Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/06/1996 01:38 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 59
"An Act relating to raffles and auctions of certain
permits to take big game; and providing for an
effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE, sponsor of HB 59, testified in
support of the legislation. He noted that the purpose of HB
59 is to allow qualified organizations to raffle or auction
big game permits as a revenue source for game management.
A qualified organization which auctions a permit can retain
a percentage of the sale plus administrative costs, while
the remaining amount will be returned to the state for fish
and game activities.
Representative Bunde observed that HB 59 authorizes the
Department of Fish and Game to issue one bison harvest
permit each year for a bison from the Delta bison herd. The
permit may be auctioned or raffled by a qualified
organization on behalf of the Department of Fish and Game.
The organization is entitled to receive reimbursement for
expenses plus up to ten percent of the net proceeds to use
for the promotion of fish and game law enforcement.
Representative Bunde observed that the legislation will
allow the Department of Fish and Game to issue, through a
competitive auction or raffle, up to two harvest permits
each year for each of the following species: Dall sheep,
bison, musk ox, brown or grizzly bear, moose, caribou, and
wolf. The qualified organization that conducts the auction
may retain up to ten percent of the profits plus
administrative costs. The remaining profit will be
deposited into the Fish and Game fund.
Representative Bunde noted that there are at least 11
western states that have provisions for auctioning or
raffling big game harvest permits. He asserted that every
state with a similar program has had a positive impact on
their budget. He maintained that the legislation will
provide another revenue source for the Dept of Fish and Game
and will enable the continuation of game management programs
for the common use of the people.
Representative Brown asked if there is competition to
determine which organizations would be qualified to run the
raffles. Representative Bunde noted that the original
legislation was crafted for the Alaska Fish and Wildlife
Safeguard Association (Safeguard) and only covered bison
permits. The legislation was expanded to include
competitive auctions. He observed that organizations can
approach the Department of Fish and Game with proposals to
4
auction game. The Department of Fish and Game will decide
which proposal is the most feasible and lucrative for the
state of Alaska. He explained that Safeguard could apply
for additional raffles.
In response to a question by Representative Brown,
Representative Bunde stated that Safeguard realized $3.0
thousand dollars from their bison raffle. He stressed that
the organization needs $20.0 thousand dollars to carry out
their work.
Representative Brown referred to the March 23, 1993 report
by the Division of Legislative Audit. The audit noted that
Safeguard receives significant state support. She observed
that the report recommends that the Department of Fish and
Game divorce itself from Safeguard unless the problems
identified in the audit report were addressed.
Representative Bunde stated that it was his understanding
that the problems listed in the audit have been addressed.
Representative Brown quoted the audit: "We believe that
this diversion of monies from the state General Fund to a
private corporation may violate the state constitution. It
further erodes the legislature's most significant power,
that of appropriation." She questioned the
constitutionality of allowing a private organization to
benefit from a state resource.
Representative Bunde stressed the beneficial nature of
Safeguard in assisting fish and wildlife protection. He
maintained that Safeguard increases the enforcement
capability of the State by encouraging citizens to be
involved.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Representative
Brown acknowledged that the audit did not specifically
address the permits. She emphasized that the state support
to Safeguard is not through a direct appropriation. Co-
Chair Hanley compared the situation to that of gaming
permits. Representative Brown pointed out that a state
asset is being auctioned. Co-Chair Hanley acknowledged that
the constitutional question needs to be addressed. He
stressed that the legislation addresses other issues.
Representative Therriault questioned if a permit to hunt
moose would be considered an appropriation of state
resources. Representative Brown pointed out that the winner
of the raffle receives a free hunting license and tags.
Representative Therriault responded that the winner has paid
a fee in the cost of the raffle.
Representative Therriault asked for details regarding
5
changes made by the House Resource Committee.
Representative Bunde noted that the definition of a
qualified organization was added and the State's share
changed from 50 to 90 percent.
Representative Grussendorf pointed out that a hunting
license does not allow an auction to the highest bidder or
the sell of the meat harvested. He expressed support for
the concept of HB 59. He questioned if the Department of
Fish and Game will be able to monitor the hunts. He
observed that bison and musk ox hunts are not generally
available and would raise larger sums.
Representative Bunde acknowledged that these permits would
be new but asserted that there are precedents in Alaska and
other states. He explained that the Governor may issue
special hunting licenses to visiting dignitaries. He
emphasized that most bidders would be wealthy individuals
that would consider their participation a form of
philanthropy. Representative Brown noted that individuals
living in and out-of-state could participate.
Representative Brown noted that wolves would be classified
as both big game animals and predators under separate pieces
of pending legislation. She questioned how the status of
wolves would be classified. Representative Bunde noted that
if wolves are not a big game animal a tag cannot be issued.
Representative observed that subsection (c) would exempt
these activities from AS. 05.15. Brown asked why the
raffles would be exempted from existing regulation for games
of chance and skill under the Department of Commerce and
Economic Development. She questioned why regulatory
oversight would not be maintained. Representative Bunde
could not recall why subsection (c) was included.
Representative Brown expressed concern that a competitive
auction or raffle could be issued to an organization without
competition from other organizations. Co-Chair Hanley
referred to page 2, lines 10 and 11. He noted that "the
department, subject to regulations adopted by the
commissioner, may issue, (a permit) through a competitive
auction or raffle". Representative Bunde asserted that it
is in the Department of Fish and Game's best interest to
have competitive bids.
WAYNE REGELIN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME noted that current statutes
allow one permit to be auctioned from the Delta Bison herd.
He observed that Safeguard is the only organization that
currently qualifies for this permit issuance. He stated
that this statute is being expanded by request from other
6
groups. He pointed out that several groups use raffles or
auctions of big game licenses to raise funds for their
organizations and to help wildlife management.
Mr. Regelin noted that the original bill allowed a 50/50
split between the organizations and the Department of Fish
and Game. He observed that federal law stipulates that only
10 percent of the funds can go to a licensed vendor. Ninety
percent of the funds must go into the Fish and Game Fund.
He maintained that the Department will establish specific
regulations governing how the permits would be issued.
Mr. Regelin noted that the judges allowed those convicted of
a fish and game violation to either make a donation to
Safeguard or write a check to the State. The audit referred
to this practice. Mr. Regelin noted that donations to
Safeguard in lieu of a fine are longer allowed.
Representative Brown noted that the Legislative Budget and
Audit report references raffles by Safeguard on page 8. She
added that the audit also points to free advertising
provided to Safeguard by the Department of Fish and Game.
Mr. Regelin maintained that these problems have been
resolved. He emphasized that Safeguard is a private
nonprofit organization that is very beneficial to wildlife
management through enforcement.
Co-Chair Foster questioned if IRA Councils would qualify.
Mr. Regelin stated that a qualified organization refers to a
nonprofit corporation established to promote fish and game
law enforcement or an organization that is established to
promote management of hunted game species and the use of
game populations for hunting and that complies with
applicable laws governing activities under subsection (b).
He did not think that Native nonprofit groups would be
covered. He stated that Safeguard, the Safari Club, North
American Elk Foundation and the Wildlife Sheep Foundation
would qualify. Co-Chair Foster noted that Kawerak a
regional Native nonprofit corporation has a branch which
cares for the local reindeer herd. Mr. Regelin stated that
the Department of Law would determine if they would be
eligible. He emphasized that organizations do not receive a
large percentage of the proceeds. Organizations do receive
publicity from the raffles.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Foster, Mr. Regelin
stated that the Department supports the legislation.
Representative Bunde gave examples of funds raised by other
states. He noted that the state of Montana raised $789.0
thousand dollars.
Co-Chair Foster asked if Mr. Regelin foresaw a musk ox
raffle in the Nome area. Mr. Regelin replied that he did
7
not foresee a musk ox hunt in the Nome area due to dual
management with the federal government. He emphasized that
permits would be issued in areas where there is not a lot of
competition.
In response to a question by Representative Grussendorf, Mr.
Regelin noted that the Department of Fish and Game has no
authority over reindeer. He noted that there are musk ox
hunts in three locations in Alaska.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-26, Side 1)
Mr. Regelin stressed that hunts by nonresidents must be
guided. He explained that the hunt would be included in
the guide's hunt limit.
Representative Brown questioned how the current process
works and how the program would be expanded. Mr. Regelin
noted that the only organization that qualifies under
current law is Safeguard. He stated that regulations have
not been established.
In response to a question by Representative Brown, Mr.
Regelin reiterated that regulations have not been
implemented. He emphasized that the organizations in
question do have Alaskan branches. He maintained that the
Department has a good working relationship with the
organizations which would qualify.
Mr. Regelin explained that the exemption in subsection (c)
was inserted at the request of the Department of Commerce
and Economic Development. Representative Brown questioned
the rationale for the exemption from oversight by the
Department of Commerce and Economic Development. Mr.
Regelin could not respond. He stated that an organization
would have to provide an accounting of their expenses.
Representative Brown restated that Safeguard would be taken
out from under the review of the Department of Commerce and
Economic Development.
DWAYNE BUELL, LOCAL CHAIRMAN, ALASKA FISH AND WILDLIFE
SAFEGUARD testified in support of HB 59. He stressed that
Safeguard has been active in promoting fish and wildlife
enforcement since 1989. He emphasized that Safeguard
provides a 1-800 telephone number that allows citizens to
report illegal activities. He stressed that the fine
diversion activities referred to in the audit report were
stopped. He observed that Safeguard is unable to make use
of direct contributions which were given out as prices. He
asserted that Safeguard has raised over $4.0 million dollars
for the State through fines and confiscated property.
8
Mr. Buell noted that a part-time coordinator hired by the
Department of Fish and Game worked with Safeguard. Due to
objections this position no longer works with Safeguard. He
stressed that the Bison raffle does not provide sufficient
return for the amount of work required. He observed that
the sale of a poster by Safeguard and advertised by the
Department of Fish and Game has also been discontinued.
In response to a question by Representative Brown, Mr. Buell
stated that Safeguard is not planning to expand their raffle
activities. He theorized that the exemption in subsection
(c) could increase their competition from other
organizations. He noted that organizations requesting
permits under AS 05.15 would have to be in existence for two
years.
Co-Chair Foster expressed support for HB 59. He expressed
concern that permittees be accompanied by a licensed guide.
Representative Brown noted that the program will be
expanded. She expressed support for regulation by the
Department of Commerce and Economic Development. Co-Chair
Hanley noted that the legislation requires that permittees
be subject to regulations adopted by the commissioner of the
Department of Fish and Game. He observed that permittees
would have to apply with the Department of Commerce and
Economic Development and the Department of Fish and Game if
subsection (c) is deleted. Representative Brown responded
that there needs to be someway to account for the money to
make sure that the State receives the money it is due. Co-
Chair Hanley pointed out that the Department of Fish and
Game oversees a variety of licenses and permits.
Representative Bunde expressed confidence that the State's
interests will be adequately safeguarded by the Department
of Fish and Game.
Representative Mulder MOVED to report CSHB 59 (RES) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 59 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the
Department of Fish and Game.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|