Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/23/1994 03:38 PM Senate RES
Audio | Topic |
---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATOR MILLER announced HB 232 (BOW HUNTING STAMP & BOW HUNTING SAFETY to be up for consideration.) He said they would take a recess at 3:50 p.m. and called the meeting back to order at 3:55 p.m. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE, sponsor, explained that certain areas in Alaska are reserved for bow hunting. It is necessary to take a bow hunting class to hunt in those areas. Bow hunters support this program physically and financially. He said the fees would go to support the bow hunter program. He said a majority of bow hunters support HB 232. Number 287 SENATOR ZHAROFF asked if this applied state-wide. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied it applies in special archery seasons and areas. He was not aware of an archery area in Kodiak. SENATOR ZHAROFF moved an effective date of January 1, 1995. There were no objections and it was so ordered. GARRY CASON, Kenai Peninsula Archers, opposed HB 232 since it is for bow hunting areas only. He felt there were enough restrictions on bow hunting now. They feel that archery already pays for its share of funding due to the Pitman-Robertson fund and there is an 11% excise tax on all archery equipment. BILL CURTIS, Soldotna resident, opposed HB 232. He was appalled at the way it was presented to the archers of the state. DON POOLE, Soldotna resident, said he was against HB 232, because it is an unnecessary expense. He is concerned that the income generated from this would be used as general fund money. As President of the Alaskan Bow hunters, he said they are split on the matter and are taking a neutral stance. Number 334 KEN VORISEK, President, Golden North Archery Association, supported HB 232. He said a majority of the Bowhunters around the state have voted to support HB 232. The $7 archery tag would be mandatory wherever you hunt with a bow and arrow. The other part of the bill mandates the state have a bow hunter education program. The intent of the bill was to fund that program. The program is mandatory where there is a bow hunting only area. RICK SCHIKORA, Fairbanks resident, supported HB 232. He thought it might provide the possibility of additional bow hunting seasons and areas. After participating as an instructor in the IT&T program, he was in favor of the bow hunting stamp. DENNIS GOLDBACK, Fairbanks resident, opposed HB 232. He said he didn't see any financial gain from selling stamps the way the bill is written. He said he saw a lot of loop holes in it. HARRY LUSK, Fairbanks resident, said in North Carolina and South Carolina there is a longer hunting season without the stamp, but with a tag. They also have "either sex days". He said that archers expend a lot more energy to even stop game than rifle hunters do. He said they should have more benefits than rifle hunters. Number 433 EDWARD RUSSELL, Anchorage resident, said he faxed his testimony opposing HB 232. He said that wildlife stamps serve no useful purpose in the management of game in Alaska. He said there is no way the stamp can pay for printing, distribution, and some sort of publicity campaign. He didn't think bow hunters should be charged a surtax for hunting which is what this is. PHIL PRINGLE, Anchorage resident and bow hunter teacher, totally opposed HB 232. He didn't think the revenue generated would cover the cost of implementing and maintaining the plan. He said there was already an education force in place. He didn't think paying $7 was an issue. GEORGE MOERLEIN, Anchorage resident and former Director of the Alaska Bow Hunters Association, said HB 232 has no redeeming features for either the state or the bow hunting community. He said it is totally unfair to bow hunters. Number 512 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said bow hunters do have more opportunities to hunt than rifle hunters. DAVE KELLEYHOUSE, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, said the costs of administering the program would be proportional to how many tags were sold. The primary cost would be $1 per tag sold to the vendor. The other is 5% of the tag and the remainder would go into the Fish and Game fund. All vendor payments now are being paid with Fish and Game funds. He thought the program would be revenue positive. SENATOR MILLER asked what if the legislation was amended to just address bow hunting in those areas where there is only bow hunting. MR. KELLEYHOUSE explained that most of the exclusive bow hunting areas are around the urban areas. He thought that most of the bow hunters would take advantage of the special seasons so they didn't have to compete with the rifle hunters at the same time. It would still be revenue positive because the cost of administering the program would be proportional to the number of licenses sold. There would be a month of a clerk typist at the most. The rest of the costs are directly proportional to the number of tags sold. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE explained an amendment to page 2, line 7 would add "in a special bow hunting area or seasons" after "a person may not engage in bow hunting". SENATOR LEMAN moved that language as an amendment. SENATOR ZHAROFF asked if it was necessary to put in "or season" if you're going to have a special bow hunting area? REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied that he had hoped to have special bow hunting seasons in the future. For example on the Kenai Peninsula when they had a prerifle season that was for archery. TAPE 94-14, SIDE B Number 588 SENATOR MILLER asked if there were objections to the amendment. There was some discussion and he announced they would send the bill to the drafters and get it back as a CS and schedule it for action on Monday.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|