2:15:35 PM
JOSHUA ROSS spoke in support of HB 40. He shared a personal
story of his family dog caught in a trap along a main trail
system his relatives have used for over 30 years. Mr. Ross said
Alaska's laws are not sufficient to protect all user groups. He
pointed out that 4 percent of public land users are registered
trappers, and others' use of the trails is restricted, which is
not appropriate management.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked what type of trail Mr. Ross was
traveling when his dog was trapped.
MR. ROSS answered it is a public use trail that is maintained
full-time by one of the snow machine associations on the Kenai
Peninsula.
2:17:36 PM
PAULINE STRONG spoke in support of HB 40. She opined that a
general statewide regulation is reasonable, as is the footage
setback. She said she was unsure of all the rules on trails
regarding dogs that are off-leash.
2:19:03 PM
WAYNE HALL spoke in support of HB 40. He said he is a long-time
Alaska resident and he doesn't like trapping for a number of
reasons. He shared his belief that trapping is prevalent in
Alaska because it is largely out of sight. Mr. Hall said making
compromises is in trappers' long-term interest. Referring to a
previous suggestion that dog owners avoid areas where there are
traps, he added that without required notice or marking of trap
lines, there is no way to know where traps are located.
2:20:49 PM
JASON HOKE, Executive Director, Copper Valley Development
Association, Alaska Regional Development Organizations,
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development, said
he was speaking on his own behalf and for many others in his
region. He stated his opposition to HB 40 because it usurps
existing leash laws throughout the state. He reminded the
committee that his region is an unorganized borough and the
legislature is its borough assembly. Illegal trapping and
incidents with dogs happen within other boroughs, and should be
dealt with by borough regulations. Speaking on behalf of his
Alaska Regional Development Organization, he advised in his
region many live a subsistence or supplemental lifestyle and
trapping in the winter helps support their families; he
questioned whether there was information on the beneficial
economics of the furbearer industry to the state. Furthermore,
putting a ban on trapping within 200 feet of a trail would
hamper trappers' abilities to trap. Mr. Hoke related trapping
is part of Alaska's history and of its cultural history
throughout the state.
MR. HOKE continued testifying on his own behalf and told a
personal story of trapping with his family, and of learning to
trap on a traditional Native trap line that is now a state
trail. He suggested the sponsor work with the boroughs on this
issue, including appropriations to cover the enforcement of
trapping violations, within legislation that does not include
unorganized boroughs.
2:25:13 PM
SYLVIA PANZARELLA said she has lived in Alaska for almost 18
years. She testified in support of HB 40, noting that public
trails are made for the public. Although adults need to control
pets and children, she opined that a hurt child or a dead or
maimed dog is too much of a price to pay for veering off of a
public trail. Ms. Panzarella restated that trails belong to
everyone and expressed her belief that a 200-foot setback would
not prevent trappers from trapping.
2:26:41 PM
MARGARET RUNSER said she has lived in the Anchorage and Palmer
areas for over 54 years and she has seen a great increase in
trapping in heavily-used public use areas over the past ten
years, especially in the Lazy Mountain/Knik River Public Use
Area, of which the nearby population is over 3,000 residents.
She said there are traps placed near private property and on
trails used by hundreds of pedestrians, bicyclists, horseback
riders, and skiers with dogs. Ms. Runser said she hikes with
her trained trail dog who stays with her and alerts her of any
potential threats from wildlife.
2:30:47 PM
KNEELAND TAYLOR said he has provided the committee written
testimony related to local control, in particular to that of
second class boroughs. He expressed his support for HB 40 and
urged for clarity in the legislation so all parties and
municipal governments will know the parameters of their
authority.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON informed the committee Mr. Taylor is an
attorney who has experience working on wildlife management
issues. He asked Mr. Taylor whether he believed the Board of
Game (BOG), Alaska Department of Fish & Game, could allow
trapping in Kincaid Park in Anchorage over the objection of the
Anchorage Assembly.
2:32:54 PM
MR. TAYLOR offered his understanding that there currently is no
municipal ordinance in Anchorage that forbids trapping in
Kincaid Park. However, BOG enacted a regulation many years ago
that prohibited trapping in the Anchorage Management Area,
ADF&G, that includes the City of Anchorage from "the top of the
mountains you can see when you're in Anchorage all the way to
the sea." Therefore, there is no trapping in Kincaid Park by
state regulation, but BOG could authorize trapping if it wished,
and then the city could pass an ordinance prohibiting trapping.
Mr. Taylor further explained Anchorage is a home rule
municipality which, in his opinion, has the authority to
prohibit trapping in developed areas.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked for clarification that home rule
municipalities can [prohibit trapping] and governments without
home rule status cannot [prohibit trapping].
MR. TAYLOR answered that it was more complicated than that, and
expressed his hope legislation would bring some clarity to the
issue, particularly for the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough.
He restated that some municipalities have the power to restrict
trapping and some have limited authority.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND urged for changes to the bill in order
to address problems in urban areas without affecting rural
Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON encouraged the committee to direct its
focus on a local solution.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON said he was researching case law on special
class legislation and exceptions to special class legislation;
in fact, there is an argument that the bill should not be
applied statewide.
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE told of a trapper from Utqiaguik who
runs a trap line 200 miles long with 60 traps, and pointed out
that is one of the "things that we do" in his district. Whether
restricting the placement of traps is a good idea or not,
municipalities and boroughs already enforce ordinances, and he
cautioned that state interference is overreach.
2:38:02 PM
JODY LOFGREN testified in support of HB 40. She has been an
avid hiker since 1982 and was shocked to find out there is
active trapping on public use trails. Ms. Lofgren expressed her
concern about kids and dogs in areas of increased population.
She is not against trapping, but said the proposed bill is
common sense regulation and 200 feet on either side of a public
trail is a small buffer to help protect children and pets. In
addition, she spoke in support of identification requirements
for traps in a manner similar to those for vehicles, boats, and
snowmobiles. Although most trappers are responsible, it is
important that irresponsible trappers are held accountable.
Lastly, she said the bill may save the state money by preventing
a possible lawsuit.
2:41:22 PM
MICHAEL STOLTZ said he owns lodging in Talkeetna that allows
dogs, and his guests come from Anchorage, Eagle River, and
Palmer. He expressed his support for HB 40 although he
suggested the bill focus on second class boroughs. He spoke of
the effects of rapid growth and tourism on Mat-Su that has
impacted all parts of life in addition to the use of trails. In
response to Co-Chair Josephson, he clarified trails in areas,
including Glennallen, are heavily used in winter. Due to
increasing populations, he suggested unincorporated areas should
incorporate and govern themselves, as does the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough.
2:43:48 PM
BILL MOHWRINKEL testified in support of HB 40. He said his dog
was trapped this winter on a trail close to his house in Palmer.
He stated he is not anti-trapping, and has friends who are
ethical trappers. Mr. Mohwrinkel is a hunter and fisher, and
pointed out there are few regulations for trapping except for
guidelines for ethical trapping, which are insufficient. The
bill applies to high-use recreational areas, which ethical
trappers should support because they do not intend to trap dogs.
He reported finding a trap two feet off a high-use trail nearby
a school and playground, and said there was nothing to be done;
however, HB 40 would allow a response to traps found close to
trails. He restated his support for the bill. In response to
Co-Chair Josephson, he said he could not remember the name of
the school.
2:48:16 PM
BARBARA BREASE said she has lived year-around in the Denali
Borough for almost 35 years. She said HB 40 is a sensible bill;
in fact, one of the pleasures of living in Alaska is the
opportunity to enjoy the wilderness with her dogs, and she feels
shut out of the woods and trails because of traps concealed near
trails. She noted that trappers refuse to tell where the traps
are, although signs may warn of traps on trails. She related
two incidents of family dogs caught in traps. Ms. Brease
suggested that the proposed bill could be a "default over the
state," subject to local ordinances, and said she been unable to
"make it happen in my borough."
2:51:32 PM
JOEL BENNETT previously disclosed he served on BOG and was
legislative counsel for seven years. He said he was on BOG when
a rather extensive and comprehensive system [related to
trapping] was devised for Juneau, and supports HB 40 because it
seeks to impose a statewide standard. If clearly defined, he
opined HB 40 is a limited and conservative standard on a
contentious issue that most residents can support; in fact,
regulations in some areas of the state, such as Juneau, are more
strict. The system in Juneau was established over 20 years ago
and is undisputed. The system imposes a one-quarter mile
distance requirement all along the coastline, lakes, and on a
list of commonly-used trails. At that time, BOG recognized a
compromise in this regard was necessary for specific urban areas
of the state, and Mr. Bennett said this idea is good public
policy.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON observed BOG disallowed a Southeast rule that
traps need to be tagged, and overruled the "local option." He
referred to the restrictions in the City and Borough of Juneau
and asked whether BOG intervened, or has the ability to do so.
MR. BENNETT said the Juneau restrictions are a BOG regulation
that applied to Juneau, and which was devised after extensive
public testimony as part of an effort to raise public support
for trapping. Gustavus and Yakutat have specific BOG
limitations on trapping related to snare size and trap check
requirements. He opined that there is room for progress on the
issue and HB 40 is a step in the right direction.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted BOG has avoided this issue for
several years, yet established limits for Juneau. She inquired
whether the regulations were at the request of Juneau.
MR. BENNETT answered that it was a very different BOG; at that
time, BOG was a blend of interests working for solutions to
contentious issues. Furthermore, there was widespread local
testimony due to the fact there were regulations for the city of
Juneau that did not affect the borough. The board responded to
a public request to develop reasonable trapping restrictions,
and he added that one-quarter mile is a commonly-used distance
by enforcement authorities.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON noted a document supporting a 500-foot buffer
on federal land was included in the committee packet.
2:58:20 PM
NICK STEEN testified in opposition to HB 40. He said the
distances in the bill are unenforceable and, as written, the
bill would potentially close trapping along all waterways
throughout the state. He questioned whether under HB 40 a trail
that was put in by a trapper, after another person walks on it,
would become a public trail. He restated the regulations are
unenforceable and should be left up to BOG.
2:59:33 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON announced HB 40 was held over with public
testimony open.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB105 vers J.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 Letters in Support.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB040 Letters of Support.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 40 |
| HB040 ver j.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 40 |
| HB105 Letters in Support 2.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB040 Letters in support 2.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 40 |
| HB040 letters of opposition.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 40 |
| HB105 Letters in Support 3.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB040 Letters of Opposition 2.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 40 |
| HB040 Letters of Support 3.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 40 |
| HB105 Letters of Support.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |