Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/14/2008 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB307 | |
| HB348 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 348 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 307 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 311 | TELECONFERENCED | |
3:00:25 PM HOUSE BILL NO. 348 An Act relating to the adoption of regulations by the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game. Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT work draft 25-LS1328\F, Kane, 3/12/08 as the version of the bill before the Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, SPONSOR, introduced the bill as a needed clarification to make regulations to allocate game as an asset. The bill codifies the terms. He argued that human beings are capable of sustainable relationship with the natural world including game. He noted that he does not support the California legislation that implies that Alaskans are incapable of competent game management. HB 348 would strengthen statute by incorporating the Constitutional language and reflects Alaskan's values. He noted that the Board by regulation, establishes the methods and means of bag limits related to game. He added that HB 348 was accompanied by HJR 31, which is currently in the House Rules Committee. 3:04:30 PM Representative Gara asked if incorporating "asset" in the language of the bill would prevent future initiatives. Representative Keller hoped the bill would address the following areas of importance: · Provide a level of confidence to the Board of Game, by clarifying that game is an asset worthy of allocation · Make for less lawsuits · Provide a statement to non-residents that there will be management of Alaskan game & predators · Maintains legislative control Representative Keller added no part of the bill directly addresses the initiative process. It clarifies only the language that already exists that game is an item to be allocated. Representative Gara questioned if the statement made is that game is an allocated asset, would it then be removed from the initiative process. Representative Keller responded, it is already out of the initiative process. 3:07:29 PM Representative Gara discussed the emotional issues of allocation & management of subsistence and wolf control. If the Courts had interpreted that game was an allocated asset & the Courts already agreed, would that keep the Courts from allowing those issues on the initiative ballot. Representative Keller referred to the Court battles related to the allocation of fish. The bill attempts to clarify such concerns for the Board of Game. Representative Gara did not understand all the correspondence he had received regarding how the bill affects the initiative process. Representative Keller clarified that the allocation of game does not change the initiative process. It clarifies that the allocation fees are not part of that process. The management of fish and game places the responsibility on the Legislature. Representative Gara queried if State law indicates that the allocation of game is an asset and made clear in Statute for the Courts, the category then can not be subjected to the initiative process. Representative Keller understood that could clarify it and is a policy statement for the Legislature to make. Representative Gara noted that once the policy statement is made, then the subject can no longer go on the initiative ballot. Representative Keller replied that would be determined by the State attorneys. He imagined it would improve the current situation. Representative Gara noted that in order to allocate by initiative, the subsistence preference issue or the same-day airborne wolf control concern would be covered through HB 348. Representative Keller replied that the Board of Game does make those regulations. Representative Gara inquired if the bill is passed, would the State surrender their ability to have a subsistence preference or same day airborne wolf killing in place. Representative Keller responded that the bill does not address preference, leaving that to the Board of Game. He hoped the choices would be less likely through the bill's passage. 3:12:03 PM Vice-Chair Stoltze interjected that the subsistence issue has been a Constitutional amendment that has not been available for the initiative process since the late 1980's. Representative Hawker reviewed testimony from the previous committee hearings. The Alaska Supreme Court has already ruled that fish are an asset. Representative Keller agreed. Representative Hawker referenced previous testimony from an Attorney General relating to game, on the precedence of a fish case, an attempt to allocate game through the initiative process would likely is held to the same consideration and that, game would be held as an asset. Representative Keller shared that understanding. Representative Hawker thought that there was reasonable inference that game is an asset and that he did not see anything in either the Constitution or the bill that would impede the initiative process. The controversy is the use of "allocation" of assets. KEVIN SAXBY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW (Testified via teleconference), offered to answer questions of the Committee. He agreed that game is an asset and established in the precedence and that the real question is, in the future, would it be considered an appropriation of the asset or characterized in some other manner. Representative Hawker questioned if a prohibition would be an appropriation or allocation and if an absolute prohibition on a certain activity would be a question of an appropriation. Mr. Saxby responded that sometimes it would depend on what the initiative is. Representative Hawker was satisfied with that clarification. 3:17:01 PM Representative Gara asked if the ban on initiatives is that an initiative can not be submitted, creating a ban on appropriations. If game is an asset, apportioning it as an appropriation of an asset, the Courts would then prohibit it from moving through the initiative process. Mr. Saxby advised that there would continue to be a question in the future depending on the wording of a given initiative as to whether or not it is an appropriation. Representative Gara commented that if by adding the language in the bill, "appropriations" would it make it more likely that the decision would not be allowed in the initiative process. Mr. Saxby thought it would make it more likely "sometimes". Essentially, the language in the work draft codifies two separate fish cases. Representative Gara asked if there was a determination regarding a rational definition of subsistence preference relying on the resource. Mr. Saxby thought the bill did not change current law, but rather, is a statement by the Legislature that it agrees with what the Supreme Court has already stated. Representative Gara countered that Mr. Saxby's perspective was because the prior Supreme Court precedence. Mr. Saxby argued that it was stated in two separate cases and that the Legislature would be combining it. Representative Gara asked if the same-day airborne wolf killing would be affected by the proposed legislation. Mr. Saxby responded that would depend on the way the initiative was worded, but could very well be. 3:20:22 PM NICK JANS, ALASKANS FOR WILDLIFE, JUNEAU, noted that he has lived 28 years in Alaska in the Native subsistence-oriented villages. He stated that he has worked for a big game guide as a packer. He offered to provide members of the Committee with copies of his testimony, as well as supporting documents. He pointed out that HB 348 appears to be an innocuous bill, which changes a word or two, redefining Alaska's wildlife as an asset. The Department of Law has argued that it and the companion bill, SB 176, simply clarify existing statutes governing wildlife management. However, the intent of HB 348 is far ranging. The legal analysis exposes stealth legislation, designed to subvert the right of the Alaskan people to sponsor ballot initiatives and vote on the issue of predator control, as well as on future wildlife management issues at the behest of special interest groups, notably the Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), which the Governor is a member. Once wildlife becomes an asset, only the State legislature holds the power to determine the allocation. He maintained that the intent of the bill is to silence the collective voice of Alaska's voters on the issue of aerial predator control. Mr. Jans encouraged legislators to check the voting records from the past two aerial predator control ballot initiatives. In 1996, each district voted down aerial predator control; however, the practice was reinstated by the Legislature. In 2000, 8 of the 12 districts represented again voted against shooting wolves from aircraft and statewide, 29 of the 40 districts did the same. Now, 56,000 Alaskans are again asking that the Legislature does not silence the voice of the people. Thousands of rural Alaskans have voted against it. All Native bush communities voted against the practice. To say that those people do not understand the nature of subsistence or wolves is an insult to the Native traditions and culture. 3:25:39 PM Mr. Jans continued, aerial predator control is not a matter of science, but a matter of policy, directed by political appointees. It is the right of Alaska's people to decide how the management tools will be wielded. Alaska's citizens have a constitutional right to vote on matters of wildlife management policy, and to raise a ballot initiative when the collective will is ignored by those sworn to represent citizens. Mr. Jans concluded that the issue of aerial wolf and bear shooting pales in comparison to the real issue at stake, the democratic process. He urged members to protect and nurture the democratic process but striking down HB 348. 3:27:00 PM Representative Gara agreed with testimony provided by Mr. Jans on the ariel wolf hunting issue. He admitted that there have been powerful arguments on the other side of the issue, an issue which is quite divisive. Mr. Jans clarified that the attempt of the group he represents is to place the management of wildlife into the Department of Fish and Game for management and make decisions and providing the resources to do so. Mr. Jans pointed out that none of the specific predator control programs have passed peer review because they do not have enough funding to do so. He maintained that wolves are only one limiting factor in the eco-system. He pointed out, he supports predator control. He emphasized that science should govern these issues, not political appointees. The group Friends of Animals is a polarizing group and full of extreme views and does not accept their input. The Alaskans for Wildlife want a Board of Game that represents sensible use of wildlife for all Alaskans, not just the 15% representing special interest groups. He maintained that predator control should be implemented on area needs basis. 3:32:59 PM Representative Nelson agreed that science should govern, not political appointees or the ballot box. She asked Mr. Jans if he was familiar with some of the voting rights act infringements that Native Alaskans have been facing. She pointed out that initiative language is not always plain- spoken English. In Western Alaska, 11% of the population does not speak English at all. She worried about ballot language and how many people can understand the concepts. Mr. Jans could not speculate on that, however, he found the elders to be quite astute, agreeing that Alaska Natives are often cut out of the process. 3:36:06 PM Representative Nelson noted the vulnerability of the people in her districts that do not speak English as their first language and how difficult the initiative process can be for them. There is a lot of outside money & advertising put into Alaska during the initiative process. Mr. Jans agreed. 3:40:11 PM Vice-Chair Stoltze interrupted Mr. Jans, pointing out the number of other testifiers on line. 3:40:31 PM WADE WILLIS, BIOLOGIST, ECO-TOURISM BUSINESS, ANCHORAGE (Testified via teleconference), mentioned a previous conversation he had with Mr. Pound, Staff to Representative Keller, who has clearly stated that HB 348 intends to remove "ballot-box biology", once and for all. Mr. Willis spoke against the bill. Mr. Willis commented that changing the wording from resources to assets to be allocated, ties into the intensive game management laws. A previous chairman of the Board of Game, Mike Fleger, stated that the intent of that was to reallocate, harvestable, surpluses of game from predators to humans. Mr. Willis observed that the proposed wording would remove people from the initiative process. He added that it will strengthen management to reallocate from predators. The bill does not reflect Alaskans intent and that in nearly every district in the State, 72% voted to keep the initiative process in the management of the State's wildlife. In 2004, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game testified to the Board of Game that they did not have the size to justify predator control. Mr. Willis directed testimony to Representative Nelson indicating that the Native community very much knows what they are voting on and for. He added that HB 348 removes the public's ability to use the initiative process. The bill removes the tourism industry away from the process. He maintained that any back-door legislation attempting to remove a population base from the process of predator control is wrong. He urged that the Committee should not support the legislation. 3:46:24 PM SCOTT OGAN, PRESIDENT, SPORTSMAN FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE, ANCHORAGE (Testified via teleconference), noted opposition for a rural priority. He wanted to see the resources managed for abundance, which he hoped would mitigate the allocation conflicts amongst Alaskans. He maintained that HB 348 provides the opportunity to bridge the rural/urban divide. Mr. Ogan testified that over twenty well funded groups, listed in the Anchorage phone book, are attempting to "save the State from itself". He asked if the Alaska Supreme Court subverted or corrupted the Constitution with the ruling Polin versus Ulmer. He thought that the bill would codify that ruling. Mr. Ogan pointed out that the bill would not change the initiative process, but rather codifies the Alaska Supreme Court language. He maintained that the bill would elevate wildlife as an asset and urged support. 3:50:14 PM THOMAS SCARBOROUGH, FAIRBANKS (Testified via teleconference), echoed sentiments expressed by Mr. Ogan and urged that the bill be passed quickly from Committee. 3:51:17 PM WAYNE HEIMER, FAIRBANKS (Testified via teleconference), indicated his support for passage of HB 348. He pointed out that the Alaska Constitution allows initiatives and referendums through Article 11; however, Section 7, lists specific things that can not be done through that process. He pointed out that special legislation can not be addressed through the initiative process. He worried about the political struggles while attempting to manage Alaska's wildlife. He maintained that initiatives were always driven by personal & emotional perceptions of what is honorable or fair & whether an initiative passes or fails, always depends on which side has the most money. Mr. Heimer thought that the legislation could be clearer by identifying the means for harvest. He added that some of the functions authorized by the Board of Game have been previously authorized through the commissioner of the Department and that should be addressed. He cautioned that voting for the bill would take courage because the initiative industry will be actively involved. He urged passage of the bill. 3:54:35 PM JOHN TOPPENBERG, DIRECTOR, ALASKA WILDLIFE ALLIANCE, SOLDOTNA (Testified via teleconference), aligned his testimony with the comments made by Mr. Jans. He assumed that HB 348 is an attempt to "kill" the initiative process and silence Alaskans on the issue of predator control. It is not about biology but rather about eliminating another point of view. Alaska has a well established history of supporting science and the formulation of regulation. The initiative process exists to provide a check on legislative power. Alaskans are entitled to that check. The reality is that Alaska wildlife is a public resource and the public has a role to play in establishing the policy. He urged that the bill be opposed by all legislators. 3:56:53 PM GERALD BROOKMAN, KENAI (Testified via teleconference), indicated his opposition to HB 348. He referenced the used of "assets" in the bill. He pointed out that Representative Keller was evasive in his response to the use of that language and he [Mr. Brookman] questioned the true intent of the sponsor. He urged that the Committee vote against HB 348. 3:58:21 PM PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED 3:58:55 PM HB 348 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|