Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
04/04/2016 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 | |
| HB266 | |
| SB32 | |
| HB112 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 112 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 266 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 266-BOARD OF GAME REGULATION PROPOSALS
1:07:31 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO announced that the first order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 266, "An Act relating to the authority of the
Board of Game to adopt, amend, or repeal certain regulations."
[Before the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS)
for HB 266, Version 29-LS1205\N, Bullard, 3/31/16, adopted as
the working document on 4/1/16.]
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS), Version 29-LS1205\P, Bullard, 4/4/16, as the working
document. There being no objection, Version P was before the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, as the
sponsor of HB 266, introduced Version P and explained the two
changes that Version P makes to Version N. She said the first
change to Version N is on page 3, lines 17-19, which state:
"(ii) the subject matter of the proposal would not be before the
board for one calendar year but for the board member's proposal;
and". Version P changes this language to read: "(ii) the
subject matter of the proposal would not be before the board
during the current period in which the board is considering
proposals solicited under (c) of this section, but for the board
member's proposal; and". She noted the second change is that
Version P adds subsection (m) [to Section 3]. However, she
pointed out, (m) is not right as written and there may be an
amendment through the committee to get it right.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO stated he has a conceptual amendment that he
plans to offer that would correct (m).
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON explained subsection (m) makes it so the
Board of Game can amend a proposal, but only amend to clarify.
1:09:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON drew attention to Version P, page 3, lines
6-7, which state "at least 60 days' notice before the board
considers the proposal." He asked whether that 60 days would be
at all restrictive on the board's ability to do its work.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON replied that the reason for the 60 days is
because there must be enough time for [a proposal] to go back to
the advisory councils and the councils must put it out for
public comment before the councils have their agenda. This
provision would ensure that the councils are not forced into
having special meetings to be able to hear these proposals.
1:10:45 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 which
would delete the language on page 3, lines 27-29, under
subsection (m) and insert the following language:
Nothing in this section restricts the board's ability
to amend language to clarify proposals noticed in the
same manner as provided under (c) of this section.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO explained Conceptual Amendment 1 would clarify
that the board would have the ability to improve or amend a
proposal live at its meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected to the conceptual amendment for
discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO reiterated that the conceptual amendment would
clarify for the public and the board that the board would have
the ability to work on proposals.
1:12:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON posed a scenario in which five proposals
come to the board with varying time and varying numbers. He
surmised that as Co-Chair Talerico is interpreting Conceptual
Amendment 1, the Board of Game could go anywhere between those
numbers and modify a proposal in that way such that it is a
balancing of several proposals that might have come in after
public testimony, similar to the way things are amended in a
legislative committee.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO believed that is the intent. Occasionally, he
said, proposals are received that are not mirror images of each
other but address the same topics and are very close to the
same. This would give the board the ability to address an issue
that is included in a multitude of proposals and massage that
into one workable proposal that is moved forward. The board
would not be "handcuffed" into voting a proposal up or down; it
would have the ability to amend some language or potentially
utilize one section of one proposal and insert it into another
in an amendment form.
1:14:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON, regarding subsection (m) as currently
written in Version P, noted that the focus is on amendments or
clarification made to changes offered by the board itself, which
is the putative cause of HB 266. The amendment does not talk
about the board's own proposals, it is about clarifying
proposals generally. He inquired as to how Co-Chair Talerico
perceives the difference there.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO replied he thinks it is any proposal brought
before the board, whether from a board member or the public.
Occasionally board proposals and public proposals cover the same
topics and can be very similar. He said he does not want to
limit it or categorize the proposals from particular user groups
or different regions, so he hopes the amendment will work with
all proposals.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON related that in a memo or email from
Matt Gruening it appears the deputy commissioner of the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) has worked with Mr. Gruening.
He surmised [ADF&G] wanted subsection (m) to be as written in
Version P to give the board some liberty to, at a board meeting,
make changes on its own initiative, which is a very contentious
thing for the board to do. He asked whether ADF&G would still
be satisfied if subsection (m) [is amended].
KEVIN BROOKS, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), offered his
appreciation to the sponsor for allowing the opportunity for
some interaction on the language of the bill to make it a
workable product for the board and get to the intent of the
sponsor. He explained that the intent of subsection (m) is to
recognize that a call for proposals is identified in Section 2,
which is why this subsection references AS 16.05.255(c). These
proposals have been properly noticed and lots of time provided
for folks to weigh in. Under subsection (m) the department is
trying to have the board members retain an ability to take all
of those properly noticed proposals and wordsmith them, combine
them, and make improvements, as is the board's custom and common
practice now; the understanding being that the sponsor is trying
to identify something that is new that no one has had any chance
to see from just getting dropped in and acted on. It
distinguishes all the other proposals that have been properly
noticed and allows the board to work on those and make
improvements as the board sees fit.
MR. BROOKS, in response to Representative Tarr, clarified that
he was referring to Version P, subsection (m) within Section 3.
1:19:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
1:19:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated he cares greatly about this
issue. He said he listened to the Board of Game hearing on
Proposal 19 that Representative Wilson brought forth and heard
most of that testimony, including advice offered by assistant
attorney general Cheryl Brooking on the question of moving from
30 days' notice to 60 or 65 days. He has talked about this with
a Board of Game member and a big game commercial guide and he
has read Mr. Ted Spraker's letter that was provided to the
committee today. His sense of the history of this is that there
was more than a lot of public opportunity and in this instance
there really was 60 days' notice in 2015. The testimony before
the Board of Game was that it was brought up in January, the
board took comments in January and February, this was an ongoing
issue raised repeatedly, the board bringing up proposals on its
own has not been abused, and it has had four in a year.
Chairman Spraker notes the board has done it this way for
decades. Something unique is that there was a sheep working
group to which just about everybody was invited and he is told
that a majority of the sheep working group wanted to do
something about aerial hunting. So, he sees this bill as a
contest over the efficacy of aerial hunting and the concern is
that aerial hunting is very effective.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON continued, stating that he is not a
champion of the Board of Game and is someone who scrutinizes the
board's work and he does not think it is a diverse body. There
is a dispute now about that very issue between guides and
whether there are too many guides and others. Mr. Spraker notes
that the people who were really hurt by Proposal 207 are non-
residents and their guides who fly more. Some people play by
one rule out of a sense of duty and other people play by other
rules. Representative Josephson posited that the Board of Game
acted properly and got it right. His sense is that the
committee is going to move the bill and he will not object, but
he will vote "do not pass". He added that there was testimony
about whether sheep populations are healthy and he is reminded
that in the western Brooks Range the populations are decidedly
not healthy. There is also concern about taking full-curl rams
and what that does to the genetics of the future population.
1:23:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that the adoption of Conceptual
Amendment 1 makes it clear that amendments can be taken and
proposals can be massaged by the board so that the board can
then function in its duties. Without that he could not support
moving the bill forward and therefore he is pleased the
amendment was unanimously adopted.
1:23:47 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK moved to report the proposed CS for HB 266,
Version 29-LS1205\P, Bullard, 4/4/16, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 266(RES) was
reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HCS CS SB 32 Ver N.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| CS SB 32 Support Letter.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| CS SB 32 Briefing Paper.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| CS SB 32 Letter of Support 1.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| CS SB 32 Letter of Support 2.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| CS SB 32 Letter of Support 3.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| CS SB 32 Letter of Support 4.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| CS SB 32 Letter of Support 5.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| CS SB 32 Letter of Support 6.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| CS SB 32 Letter of Support 7.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| CS SB 32 Resolution.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| CS SB 32 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB0032B(1).PDF |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB32CS Fiscal Note.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| HB 112 ver P (RES draft CS).pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 112 |
| HB 112 Sponsor Statement Ver P.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 112 |
| HB 112 Sectional P.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 112 |
| HB 112 Explanation of Changes W to P.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 112 |
| CSHB 266N 4-1-16.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 266 |
| CSHB 266 explanation of changes.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 266 |
| HB 266 Supporting Document - Letter of Support Resident Hunters of Alaska.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 266 |
| CSHB112 ver P 4.3.16 CFEC opposing letter.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 112 |
| SB 32 LOS Denali Log.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| HB 112 Oppose -UFA Hse Resources 040416.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 112 |
| HB 112 Support LB&A CFEC Audit.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 112 |
| CSSB 32-RDC Support.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| HB 266 Opposing Written Testimony.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 266 |