Legislature(2017 - 2018)CAPITOL 106
03/31/2017 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 | |
| Alaska Big Game Commercial Services Board|| Alaska Board of Game | |
| HB134 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 134 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 134-BOARD OF GAME MEMBERSHIP
5:33:02 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL 134, "An Act relating to the composition of
the Board of Game."
CO-CHAIR TARR moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 134, Version 30-LS0473\J, Bullard, 3/28/17, as the
working document.
5:33:18 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON objected for discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON explained that the original bill proposed
there be two members other than the general category of members
on the Board of Game - one a dedicated tourism seat and one a
dedicated nonconsumptive seat. He said Version J reduces the
number of dedicated seats from two to one, removes the language
that there shall be a tourism seat, and adds the language, "One
member shall be appointed whose predominant use of game
resources is nonconsumptive and who is actively engaged in
wildlife conservation."
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER recalled that a public hearing was held
on the original bill and surmised that a public hearing would
not be held on Version J [if adopted as the working document].
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON replied correct.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether the aforementioned
explanation of Version J is the only difference.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON responded correct.
5:35:31 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Version J was before the committee.
5:35:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH offered [Conceptual Amendment 1] as
follows: Page 1, Section 1, line 13, delete "shall", and insert
"should".
5:36:03 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIR TARR stated that either "shall" or "may" is the typical
language that is used, rather than "should", when wanting a
provision to be either prescriptive or permissive. Therefore,
she would leave it up to the drafters at Legislative Legal
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, to determine whether the
word should be changed from "shall" to "may".
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK agreed with Co-Chair Tarr and pointed out
that page 1, line 7, states the governor "shall". He said
"shall" and "may" constitute the standard language that is used
throughout the state's statutes.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said the committee needs to know whether
"shall" or "may" agrees with the sponsor of the bill because, in
her opinion, "should" sounds permissive.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER requested the sponsor to give an example
of someone who would fit the description in the bill.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON replied that this person shall reflect all
the uses of game in the state by residents. In further response
to Representative Rauscher he clarified that he reads the
language to mean the appointee should reflect these user groups,
not necessarily that the appointee must be a sport and
subsistence hunter, trapper, and tourist all at the same time.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER requested the sponsor to give an example
of a person who can fill this, such as whether this person would
be someone like a wildlife photographer or someone involved in
conservation who has been involved in all these different types
of situations.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON noted that two different sentences are added
in Version J and he thought that Representative Rauscher was
addressing the second, but it seems the first one is now being
addressed. He maintained that the current language on diversity
on page 1, line 9, is not reflected in the makeup of the current
board. He recalled Mr. Spraker, chairman of the board, and who
has been on the board since 2002, definitively stating earlier
that a nonconsumptive user is needed on the board. He further
recalled Mr. Spraker stating that someone like Ben Grussendorf
was the kind of person who is needed because nonconsumptive
users thought that Mr. Grussendorf heard them.
5:40:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH spoke further on Conceptual Amendment 1.
He said the current language in Version J is strictly permissive
and the proposed language change is aspirational rather than
prescriptive or permissive. The proposed language would say
this is the goal rather than something that shall be done and
that failing to do so would be a violation of statute. He said
he thinks it is best to have the language speaking to the
[legislature's] purpose and he thinks it is best to leave a
degree of flexibility in it.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked whether it is Representative Parish's
preference to persist with the proposed language of "should".
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH responded yes, subject to review by
Legislative Legal Services.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER stated he is not speaking in favor of
the bill, but is speaking in favor of the amendment because he
understands what the maker of the amendment is trying to say.
He said the amendment looks like the question he had previously
asked because he is unsure this provision could really happen
and then when it didn't it would be a violation of statute.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered his understanding that the maker of
the amendment believes "should" would be permissive rather than
mandatory. He asked whether the bill sponsor's intention is
that it be mandatory.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON answered that, as stated by Co-Chair Tarr and
Representative Tuck, "may" or "shall" are consistent with what
he has read. There is no doubt, he continued, that there is a
distinction between these two words.
5:44:02 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Rauscher and Parish
voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 1. Representatives
Talerico, Tuck (alternate), Drummond, Johnson, Josephson, and
Tarr voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1 failed
to be adopted by a vote of 2-6.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said she received a suggestion which is
that a definition of nonconsumptive should be included into the
bill. She requested the sponsor's thoughts on this suggestion.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON replied that thought was given to that very
thing, which is why [Version J] describes it as someone who is
actively engaged in wildlife conservation. For purposes of
making a record for posterity, he said it would be someone who
generally speaking, isn't necessarily going to be inclined to
not vote for hunting that is not what is intended. It is
someone who has some belief that wildlife is also for watching
and viewing, particularly when there are contentious issues
involving methods and means. For example, he continued, Dr. Van
Daele talked about his preference that bears not be trapped or
snared, which is a minority opinion on the board, and that is
the sort of diversity that a nonconsumptive user could bring.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK (alternate) offered his appreciation for
Representative Johnson's question. He pointed out that what is
not being said by Version J is someone who just goes out and
shoots game and doesn't eat it. What the bill says is
"predominant use of game resources is nonconsumptive", so he
would read this as excluding professional hunters. He noted the
language goes on to state, "who is actively engaged in wildlife
conservation." Many professional hunters are also into wildlife
conservation, he continued, so the CS puts a balance in there to
demonstrate that these are not necessarily nonhunters, but that
they are not predominantly for consumptive use as would be had
in a profession.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH related that consumptive is defined in
Dictionary.com as pertaining to consumption by use, when
something is consumed it is used up. Therefore, he concluded,
when a person takes pictures of wildlife, wildlife is not
necessarily damaged in the process, thereby making it a
nonconsumptive use.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND commented she has heard a nonconsumptive
user described as someone who only takes a photo from the field,
the animal is not taken.
5:48:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER posited that nonconsumptive could mean
conservation, and that could be management but not utilizing any
of it for a refrigerator.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON ascertained no one else wished to offer
additional amendments and announced the committee is now under
discussion of the proposed CS.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO stated he is not in favor of the
proposed CS as written, nor the amendment. After reciting the
proposed new language, he said Representative Tuck brought up a
good point. He stated he considers himself to be a wildlife
conservationist because he invests financially every year in the
conservation of game via the purchase of a hunting license,
which goes towards game conservation. He said he also regularly
goes out to view animals with a spotting scope and does more
viewing than actual taking of game. Therefore, he posited, his
predominant use could very well be described as nonconsumptive.
He noted that current statute states, "with a view to providing
diversity of interest and points of view in the membership." He
further noted that it is the governor at the time that makes the
appointments to the Board of Game and because of the wording in
current statute it is really the choice of the state's
administrator at that particular time. He predicted a bumpy
road ahead [if the bill is passed] that could result in coming
to a point of having to determine what every seat will be and
what the requirements will be for each seat, such as wildlife
biologist or guide, along with a definition of consumer.
5:52:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON addressed Representative Talerico's point
by posing a scenario in which someone is a nonconsumptive user
by virtue of snapping pictures and watching grouse but who also
goes hunting occasionally. She asked whether this person would
be excluded from appointment to the nonconsumptive seat.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON replied that a lot of thought went into how
to craft something like this and the history of the bill will
reflect, starting with the invited testimony, what was trying to
be achieved. He said a court would look at this and say,
"They're trying to do something different in this sentence, this
is different - this is different than the other six spots." The
court would have to make that determination, he maintained.
5:53:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said it is his understanding that
whatever is talked about in this committee on this side when it
goes to court will be used as the intent of what was intended
here. So, when it does go to court committee members will need
to define in their conversation the intent of what the sponsor
is trying to get across here. He requested the sponsor to state
his intent.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON remarked:
This seat would be held by someone who does not oppose
hunting, but who opposes the methods and means that
I've seen employed in the last 15 years that are very
unusual. And these include things like gassing of
wolf pups and bear snaring and bear trapping and same-
day airborne, and land and shoot at wolves, and
intensive game management which didn't exist before,
or at least wasn't implemented prior to 2002. ? They
would have to follow the law. I'm not saying they
wouldn't follow the law. So, if there was a proposal
for intensive game management they'd have to follow
that law. But they would give a voice to the 85
percent of the people who don't have hunting and
trapping licenses. That's who they'd give a voice to.
That's the plan. That's the goal.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH recited the current statute, which states,
"The governor shall appoint each member on the basis of interest
in public affairs, good judgment, knowledge, and ability in the
field of action of the board, and with a view to providing
diversity of interest and points of view in the membership."
Referring to today's testimony by the Board of Game appointees,
he noted that Mr. Spraker has a great deal of reason to know,
that Dr. Van Daele recognized the importance of nonconsumptive
use, and that Ms. Linnell referenced the importance of having
resources available for all the user groups including the
nonconsumptive. However, he continued, his impression is that
the status quo isn't, and hasn't been, working quite right in
that [the Board of Game] does not have the diversity of interest
and points of view that are really representative of the Alaska
population as a whole, and that failure is what this bill aims
to address. The word nonconsumptive is someone whose primary
use is nonconsumptive, although this person can still certainly
be a hunter so long as his or her primary use is elsewhere. He
offered his support for the bill, but said he cannot promise he
won't ask Legislative Legal Services about the difference
between "should" and "shall".
5:57:36 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR pointed out that the Board of Game and Board of
Fisheries statutes were written at the time of statehood. Since
then the state has grown quite a bit, she continued, and there
are now many more stakeholder groups. She said she sees this
process as being a maturing and evolving of the state and that
considering the viewpoints of a variety of interest groups is
what is bringing things to this point, and which is why she is
supporting the bill.
5:58:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER stated that naming a definition of one
particular seat is inconsistent with the other six seats. For
this reason alone, although he doesn't think a nonconsumptive
seat should not be on the board, he offered his belief that the
bill seeks to dictate the definition of one of the directors on
this board but not the other six. This is not in the best
interest, he posited, because it could lead toward naming the
definition and dictating belief systems when the way it has been
done to date has been fair. Therefore, he said, he would be
voting no on the bill.
5:59:37 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR moved to report the proposed CS for HB 134,
Version 30-LS0473\J, Bullard, 3/28/17, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected.
6:00:04 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tuck (alternate),
Drummond, Parish, Tarr, and Josephson voted in favor of the
bill. Representatives Johnson, Rauscher, and Talerico voted
against it. Therefore, CSHB 134(RES) was reported from the
House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 5-3.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Henry Tiffany IV_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Alaska Big Game Commercial Services Board |
| Adam Trombley 2015_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Alaska Big Game Commercial Services Board |
| James Atkins 2016_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Alaska Big Game Commercial Services Board |
| Thomas Sullivan Jr._Redacted.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Alaska Big Game Commercial Services Board |
| Karen Linnell_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Game |
| Thomas Lamal_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Game |
| Ted Spraker 2016_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Game |
| Lawrence Van Daele_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Game |
| Tom Lamal -BOG- Letters of Support 3.28.17.pdf.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Game |
| HB 134 vers J.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 134 |
| Linnell Support 3.31.17.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Game |
| HB 134 vers J.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 134 |
| HB 134 Opposition Document - Note in Opposition Harpster 3.31.17.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 134 |
| HB134 Fiscal Note DFG-BBS 3.17.17.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 134 |