Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/07/2000 09:09 AM Senate 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.
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate
Finance Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MORGAN, sponsor of the bill, noted the
bill has wide bipartisan support.
Representative Morgan talked about the ballot initiative
process in Alaska and the wildlife-related initiatives
placed on the ballot in 1996 and 1998.
Representative Morgan stressed that the claims made in
support of the same-day airborne wolf hunting initiative
that was adopted in 1986 were untrue. He asserted that
these claims dealt with people's emotions and passions in
the use of video footage of wolves being killed by an
employee of the Department of Fish and Game. He stated that
in the footage showing a wolf being shot from a helicopter,
the wolf was actually being tranquilized and not killed.
Representative Morgan told of the efforts required to spot
wolves from an aircraft, find a place to land the aircraft
and then run over 100 yards to the place were the wolf was
last seen before a shot can be taken. He remarked on the
difficulty of running in the snow and then stopping to aim
and shoot. He asserted that fair chase is given to the
wolves in this case.
Representative Morgan stated that similar ballot initiative
legislation has been adopted in Minnesota, and was pending
in Arizona, Idaho and North Dakota.
Representative Morgan referred to the animal rights groups
efforts to eliminate funding from Ameri-Gas for Iditarod
musher, Randy Brooks. Representative Morgan admonished that
the groups never researched the positive works of Mr.
Brooks, which include the receipt of a humanitarian award
in 1998.
Representative Morgan addressed the argument that this
resolution is taking away the people's right to vote on
important matters. He asserted that by placing this
constitutional amendment on the ballot, all Alaskan's are
given the chance to decide how wildlife should be managed.
Representative Morgan countered the assertion that only 20
percent of Alaskans hunt and/or trap, saying that the
constitution is intended to protect the freedom of the
minority.
Representative Morgan relayed that tourists come to Alaska
to see the Native people and how they live, as well as to
see wildlife. He said it is important for visitors to see
Alaskan Natives thriving culturally, which includes a
dependence on wildlife.
Representative Morgan listed some of those who have written
letters in support of the resolution. [Copy of list and
letters on file.] One of these organizations is the Alaska
Wildlife Society, which he remarked is made up of 300
professional biologists working for the Department of Fish
and Game or the federal government.
Senator Phillips requested copies of the Utah and Minnesota
constitutional amendments regarding wildlife.
Representative Morgan supplied the Utah constitutional
amendment language. [Copy on file.]
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game, stated that the
department could not support the proposal because it fails
to recognize that there is more to the management of the
public's wildlife resources than the application of science
and technical expertise. He stressed that wildlife
management must also consider and respond to the values
held by the public about how they want their wildlife
managed.
Mr. Bruce pointed out that there are usually many options
for wildlife management that are all biologically
sustainable and therefore consistent with the sustained
yield principal. He stated that the principle of achieving
the maximum human harvest of big game as always the highest
and best use of big game is not a scientific matter, but a
public policy matter. Like many public policy issues, he
asserted, there are different views. He said the initiative
process is the most direct way the public sorts out its
views on public policy and taking the process away is not
something the department can support.
Mr. Bruce continued saying wildlife management does involve
scientific and special expertise, but so does the
administration of many other public functions, such as
education, public health and transportation planning. It
appeared to him and the department, to be no reason to
separate wildlife management as a subject too complex for
the public to make policy decisions through the initiative
process.
Mr. Bruce added that it is worth remembering that a law
enacted can be amended by the legislature immediately if
there is some error, or if it brings about an unanticipated
consequence that is injurious to the public or the wildlife
resource. After only two years, he continued, the
legislature may repeal the initiative entirely if the
legislature believes it is an inappropriate policy for the
state.
Mr. Bruce concluded that given these checks and balances to
the initiative process, there is little risk that a poor
initiative would cause any lasting harm to Alaska's
wildlife. On the other hand, he remarked that to remove
wildlife management issues from the reach of the initiative
process would lead to more conflict rather than less.
JAMES BERLIN JR, Resource Specialist, ABCP, Inc., testified
via teleconference from Bethel on behalf of 56 villages and
one-quarter of Alaska's tribes. He relayed the
corporation's support of the resolution. He spoke to the
fine balance required to manage resources, saying a ballot
initiate process could not achieve this. He told of his
forefathers' management of wildlife that was dictated by
the proper leaders and users of the resources.
Tape: SFC - 00 #79, Side B 9:56 AM
Mr. Berlin, Jr. continued stressing that the public input
in wildlife management is already considered through the
Board of Game process.
BEN HOPSON JR., Chair, Coalition to the Alaskan Way of
Life, testified via teleconference from Barrow in support
of the resolution. He described the organization as a
diverse coalition of many Native organizations, sportsmen,
trappers and hunters in both rural and urban Alaska. He
stressed that Outside interests are managing the state's
renewable resources through their money and by using
emotional influences. He contended that these animal rights
groups only want to see total elimination of hunting and
trapping in the United States, including Alaska.
RON ARNO, Guide, testified via teleconference from Mat-Su
that it is not in the best interest of Alaskans to use the
initiative process for fish and wildlife matters. He spoke
of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's, animal rights
and racism.
DICK BISHOP, Vice-President, Alaska Outdoor Council,
testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in strong
support of HJR 56. He asserted that contrary to popular
press reports, this resolution is not a matter of ignoring
the public's interest, but instead is responding to the
public's interest.
MIKE TINKER, Chair, Fairbanks Fish and Game Advisory
Committee testified via teleconference from Fairbanks about
the importance of this resolution to the advisory
committee.
MARY BISHOP testified via teleconference from Fairbanks
suggesting that while the adage "don't watch sausage or
legislation being made" was wise, watching laws made by 30-
second sound bites was more painful.
JOE MATTIE testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in
favor of the resolution saying that the legislature and the
Board of Game is the best voice for Alaskans.
GREG MACHACEK, Fairbanks Fish and Game Advisory Committee
testified via teleconference from Fairbanks to say that the
advisory committee is the best process for managing fish
and game. He suggested that the only parties who benefited
from ballot box biology were those who got paid for their
efforts in getting the initiative passed.
PETE BUIST, President, Alaskan Trappers Association,
testified via teleconference from Fairbanks that he did not
think it was fair that Alaskans had to spend their money
fighting heavily funded groups.
KNEELAND TAYLOR, Chair, Alaskan's Against Snaring Wolves,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage in opposition
to the resolution. He argued that Alaskans should put their
trust in democracy. He asserted that if this resolution
passes, it would be a "slap in the face" to the large
number of Alaskans who voted for the two previous
initiatives from 1996 and 1998. He noted that there was a
third ballot initiative relating to wildlife, which was on
the ballot in 1994 and pertained to sport fishing. He noted
that HJR 56 does not apply to fish and commented the
omission is a political move. He addressed the assertion
that voters are not smart enough to voice their opinions on
wildlife matters. He compared the amount of money spent by
interest groups on both sides of the wildlife management
issue, saying that the conservation groups are vastly
outspent by the sportsmen's groups. He suggested the
election to decide this initiative will be funded on both
sides from sources outside the state.
Senator P. Kelly stated that he did not approve of Outside
interests deciding Alaskan's way of life.
SUSAN SCHRADER, Conservation Advocate, Alaska Conservation
Voters, testified in Juneau talked about the importance of
the ballot initiative process. She stated that her
organization opposes the resolution. She suggested that if
the concern is with the influence of Outside factors, why
the legislature is proposing to limit Alaskan's rights. She
asserted passing this resolution would not solve the
problem of Outside money and suggested campaign finance
reform was a better option.
Senator Green mentioned the downside of this particular
type of initiative. She wanted to know if this resolution
poses a limitation on limited entry.
Senator Leman answered there is no limited entry for the
taking of wildlife. He noted that Mr. Taylor brought up a
good point worth considering regarding managing of fish at
the ballot box, which he thought, was not good.
Senator Green noted there was no constitutionally valid
method restricting Outside interests' spending money and
influencing Alaskan elections. She stated that a court
decision issued the previous year made it even broader.
Co-Chair Torgerson had the same understanding.
Senator Phillips asked if, constitutionally, the state
could limit the amount of spending on constitutional
amendment initiatives.
Co-Chair Torgerson didn't think so.
Several members commented it was a matter of free speech
and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Senator
Donley cited court decisions affirming this.
Senator Phillips spoke to the constitutional amendment
proposed in the State of Utah, saying its provision
requires that two-thirds of voters must vote in favor to
any constitutional amendment regarding wildlife.
Senator Phillips was curious to know how much Outside funds
was spent of the wildlife-related ballot initiatives in the
1996 and 1998 elections.
Senator P. Kelly supported the initiative and wanted to
counter some points brought up in testimony. He noted that
in many states, voters do not have the right to amend their
constitutions in any way. He suggested that on wildlife
issues, the initiative process can be set aside because the
animal rights and environmental extremists want to change
Alaskan's way of life and turn Alaska into a big park.
Results at stake at the ballot box. Secondly, he stated
that the results of a mistake made at the ballot box are
more dramatic with wildlife.
Senator P. Kelly did not claim whether people knew what
they were voting on or not in the 1996 election. However,
he thought they did not understand the consequences on
Rural Alaska, and in fact he didn't fully understand them
either. He said this inability to understand the
implications is the reason for the fish and game advisory
committees and the Board of Game. He attested that it
would take ten years to bring the moose population near
McGrath back to minimum standards.
Senator P. Kelly contended that the legislature could not
turn these types of issues over to Outside interests who
are very well financed. He asserted these groups use
Alaska's issues to raise money. He stated that he saw no
other reason for environmental and animal rights groups
than to raise money to provide income for executive
directors and to influence elections.
Senator P. Kelly talked about college students from Oregon
working to get signatures for the 1996 initiative. He
stated that these "20-year old students with stars in their
eyes" had no idea about the issue and knew nothing about
Alaskans' way of life. He claimed they said things about
the initiative that were not true.
Senator P. Kelly stressed, "the fact remains, Outside
groups are coming for this state and they've found a chink
in our armor."
Senator P. Kelly next asserted that wildlife viewing is a
ruse and the arguments in favor are irrelevant. He stated
that he has been in Alaska all his life and has seen very
few wolves. He argued against the claim that this
resolution would result in a loss of tourism due to too few
wolves, saying it would be the exact opposite because there
will be more moose, which are the animals more likely to be
seen.
Senator Green found it interesting that the Committee is
told in the testimony against this resolution that
constitutional amendments can be changed after the two-year
period. She stressed that when the legislature actually
attempts to make those changes it is accused of acting
against the people's will. She surmised that this
resolution was the answer to the dilemma.
Senator P. Kelly offered a motion to move from Committee,
HJR 56 with accompanying $1,500 fiscal note from the
Division of Elections. Senator Phillips objected.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator Leman, Senator Wilken, Senator P. Kelly,
Senator Green, Senator Donley, Co-Chair Parnell and Co-
Chair Torgerson
OPPOSED: Senator Phillips
ABSENT: Senator Adams
The motion PASSED (7-1-1)
The resolution was MOVED FROM COMMITTEE.
AT EASE 10:36 AM / 10:36 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|