Legislature(2023 - 2024)BARNES 124
03/13/2023 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 | |
| HJR10 | |
| HB49 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 49 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HJR 10-NAT'L PARK SERVICE; HUNTING IN PRESERVES
1:02:57 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 10, Disapproving the proposed rule by
the National Park Service limiting non-subsistence hunting
methods; and urging the National Park Service to withdraw the
rule.
1:03:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CRONK, Alaska State Legislature, presented
HJR 10, as the prime sponsor. He read from the sponsor
statement [included in the committee packet], which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
This resolution is a companion to SJR 8 and lays out
a history of Alaska's right to manage fish and
wildlife.
It further lays out the most recent federal erosion of
those rights.
Finally, HJR 10 expresses strenuous objection to the
National Park Service incursion into Alaska's
management prohibiting long-standing hunting practices
allowed under state law.
No matter how opinions may differ on management
practices, there should be no disagreement about our
state's right to manage fish and wildlife.
I would ask for your support for HJR 10.
1:04:19 PM
DAVE STANCLIFF, Staff, Representative Mike Cronk, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Cronk, prime sponsor,
stated that HJR 10 objected to [the National Park Service's
proposed rule, "Alaska; Hunting and Trapping in National
Preserves"], as explained in a letter dated 2/28/34, which was
signed by Alaska's congressional delegation. The objection was
based on the proposed rule being written without consultation
with the State of Alaska or affected stakeholders, and because
it would effectively reimpose a 2015 rule that prohibited
harvest methods allowed under Alaska state law without any
supporting scientific data. Furthermore, the rule disregards
the importance of traditional hunting practices of Alaska
Natives residing in non-rural areas and ignores recent
congressional actions to overturn a substantively similar rule
barring specific hunting techniques promulgated by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS). He summarized the issue as a
"simple case" of either allowing the ruling or strenuously
objecting to it by trying to assert what was guaranteed under
statehood and upheld by the courts regarding the ability to
manage fish and wildlife on lands in Alaska.
CHAIR MCKAY sought questions from members of the committee.
1:06:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked about ongoing litigation in regard
to the National Park Service's proposed rule.
MR. STANCLIFF shared his understanding that there was pressure
on the decision, which offered a timelier way to voice an
objection.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE commented on the recognition of the
state's natural resources in the Alaska State Constitution. He
opined that the [proposed rule] was a clear violation of the
state constitution, which gave Alaska the right to manage its
own resources. Furthermore, he argued that the proposed rule
was in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT asked whether there was a time limit to
respond to [the National Park Service].
MR. STANCLIFF said he had not seen a hard time limit. He
remarked, "As in all things political, when the door opens a
little wider, the input that you give here in Alaska has a
little bit more chance to permeate the political atmosphere."
1:08:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK urged members to act on the offensive and
pass the legislation out of committee without hesitation.
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT agreed with Representative Cronk that
urgency was key.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER conveyed that there were too many
instances of the federal government breaking promises and trying
assert its power. He said it was essential to push back
vigorously and clearly and applauded the sponsor for bringing
the resolution forward.
REPRESENTATIVE PATKOTAK urged members to find a correlation
between "something like this" and actions related to statehood
defense in the Finance Committee.
1:10:34 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:11:32 PM
CHAIR MCKAY explained that it was the will of the members to
move HJR 10 out of committee today. He noted that there would
be an opportunity for public testimony on this resolution in the
other body.
1:13:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK mentioned that the NPS had extended the
comment period to March 27, [2023].
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER thanked the committee for recognizing
the necessary expediency.
1:14:15 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:14:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER moved to report HJR 10 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HJR 10 was reported out of the
House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 49 DOF Forest Management Presentation.pdf |
HRES 3/8/2023 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 49 |
| HJR 10 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 NPS Proposed Rule.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Alaska Congressional Delegation Memo.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Alaska Delegation Letter.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 HRES Public Testimony through 3.13.23_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 10 |