Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/16/2000 03:00 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 56
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska prohibiting certain initiatives relating to
wildlife.
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MORGAN introduced HJR 56. He explained
that the legislation would remove wildlife management from
the ballot initiative process in Alaska. The framers of our
constitution restricted the ballot initiative process in
Article XI, Section 7, of the Alaska Constitution. Section
7 exempts certain subjects from the ballot and referendum
process. He stated that wildlife management is an
appropriate subject for exemption.
Representative Morgan commented that Alaskans best manage
wildlife interests in Alaska. Removing wildlife from the
ballot and referendum process will ensure that wildlife
decisions are made in Alaska based on sound science, prudent
management, and in an open and fair process.
Representative Morgan continued, Alaska is not alone in the
fight. In 1998, the citizens of Utah and Minnesota passed
constitutional amendments to protect wildlife management and
hunting in their states. Presently, there are
constitutional amendments to protect wildlife management and
traditional wildlife uses working their way through the
state legislatures of Arizona, Idaho and North Dakota.
He concluded that HJR 56 would amount to an amendment of the
Constitution, not a revision, and would be within the power
of the Legislature.
Co-Chair Therriault encouraged Committee members to notice
the letters of support included in member's packets.
[Copies on File].
Representative Austerman asked if the legislation covered
all wildlife. Representative Morgan replied that it covered
all wildlife but not fish.
Representative J. Davies questioned the scope of the
initiative. Representative Morgan did not know.
Representative J. Davies asked how a wild life issue could
differ from any other issue. Representative Morgan spoke to
the sustained yield principal. He noted that the initiative
would be wild life taking care of wild life. Representative
J. Davies asked why this issue was different from other
issues, not "applying that logic to those other issues".
Representative Morgan replied that the Advisory Board
meetings are opened and all scientific facts are put on the
table. He emphasized what an important issue "wildlife" is
to the Alaska Native people.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 70, Side 2).
Vice Chair Bunde asked why the legislation did not include
fish. Representative Morgan responded that fish have a
large cash economy and that he did not want to address that
in this legislation. He indicated that the Board of Fish
currently is doing a good job. Vice Chair Bunde countered
that the legislation would not pass with the inclusion of
fish. Co-Chair Therriault interjected that was not
Representative Morgan's "battle".
CARL JACK, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), RURAL CAP,
ANCHORAGE, spoke to the benefit that the legislation would
have on the clients that he serves through Rural Cap. The
conditions in rural Alaska has high unemployment and high
costs compared to the urban areas. Those people depend on
wildlife to meet their needs. At this time, given the
current policies regarding the initiative process, people
such as animals rights group, determine ballot initiatives.
He believed that those people dictate policy in wildlife
management and make criminals out of those that are trying
to meet their survival needs. Such considerations are not
based on sound scientific principles.
Mr. Jack concluded that HJR 56 would protect the integrity
of approaching sound management functions which have been
used by the Board of Game and the Board of Fish in wildlife
management to carry out the sustained use principle embodied
in the Alaska State Constitution.
Vice Chair Bunde pointed out that previous testimony
indicated that the largest percentage of food used for the
rural area is fish. Mr. Jack acknowledged that 60% of the
subsistence resource is fish. However, people in rural
Alaska also depend on wild game.
Representative Phillips inquired, during the work
initiative, if there had been many people in Mr. Jack's
district who attempted to get signatures. Mr. Jack replied
that most of the signatures on ballot Initiative #9 were
gathered in the urban areas. He stated that the manner in
which the initiative was explained was misleading.
PETE BUIST, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), CO-CHAIR OF THE
COALITION FOR THE ALASKA WAY OF LIFE, FAIRBANKS, spoke in
support of the legislation. He stated that he had spent a
lot of time over the past few years working to get hunters
and trappers to come together on the important issue that is
common to both urban and rural hunters and trappers. He
emphasized that this concern is an "immediate threat".
In 1996, Mr. Buist stated that "We lost same day airborne"
because they were unprepared. In 1998, the wolf snare
initiative was won but that battle was expensive. He noted
that it is not fair to ask Alaska's hunters and trappers to
keep coming up with that amount of money every two years to
fight big outside interest groups.
Vice Chair Bunde interjected that politics and emotions
should be removed from wildlife management. Mr. Buist
commented that after going through the last fight, he
anticipates what to expect and that it probably will be a
"nasty" campaign. It will hopefully place wildlife
management on the same bases as science.
MATT ROBUS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, spoke in opposition to HJR 56.
He noted that HJR 56 proposes to amend the Alaska
Constitution by prohibiting its citizens from enacting laws
dealing with the harvest and management of wildlife through
the initiative process.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game does not support the
proposal because it would remove a way for the public to
contribute to making the policy required to compliment the
Department's wildlife management expertise.
Mr. Robus noted that wildlife management has been described
as a mixture of art and science, and to be successful must
be composed of several distinct components. Scientific
research and management techniques, leavened by judgement
gained from many years of observation and experience, are
employed to achieve the goals and objectives desired by the
Alaskan people for the conservation and utilization of their
wildlife resources. However, there are often multiple
management options, each of which is biologically
sustainable. Making the choices between these alternatives
is not a scientific exercise, but one of public policy. The
initiative process is one avenue for policy to be
promulgated through the direct participation of voters.
Mr. Robus agreed that it is true that wildlife initiatives
can result in problematic policies. Wildlife management
does involve scientific and special expertise, but so do
many other complex governmental functions. It is unclear why
that wildlife issues should be singled out as being too
complex for the public to understand.
He commented that it is worth remembering that a law enacted
by initiative can be amended by the legislature to correct
errors, or to reverse unintended consequences that are
harmful to the resource or the public. After 2 years, such a
law can be repealed entirely if the legislature believes
that it is an inappropriate public policy. These checks and
balances to the initiative process minimize the risk that an
initiative will cause any lasting harm to Alaska's wildlife.
Mr. Robus concluded, by removing wildlife management issues
from the reach of the initiative process will lead to more
conflict. Without the opportunity to directly express views
about wildlife, the public's frustration will mount and will
make the job of wildlife management increasingly difficult.
Representative Williams asked about the reference to
"uninformed voters". Mr. Robus agreed that there have been
times when the process has been manipulated so that voters
have not voted on the real issue. People are often not
provided the full information on the issue. Representative
Williams asked the testifier if biological science was
considered "not good" for managing wildlife. Mr. Robus
replied that one of the problems in managing wildlife is
that there can be several different outcomes in what could
be sustainable, which is not always based on science but
rather is sometimes based on a policy call.
Representative Williams commented that he did not understand
the testimony. He understood Mr. Robus to say that "science
is not good". Mr. Robus replied that the State does depend
on science and is proud of what has been developed. He
emphasized that there are always choices that must be made
at a certain point. You use the science to determine what
the results of those choices will be and then make policy
choices as to what is best suited for Alaska's people.
Representative Williams asked if the Department believed
that the wolf initiative was good. Mr. Robus replied that
the information presented to the public had been skewed and
caused misunderstanding amongst the voters.
Representative Phillips asked if the Department had taken an
active stand against the wolf initiative. She requested
that information be provided to the Committee as she
believed that those remarks should be made public.
Vice Chair Bunde spoke to the philosophical dilemma
regarding the initiative process. He noted that Anchorage
"Can be the tail that wags the dog of Alaska", which could
be unfair to rural Alaska. Mr. Robus explained that having
impartial information before the voters is important. If
unclear information is provided, that will significantly
impact an important decision. He noted that the public will
be asked to make the decision.
Representative Foster asked what right do the urban area
residents have to determine what will happen in the rural
areas of the State.
Representative Austerman requested clarification regarding
the Department's position. Mr. Robus testified that the
Department should be the responsible party to make policy
decisions regarding the animal populations so that they stay
stable and sustainable. Mr. Robus stated that the
Department is in support of the initiative process, but that
does not mean that they will support an initiative that is
bad wildlife management. Representative Phillips requested
clarification on that statement. Mr. Robus reiterated that
the Department will not support "bad" wildlife management.
Representative Phillips stated that the Department did not
take a stand on the wolf initiative.
SUSAN SCHRADER, ALASKA CONSERVATION VOTERS (ACV), JUNEAU,
stated that the Alaska Conservation Voters is a not-for-
profit organization dedicated to protecting Alaska's
environment through public education and advocacy. The forty
Alaskan organizations and business members represent over
22,000 registered Alaskan voters. ACV has consistently
opposed efforts by the Legislature to limit Alaskan's
constitutional right to participate directly in the law-
making process through the initiative process. HJR 56 is
another attack on that right.
Ms. Schrader stated that ACV is opposed to HJR 56 for the
following reasons:
? While this proposed amendment to the constitution
appears to be limited to initiatives dealing with
wildlife, on a more fundamental level, it represents
erosion of public access to government. We can debate
the "ballot box biology" issue endlessly, but when one
group of Alaskans are denied an opportunity to address
an issue they strongly believe in by the initiative
process, the freedom of all Alaskans to express their
will through direct democracy is threatened. Public
policy issues addressed by the initiative process
receive far more discussion and debate than many of the
hundreds of bills passed by the legislature every year.
The process is out in the open as contrasted to the
often clandestine route bills can take to become law.
? Supporters of the resolution endorse placing the
scientific process of wildlife management back into the
hands of the Department of Fish and Game and the Board
of Game. Yet Department of Fish and Game takes
direction from the legislature and the legislature,
through its confirmation process, essentially chooses
the members of the Board of Game. Thus, the initiative
process is an important check on the power of the
legislature. Alaskans are being asked to relinquish
their right to vote on wildlife management issues on
the grounds that we are not competent enough to do so.
Instead, we are being told to trust the decisions
resulting from a unbalanced process that currently
promotes the principles of intensive game management
and the values of consumptive users to the near-
exclusion of other users.
? Our Constitution's sustained yield and multiple use
provisions have served all Alaskans and our wildlife
very well. It protects the interests of all beneficial
users. Those same framers of our constitution who were
wise enough to put Article VIII into it, also included
the initiative process. They had faith in the ability
of Alaskans to make informed decisions when voting, a
faith that evidently is not shared by this Legislature.
As the passage of SB 74 last year exemplifies, the
Legislature has the power to amend or completely negate
a citizen-passed initiative after two years. Thus, it
is within the legislature's power to correct any
legitimate problems that might result from the
initiative process. Clearly, the Alaska Constitution
will not benefit from such tinkering nor will the
wildlife of Alaska be "safer" if the initiative process
is taken away from the citizens of Alaska.
Representative Phillips referenced the comment that the many
citizens have lost faith in the Department of Fish and Game.
She asked what ACV would have done if the Department had
supported the wolf initiative. Ms. Schrader replied that
the group has lost faith in the entire system. She noted
that a polling process has indicated that most voters do
respect the biologists at the Department. They look to the
Department for guidance on such issues.
Representative Phillips inquired if the Board of Game had
come out with a well-balanced response, what would ACV done
with that information. Ms. Schrader replied that she could
only speak for herself and that if she had convincing
evidence, it would have made her think very carefully about
the issue.
Representative Phillips stated that if the wisdom of
Department of Fish and Game and the "elected officials was
not good enough", she asked, who would be good enough to
make these policy decisions. Ms. Schrader responded that
the line between science and public policy was being
"blurred". The issue of intense game management is not
purely science. It is public policy. Clearly, many
Alaskan's believe that the Legislature is not the best body
to provide public policy.
Representative Phillips asked if, during the initiative
process, had ACV met with the Board of Fish and Game. Ms.
Schrader explained that ACV was not in existence at that
time.
In response to Representative Bunde, Ms. Schrader commented
that democratic process can get "dirty" sometimes. Ms.
Schrader and Committee members discussed the term non-
consumptive users.
Representative Morgan interjected that the initiative
process will give the people the constitutional right to
vote. It will allow Alaskans the right to decide how to
manage their resources. Ms. Schrader replied that depending
on the outcome of the vote, it could be the last time the
voters had the right to vote on wildlife issues. Ms.
Schrader stated if the resolution passes the Legislature and
the proposition goes on the ballot, the majority of Alaskans
would choose to give up their right on wildlife issues and
"that would be it".
Representative Foster questioned if there could be a more
important issue to rural Alaskan than to be able to support
their family through consumptive use. Ms. Schrader agreed
that there is nothing as important as putting food on the
table.
(TAPE CHANGE HFC 00 - 71, Side 1).
Ms. Schrader added that the issue is more complicated than
that, and it includes recreational hunting.
Representative Austerman voiced frustrations on the non-
consumptive vocabulary. He pointed out that most people in
the State are conservative. He admitted that the issue of
whether the Alaskan people should have the right to vote
warrants consideration.
Vice Chair Bunde and Representative J. Davies discussed the
concept of non-consumptive use versus consumptive use.
There are complexities on both sides of the issues.
JOEL BENNETT, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, JUNEAU, explained that
he is an active hunter and has traveled extensively in the
Bush for work and recreation. Additionally, he has served
on the Board of Fish and Game.
He commented that the HJR 56 is "spiteful" and that it is a
"special interest" piece of legislation being promoted by
one particular interest in the State. Mr. Bennett
emphasized that there are supporters that consistently try
to dismantle the legislation that the voters passed. The
public recognizes the proposed bill for what it is. The
bill singles out wildlife. The public has a fundamental
right to the democratic process. Mr. Bennett stated that it
is a misguided effort to single out a certain area.
Mr. Bennett provided a brief overview of the 1996
Initiative. He noted that he was actively engaged in that
issue. That effort was not an out of State effort. He
noted that the steering committee consisted of former
Governor Hammond and the Commissioner of Department of Fish
and Game. It was an in State effort consisting of many
Alaskans.
Mr. Bennett applauded the effort made by Representative
Williams last year, to address the initiative process and
make it better. He emphasized that to eliminate the
fundamental right to do this would be wrong. The 1996
initiative did not seek to ruin the Bush and that it passed
overwhelming in the Bush. It was not a broad based effort
with board based support.
Mr. Bennett argued that he was responsible for the media in
the 1996 election process and that the public was not
"tricked". The public was clear about what they were voting
on. Some will always say that the media is distorted and
misrepresenting. He commented that the American pubic is
sophisticated in terms of media.
In conclusions, Mr. Bennett stated that the public process
is in grave danger by having the right to participate taken
away. Unless there is broad public support for major
wildlife issues, they will never be able to implement them.
Unless the process becomes more inclusive and
representative, the victories will not be long-term. He
encouraged members of the Legislature to try to improve the
process of the Board of Game so that more citizens can
participate and believe that their opinions can be heard.
Representative Phillips asked if the Department of Fish and
Game had come out with sound, biological, scientific
information as to why they opposed the initiative, what
would Mr. Bennett's group have done. Mr. Bennett replied
that these decisions are more than biology. The proper rule
of the board is to factor in public opinion. He emphasized
that everything is not based on biology alone.
Co-Chair Therriault requested to look at the TV commercial
created for the 1996 vote. He pointed out the accompanying
fiscal note.
Representative Foster MOVED to report HJR 57 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. Representative J. Davies
OBJECTED.
Representative Austerman objected for the purpose of
discussion, clarifying his philosophy on the initiative
issue, stating that it is good and that it should be
available. He reiterated that the public does have a right
to participate. He noted that Representative Williams does
have a piece of legislation which will address the
initiative process. He did not believe that this is an
issue of urban versus rural.
Representative J. Davies reiterated comments made by
Representative Austerman in support of Representative
Williams proposed legislation. He commented that that the
State is on "dangerous, slippery ground" when political
dialogue becomes separate from the public process. He
provided an example of where biology and public policy is
involved, asking if we should teach evolution in the public
schools. He stressed that there is a distinction between
science and public policy.
The Board of Game hears the scientific concerns and then
makes the choice. From a biological point of view, it does
not make a difference, but from a public point of view, it
does. He questioned where the process would stop.
Silencing the peoples vote is dangerous. Representative J.
Davies stated that the right approach would be to allow
discussion which "generally averages out in the middle".
Vice Chair Bunde commented that this is an interesting
challenge between the democratic process and wisdom and
concern. He asked why fish were being left out of the vote.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Foster, Moses, Phillips, Williams, Austerman,
Bunde, Therriault
OPPOSED: J. Davies
Representative Grussendorf, Representative G. Davis and Co-
Chair Mulder were not present for the voter.
The MOTION PASSED (7-1).
HJR 56 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a fiscal note by the Office of the
Lt. Governor dated 3/3/00.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|